Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[actionman]

The biggest problem with all of this is it’s all based on the assumption that grav vehicles are less safe than ground vehicles which we have absolutely no reason to assume that. Saying that grav vehicles are the most dangerous form of transportation is not in any way supported by the game. We don’t know how grav vehicles work and what type of safety systems they have so in the end this whole line of conversation is based on an unsupported assumption.

I just want to clarify that I was not suggesting that grav vehicles are less safe than ground vehicles. They're probably safer since grav propulsion systems most likely have far fewer moving parts susceptible to wear or failure than other propulsion systems. My point was that in the event that a grav vehicle experiences a total failure of lift or goes out of control for whatever reason (including operator error / stupidity), the consequences will be greater because of multiple levels of traffic that the grav vehicle in such a condition can affect.

As is the case with many of my posts, I was thinking about how such issues might affect player characters in the setting.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends if all, or any, safety features are incorporated during manufacturing.

I tend to think it becomes mandatory for most jurisdictions of a certain sophistication.

On the other hand, a quarter of a megastarbux is a big amount of investment, and one could assume that Travellers might be inclined to cutting corners.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Also remember, it is a thousand-year-old technology that has been in use ever since.

 

[tytalan]

I just want to clarify that I was not suggesting that grav vehicles are less safe than ground vehicles. They're probably safer since grav propulsion systems most likely have far fewer moving parts susceptible to wear or failure than other propulsion systems. My point was that in the event that a grav vehicle experiences a total failure of lift or goes out of control for whatever reason (including operator error / stupidity), the consequences will be greater because of multiple levels of traffic that the grav vehicle in such a condition can affect.

As is the case with many of my posts, I was thinking about how such issues might affect player characters in the setting.

The qualifier has to be how common is total failure without outside influence likely to happen? If the odds are .0001 of such a thing happening then Grav vehicles are likely safer than ground vehicles. Even today car accidents are 90% of the time the fault of the driver not any mechanical failure and in the cases where it is mechanical failure 90% of the time it’s because the owner/operator failed to do some regular maintenance.

And if you think about Air craft in general will hav3 even greater consequences than a grav vehicle and they are one of the major forms of long distance travel. Which is more likely to do more damage a 4dt airaft or a 50+dt 747? Now let’s add things like jet fuel and cargo. We have millions of large jets flying around the world every day

 

[Condottiere]

Liability, and potential catastrophic damage, tends to make, most, airline operators rather conscientious with maintenance.

Generally, a driver and some passengers become casualties, possibly fatalities, when a car crashes.

When an airliner goes down, that could be possibly hundred of fatalities, since chances for survival tends to be rather slim.

Then, all the manufacturers of that airliner components suddenly have to triple check their products, and send warnings to their customer base.

 

[rinku]

Motorcycles average 200 deaths per billion passenger miles. Cars and light trucks average 7 deaths per billion passenger miles. That is almost 29 times more dangerous than "passenger vehicles". So, if you compare them, your conclusion is not accurate. Deaths from other forms are transportation are MASSIVELY outnumbered by deaths from motorcycles.

Cars are the most popular form of transportation, not the most dangerous.

Fair enough - the stats I drew from didn't list cycles. So either they were included with "passenger vehicles" or not part of the comparison between passenger vehicles, buses, rail and air.

 

[rinku]

You want to compare apples with apples though. Privately operated and maintained vehicles are always going to more hazardous on average than even the same vehicle operated by a highly trained professional and maintained by a professional mechanic. Any real world statistics we pull up has to reflect that, and things like traffic density is also very important here - which is why air travel is the safest.

On the other hand, grav vehicles should belong in an era with sophisticated autopilots and traffic control.

 

[actionman]

Grav vehicles are likely safer than ground vehicles.

I stated that. I completely agree. I think that grav vehicles are even safer than other types of aircraft because their solid state grav propulsion systems (as per Traveller wiki) would be much less likely to fail.

And if you think about Air craft in general will hav3 even greater consequences than a grav vehicle and they are one of the major forms of long distance travel. Which is more likely to do more damage a 4dt airaft or a 50+dt 747? Now let’s add things like jet fuel and cargo. We have millions of large jets flying around the world every day

There are between 12,000 to 15,000 aircraft in flight around the world at any given time. Most are flown by highly trained professionals on strict flight plans and maintained by professionals, and still catastrophic failures occur.

Compare this to grav vehicles in a Traveller context. In one major city alone, there could be possibly 100,000 or more grav vehicles in the air at any given time, frequently in tight congested urban airspaces with air traffic layers deep, mostly operated by ordinary people of varying competence and judgment. While accidents may be rare, given the reliability of grav propulsion systems and high TL autopilot and anti collision systems, if a catastrophic failure were to occur, metropolitan governments would no doubt want to have air traffic control systems in place to 1) keep people from driving like idiots and crashing into the Astroburgers drive-through at 1000kph, 2) prevent thousands of vehicles from having minor collisions during maneuvers like trying to change lanes both vertically and horizontally at the same time while getting one's kids to shut up, and 3) prevent as much harm as possible in the case of a vehicle having a catastrophic systems failure and falling hundreds of meters through multiple layers of congested air traffic (the vehicle gets struck by lightning or something).

