A post of mine about programing use of MgT rules (BTW, still unaswered officially in MgT post):
Why not more Robots?
- Thread starter Greylond
- Start date
A post of mine about programing use of MgT rules (BTW, still unaswered officially in MgT post):
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Wouldn't that just be computer controlled and not robot controlled?
Difficult to tell. In most traveller (at least as I understand it) you only talk about robot controlled if its controlled by the ship's computer, and I've always seen having more than one computer to raise your ranking (and to allow for more programing) as cheating the system (back ups are another matter).
In fact, if the turret brain is independent from the ship's computer, I guess we could tell it a robot, as in the drone in MT:101 vehicles (sorry, havn't the book handy right now, I cannot tell you the page).
I agree with Mike - robots are in the background and taken for granted.
I can see crew working in an engine room, and instead of someone asking a fellow crewmember to "bring" me the toolbox he'd shout "send" me the toolbox. Along trundles something between the Star Wars mouse robot up to R2-D2. Then he asks the toolbox to remove panel 374G as opposed to digging around for a screwdriver.
I think the disconnect/failure point between ...
1. economics suggesting that all ships should have a captain plus an all robot crew.
2. OTU rules, adventures, deckplans and color texts say 'it ain't so'.
... goes back to the difference between AI (as described in the robot books) and Self-aware robots (TL 17 in CT). Just because a robot is programmed to operate a ship like a pilot does not mean that it can actually replace a human pilot on the ship ... that would require the independent function that is reserved for TL 17 robots.
The automated factories that I have visited, still employ quality control people to examine the product coming out of the machines because the machinery is often perfectly willing to continue as normal if something unexpected happens. Newer machines can sense when something has gone wrong, but even they seem to generally default to 'stop the presses and call for a technician'.
Has anyone else encountered a Garmin or Magellan GPS that gives less than perfect advice? ... "Exit now would be a lot easier if this road had an exit here".
o:
So I could easily imagine a Robot Pilot that could handle the routine 'driving', like an aircraft on auto-pilot, or even be programmed for routine landings and takeoff ... but let the ship exit jump in an uncharted asteroid field and damage one of the stabilizers and the AI (non-Sophont) robot pilot will be perfectly willing to follow procedures exactly as programmed, right up to the point where the superfreighter collides with the highport.
Keeping a human pilot in the loop means that the robot pilot who exits jump in an uncharted asteroid field and damages one of the stabilizers, can detect that something has gone wrong and summon a sophont to make the decisions above its AI grade.
In terms of game mechanics, I respectfully suggest that 'minimum crew' (from Mongoose Traveller) must be sophonts, both by regulation and practical necessity, since a smaller sophont crew is potentially unable to deal with an emergency. The 'average' and 'full' crew numbers can certainly be filled out with AI robots capable of performing routine tasks and normal operations.
Thus in normal operating mode, the partially robotic crew is more cost efficient, but when a crisis strikes, the robots are of limited usefulness and the ship functions at one level lower ... a 'full' crew becomes 'average', an 'average' crew becomes 'minimal', and a 'minimal' partial-robotic crew may be insufficient to cope with the crisis (and thus illegal for any ship that carries mail or passengers).
Just some thoughts from IMTU.
YMMV
1. economics suggesting that all ships should have a captain plus an all robot crew.
2. OTU rules, adventures, deckplans and color texts say 'it ain't so'.
... goes back to the difference between AI (as described in the robot books) and Self-aware robots (TL 17 in CT). Just because a robot is programmed to operate a ship like a pilot does not mean that it can actually replace a human pilot on the ship ... that would require the independent function that is reserved for TL 17 robots.
The automated factories that I have visited, still employ quality control people to examine the product coming out of the machines because the machinery is often perfectly willing to continue as normal if something unexpected happens. Newer machines can sense when something has gone wrong, but even they seem to generally default to 'stop the presses and call for a technician'.
Has anyone else encountered a Garmin or Magellan GPS that gives less than perfect advice? ... "Exit now would be a lot easier if this road had an exit here".
o: So I could easily imagine a Robot Pilot that could handle the routine 'driving', like an aircraft on auto-pilot, or even be programmed for routine landings and takeoff ... but let the ship exit jump in an uncharted asteroid field and damage one of the stabilizers and the AI (non-Sophont) robot pilot will be perfectly willing to follow procedures exactly as programmed, right up to the point where the superfreighter collides with the highport.
Keeping a human pilot in the loop means that the robot pilot who exits jump in an uncharted asteroid field and damages one of the stabilizers, can detect that something has gone wrong and summon a sophont to make the decisions above its AI grade.
In terms of game mechanics, I respectfully suggest that 'minimum crew' (from Mongoose Traveller) must be sophonts, both by regulation and practical necessity, since a smaller sophont crew is potentially unable to deal with an emergency. The 'average' and 'full' crew numbers can certainly be filled out with AI robots capable of performing routine tasks and normal operations.
