Deckplans

[savage]

How important it the quality of deckplans? Of course we want accurate stats.

• Require plans that are high graphic quality
• Need plans to be good quality graphics
• The old CT deckplan quality is fine as long as i have deckplans.
• I don't care as long as their accurate
• I don't use deckplans

 

[Midgardsormr]

I think there is some bias in the poll. I consider a clean, well-proportioned CT-style deckplan to be "great graphics" because there is no visual clutter and they print quickly and cheaply.

I am not sure what you consider to be "high graphic quality." Photorealistic? Perhaps you could provide some examples of what you consider high and low quality.

 

[savage]

MORE DETAILS AND EXAMPLES

I think there is some bias in the poll. I consider a clean, well-proportioned CT-style deckplan to be "great graphics" because there is no visual clutter and they print quickly and cheaply.

I am not sure what you consider to be "high graphic quality." Photorealistic? Perhaps you could provide some examples of what you consider high and low quality.

The Poll space is limited.
There is no bias intentionally. I am trying to determine if our minimum standard has changed as a fan base as referees and players. The quality of tools for creating deckplans may be improving or the skilled artists but that is another question.

Examples are a good idea. I'm not aware of any photorealistic deckplans. But we do see some really high quality plans. Perhaps other will add great examples but here are a few ideas. I am assuming we want STATS that are accurate or great not heavily flawed in comparison to the ships (for example, the CT Merc cruiser was incorrect in tonnage).

Here are some of my suggested levels:
High Quality: Ryan Wolfe (who is on this site from time to time) has his Future Armada series which are not specifically for Traveller. Or the Firefly from the Firefly RPG.
Good Quality: MT (Assignment Vigilante), T20's Merc Cruiser are a step up from the original CT deckplans. CT AHL and Snapshot may be the beginning of that step up.
Basic Quality: CT books like Safari Ship, Leviathan and Kinunir. FASA's Adventure class.
Bad Quality Plans: T4 Starships or GT Starships' Tigress

Any other examples of Good or Bad plans? Or other viewpoints welcome?

 

[Hemdian]

I've been in some of Ryan Wolfe's kickstarters to get his deckplans (for use IMTU ... somehow). I'd love for him to do a set of Traveller-specific plans.

 

[savage]

Ryan

I've been in some of Ryan Wolfe's kickstarters to get his deckplans (for use IMTU ... somehow). I'd love for him to do a set of Traveller-specific plans.

Yes. He is one example of a person taking this to a new level. I put some numbers together for a few of his ships but his system is not a close match.

And it is not mandatory for game terms. I've had characters on many ships without deckplans.

Perhaps CT AHL should be criticized like other CT products per your thread for not justifying the STATS. But it was a step in the right direction.
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=26534

 

[Baron]

Well, I'd always been happy with CT deckplans, the FASA ones were neat. AHL was fun, too. But just looked up the Ryan Wolfe ones -- those are amazing! Wish he did CT ships. Also, it would be nice to have some of those on decent cardstock, laminated. Wow, that would be sweet.

 

[FreeTrav]

You're using terms that are very nebulous and subjective - for example, someone might consider the Lepus deckplans in the current Freelance Traveller to be the only kind that qualifies as "high graphic quality", while my definition of HGQ would be more along the lines of "clear, not overly burdened with details, not smudged, easily readable", perhaps like the old Enterprise blueprints that were sold in the '70s.

Then, there's the missed option(s) to the effect of "I like this level of quality, but I don't consider deckplans essential - but neither to I avoid using them."

 

[BeRKA]

CT deckplans are enough for me to play. But I really love the deckplans you can do with Cosmographer, like the ones Scrying Eye Games are doing.

 

[Vargas]

I can't recall who did it at this point but there was a kickstarter for a 300 ton merchant that set a new standard for deckplans. Unfortunately that kind of talent is limited. I'm happy with the old CT style plans myself.

 

[savage]

terms

You're using terms that are very nebulous and subjective - for example, someone might consider the Lepus deckplans in the current Freelance Traveller to be the only kind that qualifies as "high graphic quality", while my definition of HGQ would be more along the lines of "clear, not overly burdened with details, not smudged, easily readable", perhaps like the old Enterprise blueprints that were sold in the '70s.

Then, there's the missed option(s) to the effect of "I like this level of quality, but I don't consider deckplans essential - but neither to I avoid using them."

