There have been analogies here of varying qualities of hotel rooms. After staying in the Trump this year (ahem), I think those are good analogies. 1st class compared to Cattle class in airliners is another comparison, though a poorer one (I truly believe Cattle class is closer to low berths. . .).
What are "luxuries" in the ship design?
- Thread starter far-trader
- Start date
There have been analogies here of varying qualities of hotel rooms. After staying in the Trump this year (ahem), I think those are good analogies. 1st class compared to Cattle class in airliners is another comparison, though a poorer one (I truly believe Cattle class is closer to low berths. . .).
The problem isn't to explain luxuries that cost more to install and take up more space. Nor is it a problem to explain luxuries that cost more to operate and might conceivably compensate for the lack of a steward (Caviare, liqueur chocolates, and similar superior comestibles). The problem is to explain luxuries that cost more to install, take up more space, and substitute for the presence of a competent steward without increasing operating expenses.
As I said earlier, I like the vending machine/dispenser idea. But that was something that someone on this forum suggested. By now, I've become curious to know what the author had in mind when he made up that rule. I'm hoping it will turn out to be something even better than vending machines.
Hans
Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that the author didn't particularly think about it when he wrote it, beyond "here's a way around dumping Steward on some poor sap." The possible explanations I came up with - which included vending machines et cetera - were my attempt at rationalizing the rule. Hey, it seems like a workable possibility. Do I believe that was what the writer had in mind? Not really - I don't think he actually had anything in mind. Do I believe he'd agree that what I posted was what he meant? Depends on how much like some of my coworkers he is...
Nah, we don't really have an equivalent to low berths any more. See, low passage treats the passengers as cargo, something which hasn't been legal since the days of the Middle Passage - no, not the ticket. But unless you've been crated up and loaded into the cargo hold with the rest of the checked baggage, you're not traveling low passage.
It seems like you think the worst of others most of the time.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
I do believe you are right. We do not have anything like low berths today. We also don't require life support during most forms of travel. Any comparison of traveling in Traveller will never be equivalent.
But let's say the technology was available today for something like low berths. Using methods of travel available to us today, how applicable would low berth be?
Low berths cost 50,000cr to install per passenger vs the cost of a seat (or crate
).Low berths require 1/2 ton space. How many passengers would be in the same amount of space on a typical plane, train, or bus?
epicenter00
SOC-13
No, the thinking is a bit odd (to me), but theory wouldn't be to just put a pop machine by the door. It'd be that there wouldn't be an attendant who'd come out to your car to do everything, but there would be a pop machine by the cashier's window and it'd give you free sodas for filling up there, perhaps along with a complimentary bag of chips.
My comment was to imply that the writer may not have thought this "luxuries replace stewards" thing too well through. It's obviously abstracted and it is a fictional future, so there's plenty of leeway in that respect. However, when so much else of Traveller is based around the idea of the Age of Sail, in particular the English Age of Sail, High Passage without stewards seems odd to me.
It seems to me that luxuries, no matter how good would never really attract true high passage customers.
The idealized "hands-on" (the so-called "Solomani noble") who doesn't really like the noble system but works with it and has been raised to the peerage probably wouldn't care about traveling high or middle passage if he or she was getting somewhere and needed to be there ASAP.
Non-noble but wealthy Imperial citizens (like wealthy SOC-10+ types who don't have a title) is a stickling point. People like this might be seen as gauche enough to travel on a ship without "class service" in return for luxuries, but I doubt it. Traditionally, the lower social classes, especially the middle class or the upper-middle class try very, very hard to ape the upper class.
Noble Imperial citizens would typically be very class-conscious - less to impress the lower classes as they are concerned about their reputation amongst their peers. Traveling on a ship without a Steward would simply be so Plebian. I would think there would be a lot of implications about a ship without a steward - mixing between the lower orders and officers, ungentlemanly conduct of men around ladies (not just lecherousness, but dicing, smoking, drinking, and foul language), and so on. I don't think any amount of blandishments would get around this.
Just my .02cr
I woke up feeling inspired just now. Here's what I suspect the luxuries to be.
The space set aside for "luxuries" is, in essence, the little shop by the door, right next to the Purser's Office.
.Stick a couple of entertainment machines there, some slots, a big screen, a small bar area and have it be the mustering point for all the designated Stewards as well as being the actual Purser's office.
The Purser herself, the crewman with the highest Steward or the most experience Stewarding, would use the booth to keep the ship's accounts in. When counting out the monthly crew payroll, or putting together the cash payment for the month's mortgage or signing off the monthly maintenance check, all these financial transactions take place in the office, along with keeping lists of cargo trade transactions and the ship's current cargo, passenger and crew manifests.
It'd also be suitable for passengers to store the major valuables they have brought onto the ship along with them; things like jewellery and credits. Anything else the passengers need to keep with them gets counted towards their hand cargo allocation. If they want more cargo allocation than their ticket allows, they can ask the Purser to set aside extra space in cargo, for a surcharge.
