Starship design question: controls (p. 345) and evaluating (p. 348)

[OjnoTheRed]

I've had a look through robject's helpful Beowulf walk-through but I'm still a bit confused.

Let's say we assign 'Spacious' console tonnage to all consoles. This means 4 deck squares per console. We're being generous in considering crew safety.

Ship Ergonomics = F/C-5 with an additional mod of -2 if you don't have a bridge (p. 348); or conversely an additional mod of +2 if you do have a bridge (p. 327 including further details of what the bridge is; the Beowulf walk-through uses this). Let's assume we're going with a bridge.

If we have assigned 'Spacious' to all consoles, F/C = 4; therefore with the most possible tonnage listed per console, E = -1.

The Daily Mishap Roll in this instant has a 58% chance of there being a mishap. Each day! For maxed-out ergonomics.

Is this a deliberate tool for the Referee to harass players? Something will generally go wrong 4 days out of the 7 day working week and this is the best possible safety record.

Am I reading this right?

 

[dalthor]

I've noted this before as well, but we never really got a resolution. I've posted this to the errata discussion forum -- see post 251 in that forum. (I don't know how to link it here)

I didn't see a response back then. For now, I consider spacious to be a bonus, pending more information.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Thank you! On re-reading the Beowulf example, I saw that robject is using the text rules rather than the table summary, and this makes reasonable sense: maxed out spacious controls with bridge =+1 ergonomic bonus; there may be some debate about whether this is sufficiently generous.

For now, I'll follow the Beowulf example.

I did have a try at searching the errata thread, but couldn't see it (may not have used good search terms?); thanks for filling me in.

 

[Licheking]

You can choose to add more space to the console area as well improving it further.

 

[Dagrill]

I've had a look through robject's helpful Beowulf walk-through but I'm still a bit confused.
The Daily Mishap Roll in this instant has a 58% chance of there being a mishap. Each day! For maxed-out ergonomics.
Is this a deliberate tool for the Referee to harass players? Something will generally go wrong 4 days out of the 7 day working week and this is the best possible safety record.
Am I reading this right?

Have you ever had a day where NOTHING has gone wrong at work?

lost count of the number of cups of cold coffee I drank when I was working...

I am assuming the rules don't say it has to be a catastrophic failure, like the power plant blew up, or you misjumped a thousand parsecs into Kree space?

Regards

David

 

[dalthor]

Actually, on the page discussing starship ergonomics the book text says calculate ergonomics as (f/c) - 5. This results in a max of -1 if you limit yourself to spacious controls. Then, it states to subtract two if there is no bridge. See page 348 for the specifics.

The conflict comes when you go back to page 327, where it talks about control ergonomics. It describes and defines a bridge, and then states:

The Benefits Of A Bridge. If a ship has a Bridge, then its Control Ergonomics Mod is increased +2.

Personally, I ignore the -2 mod on page 348, and give the +2 mod on page 327. I think Rob does so, as well.

The way the mishaps section reads, on page 196:

The Rolls for Daily Ship Life
Tension = Flux + Mods > Less Than 0 = Check San
Event = Flux + Mods > Less Than Zero = Mishap

This gives a pretty good chance for a control-related mishap each day, as OnjoRed noted above. Personally, I minimize rolls on this. You're not normally going to have a significant control mishap on any given day. I let the situation be the control - there is a huge difference between a console mis-key on a routine watch, and the same mis-key in the middle of combat!

 

[Lycanorukke]

So what happens then with tech staging effects?

A spacious console 11 (TL11) is 4 squares (base)
A ultimate console 11 (TL15) is 4 squares (base) - 4 squares (stage effect) = 0 squares. o:

So you have a console of 0 squares, which results in an E =(0/1 -5)of -5. Never mind the operator doesn't have anywhere to sit, but the console spot is invisible.

Or would you 'add' the tech stage squares as virtual space to simulate an easier to use device?

A spacious console = 4
Improved Tech effect = +1
Virtual size = 5
E = 5/1 -5 = +0 (a nice big workstation, but fiddly controls make it somewhat hard to use)

A ordinary console = 2
Ultimate tech effect = +4
Virtual size = 6
E = 6/1 - 5 = +1 ( a cramped seat but really easy to use controls)

 

[Original_Carl]

Maybe with a higher tech level, you need fewer controls. There's lots of ways to slice and dice that. Another option is that maybe if your TL is high enough you don't need any console space because the ship controls are part of a holographic UI that adjusts to the operator's needs.