We were talking about the possible risks of multitudes of people operating personal grav vehicles in a congested urban environment, air traffic control, and vehicle safety features. I don't think anyone stated that grav vehicles were less safe than ground vehicles.

 

[rinku]

Hey, all I brought up was what I figured would happen *if* the antigravity failed, based on the assumption it's a thrust effect. I had to go with the example of a helicopter that had totally lost its rotors instead of engine failure, because if the rotors are intact it can autogyro.

Somehow that triggered all this safety talk.

And yes. Realistically, any space future city as described above is highly likely to slave the aircars (and the ground cars for that matter) to traffic control, with manual control only able to be used away from the urban area, or in a dire emergency.

 

[Condottiere]

The way that air/rafts seem illustrated, I don't think it's direct thrust.

And unless they can glide, sudden, complete loss of anti gravity would result in an immediate crash.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Also remember, it is a thousand-year-old technology that has been in use ever since.

It is a lot older than that - the Vilani had gravitcs more than 10,000 years before the 1105 start date of TI games...

 

[WHULorigan]

It is a lot older than that - the Vilani had gravitcs more than 10,000 years before the 1105 start date of TI games...

. . . because their solid state grav propulsion systems (as per Traveller wiki) would be much less likely to fail.

I suppose we are all fortunate that the Imperium finally sunsetted those Old Vilani vacuum tube Air/Rafts and started building with good, reliable transistor technology . . .

 

[actionman]

Somehow that triggered all this safety talk.

I was just thinking about what people would reasonably do in the setting, and how that would affect player characters on adventures. It adds verisimilitude to the setting which helps with immersion and player experience. It can also stimulate thinking about the environment and how to deal with it. I ask how and why about the society of a particular world.

Instead players saying "ok we get in our gravmobile and go down to the broker", they have to think about how to interact with the world and with starport admin liaisons to get an idea of how to operate on the world, then leave the starport and see how things really go. Flavor roleplaying like this goes a long way toward giving a setting depth. It allows differentiation between worlds rather than every planet being the same because the party doesn't have to bother paying attention. "We go to the starport. We go to startown. We talk to the guy. We get the job. We go do the job." People's imaginations start filling in bland forgettable placeholders, because they don't have to any more than that.

Something I strive for in Traveller is making every world the player characters visit stand out. I don't want a party to fall into accepting every starport is just another forgettable airport (another reason I hated Brubek's and Astroburgers). Another thing I do is strive to make every world as different from reality as possible. It's not easy to get people out of the "everything is just like real life except the tech" mindset, because they're reflexively filling in unknown details with the familiar. They reflexively say things like "Ok we got arrested after committing egregious acts of violence for no reason or as part of a criminal endeavor. So when's our phone call?" It makes me want to have the guards shove their heads in the toilet and yell, "Why would I ever let you talk to anyone?? The Imperium is government of men not laws, and right now I'm the man!"

And then you hear it. That mournful cry. That mutinous grumble. That wistful sigh.

"Let's play D&D."

It goes back to the discussion about sandboxing . People who care generally appreciate this kind of flavor and verisimilitude. People who don't care and are there for laughs, socializing, dice rolling, etc., this kind of detail and flavor is an unwelcome distraction from getting on with trying to "win" the game. These people are also the most unlikely to gracefully accept the consequences of their characters' actions. To each his own, I guess.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I was just thinking about what people would reasonably do in the setting, and how that would affect player characters on adventures. It adds verisimilitude to the setting which helps with immersion and player experience. It can also stimulate thinking about the environment and how to deal with it. I ask how and why about the society of a particular world.

Instead players saying "ok we get in our gravmobile and go down to the broker", they have to think about how to interact with the world and with starport admin liaisons to get an idea of how to operate on the world, then leave the starport and see how things really go. Flavor roleplaying like this goes a long way toward giving a setting depth. It allows differentiation between worlds rather than every planet being the same because the party doesn't have to bother paying attention. "We go to the starport. We go to startown. We talk to the guy. We get the job. We go do the job." People's imaginations start filling in bland forgettable placeholders, because they don't have to any more than that.

Something I strive for in Traveller is making every world the player characters visit stand out. I don't want a party to fall into accepting every starport is just another forgettable airport (another reason I hated Brubek's and Astroburgers). Another thing I do is strive to make every world as different from reality as possible. It's not easy to get people out of the "everything is just like real life except the tech" mindset, because they're reflexively filling in unknown details with the familiar. They reflexively say things like "Ok we got arrested after committing egregious acts of violence for no reason or as part of a criminal endeavor. So when's our phone call?" It makes me want to have the guards shove their heads in the toilet and yell, "Why would I ever let you talk to anyone?? The Imperium is government of men not laws, and right now I'm the man!"

