Ship operations

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by Tobias:
Since this thread has already been completely derailed...
Do any of you know the MechWarrior 3rd Edition (Or Classic BattleTech RPG, as they now call it) character generation rules? These are a combination of point-buy and lifepath, and can put out really interesting results, while the player still retains a good amount of control.

Actually I thought I was about the only person who ever tried out MechWarrior 3. Never got anyone to actually play the game, but I did like the character generation system in general.

I thought the approach of the character's life path setting the minimums and maximums for attributes which were then actually set at the end of the process to be a cool idea. It did not limit the player from certain career paths due to bad luck on attribute rolls while still ensuring that a character from that background had appropriate attributes.

I also like the variable length of each 'term'. It made a lot of sense that some 'terms' should be longer or shorter than others while some were of variable length. It still allowed for aging effects, you just looked up the range where your character's age falls rather than relying on the rather arbitrary mechanic of how many four year terms old am I.

Without having played the game itself, I can't say how the character generation translated into the game play and mechanics. It always seemed to me that the effect skills had on play was rather marginalized, which was odd given the math the char gen system makes you go through to convert all of those skill points into the final skill ranks.

 

[aramis]

The variable length terms are not always a "good thing" for back history.

It depends a lot on what a Term is.

It also depends upon whether military or non-military career.

Most modern military services have a fixed length "standard enlistment", many have 2: one for first enlistment/mandatory service, and one for reenlistments and willing volunteers. Many do not have such systems for officers; officers serve until they resign, are expelled, or retire in many services, tho there is often a mandated minimum.

Having a fixed term length for enlisted characters is not only sensible, but simulationist.

For civilians: Is a term "The length of time until something drastic changes", or "Until a new promotion comes along", or some other scheme, or is it just a "Chunk of time for career resolution"?

If it's just a chunk, keep it the same as the military.
If its' promotion related, some fields, like my wife's currend McDonalds Job, can promote rather quick. (Shift Manager after 1.5 years.) Others, like her prior job, promotion was possible only through attrition.


Hal: TNE had a skill list of under a hundred entries, counting subskills of the TNE Cascades. Achieving a similar level of detail with GURPS is still twice as many skills to worry about, and to be honest, is not likely to make any but the old guard happier. It is likely to turn off hard-core GURPS players. Which are you running for?
If running for GURPSies, let them use the GURPS mechanics.
If running for Grognards, run a real traveller.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by BrennanHawkwood:
Actually I thought I was about the only person who ever tried out MechWarrior 3. Never got anyone to actually play the game, but I did like the character generation system in general.
[snip]
Without having played the game itself, I can't say how the character generation translated into the game play and mechanics. It always seemed to me that the effect skills had on play was rather marginalized, which was odd given the math the char gen system makes you go through to convert all of those skill points into the final skill ranks.

My experiences are roughly the same: The Character generation was nice and interesting, but the actual game mechanics seemed to be lacking. I thought that the skill range was too small for the 2D10 resolution system as well. It would have probably worked better with 2D6. Also, attributes played almost no role for skills, which was odd.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The variable length terms are not always a "good thing" for back history.

It depends a lot on what a Term is.

Very true. I do happen to think they did a decent job of it with MW3. IIRC, you actually started characters younger (like 13 or 14) and ran them through a couple of stages of chargen. When they become adults (the age of which did vary depending on the character's background) the length of the term depended on the 'activity' convered by that term. The variable ones were mostly the civilian job type terms and I think the idea was that it represented time on the job until a significant turning point. The military terms were typically a set period (two years IIRC). Promotions and such were connected to what happened during a term, but not as tightly as they are in most of the Traveller past life systems.

If running for GURPSies, let them use the GURPS mechanics.
If running for Grognards, run a real traveller.

Grrr...

I continue to disagree with you that my GURPS based game is any less Traveller than yours. You may not like the GURPS mechanic and I am cool with that (heck, its not particularly my favorite general ruleset either), but insisting that I am not playing real traveller is just silly. I agree that the rules can and do have some impact on the way a game flows, but what is Traveller is far more dependant on how it is run and the setting than a particular set of rules. That is IMO one of Traveller's greatest strengths.

