100-dTon TL 12 Prison Transport

[Spinward Flow]

they choose to stick to the RAW or your opinion that the RAW is inherently ‘wrong’.

I started with precedent and worked within it to find a solution (medical skill = +DM to low berth resuscitation roll, medical-2+ adds addtional +1 DM as cited explicitly in skill text). I did not deny the opportunity for contextual -DMs to be applied, depending on circumstances as deemed relevant by the Referee.

The counter argument relies on the "break the rules/precedents whenever it's convenient" clause ... as (correctly!) cited by @mike wightman ...

The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.

So if I may summarize ...

• RAW applies when it's convenient
• RAW doesn't apply when it's NOT convenient

Which in discussions like this only swings the door (WIDE!) open to the "RAW for me, but not for thee!" arguments being put forward by both sides. Needless to say, the two perspectives are fundamentally INCOMPATIBLE with each other.

At which point, you have to ask ... which is "closer" to the intended usage (in this instance)?

1. Skill Level = +/-DM
2. Skill Level / 2 = +/-DM
3. Skill Level * 2 = +/-DM
4. Skill Level = no DM at all

Typically, in the LBBs (especially in 1-3), in the absence of RAW text stating otherwise (thus making an explicit exception) ... option 1 tends to be the "assumed/common/usual" standard baseline assumption for CT.

But, if it means "failing to win an argument" on the subject ... then it can't be option 1 ... so only options 2-4 remain available.
Anyone who points this out in clear and no uncertain terms ... well, they're just being RUDE and argumentative!
And we all know where that leads ...

 

[kilemall]

2 looks closer to RAW to me, along with no chance for elimination of lethality.

I don’t really care how this argument goes either way, if I will override Emperor Marc on rules I sure won’t worry about forum opinion on something I’ve decided to do and I would expect to give the same courtesy to any others.

Still useful to discuss to wring out any inconsistencies or problems, and to clarify what effect the original RAW had/intended and what changing it will do.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Still useful to discuss to wring out any inconsistencies or problems, and to clarify what effect the original RAW had/intended and what changing it will do.

 

[Vargr Breath]

How about a DM for how many times the character has been in low passage? Every time you go into low passage your chance of coming out alive is less. Like the added medical skill +DM this would be a YTU addition.

 

[mike wightman]

Another option is to have a technological DM as well as the medic. Nothing in the rules to stop you inventing a low berth trauma kit that adds 1 to resuscitation rolls, or a drug that grants +2. If you as a referee want to lower the chance of death then there are options that the game encourages you to invent.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Another option is to have a technological DM as well as the medic. Nothing in the rules to stop you inventing a low berth trauma kit that adds 1 to resuscitation rolls, or a drug that grants +2. If you as a referee want to lower the chance of death then there are options that the game encourages you to invent.

I like this, as technological levels go up your chances of living are better. But this like the other options are YTU and not RAW. I never liked the lethality of low passage so any of the options we are talking about sound good to me.

 

[bookwyrm]

I remember when I first read about how bad it is to travel by low berth, I couldn't help but wonder just how desperate one would need to be to travel this way. On top of that, doctors/medics/medtechs with a high enough skill to make travelling this way less dangerous would probably be working for ship lines while those with barely any medical knowledge (or a problem like drug addiction, drunkenness, shaky hands) are working on those tramps which only the desperate will travel by low berth.

One part of me really doesn't like the awful chances of using low berth, but on the other hand, I like how it's a part of the darkness that's Traveller. Do you wait 3 days for the scheduled liner that has a great reputation or take your chances with the disreputable tramp with dark rumors surrounding it that's leaving in a few hours?

 

[whartung]

Perhaps an END DM as well could come to play.

 

[bookwyrm]

Perhaps an END DM as well could come to play.

T20 has that for if/when the medic fails. Low Berth is another way to weed out those with weak constitutions.

I also like the idea of higher TL lowering the chance of not making it to your desired destination, but there's still a small chance. It's just the way our bodies react to being frozen & thawed.