And then you hear it. That mournful cry. That mutinous grumble. That wistful sigh.

"Let's play D&D."

It goes back to the discussion about sandboxing . People who care generally appreciate this kind of flavor and verisimilitude. People who don't care and are there for laughs, socializing, dice rolling, etc., this kind of detail and flavor is an unwelcome distraction from getting on with trying to "win" the game. These people are also the most unlikely to gracefully accept the consequences of their characters' actions. To each his own, I guess.

Well written and well thought out. I approve (which is unnecessary) and I agree. Major sandbox fan here.

 

[Condottiere]

Local regulations are twenty klix per hour for scooters, and you don't need to wear a helmet.

I'd say there are tiers for levitating automobiles, both in terms of performance, and where and how they can be flown.

 

[actionman]

Well written and well thought out. I approve (which is unnecessary) and I agree. Major sandbox fan here.

With the right group of players, sandboxing can be such an incredible experience. It engages the players' minds and imaginations. It heightens the stakes, drama, and player buy in because it's their idea, it's their plan, it's their adventure. It's their characters' lives. This adds so much meaning. The setting, that's the ref's canvas. That's where he expresses his creativity, in the worlds, the societies, the situations, the current events, the people, the challenges, and the consequences that are there for the players to interact with. The ref paints vivid locations which bring home to the players that their characters are travelling, they're travelling to new worlds with new places, new situations, and new opportunities to discover. Combined with compelling player character motivations, these things can create roleplaying experiences that players remember for decades. And, the Spinward Marches alone are such a sandbox, a vast wide open sandbox, with so much potential for adventures of every kind.

Yes I criticize D&D, but here's an example of great D&D. I was acquainted with a group of players who knew their characters and the setting so well that they didn't need dice or a single book to play D&D. Sometimes they'd meet for a couple of hours before going out to dinner or something, and simply roleplay their characters in game, planning an adventure, talking to important NPCs, interacting with their characters' families and relatives, and doing all that immersive rp that made their full D&D sessions so deep and rich. They were habitual sandboxers, because the setting was their imaginations' back yard, and they loved it for all the adventure and roleplay opportunities the setting gave them (2nd Edition Forgotten Realms, from Thay to the Sword Coast, from Waterdeep to Zhentil Keep).

 

[MasterGwydion]

With the right group of players, sandboxing can be such an incredible experience. It engages the players' minds and imaginations. It heightens the stakes, drama, and player buy in because it's their idea, it's their plan, it's their adventure. It's their characters' lives. This adds so much meaning. The setting, that's the ref's canvas. That's where he expresses his creativity, in the worlds, the societies, the situations, the current events, the people, the challenges, and the consequences that are there for the players to interact with. The ref paints vivid locations which bring home to the players that their characters are travelling, they're travelling to new worlds with new places, new situations, and new opportunities to discover. Combined with compelling player character motivations, these things can create roleplaying experiences that players remember for decades. And, the Spinward Marches alone are such a sandbox, a vast wide open sandbox, with so much potential for adventures of every kind.

Yes I criticize D&D, but here's an example of great D&D. I was acquainted with a group of players who knew their characters and the setting so well that they didn't need dice or a single book to play D&D. Sometimes they'd meet for a couple of hours before going out to dinner or something, and simply roleplay their characters in game, planning an adventure, talking to important NPCs, interacting with their characters' families and relatives, and doing all that immersive rp that made their full D&D sessions so deep and rich. They were habitual sandboxers, because the setting was their imaginations' back yard, and they loved it for all the adventure and roleplay opportunities the setting gave them (2nd Edition Forgotten Realms, from Thay to the Sword Coast, from Waterdeep to Zhentil Keep).

I could play a character in a sandbox campaign until they nearly die of old age. Love them! I have had some friends who have run games and stolen My old characters to use as NPC Patrons in their own games. lol

 

[Sigtrygg]

Old characters never die - they get their names changed and used as NPCs further down the line...

 

[Arkathan]

Or keep the same name and get used as patrons.
One of my current players has his 90s era character as a contact.

 

[Condottiere]

Putting Parachutes On Planes: The Genius Engineering Behind Rocket Powered Airframe Parachutes.

The most popular light aircraft sold in the US now come with rocket propelled emergency parachute systems which can be deployed to save a stricken aircraft safely. Cirrus has been fitting these to every single one of their aircraft since they launched back in the later 1990's, and hundreds of people have been saved over the last few decades. It was a phenomenally complicated engineering problem to design a parachute system that deploys quickly, doesn't destroy the aircraft or injure the occupants, and safely lands the aircraft on its wheels.

1. The lighter the airframe, the lighter the emergency rescue system.

2. Maximum safe parachute deployment speed is one and third hundred knots.

3. Two thousand feet.

4. Uninterruptible power supply.

5. Water proof.

6. Big red button.