Different drug, yes, but one specifically designed to interact with the drug it counteracts. I stand by my opinion.
That assumes that doing so would be munchkining, which is an opinion, not a fact. It's also completely besides the point.
Hans
Rules for Low Berth Passenger Survival...
- Thread starter GoblynByte
- Start date
Hans
Foul ... no strawman counterarguments.
The Flight from NY to Australia is about 24 hours, roughly equal to the subjective time you will be in the crate. Sedation is unnecessary, so no risk of synergy effects = 0% chance of death.
I stand corrected on the 60 day rather than 30 day limit on the dose (although if it catches on, a scored pill that allows a half or even a quarter dose sounds like a potential investment for a pharmaceutical company).
So strap into a chair, watch the in-flight movie at 1/60 speed and 24 hours later (your time) the door opens and you are at the destination highport.
So the real choice is 60 day travel time (feels like 24 hours) with no risk of death or 14 day travel time (feels like no time) with a risk of death.
Both place the passenger in a position of extreme vulnerability.
PS. ... and for my strawman argument, how do those chances of death from synergy compare with a low berth with no medical attention on revival.
Foul ... no strawman counterarguments.
The Flight from NY to Australia is about 24 hours, roughly equal to the subjective time you will be in the crate. Sedation is unnecessary, so no risk of synergy effects = 0% chance of death.
I stand corrected on the 60 day rather than 30 day limit on the dose (although if it catches on, a scored pill that allows a half or even a quarter dose sounds like a potential investment for a pharmaceutical company).
So strap into a chair, watch the in-flight movie at 1/60 speed and 24 hours later (your time) the door opens and you are at the destination highport.
So the real choice is 60 day travel time (feels like 24 hours) with no risk of death or 14 day travel time (feels like no time) with a risk of death.
Both place the passenger in a position of extreme vulnerability.
PS. ... and for my strawman argument, how do those chances of death from synergy compare with a low berth with no medical attention on revival.
Quite similar for better than average folks. Physically weak folks, much more lethal.
Those people are doing adventure-activities. There could be a bit of an adrenaline difference between mountain climbing and dropping into cryosleep for a week.
You're right: desperate people will do risky things to get to their land of milk and honey. Could the low-berth equivalent of that to be to hop into the emergency unit? Unscrupulous captains could then take many more passengers, just at a risk.
But with commercial coldsleep, who would choose to travel by that means if there was an unacceptable (yes, I know, a very subjective term) level or risk attached to it?
Wouldn't a monitored version of this effectively be the same as coldsleep? 12 passengers per 4 dtonds, on bunks with monitoring sensors in place (aimed or attached) and an autodoc tracking their conditions, overseen by the daily checks carried out by the ship medic (or whoever's carrying that role along with another one) and revived at the end of the trip. A not-so-coldsleep?
A 10% chance of death? I might, if it meant being able to go somewhere with lower gravity.
And often, well more than 10% of passengers on the early colonial ships to the US and Australia died. Many of them indentured themselves to go...
What you're unlikely to see in low berth travelers is tourists. Most will be migrants or vagrants. The desperate, the despairing, and the dependent. If a company says, "Well pay for low berth travel for 100 workers, and the pay goes in escrow at hire; if you don't survive, your kin still get half of the contract minimum" you'll see a lot of people if the minimum is a year's income or more...
The guys risking fast drug travel are even worse. For purposes of reactions, it's almost as if they are in 60G's - by the time they can react, it's too late. And while they can be in seats the whole time, t'aint happy should someone decide to make an issue. They're awake, and unable to respond meaningfully, while the guy comes in and flays them, or steals their wallet, or even just moves them aside... the 1/2 second to fall is too fast for them to react, even to just roll with it, or even process that they ARE falling.
I get the idea that a lot of our impressions of low berth travel are driven not just by what is written in the rule & setting books, but by our interpretation of the other technology that exists around and alongside that needed to push a spacefaring vessel out of our universe and into a parallel one for a week.
