Control Ergonomics

[esampson]

So it seems like the formula for Ergonomics is in error and not entirely complete.

The basic formula is listed as E = (F/C) - 5 with F being the number of 'squares' (half tons) assigned to the consoles and C being the number of consoles.

So first off there's an obvious contradiction. On page 327 it says that if there is a bridge on the ship then you add 2 to ergonomics. On page 348 it says that if there is no bridge then you subtract 2. I suppose this isn't literally a contradiction but if both rules are correct that would mean a bridge is actually a 4 point modifier. This one is fairly easy to HR though and just say that a bridge adds 2 and a lack of bridge is no modifier.

The part that seems incomplete is that you roll Flux + E every day and if the result is less than 0 then every console has to roll a quality check. However it isn't clear to me what happens if this roll is failed. Do the players take a wound? Does the durability of the console decrease (which is my guess, but I'm not sure). Does the ship explode? Does the ref have to come up with a mini-adventure on the spot to deal with the player pushing the wrong button?

Lastly there seems to be a less obvious error. If I have 'spacious' controls and a bridge I end up with an ergonomics of 1. That means a mishap occurs on a flux roll of -2 or less, which is about 28% of the time. Given that you roll every single day that means you can expect just under 2 mishaps on every jump. Either mishaps are rather trivial in severity (at which point why are we worrying about it?) or people are monumentally careless in space.

Now obviously ergonomics could be increased past 1 by giving each console more than 2 tons, but at 2 tons each console is already occupying a volume of 3m x 3m or roughly the size of a fairly nice office. The fact that this isn't enough space for a pilot seems odd to say the least. The fact that a pilot can do a better job if his controls are even further spaced out seems almost bizarre.

So does anyone have any insights to this? It seems to me like 2 tons per control should give an ergonomics of 3 (modified to 5 with a bridge). Just decrease ergonomics by 1 for each class down the chart? That would seem to be E = (F/C) - 1, which is the same 'slope' as the original formula but with results that seem more reasonable (cramped controls with a bridge gives an ergonomics of 2 which is a mishap of 17% or about 1 per trip).

 

[robject]

These are errata items that have been noted -- although I just added the Bridge's +2 and -2 DMs to the pile, in effect saying the DM-2 should go away.

A Bridge adds the DM+2. Not having a bridge doesn't subtract anything. This justifies the bridge, giving a plausible reason why they're all the rage, without requiring them to exist.

The text on MOARN -- Map Only As Really Necessary -- and Quality needs to be inserted here and the rules need to conform to it. The check period should be defined by the rating, just like any other quality, according to page 194. So a +2 ergonomics means the check period is two years.

But MOARN still applies. So even if control ergonomics is -4 (check period = hours!), if the players are barely doing anything with those controls, I don't see the need to check every few hours unless I need it to fail within hours.

 

[esampson]

I was guessing that you probably just used the +2 and not the -2 (since the +2 seemed pretty necessary to have any kind of reasonable ergonomics and a 4 point difference seemed way too severe).

Using the Ergonomics as the Period though seems like in most cases it is going to be too trivial to worry about. Assuming you have a bridge your worst case seems like it should be a -2 (I would assume you have to have at least 1/2 ton per console, which is -4 + 2 for the fact that you have a teeny little bridge). That's a check every week, which doesn't seem like it could accomplish much more than being a book keeping nuisance and small cash drain.

 

[robject]

Assuming you have a bridge, your worst case seems like it should be a -2 (I would assume you have to have at least 1/2 ton per console, which is -4 + 2 for the fact that you have a teeny little bridge). That's a check every week, which doesn't seem like it could accomplish much more than being a book keeping nuisance and small cash drain.

Maybe so. It just seems to me that a daily check is a much greater nuisance, while one check per week sounds downright reasonable.

 

[esampson]

Well, with daily checks it is possible that multiple bad rolls during the trip could actually cause some sort of control failure before the party has an opportunity to repair. With a single roll per week it seems like all that happens is that there's a repair cost added to the trip, and that's the worst case scenario with ship with a -2. Ships with more reasonable amounts of control space are making checks every few months or years.

Of course that's assuming that a failed roll is simply a reduction in the reliability of the controls. If it is something more significant then yeah, weekly rolls could definitely be more than bookkeeping nuisance.