Supplement 5 & 6 - The Vehicle Handbook

[Mithras]

I like my Traveller, and always have, as a gaming abstraction not a simulation. Others like the sim aspects of it, and whether its star system generation, vehicle construction or Vilani language syntax, push for more.

I welcome an effects based vehicle system. I currently use a rewritten version of Joe Mauloni's neat Traveller vehicle system system Vehicles: Design and Operation at: http://www.the-children-of-earth.org/CTRdl1.html

Joe Mauloni created a fantastic vehicle design and operations system for classic traveller that retained CT’s fast and rules-light feel, without the overly complex calculations of FF&S, GURPS Vehicles or MGT’s Military Vehicles. I love the design system, and created some simple additional rules for submarines and aircraft.

It sounds very much like the new version of the Mongoose vehicle book will be very similar in scope, concept and complexity. And I can't wait to see it.

If it takes me an hour to design one vehicle, I might have time to design half a dozen for the campaign. But my games skip from world to world, at varying TLs. I need to create half a dozen vehicles for every world, I try to give each world its owwn distinct flavour of craft. I need to do it quickly while I'm writing the scenario.

So, its all good to me.

 

[alex_greene]

Why did nobody design them with a folding roof or indeed any kind of roof?

All previous versions of Traveller I am aware of had open and closed ver-
sions of the air/raft, and in Mongoose Traveller the core rules have the op-
tion of a closed air/raft (cost +10%, speed -10%).

sense, seeing as when you get a roof over their heads they can put pedal to metal without worrying about wind shear at 300 kph ripping their heads off or dragging them out of their seats if they sit up too high.

Still, since far too many player characters are trigger happy homicidal maniacs who love to fire their weapons from flying air/rafts, the open version has to be the standard one ... :wink:

Until they come home, and they've been swimming in rainwater half the trip...

Maybe the inventor of the Air/Raft was just a big fan of Queen's Radio Ga Ga or something.

 

[alex_greene]

Why did nobody design them with a folding roof or indeed any kind of roof?

All previous versions of Traveller I am aware of had open and closed ver-
sions of the air/raft, and in Mongoose Traveller the core rules have the option of a closed air/raft (cost +10%, speed -10%).

This never makes any sense, seeing as when you get a roof over their heads they can put pedal to metal without worrying about wind shear at 300 kph ripping their heads off or dragging them out of their seats if they sit up too high.

Still, since far too many player characters are trigger happy homicidal maniacs who love to fire their weapons from flying air/rafts, the open version has to be the standard one ... :wink:

Until they come home, and they've been swimming in rainwater half the trip ...

Maybe the inventor of the Air/Raft was just a big fan of Queen's Radio Ga Ga or something.

 

[rust]

This never makes any sense ...

No, not at all - but it is heroic and romantic, just think of the glorious days
of the biplanes and their dogfights, of true heroes like ... ah, Snoopy and
the Red Baron ? 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNremK0cBEg&feature=related

 

[alex_greene]

This never makes any sense ...

No, not at all - but it is heroic and romantic, just think of the glorious days
of the biplanes and their dogfights, of true heroes like ... ah, Snoopy and
the Red Baron ? 8)

Vulture Squadron.

Or the Red Max from Wacky Races.

 

[barnest2]

I don't like the sound of this anymore...
I love the technical-ness of the vehicle design, but I understand the inherent problems and would like too see them fixed.
However, this sounds like its going to take away all the technical information....
Hmmm... I'll wait till I see it...

 

[DFW]

How is this remotely relevant? Isn't it all just fluff anyway

:lol: Well, easy. Can you make an air raft on a world were fusion PP don't exist because of the power density needed? Yes, no?

A nano second of thought & a high school level of EDU will tell you how it's relevant.

To most GM's I know, TL of a world is crunch, not fluff.

 

[rust]

However, this sounds like its going to take away all the technical information...

There are settings where I want, even need, detailed technical informa-
tions, and for these settings I will probably have to continue to use the
GURPS Vehicles system, or at least its streamlined version from Trans-
human Space.

However, there are also settings where I only need to know what a ve-
hicle does, and not also how it does it, and for these settings a "quick
and dirty" system is good enough for me.

 

[Treebore]

Personally I have never HAD to use a vehicle design, or even ship design system. Never. I just come up with a concept and BAM! Its there. Never had an Engineer player (meaning a player with a degree or two in Engineering) or any other player, give a crap about how "system accurate" or even technically accurate the dang thing was.

I did start out using such systems, but then one time I had too little time and too much need and just did the ship and vehicles I needed off the top of my head, and we had a great time.

