Question For those who have picked up robots

[BP]

Were talking about one page of material in the core rulebook being superseded by a full supplement. Hardly game-breaking, campaign shattering stuff...

Don't recall this being stated or implied. Only that it is unnecessary.

Stating a rule set is incompatible is not berating the rules - only addressing a reality.

If two sets of rules generate different results for the same datasets, then they are, by definition, incompatible.

Mistakes happen - hence, for RPG books, we have errata.

It is sloppy when such simple, fundamental things like this are overlooked - since it is so easy to address the fact of a difference up front by stating the rules are conditional/optional or superseding.

Not having the book, maybe the OP is mistaken or the book actually made provisions for any difference. But the only way any of this gets addressed is if someone brings it up.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

If the Robots book doesn't mention the Core Rules book, then probably it's a given that the new Robot book rules supercede the original rules and that they can also be used as good refs material for other RPG systems.

This is all basic RPG 101 stuff. Grown men should have the common sense to either buy or not buy the book. So much hate over the matter of a ~ $20 - 24 dollar book.

 

[BP]

...So much hate over the matter of a ~ $20 - 24 dollar book.

Uh - where is the hate (another thread perhaps?)? :?

 

[8thseadog]

I want to state for the record that the book gets no hate from me, I started the thread to see if maybe my creation methods were flawed. (At the moment they appear to be correct). I would like to state that Mr. Kurlianchik does say that it is a guide book, not a rule book (though in that sense I would say that they are all guide books). I suapect that the differences stem from a few things; the first is that the primary intent of the book is to create robot PCs and run robot centric campaigns (that said there are a lot of other things the material is useful for). The second part is that the author has a different opinion than I do about what the intellegence stat represents in a robot. For me int represents a combination of raw computing power and ability to act autonomously. The author also adds personality and the ability to seem human to the mix me should be something different. The other thing is that the part about skills is ambiguous, I assume that skill pack level 0 on the table confers a level 0 skill, but that is not explicitly stated in the text (6000 credits for a level 0 skill makes sense when players are making their own robot, but when a 1 term equivalent robot has only 20,000 to spend on hardware and software it might be a bit much).

 

[simonh]

Stating a rule set is incompatible is not berating the rules - only addressing a reality.

The rules set is not incompatible? The set of rules?

If someone asked me if the Robots Book is compatible with the HARP SF rules set, I'd say no. Clearly they are not compatible. The character generation system, combat stats, etc are not compatible. However so far as I understand it the Robots book is entirely compatible with the Traveller core rulebook, it just supercedes some parts of it. One page of it.

If I wrote up a completely new combat system for Traveller that replaced the one in the core rulebook, but characters generated using the core rulebook would work with the new combat system, and the weapon stats all worked with it, then there would be no incompatibility. Claiming that the article was not compatible with the core rules would be a grossly missleading statement.

DFW also says "this new book ISN'T compatible with the core rules".

How incompatible? With the combat rules? With the character generation rules? Oh wait here it is - one page here in the equipment chapter. Hardly 'the core rules'.

How many of the actual game mechanics are affected by a change in equipment costs? None.

Simon Hibbs

Edited - I managed to completely cock up my browser session when editing this, so it's probably changed quite a bit from the orriginal post as I had to rewrite it.

 

[BP]

Stating a rule set is incompatible is not berating the rules - only addressing a reality.

The rules set is not incompatible? The set of rules?

A rule set.

Not plural - and not The.

Changing words changes the meaning - in this case making up things that were not posted.

... However so far as I understand it the Robots book is entirely compatible with the Traveller core rulebook, it just supercedes some parts of it. One page of it.

The original poster specifically referred to design prices being different than core prices for the same items.

This, by definition, means that aspect is not compatible.

Which supersedes which or whether there has been an error by the original poster or by the author is the question under discussion.

Extending that to say Robots is not compatible with MgT is taking this thread out of context and twisting it to say something that is not said.

...DFW also says "this new book ISN'T compatible with the core rules".

Again - he actually stated:

So, the system used in this new book ISN'T compatible with the core rules.

It would have been BEYOND simple to base the pricing on existing robotic devices listed in the core. ...

Taken in full - he does not state the book is incompatible - but, rather the system (underlining mine). Then he explicitly states pricing - which is what this thread is about.

 

[simonh]

Ok, I stand corrected, the rules set under discussion as a particular subset or section of the robots book, not the robots book taken as a rules set. My mistake. But this goes to the heart of what I'm saying. These broad sweeping statements about rules sets and compatibility are highly missleading.

However "..ISN'T compatible with the core rules" is about as sweeping a statement as you can get. Can the robot design system actualy be used with the core rules? If it can be used with the core rules, then what does the statement that it's incompatible with them mean?

Even knowing that 'the core rules' is actualy refering to one small section of the core rules (I would even hesitate to call an equipment list rules, but never mind), it's still just a difference not an incompatibility. Apple and Dell can produce desktop computers with wildly different specs and prices without using incompatible laws of physics to design them.

