Rules Only: The economics of crew skills

[Grav_Moped]

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?

In the other interpretation, a gunner-2 can fire missiles while reloading, but only as a gunner-1 since he's acting as both the gunner and the gunner's mate.

Then again, under the -1 per additional role interpretation I suppose a gunner-3 actually could do that, but I'm not convinced that's even possible as the rules seem to describe the task.

As a separate question, it's one gunner per turret, not per weapons system, right? This means one gunner theoretically could launch a missile, fire a laser, and pop off a sandcaster round in the same turn, as long as all three were aimed at the same ship (and perhaps the ordnance launched from it)?

 

[Spinward Flow]

As a separate question, it's one gunner per turret, not per weapons system, right?

Under LBB2.81, the correct answer is YES.

This means one gunner theoretically could launch a missile, fire a laser, and pop off a sandcaster round in the same turn, as long as all three were aimed at the same ship (and perhaps the ordnance launched from it)?

ONLY from mixed turrets.
A Gunner under LBB2.81 can fire all the weapons in a single turret, and mixed turrets have multiple weapon types per turret (hence, mixed).

Extending that to LBB5.80 and the concept of batteries (which is completely foreign to LBB2.81), Gunners can fire all the weapons in a battery of multiple turrets as a single crew position (rather than requiring one Gunner per turret) since those multiple turrets all target and engage as a singular collective unit (a battery), but any mixed turrets cannot be combined as batteries with other turrets, so mixed turrets still require 1 crew position per mixed turret.

Therefore, there's a difference between 10 triple laser turrets, 10 triple missile turrets and 10 sandcaster turrets ... which can be organized a 1 laser battery, 1 missile battery and 1 sandcaster battery, requiring 3 Gunners ... versus 30 mixed turrets of laser/missile/sandcaster which each need their own Gunner and thus requires 30 Gunners.

The quantity of weapons is exactly the same (30 each).
The difference is in the organization of those weapons ... into cohesive battery fire for each weapon type OR everyone takes their own potshots.

So ... each battery of multiple turrets = 1 Gunner position.
Each mixed turret = 1 Gunner position.

 

[aramis]

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.


"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.

The rule is each is at skill -1 not -1 per job.
You're being disingenuous with your argument.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The rule is each is at skill -1 not -1 per job.
You're being disingenuous with your argument.

The problem is the game effect.

The skill-reduction for two identical jobs is using something that requires two skill-table rolls during character generation, to achieve an effect that (if the points were drawn from two separate skills, as in the example given in the text) would require four skill-table rolls.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The problem is the game effect.

Is that REALLY the problem here?

requires two skill-table rolls

For multi-tasking exactly the same skill.

require four skill-table rolls

For multi-tasking completely different skills to fill two completely different crew roles.

The fact that you find the latter perfectly acceptable (and therefore only to be expected), but the former beyond the pale is quite telling.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Is that REALLY the problem here?

For multi-tasking exactly the same skill.

For multi-tasking completely different skills to fill two completely different crew roles.

The fact that you find the latter perfectly acceptable (and therefore only to be expected), but the former beyond the pale is quite telling.

It certainly is telling.

This is a game, not a simulation (it requires gunners in turrets without autoloaders, and far more engineers than either aircraft or oceangoing ships, etc.). As such, game balance is at least as important as realism. And getting "free" skill points/manning distorts the balance of the game.

I'm exposing that I'm thinking of this as a game rather than a simulation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In the other interpretation, a gunner-2 can fire missiles while reloading, but only as a gunner-1 since he's acting as both the gunner and the gunner's mate.

No, since:

LBB2'81, p16:
Specific jobs or tasks require crew members to perform them.

Not "positions", actual warm bodies.

You may be hired to perform two positions (presumably by working longer hours), but you can't miraculously do two things at the same time.

E.g. it's quite conventional to have a pilot cover the positions of ship's pilot and small craft pilot, yet he can only actually pilot one craft at a time, he cannot pilot the ship and the small craft simultaneously. Traveller does not suspend basic physics (except where specifically noted [jump drives comes to mind]).