 

[Rupert]

Are the interpretations you've both advanced and advocated for the most reasonable/best practical implementation of multiple precedents laid out and given elsewhere in the same RAW?
"Pull the other one, guv."

That fact that elsewhere bonuses scale with skill, but here it explicitly says "Medic-2 or higher..." actually supports the text meaning that there is no higher bonus with increasing skill (otherwise why state it differently from elsewhere). To claim otherwise is to claim that 'actually all skills should give +2/level, because Vacc Suit and Ship's Boat do' (sometimes)'. Some skills give large bonuses for increased levels for some things, others do not. Medical just happens to give a +1 (only) to reviving Low Berth passengers if you have Medical-2 or better.

Also, pay attention to what you're advocating for.
You're saying that NO MATTER WHAT the Medical skill/expertise of the (live) crew monitoring low berths ... DEATH RATES CANNOT BE MINIMIZED/MADE SAFE.

Sure. But that does not mean that it can never be made safe - just not by skill alone. Bring the low berths to a really good hospital equipped with the best equipment for revivals, and have a Medical-2 or better character oversee the revival, and it can probably be done safely, for one option.

Not because there's a rule saying that the dice roll threshold cannot be brought lower than {insert number here} placing a lower bound to enforce such an outcome ... but because you're advocating for a position in which Medical skill CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO MATTER ENOUGH to apply the +DMs necessary to achieve such a desired outcome (death requires -DMs to survival to be in play in order to be possible).
In other words ... thumb on the scales of possibility, much?

That +1 halves the death rate. It's not exactly insignificant.

Player: "Why did my character die during character generation?"
Referee: "Insufficient Medical skill/expertise during the resuscitation of a low berth transport killed you."
Player:
Referee: "Ready to roll up another character?"
Player: "Do I have to?"

How is that different from "You tripped over your cat, getting out of bed one morning, hit your head, and died."? It's just colour, added by GM fiat.

 

[Rupert]

Your reasons for altering the rule are fine, I do too although the lethality is there but not so absolute.

But you don’t need to be insulting just cause they choose to stick to the RAW or your opinion that the RAW is inherently ‘wrong’.

And they can express their opinion of such alterations but not demand you play by RAW.

FWIW, I've never used those RAW, having never had anyone use low passage in a CT game. MegaTraveller is much kinder (a Routine task, so 7+, with Medical and Edu of the medic applying), with usually not resulting in death (11+ to die on a second roll). There's nothing stopping the medic attempting to take extra time, which would make the task Simple (3+).

TNE requires a Catastrophic failure on the medic's roll, and that requires a low skill, rolling very high, and then failing the skill check a second time (it's actually impossible for a competent medic not operating under penalties). However TNE does allow failures that don't kill the revived, but which can damage them, sometimes chronically (as with a failure in MT that doesn't kill).

I never saw someone die from low berth in MT or TNE. Failures resulting in characters wandering round looking like wrinkly old octogenarians and/or being complete klutzes as a result of bad revivals were always good for a laugh, though (we were young).

 

[Rupert]

At which point, you have to ask ... which is "closer" to the intended usage (in this instance)?

1. Skill Level = +/-DM
2. Skill Level / 2 = +/-DM
3. Skill Level * 2 = +/-DM
4. Skill Level = no DM at all

Typically, in the LBBs (especially in 1-3), in the absence of RAW text stating otherwise (thus making an explicit exception) ... option 1 tends to be the "assumed/common/usual" standard baseline assumption for CT.

If you read the skill entries (LBB1, p.17-22) the recommended bonuses for skill levels are all over the place. +1/level, +2/level, +4/level, +2/level over level-1, +1 for level 2+ are all there. If anything +2/level seems the most common (outside combat, where +1/level is universal), not 1/level, and there is no stated 'baseline' that I recall.

The idea that the 'standard' is 8+, +1/level of skill (the base for personal combat) comes from an assumption amongst players that the core of the game is seen in the combat rules. It's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not in the rules as an explicit thing at all.