Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > Mongoose Traveller

Mongoose Traveller Discussion forums for the Traveller rules from Mongoose Publishing.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 21st, 2009, 06:55 PM
aramis's Avatar
aramis aramis is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK, USofA
Posts: 29,031
Gallery : 53
Visit aramis's Blog
aramis has disabled reputation
Send a message via ICQ to aramis Send a message via AIM to aramis Send a message via Yahoo to aramis
Default

If it did, Matt, people wouldn't still be harping about it. Most people are simply ignorant of the amount of power fusion releases.

Most who become aware of the energies involved develop suspension of disbelief issues not long thereafter, and it's been a hot button topic since about 1992... the traveller discussions on Compuserve even discussed it.
__________________
~ Aramis
aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
Knight of Deneb (Spin 2532)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326)
IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+-
Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old November 21st, 2009, 08:23 PM
captainjack's Avatar
captainjack captainjack is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 662
Gallery : 0
captainjack Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramis View Post
If it did, Matt, people wouldn't still be harping about it. Most people are simply ignorant of the amount of power fusion releases.

Most who become aware of the energies involved develop suspension of disbelief issues not long thereafter, and it's been a hot button topic since about 1992... the traveller discussions on Compuserve even discussed it.

Actually, Aramis, it does work. The game mechanic works just fine -it's one way to make ship design a series of trade-off decisions (among other things). The rules in terms of running the game work fine; players have to occasionally worry about fuel, or time pressures; those are not game saving changes if they are removed. That it doesn't reflect the potential way a fusion powerplant might work is very much a personal issue of taste. I get that you and others don't like it; I even get that Matt sorta agrees in non-OTU areas. What I also get is that changing it at the rules and canon level not only is more issue than its worth, but that it isn't gonna happen.

Change the fuel system (again) and all designs need revision; trade effectiveness changes; the purpose and need for starports has to change; insystem travel changes radically; combat is different (you want Sysdef boats to be even tougher ?). That's just off the top of my head; yes, some of those examples are probably wrong, and others are missing, but individually, those are not the point.

This is what I see as the issue: The fix is clearly one that is needed, if it is needed, at the campaign level. I suspect that on the whole for most campaigns, it doesn't matter. And refixing the OTU for the disbelief issue is overkill; especially when, as Matt points out, it works -not the way you like it, I admit (me either, just for the record)- but, honestly, it doesn't cause major problems in how the game run and and the rules work; and the OTU setting is big and bulky enough that fixing it will break other things, and piss off another bunch.

Other than vague worries about suspension of disbelief, if you want to prove that this is "broken" (a phrase I more and more hate) and in need of a fix, you'll have to show where it makes the game unrunnable, unplayable or vulnerable to massive munchkinization.


If it makes your campaign unfeasible, well, I understand -i made some changes in that direction myself; but you know what ? I changed it. Me, I'm not as big on disbelief issues given the big dead elephant head(s) that sits in the middle of almost all SF games: lets see, FTL, Hyperspace, heat, artificial gravity, The layout of the Actual Universe, Third dimentions in cartography, etc.

And, oh yes. Two weeks is the minimum for ships to have as pointed out by matt and the Core book. It helps small craft no end, and adds more tradeoffs. Lots of ships have sailed with the absolute minimum of provisions so more cargo can be stored on earth througout history. Its stupid, and dangerous, but heck, it's what people do. And, again, it works. ground to 100d +1 week +/- a small fraction to the 100d limit and then to port ?

Fourteen days ? No problem. Our ships barely need nine days, sir. That's more tonnage for unobtainium.
__________________
_________________
Captainjack23, KOD
Marquis d'Remulak, Sol 1833

My Traveller, OD&D and obsessive game design Blog:

Crawdads and Dragons

Current development projects
Adventurer What if Original D&D was written for traveller !
Bricks and Basilisks: RPG Gaming with <ahem> modular and trademarked brick construction system minifigs !

