Randomized construction results

[Daneel Olivaw]

Hi all,

I was thinking about sailing ships the other day - most notably the Spartiate, a Napoleonic-era frigate, and the Bluenose, a fishing vessel and icon of our Canadian heritage.

The Spartiate was, for unknown reasons, slightly faster at night than during the day. Legend attributed this to the rumour that she had been built with stolen timbers.

The Bluenose was incredibly fast, and no one could recreate her speed in a similar design, nor could any other ship of the time outrun her. Apparently, she settled suddenly in her cradle while under construction; it has been suggested that this may have affected her hull in such a way as to improve her sailing characteristics dramatically.

I wonder about adding random elements to Traveller's construction processes, so that final characteristics may be slightly adjusted (up to plus or minus 10%, for example) after the normal construction steps have been completed.

This kind of variance could itself be a function of the location and circumstances under which a ship is built. A huge, fully automated Imperial factory complex, churning out thousands of the same design, would provide little or no chance of random variance. An outlying system, having adapted technology and methods from other areas, may be more likely to produce the odd deviation.

You could also consider the possibility that some random variances are the result of local engineers' particular skill or resources, and that the variances themselves can become standard "bonuses" for designs from that location.

Obviously, you would want to be careful to limit the use of this element to PC and particularly important NPC ships, vehicles, robots, etc. You could also use a ship's engineer's skill levels to determine how much of the ship's "hidden potential" he or she can use..."Scotty, we need more power!"

So, my free-trader takes just under one week to complete a jump, but requires 10% more maintenance work (and expense) to keep running.

Perhaps I've missed some huge thread on this already, but I'd be curious either way to see if people would enjoy this kind of element in their game.

 

[pendragonman]

A formalized optional rule would be of great assistance in generating a greater feel of realism (such as we can get

).

I have used some sort of idea like this before, and players seem to enjoy it, even when they are on the wrong side of the bonus.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Daneel Olivaw:
You could also use a ship's engineer's skill levels to determine how much of the ship's "hidden potential" he or she can use..."Scotty, we need more power!"

The engines will nae tak it, Captain. I cannae gi' yer more.

 

[Daneel Olivaw]

Originally posted by Valarian:
The engines will nae tak it, Captain. I cannae gi' yer more.

It ah... could get a little silly I suppose. But it maybe puts a little more RP in the RPG.

Developing the idea:
You could start with a starship with some randomized variances as per my suggestion, but have their occurances be random as well, so that the extra 10% agility (for example) cannot be counted on every time, or may sometimes end up being a minus 5% instead. Then, you allow the engineer to roll against his skill and some modifiers every month, to reduce a component's oddball behaviour and to make its functioning more reliable.

I guess I'm looking for more things for engineers to do in-game.

 

[Scarecrow]

It's a fun idea. I know that in the Serenity rpg ship desing includes 'Quirks' for the ship. Giving each an individual character. Such Quirks are things like 'Rattles in flight', 'smells funny' etc etc.

 

[pendragonman]

I am all for more RP effects for any crew besides pilots and gunners.

And we all know transportation machines have personalities. Especially as they age. After all, who hasn't named their car (or at least called it names )

 

[chshrkt]

Heh,
I remember a game in the 80's when we pulled in to a "backyard dry dock" to complete some major upgrades to our "salvaged" 400dT Subsidized Merchy( after requiring a hasty retreat from the previous "pirate shipyard" because of an Impy "Pirate Taskforce" raid ), the "Turbo Pump" from the original upgraded maneuver drives (MD) was discovered to have a kink in it and the shipyard lead engineer who was doing our Grey market upgrades suggested that we replace it. We had noticed that overall performance and fuel economy seemed to be a bit off, we did not get the maneuver and PP performance that the specs said we should get, but chalked it up to a somewhat dodgey shoehorning of larger MDs that protruded into the cargo bay (that then blocked the rear cargo doors).

Naturally being the suspicious players that we were, we demanded that all parts that are replaced get returned to us and we would usually forgo the "Core charge" refund for letting the repair facility keep the replaced part. We would then hang on to it until we were comfortable that it was in fact worse than the one that replaced it.

