MGT Fuel

[Whipsnade]

There are a lot of things in Traveller that are broken...

Scrabble,

True, and there are a lot of things in Traveller that have been fixed. Power plant fuel is one of those things that have been fixed and have been fixed for decades.

And again, this thread appears to be turning into yet another "bash Mongoose" thread.

Not quite. It's began with the usual resigned Look how Mongoose screwed up yet again, continued with a discussion of CT's power plant fuel problems and how they have been fixed for over 20 years, and includes the now sadly repetitive We're re-imagining the game/Traveller is supposed to be generic rationalizations/excuses from Matt.

I would argue that previous editions are irrelevant to the edition being discussed...

In most cases, I would too.

In a few cases - like this one - we're forced to examine previous editions because the Mongoose version has chosen to include a broken rule that many previous versions have already fixed. In other words, Mongoose's all-to-usual lack of care means GMs and players are forced to examine MT or TNE in order to fix in 2009 what had already been fixed in the 1980s.

Problems will arise only when people insist on using older rules with newer editions that were not designed with those in mind.

Problems will also arise when current publishers repeat long solved problems out of either ignorance or apathy. We can't stick solely to MgT because MgT's power plant fuel rules are broken. Matt himself acknowledges this in a round about way when he mentioned the non-OTU setting on which Mongoose is working whose fuel rules won't result in a "huge amount of sloshing fuel on board ships".

Of course when it comes to power plant fuel, Traveller/OTU hasn't required a huge amount of sloshing fuel on board ships since MT, not that Mongoose was either aware of that or even cared.

MgT slapdash production values means that version falls firmly in the "Plunder" category rather than the "Play" category. It also means that Dom, Robject, and Mr. Miller have been forced to spend more time vetting Mongoose's manuscripts and less time working on T5 as Dom explicitly states here.


Regards,
Bill

 

[fiat_knox]

You'll have to quote directly or paraphrase for the benefit of the users on this forum, such as I, who do not have the clearance to access that page.

 

[Whipsnade]

You'll have to quote directly or paraphrase for the benefit of the users on this forum, such as I, who do not have the clearance to access that page.

Fiat,

Sorry. Here's the relevant sentence:

For example, Mongoose approvals -- yes, we've taken this process much more seriously, starting with Aslan, and I think the quality of the latest Mongoose books show the impact of that -- but that's time taken away from T5.

Notice how they're taking the process more seriously now that Mongoose's manuscripts have proven to contain so many "whoopsies".


Regards,
Bill

 

[scrabble]

Power plant fuel is one of those things that have been fixed and have been fixed for decades.

I would accept that if it has been fixed only if a previous edition has said "power plants do not require significant fuel since a ton of hydrogen can power a spacecraft for decades". If that is not the case, then in my opinion it has not been previously "fixed".

Not quite. It's began with the usual resigned Look how Mongoose screwed up yet again, continued with a discussion of CT's power plant fuel problems and how they have been fixed for over 20 years, and includes the now sadly repetitive We're re-imagining the game/Traveller is supposed to be generic rationalizations/excuses from Matt.

Classic Traveller itself contains many broken rules, including trade and system generation and character generation, but I do not see many people saying "look how Marc Miller screwed up yet again". If publishers are to be criticized for producing broken rules, then I think it should be done fairly and equally to all those who are guilty of it.

It also means that Dom, Robject, and Mr. Miller have been forced to spend more time vetting Mongoose's manuscripts and less time working on T5 as Dom explicitly states here.

Perhaps this is another argument for another thread, but why is anybody other than Marc Miller vetting manuscripts from any other publisher in the first place? Who are Dom and Robject to have any authority to decide or judge what should or should not be acceptable? Are they even paid employees of FFE? Are they recognized authorities on Traveller? Have they published their own Traveller material? If I were a Traveller publisher then I would be very suspicious of anyone other than Marc Miller himself who is allowed to influence his decisions about what was acceptable for publication (particularly given recent history).

As for the vetting of manuscripts, Marc Miller should accept that this is his responsibility as IP Owner. If he does not wish to spend time vetting manuscripts provided by his licensees then it would seem to me that the solution is to either allow licensees to publish what they please without requiring his approval, or to pull their license and thus not be further troubled by any licensees taking up his time.

 

[Whipsnade]

Scrabble,

I'm sorry but I forgot that you are drh's sock puppet.

My participation in this thread is now over.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Ishmael]

Supplement 7
page 10

"The express boat is also capable of only limited endurance. While it can sustain its crew of one and a passenger for the week it spends in jump space, its power, atmosphere and food reserves are good for only about three days after breakout."

