Rules Only: The economics of crew skills

[DaltonSpence]

It seems like the different rule sets have different requirements. Could someone make up a table so we can more easily see which rules apply for each official rule set? Mixing and matching them obviously won't work unless you are using your own custom setting with custom rules.

Dalton “there has never been just one canon” Spence​

 

[robject]

It seems like the different rule sets have different requirements. Could someone make up a table so we can more easily see which rules apply for each official rule set? Mixing and matching them obviously won't work unless you are using your own custom setting with custom rules.

We can try. I can try.

GENERALLY, the prebuilt iconic starships for all of the following rulesets have comparable crew requirements (plus or minus). The crew requirement rules for CT, GURPS, Mongoose, and T5 are similar, while the crew requirement rules for MT, TNE, and T4 are very similar. MT's rules are heavier formulas than CT, and I think are calibrated to more or less work with small starships as well as huge ones.


LBB2 1977 p16
One person may fill two crew positions, providing he has expertise to otherwise allow him to perform the work. However, because of the added burden placed upon him, he is unable to apply his expertise to the position (that is to say, he is not allowed expertise DMs in either position).

LBB2 1981 p16
One person may fill two crew positions, providing he or she has the skill to otherwise perform the work. However, because of the added burden, each position is filled with skill minus one [...]; thus, to fill two positions, the character must have at least skill level-2 in each (except steward: level-1).

TTB p61
One person may fill two crew positions, providing he or she has the skills needed for both jobs. However, because of the added burden, each position is filled with skill minus one [...]; thus, to fill two positions, the character must have skill level 2 in each, except steward, which requires level 1. No person may assume the duties of more than two crew positions except in the case of an emergency.

Starter Traveller, page 33.
One person may fill two crew positions, if he or she has the skills needed for both jobs. However, because of the added burden, each position is filled with skill minus one [...]. Thus, to fill two positions, the character must have skill level 2 in each, except steward, which requires level 1. No person may assume the duties of more than two crew positions except in the case of an emergency.


MegaTraveller Imperial Encyclopedia, p90
I didn't find any obvious rules for running two skills at the same time, although there's likely a mechanic for it.


TNE, p222
No obvious rule about crew running two positions. I'm sure there's something in there somewhere.


Traveller 4th
No obvious rule about crew running two positions.


GURPS (Classic)
Page 171: Smaller vessels often have the same crewman performing multiple roles. If a crew member is filling multiple positions during a particular space combat round, he will suffer a -2 penalty on all skill rolls for each extra task he is performing. [...] A ship with more than two crew engaged in the above tasks should also have one captain who does nothing but give orders – if not, the GM can apply an extra -1 penalty to everyone’s skill rolls!


Traveller D20
I can't find anything obvious.


Mongoose 2e
Ships of less than 1,000 tons can, in theory, be run by just one or two multi-skilled people but the ship will be at a serious disadvantage in high-stress situations such as combat. The crewman acting as pilot will likely be kept busy in the cockpit, actually flying the ship, while the other will find their attention split between engineering, damage control and the weapon systems – a quick look at the Crew Duties section ... will quickly demonstrate how inefficient this will prove to be.

(The Crew Duties section is fairly standard Traveller for itemizing crew requirements)


Traveller 5th Edition (2018)
p61. Crew Structure Can Be Adapted For Ship Size. On small ships, some crew members occupy two positions: pilot/astrogator, engineer/gunner, sensor tech/steward. Many positions are omitted or consolidated. With automation, a ship crew can be as small as one person.

 

[robject]

I think you broke your own argument.
I've already demonstrated how it works.
I even used fill in the blank to demonstrate how it works in actual practice.

Still waiting for a ping return of comprehension to what has been presented as demonstrably obvious as possible.

I'll do the fill-in-the-blank rule, and I'll do it with a twist.

Khaalo has Engineer-3. She is going to fill the role of the two engineers aboard a trader.

