Robotic Drone Controllers and Remote Gunnery

Drones have their own skills (otherwise they wouldn't be listed in the skills column). These skills may be provided by exactly the same component that supplies the skill to a robot. The difference is a drone cannot choose to exercise them itself, it must be initiated externally. The initialisation can be highly automated (a single button press by the controller might trigger a whole raft of pre-programmed complex activity on the part of a drone) or might require a great deal of complex control by the drone operator for even simple functions (like controlling a remote controlled aircraft with a single channel radio controller).

Robot brains can have expert software installed but so do computers with intelligent interface. These are still complex processes but again the computer does not "choose" to activate them. The expert skill cannot decide to take the day off or start singing show tunes unless it was programmed to specifically do that. They cannot learn to do something because their development is fixed at the point of manufacture.

Even Basic robot brains have decision making as part of their basic function. They can learn new skills by observing (though for Basic brains this ability to learn new skills is stated as very limited). The key thing is they have an INT stat of greater than zero. A robot might only be as intelligent as a hamster, but a drone is as intelligent as hamster food. Something with int 1 is at least capable of navigating itself around its environment. It depends on your definition of INT if you consider an insect which has only a ganglion has INT. It is capable of navigating round, but often using very simple rules that may lead to it getting stuck (flies banging against a closed window). I would class Int 1 as having some sort of problem solving skill and recognising when it is stuck in a loop.

Some drones have a primitive brain onboard to allow a bit more flexibility (e.g. Repair Drones). This will enable them to recharge themselves when they get low on power or return to base when they stop receiving commands from the controller. Many real world drones have this as a safety feature but is it really that different to a cockroach fleeing the light or a moth running to it.
Pg 208 Robots Handbook defines a drone as “While drones may have some basic autopilot and navigation features, they do not have sophisticated independent decision-making routines. They are designed to be operated remotely using the Electronics (remote ops) skill. As such, they do not have skills but options may provide modifiers to various tasks performed by their operators or place limitations on those tasks if the drone’s equipment is inadequate. Drone equipment is listed in the skills column to indicate the innate capabilities of the drone,
usable by the operator.
” This is the official Traveller definition of a Drone from the specific book we have been talking about. Arguing that it’s not right is literally saying let’s throw out the system rules in which case why are we talking about your own game system.
 
Last edited:
These are not Traveller definitions and so are not helpful when discussing the game and even as real world definitions are not universal. Not all drones have rotors and they are not all air vehicles, we have drone ships and submarines. Not all drones have any kind of digital control, remote controlled planes from the fifties are drones. Automata are self operating machines, there is no requirement for them to be human.
These are not terms or any part of my post these are part of master Gwydion post not mine I posted the official Traveller definition. Quite listing me as the source of a quote than copy and paste someone else’s post as mine.
 
These are not terms or any part of my post these are part of master Gwydion post not mine I posted the official Traveller definition. Quite listing me as the source of a quote than copy and paste someone else’s post as mine
Actually these were from Limpin Legin's post.

I began to respond to your quote to say I agreed with you but referred back to the previous post as this forum seems to delete everything other than the words of the person you are replying to and you lose all the context.

I then tried to delete the reply I had started so that I could reply to Limpin Legin's post but the forum engine wouldn't let me just cancel so I had to delete the former reply manually and must have missed the top quote tag as it was off the top of the screen. So simple editor induced error. Not the worlds most inept attempt to attribute words to someone else (since the original post was only a few lines above).

Based on post #101 you have suffered similarly from replying to the wrong quote so I think you will understand where I am coming from.

EDIT:
I have checked and it is not actually possible to remove the tag from the top of a quote in edit mode. Annoyingly you can edit the quote itself to say what ever you want so if you want to misrepresent someone it is all too easy. You can also post a quote, post another quote and delete the content of the first post inadvertently picking up the tag from the second post at the same time and leaving the second post under the tag of the fist, which is what must have happen in my case.
 
Last edited:
Actually these were from Limpin Legin's post.

I began to respond to your quote to say I agreed with you but referred back to the previous post as this forum seems to delete everything other than the words of the person you are replying to and you lose all the context.

I then tried to delete the reply I had started so that I could reply to Limpin Legin's post but the forum engine wouldn't let me just cancel so I had to delete the former reply manually and must have missed the top quote tag as it was off the top of the screen. So simple editor induced error. Not the worlds most inept attempt to attribute words to someone else (since the original post was only a few lines above).

