Vacc Suits (continued)

[far-trader]

Well, but in the end this is a setting thing, it depends on how one sees
the specific setting and what makes sense there.

True, but you are misreading (my poor wording perhaps) my intent. I fully expect crew members* to have and know how to use Vacc-Suits. So they can do all that repair, refuel, and shelter set up work for the passengers in their charge. Though it still comes down to sitting and waiting. And if the atmo is inhospitable finding potable water outside is unlikely. Nobody said being marooned would be fun.

In my reading of the gear, the survival bubbles are what you're looking for as "emergency vacc-suits". Simple to use life saving devices cheap enough to provide throughout the ship for every soul aboard. Even with a safety margin overage. Vacc-Suits are more the equivalent of Immersion Survival Suits. More expensive and more complicated, not something most casual passengers would ever have or need to have experience with, despite being much better in some circumstances than the simple life vest.

* and certainly ex-service members would reasonable be expected to have had the minimal training (level 0) and might make use of Vacc-Suit even if they're just a passenger aboard a ship (though at the expense of a crewmember going without, unless they packed their own suit).

 

[rinku]

Since player characters usually managed to get through at least four
years of a career without earning themselves a Darwin Award, I think
one can assume that they can handle simple problems ... 8)

Not necessarily. They may simply have never encountered the environment or circumstances that are going to kill them yet (it's a big universe). And donning a pressure suit is not what I'd consider a simple operation. As an example, I'm a reasonably smart guy and space nut and have been for over 40 years since I watched the Apollo 11 landings at age 3. Yet I would not rate myself as "vacc suit 0" - if someone handed me a NASA pressure suit without instructions, I'd be hard pressed to don it correctly. The chances of me missing something important are significant. Likewise, you would not expect to take control of a car for the very first time without instruction and expect to avoid a mishap, even if you had been riding as a passenger all your life.

It's worth remembering that a check is not normally required for routine tasks by skilled individuals. If a player states they're donning their vacc suit and there's no time pressure, there should not be any roll required to don it unless unskilled with no-one handy to help them. On the other hand, even a Vacc-4 character who is in an emergency situation will have to make a test (possibly a hasty test at that...).

In relation to tech level... all well and good if the character in question is from a high tech environment, but even a smart, high tech device can be defeated by someone who is ignorant of the context. At an extreme, the team barbarian who they just rescued from slavers may never have seen a *low-tech* vacc suit. The TL15 smart suit's verbal instructions (even if they speak the language) may make no sense at all:

"*bing* Please step into the Ling Standard Products Protectomaster 6.0 pressure suit main garment."

"Okay. What do now?"

"*bing* Please step into the Ling Standard Products Protectomaster 6.0 pressure suit main garment."

"Am doing. What now?"

"*bing* Please step into the Ling Standard Products Protectomaster 6.0 pressure suit main garment."

"Argh! Stupid thing! Hey, space-man! What do with stupid thing!?"

"Er... Grog. Why are you standing on that vacc suit?"

 

[far-trader]

...At an extreme, the team barbarian who they just rescued from slavers may never have seen a *low-tech* vacc suit. The TL15 smart suit's verbal instructions (even if they speak the language) may make no sense at all...

Or worse, I seem to recall playing a Barbarian in some game and the first encounter with a talking device went something like...

Computer: "Welcome to..."

Barbarian: "EVIL SPIRIT BOX!" <smash, smash, smash, burn... >

I can only imagine the reaction to a talking Vacc-Suit. Something along the lines of "ZOMBIE!" <slash, slash, slash, burn... >



Of course, the last few years I've had a different perspective on Traveller's "Barbarians". Much less Conan, more like a reverse of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Less "slash, smash, burn" and more "fascinating, a flying carriage, what a wonder".

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

On another note, I find it interesting how many folks share the notion that a bad roll for a skill check indicates a PC dies... :?

During chargen, death from a bad roll seems acceptable - one is really just playing a solo game of craps with tables and a handfull of choices - there is no roleplay involved, and the only real 'investment' is some time. Though, players can become 'attached' to their creations even then.

Afterwards, during RP, there is generally quite an investment and attachment for players, the whole group and the story. Letting dice and a table completely determine a non-recoverable fatal outcome is rather counter productive to playing this type of game IMO.

Not to say death shouldn't be 'an option' - just not an automatic based on a roll. The result of Effect is ultimately determined by the Ref. Combat is, of course, an exception - as is foolishly attempting something that is inherently deadly. But, this is not fate at the hand of dice, rather choice of player and Referee to roll the dice.

