Topic: Engineering - Discussion

[Mungo]

Hi,

I would like to start a deeper discussion about Engineering in HARP SF for the following reasons
- I did quite some thinking on the Engineering skills as they play at the moment quite an important part in my campaign -> I am not 100% satisfied with the current system.
- There has been so far not much of a discussion on that topic, although it is quite important in an SF campaign -> the topic deserves more attention.

Before I start my argument, I want to state that I think the current system is ok - ok in the sense of maybe good enough, but definitely improvable. So even if the result of this discussion is that there is no change, I could agree on that. The only suggestion I would have in that case is to rename Engineering (Habitat) to Engineering (Lifesupport), as a habitat is structure with lifesupport and at the same time I don't know which Engineering skill I would have to take to repair the lifesupport system of a spaceship.

The benefits I see in the current system are:
- Easy maneuver resolution (just roll)
- Relatively few skills for such a complex topic
- Those skills are relatively comprehensive, i.e. will cover most of the situations encountered by a party
- The idea to combine skills to achieve a desired effect is quite nice (although also problematic, see below

The drawbacks I see are:
- The system is not intuitive, as some Engineering skills describe a technology, others an environment, others complex systems.
- The system is closed, that means it is not complete but it is also difficult to add something, as whatever you add is most likely already partly covered. E.g. the only thing I found that could be added is Engineering (Underwater)
- The system requires several rolls, resulting in situations where more difficult things are easier to achieve than simpler stuff - just because you have to "survive" several rolls which increases the chance for failure. This also introduces a new resolution method for HARP, which I would like to see avoided.
- There are also no rules so far for building new equipment or modifying equipment such that it serves a different function.
- There are no rules what happens if two people work together on a task that requires 2 Engineering skills and each one is an expert in one of those skills.

My idea was to try designing a system that is as simple, but more intuitive and following the existing HARP rules (i.e. has only one maneuver roll). My thoughts went then along the following lines: the current Engineering skills combine, as stated, technologies, environments and so on. To have only one roll, they should represent only one of those categories, the rest should be a modifier. The choice for the skills would be then to me technological systems that are sufficiently different from each other and which allow building any kind of larger system, but are large enough to avoid many skills. The rest are modifers to the maneuvers.

As a result I propose to have the following Engineering specializations:
- Structures (spaceship hulls, houses, bunkers,...)
- Propulsion (motor, jet engines, ...)
- Magnetogravitic (Shields, Anti-g, hyperdrive)
- Weapons (all kinds)
- Sensors (all kinds)
- Computers (i.e. programmable)
- Communications (radio, tightbeam, ...)
- Electronics (TV sets, everyday stuff,...)
- Power (batteries, reactors, ...)
- Mechanical (all kind of mechanisms, ...)
- Lifesupport

They are not to be combined. For repairing things you just take the most applicable skill and make an All-or-nothing roll with the following modifiers (example):
- Cyberware: +1 difficulty level
- Nanotechnology involved: +1difficulty level
- Early Technology: +1 difficulty level
- Advanced Technology: -1 difficulty level
- Prototype Technology: +3 difficulty levels
- Must survive harsh environments (space/underwater/...): +1 difficulty level

For changing the function of the equipment or designing new systems I would propose (for SysOps guide) to use the same skills, but make a long list of modifiers for high/low pressure, high/low temperature, radiation, acceleration, difference of old function to new/added function,....

What do you think?

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

I like the idea of renaming Habitat to Habitat/Lifesupport and shuffling the structural bits back out to Civil where they belong. I can also see a good case for losing "Space" as an independent grouping and using it as a modifier in the eventual equipment building rules.

However, I'm not at all convinced by your proposed breakdown of the engineering skills as it is too hard to pin down many items into a single unarguable category. And as the second-year engineering students whom I teach learn in building their autonomous guided vehicles, real projects require multiple engineering disciplines. Are their robots defined by the mechanics of their chassis, wheels, grippers, etc., the electronics of their circuitry and sensors, or the guiding software programs? If a team messes up any one discipline, they can easily fail to deliver a robot that achieves the set task.

The multiple maneuvers are a reflection of that reality. In your game, you had a character that " put energy from the cannon to the grav drive, which resulted in a "hopper"". Is that Weapons or Magneto-gravitic or Power or Propulsion? Under your proposal, you have to pick one, probably with the player trying to bluff you into choosing the one the character has the highest skill.

Under the current scheme, the character is messing with multiple systems. I'd be looking at Power Systems for rerouting the energy flow, Magneto-gravitic for messing with the grav drive, and Transport so that the vehicle is still usable after this modification. (No need for Weapons, simply don't route power to the cannon.)

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

And yes, the game generally needs some rules for multi-person Supporting Maneuvers.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[allenrmaher]

And yes, the game generally needs some rules for multi-person Supporting Maneuvers.

Is that not supported through the Bonus roll system?  Alternatively adding more people could help reduce the difficulty of the manoeuvrer depending on the situation.  Is there need for more rules?

[Mungo]

Hi,

I fully agree with you. And that's more or less what I am proposing, so it might be that I understood the rules wrong?

I will try to explain in other words what I proposed and what I understood about Engineering so far.

What I would like to achieve in rule terms is that for repairing one specific subsystem there is only one maneuver. I also would like to see the Engineering skill system as complete as possible and internally consistent in the definitions of spezialisations.

My understanding was, that the current system as stated in the manuscript does not work this way. F.e. if the engines of my spacecraft fail, I have to make 2 rolls - one for Transport, one for Space. And that although only one subsystem is effected.