Simon Hibbs

 

[DFW]

Can the robot design system actualy be used with the core rules?

No, it can't. Not without changing the Core rules in the pricing arena. Like I said, needlessly sloppy game design.

 

[BP]

Mistakes happen with us humans - that is really the whole gist of this thread

 

[atpollard]

From what I saw of the Robots book, it is such a vast expansion of the FUNCTION of robots in a Traveller game that it renders comparison with the previous robot rules meaningless.

To use Classic Traveller as an example, starting with the short rules section in LBB2 on "Starship Computers" and the "Handcomp" and writing a book to allow Cyberpunk style interfaces, netrunning and cybernetic implants ... it would be meaningless to discuss whether the Cyberpunk Netrunner Data-Jack Rules could create a traditional "Handcomp".

In the same way, the Robots Book so greatly expands the role and options of Robots in the game that it renders the previous 'Standard Robots' superfluous.

Would complete 'cost-weight-volume' compatibility have been nice? Absolutely! But buying "Robots" just to add a few options to the existing robots misses 90% of what the book has to offer.

IMO, YMMV

 

[8thseadog]

It really was not my intent to make this a compatibility argument; mainly I just wanted to compare notes with other people. There are a couple of things that I forgot to consider in my construction: since the construction process is geared towards PC robots first, I think the author assumes that PC robots get skills for no monetary cost from connections and group skill packages (though from the examples it does not seem like they get level 0 skills from an education bonus, though this is not explicitly stated) as well as any career terms it takes. I think that the skill pack software may reflect bonus skills purchased in construction rather than programed skills for its primary function if that makes sense. I think that this idea should be taken into consideration when making an NPC robot with these rules (they should have some small measure of skill gratis).

 

[PhilHibbs]

Can the robot design system actualy be used with the core rules?

No, it can't. Not without changing the Core rules in the pricing arena. Like I said, needlessly sloppy game design.

I saw something in a shop the other day that was a lot more expensive than a very similar thing that I could have bought elsewhere. Clearly the real world is not compatible with itself.

 

[BP]

Correct, that's why we have theories! :lol:

 

[simonh]

It really was not my intent to make this a compatibility argument; mainly I just wanted to compare notes with other people. There are a couple of things that I forgot to consider in my construction: since the construction process is geared towards PC robots first, I think the author assumes that PC robots get skills for no monetary cost from connections and group skill packages (though from the examples it does not seem like they get level 0 skills from an education bonus, though this is not explicitly stated) as well as any career terms it takes. I think that the skill pack software may reflect bonus skills purchased in construction rather than programed skills for its primary function if that makes sense. I think that this idea should be taken into consideration when making an NPC robot with these rules (they should have some small measure of skill gratis).

Now that's great - really informative, useful and constructive analysis. Clearly some elements of the book aren't perfectly consistent with previous material, and if it's intended use is highly specific then knowing this this can help people wanting to use it in their campaign understand it's strengths and limitations.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rust]

The main problem is the skill cost: 12,000 credits for a single skill ...

Does this depend on the type and level of the skill ?

For example, in the German "Roboter" supplement the cost of a civilian
skill is between 500 credits for a level 0 skill and 1 million credits for a
level 4 skill, for combat skills between 2,500 credits for level 0 and 5 mil-
lion credits for level 4 - the author probably intended to keep simple uti-
lity robots common and cheap and to make more skilled and dangerous
robots somewhat rare.

As for INT and EDU of a robot, "Roboter" bases the cost on the TL. For
example, 1 point of INT costs 22,400 credits at TL 8 and 1,120 credits at
TL 15.

The intellect programs are comparatively cheap, High Data costs only
3,000 credits, and a true AI only 50,000 credits (but requires INT 12+,
PER/personality 8+ and TL 18+).

 

[DFW]

I saw something in a shop the other day that was a lot more expensive than a very similar thing that I could have bought elsewhere. Clearly the real world is not compatible with itself.

Funny, but irrelevant. Good comedy.

 

[AndrewW]

Does this depend on the type and level of the skill ?

Type doesn't matter. A level 0 skill pack is 6,000. A level 3 skill pack is 36,000. There can also be other requirements you need to meet in order to take a skill pack of that level. Along with enough storage capacity.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I saw something in a shop the other day that was a lot more expensive than a very similar thing that I could have bought elsewhere. Clearly the real world is not compatible with itself.

Funny, but irrelevant. Good comedy.

Not entirely - as others have already pointed out, the rules are for customized robots. It's not surprising that they are more expensive than off-the-shelf standard models.

 

[DFW]

Not entirely -

Yep, entirely.

 

[rust]

Type doesn't matter. A level 0 skill pack is 6,000. A level 3 skill pack is 36,000. There can also be other requirements you need to meet in order to take a skill pack of that level. Along with enough storage capacity.

Thank you.