I've described a few examples above. I think many of the non-magazine deckplans from CT era we're clear graphics but not necessarily a high quality graphics design. No matter how this is described someone will have a different viewpoint. The idea is to gather general opinion of our present standard as a fan base not criticize the works.

Another example of HGQ, magmagmag's designs might be considered for their 3d representations and details! HGQ would have some detail and additional efforts. Of course Wolfe's designs, as I already mentioned, are on the high end of that spectrum.

 

[savage]

Scrying eye

CT deckplans are enough for me to play. But I really love the deckplans you can do with Cosmographer, like the ones Scrying Eye Games are doing.

Yeah Cosmographer is a lot of fun.

Do you think those Scrying Eye are HQG or GQG? I have never bought them but the look GQG on the website.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I think some form of deckplan is a necessity for any ship that the PCs will either a) spend a lot of time on, or b) engage in combat aboard.

For a), I think it is really important for immersion into the game that players have a good instinctive feel for where their PCs live and work - which in many cases is a ship. They shouldn't even have to think about "what is the best route from the Bridge to the Cargo Bay", they should just know that, as their PCs would. Deckplans are the next best substitute, either for dedicated players to learn their way around the ship, or others to at least see at a glance the locations of things without having to ask the GM.

For b), well, I understand that some just like combat w range bands, but I prefer a more concrete view of the relationships of places and things, and I think a deckplan is essential to that.

As for quality, that is subjective as to minimalist or very artistic and detailed. I can go either way, but consider the old CT style (ala Supp 7 Traders and Gunboats) pretty much ideal.

 

[Baron]

Those Scrying Eye deckplans are nice. Do we have fan-created plans similar to those that are available?

 

[Midgardsormr]

Bias is seldom intentional. ;-) Seriously, though, I didn't intend offense there, but as I re-read it, it comes off a little combative. Hope you didn't take it that way.

So in the poll, "great graphics" means very detailed in terms of fixtures, furniture and the like, with good texture work.

I'm afraid my Traveller library is quite shallow, so I don't have any points of reference for most of the other images mentioned.

I like the Wolfe-type image for a battlemat, but it's too much for a deckplan. I could see using something like that in a Virtual Tabletop (VTT), but I wouldn't be very likely to bring it to the physical table, especially if I needed to print it out myself.

I thought that the Kinunir plan was barely adequate. I would prefer it had showed more in the way of how the space was used, particularly in the engineering section, which I assume would be mostly filled with machinery. So I'm not sure if my preference falls into the "Basic" or "Good" category.

If I find the time, I might do some browsing and link to some plans that I like, but I haven't the luxury at the moment.

 

[savage]

Bias is seldom intentional. ;-) Seriously, though, I didn't intend offense there, but as I re-read it, it comes off a little combative. Hope you didn't take it that way.

I'm not offended at all. But I have tried to "meet the request". I have many plans in my library which also can lead to generalization or assumptions.

I think you just brought up a great point I did not poll.
1-5. Deckplan quality
6. Battlemap required (HQ)
7. Battlemap required (CT Quality)
8. Plain battlemap board without deckplan

 

[Baron]

Oh, that's totally not fair. We're making a distinction between having a deckplan as a tiny little thing, versus one that's big enough to use your miniatures on for combat?

Look, either you have deckplans for a ship, or you don't. You really need them, don't you? And you can always draw a cabin on your battlemat, by looking at deckplans.

Sorry, I demand a recount. The poll has been invalidated, for lack of a definition of terms.

 

[savage]

Oh, that's totally not fair. We're making a distinction between having a deckplan as a tiny little thing, versus one that's big enough to use your miniatures on for combat?

Look, either you have deckplans for a ship, or you don't. You really need them, don't you? And you can always draw a cabin on your battlemat, by looking at deckplans.

Sorry, I demand a recount. The poll has been invalidated, for lack of a definition of terms.

Funny!!:rofl: It is an interesting question. I think the same way. If I have plans "great" much less demanding battlemats. But some people might feel differently. However, I did not include it in the poll. So if anyone feels the need to state they must have battleplans, please, point it out.

 

[atpollard]

So as long as we're just talking about preferences, I prefer my small craft plans full size and complete blueprint quality on a durable Kevlar surface suitable for LARP.

Once you get into starships, I like the same quality but prefer 1/4 scale to cut down on the cost of renting a hangar (of course with 1/4 scale, you need to hire small children to stand in for the characters.)

 

[savage]

We should not forget holographic projected deck plans. o:

 

[Shonner]

I'll look at deck plans if there are any. But I don't use them anymore since I don't use minis anymore.