Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Traveller Starship Deck Plans...Why Do They Always Appear to Be Wrong?

I have been reading through my Mongoose Traveller PDF and was hoping that their version would simplify the starship design process, especially the part about actually making the deck plans. You would think that after all these years and in the latest iteration of the classic rules that Mongoose would have made improvements (such as dumping the 'displacemnt Tonnage' apect of starship design and maps or at least provide a step bt step example of making deck plans that are accurate.

In reviewing some of the deck plans in the book, something just doesn't seem right. For example, in the Type S class Scout, there are 4 staterooms. According to the ship design sheet, each stateroom takes up 4 tons of space. Looking at the map, it's clearly only 3 tons. Other areas of the ship also don't add up according to the design sheet and the deck plans.

This has been the thing that has always bothered me about Traveller. Their over-reliance on math and yet their math never adds up. Now, math isn't my strong suite, but even I can grok this basic stuff and I lose respect for the game if the designers themselves can't get it right. I start to question everything about the game at that point.

3 comments:

  1. Did you include the passages, lounge and other public areas as part of the staterooms? That's the way the system usually works (up to half the stateroom go to public areas not associated with other components, and so on.) It was mentioned in previous versions of Traveller, but I can't remember if I read it in MGT or not.

    Hope This Helps,
    Flynn

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nope, because it wasn't stated anywhere in the rulebook. If this is indeed the case, then I'll take another look at the deckplans. But this is what I mean that such kind of info would be useful and stated BOLDLY somewhere in the ship design section. Even a simple listing of tips in a sidebar would be helpful. Thanks for the heads up Flynn.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One more knock against the supposed "experts" of the game industry. I will stick with amateur work myself. At least they have an excuse for this stuff. :)

    ReplyDelete