The (D)Evolution of the Piloting Skill

[Nathan Brazil]

Houston Mission Control: You are good to go Jupiter.
Major Don West: Thank you, Control.
Major Don West: And then the monkey flips the switch.

---Lost in Space, 1998​

What were the rationale for having varying number of skills to to represent moving space vehicles?
Back in the beginning (CT/MT) there were two: Pilot and Ship's Boat
Then it became one (TNE): Pilot (Interface/Grav)
Then it changed (MgT) to three: Pilot (Capital Ships), Pilot (Small Craft), Pilot (Spacecraft)
In OGL (Cepheus Engine) one is used : Pilot

Between games, sure publisher/version difference. It looks like they were broken down between:
Jump Drive - (Yes or No or Doesn't Matter)
Size - (Category or Doesn't Matter) Which intersects with Jump Drive (Yes or No) sometimes.

But what were the rationale within the versions? Ship design / positions / salaries are impacted by these breakdowns.
Is Jump Drive knowledge and procedures really that important to warrant a separate skill or is it as simple as "monkey flips the switch"?
The same with size breakdowns.

I use Wheeled Vehicle as a comparison. The are differences to be sure (sub-compact vs. 18 wheeler, stick vs. auto, deisel vs.std. gasoline), but are glossed over into one skill

 

[coliver988]

My thoughts are that part of the increase or decrease is in the rule set: basic Traveller had minimal skills really, and honestly I think the jump/non-jump is misleading: I think it is the 100dTon difference, that is, the size of the ship. But that is my opinion (pretty sure it is probably easier flying a sub-100 ton craft than a 100+ one, though honestly, it is mostly a monkey flipping the switch depending on your views of automation).

So rule sets that had skill explosions broke things down more and gave more skills out and made skills more specific. Mongoose I think just really like cascading skills (although if you get any of those piloting skills you do have the others at 0. You are just specializing).

So wonder if a comparison to total skills available vs the pilot cascade would have any correlation?

Note: I am not a rules heavy person so never really analyze them. I just want to play make believe with my friends in a shared universe (or more)

 

[mike wightman]

I agree - it is to do with skill bloat.

It is also a bugbear of mine when you look at how different rulesets have handled application of those skills.

In CT you needed a qualified pilot - but someone with JoT skill will do in a pinch - to fly to the jump point, no roll needed.

You load the correct jump programs - no roll required.

You jump - no roll required unless you are using unrefined fuel in civilian ship.

Compare that with GT, GT:ISW, MgT and a few others.

Roll to pilot, roll to navigate, roll to polish the jump umbrella, roll to charge jump drive, roll to enter jump, roll to stay in jump, roll to avoid jump... ok so I am exaggerating a tad.

Thing is the way that probability works is every roll you have to make will make the likelihood of a task chain failing increase.

I stick with pilot for craft 100t+ and ship's boat for smallcraft.

 

[Grav_Moped]

...
Roll to pilot, roll to navigate, roll to polish the jump umbrella, roll to charge jump drive, roll to enter jump, roll to stay in jump, roll to avoid jump... ok so I am exaggerating a tad.

If you fail the roll to avoid jump, apply DMs for configuration and armor and consult the jump table on page... wait, it's not there. Where is it?

Thing is the way that probability works is every roll you have to make will make the likelihood of a task chain failing increase.

Exactly. And this has significant and possibly unanticipated effects on the game universe. As you point out, in CT if you did everything by the book (right fuel, outside 100D limit, current on maintenance) when you hit the GO button, you went -- and got where you were headed, period. With some of the later rules, doing it by the book still leaves a chance that something will go wrong. This means that ships have to be designed to recover from misjumps (extra fuel, low berths, etc.) and the odds of losses need to be factored into financing, fleet planning, and more.

I get that the chained tasks are good for increasing player involvement, but... yeah. If success is guaranteed, why roll? If it's not, it's changed the nature of Jump.

I stick with pilot for craft 100t+ and ship's boat for smallcraft.

Agreed.

 

[chipla]

So I’ve only really ever played Mongoose (one and two) so I don’t have practical experience of other systems (despite owning T4 and MegaTrav for years) but I don’t necessarily see having a wide range of skills as a bad thing.

Looking specifically at piloting in Mongoose 2nd ed you have three specialities in the pilot skill. Each refers to a size bracket - while there are commonalities (represented as having pilot 0 in all pilots if you have pilot 1+ in one) being a genius fighter pilot probably isn’t going to help you pilot a battleship to the same standard. While the divisions are somewhat arbitrary they feel ‘right’ differing small craft from adventure class and big ships.

As for the number of skill rolls I think that’s more a GM thing than a system thing. The rules for task time variance (at least in Mongoose) allow players to take their time to do mundane tasks - got an hour to the 100D limit use the time to make your astrogation roll 2+ (meaning no roll) same with any task without a time constraint. I certainly don’t make my players roll for landing their ship (unless they want to be fast or fancy or there’s a hazard) and the only reason I make them roll for jump is because I’m using the variance rules from the Traveller Companion where their effects equate to accuracy and time. That said if there is a reason that they’d need to roll having a variety of skills on their sheets can help my players sort out their options.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Mike, chipla, both your observations have validity. Those are a meta outside the universe reasons for we the players.I suppose I am looking for in-universe rationale to justify RAW.

