What’s with the Automation

[Vormaerin]

The Robot Handbook has the classic problem that modern Traveller can't decide if it's a science fiction RPG with settings or if it is the Charted Space RPG. If I was running a game that had player character robots, I wouldn't be limiting them with basic or advanced brains. I'd adjust the TLs to suit my saga. If I was running a campaign designed to be in Charted Space, I wouldn't be allowing PC robots.

Charted Space is intentionally robot deficient. And, like, everything Traveller makes as examples is designed (or at least, treated as) its intended for Charted Space.

And this core confusion in the line makes it impossible to have discussions. Absolutely, Traveller should allow robot ships and cyborgs and as much automation as your table wants. And not only at TLs that also involve anti matter and disintegrator pistols. However, Charted Space as a setting, is not in favor of that kind of obvious automation. Which is fine as a decision for a setting, but shouldn't restrict the entire game system.

So when someone asks why there are no copilots on ships and all the ships are expressly designed for Charted Space, are they asking about the Traveller Rules or are they asking about in the Charted Space setting? No one knows. And some people are very adamant about anything "official" about Traveller must be about Charted Space.

Heck, I got told off on the discord for discussing something explicitly labelled "IMTU" because this was an official channel.

 

[Vormaerin]

As far as the rules question, I do not think it is legit to assume that a +2 DRM is the same as lowering the difficulty. Because if that's true, then what about all the other things that give you a bonus? Is a toolkit that gives +2 on task checks "lowering the difficulty" so now a robot can make the repair?

Personally, I think that limiting robots to specific task difficulties does not make sense in general. It is redundant with the idea of its skill bonuses. Geir can speak for himself, but I always understood that to be a way of adding a mechanic to the idea that robots have inflexible programming. If that's the case, saying +2 to your roll is the same as reducing the difficulty class is problematic as it basically negates the limit. If that's not the case, then I don't know what the point of the limit is in the first place.

 

[Terry Mixon]

As far as the rules question, I do not think it is legit to assume that a +2 DRM is the same as lowering the difficulty. Because if that's true, then what about all the other things that give you a bonus? Is a toolkit that gives +2 on task checks "lowering the difficulty" so now a robot can make the repair?

Personally, I think that limiting robots to specific task difficulties does not make sense in general. It is redundant with the idea of its skill bonuses. Geir can speak for himself, but I always understood that to be a way of adding a mechanic to the idea that robots have inflexible programming. If that's the case, saying +2 to your roll is the same as reducing the difficulty class is problematic as it basically negates the limit. If that's not the case, then I don't know what the point of the limit is in the first place.

This is Mongoose Traveller. We don’t believe in bright lines of demarcation here.

 

[Vormaerin]

Well I'm sure it's pretty clear that I'm heavily on the side of "Traveller" is a ruleset and Charted Space is a setting using certain assumptions that limits the application of the rules.

But that's not the world we live in.

 

[swordtart]

A robot brain is a robot brain. That is in the PC section, but PC robot brains aren't built differently than NPC robot brains.

As to the difficulty level, I'm just quoting the rule. Maybe robot brains handle difficulty levels differently. Geir is pretty good with the rules.

The Core Rulebook says this in an example (bolding mine):

"The ship jumps successfully but the engine needs more repairs. A week later, when they emerge from hyperspace, Kathya overhauls the engine. This time, there is no time pressure, so she opts to increase the time taken from 1D hours to 1D x 4 hours to make the task easier, giving her DM+2. She rolls a 3 for the timeframe again, so it takes her 12 hours to repair the engines properly."

One could argue that the longer time taken is in fact reducing the difficulty level.

CRC p63 gives us
"You can choose, before you roll, to move up or down one level on the Timeframes table. Moving up (reducing the time increment) inflicts DM-2 on your check; moving down and increasing the time taken gives you DM+2 on your check."

That to me is explicitly a DM not a reduction of the Difficulty of the task. Making a "task easier" or "Kathya therefore decides to increase the difficulty" is I think sloppy wording.

Difficulty is an indication of the level of skill required that is an absolute floor regardless of how many modifiers you can muster.

This is not just Robot Handbook. Expert systems in CRB also have absolute limits on what specific packages can do. Difficulty is an indication of the level of package that is an absolute floor regardless of how many modifiers you can muster.

