Deckplans

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Deckplans are great!

If you are doing a demo or just getting people interested in Traveller, then deckplans help to attract attention to the table.

 

[Midgardsormr]

Here's something close to the style I prefer (pdf linked in the thread):
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=27400

Specifically, I like the way the sensor suite and particle accelerators are displayed, and I would probably make the engineering equipment the same way—a solid silhouette instead of all of that detail. Enough information to be able to tell where a character can stand and maybe what kind of cover is available if that's an issue. Detail to be reserved for things a character might interact with—a console or chair, for instance. The furniture in this example is a bit too intricate, though.

Anyway, I think I finally found words for what I was trying to say:
There's quality, and there's style, and I'm not sure which one the poll is asking about.

To me, the CT basic line-art style is preferable to a full-color textured style. I find it easier to read and understand, and it's far cheaper. Also, it divorces the ship's layout from its ambiance. So I can use the same deckplan for a shiny new iScout Ship, or for a decrepit Class S held together mostly by duct tape and zip-ties.

As regards quality, I require probably Good visual quality—nicely anti-aliased lines, readable type, and a layout with adequate whitespace. I can put up with minor inaccuracies in lines—if a partition slops over the exterior silhouette or the grid doesn't line up perfectly—so long as they do not create ambiguity.

 

[SpaceBadger]

To me, the CT basic line-art style is preferable to a full-color textured style. I find it easier to read and understand, and it's far cheaper. Also, it divorces the ship's layout from its ambiance. So I can use the same deckplan for a shiny new iScout Ship, or for a decrepit Class S held together mostly by duct tape and zip-ties.

Good points, and I agree about the Destroyer Escort you linked to. Excellent level of detail. I don't go into quite so much detail on my drive sections, bc it is all PIOTA made-up anyway, but they look good.

 

[Baron]

Agree that clarity is king. But the plans you linked to didn't seem clear to me at all. Had too many lines all over the place. OTOH, some of the full-color ones I've seen are still clear at a glance.

So anyway, it's pretty subjective.

 

[Midgardsormr]

Agreed. That particular plan was what I'd call poor quality in something similar to my preferred style, but it was the first that I stumbled over that had some of the features I wanted to mention.

I suddenly remembered that I actually posted some deckplans that I made on my blog:
http://www.bryanray.name/wordpress/?p=475
Not sure why that slipped my mind.

I've learned a few things about Traveller and the genre since I made those, but I think they get across the idea of what I'd consider good quality, and they're obviously in the style that I like.

 

[Baron]

Ah, much clearer plans there!

 

[Shonner]

I suddenly remembered that I actually posted some deckplans that I made on my blog:
http://www.bryanray.name/wordpress/?p=475

Yes. Keep it simple.

 

[savage]

Quality

Evaluations can be very subjective with Scifi deckplans. Style will vary based on personal taste. However, these all fit into the useable CT style plans. They have the quality by being clear, basic details, and follow the ship stats.

As a personal preference, I never paid any attention to plans without stats. It's like looking at a car lot and saying "pretty" without looking under the hood.

The CHRYSANTEMUM quality looks a little off on my Mac in Adobe. Meaning text overruns the boundaries and overlaps. Still that was always an interesting design. I don't see particular value in partially baffled fuel tanks in combat but that is a personal choice.

 

[Baron]

Actually now that I think of it, I remember seeing some CT-style deckplans that had very black blacks, and touches of red here and there, that I really admired. A quick google search isn't coming up with an example though. I wonder if I'm thinking of something from White Dwarf?

 

[Vargas]

Actually now that I think of it, I remember seeing some CT-style deckplans that had very black blacks, and touches of red here and there, that I really admired. A quick google search isn't coming up with an example though. I wonder if I'm thinking of something from White Dwarf?

Perhaps those were the Annic Nova deckplans?

 

[Swiftbrook]

I chose "Average" graphics. Not quite sure if that's right. My favorite is the MT era black and white with lots of details. Today's 3d views are just a little too busy for me.

 

[JimMarn]

I like deck plans, good graphics, and what each room is for. The 3D ones I have looked at, too small for me to read the text or see some of the rooms well. I would use any engine, etc. stats as a guide.

 

[BlindGuy]

Textual descriptions would be great

Deck plans, as such, don't really help me as a blind player. Textual description of various ships would be great though, especially for flavor.

 

[savage]

layout descriptions

Deck plans, as such, don't really help me as a blind player. Textual description of various ships would be great though, especially for flavor.

