Small Ship fleet sizes

[rancke]

My take is that some kind of medical test would be done before allowing someone to cold sleep, as I agree it should have inherent dangers.

Why should it have inherent dangers? As I said above, there's no reason why there can't be be inherent dangers, but why is it a foregone conclusion? Does it make for a better setting of for better games? Not in my opinion, but I admit that that's just opinion.

(Travelling in low berths that are meant for cattle, now... that I agree sounds like something that could be a tad dangerous ).


Hans

 

[HG_B]

You mean that 3% of surgeries result in deaths due to mistakes made by the surgeon? Over and above the deaths that are due to some of the people who need surgery being, you know, in a certain amount of danger of dying even without the help of a surgeon who makes mistakes?

Quite correct. NEEDING surgery means something is already wrong with the person's health in some way. Self selected ill health category. Unlike people who need to travel.

 

[rancke]

Quite correct. NEEDING surgery means something is already wrong with the person's health in some way. Self selected ill health category. Unlike people who need to travel.

This subthread of the discussion has branched off into talking about whether a game rule that mandates automatic failure on rolling a natural 2 with 2D proves that all activities that involve any risk of failure at all involved a minimum risk of 1 in 36. I mistakenly thought that the answer was self-evident and gave a couple of examples that I thought were blatantly implausible to highlight that.

Having thought over the replies, I've come to the conclusion that I can't be bothered to argue the point any further. In my opinion the answer is, as I said, self-evident, and any further argument with anyone who don't see eye to eye with me on the subject is likely to be a waste of effort on both sides.

To get back to the previous thread, the fact that MT rules has a minimum failure rate for medics reviving low berth passengers does not prove that the minimum number of low berth passengers that suffer revivification mishaps is 1 in 36. It's evidence that deserves to be taken into consideration, but it's not proof of anything.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Why should it have inherent dangers?

Because :

1. - drugs are used
2. - conscience is supprised
3. - metabolism is altered
4. - blood circulation and breathing is (at least) slowed
5. - any human act has risks, and risks in medical acts involve risks for health
6. - any time you turn off something there's a danger that it cannot be turned on again

That does not mean risk is high, my take is that it is moe or less like today's general anaesthesia, but sure there is.

 

[McPerth]

This subthread of the discussion has branched off into talking about whether a game rule that mandates automatic failure on rolling a natural 2 with 2D proves that all activities that involve any risk of failure at all involved a minimum risk of 1 in 36. I mistakenly thought that the answer was self-evident and gave a couple of examples that I thought were blatantly implausible to highlight that.

Having thought over the replies, I've come to the conclusion that I can't be bothered to argue the point any further. In my opinion the answer is, as I said, self-evident, and any further argument with anyone who don't see eye to eye with me on the subject is likely to be a waste of effort on both sides.

To get back to the previous thread, the fact that MT rules has a minimum failure rate for medics reviving low berth passengers does not prove that the minimum number of low berth passengers that suffer revivification mishaps is 1 in 36. It's evidence that deserves to be taken into consideration, but it's not proof of anything.


Hans

All this subtopic comes from my assertion that depending on the rules you use, cold sleep is not feasible for the troops, as you can expect more casualties from the cold sleep itself than from combat (depending who you must combat).

 

[rancke]

Because :

1. - drugs are used
2. - conscience is supprised
3. - metabolism is altered
4. - blood circulation and breathing is (at least) slowed
5. - any human act has risks, and risks in medical acts involve risks for health
6. - any time you turn off something there's a danger that it cannot be turned on again

And medical knowledge is half a dozen levels higher than the one we have today. And even today the risks of a lot of medical procedures are lower than they were a single tech level earlier.

That does not mean risk is high, my take is that it is more or less like today's general anaesthesia, but sure there is.

Ah, my mistake. I thought you meant that there ought to be a risk high enough to register at the level of the game rules. I quite agree that there ought to be a risk involved in the use of low berths. I mentioned the level of risk I use in my own TU in an earlier post.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Ah, my mistake. I thought you meant that there ought to be a risk high enough to register at the level of the game rules. I quite agree that there ought to be a risk involved in the use of low berths. I mentioned the level of risk I use in my own TU in an earlier post.