After getting our upgrades, the turbo pump replaced, and being sent on our merry way, we examined the old turbo pump and sure enough, there was a big kink in the wall of the "nautilus structure" in the pump. so we tossed it in the pile to recycle at the next starport and thought nothing more of it.

Up to this point, when the engineer needed to make a roll to perform cinematic feats of Scotty type MD performance, the Ref would roll another hidden dice mod that affected the final result. We always thought that our engineer just had good luck with the dice, never knowing what the final dice result was. Low and behold, the next time a cinematic roll was required, the ship did not perform the same, in fact, the whole crew noticed a distinct sluggishness in the handling characteristics.

After several real time months of scratching our heads, someone suggested re-installing our old turbo pump, which was for all intents and purposes brand new. Low and behold, our old cinematic performance returned, but daily performance and fuel economy was still below what we were getting from the "new" pump. Somehow that kink was positively affecting our cinematic successes!

What to do?

Well, whenever we anticipated entering into a situation where cinematic performance might be required, we parked on a moon or planetoid somewhere and swapped the pumps out! ( an 8 hour major task that did not require a shipyard)

This involved all the players who had any kind of engineering skill (6 PCs that sometimes played additional NPCs as well) adding up all their dice modifiers and fast talking the GM to let the swap be successful. One incident involved an NPC New Age Shaman performing a ritual that involved rolling K'Kree knuckle bones to try and mitigate a particularly bad dice roll by our engineer. Great fun.

So I say Yea! That is a great idea and I will certainly use something similar when my PCs try to upgrade their ship or acquire one with a fuzzy history.

 

[Space Cadet]

I think the best way to go about this is to make standardized Starship modules, that all snap together and work reasonably well, and then create random tables for 100 ton vessels, 200 ton vessels, 400 ton vessels 600 ton vessels and 800 ton vessels.

What if you rolled 1d6 for the jump drive and build the rest of the ship around this result, or what if you rolled 1d6 for the maneuver drive? You see if one part is random, this forces other non-random choices on the rest of the ship due to space limitations. Maybe you can have tables to roll up random armamanets.

 

[The Oz]

I can see setting things up so that one of the turrets (or even just one of the weapons in one of the turrets) gets a +1 modifier (thanks to especially smooth controls) to hit.

This idea could be extended to lots of things: one of the staterooms is especially quiet, or has the best climate control. The attitude jets work better spinning the ship to starboard than to port. The best passive EMS sensor is on the underside of the ship.

And, of course, it can also be bad things: the #2 turret sticks when you spin it too fast to the left, the main computer can't hold all the programs it should, the galley auto-chef only knows how to make Droyne-style waffles, etc.

 

[tinker123]

This idea seems full of possibilities for role-play. As suggested in the thread on weapon variations, you could introduce manufacturer names. We all know that Ling Standard jump drives are supposed to be paired with a matched Ling Standard power plant, but have you seen the difference when you couple them up to an Imperial Gravitics unit? Shame that Imperial Gravitics parts are so hard to come by...

(apologies if I just double-posted, could a moderator sort that, please?)

 

[coliver988]

this page plays along with this idea:
77 starship quirks

 

[Icosahedron]

I like some of these ideas. Consider the 77 quirks well and truly poached!

I use a rule called Tinkering (no offence to present company).

IMTU *Tinkering* is an action carried out by an engineer/mechanic in an attempt to enhance equipment performance. However, incompetent tinkering can reduce performance and in any case any attempt will cost time and money.

I roll (2D6+2+skill *10%) giving a prospective new performance of 50 to 150% and giving a skill-1 practitioner a roughly even chance of increasing or reducing performance.

If performance is reduced, that guy had better try again - and fast.

Scotty from the Enterprise, having legendary skill, could probably squeeze something extra from the drives on most attempts.

Han Solo, on the other hand, is not so consistent, and if he DOES tinker, and if performance is reduced, the ship is immediately classified as outside its maintenance schedule.

(Sorry if this sends twice, I just had a send error!)

 

[mbrinkhues]

My problem with the approach is that the differences in speed and handling are due to the low-tech construction process. Pre 1900 any ship was basically a prototype. Later industrial manufacturing took over up to the point where ships where build from exchangeabel modules (Liberty ships, Typ XXI subs etc) and with identical engines(1) reducing variety.

