Ship's Brain Interface sizing and use

[jaysm]

The RHB has a ship's brain interface sized for the whole ship, plus haptic required to use DEX skills, and non-interfaced brains that can still get information from the ship's systems/sensors but use drones or avatars to act. First issue is mine, the next two trying to preempt my players questions.

My first issue
Can the interface be sized for just the system targeted?
So a 1 ton haptic interface could be used by a Gunner brain to independently operate a turret.
A 12 ton interface could include the bridge and military sensors so a Comms brain could be the comms, sensors and elec.warfare operator.
The sophonts would still be Pilots and Engineers.
Although with a drone interface, drone controller and Remote-Ops+Eng the brain could also use repair drones or combat drones when boarded.

TLDR; Is the interface size all or nothing?
I tend towards yes, smaller interfaces are ok IMTU. What was the intention of the RHB? What gameplay is this going to break?

Second issue
Can Fire Control running on the ship's computer also give a Gunner brain a +2DM, or is that only for Sophont gunners?
Other than for game balance I cannot find a reason why not.

Third issue
Can more than one brain be plugged into a full ship interface?
A large brain for main ship functions and a specialised Gunner brain for each turret.

 

[mavikfelna]

The RHB has a ship's brain interface sized for the whole ship, plus haptic required to use DEX skills, and non-interfaced brains that can still get information from the ship's systems/sensors but use drones or avatars to act. First issue is mine, the next two trying to preempt my players questions.

My first issue
Can the interface be sized for just the system targeted?
So a 1 ton haptic interface could be used by a Gunner brain to independently operate a turret.
A 12 ton interface could include the bridge and military sensors so a Comms brain could be the comms, sensors and elec.warfare operator.
The sophonts would still be Pilots and Engineers.
Although with a drone interface, drone controller and Remote-Ops+Eng the brain could also use repair drones or combat drones when boarded.

TLDR; Is the interface size all or nothing?
I tend towards yes, smaller interfaces are ok IMTU. What was the intention of the RHB? What gameplay is this going to break?

Second issue
Can Fire Control running on the ship's computer also give a Gunner brain a +2DM, or is that only for Sophont gunners?
Other than for game balance I cannot find a reason why not.

Third issue
Can more than one brain be plugged into a full ship interface?
A large brain for main ship functions and a specialised Gunner brain for each turret.

For the second issue, Yes, the brain can benefit from software.
For the third, You can have more than one brain, but I don't know that they can all be on the main interface. But a prime brain running the ship, and gunner brains manning the guns is allowable.

 

[swordtart]

I wasn't quite sure what the benefit of the ships brain was. You can build a conventional droid crew member far more cheaply and it doesn't need interfacing with the entire ship, just using the interfaces a Sophont crew member would use.

Unless you are dispensing with the bridge entirely of course.

 

[jaysm]

Just a different flavour of scifi. Having a ship you talk to can be more engaging for some people than having some robots walking or floating around the ship.
The same preference could be part of the profile of different cultures within your universe too.

 

[rinku]

It may be worth remembering that you don't actually need a robot brain or any extra gear to automate fire control, just ship's computer bandwidth. Even a droid gunner is a bit of an extra. What the robot or meat gunner gives you is better to hit DMs; it's up to the captain as to whether those are an expense worth paying for.

A ship you can talk to and tell what to do is also a basic feature. You absolutely do not need a robot brain or advanced computer to run a one crew ship. Any computer meaty enough to calculate a jump is more than powerful enough for that job. Most crew functions could be controlled from a 21st century phone, honestly. Compared to a person, it has better eyes, better ears, and wifi is a superior method of controlling machinery than hands. Most functions requiring meat brain oversight only need simple programs (i.e. Crew member designates target and the guns get on with tracking and shooting at it until told to stop. Dinner time is at 18:00 - autochef has the meal ready to serve at 17:55. Autopilot course is approved by the Pilot and set to alert the crew if any of a wide range of anomalies crop up).

Further thought - things tend to happen slowly in space. A potential collision or approaching ship will be known in plenty of time for the crew to be alerted to the potential emergency. About the only time you need immediate eyes on the situation is emerging from jump or during approach or departure. So a lot of the time, automation is more than sufficient.