As a separate question, it's one gunner per turret, not per weapons system, right? This means one gunner theoretically could launch a missile, fire a laser, and pop off a sandcaster round in the same turn, as long as all three were aimed at the same ship (and perhaps the ordnance launched from it)?

Yes, in LBB2.
Except Fixed Mounts, one gunner for all fixed mounts, IIRC.

LBB5 has four cases to consider:
Small craft: The pilot fires one TYPE of weapon, any additional weapon TYPE require a gunner, but sandcasters don't require a gunner. Weapons are game mechanically in turrets, but are assumed by default to be fixed forward.
Small ships: Use LBB2 rules, so one gunner per turret.
Larger ships: One gunner per battery + command crew. Example: a single mixed MBS turret on a 1100 Dt ship would require a missile gunner, a laser gunner, and a sand gunner, plus a PO for each type, plus a gunnery officer, for a total of seven gunners. For one turret. Don't shoot me, I didn't write the rules...
Fixed Mounts: Presumably as LBB2.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That it feels like an abuse, then "Give me a break" is exactly my reaction.

Yes, I completely agree with you. But Spinward Flow is correct about RAW, at least up to a point.
We don't have to like it or allow it in our campaigns, but it is RAW.

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.

Combining Pilot of ship and Pilot of small craft is common.

TTA, p121:
The fat trader requires a crew of five: pilot, navigator, engineer, medic, and steward. Up to two gunners may be added. The pilot also normally operates the launch.

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

Plural is used for any number that is not exactly one. A number of unknown value that can be zero, one, or two is a plural.
Yes, zero skills can be involved, e.g. for a cook (mentioned in LBB2'77).

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.

Yet that is exactly what RAW says, sadly.

I've never seen this obvious exploit published.

Yes, this looks like an exploit, but it also in accordance with RAW, unfortunately.


The limit to this is obvious:

LBB2'81, p16:
Specific jobs or tasks require crew members to perform them.

You can't have one person be in two places at the same time. Over time one person can perform several tasks, but at any one time he can only be in one place and perform one task, e.g. the Pilot above can only pilot one craft at a time.

You also have to find people willing to work the hours required. If an engineer generally works say 8 hours a day (why else would we need more of them?), an engineer filling two positions has to work quite a bit longer, he now has two full time jobs. An NPC might just say no thanks.

There can also be a problem finding people with the right skill combinations, or skill level. LBB2 characters don't generally have all that many skills or high skill levels. If you have built your ship for engineers filling double positions, and you can't find a replacement engineer with skill-2 at the current port, you have a problem...

 

[aramis]

The problem is the game effect.

The skill-reduction for two identical jobs is using something that requires two skill-table rolls during character generation, to achieve an effect that (if the points were drawn from two separate skills, as in the example given in the text) would require four skill-table rolls.

THe game effect is "at skill -1" not "reduced by 1 per position".

@AnotherDilbert Plural can be used for singular, as well. See also "Royal We"

 

[Spinward Flow]

This is a game, not a simulation

Roll playing versus Role playing.

Choose wisely which takes higher priority for you ...
I can't make the distinction any clearer than that.

Don't shoot me, I didn't write the rules...

I'll grant you didn't write the rules ... but when you consistently misinterpret them even after being repeatedly informed of your error (with evidence and examples provided), that IS on YOU.

You're no longer a messenger at that point (don't shoot the messenger) ... you're a source of disinformation.

But Spinward Flow is correct about RAW, at least up to a point.
We don't have to like it or allow it in our campaigns, but it is RAW.

Correct, it is the Rules As Written.

Combining Pilot of ship and Pilot of small craft is common.

True. This is often times done to avoid the need to hire someone else with Ship's Boat-1 skill.