The rule: two positions, at skill minus one for each position.

She allocates Engineer-2 to position A. Thus she operates here at Engineer-1.
She allocates Engineer-1 to position B. Thus she operates here at Engineer-0. <-- she can't do it.

This is exactly how it would work if instead she filled the roles of Engineer and Pilot:

She allocates Engineer-3 to position E. Thus she operates at Engineer-2.
She allocates Pilot-2 to position P. Thus she operates at Pilot-1.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The rule: two positions, at skill minus one for each position.

She allocates Engineer-2 to position A. Thus she operates here at Engineer-1.
She allocates Engineer-1 to position B. Thus she operates here at Engineer-0. <-- she can't do it.

3-1 = 2 for position A.
3-1 = 2 for position B.

You don't "spend" skill levels on crew positions like spending currency at the market to buy things (or into the pot with poker chips).
That's akin to saying that once you equip a revolver onto your person, you no longer have any Gun Combat skill to spare for using a rifle. You've "spent" your Gun Combat skill on the revolver you have equipped and now your skill is "gone" or "all used up" because you've got a revolver on your hip and that takes precedence.

Give me a break.

If you take more than one position onboard a ship, that doesn't reduce your inherent skill. Taking more than one position doesn't "use up" your skill levels in a transactional way. You don't "expend" skill levels on each role like tallying up expenses to find out whether or not you've overdrawn your credit limit.

 

[Condottiere]

Like I said, multi tasking can be more a character multi skilled, able to perform those tasks at a reasonable schedule that don't interfere with each other, and therefore no depreciation of levels.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB2 assumes a gunner in the turret.

That was the topic under discussion, yes.

LBB5 assumes a gunner controls an entire battery of turrets (often times, more than 1 turret per battery).

LBB2, not LBB5, was under discussion, so that is irrelevant.

And manual loading of missiles?
Please.
These aren't TL=5 submarines.
By the time you get to TL=7+ you get autoloaders.

Yet that is what LBB2 very specifically states. We can of course speculate that LBB5 warships have dedicated magazines and autoloaders, but LBB2-style civilians with retrofitted launchers in standard turret mounts have to schlep missiles manually from the hold, but that is not specifically stated in the rules or canon.

So, all current missile-systems feature autoloaders? Like fighter jest? MRLS? Bazookas?

What's the rate of fire? 10 missiles per minute?

Or perhaps an anti-ship missile:

Where's the autoloader?

Uh ... because Unarmed Combat could, you know ... happen?

As I expect you understood, I referred to armed attacks. But understanding that would get in the way of you rant, wouldn't it?

Um ... munchkin much with your rules lawyering ad absurdum?
Also, your objections are transparently ludicrous.

You, complaining about rules lawyering? Ha.

As you apparently understood fully well I was using reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the fault in the argument that as LBB2 does not specifically require a gunner to be in the turret, conscious, and actively performing the task, then no gunner is needed at all.

 

[whulorigan]

3-1 = 2 for position A.
3-1 = 2 for position B.

You don't "spend" skill levels on crew positions like spending currency at the market to buy things (or into the pot with poker chips).
That's akin to saying that once you equip a revolver onto your person, you no longer have any Gun Combat skill to spare for using a rifle. You've "spent" your Gun Combat skill on the revolver you have equipped and now your skill is "gone" or "all used up" because you've got a revolver on your hip and that takes precedence.

Give me a break.

If you take more than one position onboard a ship, that doesn't reduce your inherent skill. Taking more than one position doesn't "use up" your skill levels in a transactional way. You don't "expend" skill levels on each role like tallying up expenses to find out whether or not you've overdrawn your credit limit.