 

[jaysm]

It may be worth remembering that you don't actually need a robot brain or any extra gear to automate fire control, just ship's computer bandwidth. Even a droid gunner is a bit of an extra. What the robot or meat gunner gives you is better to hit DMs; it's up to the captain as to whether those are an expense worth paying for.

A ship you can talk to and tell what to do is also a basic feature. You absolutely do not need a robot brain or advanced computer to run a one crew ship. Any computer meaty enough to calculate a jump is more than powerful enough for that job. Most crew functions could be controlled from a 21st century phone, honestly. Compared to a person, it has better eyes, better ears, and wifi is a superior method of controlling machinery than hands. Most functions requiring meat brain oversight only need simple programs (i.e. Crew member designates target and the guns get on with tracking and shooting at it until told to stop. Dinner time is at 18:00 - autochef has the meal ready to serve at 17:55. Autopilot course is approved by the Pilot and set to alert the crew if any of a wide range of anomalies crop up).

Further thought - things tend to happen slowly in space. A potential collision or approaching ship will be known in plenty of time for the crew to be alerted to the potential emergency. About the only time you need immediate eyes on the situation is emerging from jump or during approach or departure. So a lot of the time, automation is more than sufficient.

I understand all that. Plus beyond robot or meat gunners software on the ship's computer can give extra DMs. That is not my point tho. I have refereed all those options before and I understand them, the RHB is new material for me so before I put it in front of my players I was trying to clarify a couple of bits that were unclear,
Can the ship's interface be installed on part of the ship's tonnage, even as small as a single turret?
Can more than one brain share an interface?

It is about having options, and ways to generate different story hooks. Having strange or exotic things in the game universe let my players encounter more new situations. Just as high and low fantasy games have a very different flavour, very high and low intelligence or automation do too. Nothing to do with whether or not a ship needs it. Having ORAC hassling the players for being dumb meatsacks let's me say things the Referee shouldn't

 

[rinku]

Oh, anything that jerks the players around is great

 

[jaysm]

Oh, anything that jerks the players around is great

So many think we are running the game for their entertainment.

 

[rinku]

It's a mutally enjoyable collaborative story telling experience.

Heh.

 

[Terry Mixon]

It's a mutally enjoyable collaborative story telling experience.

Heh.

 

[wintertraveller]

For the second issue, Yes, the brain can benefit from software.
For the third, You can have more than one brain, but I don't know that they can all be on the main interface. But a prime brain running the ship, and gunner brains manning the guns is allowable.

My understanding is that a ship can have only one ship's brain and that the interface is purchased as all or nothing for the full hull tonnage. However, I may well be wrong about these matters.

 

[Terry Mixon]

My understanding is that a ship can have only one ship's brain and that the interface is purchased as all or nothing for the full hull tonnage. However, I may well be wrong about these matters.

I think you’re right, but only @Geir can say for sure.

 

[rinku]

If you're going all the way to a brain, it should be capable of multitasking control of the whole ship (RHB implies as much), so there usually would be little need to have sub-brains. Automated systems that the brain gives instruction to, perhaps. And which would be instructed VERY quickly compared to the meat brain-limb-manual interface, or meat brain-larynx-air-microphone ones.

Zhodani mind-machine interfaces might match it, though.

 

[Geir]

I think you’re right, but only @Geir can say for sure.

yes.
but the whole computer model mechanic is based on a 70s era mainframe technical architecture. it might be better to have a more distributed approach, but the danger is more of a game mechanic danger. The point of Traveller is to have Travellers do stuff, and too much automation at at each edge (turret or whatever) lessens the roll of the player - unless the starship becomes the character, which is interesting, but its a different sort of game. Could be a fun setting, though.

 

[Condottiere]

Data centres are starting to have issues with electrical usage, size, and cooling/water.

While three millenia from now, we should be able to really miniaturize electronics, which usually also lower power requirements, what we can vary is the actual size of programme computing needs, which might have an impact on both cooling fluids, volume, and energy draw.

