Working on this list for the poster yesterday. All the prices were generated from my trading tables, based on so much cedarwood, pinewood, oakwood and chestnut wood for exterior hull, planking, spars & ribs, and wooden fixtures, plus metal pieces and pitch to build the size of ship in question. Final totals were calculated according to the volume of ship based on keel, beam and height; the cargo capacity was then determined afterwards. Everything from the rowboat to the Indiaman was calculated using the same ratios.
Accurate to history? Probably not. What matters to me is that the players can design their own ship, identify the size and the type of ship (carrack, ketch, yawl, whatever), and I can give a price and details to match. I like that the list gives dimensions & construction time; and I like that after you buy the ship, you have to outfit it with sheets and extra spars.
If some of the numbers seem off, I rush to remind the reader that these are based on 17th century designs, not the more familiar Napoleanic-period designs that impress themselves on our consciousness, about how a ship is rigged and how many sails it carries. The development of jib sails from every mast took time, and was hardly there in the 1600s. But, as always, I'm not trying to be accurate. I'm trying to run a game, with just enough grittiness but not too much. For example, before Sterling corrects me (and he'll be dead right, he always is), I'm not saying that a mainmast accurately needs two mainsails, a top sail and a luff. Chances are, it's called a "jib" and not a luff, or some other thing, and they're all different sizes, as is the topsail or mainsails for different masts, and so on. BUT, there's only so much grittiness I need to put into this and what I've got above is enough. I'm happy to simplify by saying a mainmast needs 4 sails, while a foremast and a mizzen-mast each need two, of different types. I'm happy to average out how much rigging the ship needs, regardless of the actual type of sail. What I want for the game is stuff on a ship that can break, tear or blow away, so it will need replacing; I don't need this to be historically or even practically accurate for game purposes. Given how these things are usually glossed over in game terms, I'm doing very well.
I also like that while the Indiaman is very expensive (my offline party could put up that much), the caravel is completely in range for a party of 3rd-5th level, in my game at least. Missing, of course, is the cost for the crew; I'm was in the middle of cracking that problem when the poster idea emerged, so that's been shelved. I'm not ready to include wages on the poster; I don't think there will be room for them anyway.
I love ships in the game, though somehow I seem to be the only one that does. People worry way too much about drowning.
This is not the complete shipbuilder list, by the way; not yet. I haven't added any metalworking into the poster. I'm working on wooden goods just now; then it is chemicals (paint, lamp oil, dyestuffs, perfume, etc.), then ceramics and clay, and THEN metals. Got a long way to go, and the poster is filling up. Have to see what I have space for in the end.
I played a character a few months ago called Argyll. He was a sailor, a net fisherman. In our first session we were being transported to a hostile shore as outcasts and a guard fell overboard into plesiosaur-infested waters. Argyll dived right in after the guard, and miraculously survived (lucky dice). Current character bought an Inn the other day, and I'm looking to buy some shipping boats to supply. I may bring this post to our DM's attention.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty pumped for this thing personally. It looks like it's going to be really awesome.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful.
ReplyDeleteA caravel would certainly be nice...
Very nice!
ReplyDeleteThere are only two points I can't restrain myself from quibbling over. First one, not a big deal, but the Dogger is always a two-masted vessel--a ketch, not a sloop. The second point, and this may be my misinterpretation of the contents, it appears that you have these vessels carrying more cargo than the water they displace. Back to the dogger, for example, 13 tons is historically accurate for the displacement of that type (although it would draw more like 4' - 5' to do so at 45' long (sorry that makes 3 points!)) but the cargo capacity is listed 20 tons. Since you're doing it across all of the vessels I expect I'm misunderstanding the final figure on each listing.
ReplyDeleteSterling,
ReplyDeleteAccepting all that you say as fact, let me explain three problems that I have with ship design in D&D.
First, I have no consistent information on any ship as compared with any other. Every source gives different numbers for how many crew are required, the draft of vessels, length-to-beam, how much cargo a ship carries and so on. Virtually no source gives a DEADWEIGHT tonnage for a ship, which is the number I need if I'm going to build the ship out of raw materials. A ship's displacement is, as I understand, the amount of water the ship displaces; ships have a great deal of weight ABOVE the water, so that water displacement does not tell me the total weight of the ship, so it does not tell me how much wood and metal is needed to build the ship.