Though, that said, the Firefly was a pretty crappy vessel which still managed FTL on a regular basis.
It's interesting trying to find the level of technology in the OTU and how that drives culture. More secure cryosleep could mean much more pervasive interstellar travel (cheaper, fit more bods into hulls, etc). Conversely, riskier low hibernation would reduce the volume of interstellar transport, constricting it to the less secure who are forced to take more chances. What do you reckon?
Though, that said, the Firefly was a pretty crappy vessel which still managed FTL on a regular basis.
It's interesting trying to find the level of technology in the OTU and how that drives culture. More secure cryosleep could mean much more pervasive interstellar travel (cheaper, fit more bods into hulls, etc). Conversely, riskier low hibernation would reduce the volume of interstellar transport, constricting it to the less secure who are forced to take more chances. What do you reckon?
Just out of curiosity, could they travel in a sealed 30dTon module with the grav set to 1/60 G and function normally ... like passengers left alone in a lounge? (except for things like cooking, of course)
One other thought that occurs to me is that a 15 day quarter dose would only feel like a 6 hour plane flight.
On the subject of the dangers of low berth, it is not the actual danger that bothers me, per say, but the obvious alternatives (like Fast Drug or military bunking) that are mentioned in the rules, but inexplicably forbidden for 'passengers'. So death is an acceptable risk, but crowding is not? It snaps my suspenders of disbelief the wrong way.
According to the basic rules there is no such thing as a Fast Drug with an effect of less than 60 days. According to a certain brand of logic this means that it is either impossible or at least not economically feasable to manufacture Fast Drug with lesser time spans. And looking at it one way this makes perfect sense, because if it was possible to make 15 day Fast Drug, something like that would be used extensively in interstellar travel. And since there is no mention of any such travel option...
All that remains is to convince yourself that it makes sense that you can make 60 day Fast Drug at TL... 10? 12? I forget... and still not be able to make Fast Drug with shorter effects at TL15.
Good point. 1 Fast Drug + 1 Fast Antidote is more expensive than Low Berth, but 1 Fast Drug + 45 days in a sealed locker in the arrival starport ought to be cheaper.On the subject of the dangers of low berth, it is not the actual danger that bothers me, per say, but the obvious alternatives (like Fast Drug or military bunking) that are mentioned in the rules, but inexplicably forbidden for 'passengers'. So death is an acceptable risk, but crowding is not? It snaps my suspenders of disbelief the wrong way.
Hans
That only handles the falling part; any uncompensated movement is going to be an issue.
One other thought that occurs to me is that a 15 day quarter dose would only feel like a 6 hour plane flight.
On the subject of the dangers of low berth, it is not the actual danger that bothers me, per say, but the obvious alternatives (like Fast Drug or military bunking) that are mentioned in the rules, but inexplicably forbidden for 'passengers'. So death is an acceptable risk, but crowding is not? It snaps my suspenders of disbelief the wrong way.
One of the interesting tidbits in T5 that isn't in prior explicitly (but is implied) is the duration of the berth's internal power - 6 months.
If you can fund a ship going your way, you only get frozen ONCE.
However, as an interesting tidbit, I can't find the survival task in T5...
Well, if this was a viable alternative to coldsleep, it'd be taken, right? Which means there'd be a market, or some bright spark and a pharmacorp would come up with it as a way to either increase market share or create a market where there wasn't one. We can't really expect that a TL12 pharmacology industry wouldn't be able to crack this one, can we?
Back to the original question, I don't see any rules about it, either. However, it seems to me surviving low passage is simply a task, albeit one which changes depending on the tech level of the low berth infrastructure and possibly the endurance of the passenger.
Further, as a referee, I would also allow any medical expertise handy at the time of waking to modify the task roll. But, this would just be a general-purpose checking of the settings and such. QREBS regarding the berth itself would be involved here as well.
