Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

[Catseye]

Hi Guys,

 

I'm doing some tuning and tightening of the rules for my house fantasy setting, more or less made necessary by my building an HD template for it.

 

I'm having abit of trouble grokking the line between Transport Familiarity and Systems Operation for complex vehicles.

 

For instance, imagine a space ship. What would Transport Familiarity do? What would systems operation do?

 

(No there are no space ships in this setting, but sailing ships are analogous being complex machines hat are at the peak of the technology of the day and require many people with many skills to operate effective.)

[JmOz]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

TF/Combat Piloting:

Flying the ship, controling where it goes

 

Sys Ops: Radar, Comm, life support, ECM, etc...

 

Navigation: Plotting courses, where the hell are we, second star to the right (But sir, that's the xenovores galaxy)

 

There is some cross over, the pilot will know how to read or turn on the comm systems, but anything beyond "normal" use takes a specilist

[Comic]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Chekov: TF

Sulu: Navigation

Scotty: Sys Ops

Kirk: Combat Pilot

Uhura: Seduction

[Catseye]

Hmm...

 

Okay so help me brainstorm here a bit.

 

Suppose I don't want to go to the detail level of "Sysop: Mainsail, Sysop: Anchor Capstan" 8) Most sailors know all of these things.

 

What would the difference between TF: Sailing Ships and SysOp: Sailing Ships be? Maybe TF only refers to one man craft while SYSOp means being part of a crew?

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Chekov: TF

Sulu: Navigation

Scotty: Sys Ops

Kirk: Combat Pilot

Uhura: Seduction

 

Thats an interesting way to look at it thanks.

 

Its a bit trickier on a sailing ship because how you point the ship effects its function... but I think I can make the analogy work 8)

 

Steering the ship: TF

Working the rigging, etc: SysOps

Finding the course; navigation

[JmOz]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Chekov: TF

Sulu: Navigation

Scotty: Sys Ops

Kirk: Combat Pilot

Uhura: Seduction

 

Actualy, in ST terms

 

Kirk: Tactics

Bones: Paramedic

Scotty: Mechanics, Electronics

Uhura: System Ops

Sulu: Combat Piloting/TF

Checkov: Navigation

 

This is primary functions, most of the bridge crew knew how to do a bit of everything. You will note spock not on the list, this is because his primary function on the ship was to be the science guy, while he showed System Ops skills, his primary purpose was to analyse the data not to get the data

[JmOz]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Thats an interesting way to look at it thanks.

 

Its a bit trickier on a sailing ship because how you point the ship effects its function... but I think I can make the analogy work 8)

 

Steering the ship: TF

Working the rigging, etc: SysOps

Finding the course; navigation

 

Working the rigging would be a profesional Skill IMO, really system ops requires a minimum level of tech that a sailing ship (in the classic sense) does not have. Modern Sailing ships do however have things like radar and radios that would be sys ops

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I wouldn't use SysOp for sailing ships... normally.

 

KS: Ships Lines would cover knowing how to trim the sails, weigh anchor and other assorted tasks, and which line did what, on the theoretical level.

PS: Sailor would get most of that and the ability to make a living off of it. If you spent your life on a ship using square sails and suddenly found yourself on a ship with a gaf rig you might be able to fake it, for a while.

Navigation lets you know which is the correct course to take. Reading maps, stars, knowing prevailing tides, etc.

TF: Ships would actually let you guide the ship in that direction. When to tack, using the winds to your advantage, etc.

 

If the ship has some kind of odd mechanism in place to allow a less than full compliment of crew operate it (say a series of winches, pulleys, and levers that operated the lines from the aft castle instead of men in the rigging) I would implement a Systems Operation: Automated Rigging System Skill. Likely this would definitely fall into the fantastical end of things, but could be quite fun in the right game.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I would modify this somewhat...

 

Kirk: Tactics, plus several of the skills listed below (to be a captain, you need to know how everything works to an extent)

Bones: Paramedic, SS: Biology (and similar skills)

Scotty: Mechanics, Electronics, Inventor (how many times did he get the ship to go well beyond design specs?)

Uhura: System Ops, Cryptography, several language skills

Sulu: Combat Piloting/TF, System Ops (in a sci-fi environment, you need to be able to use scanners to pilot at high speeds)

Checkov: Navigation, System Ops (you need to use scanners to navigate properly)

 

Basically, half the bridge crew needs Systems Operation to do their jobs.

[gojira]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Thats an interesting way to look at it thanks.

