Upcoming New Vehicle Handbook

[Colin]

TL 14 G-Carrier
Skill: Grav Vehicle
Ability: +1
Speed: 500 km/h
Range 2000 km
Crew and Passengers: 10
Cargo: No
Open: No
Hull: 10
Structure: 10
Cost: 11 MCr
Shipping Size: 10 tons

Armour
Front Hull: 70
Right Side: 30
Left Side: 30
Rear: 30
Dorsal: 40
Ventral: 40
Turret Front: 70
Turret Other: 30

Weapons: VRF Gauss gun and 2 TAC missiles in remote turret

Other Equipment:
Standard Nav (+1), Standard Sensors (+1), Standard, encrypted uplink comm, hostile environment protection, life support.

 

[rust]

I understand that for some people, spending hours trying to create perfect vehicles is fun. The engineering simulation, if you will, is the point.

This system is not for them. This system is for people playing the game, who want to create a vehicle for use in the game.

I see your point, but my problem is that the system seems to lack some of
the data I would need to use the vehicle in the game, namely dimensions
and weight. The moment a player asks me whether he can transport the
vehicle you posted ^^ in a small craft or on a barge, your system leaves
me in the dark, I have no idea whether that vehicle is too big for a speci-
fic small craft's cargo hold or too heavy for a specific watercraft.

 

[Colin]

Shipping size is for the vehicle shipped as cargo. So the G-carrier in question would take up 10 tons in a small craft hold.

As for weight, you are correct. I suppose it would be possible to estimate weight. It was just one more thing to keep track of that really wasn't necessary. Figure (20-TL)x250kgx(shipping size), doubled if it is an armoured vehicle. So the TL 14 G-carrier in question would mass 30 tons.

I will see if there is still time to add that approximation to the book.

 

[Stainless]

I understand that for some people, spending hours trying to create perfect vehicles is fun. The engineering simulation, if you will, is the point.

This system is not for them. This system is for people playing the game, who want to create a vehicle for use in the game.

I see your point, but my problem is that the system seems to lack some of
the data I would need to use the vehicle in the game, namely dimensions
and weight. The moment a player asks me whether he can transport the
vehicle you posted ^^ in a small craft or on a barge, your system leaves
me in the dark, I have no idea whether that vehicle is too big for a speci-
fic small craft's cargo hold or too heavy for a specific watercraft.

I can see your point rust, but what's wrong with asking yourself, "Does it seem reasonable that it would fit/float?" and "If I allow this, will it advance the story in an interesting and entertaining way and not be obviously incongruous?" If the answers are "yes", then the GM should let it be so and to hell with the dimensions/weight. It is a game after all.

 

[rust]

If the answers are "yes", then the GM should let it be so and to hell with the dimensions/weight. It is a game after all.

I would have no problem with this approach, but unfortunately I know that
the players are unlikely to accept it. At least they would expect me to be
consistent, so if - for example - the vehicle is too heavy this time, it has
to be too heavy the next time, too. Of course I can come up with my own
estimates of the required data, but it would be nice if the system would do
it for me, both because it would mean less work for me and because then
I could tell the players "Look here, book says ...".

 

[GypsyComet]

Sounds a bit like the system done pre-Striker in the pages of The Space Gamer. It was about Book 2 level of complexity, but for vehicles. Worked fine.

 

[DFW]

Those are all you really need to play. And playing here is the key.

This system is not designed as an engineering simulation. It is a game product to allow you to create convincing, consistent vehicles for use in a game. It is the end product that is important here, not the process.

I understand that for some people, spending hours trying to create perfect vehicles is fun.

You have ZERO idea of how I play. In your example vehicle. What powers it? What fuel? Range. How big (basic dimensions), some idea of weight would be nice but, less crucial.

THOSE are things that are NEEDED for play. Can it be used on a vacuum world, etc. In Trav those are crucial. So, for a Trav vehicle, it is fairly useless and largely incomplete.

It breaks from existing MGT ship design features in too many respects. I would have to spend too much time building a system on top of the "rough sketch" system this looks to be. My players would reject it outright.

 

[Jeraa]

In your example vehicle. What powers it? What fuel? Range. How big (basic dimensions), some idea of weight would be nice but, less crucial.

THOSE are things that are NEEDED for play.

Needed for you to play. Personally, my group and I don't care what powers it, as long as it is powered. Fuel would only be necessary is some cases - if fusion powered, needing to refuel would be rare enough it wouldn't matter. The example vehicle given does include its range, so you do know that. As for basic dimensions, you know it ships as a 10 ton item, so you do have a rough idea of its size. A vehicles dimensions would vary on how the components are laid out anyway, a chart or table can't tell you that.

As for being used in a vacuum, etc, well thats easy enough too. I can look at the example vehicle given above and say yes it can be used in a vacuum. I can see its a closed structure vehicle with hostile environment protection and life support. Sounds to me like it can be used in a vacuum, and in other hostile environments. Or do you need a complete detailed listing of all environment types with a check mark beside the ones it can be used in.