I have to agree with Spinward Flow here. The reduction in skill for filling two positions is supposed to be representative of the fact that a person trying to juggle two things at once will be distracted and not fully focused on one task, leading to a reduction in overall efficiency. It is not that his actual training and learning is getting "parceled-out" among different tasks. A person with Engineer-2 filling two engineering positions has his full knowledge base of engineering training (level-2) for all engineering-related tasks, but is only efficiently operating at either task as Engineering-1 because he is doing multiple things at once, not because he has to parcel-out and spread around a finite pool of Engineering-2 knowledge and dedicate or allocate it to multiple tasks.

 

[kilemall]

Missile schlepping is canon in the Missile Supplement, the missiles are defined as to size, the case they reside in prior to loading, and how many can fit in a dton space, plus reload/time rates.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

GENERALLY, the prebuilt iconic starships for all of the following rulesets have comparable crew requirements (plus or minus). The crew requirement rules for CT, GURPS, Mongoose, and T5 are similar, while the crew requirement rules for MT, TNE, and T4 are very similar. MT's rules are heavier formulas than CT, and I think are calibrated to more or less work with small starships as well as huge ones.

MT and similar crew requirements are LBB5 crew requirements, war game style. You must have exactly X crew, or you can basically not do anything. Note LBB5 is CT, so this is not a question of CT against other editions.

LBB2 crew requirements are RPG style; you should have X crew, but if you don't have that then something happens. E.g. you should have X engineers, but if you don't have that, you get a breakdown roll every week.

T5 is completely different in that it does not have crew formulae, just a console requirement, and no specific requirement that consoles be manned. The Free Trader is still 200 Dt and described as having crew of 5, but that is just custom, not based on a hard rule.

Mongoose 2E is in the middle, with LBB5 style crew formulae, but LBB2 style consequences for not having enough crew, and some T5 vagueness, such as large ships can reduce crew (as crew formulae are, eh, generous), if the Referee deems it reasonable.

Both T5 and Mongoose are reasonably good at describing what people do in space craft, especially combat, so that we can see what a smaller that standard crew can do, and can't do.


The very foundation is:

LBB2'77, p16:
Generally, specific jobs or tasks require crew members to perform them.

And, hence, if you don't have a crew member in the right place, at the right time, the task isn't getting done.


In all systems, since the first robot rules in JTAS, crew can be automated, so, if you want to go that route, ships need no meat crew at all.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Missile schlepping is canon in the Missile Supplement, the missiles are defined as to size, the case they reside in prior to loading, and how many can fit in a dton space, plus reload/time rates.

Quite, but that is conspicuously absent from LBB5, missile systems just fire every round for days without interruptions or ammo shortages. Hence the speculation about autoloaders...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Missile schlepping is canon in the Missile Supplement

The Missile Supplement also basically doubled down on the idea of missile turrets having way too much in common with muzzle loading cannons served by crews of multiple people (one guy loads the powder, another loads the ball, another guy rams it all home, another guy holds the match, another guy fills up the bucket with water...).

Now, I'll readily grant the notion that while a turret that has to expend physical ordnance can't be fired while the turret is "busy" reloading ... but I'm not convinced that such reloading has to be done by hand, manually, by the gunner. Again, these aren't TL=5 craft ... and that is triply true at TL=15 ...

Quite, but that is conspicuously absent from LBB5, missile systems just fire every round for days without interruptions or ammo shortages

To be fair, LBB5.80 ship to ship combat isn't going to be lasting for days without interruptions.
At 3 combat rounds per hour, you're looking at 72 combat rounds per 24 hours.
Most ships actively engaged in combat aren't going to last that long under fire ... some might, but most won't. Most craft will be a mission kill/disabled LONG before you get to the 24 hours of continuous combat mark.

Also, LBB5.80 altered the planetary bombardment rule such that only Missile Bays can bombard planets ... Turrets are "too small for the job" of planetary bombardment under LBB5.80, hence why the whole Missile Magazine rule from LBB5.79 got dropped in favor of a more simplified and abstract system.

Hence the speculation about autoloaders...