I think the true measure of virtue is not how we treat people when they give us what we want,
but how we treat people when we are denied that.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old November 21st, 2009, 09:17 PM
robject's Avatar
robject robject is offline
Marquis
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 13,861
Gallery : 9
Visit robject's Blog
robject has disabled reputation
Default

Maybe I shouldn't put my feet in this, but I still have some growing up to do, too.

Fuel usage was confirmed for MGT before the first printing. The numbers are more or less correct.

In as much as they contradict MGT's fuel usage, MegaTraveller and TNE and T4... and CT... are wrong.

Marc is canon.
__________________
Imperiallines magazine
My Helpful Stuff for Traveller5
IMTU tc+ t5++ 3i(+) au ls+ / OTU 44% an+ dt+ ge- j- jf+ n- pi+ pp+ tr+ tv- uwp+ xb+
Tools Link

Last edited by robject; November 21st, 2009 at 09:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old November 21st, 2009, 10:09 PM
scrabble
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Gallery :
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robject View Post
In as much as they contradict MGT's fuel usage, MegaTraveller and TNE and T4... and CT... are wrong.

Marc is canon.
You do realize that there is a difference between "right/wrong" and "canon/not canon", do you not? Although apparently Mr Miller himself seems to have a lot of difficulty deciding for himself what is "right" or "wrong" given how each edition is contradictory. So should he be trusted to have made the "right" decision this time?

And either way, I personally do not care what anybody else, not even Marc Miller himself, says is "right", "wrong", "canon", or "not canon". I will do and say whatever I please in my games, and I do not need approval from anybody to do so. Neither you nor Mr Miller have any authority to tell anybody otherwise.

When it comes to a roleplaying game, the truth is that the GM is the only canon. What he says goes for his group, and that may coincide with the intent of the author or it may not. If it does not, then so be it. Any concerns about whether this fits into the "larger canon" really do not matter.

Last edited by scrabble; November 21st, 2009 at 10:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old November 21st, 2009, 11:29 PM
rancke's Avatar
rancke rancke is offline
Absent Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 12,238
Gallery : 11
rancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robject View Post
Fuel usage was confirmed for MGT before the first printing. The numbers are more or less correct.
I'm sorry to hear that. Also disappointed and bewildered. I can't understand why Marc Miller would deliberately make such a decision. Ah well... Another blemish I can stop worrying and fretting about.

Quote:
In as much as they contradict MGT's fuel usage, MegaTraveller and TNE and T4... and CT... are wrong.

Marc is canon.
Yes and no. Marc can dictate that one has to ignore common sense if one wants to write official Traveller material involving ships and fusion plants and fuel use. He can't dictate that something self-contradictiory makes sense per definition.


Hans
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old November 21st, 2009, 11:40 PM
captainjack's Avatar
captainjack captainjack is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 662
Gallery : 0
captainjack Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabble View Post
You do realize that there is a difference between "right/wrong" and "canon/not canon", do you not? Although apparently Mr Miller himself seems to have a lot of difficulty deciding for himself what is "right" or "wrong" given how each edition is contradictory. So should he be trusted to have made the "right" decision this time?

And either way, I personally do not care what anybody else, not even Marc Miller himself, says is "right", "wrong", "canon", or "not canon". I will do and say whatever I please in my games, and I do not need approval from anybody to do so. Neither you nor Mr Miller have any authority to tell anybody otherwise.

When it comes to a roleplaying game, the truth is that the GM is the only canon. What he says goes for his group, and that may coincide with the intent of the author or it may not. If it does not, then so be it. Any concerns about whether this fits into the "larger canon" really do not matter.

Thank you, I think we all know where you stand on this, here and in other guises. You're supposed to be new here, so I guess that you can be excused not knowing that Marc et al are of the same opinion as you are on the subject of "rolling your own". But your point is irrelevant to the level of non-sequitor, I'm afraid. Until Marc or Matt actually try to force you to do something, these repetitive "no-one can force me to run this differently" is just wasting air, and "Marc cant be trusted to know his own work" posts (two now, at least) are just absurdist factionalizing of a discussion that has blown up more than once. Of course things change between editions. He's a designer . And, so enough of that.