One of the problems of any set of rules is that the possible results are determined by the possibilities dice give you, and in CT/MT/MgT, using 2d6, if you want to show something has some risk, the minimum chance you can give for that risk is 1/36, so that was the minimum chance for a mishap in MT.

The fact you had yet to roll on the mishap table reduced this risk once more, but yet, the possibilities to represent a small risk, but that you want to point it exist are limited (see that most mishaps in this case will result for temporary disability, in form of wounds, and assume that some people will wake up debilited from cold sleep is more than acceptable to me).

 

[rancke]

One of the problems of any set of rules is that the possible results are determined by the possibilities dice give you, and in CT/MT/MgT, using 2d6, if you want to show something has some risk, the minimum chance you can give for that risk is 1/36, so that was the minimum chance for a mishap in MT.

I could easily come up with a way to model a lower risk, though it would require more than one die roll, of course.

But if you want to show that something has some risk, you can also say: "The risk is 1 in 10,000, so there is no roll for dying in low berth, but the referee can always chose to impose a problem or kill off an NPC for plot purposes". Or "The risk is actually only 1 in 10,000, but for dramatic purposes PCs and significant NPCs get unlucky on rolling a natural 2 with 2D".


Hans

 

[aramis]

You mean that 3% of surgeries result in deaths due to mistakes made by the surgeon? Over and above the deaths that are due to some of the people who need surgery being, you know, in a certain amount of danger of dying even without the help of a surgeon who makes mistakes?

I doubt that very much.


Hans

You obviously are not reading what's been put in front of you, Hans.

0.25% die. And yes, that's LESS than the rate for major surgery, at least the last time I had to sign for one (1 in 300 was the rate in my radial head repair/removal surgery. 1 in 400 die of complications from low berth.)

3d6 permanent stat damage is NOT death. At 18 points maximum, it's at worst a coma for Joe Normal.

Failing the roll and rolling a mishap is NOT dying, Hans. It means a negative outcome.

Oh, and a recent bit in the daily mail shows a 10% death rate in NHS hospitals following major surgery, and a 2.5% rate in NYC hospitals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html

 

[Timerover51]

Going back to the original idea of the thread, as I have indicated elsewhere, I was a supply officer in the US Army, and as my signature indicates, I actually do like logistics.

As this is supposed to be a discussion of a planetary invasion, I thought that some data as to what a mobilized planet might be able to produce is in order. If you go to the US Army Center for Military History website, and download the following two volumes, Global Logistics and Strategy 1940-1943 and Global Logistics and Strategy 1943-1945, in the appendix you have the production figures for military equipment for the US Army given. Note, that is just production for the US Army and DOES NOT include production for the US Navy, except for some items such as bombs for aircraft, where the Army handled the production. If you take the production figure for 1944 and multiply by 2, that would closely approximate the total world production of land and air military equipment, but would not include naval production. Basically, by 1944, the US was, by itself, producing half of the world's military equipment, not including naval ships. There, the quantity was quite a bit higher. Also, the 1945 production figures stop as of August 31, and there were production contracts cancelled following the defeat of Germany in May of 1945. You need both to get the production from 1940 to 1945, and also see how the production increased.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/001/1-5/index.html
http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/001/1-6/index.html

I am assuming that this is not a "bolt from the blue" invasion, as putting together a million-man invasion force is going to be a bit noticeable, so that the potential target can make some preparations for a proper reception for said unwanted visitors. I would also suspect that even a Balkanized world would probably unify in resisting an outside invasion, if they knew that the entire planet was the target.

This is one reason why I take a dim view of planetary invasions.

 

[rancke]

You obviously are not reading what's been put in front of you, Hans.

Right back at you, Wil. At this point of the discussion I was talking about the ramifications of the 'a natural 2 is always a failure' rule. That means I was talking about tolerating one botched operation in 36 in every concievable endavor, including but not limited to appendectomies. Which means that the statistical death rate for comtemporary surgeries and the effects of rolling dice for low berth injuries according to the MT rules are both utterly irrelevant. You've also failed to appreciate the difference between appendectomies that fails because the doctor messes up (a.k.a. "operator failure" ) and deaths following surgery even when the surgeon did everything right.