Based on post #101 you have suffered similarly from replying to the wrong quote so I think you will understand where I am coming from.
Actually in 101 I was replying to you before I’d seen the miss quote. But here’s the thing I’m going back to delete that post
 
Pg 208 Robots Handbook defines a drone as “While drones may have some basic autopilot and navigation features, they do not have sophisticated independent decision-making routines. They are designed to be operated remotely using the Electronics (remote ops) skill. As such, they do not have skills but options may provide modifiers to various tasks performed by their operators or place limitations on those tasks if the drone’s equipment is inadequate. Drone equipment is listed in the skills column to indicate the innate capabilities of the drone,
usable by the operator.
” This is the official Traveller definition of a Drone from the specific book we have been talking about. Arguing that it’s not right is literally saying let’s throw out the system rules in which case why are we talking about your own game system.
The phrasing of the third sentence quoted here in the Robot Handbook doesn't really give us any helpful differentiation, saying drones don't have skills when the only mechanism in the game to show a capability is to give them a skill (because there is no other game mechanic to represent capability other than skill rolls). I think it is an explanation of how drones operate rather than a definition of a drone (compared to a robot).

Some options provide modifiers (like say a medikit giving +1 to the Medic check). This is clearly not granting a skill but this is exactly the same for Robots so it doesn't provide differentiation.

Some options impose limitations in the form of a skill cap (like the Electronics Toolkit). This is also equally applicable to drones as robots so it doesn't provide differentiation.

Other equipment limitations might mean that a Robot or Drone cannot use a skill imparted by a component, brain or innate skill in some circumstances. A drone without manipulators might not be able to undo a nut, but it might still be able to use its Mechanic skill to diagnose the fault, but this is equally true of a robot without manipulators so again it doesn't help in differentiation.

Even where an option imparts the capability to make a skill roll (for example a Recon Sensor) there is a little differentiation but because the drone has INT 0 it will impose a significant negative DM to the roll. Of course a Robot with a Primitive brain only has INT 1 and suffers almost as great a modifier if using a Recon Sensor, but a Primitive(alert) brain gets Recon 0 as a pre programmed package and does not suffer the negative modifier for have low INT.

However there are currently very few options that provide skill and whilst they can clearly be fitted to drones based on the examples in the book, they are all in the navigation, movement and observation area (which ties in nicely with sentence one in your quote) so perhaps the wording should be "drones have very few options providing skills which limit their capability to operate semi-autonomously" rather than drones do not have skills.

For me , the key part of the quote from p208 are sentences one and two as they differentiate Drones from Robots. This is further amplified on p79 which has a structure I would associate with a definition.
A drone is a robot-like machine without a robot brain that is operated remotely. Robots may also be considered drones when operated remotely via a drone interface. Drones are controlled, either by biological beings or robots equipped with a robotic drone controller (see page 44). Other than often having little or no brain installed, drones follow standard robot design procedures.

Unfortunately the book then undermines all that but providing some of the "drones" with primitive brains (though as it doesn't seem to have the capability imparted by one of the four available Primitive brains this seems to be some special version).
 
Actually in 101 I was replying to you before I’d seen the miss quote. But here’s the thing I’m going back to delete that post
Unfortunately in doing so you have now messed up the post numbering of the thread for people that might be using that as a point of reference and left my post referencing it an orphan that makes no sense.

I considered editing the post you took exception to in order to change the attribution but that would mean anyone who quoted it would also have to edit it to change in their quote or they would look like the idiot when it is I that should wear that hat. Instead it seemed better to explain how it happened and leave it there for the audit trail.

This is probably a cultural or an age thing but I prefer to "own" my errors and leave them out in public so people can see what everyone is talking about and how we got there. Arriving at the destination is more important than retrospectively erasing any slips and falls we had along the way.
 
Even where an option imparts the capability to make a skill roll (for example a Recon Sensor) there is a little differentiation but because the drone has INT 0 it will impose a significant negative DM to the roll. Of course a Robot with a Primitive brain only has INT 1 and suffers almost as great a modifier if using a Recon Sensor, but a Primitive(alert) brain gets Recon 0 as a pre programmed package and does not suffer the negative modifier for have low INT.
So a radar screen that beeps when it pings an object is a skilled device🙄 the recon sensor still requires a brain to determine what to do. By your definition here a metal detector is a robot. The robot with the primitive brain can actually respond to the ping and possibly do something because of it the drone can’t. I think the key part of the section I underlined is this “Drone equipment is listed in the skills column to indicate the innate capabilities of the drone,usable by the operator.” In the case of your sensor the drones sensor allows the operator to use the recon skill not the drone. Just detecting a object is but part of the recon skill and I’ll argue the sensor only enables that part “
Recon
A Traveller trained in Recon is able to scout out dangers and spot threats, unusual objects or out of place people. Working Out the Routine of a Trio of Guard Patrols: Average (8+) Recon check (1D x 10 minutes, INT). Spotting the Sniper Before they Shoot You: Recon check (1D x 10 seconds, INT) opposed by Stealth (DEX) check.”
 