So, to continue, Robject's point is one I can agree with, to the extent that one needs complete consistency. The point is the rule works for this edition, it also is more compatable with older editions compared to the desired changes. If one can show where it makes a difference to rule mechanics and/or play, then it needs changing. I just haven't heard it yet; and, "suspension of disbelief" isn't what I'm asking for.
__________________
_________________
Captainjack23, KOD
Marquis d'Remulak, Sol 1833

My Traveller, OD&D and obsessive game design Blog:

Crawdads and Dragons

Current development projects
Adventurer What if Original D&D was written for traveller !
Bricks and Basilisks: RPG Gaming with <ahem> modular and trademarked brick construction system minifigs !

I think the true measure of virtue is not how we treat people when they give us what we want,
but how we treat people when we are denied that.

Last edited by captainjack; November 21st, 2009 at 11:43 PM.. Reason: Hubris
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old November 22nd, 2009, 12:01 AM
rancke's Avatar
rancke rancke is offline
Absent Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 12,238
Gallery : 11
rancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captainjack View Post
So, to continue, Robject's point is one I can agree with, to the extent that one needs complete consistency.
You're not getting it here. What is in dispute seems to be whether you're getting adequate consistency.

Quote:
The point is the rule works for this edition, it also is more compatable with older editions compared to the desired changes. If one can show where it makes a difference to rule mechanics and/or play, then it needs changing. I just haven't heard it yet; and, "suspension of disbelief" isn't what I'm asking for.
Caveat: As I mentioned before, I'm going by statements to the effect that MGT's ship design is more or less the same as HG, since I don't have the MGT version.

Ship has Jump drive 1, Maneuver drive 1, Power plant 1 and fuel for one jump and 14 days worth of power plant fuel. It boosts at 1G for 8 hours, jumps to another system, boosts at 1G for another 8 hours to make planetfall. How much power plant fuel has the ship expended?

Freighter has jump drive 4, power plant 5, maneuver drive 1, and 25% cargo space. Hov much difference does it make to its economic potential that it is using 5% on power plant fuel tankage?

Oh, and you may not ask for self-consistency, but I, for one, do. And I'm not the only one.


Hans
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old November 22nd, 2009, 02:15 AM
captainjack's Avatar
captainjack captainjack is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 662
Gallery : 0
captainjack Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rancke View Post
You're not getting it here. What is in dispute seems to be whether you're getting adequate consistency.
Poor choice of words on my part. yes, That is the question.

Quote:
Caveat: As I mentioned before, I'm going by statements to the effect that MGT's ship design is more or less the same as HG, since I don't have the MGT version.
It isn't; it's much more like LBB2. However, I don't think that that is a problem for your point.

Before I continue, let me assure you that I'm not being flip or (intentionally) obtuse with my answers.

Quote:
Ship has Jump drive 1, Maneuver drive 1, Power plant 1 and fuel for one jump and 14 days worth of power plant fuel. It boosts at 1G for 8 hours, jumps to another system, boosts at 1G for another 8 hours to make planetfall. How much power plant fuel has the ship expended?
The rules say one uses x amount of fuel to run the power plant for 14 days. Where's the problem ? Seven days (+/- jump variance) + 16 hours. Leaving about 6 days fuel.

Sure, I suppose one can argue that the consumption should be different for different levels of use, but where is the real benefit ? Most such calculations in real life are based on averages rather than summing up incremental pro rated values.


Quote:
Freighter has jump drive 4, power plant 5, maneuver drive 1, and 25% cargo space. Hov much difference does it make to its economic potential that it is using 5% on power plant fuel tankage?
I'd assume that would be on the order of (profit value of cargo *((actual cargo space)/ (cargo space plus fuel space))*10, right ? That isn't in the rules, I admit, but its a basic math and trade idea that if value is equal more is better, right ?