That's less than 2 weeks.

I don't see what the big deal is....
Let the designer decide how long fuel lasts based on the power requirements of the ship/vehicle and the power available to operate it. As long as the design meets or exceeds the purchaser's specs, it's good.
( I don't use MgT rules, so I don't know how they handle this sort of thing in the design rules. )

 

[far-trader]

The xboat is a poor example to cite given how broken the design is. It's not even legal in the quickly revised printing of LBB2. And as far as I can recall it's the only design is all of CT canon that has less than 4 weeks of fuel.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Also, it doesn't work.

Clearly, it does.

 

[rancke]

Clearly, it does.

If you're joking, you're not funny. If you're serious, you're funny.[*]

Clearly you have a different definition of "working" than I do. I don't count "It works if you ignore the parts that don't".

Come to that, I don't think 'clearly' means what you seem to think it means, either.

But I'm willing to be taught the errors of my ways if I'm mistaken. Please elucidate.



Hans

[*] Well, not really, but it made for a neat epigram.​

 

[Ishmael]

The xboat is a poor example to cite given how broken the design is. It's not even legal in the quickly revised printing of LBB2......

Not legal? I'm shocked!! ( well, not that shocked )

Nonetheless, it is an example that shows there are exceptions to the rules that are accepted, so why pull hair out over this? I still say that the matter is for designers to decide so long as the design meets purchaser specs. Such an arbitrary and artificial limit seems stifling.

Let power requirements and design specs determine fuel needs. Not arbitrary rules.

 

[aramis]

If it did, Matt, people wouldn't still be harping about it. Most people are simply ignorant of the amount of power fusion releases.

Most who become aware of the energies involved develop suspension of disbelief issues not long thereafter, and it's been a hot button topic since about 1992... the traveller discussions on Compuserve even discussed it.

 

[captainjack]

If it did, Matt, people wouldn't still be harping about it. Most people are simply ignorant of the amount of power fusion releases.

Most who become aware of the energies involved develop suspension of disbelief issues not long thereafter, and it's been a hot button topic since about 1992... the traveller discussions on Compuserve even discussed it.

Actually, Aramis, it does work. The game mechanic works just fine -it's one way to make ship design a series of trade-off decisions (among other things). The rules in terms of running the game work fine; players have to occasionally worry about fuel, or time pressures; those are not game saving changes if they are removed. That it doesn't reflect the potential way a fusion powerplant might work is very much a personal issue of taste. I get that you and others don't like it; I even get that Matt sorta agrees in non-OTU areas. What I also get is that changing it at the rules and canon level not only is more issue than its worth, but that it isn't gonna happen.

Change the fuel system (again) and all designs need revision; trade effectiveness changes; the purpose and need for starports has to change; insystem travel changes radically; combat is different (you want Sysdef boats to be even tougher ?). That's just off the top of my head; yes, some of those examples are probably wrong, and others are missing, but individually, those are not the point.

This is what I see as the issue: The fix is clearly one that is needed, if it is needed, at the campaign level. I suspect that on the whole for most campaigns, it doesn't matter. And refixing the OTU for the disbelief issue is overkill; especially when, as Matt points out, it works -not the way you like it, I admit (me either, just for the record)- but, honestly, it doesn't cause major problems in how the game run and and the rules work; and the OTU setting is big and bulky enough that fixing it will break other things, and piss off another bunch.

Other than vague worries about suspension of disbelief, if you want to prove that this is "broken" (a phrase I more and more hate) and in need of a fix, you'll have to show where it makes the game unrunnable, unplayable or vulnerable to massive munchkinization.


If it makes your campaign unfeasible, well, I understand -i made some changes in that direction myself; but you know what ? I changed it. Me, I'm not as big on disbelief issues given the big dead elephant head(s) that sits in the middle of almost all SF games: lets see, FTL, Hyperspace, heat, artificial gravity, The layout of the Actual Universe, Third dimentions in cartography, etc.

And, oh yes. Two weeks is the minimum for ships to have as pointed out by matt and the Core book. It helps small craft no end, and adds more tradeoffs. Lots of ships have sailed with the absolute minimum of provisions so more cargo can be stored on earth througout history. Its stupid, and dangerous, but heck, it's what people do. And, again, it works. ground to 100d +1 week +/- a small fraction to the 100d limit and then to port ?