It breaks from existing MGT ship design features in too many respects.

Good. Existing MGT design sequences are (in my opinion at least) horrible. High Guard capital ship design is at least all right. The current vehicle design rules need to be boxed up, burned, and their ashes spread at sea (again, in my opinion).

I would have to spend too much time building a system on top of the "rough sketch" system this looks to be. My players would reject it outright.

You can't please everyone at all times. It is easier to start with a simple base and build up, then to start with something complicated and tear it down. And last time I checked, it was not necessary to buy and use all of the books published in your game. If the current vehicle books work for you, then fine. Use them. This new book isn't for you - its for those of us that have problems with the current book and all its problems.

In my experience, vehicles have never been a major item in the game. Most of the time, the action is either with the players on foot, or in their starship. Vehicles are only for some travel in between, and occasionally as an obstacle. A detailed design sequence (for vehicles) is not needed for me and my group. This simple design sequence that is coming out is what we need. I can look at the example vehicle above and can see everything I would need to use it in play.

 

[Mithras]

Why is DFW talking about hamster-power again? That was the other thread. This is a new thread. Same joke = not funny.

I'm looking forward to Colin's new book, it sounds very much like a system I use at the moment (sort of customised, kludged together...). Since I have a need to create 2 or 3 or 4 vehicles per adventure, I need a fast and easily customizable system. Just my cup of tea!

 

[Mithras]

Needed for you to play. Personally, my group and I don't care what powers it, as long as it is powered.

TL will tell you what powers it.

 

[DFW]

Why is DFW talking about hamster-power again? That was the other thread. This is a new thread. Same joke = not funny.

Too bad. Don't read it then.

 

[Mithras]

DFW's advice = don't read DFW's posts.

Gotcha

 

[rust]

In my experience, vehicles have never been a major item in the game. Most of the time, the action is either with the players on foot, or in their starship. Vehicles are only for some travel in between, and occasionally as an obstacle.

Settings and campaigns are different. In my water world setting starships
stay almost entirely in the background, the characters will never own one,
and they are rarely passengers on one. But vehicles of all kinds, from hy-
drofoil to SWATH ship, from aquafarming submersible to deep sea explo-
ration submarine, plus some aircraft and a shuttle, are extremely impor-
tant for the characters and their activities - walking does not work well on
a water world, and swimming does not get one very far. With vehicles as
vital plot elements comes the players' wish to know as much about them
as possible, in order to have as many and as detailed options as possible
for their actions. There are settings where the details of starships are im-
portant, other settings where precise data for weapons and armour are
required - and settings where vehicles get the spotlight.

 

[apoc527]

Sounds like it will be a godsend for my group. What I wish is that people who play differently would respect that others will get a great deal of use out of the new book and refrain from making unfounded and inflammatory remarks such as "this book is doomed." It may be doomed for that person, but if I tried to play the same as DFW, my group would either rebel or fall asleep from boredom. Those details either don't matter or would be made up on the spot, and that would be fine for my players. Personally, I like how quick and easy that stat block looks--exactly what is useful for vehicles. Now, because starships play a more important role, I enjoy the more detailed design system of Core and HG.

But I will be buying the new Vehicle Handbook for sure!

 

[DFW]

DFW's advice = don't read DFW's posts.

Gotcha

Yep, people tend to get agitated when reading above their comprehension level... :wink:

 

[Mithras]

Yep, people tend to get agitated when reading above their comprehension level... :wink:

That explains why I don't get your jokes, I'm stupid!

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[barnest2]

That explains why I don't get your jokes, I'm stupid!

Thanks for letting me know.

Now now boys and girls, we're all weird. Lets all try and get along eh?

 

[Mithras]

On a more positive note, I recently reread with interest my old Book 3 from Classic Traveller. There the vehicles are given enough information for use in an adventure, but certainly not everything. In fact what they did lack was any kind of combat stats, a correction Colin has certainly addressed. There are no dimensions or weights in kg, vehicles are given ratings in dtons, because that's essentially, what we need. And a wide-bodied airliner made in one nation at TL7 will be a different length and weight to another.... do we need that kind of specificity when it can and should be different depending on world, nation, manufacturer, style?

 

[GypsyComet]

do we need that kind of specificity when it can and should be different depending on world, nation, manufacturer, style?

In the 3I you will have standards that date back to the First Imperium in some cases. These are going to be most common along the commerce mains where the marketing and delivery power of the megacorps overwhelm and reduce the need for local design.

Out in the backwaters, however, you will see local designs for local conditions. These may or may not bear any resemblance to the "standards" of the megacorps.

 

[phavoc]

Two things I like to see. The first is that the design system be also the same system that mongoose uses for vehicles in the books. The second is finding the magical balance between usability, complexity and detail. As we can see from the recent posts that magical level varies between users.