 

Its a bit trickier on a sailing ship because how you point the ship effects its function... but I think I can make the analogy work 8)

 

Steering the ship: TF

Working the rigging, etc: SysOps

Finding the course; navigation

 

That's an interesting idea. I'd do something more like the following:

 

Steering the ship: TF, or Professional Skill: Pilot

Working the Rigging: PS: Seaman, or possibly a Hobby Skill.

Finding a course, locating current position, measuring things related to navigations (wind speed, ship speed, current), interpreting tide books, reading charts, etc.: Navigation.

 

Sys Ops: I'd have to check the USK, but I assume this means more electronics. Working the GPS, working the Radar. Depending on how the GM and 5er define Sys Ops, it might also mean interpreting and using the radar too. Overlap would be a good thing here. A navigator who can also use a radar would be able to find his way absent other navigational tools. A skilled radar operator would probably be used to giving readings to a navigator, and the skilled radar operator would probably boost the navigator's skill by giving him good interpretations of what the radar is showing. (Radar, I understand, is notoriously finicky and hard to interpret.)

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I think this gets into the semantics of words, thanks.

 

I appreciate the thinking, but to me SysOps means "working the high tech of the day." In a setting such as this, ship rigging, siege engines, and clocks ARE the high tech of the day. (Well, outside of the gnomes, but they're a special case.)

 

I think we tend to under estimate the technologies of past eras. Ask someone who really knows about the height of wind powered technology and you will find it is quite complex and involves a combination of an astute grasp of mechanics, materials science, some rather inobvious physics (for instance, running before the wind is actually one of the slower ways to move the craft), and detailed skills in different kinds of ropes and knots.

 

I suppose in a sense I am making this specific point *in* the setting by using the sysops skill for things like sailing vessels and seige engines.

[Mantis]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Okay, putting aside that I wouldn't use SysOps for a non-tech environment, try:

 

Transport Familiarity is for Officers. They know what orders to give to get a desired result in a given situation.

Systems Operation is for Crew. They know how to implement the orders they are given, but can't control the ship.

 

Non-coms may have both to reflect the fact they can, in dire circumstances, take over if the officers are incapacitated.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Okay, putting aside that I wouldn't use SysOps for a non-tech environment, try:

 

Thats exactly the point. Its NOT a non-tech environment.

 

By way of example, for a long time it was assumed that Babbage's difference engine couldn't be built. It was "proved" that the friction between the parts would be too great...

 

However, recently someone who knew a LOT about the OLD skills of clock making took a look at the plans, concluded it could be built, and proved it by building it.

 

The missing information was that the old wooden clock makers knew a great deal of material science about different kinds of wood, how they bent, how they didn't, and most importantly, how they acted against each other. Turns out there is a kind of wood that is effectively "self-oiling", and this is what clock makers used for critical low-friction parts such as these.

 

Similarly the design and operation of sailing vessels was very very complex and sophisticated. It was certainly a highly advanced technology... just one that we eventually abandoned for quicker solutions and mostly forgot.

 

People in our era tend to have this bias where they think all the technologies of the previous eras were "simple and obvious. Far from it. If you don't believe me, YOU try to make a reliable screw driver from scratch without any machinery. Or even a well balanced hammer.

 

Our modern technology is *different*in that it is more powerful, but it gets its power by leveraging itself up on the back of what has gone before. Just look how helpless modern man is when the power goes out... then remember that for most of human history there *was* no power.

 

Frankly, if society collapsed I don't think one in a hundred thousand of us really has the skills to survive.

 

Anyhoo thanks for the brainstorming. It helped a lot!

 

JK

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I totally get the POV you're approaching this from.

 

That said, I'd still only use SysOps on the "systems" that need the hand of a specialist. Let professional skills do for most of the crew. The Sailing Master was often considered the only man onboard who knew how to best rig the sails for his particular ship, and thus was often pressed whenever the ship changed hands... this seems a prime example. Operating the sometimes rather complex timepieces that were so valuable in determining position is another likely candidate. Some navigational aids could certainly justify needing it (astrolabe, anyone?). All the various gear driven mechanisms such as the bilge pumps & capstan hoist might qualify as well, but personally to me that sounds like Mechanics to build/repair and a PS to operate.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I usually reserver SysOp for operating a device that gets another device to do the work.

 

To use a common high tech example, humans can't translate the information a radar dish receives, a machine does that and the SysOp operates the machine and is trained in reading what it is telling him.

 

If you're directly affecting something (moving the lines to use the lower tech example of complex rigging) it's a PS of knowing where those lines go when you're told to tack starboard.

[Lucius]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Hi Guys,

 

I'm doing some tuning and tightening of the rules for my house fantasy setting, more or less made necessary by my building an HD template for it.

 

I'm having abit of trouble grokking the line between Transport Familiarity and Systems Operation for complex vehicles.