It works for me. YMMV.
The space set aside for "luxuries" is, in essence, the little shop by the door, right next to the Purser's Office.
.Stick a couple of entertainment machines there, some slots, a big screen, a small bar area and have it be the mustering point for all the designated Stewards as well as being the actual Purser's office.
The Purser herself, the crewman with the highest Steward or the most experience Stewarding, would use the booth to keep the ship's accounts in. When counting out the monthly crew payroll, or putting together the cash payment for the month's mortgage or signing off the monthly maintenance check, all these financial transactions take place in the office, along with keeping lists of cargo trade transactions and the ship's current cargo, passenger and crew manifests.
It'd also be suitable for passengers to store the major valuables they have brought onto the ship along with them; things like jewellery and credits. Anything else the passengers need to keep with them gets counted towards their hand cargo allocation. If they want more cargo allocation than their ticket allows, they can ask the Purser to set aside extra space in cargo, for a surcharge.
It works for me. YMMV.
For me, I don't think luxuries should replace stewards; count as additional levels, to not more than double the available steward levels, sure...
BTW, if you buy a robot to count as steward, if it has steward skill, it counts as a steward... Imagine C3P0 as a steward and linguistics bot (He seems to function in a steward role to Luke in Ep V)... Steward 1, linguistics 4...
BTW, if you buy a robot to count as steward, if it has steward skill, it counts as a steward... Imagine C3P0 as a steward and linguistics bot (He seems to function in a steward role to Luke in Ep V)... Steward 1, linguistics 4...
Last edited:
Madarin Dude
SOC-13
I was also thinking along the lines of unskilled stewards how well can they preform. Generally there is at least one crewmember that is not busy during travel be they a gunner or broker so they could pitch in and help with the passengers.
So how would you handicap that. I think in terms of Firefly Jayne would not be a good choice but I could see Shepard Book or Inara doing a decent job at it all considered. So what other skills could have a crossover to reduce the negatives of being an unskilled steward. ,
So how would you handicap that. I think in terms of Firefly Jayne would not be a good choice but I could see Shepard Book or Inara doing a decent job at it all considered. So what other skills could have a crossover to reduce the negatives of being an unskilled steward. ,
Allen,
I like the robot suggestion too. I wrote in either this thread or the other that MgT's 100,000 CrImp and 1 dTon requirement could be the price of a steward-bot and it's maintenance "kennel". (I also like the idea of providing an official way to opt out of the High Passage steward requirement. It recognizes something that most GMs were doing anyway, essentially ignoring stewards and their role aboard starships.)
Mongoose hasn't released their robots book yet and I don't have LBB:8 handy, so would anyone care to stat out a robot from the following specifications?
- TL12 or lower (For repair/parts issues)
- Humanoid form (For dealing with pax)
- Voder (For dealing with pax)
- Power can be (should be?) rechargeable batteries (keep price down)
- "Slave-bot", rather independent operation (keep price down)
- Minimal skill level programming for Steward and Linguistics (keep price down)
I need to explain the "slave-bot" option further. IIRC, the "brain' is the costliest part of the robot, so we won't install one. Instead, the ship's main computer will act as the master robot and control the ambulatory steward-bot. The Steward and Linguistic programs will reside and operate on the main computer.
I don't know how to design the "kennel" exactly. I see it as a recharging point and light maintenance cubicle. The "kennel" could be viewed as a robot itself, one that doesn't move, draws power from the ship, and whose minimal programming (Mechanical, Electrical, and Electronics?) also reside on the ship's main computer.
In fact the robot maintenance abilities of the "kennel" might not have to be described at all. We could argue that the "kennel" wouldn't need the full bore Mechanical skill for instance but would use a narrowly applied, very specialized, and far cheaper program called Naasirka Steward-Bot 3001XL Mechanical Maintenance Mechanics version 2.5.
I wonder if we can get all of that in at around 100K CrImps?
Regards,
Bill
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
But they do have robots in their Main Rulebook. One which is perfectly suited to replacing Stewards imo. Which I mentioned (iirc, in one of the threads about this) wondering why instead of adding this dubious rule they didn't just suggest "Use the required number of Servitor robots from page 95."
It meets most of your specs (exceeds them in some) and I suspect where it doesn't (like the TL*) it's a requirement of the rules. Or perhaps it would just cost more at a lower TL (istr Book 8 allowing that).
* It's TL13 instead of 12.
And it only costs Cr120,000 (actually Cr80,000 or Cr180,000 less than the equivalent "luxuries" and taking up next to no room instead of 2 or 3 tons).
Even at double the price for one TL lower it would cost about the same or less and still save you space. I just don't get the "luxuries" rule at all with the Servitor right there in the same book hence my inquiries.
Dan,
D'oh... smotes forehead ... I forgot.
I don't think they thought about the new rule that "deeply". It does have a "quick n' dirty" feel to it. As much as I admire the idea, I also must agree that the idea's execution is a failure.