 

[Lycanorukke]

Maybe with a higher tech level, you need fewer controls.

Maybe, but that catch is the Ergonomics equation doesn't do this, resulting in the original problem of incredibly low Ergos and their attendant problems. Plus if you keep the spacious console for all (4sq/console) its constant wether you have 1 or 10 consoles. 4/1=40/10

It actually gets worse the more refined a console is.

(assuming spacious for all)
Improved console: -1 deck squares, +1mod, TL +1
Space 4-1 = 3
E=3/1-5 = -2

Advanced console: -3 desk squares, +3 mod, TL +3
Space 4-3 = 1
E=1/1-5 = -4

If you go for a crappy prototype model....

Prototype console: +2 deck squares (bulky) TL -2
Space 4 + 2 = 6
E= 6/1-5=+1

 

[Original_Carl]

Maybe, but that catch is the Ergonomics equation doesn't do this, resulting in the original problem of incredibly low Ergos and their attendant problems. Plus if you keep the spacious console for all (4sq/console) its constant wether you have 1 or 10 consoles. 4/1=40/10

For C, you need to use the number of consoles rather than the tonnage of the consoles.

Space allocated around the consoles determines ergonomic quality. Basically, the more deck space you have allocated for your controls, the more ergonomic your ship is and therefore, the lower chance of a mishap. Think of it as more space for waving your arms around, Minority Report-style.

It actually gets worse the more refined a console is.

It shouldn't and I don't think it does. E should increase as you allocate more Free space to the number of Consoles on the ship. In fact, if you have a smaller console due to stage effect, you still need a good amount of space around it to make it ergonomic.

Ergonomics = (FreeSpace/numberOfConsoles) - 5
E = (F/C) - 5

I'm going to dive into your numbers and show you what I mean.

(assuming spacious for all)
Improved console: -1 deck squares, +1mod, TL +1
Space 4-1 = 3
E=3/1-5 = -2

Normally, you'd have to allocate half-a-ton to a console, but yours is a quarter-ton because it's Improved. I like it.

This is going to save you on tonnage allocated to controls and in the end you'll have more tonnage for other stuff on your ship, but you're still going to have to allocate free space around your console if you want it to be ergonomic.

If this is the sole console on the ship, you're going to have to allocate a bit more space -- a minimum of 5 squares -- in order to get a non-negative value for E.

E = (5/1) - 5
E = 1

You see, E only cares about the number of consoles you have and the free space around them. It doesn't matter if the consoles are big or small.

Table B on step 17 (p.345) is trying to help you understand the impact of ergonomics on tonnage allocation. It assumes all consoles are 0.5 ton and scales up accordingly. Thus, 4 squares for a "spacious" console. Your console is 0.25 ton. You'll still need to allocate 5 squares around it to get a non-negative Ergonomics value.

Advanced console: -3 desk squares, +3 mod, TL +3
Space 4-3 = 1
E=1/1-5 = -4

Same thing in this example with your Advanced console. You need to allocate more free space to use it without being cramped. However, this time, your number for C is correct in that you have just the one console.

If you go for a crappy prototype model....

Prototype console: +2 deck squares (bulky) TL -2
Space 4 + 2 = 6
E= 6/1-5=+1

Figure console tonnage separately from the free space around the consoles on the ship sheet. In your Prototype example, you've inadvertently allocated 6 squares of free space to your console and so E is positive. On the ship sheet, you'd note that the console was 1 ton and that you allocated another 1.5 tons for ergonomics.

Questions?

 

[Lycanorukke]

Questions?

I think I see what you're getting at, I'll work though it.

The console machinery is 0.5 tons (1 deck square) and size is modified for tech.
The 'ergonomics' (cramped/typical/roomy/spacious) are empty space added on and is not modified for tech.

So a 'spacious' console is in total 2.5 tons, or five squares in size. 4 squares of empty space/seating/etc and 1 square (or less if tech staging) of machinery.

