On 21/10/21 12:24, Rupert Boleyn - rupert.boleyn at gmail.com (via tml
list) wrote:
>
>
> On 21Oct2021 1508, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml
> list) wrote:
>> <snip>
> Not at all. How much maintenance does a ship really require? is the
> sort of thing that sensible people will be asking when they want to
> buy a bigger ship and wonder if they will need to hire some extra crew
> to help keep her up and running. Wanting one's character to improve,
> and thinking that they should have some spare time whilst in jump is
> hardly a 'munchkin' thing to want to do, and wondering how much such
> free time there is and how that will be impacted by being short a crew
> member isn't either. And knowing these things leads to being able to
> calculate how much time everyone is spending on maintenance, and on a
> free trader trying desperately to make ends meet this might lead to
> doing the maths on running short a crewman to cut costs (and hoping
> the licensing authorities and/or your insurers don't find out) -
> hardly a 'munchkin' thing to do - it's something small businesses do
> all the time (whether it's a smart move or not is a whole different
> thing, of course).

Or one of your (now-shortened) crew getting absolutely _maggoted_ on
anything with alcohol in it while in port, and blabbing about the crew
shortfall.  Lots of adventure material even within the port's confines.

As for munchkins of the stereotypical type, might I remind the Learned &
Honourable Members that it takes two to tango?  The munchkin, and the GM?

As for study... well, Herr Sweep's dice karma is hilarious enough.  I
think El Capitane has managed to heave a total of over two years of
study efforts out the window thanks to said dice karma.

Under either Collision's or Elv's modified maintenance rules, it's quite
feasible to have one character (*koff* Nikki *koff*) single-hand a
starship of no more than 200 dton or so, depending on how much they
trust an autopilot.

Then again, I have Easy Frag chasing me for Das Boot's flipping
_amortisation schedule_, so my mob may be a bit of an outlier.

My convo with Collision was well-timed.  Das Boot, _Caerbannog Rabbit
Fancy_, _Like A Record_, _Echo Papa 507_, _Stacey Thomson_, _Obsidian
Sky_ and _Batteries Not Included_ are just about to bugger off from
Teacup Station (Kushuggi/Solomani Rim 2530), heading to trailing.  4000
dton of player-character-level natural disaster looking for a place to
happen.

>
> And this doesn't even touch on the utility of knowing these numbers
> has for those people who like to design ships and other stuff and play
> round with the numbers. Having the design system produce these numbers
> lets them play with the assumptions around crew levels, and that can
> lead to more interesting ship designs, because they'll have their
> quirks - one might have spacious crew quarters and lots of crew, but
> pay in payload. Another might have lots of crew in tiny cabins, and
> pay in morale. Yet another might have decent quarters but for less
> crew than one might like, so plenty of payload but the crew is
> overworked and tired most of the time, and so on. As long as the
> numbers are sensible and there are good defaults so those not
> interested in playing round with such things can just take the
> defaults and move on, this sort of thing is useful. It's when the
> numbers don't work out with the numbers from elsewhere, and/or they're
> fiddly and can't just be skipped over by taking some default that
> they're a problem for those that'd rather not deal with such detail.
>
> And again, just what those defaults are, when it comes to maintenance
> loads, can give interesting hints as to what the tech 'feels' like in
> a setting.
>
Warn the players about something like that up front, and if they choose
to go a different route, have fun inflicting the consequences.

And even better when those defaults aren't BAKED IN (muttermutter MGT2
muttermutter) so you can tweak them - a good positive example of this is
GT: Starships p14-15:
"The various classification societies (e.g., Lloyd's Register,
Traveller's Aid Society, etc) have determined through long experience
that 'Medium Frame, Standard Materials, Expensive Metal Armor' is the
optimal combination of safety, utility and economy for a particular TL. 
Anything more gets expensive, although some designs justify their cost. 
Anything less, however, is not going to meet the agreed-upon
standards... Bank financing will be nearly impossible to obtain,
insurance rates will be astronomical, and government charters will be
unavailable for such a shoddy operation."

Alex