 

[aramis]

Tobias, Brennan: That is starting to sound a lot like Renegade Legion: Legionnaire, also by FASA. Which I have run. Once, a long time ago. (Still have it, too.)

My recollection of RL:L was it was a lot of rolling for little detail, and required too much book flipping for my players. (we wound up copying all the CG tables, and laying them out flat...)

It did play okay, tho...

 

[aramis]

Traveller is NOT just a setting.

Traveller is also rules. GT uses totally different rules across the board; no similarity.

 

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Tobias, Brennan: That is starting to sound a lot like Renegade Legion: Legionnaire, also by FASA. Which I have run. Once, a long time ago. (Still have it, too.)

My recollection of RL:L was it was a lot of rolling for little detail, and required too much book flipping for my players. (we wound up copying all the CG tables, and laying them out flat...)

It did play okay, tho...

Yes, now that you mention it, the chargen did take a lot from the RL rpg's chargen. (I have Legionnaire too...just haven't looked at in forever). I'd say that the chargen in MW3 has more depth and fits together a little better than it did in RL, but that RL had better mechanics in general.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by BrennanHawkwood:
I continue to disagree with you that my GURPS based game is any less Traveller than yours. You may not like the GURPS mechanic and I am cool with that (heck, its not particularly my favorite general ruleset either), but insisting that I am not playing real traveller is just silly. I agree that the rules can and do have some impact on the way a game flows, but what is Traveller is far more dependant on how it is run and the setting than a particular set of rules. That is IMO one of Traveller's greatest strengths.

Brennan,

This isn't about liking or disliking GURPS or d20. They both excellent systems in their own right.

This is about acknowledging that GURPS and d20 are fundamentally different from other Traveller rules sets and some of those differences are at odds with the basic tenets of the Traveller setting.

We've pointed out many examples of just that in this thread, but I believe the easiest grasped and most telling example is the relationship between NPCs and PCs.

In Traveller, NPCs and PCs enjoy the same skills set, same characteristics ranges, and are for all purposes the SAME. The only difference is that a PC is controlled by a player and an NPC is controlled by a GM. The in-game abilities, strengths, and weaknesses of the two are the same.

In GURPS, PCs are 100 point (or more) characters while NPCs are 25 point nonentities.

In d20, levels, feats, and all the rest mean that PCs are much, much more than NPCs.

In Traveller, the PCs are ordinary people who have chosen to lead extrordinary lives. There is no fundamental difference between them and their planet-bound bretheren other than attitude.

In GURPS and d20, the PCs are extrordinary people who are leading extrordinary lives. There is a difference between them and their planet-bound bretheren at the most fundamental level - thanks more points, more skills, more feats, and more whatever they are supermen above the common herd.

This "PC/Supermen, NPC/Submen" paradigm had never been part of Traveller before GT and T20. I feel correct in saying that the presence of that paradigm in the very core of the GURPS an d20 systems means that GT and T20 are not, strictly speaking, Traveller. They are more akin to a software emulator, an RPG version of something that allows Mac programs to run on a Windows machine.

Yes, Traveller is greatly malleable and, yes, that is it's greatest strength. However, a Traveller setting also includes some basic tenets that other RPG systems do not allow. So, as with a few other examples such as jump drive and no FTL comms, unless you campaign's NPCs are on a totally equal footing with your campaign's PCs, it is silly to claim you're playing Traveller.

YM obviously Vs.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Hal]

In response to Bill's comment regarding GURPS, I have to agree provisionally to his comments about PC's = ubermen, while NPC's = sububer...

That of course, depends upon the GM who uses GURPS for his/her campaigns. In instances where the GM says "it costs what it costs" and doesn't make any attempt to set point limits for his NPC's - then Bill's comment is not especially apt. For GM's who do utilize the idea that most NPC's are to be built on point totals that are 50 to 25% those of the player characters, then his comments are in the BULLSEYE category. Me? I have always hated the idea that "ordinary" people are built on 25 character points. My best example of that is: what is the difference between a 25 point "ordinary 18 year old" and that same 18 year old 22 years later? Is the 40 year old who aged 22 years from his previous incarnation supposed to still be worth 25 points, or should he be worth somewhere around 50 points by now?