Agree with your take on this, in chargen the MoT rules make death much less likely (one of the few things I remember from briefly playing Traveller in the mid 80s (CT, I think) was the annoyance at having to keep on re-rolling when, yet again, the potential character was snuffed out, probably one of the reasons why we gave up on Trav quickley).

I am a great fan of public die rolls, i.e., set difficulty etc but, where ever possible everyone sees the roll, with no fudging after the dice have been rolled. This will sometimes lead to unexpected and unfortanate outcomes, but that's life. However, many uses, and failures, of skills will have non-leathal outcomes. "So you attempt to drink one of the local low lives under the table, (rolls dice), but you don't, and wake up some hours later in a part of the starport you don't recognise, with no clothes on, and no credits".

Combat, and other clearly very dangerous activities (climbing through the 20th floor window and attempting to move to another window etc) do carry lethel risks. In general I tend to take the view that the use of dice is something that makes RPGing different from free form, group, story telling. It adds, ironically, an element of "real" control, even if bad luck will sometime derail plans.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

It's worth remembering that a check is not normally required for routine tasks by skilled individuals. If a player states they're donning their vacc suit and there's no time pressure, there should not be any roll required to don it unless unskilled with no-one handy to help them. On the other hand, even a Vacc-4 character who is in an emergency situation will have to make a test (possibly a hasty test at that...).

Agreed, the skill check is for high risk, important decisions, or those which may not be high risk, but may well be story changing. Rolling dice for every bit of routine maintenace will quickly kill the game.

Egil

 

[Captain Jonah]

I see vacc suit skill as being needed to do tasks in a vacc suit not get into one. Much like Battledress, skill 0 means you are ok with it but doing the comples acrobatics and firing weapons requires more skill.

Emergeny vacc suits should require no skill to use, no user adjustable controls, no way to alter preasure or temp. Just a sealed pack attached to the back and a single seal running from groin to the neck ring. Climb inlike a jump suit, pull the helmet into place and zip up.

Since this isn't doable at tech 8 we have rescue balls, by tech 11-12 emergency suits should require no skill and just a little help from the stewards who should be there with the passengers durring the emergency.

If you put it on backwards the feet will hurt and someone else will need to zip you in but, hey, you are safe from that hull breach. Rescue balls are just the same thing in a easier to get into form. Nothing to be adjusted means nothing the fumblig idio... erm passenger can change.

As for hi tech paracutes, not sure about tech 12 but it should be able to tell if it was upside down and does it care about being back to front.
By tech 15 I would expect the parachute to be able to "put on the human"

 

[rust]

As for hi tech paracutes, not sure about tech 12 but it should be able to tell if it was upside down and does it care about being back to front.
By tech 15 I would expect the parachute to be able to "put on the human"

I even suspect that at high technology levels the "parachute" would be
a grav belt, and to "don" a belt should really not be a serious challenge
for the great majority of people.

 

[Captain Jonah]

As for hi tech paracutes, not sure about tech 12 but it should be able to tell if it was upside down and does it care about being back to front.
By tech 15 I would expect the parachute to be able to "put on the human"

I even suspect that at high technology levels the "parachute" would be
a grav belt, and to "don" a belt should really not be a serious challenge
for the great majority of people.

You jest. It would need to be more like a nappy shape with obvious shoulder straps, instructions in big day glow letters and probably a multilingual guide on a plastic sheet attached to one of the straps.

A simple "belt" would be put on upside down 60% of the time

 

[rust]

A simple "belt" would be put on upside down 60% of the time

That is intended, it allows the people travelling upside down to better see
where they will impact when they open the belt because it is not the la-
test fashion or makes strange noises.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Grav belts would be easy to put on, no skill roll required.

However, flying wearing the grav belt, that is really where your zero-g skill is going to count. Those with a level 0 or above can carry out simple manourves without rolls, and difficult ones with. Those with no zero-g end up rolling for just about everything, and likely spending a lot of time flying into walls, ceilings, floors (head first), anybody else nearby ...

Egil

 

[far-trader]

I would just like to point out that "Grav Belt" is a bit of a misnomer. Or misleading. Anything of the sort is going to have to be a harness at the very least, not simply a belt. And as such its complexity is beyond that of idiot resistant. It could easily be put on upside down, backwards, and/or inside out by the un-experienced. So again, at a minimum, one would need skill level 0 or assistance.