Other skills and abilities that might help the passenger awake unhindered might be admin (how well the ship is maintained), athlete (how "tough" the passenger is), comms (whether the equipment is properly sending data about passengers in low berths during the trip), survival (whether the passenger properly prepared himself or herself), intuition ("I just felt something was going to happen, so I changed ..."), luck, and some knowledges as well.
Should the passenger fail the task, at that point I would also think that any medical expertise present would act again, this time with a second task: preventing the patient from expiring. QREBS would act again, but this time around the concept of resolving the task. So, QREBS would apply to the comm system, computers, and other technological items used for resuscitation rather than the berths themselves.
Skills that might modify the now-medical task: comms (how efficiently the medical person can get requests fulfilled in an emergency), computer (whether "something" that happened during transit can be corrected for by "cross-circuiting to B"), forensics (finding that detail in the process that allowed a mishap, enabling more focused medical efforts), hostile environment (tips on how to survive nasty situations could apply), survival (different person; "I saw something like this before. Perhaps we can ...".), hibernate (ideas from the talent that might apply to other species in emergencies), intuition, insight, luck, and probably a few knowledges as well.
Putting that together:
The initial survival task number of dice would be some fixed number minus the TL of the berth. At some tech level, failure is no longer possible, say TL E. Let's use 14 minus the TL as the difficulty. So, at TL 11 (listed as the TL at which low berths exist) it would be difficult. Earlier berths might still work, but at exceedingly greater odds against survival.
All the skills and mods would be factored in, and then the task would be rolled.
Success implies survival. Failure indicates a problem (not yet fatal, but it will be if not corrected).
So, on failure, a second roll would be made by attending medical personnel to try to pull the patient out of sleep alive.
Further, as a referee, I would also allow any medical expertise handy at the time of waking to modify the task roll. But, this would just be a general-purpose checking of the settings and such. QREBS regarding the berth itself would be involved here as well.
Other skills and abilities that might help the passenger awake unhindered might be admin (how well the ship is maintained), athlete (how "tough" the passenger is), comms (whether the equipment is properly sending data about passengers in low berths during the trip), survival (whether the passenger properly prepared himself or herself), intuition ("I just felt something was going to happen, so I changed ..."), luck, and some knowledges as well.
Should the passenger fail the task, at that point I would also think that any medical expertise present would act again, this time with a second task: preventing the patient from expiring. QREBS would act again, but this time around the concept of resolving the task. So, QREBS would apply to the comm system, computers, and other technological items used for resuscitation rather than the berths themselves.
Skills that might modify the now-medical task: comms (how efficiently the medical person can get requests fulfilled in an emergency), computer (whether "something" that happened during transit can be corrected for by "cross-circuiting to B"), forensics (finding that detail in the process that allowed a mishap, enabling more focused medical efforts), hostile environment (tips on how to survive nasty situations could apply), survival (different person; "I saw something like this before. Perhaps we can ...".), hibernate (ideas from the talent that might apply to other species in emergencies), intuition, insight, luck, and probably a few knowledges as well.
Putting that together:
The initial survival task number of dice would be some fixed number minus the TL of the berth. At some tech level, failure is no longer possible, say TL E. Let's use 14 minus the TL as the difficulty. So, at TL 11 (listed as the TL at which low berths exist) it would be difficult. Earlier berths might still work, but at exceedingly greater odds against survival.
All the skills and mods would be factored in, and then the task would be rolled.
Success implies survival. Failure indicates a problem (not yet fatal, but it will be if not corrected).
So, on failure, a second roll would be made by attending medical personnel to try to pull the patient out of sleep alive.
No, but the problem is that following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion will require a major retcon of the rules for interstellar travel. Which I think is not an idea that TPTB is keen on.
My suggestion would be to make Low Berth travel as safe as or safer than Fast Drug travel and a little bit cheaper or a little bit more convenient.