That is DEFINITELY a question of OR ... the Pilot can pilot either the Starship OR the Small Craft, but not both simultaneously (can't be in two separate craft at the same time). However, note that in order to pull off this trick, you need either Pilot-2 skill minimum (so as to default to Ship's Boat-1 when needed) or Pilot-1 and Ship's Boat-1 skill. Either way, this kind of OR position (not AND position, it's an OR position, which is an important distinction that any competent programmer ought to instantly recognize) means additional skill required for the position(s). So the starship+small craft pilot requires Cr6600 per month in salary to account for the additional skill requirement (6000*1.1=6600) they need to have, but they're not working two roles simultaneously.

Plural is used for any number that is not exactly one. A number of unknown value that can be zero, one, or two is a plural.

Correct.

Yes, zero skills can be involved, e.g. for a cook (mentioned in LBB2'77).

Mainly because Steward-0 is considered sufficient for minimum qualification needed to fill the position of Steward.

Yet that is exactly what RAW says, sadly.
Yes, this looks like an exploit, but it also in accordance with RAW, unfortunately.

Noted without comment.

You can't have one person be in two places at the same time.

That's the limitation.
You can't fill a crew position on craft A AND B at the same time.

So in a starship plus small craft circumstance, one person can fill crew positions on either craft (OR condition), but not at the same time (AND condition). So if you're filling a position on one, you can't simultaneously be filling that position on the other. Depending on how operations are organized, there are times when that is perfectly acceptable, such as a merchant ship with a small craft for orbital shuttle duties. The ship stays parked in orbit (unpiloted) while the pilot operates the small craft to shuttle cargo and passengers to/from orbit. Such an operational plan requires a "permissive" environment where neither starship nor small craft are under attack.

By contrast, if you want a fighter escort for your starship, you're going to need 2 pilots, not just 1.
One pilots the starship, the other pilots the fighter, simultaneously.

However, you CAN fill two crew positions ON THE SAME CRAFT (craft A and A, to be pedantic about it).

You can have a pilot/navigator who fills both positions simultaneously on the bridge of a starship.
You can have a steward/medic who fills both positions simultaneously for passengers of a starship.
You can have a gunner/gunner who fills two positions simultaneously for manning of weapons on a starship (they have enough skill to multi-task two gunnery positions).

You also have to find people willing to work the hours required. If an engineer generally works say 8 hours a day (why else would we need more of them?), an engineer filling two positions has to work quite a bit longer, he now has two full time jobs.

And this is where the correct application of rules for crew salary comes into play.

Single position:

• Gunnery-1 skill, Gunner position = (1000*1.0) = Cr1000 per month
• Gunnery-2 skill, Gunner position = (1000*1.1) = Cr1100 per month
• Gunnery-3 skill, Gunner position = (1000*1.1) = Cr1200 per month
• Gunnery-1 skill, Chief Gunner position = (1000*1.0)*1.1 = Cr1100 per month
• Gunnery-2 skill, Chief Gunner position = (1000*1.1)*1.1 = Cr1210 per month
• Gunnery-3 skill, Chief Gunner position = (1000*1.2)*1.1 = Cr1320 per month

Double position:

• Gunnery-2 skill, Gunner/Gunner position = ((1000*1.1)+(1000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr1650 per month
• Gunnery-3 skill, Gunner/Gunner position = ((1000*1.2)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr1800 per month
• Gunnery-2 skill, Chief Gunner/Gunner position = ((1000*1.1)+(1000*1.1))*0.75*1.1 = Cr1815 per month
• Gunnery-3 skill, Chief Gunner/Gunner position = ((1000*1.2)+(1000*1.2))*0.75*1.1 = Cr1980 per month

An NPC might just say no thanks.

Double the workload for a +50% increase in pay per month ... that's the economics of filling two crew positions and getting paid 75% for each (75+75=150).

