The trend to Gear-headedness

[RandyB]

I completely agree with this, and if folks want to design gear, the rules should be available as a supplement, and those who do not should have the choice not have be forced to use them. I also noticed the trend when it went from displacement tons to kiloliters. I don't need that much detail, I want a 200 ton free trader with "X" amount of cargo (in tons), "Y" Jump, and "Z" maneuver. Then a TL 14 laser pistol with "X" number of shots that does "Y"d6 of damage and holds "Z" shots.

I agree. Sadly, for many if not most games, gear lists are compiled before design rules, and making the latter match the former while retaining sufficient verisimilitude vis-a-vis real world gear/physics becomes an exercise in frustration.

The ideal, of course, is the creation and validation of the design rules before creation and publication of gear lists. Whether this is a practical expectation or not is another question entirely.

 

[Murph]

That is so true. Gear should at least be consistent with the rules.

I agree. Sadly, for many if not most games, gear lists are compiled before design rules, and making the latter match the former while retaining sufficient verisimilitude vis-a-vis real world gear/physics becomes an exercise in frustration.

The ideal, of course, is the creation and validation of the design rules before creation and publication of gear lists. Whether this is a practical expectation or not is another question entirely.

 

[Timerover51]

I guess that I am somewhere between gearhead and "handwavium", depending on what is being designed. For Starships, I look at T5 and MegaTraveller, disregard both of them, and go back to Classic. Handwavium for Piper's Hyperdrive or Murray Leinster's Overdrive, no problem. Contragrav, I can see a way to it, reactionless thrusters ala Dean Drive, handwave as necessary. Power Plants, I get a bit picky about. I am working on an alternate ship design sequence, derived from naval architecture works.

I do get gearheaded when design sequences try to build equipment for which historic examples exist, say Tech Level 8 and lower. I look at Thing Maker and Vehicle Maker, and think what might have been if some of the underlying assumptions, ludicrous Tech Level assignments for materials, and failure to really finish the rules had been dealt with. So, if I need gear, I do not go through the agony of trying to build it from scratch using those, but go through my reference library and find what I need. For future equipment, I look at what exists, and then do some extrapolating.

For really future stuff, I go through my library, find a science fiction book that seems to work, and go with that. When all else fails, I do some inventing. Do I used a formal design sequence for that? No.

 

[mike wightman]

I quite like the T5 makers, but not to design stuff from the ground up. I use them to modify a base design, which is either taken from the real world or built using FF&S.

For PC starships I use FF&S, for generic ships I use a modified version of LBB2 or HG depending on the size of the ship.

 

[Murph]

Since I got my copy of Classic Traveller from GDW, I re-looked at STRIKER, and an old copy of FFS and as I get older, I understand why I stuck with High Guard 1980. Just too complex for me.

 

[atpollard]

Since I got my copy of Classic Traveller from GDW, I re-looked at STRIKER, and an old copy of FFS and as I get older, I understand why I stuck with High Guard 1980. Just too complex for me.

The actual nus and bolts of STRIKER isn't that bad. Having stuff scattered all over just makes it REALLY hard to follow giving it the appearance of being harder than it is. It also isn't the most user friendly prose on the planet either.

In my opinion, the CT:High Guard Small Craft Design rules offer one of the most user friendly presentations in Traveller and would serve as a good template for how to present 'Makers' if you want people to be able to use them.
Reworking the STRIKER Equipment Design Rules in the HG Small Craft format would be a great project.

 

[Timerover51]

The actual nus and bolts of STRIKER isn't that bad. Having stuff scattered all over just makes it REALLY hard to follow giving it the appearance of being harder than it is. It also isn't the most user friendly prose on the planet either.

In my opinion, the CT:High Guard Small Craft Design rules offer one of the most user friendly presentations in Traveller and would serve as a good template for how to present 'Makers' if you want people to be able to use them.
Reworking the STRIKER Equipment Design Rules in the HG Small Craft format would be a great project.

