Military ships and crew

[Sigtrygg]

Now close the bulkhead doors - how long until they all suffocate? Or die of thirst? Or starve?

 

[MarcusIII]

Now close the bulkhead doors - how long until they all suffocate? Or die of thirst? Or starve?

That''s an empirical test.

 

[swordtart]

Didn't convince you that the rule is a rule?

I don't need convincing that words appear in a certain order in a certain place in the book. Once someone has cited the reference once, they need not cite it again, it is there in the record. If however the other party is disputing the meaning of those words, or the sense of those words or even whether they should ignore those words their opinion will not be changed by dogmatically reposting the citation repeatedly without some other discussion point. It just wastes electrons and dilutes any other potentially valuable comments in the post and suggests that you think they cannot read.

RAW is arbitrary and ultimately not important, but it is the common frame we have.

RAW is very important, without it there are no rules. Discussing the nuances, context and interpretation is also important (and a worthwhile intellectual exercise). I like to hope the Traveller rule set can be made consistent (a triumph of hope over experience), but even if not I would like to change as little as possible (if only for my sanity). If I see a rule that contradicts either another rule (or a design that breaks the rule) or contradicts my understanding of the way everything hangs together then I like to test my understanding before deciding to ignore or change it.

Of course you can design amazing ships if you don't allocate standard space for crew or other components, but then they are not comparable to the standard published ships, or ships designed by other people.

That is true, but even if you do stick to the RAW often they are not comparable anyway as some designers read the same words in a different way. We are also still constrained by rules that no longer exist, for example we use classic ship types (or naval tactics designed for those ships). Different players also want to use the same RAW for different things, for one of them no contradiction will arise for the other the interplay of factors will mean RAW is broken in some way. The discussion on Robots is a prime example, for some there are too many robots for others robots have always been part of Traveller (possibly in a "Danger Will Robinson Danger!" sort of way). The Robot Handbook impacts the type of robots that might be in the game, but only if you choose to use every sidebar and push it to the limit. I have a lot of clone troops in my game, they are perfectly compatible with Traveller RAW but some people will think it is too Star Wars (or Rogue Trooper or Warhammer 40K).

You can house rule anything you wish, for any reason you like, just call it what it is: a house rule.

If you rigidly follow acknowledged but not yet incorporated errata is that house ruling or RAW? If the rules were a contract the label of "house rule" wouldn't stand scrutiny as rule zero is "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". At my table we don't have half the books and not using the rules in them is not a "house rule" it is an absence of the rule - but it could be argued the decision not to use them IS a house rule. The game at my table is not set in the TI so disregarding the TI implications of things is not a "house rule" it is a setting choice (and the rule set is not solely for TI).

That not withstanding, "House ruling" at the table is a perfectly valid and probably universal approach. I suspect every game is house ruled (or the game quickly falls apart as the inconsistencies stack up). Labelling other peoples interpretation of poorly written rules as "house rules" reads as preachy, there is no need to call it out. By all means point out contradictory rules, or other evidence why an alternative interpretation might be equally valid or worthy of consideration. Reasoned argument is always welcome on this side of my screen.

What I really don't like is when people start quoting specific wording in the rules as law but claiming that other words that contradict that interpretation are "wrong" without providing supporting evidence. I dislike it as it is misleading and bad science to disregard inconvenient facts. That was my original reason for pushing back against one of your posts in this thread. It has all escalated (probably too much) since then and become unnecessarily adversarial.

For clarity:
I note your citation (and thank you for giving a citation rather than forcing me to find it) where it says passengers only may be housed in Barracks. I disagree that the word Passenger is used rigorously in the book, but is most often used to describe paying passengers. I disagree that a Marine MUST be classed as non-crew (or that an Admiral must be classed as crew). I also find the definition of "crew" to be somewhat vague and changeable. In consequence I don't find it a compelling argument that crew may not be housed in barracks on grounds of semantics.

I find the statement that barracks cannot be used for people with "another function" on the ship to be unhelpful, since Marines specifically can have "another function" per other entries in the rule books. It is also not helpful that the barracks for non-crew only has been ignored for one ship in HG (and possibly others in other source books). If you can ignore the rule it is not a rule, merely a suggestion.