So for a Skill-2 Gunner (to continue our above example, they can command a salary of:

• Cr1100 (Gunner position, junior)
• Cr1210 (Gunner position, chief)
• Cr1650 (Gunner/Gunner position, junior)
• Cr1815 (Gunner/Gunner position, chief)

Note:

• In order to command Cr1600 per month salary in a Gunner (junior) position, they would require Gunnery-7 skill.
• In order to command Cr1760 per month salary in a Gunner (chief) position, they would require Gunnery-6 skill.

So ... do you want to WORK and get paid for it or not?

If you want "minimal duties" aboard, you're going to draw minimal pay for it.
The way for "better than minimum required skill" crew to draw extra salary per month is to fill a second crew position and get paid for it.

It's not like they can draw 2x pay by working for two completely different ships at the same time instead, right?

So if you've got the skills to manage it (meaning Skill-2+), the best way to increase your own salary is to take on extra crew duty beyond a single crew position ... because you've got the skill level to do so.

There can also be a problem finding people with the right skill combinations, or skill level.

When you require Skill-2+ instead of just merely Skill-1, that means adding "minimum 2 years experience" to the want ad. You'll have a smaller pool of applicants, but those who do apply should have more experience than the bare minimum (Skill-1) qualifications.

If anything, I would figure that the Skill-2/Skill-2 (different) combination would be the hardest to fill (minimum 2+2=4 years experience), not the Skill-2 (once) position that should be easier to fill (minimum 2 years experience).

If you have built your ship for engineers filling double positions, and you can't find a replacement engineer with skill-2 at the current port, you have a problem...

Well, you'll be "undermanned" until you jump to a place where that little crew problem can be solved ...
In other words, a temporary problem ... not necessarily a permanent one.

THe game effect is "at skill -1" not "reduced by 1 per position".

Yes.
Correct.

Now to educate people on the difference (there seems to be some resistance, still, or at least disappointment in the correct interpretation) ...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Let's un-truncate the quote you so carefully truncated:

Larger ships: One gunner per battery + command crew. Example: a single mixed MBS turret on a 1100 Dt ship would require a missile gunner, a laser gunner, and a sand gunner, plus a PO for each type, plus a gunnery officer, for a total of seven gunners. For one turret. Don't shoot me, I didn't write the rules...

I'll grant you didn't write the rules ... but when you consistently misinterpret them even after being repeatedly informed of your error (with evidence and examples provided), that IS on YOU.

So, what exact misinformation did I spread about LBB5 gunnery crew requirements?

Truncating a quote to create the wrong impression of what I said is not arguing in good faith, I would even call it spreading misinformation. You wouldn't perchance live under a bridge, would you?

That is DEFINITELY a question of OR ... the Pilot can pilot either the Starship OR the Small Craft, but not both simultaneously (can't be in two separate craft at the same time).

Why, thank you for admitting a limitation to position doubling.

Either way, this kind of OR position (not AND position, it's an OR position, which is an important distinction that any competent programmer ought to instantly recognize) means additional skill required for the position(s).

Yes, anyone with a fleeting acquaintance with boolean logic or programming would recognise this as an XOR operator, not an OR operator.

That's the limitation.
You can't fill a crew position on craft A AND B at the same time.

I'm glad we agree about something.

However, you CAN fill two crew positions ON THE SAME CRAFT (craft A and A, to be pedantic about it).

You can have a pilot/navigator who fills both positions simultaneously on the bridge of a starship.

Yes and no... Yes, he can have both jobs, but he can't perform the tasks at the same time.

In routine operations the pilot can fly the ship to the jump point, change hats to navigator, then calculate the jump, and jump, sure.

But in an emergency he can't desperately evade a meteor swarm at the exact same time as he calculates a jump, no.

You can have a steward/medic who fills both positions simultaneously for passengers of a starship.

Yes, but he can't be in the med bay patching up a wound, at the same time as he serves drinks in the first class lounge. Generally, that is not a problem, but in an emergency...

Now Medic is an excellent choice for multiple positions, as the Medic presumably does not work all that many hours in the week on small ships. Presumably it's more of a required qualification in case something happens while the ship far from rescue.