I was trying to come up with a robot/kennel package that met the rule's specifications instead of the other way around. I keep harping on the kennel because I want the steward-bot maintained regardless of the crews' skills and without taking any of their time. I want a "plug and play" steward, one you can literally purchase, install, and then walk away from while it does it's job.
This "one use only, plug and play" nature is also why I dropped the TL to keep it simple and cheap while also strictly limiting the 'bot's abilities so players couldn't turn it into a warbot or something else. I guess I'm looking for a humanoid Roomba that can also cook, serves meals, and wait on passengers.
I was looking to explain the minimum price and volume requirements; 100,000 CrImps and one dTon. I've added the kennel to both "account" for the volume and make the "Roomba" relatively maintenance free.
I get the idea and applaud it. As I've already point out, it's in the execution of the idea that the rule fails. It was a good idea that wasn't simply worked on enough, something that isn't new in either Mongoose products specifically or RPGs in general. I would normally say it was a shame this good idea didn't receive the work it needed in the playtest, but then again I've seen what Mongoose calls a playtest.
Regards,
Bill
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Speaking as an engineer with a background in transport design...
:rofl:
And I'm not just talking aircraft. The degree of design for conditioning the cabin of a car these days is pretty incredible. I'll grant the results of system failure are merely discomfort rather than death...for most cars.
And in aircraft...it is life support. The same for many ships.
Space travel is something else again, I'll admit. The complexities are greater, the tolerance for failures is darn near zero. But even the old prop-driven airliners had to keep their crew and passengers alive to do what they were designed to do.
Oh, and they had great steward service on board.
Working from the position that I think he was trying to give players an option to eliminate an unpalatable alternative is thinking the worst of him? To me, if that was how he was operating, it says that he was at least trying to head off gameplay problems - something which is, in fact part of the game design process. Now, do I think he thought it all the way through, including specifying details (which may or may not be needed)? No, not really - but neither do I see that as a serious problem. Those particular details are not a functional part of the game - they work just as well as a handwave as they would had every item been specified. (Personally, I happen to prefer that the details are left to me to fill in as I choose - that allows me to make it more my game. But, as the existence of this thread should indicate, not everyone feels that way.)
As to me thinking the worst of others most of the time: no, not really. Nor do I think the best of them most of the time, either. Most people are, most of the time, fairly close to the middle range of their capabilities. Does this mean they could be better? Yes. It also means they could be worse... and the fact that they aren't is nothing to scorn.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Galadrion, you are totally correct. I find your posts to be full of great insight and extremely useful.
Now lets see what you post in response to this and if I win my bet. :smirk:
*Deep, deep belly laugh*
If you've ever watch The Last Dragon, you are well aware that insight and utility can be found anywhere... if you expend enough effort in the looking.
Now, I happen to be curious: what was the wager? And do I get a cut? *Grin*
I really, really shouldn't wade into this. I don't have time to answer manmy questions at the Mongoose board, let alone here, but there are nearly a hundred posts debating a short paragraph I wrote, so here I am.
I looked back at my original manuscript for Mongoose Traveller, and my original rule for Luxuries was slightly different.
"Luxuries
While the tonnage allocated to staterooms includes freshers, passageways, mess halls, crew lounges and other living space, it is often cramped and uncomfortable. Luxuries cost Cr 100,000 per ton, and make life on board ship more pleasant.
Luxuries can be applied to a stateroom. Each ton of luxuries allocated to a stateroom allows that stateroom to be used for High Passage without the ship carrying a trained steward on board. "
So, for those asking what my thoughts what Luxuries actually are, they were intended to be different things depending on what they were applied to. If you just have 'generic' Luxuries on board, it's stuff like holoprojectors, lounges, gaming consoles, meditation chambers - it makes life on ship easier, but doesn't have any game effects. Alternatively, you can stuff it all into one cabin along with servant robots, food dispensers and a trouser press, and rent that cabin out to high-paying passengers. (And yes, that was designed as a way to bypass having to have someone with Steward on board.)
I looked back at my original manuscript for Mongoose Traveller, and my original rule for Luxuries was slightly different.
"Luxuries
While the tonnage allocated to staterooms includes freshers, passageways, mess halls, crew lounges and other living space, it is often cramped and uncomfortable. Luxuries cost Cr 100,000 per ton, and make life on board ship more pleasant.
Luxuries can be applied to a stateroom. Each ton of luxuries allocated to a stateroom allows that stateroom to be used for High Passage without the ship carrying a trained steward on board. "
So, for those asking what my thoughts what Luxuries actually are, they were intended to be different things depending on what they were applied to. If you just have 'generic' Luxuries on board, it's stuff like holoprojectors, lounges, gaming consoles, meditation chambers - it makes life on ship easier, but doesn't have any game effects. Alternatively, you can stuff it all into one cabin along with servant robots, food dispensers and a trouser press, and rent that cabin out to high-paying passengers. (And yes, that was designed as a way to bypass having to have someone with Steward on board.)