If you want en extra egronomic console, you keep assigning 1 square (0.5 tons) of empty space until you get the 'E' value you want..
For E = +5 (impossible to roll mishaps) you need 11 squares (5.5 tons). 10 squares of empty space and 1 square of machinery

If you wanted E=0, you need 3 tons per console position. 5 squares for room (2.5t) plus 1 square (or less for tech) for machinery (0.5t).

Is this correct?

If so that's a lot of space. A spacious console (2.5t) is bigger than a stateroom (2t) and you still get -1 ergo

 

[Licheking]

You do realise that you only have to roll for mishaps if the GM has determined that a QREBS related event will occur during that session as detailed in the section on QREBS. So its not a roll daily/hourly or every minute but maybe once every other session.

The QREBS roll is basically a flux roll with a negative result meaning that something has gone wrong with a piece of equipment crucial to the session being played. I actually use the negative number as the amount of instances and pick the piece of equipment with the worst randomly rolled QREBS rating. For example if o rolled -1 at the beginning of the session it would be 1 event, i roll a 3 and that makes it E (Ease of use), i find out which piece of kit the players have with the lowest E rating and make them roll for it, if it fails it fails in the game. if it makes it then i go on ro rhe next worst piece until something fails or i get bored and make an executive decision and make something break down.

 

[Lycanorukke]

You do realise that you only have to roll for mishaps if the GM has determined that a QREBS related event will occur during that session as detailed in the section on QREBS. So its not a roll daily/hourly or every minute but maybe once every other session.

This isnt equipment QREBS, these are part of the daily rolls for ship mishaps (p348). A Q check comes after the mishap, but is not related to the 'Quality/Reliability' roll.

I apologise, but it's a bit of a bugbear for me because it seems to be going out of the way to have the PC's to fly a cramped garbage heap, run by the keystone kops, with maintenance performed by Bodgeit & Leggit. No matter how much PC's pamper or pimp out their ship, it is nearly always on the verge of a mishap.

Also I absolutley _HATE_ railroading devices. Mission to Mithril for example - despite loving the rest of the adventure - the "your jump drive breaks down (again)" hook left a very bad aftertaste. And these rolls almost appear to be forcing stuff to break down as the plot demands not as it evolves.

 

[robject]

This isnt equipment QREBS, these are part of the daily rolls for ship mishaps (p348). A Q check comes after the mishap, but is not related to the 'Quality/Reliability' roll.

I'm sure the intent is to allow tradeoffs in ship design. BUT, those tradeoffs should default to "no daily mishap rolls", and that means there should be a rule somewhere that says if Quality is above X, then there's no daily roll made.

Then, the formula should be designed so that the default design rule is 1 ton (2 deck squares) per console + group the typical controls into a Bridge = Crew Quality of +2 or +3 or +4.

This gives us two things:

(1) It gives us an "ignore it" default. Do things the way Traveller has always done things and there's no extra bother to deal with.

(2) It gives us a scaling difficulty based on how bad things are. If your bridge has been slagged in combat, or is otherwise so primitive that it doesn't have a Bridge, you can run things from elsewhere, but you've got a penalty.

I'm not a fan of applying Stage Effects to consoles, but I'm not willing to die on a hill for that preference.

 

[Original_Carl]

Is this correct?

If so that's a lot of space. A spacious console (2.5t) is bigger than a stateroom (2t) and you still get -1 ergo

You have it. You just keep assigning tonnage to free space until you've the Ergonomics score you want or you run out of tonnage.

The latter bit you've called out troubles me a bit. It's that fixed 1.25 tons you have to allocate off the top no matter how many consoles you have that bothers me. I assume it's for wires and PCBAs and what-have-you and in order to wire up the P-Plant, M and J-Drives you need that much tonnage to do a good job of it.

Come to think of it, you could apply Stage Effects to that fixed 1.25 tons to reduce the tonnage cost of ergonomics.

 

[Original_Carl]

I apologise, but it's a bit of a bugbear for me because it seems to be going out of the way to have the PC's to fly a cramped garbage heap, run by the keystone kops, with maintenance performed by Bodgeit & Leggit. No matter how much PC's pamper or pimp out their ship, it is nearly always on the verge of a mishap.

Also I absolutley _HATE_ railroading devices.

It does seem a bit contrived. However, a friend of mine once described a boat's natural state as residing upon the bottom of the ocean and boat ownership as the fight against the boat's destiny. He went on to assert that this is the destiny of all watercraft, large and small. The romantic in me thinks this is also true with space craft and their destiny to become one with the void.