I assume your talking about layout descriptions. I can see that. I was very tired of seeing CT ship designs regurgitated for $$ without any details beyond specs. It seems TNE tried, with their modular ships, to add some descriptions but beyond that it's pretty weak.

 

[rancke]

I assume your talking about layout descriptions. I can see that. I was very tired of seeing CT ship designs regurgitated for $$ without any details beyond specs.

I'm ambivalent about that. On the one hand I have all the deck plans of Beowulfs and Maravas and Stellars and the other classic ships that I need and would much prefer some alternative Type As and Type Ms and Type Rs instead. On the other hand I can understand why a company would rather not spend developer hours on coming up with new versions of stuff they already have covered. I do think that the versions that covered other eras missed a bet when they didn't come up with other versions of the various ships.

I'm especially annoyed by the Gazelle showing up in T20's Milieu 1000, three quarters of a century before it was designed, but even when the design is already extant in a period, an alternate version would help make the players feel that "this is not the Classic Era yet". (And referees running Classic Era campaigns could use alternative ship versions to show that not every single Type A in Charted Space is a Beowulf).


Hans

 

[savage]

descriptions

I'm ambivalent about that. On the one hand I have all the deck plans of Beowulfs and Maravas and Stellars and the other classic ships that I need and would much prefer some alternative Type As and Type Ms and Type Rs instead. On the other hand I can understand why a company would rather not spend developer hours on coming up with new versions of stuff they already have covered. I do think that the versions that covered other eras missed a bet when they didn't come up with other versions of the various ships.

I'm especially annoyed by the Gazelle showing up in T20's Milieu 1000, three quarters of a century before it was designed, but even when the design is already extant in a period, an alternate version would help make the players feel that "this is not the Classic Era yet". (And referees running Classic Era campaigns could use alternative ship versions to show that not every single Type A in Charted Space is a Beowulf).
Hans

Yes. Ship lifecycles are sorely lacking across eras. I do think T20 did the right thing by having their own "mostly original" capital ship book following T4 and MT which also tried having original capital ships but they we're not terribly useful without a basic layout description. When it comes to larger vessels understand they layout is useful. For smaller vessels, I agree knowing the technical differences across the eras can be useful in creating depth to the OTU.

Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.

Star Trek does a decent job of showing variations across time. Some of this is Hollywood wanting change, Gamers and Fans showing their designs. Star Wars gives us little tech level understanding beyond the various movies. Both provided the fan base with layout descriptions/deckplans to their core ships.
One of the first was the enterprise blueprints of the 1970s. I have it somewhere.
Other RPGs have followed but really Traveller is ahead of the game showing a robust starship universe.

 

[BlindGuy]

Exactly

I assume your talking about layout descriptions. I can see that. I was very tired of seeing CT ship designs regurgitated for $$ without any details beyond specs. It seems TNE tried, with their modular ships, to add some descriptions but beyond that it's pretty weak.

I am. I can't comment on the TNE stuff, having just come in during the mongoose and T5 era. I gather deck plans are generally used with minis? At any rate, some idea what my free traders or scouts look like would be great. I guess they're not Enterprise-style, with saucer sections and all.

 

[Shonner]

I am. I can't comment on the TNE stuff, having just come in during the mongoose and T5 era. I gather deck plans are generally used with minis? At any rate, some idea what my free traders or scouts look like would be great. I guess they're not Enterprise-style, with saucer sections and all.

Deckplans where used to play 15mm mini games on like Snapshot and Azhanti High Lighting in the very early '80s. The same deckplans get regurgitated over and over. It's like there's only 4 ship designs in the Imperium. Kind of boring seeing the scout ship all the time. I am guilty of using all the other ships over and over, just as boring.

I haven't used map grids or deckplans or minis in over twenty years. I don't want to wargame using an RPG.

 

[HG_B]

Deckplans where used to play 15mm mini games on like Snapshot and Azhanti High Lighting in the very early '80s.

Brings back memories.

 

[aramis]

I am. I can't comment on the TNE stuff, having just come in during the mongoose and T5 era. I gather deck plans are generally used with minis? At any rate, some idea what my free traders or scouts look like would be great. I guess they're not Enterprise-style, with saucer sections and all.

I use deck plans a lot, but almost never use minis. They are, primarily, for figuring out what is where.

Regularizing combat is another good purpose. For 15mm minis, it's generally 1/2" squares per 1.5m, while 25-32mm figures use 1"=1.5m.

Just visualizing is often at 1/4" = 1.5m, but may be as small a scale as 1/10"=1.5m.