Last edited:
This is probably a cultural or an age thing but I prefer to "own" my errors and leave them out in public so people can see what everyone is talking about and how we got there. Arriving at the destination is more important than retrospectively erasing any slips and falls we had along the way.
No I just feel no need to clutter an already cluttered conversation with nonsense. You describe this like it’s some philosophical debate, this is a conversation about the rules in a game one that has quickly devolved. As for tracking things by the post number I’ll be honest in the last 7 years that I’ve been a member of this forum you are the first and only person that has every used post numbers so I’m going to go with it being a you thing.
 
So a radar screen that beeps when it pings an object is a skilled device🙄 the recon sensor still requires a brain to determine what to do. By your definition here a metal detector is a robot. The robot with the primitive brain can actually respond to the ping and possibly do something because of it the drone can’t.
That is an excellent topic to unpick. I agree that a radar screen you describe is not a skilled object as it is the output device designed to present the information to a human operator. A screen with that level of sophistication was available long before we had sophisticated digital control systems.

However let's consider the display provided by a modern air situational awareness system. It will interrogate the platforms sensors, it will process those signals to identify legitimate tracks versus static. It will compare those tracks vs the tracks it picked up on its last sweep to correlate them so that the operator sees a continuous picture with persistent track identifiers rather than get a whole new set of track numbers. It will draw information from its situational database to apply information it already holds to the tracks it has. It may provide automatic hand off to other platforms to update their air picture. It may correlate information from other platforms to enhance its own database. It will interrogate its navigation system to update the own ship position. It will use its own position and the time delay in its "ping" to provide positional information about the track. It will present all this to the operator in a situational display providing detailed information on each track (with even more detail from friendlies that are supplying additional information)

All this will be done without direct human intervention whereas in the past these tasks would have been done manually by a skilled operator making decisions based on their experience. I think all the above constitutes a skilled system since it makes the same determinations via very complicated software built to automate those manual decision trees. In game terms it is an expert system providing Recon.

The system above does not "act" on the information but that is only because military doctrine is there should be a man in the loop. Other nations have systems that will automatically engage a target once the operator has designated it. The missile conducts the target acquisition, tracking and often optimal flight path, counter measure mitigation and attack vector. Again without operator interaction as humans cannot think fast enough.

In reality many human "decisions" are either pre-programmed by our personal experience, are hard-wired by evolution or are random choices we justify retrospectively ("smart" people are really good at inventing plausible explanations for really dumb knee-jerk decisions). Most of this can be readily simulated by computers these days so the scope of "semi-autonomous" is increasingly overlapping with human decision capabilities. Indeed the drive to AI is actually diminishing peoples own capability since as humans we tend to deprioritise things we no longer need to worry about (how many people with cars can only drive an automatic, who can double de-clutch and with anti-lock braking who needs to know cadence braking).
 
Last edited:
Other nations have systems that will automatically engage a target once the operator has designated it.
Sounds like operator decision right there.
In reality many human "decisions" are either pre-programmed by our personal experience, are hard-wired by evolution or are random choices we justify retrospectively ("smart" people are really good at inventing plausible explanations for really dumb knee-jerk decisions). Most of this can be readily simulated by computers these days so the scope of "semi-autonomous" is increasingly overlapping with human decision capabilities. Indeed the drive to AI is actually diminishing peoples own capability since as humans we tend to deprioritise things we no longer need to worry about (how many people with cars can only drive an automatic, who can double de-clutch and with anti-lock braking who needs to know cadence braking).
we will drop this right now for 1 the definition of AI is vague and for economic reasons the standard has been greatly lowered for another humans have a intangible factor to our decision process that has been known to go against either of your stated beliefs. As for the diminishing of capabilities that has more to do with culture in man6 ways than AI
 
The narration
"Lt buck yaeger took aim with his ship mounted laser at the pirate fighter performing its multi-g evasive dance. The target reticle switched from green to red "ha ha, got ya, take that you evil space nazi" shouted buck as he pressed the button."

The reality - the computer analyses the sensor data, tracks the target, generates a firing solution, and only then changes the reticle from greee to red. The computer continues to track the target until it receives the authorisation to fire.

What should really happen
"Lt buck yeager authorised the weapon systems AI subroutines to fire when ready, then went off to make a coffee."
 
As I posted earlier, the rules are starting to get in the way of reality.

Many years ago Traveller had room sized computers. Now in MgT they are just assumed to be integrated at no volume or mass deficit.

Here in the real world AI has taken on a new meaning different to that of the 77 edition of Traveller, terms like robot and drone are blurring together (is a Tesla a robot?). Modern military ordnance guidance computers are in effect robot brains, the need to strap a pilot in a dive bomber (or kamikaze) has been replaced with a computer chip. The terminal guidance (to hit roll) of an anti-ship missile is made by the missile brain, not a remote operator.