Another cinematic example is Carmen Ibanez from from the Starship Troopers movie. She represents a counterpoint. She apparently can fly a small craft like a crazy person through the Lunar Defense Ring, yet operating the Roger Young she seems to have more to do, formally. Follow speed limits in port, read sensors, make flight navigation plans, do special procedures (break glass for emergency thrust), and flip the switch ("In three, Ready, Steady, Go!") or two for FTL.

Agent of the Imperium seems a good OTU example of flip the switch. The fleets have to cycle/tune the Jump Drives to all arrive at the same location with little variance in arrival times. But that seems to be an Engineer or Engineer (J-Drive) task.

Skill bloat reduction is always an admirable goal, allowing players to do more. It can get extreme. My favorite example of this is Vortex System (Dr. Who, Primeval, etc.). Vortex only has 12 skills. Craft skill covers everything from baking cakes to making traps. Transport skill covers everything from operating spacecraft down to sailboats, and so on...

OTOH

There was Ringworld RPG where specialization was just plain craaazy. Don't like the nuance of a skill, make up a new one!

 

[aramis]

I see both the meta reasons and a few realism ones...

Meta: Mongoose gives 1,5x as many sklls as CT basic average. So do CT Expanded, MT Basic or expanded. TNE gives about 2.5x CT.

Meta: differentiation by size makes for interesting play situations.

Realistic: Moment arm of rotation. A small craft at 15m long compensating 2G can change facing at about 93°/sec. The Beowolf at ~42m gets rooughly 49°s with the same 2G compensation. A 2kt should be about 2.15x as long, so a nice round 90 for quick calcs, and gets 38°deg;/sec, and the 20k is around 194m long, getting about 26°/sec...
the various other handling issues can justify the differences a bit. Also, the stress is an issue with the larger craft

Kind of like the difference between a modernized refit DHC2 Beaver, a Bombardier Q400 , and an Airbus A300...
8 vs 90 vs 350 passengers, There are things a Beaver can do that neither the Q400 nor A300 dare even try, things the Q400 & beaver can but the A300 cannot, and the reverse in both cases...

 

[Condottiere]

It does take an eighteen wheeler a tad longer to break than a moped.

For Mongoose, it's related to size; smallcraft have advantages in manoeuvring.

Carmen is just a gifted and natural pilot.

However, once you have Pilot Zero, you can fly any spacecraft, just not well.

 

[whartung]

It does take an eighteen wheeler a tad longer to break than a moped.

So that's an interesting quandary.

A moped has much less momentum, and braking is tied the physics of traction of the combination of brakes and tires and roadway. Because if either the truck or moped hits the same immovable object at the same speed, they're both going to stop in the same amount of time.

But if you have a ship with 1G drive, whether it's small or large, that 1G is designed to accelerate that ships mass at 1G.

Whether you have a motorcycle with 6G of acceleration or a 500k DTon freighter, they're both going to do "the quarter mile" is essentially the same time.

The motors and thrusters apply the acceleration and deceleration, they're not limited to the tractive properties of the mating surfaces.

This is why agility is the ratio of excess power rather than mass on a ship design.

If you're the pilot in the chair with the joystick, that 1G will maneuver your ships boat equally as well as your large cruise liner. Hold the stick to the left for X seconds, wait Y seconds, and then hold it to the right for X seconds again, will point both ships in the same direction in the same amount of time. The mass falls out, there's no "lumbering" here. No rudders fighting water or tires fighting pavement.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It does take an eighteen wheeler a tad longer to break than a moped...

It's a scooter, not a dang moped!
... but yeah, you gotta replace the transmission belt every 5000 miles.

 

[Drakon]

Real world licensing for air craft break down into several types. Single Engined Powered Land is one such license. Most of the options are obvious, Single versus multiple engine, powered versus glider, or helicopter, or balloon. And land rating does not give you the ability to land a sea plane on the water.

You also have a differentiation between Sport, Private, Commercial, and ATP. Airline Transport Pilot are what you need to fly the large commercial aircraft

And there is also instrument and visual ratings. Aircraft type and hours experience is also important. It's a bit complicated in the real world too.

 

[atpollard]

Functionally, the “small craft” is typically operated within almost visual range of the start point and destination. Orbit to surface, planet to moon, ship to ship orbital transfer. While a small craft could travel to a Gas Giant, the flight duration is typically closer to 8 hours. In an “aircraft” or “watercraft” analogy that would be comparable to flying visually, or operating a fishing boat that returns to port at the end of each shift.

Functionally, the “starship” is operated beyond visual range of the start point and destination for most of the trip. World to outer system or orbit to jump limit. Once one calculates the jump limit of many stars, the trip from planetary orbit to jump could take days. In an “aircraft” or “watercraft” analogy that would be comparable to flying by instruments only or charting your position across the ocean.