 

[swordtart]

yes.
but the whole computer model mechanic is based on a 70s era mainframe technical architecture. it might be better to have a more distributed approach, but the danger is more of a game mechanic danger. The point of Traveller is to have Travellers do stuff, and too much automation at at each edge (turret or whatever) lessens the roll of the player - unless the starship becomes the character, which is interesting, but its a different sort of game. Could be a fun setting, though.

For me the main thing is that players have agency. They don't need to be executive in every function as long as they are directive. None of my droids have autonomy, they need to be commanded by a sophont to do a specific task. A sophont will designate the target for example. The player of that sophont will roll the dice for any droid they command. They are just another piece of equipment.

To require characters to have skills on their sheet that might be used once in the entire campaign impacts agency. For example to guarantee a player has at least Gunner 0 forces you into a Navy career as only that gets it during basic training. Any other career requires a gamble and sacrificing a valuable skill table selection slot you might have preferred in another area and risks getting some random skill you didn't want doubling the impact.

I see no issue with robotic ships gunners. Players made decisions when procuring them (deciding on the cost/benefit balance for example). Players make decisions during combat about the target priority. The only difference is they have offshored the actual skill. If they die, they can be replaced and they can be excellent at what they do and completely useless at everything else.

On those occasions I have to resort to "Deus Ex Machina" I feel slightly less manipulative (and it is definitely less obvious) if I can act on the actual machina rather than subvert a player character.

 

[Endie]

To require characters to have skills on their sheet that might be used once in the entire campaign impacts agency. For example to guarantee a player has at least Gunner 0 forces you into a Navy career as only that gets it during basic training.

No. The player can guarantee at least Gunner 1 by picking it during the final stage of character creation, from the list of skills provided to ensure that the players can work their ship. If the referee is using a list without gunner then he’s saying it won’t be needed.

Similarly, the player can make use of true connections phase of character creation to say that he had to jump into a turret at some point. There’s not even a risk of another character nabbing gunner first, that way.

Geir is right: the risk with robots, automation and computer brains is that the players outsource the adventure. You can get around this (having players roll for their robot gunner/crewman is one I use) but ultimately players tend to have more fun doing, not managing or watching.

 

[swordtart]

Picking skills from the adventure list is fine if the referee knows that is the adventure type he will be running at character generation. However players often send campaigns down routes the referee was not intending. That is the nature of agency.

Connections can make up the short fall agreed, you can also tweak to be less dependent on tables in the alternative character generation routes in the companion and you can also use the Seth Skorkowsky suggestion of "saving them for emergencies", but those choices still require sacrificing other skills that might be more generally useful e.g. Gun Combat happens far more frequently than ship combat.

The "cheapest route" for skills that might be infrequently used is basic training as that gets you 6 guaranteed skills right off the bat (and you don't even need to survive the career).

Also players do not "do", characters "do". Players manage and direct their characters. It is not that different to managing and directing a droid for a turn or two when that droid has a specific skill might be needed for a single scene.

I do not have the luxury of 6 regular players with diverse characters. I am sometimes lucky to get three whose schedules line up. If one of them isn't in the session for some reason I prefer to substitute a droid than have another player potentially kill another player's character because they didn't take care of them.

I am not in favour of ship brains in general (maybe if I was running a murderbot campaign it would make sense), so I am not sure we are wildly disagreeing, but I have definitely run games where only one of the players seemed to be doing any of the thinking anyway.

 

[hopsnbaer]

No. The player can guarantee at least Gunner 1 by picking it during the final stage of character creation, from the list of skills provided to ensure that the players can work their ship. If the referee is using a list without gunner then he’s saying it won’t be needed.

Similarly, the player can make use of true connections phase of character creation to say that he had to jump into a turret at some point. There’s not even a risk of another character nabbing gunner first, that way.

Geir is right: the risk with robots, automation and computer brains is that the players outsource the adventure. You can get around this (having players roll for their robot gunner/crewman is one I use) but ultimately players tend to have more fun doing, not managing or watching.

I agree that robots and ship's brains take away player agency. I added them to a ship in a game, and it took away some of the fun for me, when we actually used them. I would lean away from it in the future.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How is a robot gunner, a virtual crew gunner or an NPC gunner any different?

The player says we shoot, and in game the robot/virtual gunner/NPC "presses the button" to authorise the computer fire control to take the shot.