Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
"Never tell me the odds!"--Han Solo, SW# V.. 
Low Passage
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Very very very very, ummm, very, very low*
Check this SixWise link to debunk this one and five more. Same place I found the real ones to worry about that no one seems to give much thought to.
Six Most Feared
* Unless perhaps your pilot is a chain smoking, chronic alcholic, biggie supersize meal, with fries, couch potato
M
Malenfant
Guest
I sure wouldn't. a 1-in-200 chance of dying, irrespective of your actual health? Whether you were sickly or perfectly fit? No thanks.
Not very good comparisons though - that doesn't mean that you have an 18.1% or a 16.6% chance of dying if you have a smoke or a burger. Here we're talking about a 1 in 200 chance of dying in a low berth - that's like saying that if you had 200 cigarettes or burgers in your life, one of them would be the thing that killed you.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Not very good comparisons though - that doesn't mean that you have an 18.1% or a 16.6% chance of dying if you have a smoke or a burger. Here we're talking about a 1 in 200 chance of dying in a low berth - that's like saying that if you had 200 cigarettes or burgers in your life, one of them would be the thing that killed you. </font>[/QUOTE]Not meant so much as comparisons as perspective, I said "consider" not compare. I know the 18.1% etc. above is not the chance of dying for engaging in that activity. I don't think that's the way I posed the data and I'm sorry if it gave that impression. I think it's obvious the numbers aren't saying what you said but pehaps I could have been clearer.
What I intended to show was that people are funny when it comes to risks. They generally have no concept of actual risks and ignore facts, going instead on gut instincts which are usually wrong for the modern world.
Accepting that a lowberth trip kills 0.5% of users I see this as a pretty much once in a lifetime gamble taken by those who can't afford better but hope to find a new life on new shores. It is not something undertaken by a casual tourist on annual vacations, and certainly not something used for regular commutes. The costs and risk of such a trip being accepted as they are point to this conclusion for me.
If you must compare it to the above, then take each as lifetime risks. So a 0.5% one shot gamble vs some very high odds that a lifestyle of smoking or poor eating/exercise will kill you. I don't have the statistics handy but I'm sure it's a lot more than 0.5% so for any population of 200 lowberthers vs 200 smokers or burger eating couch potatos you'll have a statistical death rate of about 1 to LOTS*.
* I think the number is something like 50% but that could be way off as it's just from memory. But let's be conservative and say it's only 10 times more likely that those activities will kill you than a trip in a lowberth.
And you still wouldn't see taking that very small risk for the huge potential gain? As I said most people still operate on gut instinct when it comes to risk assessment, it's natural even if it's usually wrong in our modern world. I just thought you had a better grasp of things. Of course I mean that in general, not specifically. Lot's of people wouldn't be interested in making such a trip at all, even if it were as high passage with 100% guaranteed survival.
For the total risk I think we're more likely to be killed in a lifetime getting out of shower in the morning, or driving the regular weekday commute to work, or crossing the busy city streets after parking vs travelling in a lowberth, even a couple times. Just because of the accumulated risk. But that doesn't mean we should all stop showering, work out of our home to avoid traffic and confine our walking to never crossing the street
Sorry for the perhaps wide divergence from topic here. To bring it back on point (I think), or to Traveller at least, in summary as noted I believe...
That people (individuals) won't make a habit of travelling by lowberth because of the risk, but they will take that gamble once, or maybe twice, in a lifetime for the potential of making a new and better life. The type of people doing this will be the desperate and lower class, usually leaving high pop worlds for lower pop worlds. My PCs mustering out with lowberth tickets will usually cash them, perhaps holding one back as a "just in case" since it's only worth Cr900 anyway.
That people (society) will use lowberth travel extensively for the reasons noted. That is the low cost and (relatively) low risk will be seen as acceptable against the reward of a new and better life in another star system.
That people (individuals and society) will not see the risk level acceptable for regular use. It will not usually be used by annual tourists or seasonal migrant workers for example. Those will save up for middle passage tickets and travel double occupancy.
That the same risk (which isn't supported by the rules in HG where survival is presumably 100% btw) applied to the Navy and their Frozen Watch practice wouldn't be popular or used by any given crew member often. I think if that were the case you'd either find it as a punishment detail or some kind of raw recruit assignment. So your Frozen Watch would be troublemakers and greenies. Not exactly the kind crew you want to be counting on after a battle where you've taken heavy casualties, unless the idea is that you're that desperate. You know, in a way, I kind of like that vision of the Frozen Watch now that I've typed it up. Strike that, I really like that idea, it's giving me "ideas"
Anyway, that's my take, YMMV*
* Considerably if I were to find a lowberth ticket off this planet
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The whole death in low berth thing is obviously influenced by Earl Dumarest's occasional such trips - in the novels the risk was due to the low berth being designed to carry livestock rather than humans.
