CT Only: Robot Designations for new House Rules

[Tobias]

Inspired by this clever article from Freelance Traveller:

Freelance Traveller - Doing It My Way - The Robot as Animal

I am trying to build a more full-fledged quick robot design/encounter system mapped on the animal encounter system in CT. I've mapped various types of robots onto the animal types present in CT, with the board categories of Herbivores = Workbots (that generally stay in one area doing their job), omnivores = service robots (that move around), carnivores = military/paramilitary robots (self-explanatory) and scavengers = sophont interaction robots. I've further classified the following sub-categories:

Are there any categories that are unclear or confusing? Are there major functions missing that do not fit into any of my categories?

 

[kilemall]

Not sure what the point is here. Looking for Attack/Flee behavior rolls? Simple damage/weapon resolution? Terrain type tables for neighborhood/facility/bases?

I would probably move courier to the same as servant and put Mining/Ag robots in the Gatherer slot.

 

[Tobias]

Just having a simple system mapped onto an existing one for ease of use that can also serve as design rules of a sort. Good point about Mining and Agriculture robots, I'll put those in and merge the courier.

 

[Carlobrand]

Just having a simple system mapped onto an existing one for ease of use that can also serve as design rules of a sort. Good point about Mining and Agriculture robots, I'll put those in and merge the courier.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand either. The animal encounter system as I understand it is to help flesh out player encounters with animals with which the players may chose to interact or by their nature are likely to react in some way to the players - running away, attacking a perceived threat, perhaps seeing the players as a potential meal or intruder or threat to their young. For the most part, animals are capable of much more diverse reactions than robots. Robots for the most part are in the background, doing their jobs and - other than security bots - generally trying to avoid getting into peoples' ways since that kind of thing can create problems for their owners. Many may not even be recognizable as robots: the traffic light is a robot of sorts, a vending machine is a robot, a robot receptionist might look like nothing more than a section of wall with a speaker built into it. They may be as small as a roomba and have no ability to interact with players, or they may be a kind of Siri - just a voice from a speaker that responds to you but has no way to interact physically. A security robot might be just cameras and speakers and a brain controlling several doors, opening them if the correct responses are given and sending a signal to guards if it looks like there's a problem.

Assuming they're capable of physically interacting with the players beyond delivering a meal to a slot for the player to collect or rolling about the floor vacuuming up dirt, they're not likely to interact with the players unless they're specifically programmed to do so or the players' actions in some way triggers their programming. Unless they're security bots, their programming is more likely to focus on limiting liability while performing their assigned tasks: they may make a polite request if someone gets in their way and they're programmed to do so, or simply stand there waiting for the situation to evolve back into something that allows them to return to their programmed routine, or send a radio call for someone to come and resolve the situation. If they're programmed to interact with people, they'll interact within the scope of their programming and likely summon help if the interaction moves outside of their programmed responses. A repair bot repairing machinery doesn't care who is around, will do its work while avoiding hurting anyone, and will likely stop and signal for assistance if someone interferes or if something falls outside their programmed routines. They might retreat if threatened or attacked, but there's likely to be a specific location they're programmed to retreat to or a specific routine to follow such as to retreat to where some human can help them. They may record an interaction or send what they see/hear/etc. to a secure location to be recorded so that their owners can establish that the robot was not at fault and can seek compensation if the robot is damaged. They may be equipped with a remote support link so if something out of the ordinary happens, a human on standby can speak through them, see and hear what they see and hear, and control their actions. They're not likely to attack unless they're specifically programmed to attack if certain clear criteria are met. Automatons who lack the intelligence to account for individuals intruding into their work area are likely to be working in locked areas with clearly demarked danger zones and warning signs. People in general are not real keen on having robots that might pose a threat around them.

There's a CT Book 8 that deals with robots.

 

[Tobias]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand either.

And I don't understand why you wrote all that. I asked two relatively simple questions regarding this little house rule project. If that is basically your only response to it, why even answer at all?

There's a CT Book 8 that deals with robots.

Which has systems for robot encounters and quick robot generation, neither of which I'm really satisified with. And at this point, I'm completely out of love with fiddly Striker-vintage "under the hood" design systems like Book 8's.

 

[bookwyrm]

Nice article and opening post bookmarked for future reference.

I think it's a great house rule system for generating many background robots while being able to use the original Robot creation rules for that important to the story Robot.

And thank for the Link @Tobias .

 

[kilemall]

I’d say go all in, use robot encounters.

Terrain would be things like starport, factories, residential, commercial/retail, military bases, industrial etc.

Damage would be simplified, the carnivore bots probably need an upgraded weapons/armor set but otherwise mostly non lethal if anything.

Most bots would not have the attack option, again probably just the carnivores. Instead they would get a new behavior option, Interact. Guard bots might get Interact/Attack and Warbots Attack/Flee, but the intermittents would get high probability Interact/low probability Flee, things like the cargo or mining/ag robots would get low probability Interact/Flee as they just do their task ignoring most.

If the players attack or impede their operations safe to say they would follow their behavioral functions in order, low interaction robots would give polite requests/notices and otherwise call for help or flee.

I think it would help populate the world appropriately with ubiquitous robots and give a context that makes sense given where they are encountered.

Plus I like that some bits would be flyers, too often it’s easier to think of ground versions and not the gravitic versions.

 

[Carlobrand]

And I don't understand why you wrote all that. I asked two relatively simple questions regarding this little house rule project. If that is basically your only response to it, why even answer at all?

Because it needed saying. But your world, your rules. Won't disturb you any further.

 

[Tobias]

I didn't mean to rip your head off, but when I ask for specifcs in fleshing out a house rule idea (that was not even mine), an essay on why you think that idea is bad (even though robot encounters were a part of Book 8 already) isn't helpful.

