Starship engineer requirements

[CosmicGamer]

Skill-1 means journeyman level to me.

It appears there is only one sentence in the rules that has created an issue for you. As people have pointed out though, there are other parts of the rules that do not support the personal logic leap you made. That's fine, to each their own. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind - just helping explain why others, specifically me, don't think the same way. Here is one more topic from the rules:

Taking a skill package ensures that your group will at least have basic competency in the situations that will come up in the game.

Starship Skills Package: This is for campaigns where the characters will spend almost all their time on their spacecraft.
Pilot (any) 1, Gunner (any) 1, Engineer (any) 1, Mechanic 1, Sensors
1, Medic 1, Comms 1, Astrogation 1.

Basic competency can be a vague term too, but to me implies this is the minimal level needed more than the sentence about Professional" skill levels. It also directly references Engineering and other ship skills vs the other sentence being a general description of all skill levels from doctor to farmer.

Take from it what you want.

For me there are multiple places in the rules that support lower level crew requirements indicating the rules were not designed around your personal premise formed from a single generalized sentence in the rules.

Feel free to do your own thing for your own fun, including increases the crew requirements which increases monthly crew costs, reworking ship design with more staterooms for crew which increases monthly ship payments and maintenance costs and next reworking the trade system so that ships with higher expenses and less cargo space can still be viable.

But I have to ask, can you really not see things from other peoples perspective?

 

[McPerth]

For me there are multiple places in the rules that support lower level crew requirements indicating the rules were not designed around your personal premise formed from a single generalized sentence in the rules.

Feel free to do your own thing for your own fun, including increases the crew requirements which increases monthly crew costs, reworking ship design with more staterooms for crew which increases monthly ship payments and maintenance costs and next reworking the trade system so that ships with higher expenses and less cargo space can still be viable.

But I have to ask, can you really not see things from other peoples perspective?

In any case, IMHO, there's contradictory information in the core book.

I raised the question for the fat trader (see the thread linked above) as it is the only one with the crew stated, but I guess the free and far traders are assumed to have similar crews, while I agree with Hans a single engineer will hardly be enough for the vital parts of the drives effficiently, and a single steward is not enough for the high passengers expected to carry (and hardly if carried as middle passengers), as in both cases I guess there will be 5-6 staterooms for passengers, needing (at least) a steward 2 or two stewards to care for them as high passengers.

Of course, you can asume (as Hans has stated many times) that the standard passage is middle, high passage being used mainly to bump a middle one if there's scarcity of places, as this same steward 1 could care for 5 middle and 2 high passengers.

 

[rancke]

It appears there is only one sentence in the rules that has created an issue for you.

Not quite. That single sentence dovetails neatly with my beliefs that apprentices (or their equivalents) are less skilled than journeymen (or their equivalents) and that journeymen are less skilled than masters (or their equivalent).

Now, if the rules blur such fine distinctions for the sake of game play ("Skill-0 = apprentices and journeymen, skill-1 = junior and senior professionals, skill-2 = consumate professionals, skill-3 = expert, skill-4 = world-renowned experts, skill-5 = sector-renowned expert") that's one thing. But then they shouldn't split Engineering into five separate specialties. Also, they should say that skill-1 was professional level.

As people have pointed out though, there are other parts of the rules that do not support the personal logic leap you made.

Of course there are. I wouldn't see a problem if there wasn't, would I?

Here is one more topic from the rules: Basic competency can be a vague term too, but to me implies this is the minimal level needed more than the sentence about Professional" skill levels.

I don't really see the equivalency between "basic competency" and "professional competency". But in any case I've already covered the point about Engineering (<specialty>)-1 being good enough: That would still require five engineering skill points. Also, the rules logically imply that Engineering (<specialty>)-0 is good enough, so skill-1 doesn't really come into it.

For me there are multiple places in the rules that support lower level crew requirements indicating the rules were not designed around your personal premise formed from a single generalized sentence in the rules.

I never said there weren't.

But I have to ask, can you really not see things from other peoples perspective?

Certainly I can. But I have to ask, do you really believe that if one can see things from other people's perspective, one is not allowed to disagree with them?


Hans

 

[JimMarn]

Cross training is training outside of your specific job. Let's say you are the Navigator. Its a good idea to get training in life support. It may not be your job, and lets hope you never need to use it, but if your life support guy ever takes a hit, you'd be real happy to have the knowledge/skill.

Especially on small ships, every one should have a basic idea of how to do everyone else's job. One should cross train on everyone else's station. I wouldn't want the pilot to fix a busted jump drive, but if he knows a motivator from an intake impeller, well its better than nothing.

I remember, back in my USNavy days, a discussion between two E-8 Chief Petty officers. They both had taken a 2 year course at a technical school; drill press, welding, using a lathe they could make some parts from scratch, etc. before joining the Navy.

They were upset that the 'kids' didn't get that, they were too specialized.