It's how I've always explained it IMTU - and I'm to this day surprised that it wasn't mentioned in Traveller canon...
The High Guard low berth, and emergency low berth, appear to be tailored to humans, hence the lack of risk.
Perhaps there should be a different component cost for LBB2 "animal" low berths and High Guard human ones?
It's how I've always explained it IMTU - and I'm to this day surprised that it wasn't mentioned in Traveller canon...
The High Guard low berth, and emergency low berth, appear to be tailored to humans, hence the lack of risk.
Perhaps there should be a different component cost for LBB2 "animal" low berths and High Guard human ones?
Plankowner
SOC-13
Except that per LBBs, he can buy his passage on a PER JUMP basis instead of a per parsec. Travel on that J-4 Megacorp ship that follows the Xboat routes and you could get some nice choices...
Besides, Alpha Centauri (Prometheus) isn't a bad world in Traveller...
Besides, Alpha Centauri (Prometheus) isn't a bad world in Traveller...
Well, there is the "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Most people are unable to accept in their guts that something really bad could happen to them (This is also one reason why many criminals take stupid chances). Then there is the "anything is better than this life" syndrome. I'm not sure just what the odds that faced European emigrants on the trip to America were, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the neighborhood of your 1-in-200 chance. Although I personally prefer the GT version (no risk with competent medic attending) with a few extras added (there are risks, but they're below the resolution of the game mechanics, thus allowing the ref to introduce it by fiat), but I could accept a 1-in-200 risk (1-in-12 and the low lottery, OTOH, are both ridiculous IMO).
Hans
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Agreed, the CT risk (actually a little better than 1 in 12, but not much) and low lottery are deal breakers.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
So has anyone ever lost a character to death in low berth?
Have you as a referee ever enforced a character death due to low berth?
Just wondering...
Have you as a referee ever enforced a character death due to low berth?
Just wondering...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep, my feeling as well.
Actually it is, I knew I'd seen it somewhere and then it hit me. It's part of the descriptive for the Far-Trader in Supp7...
"The port corridor provides access to the ship's four low berths. These low berths were originally intended for carrying livestock in the 100 to 400 kilogram range. For this reason, the berths are close to the port cargo lock, and the entire area can be sealed off with hatches and doors in the event that an animal gets loose."
That seems a reasonable alteration*. I'd say make the "animal" low berths cheaper, as an alternative, and stick with the no risk (except by GM fiat one in thousands chance) model for most low berths. That way the travellers are safe, except in some rare exceptions like the Far-Trader that used to haul a few head of live prime stock and turns to offering the lowberths to desperate passengers or for emergency only. So how much for a livestock berth sounds good? Maybe MCr0.01 per half ton?
* though I still really like my idea about the risks of Frozen Watch duty
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Nope, and nope. When we still played with the 5+ to survive roll for low berths if we survived prior history death we stayed away from lowberths in the game
We did like the low lottery from the perspective of the Captain though
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
What can I say, I must have read that book a thousand times...
memory must be going
Sounds about right to me.
No, I've not. But I have had players lose characters to Low Berths. Ironic, but it was under MT, where it is hard to do!
Character was being thawed for medical treatment. PC Doc failed the roll with a nat 2. 3d Mishap, and a 14. Ouch 4 DP!...Rolled the DP and wound up with 2 atts below 0 and the third at 0.
Another PC plugged himself in to a LB, and asked the commputer to wake him up. Computer was unskilled and edu 1... 3d mishap resulted. Roll was an 18. Player's comment: "Aw, geez! Please tell me it didn't mangle the corpse!"
Character was being thawed for medical treatment. PC Doc failed the roll with a nat 2. 3d Mishap, and a 14. Ouch 4 DP!...Rolled the DP and wound up with 2 atts below 0 and the third at 0.
Another PC plugged himself in to a LB, and asked the commputer to wake him up. Computer was unskilled and edu 1... 3d mishap resulted. Roll was an 18. Player's comment: "Aw, geez! Please tell me it didn't mangle the corpse!"
Peter Newman
SOC-12
"Actually it is, I knew I'd seen it somewhere and then it hit me. It's part of the descriptive for the Far-Trader in Supp7...
"The port corridor provides access to the ship's four low berths. These low berths were originally intended for carrying livestock in the 100 to 400 kilogram range. For this reason, the berths are close to the port cargo lock, and the entire area can be sealed off with hatches and doors in the event that an animal gets loose." - Far Trader"
It seems to me that the key word there is _these_ low births were origionally intended for carrying livestock. Thats different from "all" low births were intended for livestock.