 

[Tobias]

Here is a mockup of a possible encounter table with what I have so far, incorporating some suggestions. One version of the table with damage dice, the other with prerolled damage as is standard for animal encounters.
All robots have a close combat attack with improvised weapons, only a few have purpose-built weapons. All robots have a "reaction" value (based on the "interaction" suggestion above... R is just a better letter to use in the listing, with I being too similar to 1). Only robots with built-in weapons have an "attack" value. If a 0 follows, it denotes a special type of condition (e.g. here, drones will react based on whether their operator is connected and active.)
The letter behind the "speed" value denotes the type of propulsion (L = Legs, W = Wheels, T = Tracks, G = Grav, A = Air Cushion). Robot general intelligence is classed into Drone, Dumbot, Low autonomous and High autonomous (possibly adding AI for TL 16 bots... or maybe leaving such special bots for the "events" section.) Standard equivalent Int values would be 0, 3, 6 and 9 respectively. Skill is the general level held in areas relevant to the robot's tasks. If not listed, level-0 is assumed.

 

[Tobias]

Second version. I changed the attributes column by appending the robot intelligence/brain level to the "reaction" value. "R9D", for example, means "reacts on 9+, is a dumbot". S = Slave (changed back to Book 8's master/slave terminology... I think this is still okay in a technical context), D = Dumbot, L = Low autonomous, H= High autonomous, A = Artificial Intelligence. I now have space to list the primary skill for each robot, which should give a better first glance of what they are exactly.

Now I have to format the rules and smoothen them with Book 8 as far as possible or desired.

Anybody have some more ideas for robot-related events or special encounters? So far I have:

Robot accident. Robot sale. Robot smuggling. Robot theft. Robot malfunction. Robot wreckage. Pro-robot activism. Pseudobio robot. Alien robot. Experimental robot. Robot assembly. Robot in need of help. Robot abuse. Robot seeking help for others. Robots fighting.

 

[bookwyrm]

Robot working (there is a lot to fill in the blank with this one), in transit, powered down/out of power, prototype being field tested

 

[casquilho]

@Tobias I maybe overthinking this, but with animals fight or flight is a normal response. With robots I wonder how many time locked up programing would also be an outcome to interference. By this I mean, robot is mopping the floor, firefight breaks out, robot is hit and can't continue mopping, so they attack with the mop? Or do they shut down after sending out a broken wheel report?

I also wonder if the right animal category could be different based on the level or programing. No, I do not mean AI, rather the simpler they are, the less reactive they would become?

Just strange thoughts that crossed my mind as I read your efforts.

 

[kilemall]

@Tobias I maybe overthinking this, but with animals fight or flight is a normal response. With robots I wonder how many time locked up programing would also be an outcome to interference. By this I mean, robot is mopping the floor, firefight breaks out, robot is hit and can't continue mopping, so they attack with the mop? Or do they shut down after sending out a broken wheel report?

I also wonder if the right animal category could be different based on the level or programing. No, I do not mean AI, rather the simpler they are, the less reactive they would become?

Just strange thoughts that crossed my mind as I read your efforts.

That’s where hand massaging the acting rolls can get the bot to either react or ignore.

 

[Tobias]

What I have atm: Basically, robots are going to have a reaction score, based on robot intelligence and robot type. This determines if they notice an interruption at all and don't just keep doing what they're doing (which could of course pose problems in its own right.) If they react, they have a saving throw (based on intelligence) whether they correctly assess the situation. Even ff they do not, armed robots have an attack value (based on type and programmed aggressiveness) to determine whether they attack.

And of course, as with all good things, these are just guidelines. PC actions should be able to influence or override any of those rolls.

 

[infojunky]

Inspired by this clever article from Freelance Traveller:

Freelance Traveller - Doing It My Way - The Robot as Animal

I am trying to build a more full-fledged quick robot design/encounter system mapped on the animal encounter system in CT. I've mapped various types of robots onto the animal types present in CT, with the board categories of Herbivores = Workbots (that generally stay in one area doing their job), omnivores = service robots (that move around), carnivores = military/paramilitary robots (self-explanatory) and scavengers = sophont interaction robots. I've further classified the following sub-categories:

Are there any categories that are unclear or confusing? Are there major functions missing that do not fit into any of my categories?

Works by me. Though I have long been advocate of using the animals chart for bots and more.

 

[mike wightman]

I wrote about using the animal tables to flesh out vehicles,

CT Only: - Vehicle combat using LBB1-3

I posted this on another thread so it is somewhat buried. I thought I would repost it so I can clean it up and get constructive comments. Vehicle armour For unarmoured vehicles you have to hit the equivalent of mesh armour with personal scale weapons, light armoured vehicles cloth armour...

www.travellerrpg.com

 

[bookwyrm]

A robots sophistication and abilities would determine it's responses. The simpler it's programming the simpler is responses.

Stop and wait.
Stop and call for assistance.
Go around.
Leave/Find another route.
Return to 'base'.
Move obstacle.
Communicate with obstacle.
Communicate with target.
Follow/Track target.
Subdue/Trap target.
Chase target.
Attack/Defend target.

Also, a robots response will depend on what it's 'job' is. Cleaning, courier, security, construction, nanny, combat, bodyguard, office labor, menial labor, transportation, skilled labor, law enforcement, maintenance, and so on.

 

[Tobias]

A major part of the initial work is done, this is what I have so far. Still to be done: Reactions, addidtional robot characteristics, robot events. Does the format work (I saved as european A4)?

 

[mike wightman]

First glance.

Excellent piece of work.