My preferred version of Low Berth travel is that it's pretty safe as long as the equipment is in good shape and there's a qualified medical person to supervise the process, but that there are nevertheless reasons why people who can afford to will prefer to travel otherwise (especially since double occupancy travel isn't THAT much less affordable
). Such as a risk of non-lethal but holiday-destroying aches and pains, gruesome urban legends of low berth lethality ("A friend of a friend was on a ship where they had something they called the Low Lottery...") and people taking advantage of the helplessness of low passengers ("They call them corpsicles and if they need a kidney for a transplant...")Hans
@Dadicus
Agreed, with the following caveat:
Inherited from CT is the idea that revival roll (Medical DM) is the key issue. You are right to point to hardware and software (TL) and maintenance (admin) as key issues.
First, having berths that do not fail in transit is crucial. That is as much -if not more- a life support engineering issue than a admin issue in the QREBS. The ratio Number of low berth/ Maintenance personnel is another QREBS factor.
Emergency revival as a buzzer warn of a low berth malfunction is trickier than revival in an optimum set-up in a class A or B starport where Med level 7 can be subcontracted for the job. If you are making your business from chartering low passages, survival rate is a key selling point. Why travel with a 90 % survival rate may be a good question...but a better question is why travel with the SS Lucky Lucy 90% survival rate when the SS Regina Princess offer 99% survival rate (create a DM for survival rate in finding low passager)
So I work it with a malfunction roll in flight, whose thoughness is based on: TL, Life Support Eng level, ratio Bert/Maintenance personnel; If failure, how many failed, then a tough revival roll; on arrival, a straight (very easy) revival roll.
Of course, that is creative use of the rules to make up for the absence of a specific rule. I always prefer to do that rather than apply a questionnable rule. anyway
have fun
Selandia
Agreed, with the following caveat:
Inherited from CT is the idea that revival roll (Medical DM) is the key issue. You are right to point to hardware and software (TL) and maintenance (admin) as key issues.
First, having berths that do not fail in transit is crucial. That is as much -if not more- a life support engineering issue than a admin issue in the QREBS. The ratio Number of low berth/ Maintenance personnel is another QREBS factor.
Emergency revival as a buzzer warn of a low berth malfunction is trickier than revival in an optimum set-up in a class A or B starport where Med level 7 can be subcontracted for the job. If you are making your business from chartering low passages, survival rate is a key selling point. Why travel with a 90 % survival rate may be a good question...but a better question is why travel with the SS Lucky Lucy 90% survival rate when the SS Regina Princess offer 99% survival rate (create a DM for survival rate in finding low passager)
So I work it with a malfunction roll in flight, whose thoughness is based on: TL, Life Support Eng level, ratio Bert/Maintenance personnel; If failure, how many failed, then a tough revival roll; on arrival, a straight (very easy) revival roll.
Of course, that is creative use of the rules to make up for the absence of a specific rule. I always prefer to do that rather than apply a questionnable rule. anyway
have fun
Selandia
You have some very good points, Selandia.
I wonder (to all now), could this be the basis of an article of the sort that used to be in the J-TAS? Lots have mentioned how it would be good to have some follow-on products for T5. There have been some really good ideas offered in this thread.
Could they be cobbled together with a goal towards getting something "official" out?
Low-berth death could clearly have been left out of the main rules on purpose. Or, it could have been forgotten. In either case, there are bound to be house rules that refs will implement at some point. Your ship gets pounded in a battle you barely make it out of. Wouldn't that cause issues with low berths? The ref has to decide.
Could we create a structure in which such observations and solutions would be offered up?
The forums are a good place for germination of such ideas, but not necessarily so for any kind of official package (there are too many loose ends and rabbit trails). But, after a thread were more or less concluded, if some good ideas came out of it, couldn't they be placed somewhere more semi-official? And then the really good ones could be published?
I'm not thinking of this as a money-making scheme. More as a way to keep interest in the game up. ???
I wonder (to all now), could this be the basis of an article of the sort that used to be in the J-TAS? Lots have mentioned how it would be good to have some follow-on products for T5. There have been some really good ideas offered in this thread.
Could they be cobbled together with a goal towards getting something "official" out?