Autoloaders for missiles and sandcasters just make way too much sense in a TL=7+ context.
Hand loading of turrets during combat is just ... dumb.
Gunners have more important things to do during combat than get up out of their chair and bucket brigade ammo to the launcher by hand.

Besides ... what if they drop one?
Or several?

Seriously, let the automation do that job. It's not THAT complicated, and the sophont has more important things to be doing than schlepping ammo.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To be fair, LBB5.80 ship to ship combat isn't going to be lasting for days without interruptions.

An LBB5 engagement can easily last for days. Ever try fighting TL-12 missile rocks? Or TL-15 missile frigates?
Without useless designs or enough spinals, the default is for fights to last a long time, most hits can be repaired.

Autoloaders for missiles and sandcasters just make way too much sense in a TL=7+ context.
Hand loading of turrets during combat is just ... dumb.

Sure, now retrofit the autoloader fed by a belt from the cargo hold of a Free Trader, without rebuilding the ship or constraining cargo or passenger capacity. Note that the missile rack presumably has an autoloader, loading from the ready reserve in the turret.

Or simply fit a standard turret into a standard hardpoint with just a power and data connector. Why would a civilian ever need more than 640 kB nine missiles anyway? If you have launched a turret-load of missiles and the target is still firing you should not be in that fight...

Reloading is done between fights, or in exceptional circumstances in the fight.

Note that the turret isn't unable to fire while loading, but the gunner is unable to fire. In a MBS turret he can choose to load munitions, or fire the laser.


As far as I can see most current missile systems are hand-loaded between fights, with each missile rail holding a single missile. Once you have exhausted your missile rails you go hide, or fly back to base, and reload manually. I guess we are at TL-7 and just dumb...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Note that the turret isn't unable to fire while loading, but the gunner is unable to fire.

 

[kilemall]

The Missile Supplement also basically doubled down on the idea of missile turrets having way too much in common with muzzle loading cannons served by crews of multiple people (one guy loads the powder, another loads the ball, another guy rams it all home, another guy holds the match, another guy fills up the bucket with water...).

Now, I'll readily grant the notion that while a turret that has to expend physical ordnance can't be fired while the turret is "busy" reloading ... but I'm not convinced that such reloading has to be done by hand, manually, by the gunner. Again, these aren't TL=5 craft ... and that is triply true at TL=15 ...

To be fair, LBB5.80 ship to ship combat isn't going to be lasting for days without interruptions.
At 3 combat rounds per hour, you're looking at 72 combat rounds per 24 hours.
Most ships actively engaged in combat aren't going to last that long under fire ... some might, but most won't. Most craft will be a mission kill/disabled LONG before you get to the 24 hours of continuous combat mark.

Also, LBB5.80 altered the planetary bombardment rule such that only Missile Bays can bombard planets ... Turrets are "too small for the job" of planetary bombardment under LBB5.80, hence why the whole Missile Magazine rule from LBB5.79 got dropped in favor of a more simplified and abstract system.

Autoloaders for missiles and sandcasters just make way too much sense in a TL=7+ context.
Hand loading of turrets during combat is just ... dumb.

I have no problem with this perspective, but please note that you’ve been arguing what the RAW is and beat upon people over and over, issue after issue, to support your interpretation. Here we have a RAW that is gunner powder monkey, specific gunner per rack and time, and that is the rule. So by your legitimacy standards, no auto loading for the small missiles/turrets and that’s that.

So could you in the future have the good grace to recognize that other people have legitimate perspectives that may not match yours and lay off the dripping sarcasm and smug superiority tone?

PS- I designed autoloading robots to handle this. Pretty handy.

 

[robject]

You don't "spend" skill levels on crew positions like spending currency at the market to buy things (or into the pot with poker chips).
That's akin to saying that once you equip a revolver onto your person, you no longer have any Gun Combat skill to spare for using a rifle. You've "spent" your Gun Combat skill on the revolver you have equipped and now your skill is "gone" or "all used up" because you've got a revolver on your hip and that takes precedence.