Quote:
Oh, and you may not ask for self-consistency, but I, for one, do. And I'm not the only one.
Not my point at all, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I too like self consistency - quite a bit. I guess I'm just not grasping how it is being applied to this criticism ?

Is the issue for you that the fuel requirements differ from some previous baseline traveller value ? or is it that the amounts required are unrealistic given what we imagine we know about fusion ? I could probably answer and/or agree with your point if I knew where you were coming from on this.
__________________
_________________
Captainjack23, KOD
Marquis d'Remulak, Sol 1833

My Traveller, OD&D and obsessive game design Blog:

Crawdads and Dragons

Current development projects
Adventurer What if Original D&D was written for traveller !
Bricks and Basilisks: RPG Gaming with <ahem> modular and trademarked brick construction system minifigs !

I think the true measure of virtue is not how we treat people when they give us what we want,
but how we treat people when we are denied that.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old November 22nd, 2009, 08:29 AM
atpollard's Avatar
atpollard atpollard is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Port Richey
Posts: 9,321
Gallery : 43
Visit atpollard's Blog
atpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesome
Default

Purely a hypothetical thought, but if one assumes that 99.9% of the energy generated by a power plant is used to maintain the magnetic bottle containing the fusion reaction (or some other internal process), then the fuel consumption rate of the power plant is fairly constant irresepective of the external power demand. The only way to save PP fuel, is to shut down the power plant.

Under this assumption, the fuel consumption rules work just fine and make perfect sense.

EDIT: After all, you have the option of using a fission power plant or a fuel cell with a reaction drive if you wany more 'realism'.

Last edited by atpollard; November 22nd, 2009 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old November 22nd, 2009, 09:38 AM
mbrinkhues mbrinkhues is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,941
Gallery : 0
mbrinkhues Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabble View Post
RPGs have always been house-ruled, and always will be. If you expect a system to work exactly as it is supposed to, straight out of the box, then I would say that your expectations are set too high. I have never, in my entire roleplaying career that spans over 25 years, purchased a game that I did not have to house-rule at least slightly before I was satisfied with it. And I would argue that purchased RPGs save you the time of making an entire ruleset and setting from scratch, but some minor alterations on an individual level are to be expected.

The same applies to most things that people purchase that they plan to use for a long time. For example, one does not buy a car and then leave it exactly as it is for its entire life; one can add decorations, or change the stereo, or add GPS, or improve the speakers. So why should I be forced to use (or be expected to use) the rules as written for every RPG? As long as house rules are set out at the start of the game and everyone at the table agrees to them, I cannot see how it could possibly be a problem.




Obviously it would be preferable to use the rules as written if one was demoing a new game to new players at a convention, but you are the only person here making an issue out of convention play. In all other practical examples of gaming, house rules are fairly standard. Otherwise, the discussion is about fuel in MGT, not about whether house rules are better than official rules.

And I should point out that Classic Traveller itself has at one point or another most likely been house-ruled to death by almost everyone who has played it.
a) I have never GMed Clunky, played it twice, immediatly dropped it for MegaTraveller when I got that rules set

b) Mega (with the Errata) and TNE actually work just fine OOB, same with quite a few other systems (i.e GURPS 3e) So one CAN do a good system OOB. And since all that systems exist, I don't have to develop that parts. So Whats the point in MGT?

d) The only non-original parts of my cars have always been due to damage (and even then original spares). Customizing is a bad thing IMHO

e) The fuel problem IS a rules problem. If MGT had used Mega or TNE as a base it simply would not exist since these games had solved the problem 10-20 years ago. And in a quite simple way. Normally one ignores the energy consumption of subsystems. But if I need the data it is there. No extra work needed.
__________________
Engineers time estimate: The software will be done March 15th, 11:14:36.... What do you mean \"what year\"?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuel consumption JAFARR The Fleet 16 September 16th, 2009 10:35 AM
Fuel-n magmagmag The Fleet 6 July 2nd, 2008 09:26 AM
Jump engines fuel vs. Power plant fuel Bishop Odo The Fleet 16 January 7th, 2003 12:22 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.