I am minded that it is perfectly acceptable to house crew in frozen watch which is even less salubrious than barracks. I am also minded that pretty much every serviceman I know has lived in barracks at one time or another and 14 cubic metres each for other ranks would have been palatial. In consequence I do not find it a compelling argument on grounds of credibility.

I am minded that by dint of the jump some "crew" (e.g. Gunners) seem largely unemployed for the majority of the voyage (and therefore for the majority of the time have no function on the ship). I am also minded that there is far too much space on ships dedicated to those largely unemployed persons and believe through my experience that in order to increase useful payload, endurance and capability accommodations for other ranks would be spartan, with senior NCOs obtaining superior quarters to reinforce their higher rank and stature (and to provide a little office space commensurate with their additional administration burden). Officer by extension will have even better quarters, but they still wont equate to civilian passengers expectations. To have all ranks in equal accommodation (saving maybe some senior officers not having to share) seems a bit too egalitarian for my setting.

I think at the very least dedicated Gunners could be classed as ships troops if they serve no other function. Deckhands might also be deemed to have no function (if only we could find where the word "function" was defined with respect to crew). I also have my doubts about small craft pilots and crews as they by definition are no longer on the ship when they perform their function so ships accommodation need not recognise it.

I would be willing to accept the non-crew only in barracks might be an implicit TI thing, but regardless I am going to ignore it in my setting. I am house ruling that anyone can put crew into barracks, but will have to accept morale impacts depending on circumstances. A civvie crew might be perfectly happy to live with it if it increases profits that they all share in. Extra shore leave might be permitted as compensation in other cases. Some more hierarchical navies might impose it just to reinforce the social order.

IMTU I have a sub-200 Dton armed trader that is run by an ex-navy senior officer. He takes washouts from basic training in the Navy and gives them a second chance to build up a CV as auxiliary crew (acting as gunners, secondary pilots, ad-hoc security, deckhands and occasionally assisting in deployed ground operations) - basically using any skills they might have acquired before their career fell apart. There are four JRs accommodated in barracks that takes up the space of a single stateroom. This frees up 4 DTons that is used for better common space, an auto doc, a single person training facility and a biosphere greatly improving the quality of life of the whole crew.

JRs report to an officer for duty, but do not generally socialise with the officers (who other than the captain each share a stateroom) but they take turns as guests of their officer with one of the JRs dining with the officers at each evening meal where they can learn the softer social skills and get a taste of the finer things in life. The rest of the time they mess for themselves in the JR common room and can get a little riotous - something that is tolerated as long as it doesn't get out of hand or affect their efficiency on duty.

As Gunners only get paid Cr1000 per month, getting used to small shared accommodation is no bad thing. Once they have served a notional 4 year term then the specifics of their ejection from the Navy becomes less critical in their interviews and a good reference from a senior retired officer (and possibly a marine officer as well if they have the right skills to participate more fully in ground operations) plus a quarter share of profits sets them up and possibly turns their life around.

 

[rinku]

Military personnel expect to be in dormitory accommodation. Passengers absolutely do not; commercial crew are somewhere between.

We have rules for Basic passage and Barracks. Use 'em.

There's some good discussion on all this in the Starship Operator's Handbook. Which now that I'm reading it, turns out to be Mongooses mission statement about how starships work (which includes How Fusion Works, How M-Drive Works, How Gravitics Works, and How Jump Works). Stowaways, and drug passage are discussed. Varying the layout of deckplans is discussed. The practical problems of door dimensions vs cargo dimensions. Lots of good, practical syuff that has nothing to do with game mechanics. I now know what happens to the helium that's the byproduct of fusion (it mostly gets used as coolant).

 

[Sigtrygg]

The rules as written only matter if I agree with them.

 

[rinku]

Sure. YTU. But I was pleasantly surprised that Mongoose had taken the effort to explain how they see all the tech working, not at a rules level but at the science fictional world one. Once you have a better grounding of that (or change it to suit yourself) you can work in story elements that use it, and be consistent.

 

[Condottiere]

Rule options:

1. Join the club.

2. Club application.