For the question above about a parachute functioning if put on backwards (the chute in front instead of on the back), for a few reasons it would be a bad idea. Poor support for the harness, you might even be pulled out or choked when you open the chute. If you can open the chute that is, since the rip-cord is in the wrong place and will be awkward to pull. Then presuming you do get the chute open, without falling out of the harness or being choked, you're going to be descending backwards and not able to see where you're going, if you could even control your chute anyway as I'm not sure the guide lines will be reachable wrong way around. Not that anyone putting a chute on backwards would have much idea how to control the chute anyway so maybe that would be a good thing. Heaven forbid they need to activate the reserve chute though. Normally on the front, now on the back. I don't think they'd be able to reach around their back to get to the release for it.

 

[rust]

It could easily be put on upside down, backwards, and/or inside out by the un-experienced.

If the purpose of the device is only to get the "passenger" down to the
planet's surface, all this would not matter. As long as the person mana-
ges to somehow attach the grav belt to his body (or at least to cling to
it somehow ...) and to press the big red button with "ACTIVATE HERE"
on it, it would work, whether it is properly used or tuckered to a leg. :twisted:

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

It could easily be put on upside down, backwards, and/or inside out by the un-experienced.

If the purpose of the device is only to get the "passenger" down to the
planet's surface, all this would not matter. As long as the person mana-
ges to somehow attach the grav belt to his body (or at least to cling to
it somehow ...) and to press the big red button with "ACTIVATE HERE"
on it, it would work, whether it is properly used or tuckered to a leg. :twisted:

No, if the grav belt is upside down, then you will, at best, become upside down as well, at worse shot towards the nearest gravity source, and the ground.

However, though I accept that grav belts will be more of a harness set up than just a belt, I suspect they will be easier to put on than parachutes, partly because of the higher tech level than the parachutes we use now, probably with self tighting straps, idiot proof connectors and interactive prompts, so putting on a grav belt upside down will be, for all practical purposes, impossible, and it certainly won't start in that configuation (emergency cut out).

I don't see putting it on as a problem, the fun starts when the unskilled user tries to take off.

Egil

 

[far-trader]

If the purpose of the device is only to get the "passenger" down to the
planet's surface, all this would not matter...

Under what circumstances? Conscious? Unconscious? At what altitude? High enough that they lose consciousness and oops, let go and fall? Under what weather conditions? Cold and/or wet enough that they lose their grip and fall? Windy enough that they lose their grip and fall? etc. etc.

Oh yes, it matters very much in many more circumstances than not.

Then let's look at the function of the Grav Belt. Does it have an "up" orientation for the modules? I'd guess yes. And if you have the harness on wrong or are just trying to hold onto a strap it's going to try and orient itself, making your situation precarious at best. Or, failing to orient itself it will be unable to provide the thrust needed to stop you from plummeting, much like a collapsed chute. Presuming of course that it even has a "parachute" like setting that the un-experienced user can engage. More likely imo the Grav Belt is meant to be flown, and if you want to do anything but plummet once it's put on you'll need to engage it in controlled flight.

The point being, very few items are suitable for uninstructed use, and those items are specifically designed to be such and not designed for other more general functions. Like the Rescue Bubble. Not like the Vacc-Suit.

I can see a Rescue Bubble equivalent of the Grav Belt though, a very simple device to gently lower you to the ground from height, if you really need an idiot resistant aircraft or tall building bail out system. A cheap (relatively) single use emergency item.

I really don't get the whole "no skill needed" idea of this thread though. Doesn't MGT character creation offer enough leeway and customization so that characters have enough ways to pick up such possibly critical and likely useful skills at level 0 or better? If players fail to plan then they have planned to fail. Why should the ref cut them slack when they picked skill A over skill B and then want to do B? Going that route why bother with skills and rolls at all? Let the players do whatever they have a mind to do and always succeed.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I really don't get the whole "no skill needed" idea of this thread though. Doesn't MGT character creation offer enough leeway and customization so that characters have enough ways to pick up such possibly critical and likely useful skills at level 0 or better? If players fail to plan then they have planned to fail. Why should the ref cut them slack when they picked skill A over skill B and then want to do B? Going that route why bother with skills and rolls at all? Let the players do whatever they have a mind to do and always succeed.

I don't think we are arguing for lots of "no skill needed", the discussion is really about under what circumstances a skill check might be needed, possible consequences of failure, and at what point will something be so mundane as to not require a check. I suppose the debate is really on a very small shade of difference about how mundane the process of wearing vacc suits/grav belts/parachutes might be.

Frankly, I like the MoT skills system and chargen system, and will carry on insisting on rolls when the characters are in a stressful, dangerous or story changing position.