Give me a break.

If you take more than one position onboard a ship, that doesn't reduce your inherent skill. Taking more than one position doesn't "use up" your skill levels in a transactional way. You don't "expend" skill levels on each role like tallying up expenses to find out whether or not you've overdrawn your credit limit.

Yes, but you're using one character to cover two positions in the same role. Thus you only lose 1 level of skill, whereas mixed roles lose 2, and therefore this is a cheat.

That it feels like an abuse, then "Give me a break" is exactly my reaction. All of the examples we've seen in print are mixed roles, and we all know exactly why -- positions on small starships must be filled somehow, especially the Scout and the Free Trader.

One person may fill two crew positions, if he or she has the skills needed for both jobs.

"Skills" is plural and "if" is used, and we therefore know exactly the intent of this rule: this is for filling different crew positions.


Okay, let's see if I can reductio ad absurdum in a different way.

1. Dashulinta Sharakkannik has Steward-1.
2. He can therefore operate as two stewards at Steward-0.
3. Thus you only need one Steward-1 for each 16 high passengers.

I've never seen this obvious exploit published. Your application of the rule smells fishy to me.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So could you in the future have the good grace to recognize that other people have legitimate perspectives that may not match yours

When those perspectives hold legitimacy ... sure, no problem.
When those perspectives are prima facie larded up with obvious DERP and FAIL ... um, no thanks, I'll pass on lending legitimacy to those perspectives.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I've never seen this obvious exploit published

Exploit is the wrong word.

Exploit (v): to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

you're using one character to cover two positions in the same role. That feels like an abuse

However it's NOT an "exploit" to have one character cover two positions in two DIFFERENT roles.
The only "exploit" is having one character cover two positions in the SAME role.

Since when is being good enough at your job to be able to do more of it than the bare minimum qualified skilled worker considered to be an exploit?

All of the examples we've seen in print are mixed roles, and we all know exactly why

Because doing two DIFFERENT jobs simultaneously is "perfectly okay" but doing the SAME job twice over simultaneously to get more out of your higher skill level is an "exploit" ... right?

Are you even thinking about what you're saying here?
Multi-task: Different is perfectly fine ... Multi-task: Same HARRUMPH!!

If anything, the opposite should be true.
Multi-position in the same crew role is EASIER than multi-position in different crew roles. After all, you only need ONE skillset above minimum 1 instead of TWO skillsets above minimum-1!

I've never seen this

Maybe because no one asked the question before (and found the answer you weren't expecting, perhaps)?

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done.
It doesn't even mean it's "against the rules" ... it's just a further interpretation of the rules that already exist and have existed for decades.

Or are you trying to assert that everything Traveller has already been found/discovered and there's nothing new for anyone to ever think about ever again (hello, dead game)?

Just because no one thought of it before doesn't mean that no one can think of it ever.
Even in "old" games like Traveller, there is still room for and scope for discovery, you just have to look for it ... and appreciate those discoveries when you find them.

Then again, there's the mildly famous saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Some gamers are simply too set in their ways to accept innovations and alternatives to "the way it's always been done."

Tradition is fine ... until it stops being or serving a useful purpose.
Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Condottiere]

I'm pretty sure that if airliners hired experienced flight attendants with steward/three, they only need one per hundred forty nine passengers, instead of three.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You apparently failed to understand the obvious inference: The conventional way of solving this problem is to add a loader in addition to the gunner. We might as usual need a bigger turret, but so what?

Note that the turret isn't unable to fire while loading, but the gunner is unable to fire. In a MBS turret he can choose to load munitions, or fire the laser.

 

[whartung]

Because doing two DIFFERENT jobs simultaneously is "perfectly okay" but doing the SAME job twice over simultaneously to get more out of your higher skill level is an "exploit" ... right?

Just to be clear.

Are you saying a Steward-1 can replace 2 Steward-0s?