One of my "gripes" about GURPS, and I am a RABID fan of GURPS in general, is that players who build their characters tend to emphasize the "skill stats" (IQ or DX) over the non-skill stats. They also tend to optimize them such that the stats tend to be as high as possible instead of "ordinary". Randomly rolling stats would FIX this problem. In my opinion, GURPS TRAVELLER would greatly benefit from a random stat roll, random skill accretion, and take it from there. But that's just ME

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

In Traveller, NPCs and PCs enjoy the same skills set, same characteristics ranges, and are for all purposes the SAME. The only difference is that a PC is controlled by a player and an NPC is controlled by a GM. The in-game abilities, strengths, and weaknesses of the two are the same.

In GURPS, PCs are 100 point (or more) characters while NPCs are 25 point nonentities.

In d20, levels, feats, and all the rest mean that PCs are much, much more than NPCs.

In Traveller, the PCs are ordinary people who have chosen to lead extrordinary lives. There is no fundamental difference between them and their planet-bound bretheren other than attitude.

In GURPS and d20, the PCs are extrordinary people who are leading extrordinary lives. There is a difference between them and their planet-bound bretheren at the most fundamental level - thanks more points, more skills, more feats, and more whatever they are supermen above the common herd.

I'm going to quibble with you here on this, in that d20 makes the NPCs equal to PCs while GURPS does place NPCs at a disadvantage. I have seen in T20, the standard of giving stock NPCs only stats of 10 or 11 - but that is the only thing since NPCs can have the same number of feats and skills as PCs. With T20, it then becomes a matter of whether or not you go for the 10/11 stock attribute stats or just roll randomly.

 

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

<snip>
... unless you campaign's NPCs are on a totally equal footing with your campaign's PCs, it is silly to claim you're playing Traveller.

Actually I guess one of the reasons I find this so frustrating is that this is exactly the way I DO handle my GT game. I build NPCs to be able to do what I envision them doing, not to fit some arbitrary point limit. There is no inherent difference between PCs and NPCs beyond the result of different profession or experience level. I've always thought that 25 points for a "normal" is just, well, dumb.

I think another reason it is frustrating is that I say I am playing Traveller I mean that I am playing in the setting with all of those setting assumptions, not that I am playing with the Traveller game mechanic. I know that from a strictly game rules mechanic point of view GT isn't 'traveller' its GURPS, but in the ways that really matter we are playing GURPS.
.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by BrennanHawkwood:
Actually I guess one of the reasons I find this so frustrating is that this is exactly the way I DO handle my GT game. I build NPCs to be able to do what I envision them doing, not to fit some arbitrary point limit.

Brennan,

Well, if you're playing with 100 point NPCs - or more accurately NPCs that are the equal of your PCs - you're not playing GURPS:Traveller either. You're playing a homebrew that uses mostly GURPS rules. GURPS assumes NPC/Normal Folks have 25 points. Your game does not.

I've always thought that 25 points for a "normal" is just, well, dumb.

The publishes of GURPS do not share that opinion and, unless what I read on the SJG forum is wrong, neither does the majority of GURPS GMs and players.

You're playing a homebrew, not GURPS.

I think another reason it is frustrating is that I say I am playing Traveller I mean that I am playing in the setting with all of those setting assumptions, not that I am playing with the Traveller game mechanic.

I'm willing to bet you're not using all the Traveller setting assumptions. Tell me, do your m-drive ratings depend on the volume or mass of the ship in question? If, as you say, you're using GURPS, it's mass. Traveller used volume.

However, whatever you're playing doesn't matter. You're playing and that is all that counts.