If you think that this one of the several examples I gave (the surgery example) failed to make my point, I think you've missed a reading roll, but never mind, I'll just pull up some more examples. Do you think that a 3% failure rate for air flight controllers would be tolerated? What about pilots who botched one landing in 36?


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Because : ... conscience is supprised ...

Well, good thing they're unconscious, or they might do something they'd regret later.

 

[aramis]

Right back at you, Wil. At this point of the discussion I was talking about the ramifications of the 'a natural 2 is always a failure' rule. That means I was talking about tolerating one botched operation in 36 in every concievable endavor, including but not limited to appendectomies. Which means that the statistical death rate for comtemporary surgeries and the effects of rolling dice for low berth injuries according to the MT rules are both utterly irrelevant. You've also failed to appreciate the difference between appendectomies that fails because the doctor messes up (a.k.a. "operator failure" ) and deaths following surgery ven when the surgeon did everything right.

If you think that this one of the several examples I gave (the surgery example) failed to make my point, I think you've missed a reading roll, but never mind, I'll just pull up some more examples. Do you think that a 3% failure rate for air flight controllers would be tolerated? What about pilots who botched one landing in 36?


Hans

What you fail to comprehend is that a failure or a Fumble in MT is NOT A ▮▮▮▮ING BOTCH.

Also, the damages listed for mishap levels in the Low Berth are not the standard damages for mishaps in general.

Most failures result in no mishap, just time wasted. The rest result in minor mishaps (2d mishaps). Which, with non-hazardous tasks, a nat 2 is only a 2d mishap. so the "botch" (whcih implies a lethal or disabling effect) is 3/1260 for disabling only, and no chance of death.

Hazardous and fateful, yes, many become 3d mishaps.

If you're making ATC roll for every incoming craft, you're failing to apply any common sense. At best, ATC should be rolling once a shift. And when able they take their time and reduce simple to automatic.

So, yes, a called for roll having a 2.7% chance of some form of incident is fine by me, because I never require rolls for non-stressful actions.

Now, personally, I waive the autofail on Simple tasks†, and think that should be in the errata.

† Note that taking extra time is a difficulty shift. A routine with extra time becomes a simple task for all but time purposes. Likewise, no need to mention requiring skill, since that's also a difficulty shift - an unskilled person only faces simple on things that are automatic for people with skill.)

 

[Carlobrand]

In fairness, the MegaTrav task system is one of the more complicated role-playing tools. Your task can be simple, routine, difficult, or formidable (or impossible), it can be safe or hazardous (or presumably just regular risk, but I don't see that mentioned), it could be fateful, it could be a confrontation, you could be hasty or cautious in how you perform the task - but if you try to be cautious then you gotta make a determination roll and you get zotted with increased difficulty if you fail ... and then there are the DMs. It's bad enough that they've got a rule in that section that warns the gamemaster not to be a slave to the rules.

Let's see if I can get this right:

"To revive a low passage passenger:
Routine, Medical, Edu, 1 min (fateful)."

Base roll is 7 or better, you get a bonus for your medical skill and for 1/5 of your education (rounded down), it takes about a minute, and if you fail, you have to roll for a mishap, rolling 2d6. The average level-1 medic thus gets a +2 DM: +1 for his skill, +1 for an Edu of 7 divided by 5 and rounded down; figure he typically needs a 5 or better. A natural roll of 2 is an automatic fumble irrespective of DMs; a fumble roll on a hazardous task means you roll 3d6 for mishap instead of 2d6 - but this task isn't hazardous.

"On a fateful task, if failure occurs, roll 2D on the Mishap Table. Mishaps are guaranteed if a fateful task fails If the taskis listed as fateful and hazardous, roll 3D on the Mishap Table instead of rolling 2D If the task is listed as fateful (but not hazardous), implement a Superficial mishap; no mishap roll is required."

Which ... is contradictory. Either your rolling 2d6 for a failure unless it's hazardous, or you're going straight to the Superficial mishap. It manages to say both at the same time.