 

For instance, imagine a space ship. What would Transport Familiarity do? What would systems operation do?

 

(No there are no space ships in this setting, but sailing ships are analogous being complex machines hat are at the peak of the technology of the day and require many people with many skills to operate effective.)

 

I think Transport Familiarity is for vehicles that a single person is operating alone.

 

If it doesn't mean that, I think it would mean the skill to actually "steer" the vessel - so on a sailing ship, the pilot or helmsman would have this, and probably so would other officers. You may even allow the equivalent of "Combat Piloting" for the highly skilled.

 

Navigation is of course the art of figuring out where you are, which way you're going, and which way to go to get where you want to be. In this context, having the skill Marine Navigation would probably include things like using the astrolabe if you have one.

 

PS: Seaman would let you pull your weight as part of a ship's crew.

 

If you want to use Sysems Operation, what you need to do then is decide just how complicated you want to get with it. Maybe you can use one Systems Operations skill for "Saling Ship Systems" or maybe you'll actually want to break it down by various components. It sounds like you have some idea how many specialists it takes to run such a ship. I suggest, though, that you treat them all as "related skills" i.e. someone with one such skill gets an automatic familiarity with the others (if you've been on a ship enough to master one system, you've learned something about all of them.)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Weapon Familiarity: Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Catseye, I understand your point about past technologies; but I would caution you against trying to bend those technologies too far into areas that they don't really cover. Most of the more sophisticated technology in use aboard a pre-electric-era sailing vessel - compass, astrolabe or sextant, clock, log, charts and so on - would be directly related to navigating the vessel, and so should be dealt with through Navigation Skill IMO. Any cannons aboard ship would be a Weapon Familiarity. Windlasses to raise and lower rigging could be covered by Transport Familiarity or PS: Sailor (or subset thereof). Medical or scientific equipment aboard would be the purview of specialists with Science Skills or related Skills such as Paramedics. Repairing or building any of the equipment involved would require further specialized Skills.

 

Systems Operation is explicitly for sensing and communication equipment, and there simply wasn't very much of that aboard pre-electric-era ships which wasn't directly involved in the discipline of navigation.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Nnn... no. SysOps doesn't actually apply here (having done it myself). My solution was a lot more straightforward:

 

TF: Man'o'War gives you the ability to actually steer the ship. Kay.

WF: Cannoneer means that all of your cannon crew must know how to prime, pack, load and fire the cannons. Mmkay.

 

Now we get into "how the ship actually works." Which I simply did as a series of PS: Sailor, KS: Sailing Ship Classes & Lingo, PS: [Additional Skill]. You'll have a bunch of engineers, but they aren't SysOps, they're carpenters. You'll have a Navigator, but he isn't SysOps, he's KS: Navigation, KS: Cartography and PS: Navigator. The First Mate doesn't have SysOps, just a bunch of other skills. Your marines certainly don't have SysOps, they're Marines.

 

Rigging and mail sails do not a Systems Operation make. They're totally separate from that. I'm going to go with the collective and suggest assimilation. Systems Operation does not apply to a sailing ship. There are very few, if any, "systems" to operate.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

 

Systems Operation is explicitly for sensing and communication equipment, and there simply wasn't very much of that aboard pre-electric-era ships which wasn't directly involved in the discipline of navigation.

 

uh... not according to Hero Designer... it includes weapon systesm, medical systems and all sorts of things beyond your suggested categories.

 

If you will excuse a somewhat lengthy XML quote...

 

SYSTEMS_OPERATION SHOWDIALOG="Yes" DISPLAY="Systems Operation" MINCOST="1" 
		FAMILIARITYROLL="8" FAMILIARITYCOST="1" EXCLUSIVE="Yes">



			MAXCOST="2">
Star Hero
				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero


Star Hero


Star Hero

				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero

				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero

				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero


Star Hero

				BASECOST="1" MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero


			MAXCOST="2">
Star Hero

Star Hero

				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero


Star Hero



Star Hero

Star Hero


Star Hero



Star Hero
				BASECOST="1" MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero


Star Hero


Star Hero


Star Hero


Star Hero

				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero


Star Hero

				MINCOST="1" >
Star Hero



Star Hero
				INPUTLABEL="Type" OTHERINPUT="Yes" BASECOST="1" MINCOST="1" EXCLUSIVE="No" >
Star Hero


Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book
Star Hero
Sidekick
(Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book, page 50; Revised, page 72; Star Hero, page 47) 
			Characters with this Intellect Skill understand how to operate sensing and 
			communication devices properly. Choosing any of the defined Systems or System 
			Groups will use the expanded rules from Star Hero. Not selecting any Systems or 
			System Groups will use the default rules as stated in Hero System Fifth Edition 
			Rule Book. 