Egil

 

[rust]

I really don't get the whole "no skill needed" idea of this thread though.

In my view skill rolls are for situations where a character decides to take
the risk of a harmful failure in an attempt to achieve something, but never
for situations where the character has no options and therefore the player
cannot make any meaningful decision.

For example, if the character decides to use a grav belt to "jump" from a
flying vehicle onto the roof of a building he wants to break into, the player
has to make a skill roll, and a failure is likely to harm the character badly.

However, if the character's only way to escape from a burning plane is to
use the grav belt, I will not ask for a skill roll, because here the player has
no roleplaying options left to deal with the situation, and - in my view - a
skill roll would turn a roleplaying game into a roll-playing game of luck.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I really don't get the whole "no skill needed" idea of this thread though.

In my view skill rolls are for situations where a character decides to take
the risk of a harmful failure in an attempt to achieve something, but never
for situations where the character has no options and therefore the player
cannot make any meaningful decision.

For example, if the character decides to use a grav belt to "jump" from a
flying vehicle onto the roof of a building he wants to break into, the player
has to make a skill roll, and a failure is likely to harm the character badly.

However, if the character's only way to escape from a burning plane is to
use the grav belt, I will not ask for a skill roll, because here the player has
no roleplaying options left to deal with the situation, and - in my view - a
skill roll would turn a roleplaying game into a roll-playing game of luck.

Aha, we do have a difference then, you are a more generous GM than I!

In the burning plane example, I would insist on die rolls, sometimes luck is a factor, but so is are the abilities of the characters, or, put another way, someone who has appropriate skills has a much better chance of surviving.

Combat is another good example, once the characters decide to fight, or even if the fight is forced upon them, it is down to their skills, tactical decisions, characteristics etc, and an element of luck.

And I am happy with that, it seems to represent the element chance in life

(e.g., I consider myself to be a good driver, at least Drive (wheeled) 1, but two winters ago I took a corner to quickly on ice (diff -2) and slid off the road. No serious harm done)

Quite a philosophical point, really.

Egil

 

[rust]

Quite a philosophical point, really.

Yes, indeed, and also a matter of the "social contract" between a referee
and the players. In our case the agreement is that characters can - and
will - die as the consequence of bad or unlucky player decisions, but not
as a result of "unavoidable death" situations or other situations the play-
ers cannot influence.

 

[far-trader]

In my view skill rolls are for situations where a character decides to take
the risk of a harmful failure in an attempt to achieve something, but never
for situations where the character has no options and therefore the player
cannot make any meaningful decision.

That actually sounds quite fair and reasonable.

For example...

...if the character's only way to escape from a burning plane is to
use the grav belt, I will not ask for a skill roll, because here the player has
no roleplaying options left to deal with the situation, and - in my view - a
skill roll would turn a roleplaying game into a roll-playing game of luck.

Ah, but should they not have the skill in the first place to even attempt it? Shouldn't you as the ref set up a reasonable alternative? Like maybe the only way to escape is the NPC (who does know how to use a Grav Belt AND has one) offering to double them on their Grav Belt? And the PC is then indebted to the NPC for saving their life, cue introductions and request for help from NPC leading to adventure...

What if they were in a plane in trouble and instead of bailing out with a Grav Belt (maybe there isn't one aboard) they said they wanted to try to make an emergency landing in rough terrain? Wouldn't they need to know (have skill) in piloting the plane? Wouldn't it be more difficult than the normal flying of the properly operating plane landing at a proper airstrip? Shouldn't that require a roll?

IF the player were in such a situation through no fault of their own then sure I might even allow them to roleplay and not roll play. "You manage to pile the plane into the ground at a shallow angle, missing all the big trees that tear the wings off, and walk away from the crash with scrapes and bruises... " There are few situations where it should come up though, and referee fiat seems to be most of them (i.e. the players need to crash here so they find this).

Generally though, the people I've played with anyway, prefer a chance to role and roll their way out of trouble instead of referee fiat get of trouble free cards. If they fail they at least feel they had a shot, and if they succeed then they have another great war story to tell. If the ref just "writes" them out of every tight spot things get boring, fast.

 

[far-trader]

Quite a philosophical point, really.

Yes, indeed, and also a matter of the "social contract" between a referee
and the players. In our case the agreement is that characters can - and
will - die as the consequence of bad or unlucky player decisions, but not
as a result of "unavoidable death" situations or other situations the play-
ers cannot influence.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where such unavoidable death and other situations where the players have no influence can come up if there is a social contract implied where the ref is not trying to set up such events.