Today ships of the same class typically have the same characteristics since (C)NC systems and modern manufacturing reduce variancies while Diesel Engines reduce the effects of boilers and modern engine building makes engines identical.

Traveller OTU with it's Imperial Data Packages takes this to the extreme so the stuff you can get off the shelf should perform the same no matter who build it.

That would restrict quirks to field-rebuilds/mods and special builds. And depending on how bureaucratic your 3I is can lead to a lengthy red tape rally before that lowered landing gear, twin sports truster plates and chrome-plated pilot's console final get's it's operating permission.

(1)Ships of the same class sometimes had different boilders resulting in variations of tonnage and speed. An example are the five Hippers (Hipper, Blücher, Prinz, Lützow, Seydlitz) that where build from the same plan yet even ships from the same dock came out different in size/speed

 

[Icosahedron]

Industrialization has given the option for fewer accidental performance differences but it has also given the option for greater deliberate ones. Whether you choose a 5 litre engine built by 'Mack' or by 'Ferrari' depends on your application.
Also, there is a proliferation of 'manufacturers' specials' today, the GL, the GLi, the GLiX, the GLixS, models all based on the same original plan.
Build a basic Ford. Add an extra camshaft and an extra carb and it will outrun another basic Ford, even if the engine block and bodywork are identical.
And of course there are the custom shops, ranging from the traditional coachbuilders to the backstreet hot shop, who can squeeze an extra few percent from an engine without any visible alterations at all.
I see no reason for precision manufacturing to reduce quirks - it just depends on your definition of 'quirk'.

 

[Daneel Olivaw]

And, as I mentioned, the probability of random or improvised variances would be zero or close to zero for large, automated facilities. Where a design has been acquired and implemented on an outlying world, where local laws, standards, methods and resources differ from the mainstream, these variances would be more likely to occur.

 

[tinker123]

Originally posted by Icosahedron:
I use a rule called Tinkering (no offence to present company).

LOL - none taken, that's exactly what the handle refers to!

I like that simple mechanic for performance tinkering - but how do you stop the powergamers keeping on and on until they get 150% ? I know some players who'd just treat that as a licence to squeeze 150% out of everything, given a little investment of between-games downtime. You'd experience something like "The Practice Effect" by David Brin, where stuff works better the more it gets used.

 

[pendragonman]

I disagree with the idea that mass production methods and precision automation create a next to nil chance of variation.

Take, for example, new car A and new car B. Both cars are identical models, down to the production plant, color and even interior choices. Therefore virtually no difference should exist between them.

New car A is purchased even before it finishes production. Every material used in the production is exactly in the middle of the design specs. It is delivered straight from the factory to the new owner (who is an elderly person, that takes meticulous care of their vehicles, and is a conservative driver). The car is stored when not in used in a climate controlled garage. It is driven a maximum of 200 miles per week, and is mostly optimum highway miles. Do to all of this, car A has almost exactly the performance specified in the owner's manual.

Now, car B. The material used for the engine block, while within design spec, is at one extreme of the specs. This end of the extreme interferes with the most efficient heat dissipation. The air intake plenum is manufactured with a similar design spec issue. The transmission, on the other hand, was assembled during a transition from one design change to another--something that actually happens regularly. This car gets delivered to a dealership, and it then sits on the lot for 3 months (say, December January and Feb for giggles). The car is then purchased by a single mother of three with a very busy schedule and little understanding of mechanics.

For the first 3 months after it is purchased, car B gives decent (if a little on the lower end) performance to those listed in the manual. Then summer hits. The mother, being a thoughtful mother, decided to take her kids on vacation in the new car. After being on the road most of the day in typical summer weather, do to the variations in the metallurgy, the intake plenum warps .001 percent, causing a gap between the heads and the intake. Increased outside air actually helps to give slightly better mileage. So this factory quirk really helps out the mother with fuel costs. Now, on to the third day of the cross country trip.

On the third straight day of highway driving in the summer heat, the fault in the metallurgy of the block comes into play. The poor heat dissipation is causing the car to run hot. Further, the machined surfaces between the heads and the block are warping. By the middle of the afternoon, we have slight pre-ignition of the fuel and small amounts of coolant leaking into the oil channels. These things thus combine to rob the engine of power, decreasing throttle response, killing mileage and precursoring full blown head gaskets.