I share your disdain for railroading devices, and I'll share my own for cliches and role playing contrivances like the jump drive that breaks down conveniently in order to introduce the next plot advancement.

The reason I like rules like these is that they give me a baseline for realism when it comes to equipment breaking down. I make these kinds of rolls when the group has been ignoring maintenance or if they stress the equipment by engaging in combat, for example. I think a daily roll may be excessive.

 

[Lycanorukke]

I think a daily roll may be excessive.

Per trip (two weeks) seems more reasonable. I like QREBS because it gives reliability factors for timing as you say - maybe the manufacturer had a bad batch of parts and it falls apart in a stiff breeze, prehaps the PC's were lucky to get a component hand crafted by Reginian Monks and is divinely blessed. Nobody (bar the GM and especially not the PC's) knows.

Skipping or shorting annual maintenance when you are flying a device which blasts you into an alternate universe and scoots around at several kilometers a second is a big no-no unless you have a death wish. But these are PC we're talking about so I would 'pre-warn' them that something isn't quite right and a potential problem is occuring or possibly a wild goose (uncertain roll).

They roll a 'spot check' of sorts to notice a problem if they declare they're doing a preventative maintenance check, which decreases in difficulty as the chance of failure (and cost of repair) gets more acute. That faint rattle they overlooked, that annoying passanger who enlessly whined about an odd smell (who they ignored) comes back to haunt them when the sewage pumps sieze and the fresher system backs up in J-space. Why dont they check every time? A regular checking costs parts, time and relevant skills. And given PC's are usually scrimping on costs, it's all too temping to overlook it 'just this once' to pay for a missile reload. Or a certified tech is not available (they're being paid premium to fix the Barons zero-G ballroom) but I have a friend who did night courses....

It is railroading, but at least the tracks have a bit of camoflague. And if the players complain about railroading you can look them in the eye and say "Well, if you had paid to fix the device you knew was faulty, instead of buying those new ACRs you wouldnt be stuck on Mithril" and they look contrite.

 

[dalthor]

After further review -- once you get over 2 tons, you get to the point you have other possible issues:

1) You have to move to get to something - it is no longer in arms reach.

or more likely

2) The display area is so large, you can no longer easily track everything because it is too hard to keep it all in view. (Sit in the front row of a theater, and try to see everything, vice sitting in the middle where the viewing area seems smaller, but you can see more)

==

At some point, efficiency decreases as you spread out, even with computer assist.

I like the ergo calculation (f/c)-5 as a base. Then either subract 2 with no bridge, or add two with a bridge. That would max out at +1 ergo with a 2-ton (4 squares) console, even assuming tech adjustments, which essentially decrease size and weight of the hardware and helps usability.

At +1 ergo, I'd minimize mishaps under normal circumstances.

FWIW, I work out of my house and have two desks, with a swivel chair between them. One desk is my work-only desk with computer, the other holds my home PC. I swivel 180 degrees to access them individually. It is basically laid out in a square open at one end for access, desks on each side, and bookshelves on one wall. The area measures 6 feet by 8 feet. That works extremely well for me, and is about as large/usable as I can handle.

And yes, I could combine both on a single desk, but my company requires separate secure hardware, so I am required to keep them apart.

Just my 2 credits worth.

 

[Lycanorukke]

With the bridge it specifies - "A cluster of adjacent Pilot, Astrogator, (all) Sensor Consoles, and Ship’s Computer".

Does the computer itself need to be present on the bridge, or the console _for_ controlling the computer must be on the bridge? The more powerful computers are fairly big.

Also is this the same with warships? Warships would have the "sensors (all)" consoles located in CIC. The best you would have on the bridge is repeaters or navigation sensors. So does this count as 'No bridge'.

And with the dynamic nature of consoles via the ships computer, doesnt any type of console configuration potenitally count as a bridge?

If you have one control console for a pilot (covers C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) then as needed you can switch it to another fucntion, like including sensors, computer and Astro (all use C4 and C5) when needed and hence have a 'bridge' with only a single seat.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

dalthor - that's the solution I'm settling on as well. The only argument then is whether +1 ergonomics is generous enough for all consoles being allocated 2 tons; but now it's only an argument over a matter of degree.