Fourteen days ? No problem. Our ships barely need nine days, sir. That's more tonnage for unobtainium.

 

[robject]

Maybe I shouldn't put my feet in this, but I still have some growing up to do, too.

Fuel usage was confirmed for MGT before the first printing. The numbers are more or less correct.

In as much as they contradict MGT's fuel usage, MegaTraveller and TNE and T4... and CT... are wrong.

Marc is canon.

 

[scrabble]

In as much as they contradict MGT's fuel usage, MegaTraveller and TNE and T4... and CT... are wrong.

Marc is canon.

You do realize that there is a difference between "right/wrong" and "canon/not canon", do you not? Although apparently Mr Miller himself seems to have a lot of difficulty deciding for himself what is "right" or "wrong" given how each edition is contradictory. So should he be trusted to have made the "right" decision this time?

And either way, I personally do not care what anybody else, not even Marc Miller himself, says is "right", "wrong", "canon", or "not canon". I will do and say whatever I please in my games, and I do not need approval from anybody to do so. Neither you nor Mr Miller have any authority to tell anybody otherwise.

When it comes to a roleplaying game, the truth is that the GM is the only canon. What he says goes for his group, and that may coincide with the intent of the author or it may not. If it does not, then so be it. Any concerns about whether this fits into the "larger canon" really do not matter.

 

[rancke]

Fuel usage was confirmed for MGT before the first printing. The numbers are more or less correct.

I'm sorry to hear that. Also disappointed and bewildered. I can't understand why Marc Miller would deliberately make such a decision. Ah well... Another blemish I can stop worrying and fretting about.

In as much as they contradict MGT's fuel usage, MegaTraveller and TNE and T4... and CT... are wrong.

Marc is canon.

Yes and no. Marc can dictate that one has to ignore common sense if one wants to write official Traveller material involving ships and fusion plants and fuel use. He can't dictate that something self-contradictiory makes sense per definition.


Hans

 

[captainjack]

You do realize that there is a difference between "right/wrong" and "canon/not canon", do you not? Although apparently Mr Miller himself seems to have a lot of difficulty deciding for himself what is "right" or "wrong" given how each edition is contradictory. So should he be trusted to have made the "right" decision this time?

And either way, I personally do not care what anybody else, not even Marc Miller himself, says is "right", "wrong", "canon", or "not canon". I will do and say whatever I please in my games, and I do not need approval from anybody to do so. Neither you nor Mr Miller have any authority to tell anybody otherwise.

When it comes to a roleplaying game, the truth is that the GM is the only canon. What he says goes for his group, and that may coincide with the intent of the author or it may not. If it does not, then so be it. Any concerns about whether this fits into the "larger canon" really do not matter.

Thank you, I think we all know where you stand on this, here and in other guises. You're supposed to be new here, so I guess that you can be excused not knowing that Marc et al are of the same opinion as you are on the subject of "rolling your own". But your point is irrelevant to the level of non-sequitor, I'm afraid. Until Marc or Matt actually try to force you to do something, these repetitive "no-one can force me to run this differently" is just wasting air, and "Marc cant be trusted to know his own work" posts (two now, at least) are just absurdist factionalizing of a discussion that has blown up more than once. Of course things change between editions. He's a designer . And, so enough of that.

So, to continue, Robject's point is one I can agree with, to the extent that one needs complete consistency. The point is the rule works for this edition, it also is more compatable with older editions compared to the desired changes. If one can show where it makes a difference to rule mechanics and/or play, then it needs changing. I just haven't heard it yet; and, "suspension of disbelief" isn't what I'm asking for.

 

[rancke]

So, to continue, Robject's point is one I can agree with, to the extent that one needs complete consistency.

You're not getting it here. What is in dispute seems to be whether you're getting adequate consistency.

The point is the rule works for this edition, it also is more compatable with older editions compared to the desired changes. If one can show where it makes a difference to rule mechanics and/or play, then it needs changing. I just haven't heard it yet; and, "suspension of disbelief" isn't what I'm asking for.

Caveat: As I mentioned before, I'm going by statements to the effect that MGT's ship design is more or less the same as HG, since I don't have the MGT version.

Ship has Jump drive 1, Maneuver drive 1, Power plant 1 and fuel for one jump and 14 days worth of power plant fuel. It boosts at 1G for 8 hours, jumps to another system, boosts at 1G for another 8 hours to make planetfall. How much power plant fuel has the ship expended?

Freighter has jump drive 4, power plant 5, maneuver drive 1, and 25% cargo space. Hov much difference does it make to its economic potential that it is using 5% on power plant fuel tankage?