I cannot say I was that thrilled with High Guard, but then I am a "small ship" universe person. However, based on your comments regarding the Small Craft Design Sequence, I will have to give that area another look.

 

[Murph]

I would be happier with a small ship universe if I could design up to 10,000 tons....

I cannot say I was that thrilled with High Guard, but then I am a "small ship" universe person. However, based on your comments regarding the Small Craft Design Sequence, I will have to give that area another look.

 

[flykiller]

I would be happier with a small ship universe if I could design up to 10,000 tons....

or 20,000 ....

just do it.

 

[kilemall]

I would be happier with a small ship universe if I could design up to 10,000 tons....

Do what I did, set it in TL10 or equivalent.

Done.

Oh wait, OTU forum and therefore thread. Hrrrrm.

Only way out is to tinker, ATU rule to the otherwise OTU setting.

 

[nobby-w]

I would be happier with a small ship universe if I could design up to 10,000 tons....

I did a 'small ship' variant of High Guard once. This consisted of a few tweaks:

• Using the Book 2 computer system rather than the +/- relative computer factor from stock High Guard. Substitute agility for speed.
• Rules for 2t and 3t barbettes. 2t gets -2 to damage and +1 to factor, 3t gets -3 to damage and +2 to factor.
• Smaller, low-factor (about A-H) spinal mounts in the 300-1,000t range.
• Pimped bay weapons slightly with damage bonus.
• Made the damage rolls a bit less attritional.
• Adapted the movement system from Mayday. <= 10 hexes is close range.

Balance the damage right and you get combat that works well with ships up to 10-20 ktons or so and plays nicely with smaller ships (a captial ship would typically sit somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 tons).

 

[Timerover51]

I would be happier with a small ship universe if I could design up to 10,000 tons....

Actually, looking at the design sequence for Classic, you probably could. The drives and power plant all increase in a straight arithmetic progression, and in general the first combination of drives and power plant that gives a ship a Jump-2 and 2G acceleration is good enough to give a ship of twice the displacement Jump-1 and 1G acceleration. You just need to carry the projection out further. For a 10,000 ton ship, assume that Z drives give Jump-1 and 1G acceleration. For Jump-2 and 2G, looking at the drive potential chart, you will need 7 or so more increments of each drive to get to that.

So, for Jump-2 at 10,000 tons, the Jump Drive will displace 160 tons and cost 310 Million Credits. A 2G Maneuver Drive will require 61 tons of displacement and cost 124 Million Credits. The Power Plant for the Jump Drive will require 94 tons of displacement and cost 248 Million Credits. To get higher numbers, keep projecting out the needed modular increments. To get to Jump-6, you might need 16 to 20 more increments than you need for Jump-1, but I would say that it is doable. A 10,000 displacement ton ship would be equal in internal volume to a 50,000 Gross Register Ton nautical ship, so not excessively large.

 

[mike wightman]

There is a fudge you can use for LBB2 to build ships over 5000t.

the Z drive grants performance 6 to 2000t hulls, 4 to 3000t hulls, and 3 to 4000t hulls.

Build a ship with 6x2000t hulls stuck together and you get performance 1, or 4x3000t, or 3x4000t - so I see the upper limit as 12000t.

(Note a 6000t should still get performance 2 from the Z drive)

 

[kilemall]

There is a fudge you can use for LBB2 to build ships over 5000t.

the Z drive grants performance 6 to 2000t hulls, 4 to 3000t hulls, and 3 to 4000t hulls.

Build a ship with 6x2000t hulls stuck together and you get performance 1, or 4x3000t, or 3x4000t - so I see the upper limit as 12000t.

(Note a 6000t should still get performance 2 from the Z drive)

Why not go the other way, say 3 2000 ton hulls stuck together with z power and maneuver for each subhull?

 

[mike wightman]

You are not allowed to stack drives in LBB2 that's why. Like I say it is a fudge to allow 6000t custom hulls performance 2 drives and 6001-12000t hulls performance 1 drives.