Moreover since the traders low births are no more likely to kill a human than any other standard low birth is that can be read as proof that low births are sufficiently generalized that what you put into it doesn't really matter much. Further evidence of this view can be seen in the fact that their are no rules i can recall that make aliens more/or less likely to die in a low birth than a human with the same statistics. If a human low birth will work no worse on an Aslan or a Hiver (assuming they fit) than it will on a human than the difference between a Human, Vargr, or llama is nothing. YMMV.
"The port corridor provides access to the ship's four low berths. These low berths were originally intended for carrying livestock in the 100 to 400 kilogram range. For this reason, the berths are close to the port cargo lock, and the entire area can be sealed off with hatches and doors in the event that an animal gets loose." - Far Trader"
It seems to me that the key word there is _these_ low births were origionally intended for carrying livestock. Thats different from "all" low births were intended for livestock.
Moreover since the traders low births are no more likely to kill a human than any other standard low birth is that can be read as proof that low births are sufficiently generalized that what you put into it doesn't really matter much. Further evidence of this view can be seen in the fact that their are no rules i can recall that make aliens more/or less likely to die in a low birth than a human with the same statistics. If a human low birth will work no worse on an Aslan or a Hiver (assuming they fit) than it will on a human than the difference between a Human, Vargr, or llama is nothing. YMMV.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
IMTU Low Passage is instead like the old "steerage" ticket. You get a berth in a tier of bunks in a large, open compartment. A small stowage compartment is marginally sufficient for valuables, toiletries, and a few changes of clothes. Baggage up to 50kg allowance is put in a separate compartment.
Bunk racks, dividers, and curtains have active noise suppression to provide a reasonable level of privacy. At the foot of each berth is an entertainment screen. Some ships may have tables and chairs, exercise equipment, etc so passengers don't get stir-crazy.
The Low Passage compartment has a common fresher, or separate male/female freshers if more than 12 berths. Passengers can bring sealed, ready-to-eat food or buy from an automat that serves meals equivalent to today's microwave food (roll 1d6/passenger × days of travel for profit).
Bunk racks, dividers, and curtains have active noise suppression to provide a reasonable level of privacy. At the foot of each berth is an entertainment screen. Some ships may have tables and chairs, exercise equipment, etc so passengers don't get stir-crazy.
The Low Passage compartment has a common fresher, or separate male/female freshers if more than 12 berths. Passengers can bring sealed, ready-to-eat food or buy from an automat that serves meals equivalent to today's microwave food (roll 1d6/passenger × days of travel for profit).
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Like the Japanese coffin hotels?
I use Steerage class, but in addition to low berths. I have Steerage passengers share a cabin under double-occupancy and also share the baggage allowance. I like the coffin berth though, I can see some smaller ships using those as Steerage. Thanks for the idea.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep, I have in the past had a passage called "Warm Berth" as opposed to "Cold Berth". Basically your Steerage idea. Instead of travelling as a popsicle you take up the same lowberth but awake. It cost a little more but the rest is about the way you have it. My lowberths come in two varieties, the cargo berth and the passage berth. They are identical except that one is stacked in the hold and if you don't carry them you can carry regular cargo. The other one is in a seperate area dedicated to lowberth travel and includes storage lockers, a fresher, and food mat.
Plankowner
SOC-13
Aramis, that is what I did as well.
Steerage Class, 4 per stateroom (double bunks on 2 sides of the stateroom). Cost 2500cr So 4 Steerage is the same as a Middle Passage.
Essentially no provisions and no steward required.
I used High Passage for Officers, Middle Passage for NCOs and Steerage for Ratings.
After reading a lot of C. J. Cherryh's books I started using the idea of "Mainday" and "Alterday". I divided up my 24 hour day into 4 duty shifts. So, the ratings would be organized so that there was one person from each shift in the stateroom. Thus only 2 of them would be in the room at any given time so it made for a bit more living space.
Steerage Class, 4 per stateroom (double bunks on 2 sides of the stateroom). Cost 2500cr So 4 Steerage is the same as a Middle Passage.
Essentially no provisions and no steward required.
I used High Passage for Officers, Middle Passage for NCOs and Steerage for Ratings.
After reading a lot of C. J. Cherryh's books I started using the idea of "Mainday" and "Alterday". I divided up my 24 hour day into 4 duty shifts. So, the ratings would be organized so that there was one person from each shift in the stateroom. Thus only 2 of them would be in the room at any given time so it made for a bit more living space.
Similar threads
