_Armourer_ skill

A thread of 4 messages, 15 January 1992 to 16 January 1992, in the order they were sent.

#3480 _Armourer_ skill

Me:
>>Btw. I've decided to include a new skill in marine character
>>generation (and perhaps army too?) called 'armourer', and then
>>require armourer skill to care for high tech weapons (that is,
>>anything with electronic parts). A weapon skill would give a
>>default ability to field repair that particular weapon (possibly
>>electronics skill might too?), but proper maintenance and
>>especially proper repairs would require armourer skill.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>Well, don't both Marines and Army have several entries for "Mechanical"
>and "Electronic" in the charts?  I'd be inclined to keep things simple <?>
>and say that repairs/fitting etc. of battledress required someone with
>a reasonable level of both skills.  Avoid unneeded skill specialization!

Unneeded? Don't you think it could be reasonable to distinguish between
the skills of an air/raft mechanic and a battle dress repairman?


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]
- ------------
        "Come all brother spacemen that travel along.
         Oh, pray come and tell me where the trade is all gone.
         Long time have I travelled, and I cannot find none."
         Ch: "And sing: All the hard times of the Empire.
              In the Empire are very hard times."
                                Traditional song.

#3483 Re: _Armourer_ skill

In your letter dated Wed, 15 Jan 92 22:11:43 MET, you wrote:
>
> Unneeded? Don't you think it could be reasonable to distinguish between
> the skills of an air/raft mechanic and a battle dress repairman?
>

Seriously, no.  Not for a game with the average detail level of the skills
is what we already have.  Ask a pilot (like Scott Kellogg) if he thinks that
we should split aircraft pilot up by plane type...I don't think that it is
worth splitting Engineer up into Jump Drive Engineer, Maneuver Engineer and
Power Plant Engineer either.

Rob Dean

#3489 Re: _Armourer_ skill

> From: Robert S. Dean  [email removed]
> Subject: (3483)  Re:  _Armourer_ skill
>
> I don't think that it is
> worth splitting Engineer up into Jump Drive Engineer, Maneuver Engineer and
> Power Plant Engineer either.

  We can see what skill-o-mania does to a game by studying Rollmaster. It is
questionable if the increase in unplayability is matched by an increase in
quality and realism.

  BTW: Making it equally hard to get basic combat skills and some academic
skills isn't very realistic either, but it is a tradeoff Traveller has made.

> Rob Dean

- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

#3493 Re: _Armourer_ skill.

>From: [email removed]
>Armorer Skill
>Well, I would say that an NCO with Battle Dress-2 should be able to fit
>and adjust armor to a person.  After all, normal military training would
>require that a person be able to strip, clean, maintain, etc etc their
>suit at Battle Dress-1.  Battle Dress-2 should allow you to follow cookbook
>instructions on how to adjust the suit.  Battle Dress-3 should allow you
>to be an expert at customization.

We've got different ideas about what a particular skill level means (mind
you, yours may be nearer GDWs intentions than mine). I use this rule of thumb:

0: You can use it, albeit badly.
1: You can use it adequately in routine situations.
2: You can use it well; you know what makes it tick.
3: You can make it tick.
4: You can make it tick real well.
5: You can make it tick "The Star Spangled Banner". ;-)


>Thus I would oppose introducing an
>Armorer skill.  (For heaven's sake it's tough enough to get battle dress
>skill in the first place!  Why make maintainance even HARDER on the players?)

I don't want my players to use battle dress more than absolutely necessary.
A battle dress is WAY too powerful for many situations. And you can't just
beef up the opposition. There is no middle ground against a battle dress.
Anything that can take out a BD will also take out the player character
inside. I don't want to be in a situation where I either has to let the
players walk all over my senario or kill them...

I suppose I could invent an ECM beamer or something...

And Robert S. Dean writes:
>I wrote:
>>
>>Unneeded? Don't you think it could be reasonable to distinguish between
>>the skills of an air/raft mechanic and a battle dress repairman?
>
>Seriously, no.  Not for a game with the average detail level of the skills
>is what we already have.  Ask a pilot (like Scott Kellogg) if he thinks that
>we should split aircraft pilot up by plane type...

Eh? Isn't that just what MegaTraveller does? And don't you think there's
greater difference between repairing air/rafts and battle dresses than
between flying one plane and another?

>I don't think that it is
>worth splitting Engineer up into Jump Drive Engineer, Maneuver Engineer and
>Power Plant Engineer either.

No, because any starship engineer needs to know about all three systems. But
I don't think a brigde builder should be allowed inside a starship engine
room. For that matter, I don't think a Wet Navy Navigator has any business
inside a starship control room, for all he knows a skill called navigation
(actually, I've renamed starship navigation 'astrogation' and use 'navigation'
only for the Wet Navy skill).

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]
- ------------
        "Come all brother spacemen that travel along.
         Oh, pray come and tell me where the trade is all gone.
         Long time have I travelled, and I cannot find none."
         Ch: "And sing: All the hard times of the Empire.
              In the Empire are very hard times."
                                Traditional song.