Now, suppose none of the above happens. The only thing that actually has any effect at all is that mid design transmission. Because the tranny is not really one design or the other, it has the chance to be either the best of both, or the worst of both. Either way, it is a quirk.

 

[mbrinkhues]

That's a problem in quality control and/or the way a car is used. And cars are IMHO a bad example, their manufacturing has less rigid rules than starships will have. After all a rearview mirror falling off isn't that dangerous compared to a airlock seal giving way.

I'd compare starships to airliners or modern combat airplanes with their more rigid checks and strict requirements for performance delivered on acceptance.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by Icosahedron:
Industrialization has given the option for fewer accidental performance differences but it has also given the option for greater deliberate ones. Whether you choose a 5 litre engine built by 'Mack' or by 'Ferrari' depends on your application.
Also, there is a proliferation of 'manufacturers' specials' today, the GL, the GLi, the GLiX, the GLixS, models all based on the same original plan.
Build a basic Ford. Add an extra camshaft and an extra carb and it will outrun another basic Ford, even if the engine block and bodywork are identical.
And of course there are the custom shops, ranging from the traditional coachbuilders to the backstreet hot shop, who can squeeze an extra few percent from an engine without any visible alterations at all.
I see no reason for precision manufacturing to reduce quirks - it just depends on your definition of 'quirk'.

There is a difference between your concept and a quirk. Example: The Iltis

Yes, it's an ugly little yoke. But I had three of them during my time in the Bundeswehr from 87-88(1). Different ages, work-lots but same engine. All had the same performance since they where run through acceptance tests prior to delivery. That is a standard vehicle.

In the early 90s during reserve exercises I got a "Depot" Iltis (Light Infantry was becoming reserve only). Those where Bombadier variants. Again they had the same performance but different form the base model (Diesels are great) This is the GLi variant, a factory designed and build variant. The Traveller-equivalent would be the A and A2 Traders.

Around that time the first Iltis where sold as surplus being replaced by the Wolf. Since VW engines of that generation are based on one block, some owners replaced the 75HP petrol burner with a 90HP diesel or the 75HP turbo diesel. The 75HP turbo diesel normally could get a TÜV check, being allowed to be used on the open roads. This would be a custom job similar to a A2 with 2g engines.

I would not call that a quirk but rather a deliberat design decision. A quirk would be a mis-aligned forward gear box that makes a sound like it flies appart anytime the drive is engaged. The car works but I was detected by an M48 driver from the SOUND it made.

Same with coachwork. Karmann used VW Rabbit chassis to build a Cabrio (Coachwork). All off them where identical in performance (mass production) yet the represent a visually different look. This would be a Typ M outfitted as a Yacht or a Merc Cruiser (Vigilanty anyone)

Again, this is no Quirk but a deliberat design decision. A quirk would be that the cover refuses to fold or a hatch refuses to open


(1)Volkswagen and electronic ignitions did not work out well before the late 90s

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Traveller OTU with it's Imperial Data Packages takes this to the extreme so the stuff you can get off the shelf should perform the same no matter who build it.

That would restrict quirks to field-rebuilds/mods and special builds. And depending on how bureaucratic your 3I is can lead to a lengthy red tape rally before that lowered landing gear, twin sports truster plates and chrome-plated pilot's console final get's it's operating permission.

By that standard, then almost any ship can be "suped up" simply because the Official parts were standardized decades or centuries ago and now you can buy after-market parts that benefit from design and engineering innovations.

The down side is that you are by no means guaranteed to find parts if you wander far from the manufacturer's range of operations.

[Shipyard Agent:] Yes, I've heard great things about the Glirbomatic® hyperspace twaddler. Always gets you in the shorter 10% variance of jump time. Yours is way out of spec and can't be recertified in this overhaul. By the serial number I'm sure it was an original part and I'm astounded it lasted 24 years.

We're four whole sectors from Regina and you can't get one here. The best we've got in stock that still works with your Glirbomatic® anti-harmonic grombler is a Glonko-Tech®. You won't lose all your jump tuning. They're danged expensive even before you add 18 parsecs' shipping charges.

Of course, we can install a standard twaddler and grombler for a bit less than the Glonko-Tech® twaddler. But you'll be back in ±10% jump time spec.