Second, "historically accurate" is a misnomer. Historically accurate for what period? All the decent source material I have is post 1750; most of it is post industrial revolution. Ship sizes, crew, amount of rigging, sails, everything prior to the 18th century is a guess-and-a-half. I have no records of any kind telling me how the keel of a ship changed and adapted during the interim, but I am told that it DID adapt. I must tell you, looking for solid information is frustrating beyond all reason.
Finally, the "dogger" thing. For simplicity of game play, I need to call ships something, so that players can identify one ship from another without the benefit of physical examples. You tell me the dogger is "always" a two-masted ketch. Yes, I read that. But when you say "always," I believe you mean that when a person today refers to a dogger, they always call it a ketch. I don't believe you or anyone else can absolutely state that a "dogger" has been a two-masted vessel in every century, though even my etymology dictionary agrees with you. However, the vessel was not called a "dogger" because of the number of masts it had, but because of WHAT THE SHIP DID and WHERE IT WENT.
I'll take another name to describe a single-masted fishing vessel of the 17th century with the same approximate fat build, BUT it better be a name as warm & friendly & memorable as a "dogger" ... otherwise, I'm going to be a miserable anachronistic son-of-a-bitch (pun intended) and be stubborn.
Please understand: I know I'm wrong all over the place, if the goal here was to write a thesis. However, lacking information, I have simply gone ahead and made shit up, because I need this detail to make the world work, and damned if I'm going to limit myself to facts where a game is concerned.
I do thank you. Rest assured, I know I'm wrong. Unfortunately, I have to be wrong because there's no practical way here for me to be right.
Okay, this: https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/ShipTonnage/1932-06-28-ShipTonnageExplained.html
ReplyDeleteDisplacement: of a vessel is the weight, in tons of 2,240 pounds, of the vessel and its contents. Displacement "light" is the weight of the vessel without stores, bunker fuel, or cargo. Displacement "loaded" is the weight of the vessel plus cargo, fuel, and stores.
Deadweight Tonnage: expresses the number of tons of 2,240 pounds that a vessel can transport of cargo, stores, and bunker fuel. It is the difference between the number of tons of water a vessel displaces "light" and the number of tons it displaces when submerged to the "load line." Deadweight tonnage is used interchangeably with deadweight carrying capacity. A vessel's capacity for weight cargo is less than its total deadweight tonnage.
Obviously, I've been using "deadweight" incorrectly for a long, long time.
Well, hell, I don't know how to sort this out just now. Obviously, something needs to change.
For others who may be reading this, yes, it is humiliating to find yourself proven wrong, easily, online. And the first compulsion is to push back and save face. Frustrating as this subject is for me, Sterling constantly keeps me honest (he's very patient) and the end result IS better.
ReplyDeleteBut I do hate being publicly exposed for being an idiot, occasionally. Everyone does. It goes with the territory of putting oneself out there in the real world. All we can do is take our lumps, learn, move on and accept that we don't know everything.
Alexis, sorry for embarrassing you on your blog. I somehow imagine I'm just talking directly to you instead of writing in public. I'm not sure why I felt compelled to single out the dogger. There are absolutely a huge number of examples of nautical terms, especially vessel types, being used to mean different things in different times and places and chasing "historical accuracy" as you point out is really a fool's errand when it comes to this stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe displacement versus dead-weight tonnage versus gross weight of the vessel issue I think you have sorted out. The cargo capacity is going to be some percentage of the vessel's loaded displacement. The smaller the vessel, the greater the percentage of its displacement that is used up by the crew, ballast, rigging, and other design choices. For example, a boat that's meant to maximize the cargo it can carry will skimp on rigging so the top-hamper is less massive--shorter, lighter spars with smaller sails. That means fewer crew are needed too which helps free up space for cargo, but also means a slower, less maneuverable vessel.
In my head I've started putting together a ship design system now. If I flesh that out I'll share it with you in case you can use it at some point.
I'll probably jump on a design system of yours with both feet. I'm not happy with mine, it's just the best I can do.
ReplyDelete