A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Douglas Berry
(02 Apr 2018 22:34 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Catherine Berry
(02 Apr 2018 22:52 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Rupert Boleyn
(02 Apr 2018 23:07 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans J. Michael Looney (03 Apr 2018 00:07 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Kelly St. Clair
(03 Apr 2018 04:34 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Rupert Boleyn
(03 Apr 2018 06:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Kelly St. Clair
(03 Apr 2018 06:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Evyn MacDude
(03 Apr 2018 07:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Rupert Boleyn
(03 Apr 2018 09:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A heretical suggestions on deckplans
Phil Pugliese
(03 Apr 2018 05:30 UTC)
|
I really don't like deck plans and unless you are doing a "dungeon in space" you don't need them. A flow chart or node list of areas on the ship is what I do. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03Apr2018 1034, Douglas Berry wrote: >> >> An ancient grognard approaches, clad in the ragged remains of FASA deck >> plans, sheets of paper filled with arcane scribbling and broken scientific >> calculators. About his neck, a copy of Fire, Fusion, and Steel II is hung >> with a heavy chain. >> >> I am about to speak heresy. Brace yourselves. >> >> You don't need deck plans. Hardly ever. They take up space, are never >> right, and frankly, speaking as someone who has designed countless >> starships since High Guard first came out, people rarely give a damn. >> >> Let me repeat a point. They never come out right, but the ship design >> sequences are far too granular for that kind of fine detail. We can argue >> to the end of time about why computers take up so much space, or what >> percentage of stateroom tonnage goes to common spaces, but in the game, it >> does not really matter. > > > I agree that this level of details isn't needed on the maps/plans. I have > found a degree of details in descriptions of staterooms helpful in providing > atmosphere. For example, in my current campaign I described the staterooms > in some detail in order to show the players just how tightly packed in > everything was, even by starship design standards (their new ship being a > 'high-performance' 'Solomani' design, two flavours that both tend to mean > 'cramped'). > > I also did a low detail set of plans, because the ship was a tail-lander, > and some of the players found my text description hard to follow. How they > did I'm not sure, seeing as it was basically "A conical shape, the decks > stacked on top of each other in the following order, from base to nose..." > > I did say I was going to do a more detailed deck-by-deck plan, but the need > for it never came up, so I never did. I have found, like you, that they are > almost never needed. These days I use GURPS *Spaceshsips* for ship design, > and I find that placing the twenty systems that it gives each ship in a > roughly 'ship-shaped' arrangement gives enough detail, as a rule. > > -- > Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> > Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief > > ----- > The Traveller Mailing List > Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml > Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com > To unsubscribe from this list please go to > http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=nxrDtFdMUuRm7Wsf3AOGTO5KWLVBt3I8 -- Some of us have a little bit of Crazy and some of us have a 40,000 liter drum filled to the brim of the stuff - and you don't know how much Crazy there is until it's awake - by which time it's waaaay too late to try and cram it back in the box. -- Simon the BOFH