Thus in normal operating mode, the partially robotic crew is more cost efficient, but when a crisis strikes, the robots are of limited usefulness and the ship functions at one level lower ... a 'full' crew becomes 'average', an 'average' crew becomes 'minimal', and a 'minimal' partial-robotic crew may be insufficient to cope with the crisis (and thus illegal for any ship that carries mail or passengers).
Just some thoughts from IMTU.
YMMV
A mechanical thing-a-majig will probably not have anything inside it that's worth compromizing. No EPROMable embeded code to re-write for self benefit. They might get taken apart to see how they work is all, especially if the thing stops working.
True. Parts can be bought to replace older parts. Better parts can be used as well for upgrading. Swaptronics. No hacking is necessary. No programming is necessary. If you have to take a controller out of the robot and connect it to a computer to update the firmware on it, you still don't need to know any programming. If you know the languaged used, you could put your own code in there and give the robot a back door.
Backdoor being a CTRL-ALT-DEL-SHIFT-F9 to access diag systems on a robot that only the factory knows about. Of course, you just over-wrote that code with your own firmware. So now a physical key has to be used to shut the robot down instead of the G9 network signal the contract security guy would normally send it.
Accessing a network via one's home robot would be something a hacker would do.
Opening a casing and exposing a circuit to light would be enough to self-destroy the inner workings. NON SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE.
What I've ruled in MgT is that the Expert Software on a Computer uses the MgT "Aiding Another Character" rules on pages 50-51 of the MgT Main Book.
Another thing to think about is that in MgT Robots book, robots with arms have Str and Dex, so I don't have a problem with a Robot using a Dex/Int skill...
This is what I'm leaning toward doing IMTU. Pretty much for the same reasons you give.
Speak for your own campaign, mine had a whole shift of Robots, as crew, plus even a robot squad of troops.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/traveller-beyond-the-frontier/wikis/robots-of-destruction
The rules never said there aren't robots around.
Speak for your own campaign, mine had a whole shift of Robots, as crew, plus even a robot squad of troops.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/traveller-beyond-the-frontier/wikis/robots-of-destruction
The rules never said there aren't robots around.
Well, I was saying that for the evidence of Deckplans/Ship Designs in the OTU. MTU will be different...
Well, I was saying that for the evidence of Deckplans/Ship Designs in the OTU. MTU will be different...
I'm not sure how deck plans or ship design will change; imo the by far biggest reason for robots not being more prevalent is the laziness for GM's and writers to make them, it is much easier to toss another NPC on the fire than to do the crunch for a 'bot.
Hi,
That would probably make alto of sense to me for the setting. In general I kind of assume the things like a starship's machinery are fairly highly automated, allowing the ship to operate pretty much trouble free for up to a year with only a single Engineer onboard.
If you look at most MgT Deckplans they usually have Crew Staterooms physically separated from Passenger Staterooms(for merchants that carry passengers) and the required Stewards are calculated on how many Passenger Staterooms there are. With Robot Crew you could have more Staterooms for Passengers and thus make more money by hauling more paying customers. Or you could save dTons and Life Support by having less Staterooms.
Sure, but look at the crew shifts in MgT rules, the deck plans don't often represent the double shifts either, the crew is too small. But with any deck plan from any version the caveat is to take it with a grain of salt, deck plan discussions are a dime a dozen. My Fanzhienz adaptation to MgT all the staterooms are together on one side of a corridor, supposedly the Imperial designs are to ward off hijacking by passengers, but they come up being really unweildy. C'est la trav.
Why not more robots in Traveller?
Thats a good question. I think its due largely to lack of support.
During CT there were several attempts to add robots to the setting: Research Station Gamma, JTAS Articles, the Zho Combat bot, and finally, late in the CT run the Robots book 8. I think that due to the lack of further support (IIRC only one book on robot types late in the product rum), and lack of consistent rules for them prior to book 8, they never really caught on. Also, they never seemed to be included into the settings. Aliens were MUCH more popular. Out of sight out of mind I guess.
In MT there were never any good, consistent rules to make them until very recently.
In TNE they were the enemy, but there were still no good rules for making and running them.
T4 was no better. than MT or TNE for robot use or creation.
I am not so sure why GT never had more on robots, but I am sure many GMs began including them, as the rules became available.
MgT was the first Traveller core that I know to have included robots from the start, and like the CT rules its modeled on, has put out a supplement based around them as well for the creation and running of robots.
IMTU, which if you have been watching the boards, has been going over a major revamp, and robots are being included there, as I am VERY sure they are in others TUs.
I see no reason Robots of all strypes couldn't be included into your games in this day and age.
Thats a good question. I think its due largely to lack of support.
During CT there were several attempts to add robots to the setting: Research Station Gamma, JTAS Articles, the Zho Combat bot, and finally, late in the CT run the Robots book 8. I think that due to the lack of further support (IIRC only one book on robot types late in the product rum), and lack of consistent rules for them prior to book 8, they never really caught on. Also, they never seemed to be included into the settings. Aliens were MUCH more popular. Out of sight out of mind I guess.
In MT there were never any good, consistent rules to make them until very recently.
In TNE they were the enemy, but there were still no good rules for making and running them.