Have fun,
Bill

 

[Anthony]

GURPS does not place NPCs on a different scale from PCs -- a 100 pt PC is notably talented, a 100 pt NPC is notably talented. Given the number of nobles and ship owners generated by CT rules, it's hard to imagine that the results of the chargen system are really average for NPCs in CT either.

 

[clair_rand]

as the gurps book says though a 25 point combat machine will wipe the floor with a 100 point rounded character though.

given most npc's dont *need* to be well rounded this sort of inflates them a bit.

besides there is a random char gen for gurps, its good to be able to play the charatcer you want, for a gm to be able to build the character *they* want. yeah randoms cool to. makes you think.

horses for courses really.

given how bigger a part the rules actually play in a good game the rules don't matter much anyway. tis all about atmosphere, which travller has in abundence

 

[BrennanHawkwood]

To wander vaguely in the direction of the original posts in this thread...

I dug up the info we wrote up regarding watches kept in my game. The ship is a 200 ton far trader variant that has been 'tweaked' by previous owners. (The PCs picked her up used for really good price). They ended up with a mixed bag of qualified and semi-qualified 8 man crew including a pilot/captain, an astrogator, 2 bridge 'hands' (commo & sensors), 2 engineer types and a pair of stewards (one doubled as a medic and the other cooked the books). The captain and the 'bridge hands' were the owners-aboard and PCs. The player of the captain and I came up with a watch schedule to provide a little flavor.

What we came up with was 4 different schedules.
</font>

• Full Alert / Active Maneuvering (Lift-off/landing, orbital manuevering, jumping)
  Lasted as long as needed...all crew were at official posts.</font>
• Orbital Parking / Real-space Operations (non-jump travel that didn't qualify as Active Manuevering)
  Two seperate watches of four hour shifts with a dog watch to rotate when people were on watch. One watch was on the bridge and the other was in engineering. They tried to have a qualified bridge officer (licensed master or mate) or a qualified engineer on duty at any given time but couldn't quite manage it.</font>
• Jump-space Operations
  A single watch of four hour shifts with a dog watch to rotate when people held watches. The watch was typically held on the bridge.</font>
• Port Operations (docked in starport (high or low) vs. orbital parking)
  A single watch of eight hour shifts. Operated more like a contact person for the ship. they could not leave the ship during their shift and was supposed to have a comm with them at all times, but otherwise was not expected to be anywhere specific.</font>

We didn't worry about strictly following these but it did add some atmosphere. We used the four hour with dogwatch arrangement based on the idea that the captain had just retired after 20-some years of doing it that way in the Imperial Navy.

 

[jappel]

For us land-lubbers and broken-down horse soldiers, what's a dog watch?

- John

 

[BrennanHawkwood]

Originally posted by jappel:
For us land-lubbers and broken-down horse soldiers, what's a dog watch?

- John

The dog watches I was referring to are based on old style nautical watch schedules. Basically there is a series of four hour watches with one of them, the dog watch (traditionally 4pm - 8pm), being broken into a pair of two hour watches. I've seen several reasons for it mentioned, but most often it is explained as having been done to allow for the crew to eat an evening meal or to end up with an odd number of watches, thus varying when a crewman's watch was.

Information about it can be found in various places on the internet including:

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/shipbee.htm

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.17937

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jappel:
For us land-lubbers and broken-down horse soldiers, what's a dog watch?

John,

It's a method of shifting people to different watch schedules without messing things up sleep schedules too much.

It's not used to feed people because if it were it would have to be used two or more times a day. In those cases people are either relieved a little early or a little late. (I'll return to that later.)

Consider a 'four and eight' watch schedule. You either stand 12 to 4, 4 to 8, or 8 to 12. AM or PM doesn't matter, a 12 to 4 watch is stood from midnight to 4 AM and noon to 4PM each day.

Having people locked into one watch schedule isn't good, so dog watches are used to shift everyone about. One day a week, usually a Sunday, the 12 to 4 is split into two watches; a 12 to 2 and a 2 to 4. Everyone still stands their watch in turn, it's just on Sunday that you return to watch a little earlier.