You can have a gunner/gunner who fills two positions simultaneously for manning of weapons on a starship (they have enough skill to multi-task two gunnery positions).

No, he can't be in two turrets at the same time. From what I can see, you have agreed that a gunner should be in the turret:

LBB2 assumes a gunner in the turret.

You could conceivably be hired as, say, both missile gunner and laser gunner, but come combat you would have to choose which turret to use.

Note:

• In order to command Cr1600 per month salary in a Gunner (junior) position, they would require Gunnery-7 skill.
• In order to command Cr1760 per month salary in a Gunner (chief) position, they would require Gunnery-6 skill.

So ... do you want to WORK and get paid for it or not?

I know loads of people with only a single full time job. They have lives to lead, they might even want to sleep occasionally. I don't know, or even heard about, anyone who works 24 h a day, even 5 days a week. So there seems to be some limit to how much people are willing to work for extra money.

When you require Skill-2+ instead of just merely Skill-1, that means adding "minimum 2 years experience" to the want ad. You'll have a smaller pool of applicants, but those who do apply should have more experience than the bare minimum (Skill-1) qualifications.

Most people in LBB1 get one skill level per term working. Skill-2 would be more like eight years working the exact same job with no excursions. And if we go by the skill gain tables rolling the same number twice for a 1/36 chance.

As a comparison a medical doctor is Medical-3 and that would entail some seven or eight years studying nothing but Medical skill, I believe.

No, Engineer-2 does not mean high school and two years experience.

Well, you'll be "undermanned" until you jump to a place where that little crew problem can be solved ...
In other words, a temporary problem ... not necessarily a permanent one.

But by RAW you must have sufficient engineers. The same RAW that allows fiddling with the crew numbers categorically state you must have sufficient crew. You can't logically insist on one and reject the other.

 

[Grav_Moped]

But by RAW you must have sufficient engineers. The same RAW that allows fiddling with the crew numbers categorically state you must have sufficient crew. You can't logically insist on one and reject the other.

That ought to settle it. It won't.

Side issue on cost if you try it: does the "chief engineer" wage premium stack onto the "multiple role" premium, and if so does it only apply to one of the two roles? (Ex: Ship requires 2 engineers, tries to use 1 person for both slots. Highest skilled person gets a bonus. Does that person get it for both positions, or just one? And either way, is the "chief" bonus applied before or after the "multiple role" bonus?)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That ought to settle it. It won't.

Of course not.

Side issue on cost if you try it: does the "chief engineer" wage premium stack onto the "multiple role" premium, and if so does it only apply to one of the two roles? (Ex: Ship requires 2 engineers, tries to use 1 person for both slots. Highest skilled person gets a bonus. Does that person get it for both positions, or just one? And either way, is the "chief" bonus applied before or after the "multiple role" bonus?)

Alternative three: There is just one engineer, so no chief engineer is necessary, so no extra pay...

 

[Spinward Flow]

does the "chief engineer" wage premium stack onto the "multiple role" premium

Already answered ... complete with math and formula for necessary Show Your Work to promote understanding.

 

[HanleyTucks]

I think it'd benefit all those involved in this discussion to take a moment to imagine it happening at a game table, and whether they'd speak in the same way, or at the same length, and if so what might happen to that particular game group.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Alternative three: There is just one engineer, so no chief engineer is necessary, so no extra pay...

Correct.
You only get a Chief Engineer, Purser and/or Chief Gunner when there is more than one Engineer, Steward or Gunner (respectively) on a ship's payroll.

 

[robject]

Better if you argue it as a DM rather than a skill reduction; that seems to make more sense. It's a DM-1 at both roles, whether or not they use the same skill.

Note that I am likely to raise the difficulty level, instead of penalizing skill level, for performing multiple tasks "at the same time". On the other hand, if those tasks are performed "serially", them maybe there's no reason for a penalty. If you know what I mean.

I am likely to impose a bit of fatigue on players who push their characters.

