Definitive Sensor Rules for T5

[Wol]

Dear All,

I am looking to convert the DSR rules to T5. Before I re-invent the wheel, please let me know if it has already been done.

The T5 rules do appear to be influenced by the DSR rules, but there are obviously some big differences in the mechanics, certainty, and hard cut-offs in T5.

A few issues are MM's choice of a pseudo logarithmic scale with whole numbers in the space ranges being tied to orders of magnitude, and sometimes not. Also that generic target 'size' is the limiting factor directly for sensors (noting this is modified if the target is using active sensors) rather than features of the Target itself (reflectivity of the hull etc.). I have not seen Bruce Allan Macintosh on these boards, and undertand he is now at Stanford. I might try and get hold of him.

Just to be clear, I am looking to port the DSR rules fairly closely but this is not intended to spark another discussion of the current sensor rules, ( which seem to me quite well thought out and fairly fast play). I have already converted the T5 space ranges to 'Term' values.

regards

NB

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Does anyone use the DSR?

 

[David Johansen]

DSR?

 

[Wol]

Definitive Sensor Rules by Bruce Allan Macintosh. Last drafted for T4.1; adaptable for most Traveller versions if you choose.

A copy is here:
http://www.mu.org/~joe/traveller/house/sensor.rules.html

However you will find a few adapted version on the web.

regards

 

[Supplement Four]

I used them for T4, back when the DSR document first came out. That was back on the TML, I think.

They were written with input from a real US military sensor tech, so I dug the authenticity, but I don't think the author was that good at writing game rules. The DSR rules are too fiddly for me--too much detail and effort for little gain.

That's coming from a guy who loves detail (but also loves simple, easy to use rule systems).

I don't think it too pertinent to this conversation, since we're talking about T5, but I wrote my own Sensor Rules (link in my sig) for CT. Very simple to use (you roll Computer Code or less on one, two, or three dice, depending on range).

T5's own sensor rules seem to be pretty detailed as well. I think I'd go with them over the DSR if I were playing T5.

 

[Wol]

Agree with some of what you say. Bruce provided three levels of detail, and as with many rules, at the far end, the long lists of modifiers do become onerous. If the magnitude of the effects are correct, then it is often better for speed to accomodate them in a random factor.

Still I find the rules quite attractive, but need to think how they can best be fitted into the existing T5 sensor task system. I am challenged by the hard cut-off in T5 as this seems a bit Micky Mouse. Hmm all food for thought.

regards

 

[Supplement Four]

Agree with some of what you say. Bruce provided three levels of detail, and as with many rules, at the far end, the long lists of modifiers do become onerous. If the magnitude of the effects are correct, then it is often better for speed to accomodate them in a random factor.

Still I find the rules quite attractive, but need to think how they can best be fitted into the existing T5 sensor task system. I am challenged by the hard cut-off in T5 as this seems a bit Micky Mouse. Hmm all food for thought.

regards

It doesn't sound like my simple CT sensor rules in my sig are something you're after, but you might want to take a looksee at them--the section about the different types of sensors used in Traveller. That may help you with your House Rules.

 

[robject]

I note that S4's core mechanic is similar to T5's.

T5 uses the TL of the sensor as a target number instead of computer model. Presumably, then, T5 sensors have little computers in them. And of course, operator skill is also added in.

And, T5 uses range as the number of dice to throw.

Of course, T5's numbers are significantly larger. I prefer fewer dice and lower target numbers, but there it is.