Low-berth death could clearly have been left out of the main rules on purpose. Or, it could have been forgotten. In either case, there are bound to be house rules that refs will implement at some point. Your ship gets pounded in a battle you barely make it out of. Wouldn't that cause issues with low berths? The ref has to decide.
Could we create a structure in which such observations and solutions would be offered up?
The forums are a good place for germination of such ideas, but not necessarily so for any kind of official package (there are too many loose ends and rabbit trails). But, after a thread were more or less concluded, if some good ideas came out of it, couldn't they be placed somewhere more semi-official? And then the really good ones could be published?
I'm not thinking of this as a money-making scheme. More as a way to keep interest in the game up. ???
Okay, I get that this bit can't be retconned. But could someone put it to them? If you consider the significant material in T5 (J9, Hop & Skip drives, etc) that have been revealed, safer Low Berths or drug alternatives may be on the more sedate side of things.
With the drugged option, there'd still be a need for care, monitoring and such throughout the trip, so in the end being locked into a low berth may end up being pretty much the same thing.
Great idea. Would you incorporate the MgT medical elements from their mag as well (I got it in the Compendium of S&P articles)?
andycowley
SOC-10
Great thread .... and personally I coud see an opportunity for a T5 'starship travel & operations guide' as a suppliment .... there are many other examples of 'missing' items in this regard such as annual maintenance procedures and costs (and linking all such items to QREBS with worked examples) .... I look forward to the day when such things are easily available for T5 but in the meantime let the debate continue as the great ideas hatching here are developed
Not sure. I was only a CT fan before I rediscovered Traveller in the T5 era. So, my experience is really limited.
I don't see why stuff like that couldn't be discussed. However, anything that eventually became "official" would have to be approved by FFE, I imagine.
On second thoughts, I'm not so sure it is compatible. The article I'm referring to mentions doctors becoming pretty much redundant by TL13, as the autodoc/med chamber does all the work. I've talked about this with the guy in our group whose character is before all a doctor, and while we'd been using these (they've acquired two for their ship, and the others are trained in how to initiate crash-emergency admission of a patient in case he's the one who gets shot) he makes rolls to check diagnosis and recommended treatment. It saves him a ton of time afterwards, and speeds up recovery, but if the players don't want to just trust to the machine they make the rolls.
This is a great idea, and modified by first rate medical assistance at a Class A or B starport could eliminate the chance of failure altogether.
But if they have to crash-revive someone, or revive someone after a crash, that's a different story I reckon.
This is a great idea, and modified by first rate medical assistance at a Class A or B starport could eliminate the chance of failure altogether.
But if they have to crash-revive someone, or revive someone after a crash, that's a different story I reckon.
Agreed, Ulsyus. I was thinking at a certain tech level, only some unrelated emergency could force the roll.
Alternately, spectacular failure could still be allowed, but with a different mechanic: Instead of looking at the X dice you just rolled (which is zero), instead you roll 3 dice and see if it comes up all 1s.
Let's just hope the doctor doesn't also spectacularly fail. Such a sequence of events could get really messy. "This particular berth is where Jonn Tangree died 12 years ago."
"Man, I heard that was a disaster. Shut down all the berths until the ship could be repaired at Regina. Yuck! I would never use that berth."
"Oh, they completely replaced all four berths that were damaged. Something about not being able to get rid of the smell."
Alternately, spectacular failure could still be allowed, but with a different mechanic: Instead of looking at the X dice you just rolled (which is zero), instead you roll 3 dice and see if it comes up all 1s.
Let's just hope the doctor doesn't also spectacularly fail. Such a sequence of events could get really messy. "This particular berth is where Jonn Tangree died 12 years ago."
"Man, I heard that was a disaster. Shut down all the berths until the ship could be repaired at Regina. Yuck! I would never use that berth."
"Oh, they completely replaced all four berths that were damaged. Something about not being able to get rid of the smell."
Careful, heading in the direction of the Space Vampires thread there...