 

[swordtart]

I am quite happy replacing player characters for routine ships operations. The travel to and from the system the adventure is set in is the least interesting element to me unless something happens. If it is routine then they aren't even rolling on those skill checks so the skills are not utilised for that.

If the adventure is all about the ship movement then Traveller ship movement rules means it doesn't actually make a lot of sense anyway. With a 1G ship that has been accelerating for 24 hours and almost at the half way turn over point, adding 1G of thrust is going to make absolutely no significant difference to your vector. The only ship board stuff you are going to be doing is firing (if you even have anything to fire), sensor ops (which may be after the nick of time) and repairs (assuming you actually have the materials to repair things on board).

Most of the events I have onboard will be interactions with NPCs.

I have lots of droids that have specific skills (often at high levels) but I require them to be specifically directed to conduct action by the players (on the basis that a thinking person needs to take responsibility for any droids actions). That ensures that the players have agency (and I think more than if they were required to actually acquire the skill themselves). The droids don't make decisions they conduct tasks. If I want to railroad them it is easier to remove a droid with a plot-breaking skill than remove a player character. It also means I don't have to come up with what a sophont NPC does when they are off camera as they just walk into their storage cupboard to recharge until called upon.

Droids are cheaper than ship automation (Virtual Crew etc.) and also have the advantage that they can be replaced and upgraded more easily. Droids can also conduct physical work (often with a handy DEX bonus as well).

Wholly independent droids are restricted to NPCs (and are generally adversaries). I am more comfortable with my younger players scrapping bots than killing other sophonts (and even then they can just be de activated rather than "dead"). If someone wants to play an emancipated droid then I am not averse.

One of my players is desperate to have a robot cat. If any droid is going to run independent of the owners control it is going to be a cat

Currently a solo player is benefitting from having a crew droid conduct the boring taxi driver work while they concentrate on the difficult plot actions. The fact that they don't treat T0B1 as an expendable asset makes it easier.

 

[Terry Mixon]

CRC p63 gives us
"You can choose, before you roll, to move up or down one level on the Timeframes table. Moving up (reducing the time increment) inflicts DM-2 on your check; moving down and increasing the time taken gives you DM+2 on your check."

That to me is explicitly a DM not a reduction of the Difficulty of the task. Making a "task easier" or "Kathya therefore decides to increase the difficulty" is I think sloppy wording.

Difficulty is an indication of the level of skill required that is an absolute floor regardless of how many modifiers you can muster.

This is not just Robot Handbook. Expert systems in CRB also have absolute limits on what specific packages can do. Difficulty is an indication of the level of package that is an absolute floor regardless of how many modifiers you can muster.

I’m not attached to the idea. Just quoting the book. It wouldn't be the first time a more expansive rulebook has updated a Core Rulebook rule.

What say you, @Geir, @MongooseMatt, or @paltrysum? Does going more slowly reduce the difficulty level as the Robot Handboob says, or is it just a DM like the Core Rulebook says? Or does the longer time rule in the Core Rulebook actually telling us that “easier” is actually a reduction of difficulty and it’s subtle in doing so?

 

[swordtart]

I’m not attached to the idea. Just quoting the book. It would be the first time a more expansive rulebook has updated a Core Rulebook rule.

What say you, @Geir, @MongooseMatt, or @paltrysum? Does going more slowly reduce the difficulty level as the Robot Handboob says, or is it just a DM like the Core Rulebook says? Or does the longer time rule in the Core Rulebook actually telling us that “easier” is actually a reduction of difficulty and it’s subtle in doing so?

Apologies, to be honest I missed that you were quoting from RH p115. That does support your argument that at least specifically for Robot Brains that book authors RAI is for taking longer to lower the difficulty.

I don't like it (and will therefore disregard it at my table) but it is there in black and white.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Apologies, to be honest I missed that you were quoting from RH p115. That does support your argument that at least specifically for Robot Brains that book authors RAI is for taking longer to lower the difficulty.

I don't like it (and will therefore disregard it at my table) but it is there in black and white.

No worries. And thanks.

I thought I had included the part where I got it from the Robot Handbook in the post. Oops. I have now added that important clarification to my post. Sorry for the confusion.