You can make the task less risky for the patient if you attempt to be cautious, doubling the time roll but reducing to the next lower difficulty level, but you have to make a determination roll, which - I think - means you roll 2d6, with a bonus equal to 1/5 of your combined intelligence and education, and if your total is 11 or better, you exercise self-control and get to run the task at a lower difficulty (amounts to a +4 DM). If you fail, your patience gets the better of you and the task is run at a higher difficulty. With typically a roughly 50:50 shot at it, I'm not sure being cautious is wise in this task.

Result of a failure, on rolling the 2d6 mishap, is:
2: Reroll
3+: Superficial (1D)
7+: Minor (2D)
11+: Major (3D)
15 + Destroyed (4D)

So, the typical Low Berth revival failure leaves you with a 1d6 injury to one stat - and occurs to 1 in 6 patients under the average medic, maybe 1 in 12 for a slightly above average medic. If you go with the 2d6 roll instead of the automatic superficial, then there's a 50:50 chance you'll end with 2d6 damage, and there's a 1 in 12 chance you'll end up with 3d6 damage. And in most cases it'll take you about a day per point to recover - I think.

And, my guess is I've missed something.

 

[rancke]

What you fail to comprehend is that a failure or a Fumble in MT is NOT A ▮▮▮▮ING BOTCH.

The reason why I've failed to realize that is that you wrote:

by the way, that 3% rate is OPERATOR ERROR, not the failure rate of the berth itself - which, in MT, is presumed to be pretty reliable. It's the thawing medic (or non-medic) who kills the guy, not the machinery.

Emphasis yours.

Pardon me for taking you at your word. I really think I should be forgiven for not realizing that by 'operator error' you did not mean 'botch'.

Also, the damages listed for mishap levels in the Low Berth are not the standard damages for mishaps in general.

Most failures result in no mishap, just time wasted. The rest result in minor mishaps (2d mishaps). Which, with non-hazardous tasks, a nat 2 is only a 2d mishap. so the "botch" (whcih implies a lethal or disabling effect) is 3/1260 for disabling only, and no chance of death.

So the sentence "The store botched the order—I received only half the books I paid for", implies that the failure of the store clerk to perform his task properly had a lethal of disabling effect on the speaker?

Hazardous and fateful, yes, many become 3d mishaps.

If you're making ATC roll for every incoming craft, you're failing to apply any common sense. At best, ATC should be rolling once a shift. And when able they take their time and reduce simple to automatic.

Why? Is an air traffic controller only in danger of making a mistake with one airplane per shift? Should I only apply the revivification roll to one low passenger per batch, then?

As for failing to apply common sense, that's my point exactly.

So, yes, a called for roll having a 2.7% chance of some form of incident is fine by me, because I never require rolls for non-stressful actions.

Neither do I. That's why the examples I gave all involve stressful actions. Like performing appendectomies or guiding arriving airplanes or landing airplanes or sniping at terrorists.

Now, personally, I waive the autofail on Simple tasks†, and think that should be in the errata.

† Note that taking extra time is a difficulty shift. A routine with extra time becomes a simple task for all but time purposes. Likewise, no need to mention requiring skill, since that's also a difficulty shift - an unskilled person only faces simple on things that are automatic for people with skill.)

That might almost fit with how low berths are portrayed in canon. Except for the differences, of course (Such as no mention or even implication of revivification taking from 30 minutes to 3 hours apiece or a skill of Medic-0 being sufficient to revive low berth passengers in perfect safety as long as you take your time). But it doesn't address my point, which, to remind you, was that an automatic failure on a natural 2 with 2D for every stressful task does not prove that the minimum failure rate for any stressful task in the universe is 3%.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

And, my guess is I've missed something.

After a quick read of your post, the only thing I see you've missed is that the time is not 1 minute, but 3d6 minutes, as the time increment is multiplied by 3d6 minus DMs that are not specified, but in the definition of the Hasty task is hinted that they are the task DMs (in this case, Medical skill + edu modifier)

 

[pendragonman]

Getting more and more convinced that not ever learning the MT rules was a good idea...

 

[Carlobrand]

After a quick read of your post, the only thing I see you've missed is that the time is not 1 minute, but 3d6 minutes, as the time increment is multiplied by 3d6 minus DMs that are not specified, but in the definition of the Hasty task is hinted that they are the task DMs (in this case, Medical skill + edu modifier)

Oh yeah, I forgot the time factor bit.