Let's say Adam currently stands the 12 to 4, Brett currently stands the 4 to 8, and Craig currently stands the 8 to 12. On Sunday, the watches get dogged. Adam stand part of his watch, 12 to 2. Brett relieves him and stands a 2 to 4 watch. Craig then comes on and stands the normal 4 to 8. After that, everyone then relieves in turn.

Now, after dogging, Adam is standing the 8 to 12, Brett is standing the 12 to 4, and Craig is standing the 4 to 8. They've switched watch schedules nicely, easily, quickly, and no one lost that much precious sleep. (That's one reason Sunday is usually when watches are dogged, it normally is not a work day so the crew can catch up on sleep by staying in their 'racks' as long as they wish.)

Now for meals. The 12 noon to 4PM watch sucks because of dinner. Dinner doesn't happen until 4PM. Brett is currently standing it and Craig as a watch relief gets head of the line privileges, but he still is hard pressed to show up before 4:30-ish, so Brett gets stuck with nearly an extra hour or so of watch. That's another reason why watch assignments change, so that Brett doesn't stand the 12 to 4 for eight months in a row.

The 8AM to 12 noon watch stinks because of breakfast. If you want to eat, you must be awakened earlier than normal so you can eat before before you relieve the 4 to 8 guy. He needs to be relieved on time so he can eat. Again, you have head of the line privileges, but you must be at your watch station 10 to 15 mintues early for the turn over. Once again, this why watch assignments change regularly - to share the pain!

Another reason to dog watches is due to drills and evolutions. Certain drills and evolutions only occur at certain times of day. Manuevering and un-rep drills that bridge watchstanders need occur during daylight meaning that they rarely occur on 4 to 8 watches. Engineroom room drills usually occur between midnight and 4AM as not to upset topside ship activities with the loss of electricity and other services.

Hope some straight dope helped.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Hal]

Question for you Bill?

What is the general level of overstaffing done by the US navy? In other words, if you have 300 ships, and you have say, 15,000 billets/berths required to be filled, how many extra personnel who would be qualified to fill billets/berths to cover for those times where someone is voluntarily separating from service, or someone is sick or wounded, etc?

 

[Whipsnade]

Hal,

Overstaffing? There is none.

More accurately, it depends on the rate involved. Rates are the various jobs in the navy; machinist mate, yeoman, etc. Some rates are further broken down by EOS, much like the MOS codes you see in the army. When I was in there were separate EOS' for sub nuc machinist mates, surface nuc machinist mates, and conventional machinist mates.

In the 80s, each rate/EOS was placed into one of 5 catagories depending on how many people actually held that rate/EOS as opposed to how many people the navy actually needed to hold that rate/EOS. The top catagory meant a rate was staffed navy-wide at over 100%. The bottom catagory - the one I was in - meant a rate was staffed navy-wide at below 80%.

Some rates, mostly in the supply, support, and nontechnical areas, were over-manned. Others rates, those that required a lot of schooling, were under-manned. It was common sense really, there were fewer people in the tougher jobs. Plenty of cooks, soda machine fillers, low level bean counters, barbers, broom & mop technicians, etc. while there were not enough missile techs, 'scope dopes', 'twidgets', nucs, etc.

A few rates in the over-manned catagories are those being phased out fleet wide. Boiler technicians are in this catagory even though it a demanding rate. The navy just doesn't use boilers anymore, so BTs aren't needed.

Aboard California, nucelar engineering never reached 80% manning levels. It was normal for relatively small conventional engineering staff; 'A' gang, to stand a few watchstations outside of the main enginerooms. Those stations were part of the nuclear 'M' division's official watchbill but we never had the bodies to fill them.

California did have nearer it's official number of senior nuclear enlisted; the 'chiefs' E-7 thru E-9, but as for E-6 and below we never had enough.

I do know that the navy has been moving slowly towards greater automation of certain activiites. If you google up the newest CVN, Reagan, you can read something about it. However, automation on a warship can only go so far. You need living, thinking bodies and not systems that break down and cannot think.


Have fun,
Bill