 

[kilemall]

You are not allowed to stack drives in LBB2 that's why. Like I say it is a fudge to allow 6000t custom hulls performance 2 drives and 6001-12000t hulls performance 1 drives.

I'm using my FTR (faster then rules) drive.

 

[aramis]

Actually, looking at the design sequence for Classic, you probably could. The drives and power plant all increase in a straight arithmetic progression, and in general the first combination of drives and power plant that gives a ship a Jump-2 and 2G acceleration is good enough to give a ship of twice the displacement Jump-1 and 1G acceleration. You just need to carry the projection out further. For a 10,000 ton ship, assume that Z drives give Jump-1 and 1G acceleration. For Jump-2 and 2G, looking at the drive potential chart, you will need 7 or so more increments of each drive to get to that.

So, for Jump-2 at 10,000 tons, the Jump Drive will displace 160 tons and cost 310 Million Credits. A 2G Maneuver Drive will require 61 tons of displacement and cost 124 Million Credits. The Power Plant for the Jump Drive will require 94 tons of displacement and cost 248 Million Credits. To get higher numbers, keep projecting out the needed modular increments. To get to Jump-6, you might need 16 to 20 more increments than you need for Jump-1, but I would say that it is doable. A 10,000 displacement ton ship would be equal in internal volume to a 50,000 Gross Register Ton nautical ship, so not excessively large.

To go above Z, you need TL's above 15... per the Bk3 chart.

 

[Timerover51]

To go above Z, you need TL's above 15... per the Bk3 chart.

I figure that with High Guard coming out in 1979 and 1981, allowing for ships well over 5,000 tons, that the comment requiring Tech Level 16 for greater than Z drives no longer holds. Chalk it up to one more of the inconsistencies in the rules as published.

 

[aramis]

I figure that with High Guard coming out in 1979 and 1981, allowing for ships well over 5,000 tons, that the comment requiring Tech Level 16 for greater than Z drives no longer holds. Chalk it up to one more of the inconsistencies in the rules as published.

80, not 81...

 

[sabredog]

I think the whole gear-head phase is something everyone goes through with any game that allows any kind of design work. In D&D it'll be intricate traps and magical devices (and even complicated spells and enchanted items), etc.. Traveller, being a science fiction game is by its very nature a gear heady thing because science fiction is. And the harder the science fiction, the more gear heady it will get.

The nice thing, though, is that there is enough room for everyone even on that bus, so those who don't like worrying about how many internal airlocks are in a ship, or how many ways you design a modular cargo container can let the others do it who enjoy it and thereby both reap the fun of the game.

I went through what I have observed to be a pretty predictable course of gaming development that I have observe various play groups go through again and again.

I played the original rules to death and wanted more. I started expanding on the rules to fill in all the blanks - gadget and techwise - that I thought the game should have had.

I then modded the crap out of the combat rules to make them more grainy than a Sasquatch picture and crunchier than corn chips.

I adapted every "realistic" combat/starship/vehicle/personal gear game system I could find into the game for even more 'realism'. Of course by this time I was hopelessly mad and had long lost the point of 'simulation' vs. 'game'.

When Striker came out I started all over again. My players began to hate me and dreaded my new rules every...damn...game.... My notebooks containing more detailed designs of anything imaginable numbered in the dozens.

99% of what I designed and got all gear-heady over was rarely used more than once in-game, if at all. Why? Because it started to just get in the way of telling a story, playing a game, and having fun. So I reached gear head apogee and fell back to reasonable levels of design that enhance the game for everyone as opposed to just myself. It became a happy balance and players began at that point to join in on it, too.

Now I still love using more detail design rules for things like ships, vehicles, and gear, but I try to keep it simply to what actually effects the rules as far as detail, and anything involving flavor is there to make it memorable but not overwhelming. I don't want to spend half and hour in-game describing how a hovertruck works; it's a truck with fans under it and we all know what that is so I leave it at that.

Kinda like a variant on Asimov's rule about scifi weapons and gadgets in stories: just say the spaceman pulls out his blaster and blasts the alien to ash. That's all anyone needs to know it does.