T4 was no better. than MT or TNE for robot use or creation.
I am not so sure why GT never had more on robots, but I am sure many GMs began including them, as the rules became available.
MgT was the first Traveller core that I know to have included robots from the start, and like the CT rules its modeled on, has put out a supplement based around them as well for the creation and running of robots.
IMTU, which if you have been watching the boards, has been going over a major revamp, and robots are being included there, as I am VERY sure they are in others TUs.
I see no reason Robots of all strypes couldn't be included into your games in this day and age.
Well, I've just always thought of it as there is a lot of shipboard automation, kinda like AutoPilot, for most things. In other words, once put on a course a Ship should normally be able to follow it and operate on its own for days, possibly even doing minor course adjustments as needed.
Various comments...
Robots in CT - They were there from the beginning. In the illos, early in JTAS, in the early adventures. What wasn't readily available were rules on how to build/use robots and that is among CT's biggest mistakes IMHO. Publishing robot rules in a magazine didn't disseminate them widely enough. I didn't have the second part of the article until I bought the Reprints and didn't have LBB:8 until MT had been out for years. It's hard to include robots in a game as anything more than background if you don't have rules.
Robots are toasters - They're everywhere in the 57th Century. People simply don't notice them because they and what they do aren't considered novel. People only notice robots when they aren't there doing the work that they always do.
Robots aren't C3PO - Robots are rarely humanoid or "animal-oid". Form follows function so a robot's form is determined by the function(s) it performs. The failure here is in ourselves. When we think "robot taxi", we see a robot driving a taxi much like the Keith illo of a robot pilot posted earlier. The reality is that the taxi itself is going to the robot as there's no need for the Tin Man to sit in the driver's seat or for the even to be a driver's seat.
We expect robots to look like mechanical men just like people in the late 1800s expected automobiles to look like a horse and buggy. Look at the automat food kiosk mentioned earlier in this thread. There's no real need for it to have a robotic torso, arms, and head complete with white paper hat. It might make it more friendly/familiar to us in the 21st Century but that's a cultural hang-up just like the 1800s "cars should like like horses" one.
In the 57th Century, a C3PO-style valet is going to be seen as a robot while a "simple" closet which cleans, presses, folds, arranges, and presents clothes is not. Both are robots and both are perceived differently. Similarly, a R2D2-style maid which vacuums, dusts, washes windows, and does the dishes is going to be seen as a robot while an apartment which does all those things is not.
The more a machine does, the more it must be monitored and maintained - That mobile engineering 'bot is going to save you lots of money if you can operate and maintain it correctly. Part of your sophont engineer's duties are going to be maintaining the 'bots. Robots are going to provide a labor multiplier and not a labor reduction.
Robots in CT - They were there from the beginning. In the illos, early in JTAS, in the early adventures. What wasn't readily available were rules on how to build/use robots and that is among CT's biggest mistakes IMHO. Publishing robot rules in a magazine didn't disseminate them widely enough. I didn't have the second part of the article until I bought the Reprints and didn't have LBB:8 until MT had been out for years. It's hard to include robots in a game as anything more than background if you don't have rules.
Robots are toasters - They're everywhere in the 57th Century. People simply don't notice them because they and what they do aren't considered novel. People only notice robots when they aren't there doing the work that they always do.
Robots aren't C3PO - Robots are rarely humanoid or "animal-oid". Form follows function so a robot's form is determined by the function(s) it performs. The failure here is in ourselves. When we think "robot taxi", we see a robot driving a taxi much like the Keith illo of a robot pilot posted earlier. The reality is that the taxi itself is going to the robot as there's no need for the Tin Man to sit in the driver's seat or for the even to be a driver's seat.
We expect robots to look like mechanical men just like people in the late 1800s expected automobiles to look like a horse and buggy. Look at the automat food kiosk mentioned earlier in this thread. There's no real need for it to have a robotic torso, arms, and head complete with white paper hat. It might make it more friendly/familiar to us in the 21st Century but that's a cultural hang-up just like the 1800s "cars should like like horses" one.
In the 57th Century, a C3PO-style valet is going to be seen as a robot while a "simple" closet which cleans, presses, folds, arranges, and presents clothes is not. Both are robots and both are perceived differently. Similarly, a R2D2-style maid which vacuums, dusts, washes windows, and does the dishes is going to be seen as a robot while an apartment which does all those things is not.
The more a machine does, the more it must be monitored and maintained - That mobile engineering 'bot is going to save you lots of money if you can operate and maintain it correctly. Part of your sophont engineer's duties are going to be maintaining the 'bots. Robots are going to provide a labor multiplier and not a labor reduction.
IMTU there are total robot ships, except for minimal crew, maybe even in cold sleep and like PFVA63 said earlier, most system are functionally "automated" with the operators just pressing enter to do standard tasks. To me, things like putting a bridge in a sponson instead of boxing the structure, offends my sense of engineering, but there goes the good old A2, I just leave it alone.
Be warned though, making ships and deck plans can become an obsession, I still have hand drawn 150k ton battleships from 30 years ago.