One was a Chief Machinist's Mate, the other was a Chief Boiler Tech.

Ostensibly one knew lathes, and the other could make ship's boilers do wonders under adverse conditions.

Buit in some instances, they could sub for the other one.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Certainly I can. But I have to ask, do you really believe that if one can see things from other people's perspective, one is not allowed to disagree with them?

No. There is a difference between disagreeing and saying "don't you think this way could work too" or "Did you consider such and such" vs disagreeing and implying the rules are broken. If one says a specific rule is wrong and needs fixing then the implication is anyone that isn't getting on board and changing the rules and their opinions is wrong too. That isn't to say that the rules are perfect or don't have errors, but when it's a personal judgement call.....

To me, it seamed that you didn't see things any other way and thought the rules were broken and needed fixing.

I'm almost always going to jump in and support the rules and point out all the reasons why they make sense if the perspective is "I think there is a problem that needs to be fixed."
but If the perspective is "I want to do things differently, can you help me" I'd jump right in with suggestions.

For example, the direction some are going, redesigning ships and what not to support more engineers, seams excessive to me.

I'd suggest a much simpler fix and at the moment I don't see a down side or effect on other rules. Just get rid of the Engineering specialties. or As someone else suggested (sorry, don't remember who or where) make it something like Engineering (ship), Engineering(civil), Engineering(military) and I forget what else they recommended. Simpler changes that seam to make less ripples through the rules.

Just my thoughts. Take them or tear them apart.

 

[McPerth]

or As someone else suggested (sorry, don't remember who or where) make it something like Engineering (ship), Engineering(civil), Engineering(military) and I forget what else they recommended. Simpler changes that seam to make less ripples through the rules.

I must disagree in those engineering specialties: while I can see military (if I understand it right mostly fortification) and civilian (again, if I understant it right, mostly construction) engineering related, ship engineering (in all its spacialties) is an enterily different thing, relating mostly to power plant and drives use. IMHO, to give a military engineer skill level 0 in civilian engineering could be right, but to give any of them ship engineering at 0 not (and vice-versa).

As I said already some times, I see the enlarged crew needs (engineering specialties included) in MgT logical, and probably more believable than the reduced crews CT/MT used, but less game-wise, as you either have a larger party or rely on NPCs if you want your players to be the crew of a ship. And I agree with Hans in that if ships have enlarged crew needs, they must have larger quarters for them.

Of course, YMMV in both points...

 

[rancke]

No. There is a difference between disagreeing and saying "don't you think this way could work too" or "Did you consider such and such" vs disagreeing and implying the rules are broken.

But if I think the rules are broken, why shouldn't I say so?

If one says a specific rule is wrong and needs fixing then the implication is anyone that isn't getting on board and changing the rules and their opinions is wrong too.

I guess it is. And if you say that the rule isn't wrong and doesn't need fixing, the implication is that I and anyone who agrees with me are wrong. I don't see the problem.

That isn't to say that the rules are perfect or don't have errors, but when it's a personal judgement call.....

What's wrong with personal judgement calls?

To me, it seemed that you didn't see things any other way and thought the rules were broken and needed fixing.

Again, what's wrong with that?

I'm almost always going to jump in and support the rules and point out all the reasons why they make sense if the perspective is "I think there is a problem that needs to be fixed."

Really? Regardless of whether they do make sense or not?

But If the perspective is "I want to do things differently, can you help me" I'd jump right in with suggestions.

I hesitate to say so, because there are no doubt going to be times when I really do need help figuring out ways to do things differently, but in this particular case, at least, I have no problem at all coming up with a fix for my own TU. For example: Double occupancy for junior crew is standard and the ship designer calculated with more crew than staterooms + provide friendly NPCs to fill crew posts the PCs can't fill.

For example, the direction some are going, redesigning ships and what not to support more engineers, seems excessive to me.

Agreed.

I'd suggest a much simpler fix and at the moment I don't see a down side or effect on other rules. Just get rid of the Engineering specialties.

That would work for me, but there was someone in an earlier post who was quite vehement about the big differences between the various engineering specialties.

But wouldn't that require changing the rules?

...or As someone else suggested (sorry, don't remember who or where) make it something like Engineering (ship), Engineering(civil), Engineering(military) and I forget what else they recommended. Simpler changes that seem to make less ripples through the rules.

Allowing double occupancy for junior crew would make even less ripples (I think). If having several NPC engineers (and several NPC stewards!) is undesirable, provide ways for free traders to manage with unprofessional levels of engineering skills (mail-order certifications or even false papers) so a single engineer can cover everything.


Hans
Just my thoughts. Take them or tear them apart.[/QUOTE]

 

[McPerth]

it should not be so difficult.

I guess you didn't use MgT CharGen for this one...

 

[atpollard]

I guess you didn't use MgT CharGen for this one...