Oh, and you may not ask for self-consistency, but I, for one, do. And I'm not the only one.


Hans

 

[captainjack]

You're not getting it here. What is in dispute seems to be whether you're getting adequate consistency.

Poor choice of words on my part. yes, That is the question.

Caveat: As I mentioned before, I'm going by statements to the effect that MGT's ship design is more or less the same as HG, since I don't have the MGT version.

It isn't; it's much more like LBB2. However, I don't think that that is a problem for your point.

Before I continue, let me assure you that I'm not being flip or (intentionally) obtuse with my answers.

Ship has Jump drive 1, Maneuver drive 1, Power plant 1 and fuel for one jump and 14 days worth of power plant fuel. It boosts at 1G for 8 hours, jumps to another system, boosts at 1G for another 8 hours to make planetfall. How much power plant fuel has the ship expended?

The rules say one uses x amount of fuel to run the power plant for 14 days. Where's the problem ? Seven days (+/- jump variance) + 16 hours. Leaving about 6 days fuel.

Sure, I suppose one can argue that the consumption should be different for different levels of use, but where is the real benefit ? Most such calculations in real life are based on averages rather than summing up incremental pro rated values.

Freighter has jump drive 4, power plant 5, maneuver drive 1, and 25% cargo space. Hov much difference does it make to its economic potential that it is using 5% on power plant fuel tankage?

I'd assume that would be on the order of (profit value of cargo *((actual cargo space)/ (cargo space plus fuel space))*10, right ? That isn't in the rules, I admit, but its a basic math and trade idea that if value is equal more is better, right ?

Oh, and you may not ask for self-consistency, but I, for one, do. And I'm not the only one.

Not my point at all, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I too like self consistency - quite a bit. I guess I'm just not grasping how it is being applied to this criticism ?

Is the issue for you that the fuel requirements differ from some previous baseline traveller value ? or is it that the amounts required are unrealistic given what we imagine we know about fusion ? I could probably answer and/or agree with your point if I knew where you were coming from on this.

 

[atpollard]

Purely a hypothetical thought, but if one assumes that 99.9% of the energy generated by a power plant is used to maintain the magnetic bottle containing the fusion reaction (or some other internal process), then the fuel consumption rate of the power plant is fairly constant irresepective of the external power demand. The only way to save PP fuel, is to shut down the power plant.

Under this assumption, the fuel consumption rules work just fine and make perfect sense.

EDIT: After all, you have the option of using a fission power plant or a fuel cell with a reaction drive if you wany more 'realism'.

 

[mbrinkhues]

RPGs have always been house-ruled, and always will be. If you expect a system to work exactly as it is supposed to, straight out of the box, then I would say that your expectations are set too high. I have never, in my entire roleplaying career that spans over 25 years, purchased a game that I did not have to house-rule at least slightly before I was satisfied with it. And I would argue that purchased RPGs save you the time of making an entire ruleset and setting from scratch, but some minor alterations on an individual level are to be expected.

The same applies to most things that people purchase that they plan to use for a long time. For example, one does not buy a car and then leave it exactly as it is for its entire life; one can add decorations, or change the stereo, or add GPS, or improve the speakers. So why should I be forced to use (or be expected to use) the rules as written for every RPG? As long as house rules are set out at the start of the game and everyone at the table agrees to them, I cannot see how it could possibly be a problem.




Obviously it would be preferable to use the rules as written if one was demoing a new game to new players at a convention, but you are the only person here making an issue out of convention play. In all other practical examples of gaming, house rules are fairly standard. Otherwise, the discussion is about fuel in MGT, not about whether house rules are better than official rules.

And I should point out that Classic Traveller itself has at one point or another most likely been house-ruled to death by almost everyone who has played it.

a) I have never GMed Clunky, played it twice, immediatly dropped it for MegaTraveller when I got that rules set

b) Mega (with the Errata) and TNE actually work just fine OOB, same with quite a few other systems (i.e GURPS 3e) So one CAN do a good system OOB. And since all that systems exist, I don't have to develop that parts. So Whats the point in MGT?

d) The only non-original parts of my cars have always been due to damage (and even then original spares). Customizing is a bad thing IMHO

e) The fuel problem IS a rules problem. If MGT had used Mega or TNE as a base it simply would not exist since these games had solved the problem 10-20 years ago. And in a quite simple way. Normally one ignores the energy consumption of subsystems. But if I need the data it is there. No extra work needed.