Getting more and more convinced that not ever learning the MT rules was a good idea...

Think of it like jalapenos - you either love 'em, or you find that you can lead a very happy life without ever seeing another one of the little monsters.

 

[Ishmael]

"On a fateful task, if failure occurs, roll 2D on the Mishap Table. Mishaps are guaranteed if a fateful task fails If the taskis listed as fateful and hazardous, roll 3D on the Mishap Table instead of rolling 2D If the task is listed as fateful (but not hazardous), implement a Superficial mishap; no mishap roll is required."

Which ... is contradictory. Either your rolling 2d6 for a failure unless it's hazardous, or you're going straight to the Superficial mishap. It manages to say both at the same time.

This should be a point for errata.
There are 3 levels of hazards in the task system; safe, normal, and hazardous.
Fateful merely means that a failure guarantees a mishap.
A failure on a 'safe' task means that any mishap is 'superficial'. This is specified in the section for 'safe' tasks.
A failure on a normal task means any mishap is 2d6 ( 'minor mishap' )
A failure on a hazardous task means any mishap is 3d6 ( 'major mishap' )

Clearly the rules are poorly written although the system itself is the cleanest ( imo ) of any of the editions.

 

[Carlobrand]

This should be a point for errata.
There are 3 levels of hazards in the task system; safe, normal, and hazardous.
Fateful merely means that a failure guarantees a mishap.
A failure on a 'safe' task means that any mishap is 'superficial'. This is specified in the section for 'safe' tasks.
A failure on a normal task means any mishap is 2d6 ( 'minor mishap' )
A failure on a hazardous task means any mishap is 3d6 ( 'major mishap' )

Now that would make more sense except that I note in the Referee's Manual, "Safe: With safe tasks if a mishap occurs, it is never damaging." Ergo, while there can be a safe superficial mishap, the referee would have to find some consequence other than damage. The revival role is not specifically described as safe, ergo by your explanation the 2D6 roll for mishap applies, with potential damage ranging from 1d6 to 3D6.

Now here's a question I couldn't find an answer to. The wounds section deals primarily with converting combat "hits" to wounds taken by your stats. Revival roll damage is, presumably, wounds rather than hits. So, is it 3D6 against one stat and dump the excess, or overflow onto another stat, or three 1d6 rolls against random stats (St, Dx, En)?

Starship Operator's Manual (a DGP publication, but heavily relied on) calls low passage "not any more risky than middle or high passage when there is adequate medical expertise on board," but that might be a bit of an exaggeration if 1 in 12 passengers is spending the next few days after revival on bed rest. Imperial Encyclopedia (not a source I think of when looking for rules, but nonetheless full of them) clarifies on Pg. 87 that a superficial mishap on revival is 1d6 wounds for 1-6 days, after which healing is automatic except for some pallor for 1-6 weeks; minor mishaps are 2d6 wounds for 1-6 days with mild motor impairment (-2 Dx) for 1-6 weeks; and major mishaps are 3d6 permanent wounds with medical diagnosis and treatment needed "to restore full health."

(Which means what, that the "permanent" wounds are not permanent? And 1 in 144 low passengers end up in the hospital with these "permanent" wounds. Not so bad as CT, but certainly more risky than middle or high passage. Me, I'd replace the Low Lottery with a waiver agreement limiting damages to the cost of passage - i.e. the hospitalized passenger gets a refund. Costs the captain roughly Cr 7 per passage, which is pretty close to what the Low Lottery costs. Except, Errata clarifies, "Refunds or civil liability if a low passenger fails to survive the trip are not allowed." Uh, how do these rules result in a death? I'm not even clear that it's possible if one of those 1 in 144 is luckless enough to run into a major mishap during medical treatment - although you could end up with an unplayable character.)

Clearly the rules are poorly written although the system itself is the cleanest ( imo ) of any of the editions.

It's clean if you can get some experienced player to help you work through the poor writing - on which subject I'd say thank goodness for this forum and folk like you, or I'd not have even bothered with the system.


add: Ooh, saved from an accidental double post by some new 10-second rule. Nice addition!