That, and he still doesn't qualify as the Engineer on a free trader (let alone one of up to 5? Specialist Engineers.)

There was actually something in the old CT Advanced Education rules (in JTAS) that is applicable to the Engineer (specialist) vs Mechanical/Electronics aspect of this discussion. IIRC, a character with a Degree in Engineering received a +2 to rolls to DIAGNOSE a problem. Perhaps an Engineer diagnoses what is wrong and a mechanic can fix it.

Just an idea to toss into the pot.

 

[flykiller]

I guess you didn't use MgT CharGen for this one...

you are correct. I meant it to be an example only. I will delete the post.

 

[Marchand]

At the risk of straying into another contentious area, what about repair robots and expert systems running Mechanic / Engineer? For those unhappy with the one engineer minimum in the rules, a requirement could be imposed that the engineer be supplemented with robotic assistance to whatever amount the ref felt appropriate.

 

[CosmicGamer]

But if I think the rules are broken, why shouldn't I say so?

It's one thing to say a rule is broken and the rule states "1+1=3"

If there is a rule that is perfectly fine for the author, publisher, Mark, and others it can be taken as a call to arms if you (as in someone - at this point I'm just having a general discussion and I'm not saying you did or didn't do something in the past) say the rule is broken vs saying you disagree with it and discuss why and changes you'd make.

It's a subtle thing. The difference between support or being against something and saying something is right or wrong/broken.

I very well may use wording that can be too aggressive in pointing out other parts of the rules that support the rules in question and explaining different interpretations of the rules that someone may not have thought of but when someone seams to take offense I'm quick to say I'm just trying to understand their position, make sure they are aware of all the rules and implications of changing them, and support their doing whatever they want to enjoy the game and have fun.

Regardless of whether they do make sense or not?

I specifically said point out the ways they make sense - at least to me. I don't just say it's right because it's the rules.

But wouldn't that require changing the rules?

I like to understand all the reasoning behind why, but ultimately I support people changing the rules for their TU. I don't support people who indicate their way is right and others are wrong. Again, general discussion - not saying you did or didn't do this.

I enjoy discussing things but I fear some of our comments are a bit off topic and I apologize if it is to some peoples dislike. If rancke wishes to respond, I'll let them have the last word and try to keep my future posts in this thread on point.

Allowing double occupancy for junior crew would make even less ripples

Double occupancy staterooms are discussed in the rules.

In some starships (especially exploratory vessels, military ships, and privately-owned starships) staterooms can be double occupied.

Just remember

Life Support 3,000 for double occupancy

vs 2.000Cr

Hot bunking is also something to consider. It even addresses the Engineering issue specifically.

Additional crew to fully man the vessel (usually more engineers and gunners) can only be borne on a “hot bunking” basis and is not recommended for extended operations.

The rules are not specific so the cost of life support for hot bunking is open to personal interpretation.

 

[CosmicGamer]

At the risk of straying into another contentious area, what about repair robots and expert systems running Mechanic / Engineer? For those unhappy with the one engineer minimum in the rules, a requirement could be imposed that the engineer be supplemented with robotic assistance to whatever amount the ref felt appropriate.

I think they could be useful no matter what your crewing level preference is and mentioned it in post #7 of this thread.

Some people think (my interpretation of their post) that having bots replace crew takes us down a slippery slope (my words).

The concept of concern is that the game needs to be centered on the characters and if a ships could be operated by auto pilots, repair drones, astrogation and weapons targeting programs, an auto doc, combat drones for repelling boarders, a Servitor bot for steward and so on why would ships need the imperfect fleshy things.

EDIT: wait - don't need the auto doc and servitor bot if there are no walking water bags on board

 

[JimMarn]

I must disagree in those engineering specialties: while I can see military (if I understand it right mostly fortification) and civilian (again, if I understant it right, mostly construction) engineering related, ship engineering (in all its spacialties) is an enterily different thing, relating mostly to power plant and drives use. IMHO, to give a military engineer skill level 0 in civilian engineering could be right, but to give any of them ship engineering at 0 not (and vice-versa).

As I said already some times, I see the enlarged crew needs (engineering specialties included) in MgT logical, and probably more believable than the reduced crews CT/MT used, but less game-wise, as you either have a larger party or rely on NPCs if you want your players to be the crew of a ship. And I agree with Hans in that if ships have enlarged crew needs, they must have larger quarters for them.

Of course, YMMV in both points...

SeaBees, US Navy, build everything; bridges, buildings like schools, bunkers, install telephone lines, etc.

I don't know much about the engineers in the US Army... from what I know they do those things to.

Both are good at taking out roadblocks and blocking enemy vehicles and troops with large holes in the road and taking out enemy bunkers and emplacements.

I've watched civilian engineer shows on television. One is about making big things. They build lots of different types of buildings, roads, etc.

I'm sure I've missed a number of things they can do.