The "drone" F-16 can be remotely piloted or at the press of control pad button can fly autonomously using its onboard AI that has learned to be a fighter pilot (and doesn't need to worry about g-lock). is it a drone? is it a robot? is it both/neither/something else we need a new word for?
 
The narration
"Lt buck yaeger took aim with his ship mounted laser at the pirate fighter performing its multi-g evasive dance. The target reticle switched from green to red "ha ha, got ya, take that you evil space nazi" shouted buck as he pressed the button."

The reality - the computer analyses the sensor data, tracks the target, generates a firing solution, and only then changes the reticle from greee to red. The computer continues to track the target until it receives the authorisation to fire.

What should really happen
"Lt buck yeager authorised the weapon systems AI subroutines to fire when ready, then went off to make a coffee."
Yes computers are rapidly taking the place of the fallible flesh bags who designed them. This is considered a "good thing" since not all humans are at their best when stressed. I am however disappointed that we are trying to make computers more like people (by tapping into emotions and creativity) when we would be far better making people more like computers :)
 
As I posted earlier, the rules are starting to get in the way of reality.
Expert systems made versions like MGT2 a very different game.

You could spend 4 years in a career and suffer an extra aging role that could drop up to 7 points off your characteristics all to gain a single mostly random skill level. If you are unlucky you might even get badly injured and miss out on the benefit roll. Instead you can quit early and buy a computer with an expert package for a few KCr for a skill at a level you actually want instead.

I am running my current game with characters who dropped out after a single term and their basic training and background skills plus equipment bonuses mean that they are not much less capable than previous 5 term veterans. It was a slow start but once they began to gain a few thousand (which for many of them was equivalent to a few months living expenses) they were able to "level by equipment". They still suffered a bit when it got "hands-on" but with their usually better physical stats it wasn't entirely one-sided.

Now they have added a few robots those physical limitations have also gone away and they don't really need half the characters anymore. We are approaching OSR where each player got a hero with half a dozen expert "hirelings" to bulk out the combat and many of the challenging tasks for which they are skill deficient. If the robot messes up it is still the human that gets the blame of course. We are not quite there yet, but my next solo game will probably have a lot of Robots running things to allow humans to spend their time being creative or bored (I-Robot or Judge Dredd).

Of course those veterans could also benefit from those expert packages and robot help mates but it is a law of diminishing returns.

Is it a different type of game... Yes, it is more Star Wars than Star Trek. Is it better or worse... The jury is still out. As long as you are having fun, who cares :)
 
Last edited:
And yet no computer with the information that was available to Him at the time can come up with E=MC2, AI art is still based on human input and doesn’t have true creativity or evoke emotion. Two humans with the exact same experience and DNA can still come up with two different answers to a problem with AIs you only ever get 1. We are no closer to giving computers that Spark that sets humans apart.
 
Expert systems made versions like MGT2 a very different game.

You could spend 4 years in a career and suffer an extra aging role that could drop up to 7 points off your characteristics all to gain a single mostly random skill level. If you are unlucky you might even get badly injured and miss out on the benefit roll. Instead you can quit early and buy a computer with an expert package for a few KCr for a skill at a level you actually want instead.

I am running my current game with characters who dropped out after a single term and their basic training and background skills plus equipment bonuses mean that they are not much less capable than previous 5 term veterans. It was a slow start but once they began to gain a few thousand (which for many of them was equivalent to a few months living expenses) they were able to "level by equipment". They still suffered a bit when it got "hands-on" but with their usually better physical stats it wasn't entirely one-sided.

Now they have added a few robots those physical limitations have also gone away and they don't really need half the characters anymore. We are approaching OSR where each player got a hero with half a dozen expert "hirelings" to bulk out the combat and many of the challenging tasks for which they are skill deficient. If the robot messes up it is still the human that gets the blame of course. We are not quite there yet, but my next solo game will probably have a lot of Robots running things to allow humans to spend their time being creative or bored (I-Robot or Judge Dredd).

Of course those veterans could also benefit from those expert packages and robot help mates but it is a law of diminishing returns.

Is it a different type of game... Yes, it is more Star Wars than Star Trek. Is it better or worse... The jury is still out. As long as you are having fun, who cares :)
My question is are all your games “Solo” games?
 
Yes computers are rapidly taking the place of the fallible flesh bags who designed them. This is considered a "good thing" since not all humans are at their best when stressed. I am however disappointed that we are trying to make computers more like people (by tapping into emotions and creativity) when we would be far better making people more like computers :)
Yup what good are emotions and creativity who needs to advance science, knowledge, and technology
 
Back
Top