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

But none of those things are really found aboard a Man'o'War. Your ship's chiurgeon doesn't have fancy gear; he has a few saws, a bit of wood and some liquor. I appreciate your position but don't see what systems you'd have these people operate that aren't covered by the more mundane (and IMO, accurate) PS/KS combinations.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Okay, I think I see where these ideas are coming from. I don't use Hero Designer; I just took my definition from the writeup for Systems Operation in the rulebook. I'd best transcribe part of that here:

 

"Characters with this Intellect Skill understand how to operate sensing and communication devices properly. This includes radios, radar systems, air traffic control devices, sonar, electronic counter-measures (ECM), and many similar pieces of equipment. It does not cover navigational equipment (that's Navigation)... Characters also use Systems Operation to operate many advanced weapons systems, such as missile batteries or satellite-based weapons... Systems Operation generally has no applicabilitiy in pre-industrial settings, such as Fantasy campaigns, though it might allow characters to develop and use low-tech signalling devices."

 

[Emphasis mine.]

 

Note that the weapons and medical equipment referred to above and in your Hero Designer example include sophisticated sensory devices, beyond the technology level being discussed here.

 

(I'm not trying to bust your chops over this, Catseye; merely attempting to determine where the point of dispute originates from.)

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Well, this isn't a general case.

 

Its a specific one.

 

It fits best the tone and tenor I'm going for. You forgot the most important FRED rule... that its a set of guidelines not a straight jacket.

 

This is reiterated by Steve many places, but one of them is..

 

Fred, Revised, Page 560.

"The next thing to do is figure out how the rules system needs to be adapted to give your world the proper 'feel'.

This may sound difficult, especially to novice GMs, but it really isn't that hard. Its just a matter of figuring out what the main elements of the genre you want to simulate are, and then determining what changes, if any, you need to make the HERO System to best simulate or reflect those elements."

 

I think thats MORE then enough license to violate a "generally..." case for a specific purpose.

 

Can I rant a minute?

 

HERO system is one of the best defined RPG systems ever written. Unfortunately, that can *sometimes* lead to a level of pedanticism over individual words in the rule book thats totally unprecedented in the DMIG world of RPG gaming.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I'm lost.

 

If you know what you wanna do, and you don't really seem to have any interest in taking opinions on other ways of doing it (most of which are, "This isn't SysOps,"), then what are you asking? Maybe I'm missing the question. Citing Rule 0 (as I call it) is the gamer's "I quit" card; generally it's thrown down when you're trying to 'defend' your way of thinking, and are out of logical arguments (or at least ones that are swaying opinions).

 

As I've said, over and over again, "it's your game, run it how you like." But IME, and IMO, the things you want to do with a big bad sailing ship are accomplished not through SysOps, which you can certainly use, but through liberal application of PS & KS. Your solution may even be more elegant, and I'm just sitting in my little rules box! Possible! But I'm lost now on what the thread is trying to ascertain.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

The original question, which was answered some time ago really, which I appreciate, was "whats the dividing line between TF and Systems Operations on a high technology, multi-person crewed vehicle."

 

I purposefully used the space ship as an example because it put peoples heads in the "right space."

 

I want my players to really be thinking of sailing ships as the "high technology" of the world. For that reason I am applying the skills to the sailing ship exactly as one would naturally think to apply them to a space ship today. I personally think that thats more then justified in that the technology at the height of the tall ship era was really very complex, arguably at least as complex as running the USS Enterprise seems to be on Star Trek, maybe more so.

 

That make more sense?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

The original question, which was answered some time ago really, which I appreciate, was "whats the dividing line between TF and Systems Operations on a high technology, multi-person crewed vehicle."

 

I purposefully used the space ship as an example because it put peoples heads in the "right space."

 

I want my players to really be thinking of sailing ships as the "high technology" of the world. For that reason I am applying the skills to the sailing ship exactly as one would naturally think to apply them to a space ship today. I personally think that thats more then justified in that the technology at the height of the tall ship era was really very complex, arguably at least as complex as running the USS Enterprise seems to be on Star Trek, maybe more so.

 

That make more sense?

 

Eh, sure. To ME, and the 'fwiw' category, TF is the thing that lets you pilot it (make it go the direction you want, steering, etc.). Systems Operations is the thing that lets you know what all the pretty lights do. I don't happen to agree that you'd have SysOps on a Man'o'War, but at the same time, I don't need too. I would submit it's a justifiable line to draw if that's how you wanna get down. But not one I would draw myself.

 

And yes, that clears it up nicely, thank you.