On the other hand there is a skill on Cyberware, which is not a technology in itself but an application of technology - technology within a biological system. So is the weapon in my arm Cybernetics, or Weapon, or both?

So my suggestion was to remove the necessity to roll twice for repairs by having the engineering skills for the technology only and things like cyberware or space affect the difficulty of the maneuver. This is also in line with my experience, where space technology is not different in its basic design from its counterparts used on Earth, it just has to follow certain rules to withstand/work in space (e.g. computers must be radiation hardened,...).

So I tried to remove all those skills from your list that are not technologies and came up with the list I posted.

For building something new or combining subsystems in a different way (as with the grav tank in my campaign), I of course agree that for each of the involved subsystems a seperate roll must be made. I.e. for building a spacecraft you must most likely make a roll for each of the Engineering skills.

One benefit of my proposal is in my eyes also that it is quite simple to combine the work of experts. Each expert can make the roll for his subsystem. In the current system I saw the problem that there are 2 experts for one system and each has not the ability to repair it alone -> any kind of ruling I could think of to combine their effort was complicated.

Does this make things clearer?

BTW: I would also make "has to withstand acceleration forces" a factor that increases maneuver difficulty.

BR
Juergen

[Mungo]

And yes, the game generally needs some rules for multi-person Supporting Maneuvers.

Is that not supported through the Bonus roll system?  Alternatively adding more people could help reduce the difficulty of the manoeuvrer depending on the situation.  Is there need for more rules?

Hi,

As far as I understand the bonus system, it is good for two people supporting each other on the SAME skill. But with the current Engineering system, there is a combination of skills required. And I don't think a ruling where one makes the "Space" and the other the "Transport" roll makes sense.

BR
Juergen

[allenrmaher]

As far as I understand the bonus system, it is good for two people supporting each other on the SAME skill. But with the current Engineering system, there is a combination of skills required. And I don't think a ruling where one makes the "Space" and the other the "Transport" roll makes sense.

HARP bonus rolls can be similar or any related skill the GM feels will help.  The spirit of HARP is fast and simple resolutions, if it gets to the point of multiple roll resolutions and complex formulae then HARP SF has drifted far from the spirit of the game.

The simple resolution roll philosophy would dictate that the most appropriate skill is used, and any supporting skills are handled as bonus rolls to the main one.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Given the existence of Cyberware as a full-blown chapter in the rules, all cyber implants and units can and should be designated examples of Engineering: Cybernetics. Yes, there are boundary cases of integrated weapons and equipment, but they can be classed as Cybernetics first and Weapons, etc as second if it's necessary. The Cybernetics skill is also used in installing, maintaining, upgrading, etc. cyberware and indeed is explicitly indicated as the skill for cyberware repair etc, with Nanotechnology mentioned for deep internal repairs. So I don't think switching Cybernetics to being a modifier is sensible because cyber users would then need a host of engineering skills to do what used to require one.

Nanotech may or may not be in a similar situation - its status will depend on how exemplars of nanotech shape up in the SysOp Tech/Vehicles chapter - if it's clear, that it is simply microminiature versions of other  technology types, then it will move into modifier land. "Space" has already been marked as going into "modifier", and with Habitat bifurcating to LifeSupport and Civil (what you call structural), then my list becomes:

Chemical
Civil (big engineering works, buildings)
Communications (including sensors)
Computers/Cybernetics (where the emphasis in the computers is on the hardware, so it's really cybernetics with computers as a subset)
Electrical
Habitat/LifeSupport
Magnetogravitic
Mechanical
*** Nanotech (may be subsumed)
Power
Transport
Weapons

Best wishes,
Nicholas

 

[Mungo]

Hi,

Ok, for gaming purposes it might indeed be better to have a Cybernetics skill. Although it should not be forgotten that also a spacecraft engineer needs a lot of Engineering skils..

And concerning nanotechnology I agree with you that it depends on whether its just determining the size of a technical system or whether there is really technology out there that is unique and can be subsumed under nanotechnology.

Concerning Civil I understand that you also put hulls / vehicle frames under it?

What I am still a bit concerned with is Chemical.Is it really required? I know there is chemical engineering, but I think there is nothing you can repair, its just about designing new chemicals - and isn't that already covered by Chemistry, the same way genetic engineering is covered by Medical Practice (or Biology)?

BR
Juergen

[Mungo]

HARP bonus rolls can be similar or any related skill the GM feels will help.  The spirit of HARP is fast and simple resolutions, if it gets to the point of multiple roll resolutions and complex formulae then HARP SF has drifted far from the spirit of the game.

The simple resolution roll philosophy would dictate that the most appropriate skill is used, and any supporting skills are handled as bonus rolls to the main one.

Hmm, but that means one character has to make a maneuver and the other has a skill that helps this maneuver. But how does it work if a task requires 2 maneuvers and the necessary skills are distributed between 2 persons?

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Concerning Civil I understand that you also put hulls / vehicle frames under it?

I wasn't - I was leaving vehicle frames and hulls under the broader Transport category.

What I am still a bit concerned with is Chemical.Is it really required? I know there is chemical engineering, but I think there is nothing you can repair, its just about designing new chemicals - and isn't that already covered by Chemistry, the same way genetic engineering is covered by Medical Practice (or Biology)?

Yes, we could remove Chemical Engineering as we've got it covered in the three flavors of Chemistry, organic, inorganic, and metallurgy.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

As part of the rules revisions due to the new mandatory subskills ruling, the Civil/Structural and Habitat Engineering skills have been fused into a single Civil/Habitat Engineering discipline; Communications and Electrical have also been fused into a single Electrical/Communications Engineering skill.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Mungo]

Great!