So ever since then all I ever use such systems for, occasionally, is to make sure I am staying close to, or within, the system design expectations. Other than that I don't find the specifics to matter.

So the two things that have me interested in this book is that it is hard cover and it will have more "stuff". The third thing I may like is an even easier system against which to verify my off the head designs aren't too far out there.

 

[BP]

An abstracted system can be much harder to punch 'believability' holes in - and always a lot more 'playable'. TL based performance assertions and limits should manage just fine. Don't really mind when the 'Law of Game Balance and Playability' supersedes the 'Laws of Physics' - especially in a science fiction genre.

As a design system - one hopes that every table that has a numeric pattern, has a formula (even if not stated explicitly - though that would be best). Formulas allow interpolation, expansion, and, most importantly, are easily used in spreadsheets, etc.

Tables are a great simplification - as long as they match formulas rather than arbitrary numbers. This also makes them easier to create and proof.

 

[DFW]

An abstracted system can be much harder to punch 'believability' holes in

Actually, just the opposite. As the rules aren't based on anything to do with reality, it is, in and of itself, almost nothing but a hole...

 

[Mithras]

I get the feeling, DFW, that you're more of a gear-head. Are you going to continue using the current version? Or do you prefer to hark back to FF&S?

Actually, just the opposite. As the rules aren't based on anything to do with reality, it is, in and of itself, almost nothing but a hole...

 

[DFW]

I get the feeling, DFW, that you're more of a gear-head. Are you going to continue using the current version? Or do you prefer to hark back to FF&S?

Actually, just the opposite. As the rules aren't based on anything to do with reality, it is, in and of itself, almost nothing but a hole...

The current version was a mess and pretty much unusable. I am currently working on my own that is compatible with MGT core rules as FF&S, MT, etc are not.

When playing a hard sci-fi game like Trav I prefer not to use rules that adhere to science to the degree of say, D&D...

 

[BP]

Actually, just the opposite. As the rules aren't based on anything to do with reality, it is, in and of itself, almost nothing but a hole...

:lol: Sorry - abstraction doesn't imply abstraction of reality and therefore doesn't just mean a narrow interpretation like not having 'anything to do with reality'.

Saying a vehicle is capable of 100 km/hr speed is an abstraction that works just fine - regardless of the technology used, be it fuel cell, steam, internal combustion, fusion or live rodents. 8)

 

[DFW]

:lol: Sorry - abstraction doesn't imply abstraction of reality and therefore doesn't just mean a narrow interpretation like not having 'anything to do with reality'.

Not always. But, the description of the "rules" in this supplement as given, that is the case this time.

 

[rust]

Saying a vehicle is capable of 100 km/hr speed is an abstraction that works just fine - regardless of the technology used, be it fuel cell, steam, internal combustion, fusion or live rodents. 8)

I do not see a problem with single vehicles, but a potential problem with
the entire system. For example, if one does not have any information on
a vehicle's mass, one has to handwave which other vehicle could airlift it,
and which could not. And there are lots of situations where more detailed
informations would avoid guesswork and handwaving - and arguments
with players who want to wave their hands in other directions.

 

[DFW]

I do not see a problem with single vehicles,

I don't know... Could you fit enough rodents under the hood of a car to move it even 5kph? :lol:

 

[rust]

I don't know... Could you fit enough rodents under the hood of a car to move it even 5kph? :lol:

Yep. Just take some of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara

And the vehicle would even be an amphibious one.

 

[AndrewW]

I don't know... Could you fit enough rodents under the hood of a car to move it even 5kph? :lol:

Are those robotic rodents¿

 

[BP]

... if one does not have any information on
a vehicle's mass, one has to handwave which other vehicle could airlift it,
and which could not. And there are lots of situations where more detailed
informations would avoid guesswork and handwaving - and arguments
with players who want to wave their hands in other directions.

However, how far does one take this. In the example above - 'could airlift' - really isn't all that useful unless one also knows height and duration limits as well as maneuverability effects. Then their is the potential for reduced lifespan and damage to the lifting vehicle - and, more immediately important to know, whether landing can be done without damaging the carried vehicle.

Optimally, an abstraction would account for relative masses and carrying capabilities. Heck - spelling out concrete masses and such is equivalent to giving set prices to gear regardless of technology and circumstances. That's absurd

(As to arguments with players - that cuts both ways. If concrete details aren't spelled out in the rules (hence requiring a ref to know and bear in mind all of them), then players have little 'ammunition' to contest a referee's off the cuff ruling. The real nature of the problem here isn't the rules, but the idea that players are arguing with a ref about a game - that is probably best addressed in a different manner.)