There seems some “real world” and “game world” justification for Ship’s Boat and Pilot being two different skills.

 

[Condottiere]

As I understand the Airbus cockpit interface fly by wire or whatever technical term they have, they're supposed to be mostly the same across all models, which is what got Boeing in trouble trying to implement it in the MAX.

Well, mostly; the MAX in particular, and Boeing in general, have other issues.

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between the 220, the 320, and the 380.

Going by MongoVerse Second, it seems to have less to do with the physical controls, and more with the handling of spaceship categories, being smallcraft, small, and five kay tonne plus capital.

 

[aramis]

So that's an interesting quandary.

A moped has much less momentum, and braking is tied the physics of traction of the combination of brakes and tires and roadway. Because if either the truck or moped hits the same immovable object at the same speed, they're both going to stop in the same amount of time.

But if you have a ship with 1G drive, whether it's small or large, that 1G is designed to accelerate that ships mass at 1G.

Whether you have a motorcycle with 6G of acceleration or a 500k DTon freighter, they're both going to do "the quarter mile" is essentially the same time.

The motors and thrusters apply the acceleration and deceleration, they're not limited to the tractive properties of the mating surfaces.

This is why agility is the ratio of excess power rather than mass on a ship design.

If you're the pilot in the chair with the joystick, that 1G will maneuver your ships boat equally as well as your large cruise liner. Hold the stick to the left for X seconds, wait Y seconds, and then hold it to the right for X seconds again, will point both ships in the same direction in the same amount of time. The mass falls out, there's no "lumbering" here. No rudders fighting water or tires fighting pavement.

The limitation on rotational change is a huge factor in a number of ways. DGP tried to negate this a lot with the all axis partial thrust of T-plates, and the maxiimum 400% overthrust... but without that dodge, the maximum safe rate of turn for the frame and the people need to be accounted for. as I said before, it's a function of moment arm and mass... and smashing the crew against the bulkheads isn't good for performance.

Also, the semi and the car hit the immovable object at the same speed, they do NOT take the same time to stop... the car collapses to its final position before the end of the semi does. the front of both stops immediately, but the back ends don't, and that takes time as their kinetic energy of forward motion turns into a mix of heat and sideways motion, plus some elastic rebound.

 

[chipla]

Mike, chipla, both your observations have validity. Those are a meta outside the universe reasons for we the players.

The system that one decides to use is an entirely meta one but I get your meaning.

IMTU I’ve somewhat copied the idea of certifications from this Freelance Traveller article https://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/rules/chardet/ratings.html (posting on phone so I dunno if that links properly) and modified them to fit what I want to do with the setting and to Mongoose 2nd. I see the breakdown of Pilot and Engineer in particular as licences and certifications for different size ships and different ship systems.

A pilot of a shuttle that makes two trips hauling cargo to a worlds highport and back everyday has differing necessities than the pilot of a free trader that has to worry about the effects of jump stresses or operating beyond the 100D limit of a world who has differing necessities than the coxswain of a battleship. The division of the pilot skill into three subskills shows how each pilot can handle each set of necessities. The same with the Engineering skill divisions, while any engineer can work on any system (at skill 0) the subskills show what the engineer is especially good at (and IMTU what they are certified to work on)

 

[whartung]

The limitation on rotational change is a huge factor in a number of ways. DGP tried to negate this a lot with the all axis partial thrust of T-plates, and the maxiimum 400% overthrust... but without that dodge, the maximum safe rate of turn for the frame and the people need to be accounted for. as I said before, it's a function of moment arm and mass... and smashing the crew against the bulkheads isn't good for performance.

Well, that's the thing. The rules really don't take the physics and material science of the structures in to account. Light up 6Gs on to something the size of an oil tanker, and there will be consequences. RAW, you can have a 500K dTon rectangular prism shaped ship with the Agility rating of a 10 ton fighter.

Also, the semi and the car hit the immovable object at the same speed, they do NOT take the same time to stop.

They do if they're going sideways...

 

[aramis]

Well, that's the thing. The rules really don't take the physics and material science of the structures in to account. Light up 6Gs on to something the size of an oil tanker, and there will be consequences. RAW, you can have a 500K dTon rectangular prism shaped ship with the Agility rating of a 10 ton fighter.



They do if they're going sideways...

Semis are still wider.

 

[Grav_Moped]

...They do if they're going sideways...

And that's a wrap.


...around a bridge abutment.

 

[atpollard]

As long as we want to worry about minutia, at 60 mph a motorbike will take 240 feet stopping distance. At 60 mph a loaded Tractor-trailer will need about 360 feet stopping distance, however without a heavy load in the trailer it could stop in less than 180 feet (how much less depends on the weight of the empty trailer).

 

[flykiller]

smallcraft have advantages in manoeuvring

in what way does a small craft with (say) agility 4 have an advantage in maneuvering over a 10k dton ship with agility 4?