Already answered ... complete with math and formula for necessary Show Your Work to promote understanding.

It still has to make sense. So what I'm arguing about is boundaries that aren't explicitly in RAW, and I think you are as well, if you admit that one can't be a Ship Pilot and a Boat Pilot at the same time.

Although there are always exceptions: surely Boats can be piloted remotely. This is how you might get an Engineer also being a Gunner; a Pilot also fixing the Jump Drive while dogfighting; and a Medic treating an infirmary of singed crew while being Steward to demanding High Pax.

The rule is each is at skill -1 not -1 per job.
You're being disingenuous with your argument.

On the contrary, this is how I read the game rules. "RAW" -- by which I take as specific rules on splitting your focus between two crew positions -- allows things that don't seem to make sense, and I think Steward is a good example: I don't see the risk in a Steward-1 serving 16 high pax.

...Now you could tack on consequences, such as the Steward being forced into a duel to the death due to his negligence in spreading himself so thin. But that's not RAW, is it? RAW has zero consequences. Exploit and abuse.

Here's how Traveller5 talks about Steward skill:

Steward is a Default Skill. Most people are able to attend to the personal needs of others when necessary. Essentially all characters have Steward-0.

So anyone can be hired as a Steward. And I think that any "currently free" crew member can act as Steward.

I was taken aback by the "RAW" use of a skilled Engineer, but today I remembered that at one point Traveller5 recommended one skill level per 35 tons of drive. But the original sense is back in the published books. Notice the nuance, though, which nods to "it has to make sense".

Page 61, Book 2

...if the total drives is less than 35 tons, one Engineer is probably sufficient; if the total is 45 tons, the ship more likely needs two Engineers.

But on the same page:

On small ships, some crewmembers 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.

Emphasis on disparate roles, but the quote before it allows e.g. one engineer to pull double-duty.

Then on page 90, engineer roles trifurcate for "larger" ships:

On smaller ships, an Engineer has responsibilities for all drives; on larger ships, each Engineer specializes on one specific type of drive.

 

[Spinward Flow]

surely Boats can be piloted remotely.

In permissive non-combat environments, almost certainly.
In a hostile combat environment ... not so much.

The crew requirements are predicated around the notion of "when in a stressful situation, how many people are needed?" and then ruthlessly simplifies that down into what amounts to less than a page of text in LBB2 in an economy of brevity.

Now you could tack on consequences, such as the Steward being forced into a duel to the death due to his negligence in spreading himself so thin.

Depends on your idea of what "thin" means.
A single person serving as Steward-0 to eight high passenger is "just as qualified" for the job as a single person serving as Steward-0/Steward-0 to sixteen high passengers. The "throughput" of skill to the task(s) is exactly the same (all high passengers are being served by Steward-0). Note however that in the Steward/Steward case, if there are only 8- high passengers aboard, they all get Steward-1 service instead of Steward-0 ... because the Steward doesn't have "too many high passengers" to be responsible for.

The difference however starts getting felt when that Steward/Steward position gets filled with someone who has Steward-2 skill.
Now they're serving as Steward-1/Steward-1 to sixteen high passengers instead. So this is where having extra skill in this position can start REALLY making a difference in a ship's high passenger service potential (and why they would be interested in hiring experienced/skilled Stewards to be on staff).



My one beef with the Steward position is the crew salary.
I figure that Medics ought to be paid more and Stewards ought to be paid less.
Personally, I would prefer it if Medics were paid Cr3000 per month and Stewards were paid Cr2000 per month (just swap their pay scales) ... but that's a different topic for the economics of crew positions.

 

[mike wightman]

Overwork your engineer and they become Engineer-0.

My take on it is there is a -1 DM on one skill and -1 DM on the other. Since you are doubling the work of the engineer you are adding the DMs - so Engineer 2 becomes Engineer 0.

 

[Condottiere]

You also have to understand exactly what a specific job entails, responsibilities, and how much time and when you spend doing it.