Why walk when we can beam!!?

[Modem]

That is something I was going to bring up on this topic...but I guess I don't have to now (ah, first-hand experience...no better teacher).

No matter how many 'safety features' are built into the system, things can still go horriblely, horriblely arry.

Best examples I can think of: 1) Star Trek: TMP
STARFLEET VOICE (shaken)
"Enterprise... what we got back, didn't live long. Fortunately."

(Ct.: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/startrek01.html )
and
2) Galaxy Quest:
JASON

Did I just hear that the animal turned inside out and then it exploded? Hello?

GWEN

Hold, please.

(Ct: http://scifiscripts.com/scripts/galaxyquest_trans.htm )

[Balok]

I have many reasons why using the transporter "all the time" isn't a good idea, some of which have been touched on by others. I'll give you the ones I've used:

• It's not subtle: It ruins the effect of the careful disguise and native clothing if someone actually sees you disappear into the carrier nimbus. The chance of that goes way up if you use the transporter too often, so it's use is discouraged except when needed. Some civilizations might detect the beam, even if they didn't really understand it. What if someone measured a beam, and this gave them *just* the clue they needed to understand something about a science they weren't culturally ready for? And this caused a terrible tragedy. No personal risk, here, but the Federation would feel itself responsible -- and that's going to mean rules about when the transporter is used -- and when it isn't.
• Energy budget/"cost" of maintaining the equipment: You don't drive your car one house up the street to visit your neighbor, because it's more cost efficient to walk (for most folks). Even if parts are easy to replicate, *someone* has to spend time doing the work.
• Attitude: Using the transporter when you don't need to is lazy, and we have seen that laziness is not encouraged, at least among Starfleet officers.
• Many technobabble things can interfere with the transporter, including deliberate interference by more sophisticated alien science.
• The chance of an ugly accident may not be high, but it is not zero, either. This chance increases, perhaps substantially, whenever folks make non-standard adjustments. We've seen many successful transporter tricks in various episodes, because in the end, the writers don't kill the characters. There are likely to be equally many desperate attempts that ended in tragedy.

All this said, if the characters come u with a clever way to use the device, even if it ruins the plot, I'll usually let 'em do it. The tech is tools, and if the mind conceives a novel way to use a tool, that's a *good* thing, IMO. You just have to plan for it next game... <EG>

[BouncyCaitian]

"Uh...We've had a transporter glitch on this end. The software that runs it has fragmented. Yer on yer own fora while."

[kjakan]

I like the "transporter window" idea - it denotes a restriction enforced through routine and procedure rather than "convenient" local disruptions. At the least, you don't have to invent a new excuse each session.

Also, personnel in Star Trek are generally assumed to be well trained. What point would there be to send a group on an away mission if they were totally reliant on support from the mothership?

In-game, you can have the commanding officers question their ability (and even dedication) rather than complementing them on their "cleverness".

Addressing the issue out-of-game should be a good move as well - I might try that myself

I put an effective dampener on site-to-site transporting by placing the crew on a starship of my own design. Though fast and maneuverable, the vessel has a transport design flaw that increases the transporter test target number by +5.

Works like a charm.

-K

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
Also, make 'em very, very familiar with the phrase "Transport window available in 5 minutes..." This is especially useful when they're 30 seconds away from being discovered.

And plausible explanations for an unavailable transport window might be:

1) Assuming that transporters require a direct line of sight between transport points with a mile or less of solid material in between, a ship that wasn't in geosynchronous orbit might be on the other side of the planet; Therefore, it would be unavailable for immediate beam-out, and might require upwards of 5 minutes to get into that "transport window."

2) Stellar or spatial phenomena which may prevent or inhibit transport: "Sir, we're passing through this system's Van Allen radiation belt; It's disrupting the annular confinement beam. I'm going to have to bring you in two at a time." "Captain, solar flare activity has ionized the atmosphere. My calculations indicate that our transport windows will be exactly two hours 39 point three minutes apart."

A bit of grade-school research into the properties of light and electromagnetism will help you figure out plausible science-fictiony reasons for problematic transporters.

[Tobian]

The largest problem with the 'transporter window' comes when players use the line 'keep a pattern lock on me at all times!" now if they are one of many away teams across a planet, then it's unfeasible to always be there, but when it's just one ship in a stationary orbit above them.. twiddling their thumbs and waiting for them to report back, then unless you always have a spatial anomaly / enemy vessel / damaged transporter, it's virtually impossible to use that line.

For every gamesmasters trick, there's a savy player (or worse - ALL of them!) who's mind is already working ona way to foil all your plot devices

[Balok]

One must be careful to balance the availability of the transporter. If, every week, the characters discover they can't beam up when they want, they'll start asking to use shuttlecraft.

Far better to establish circumstances in which the characters, as responsible officers, wouldn't ask to beam somewhere. For example, beaming out in front of witnesses in a pre-warp civilization would be A Bad Thing.

A few more:

Transporters in combat is risky: it's been established that scrambling fields exist.

In high tech civilizations, villains can certainly prevent beamouts -- we've seen the remat detonator in use on DS9.

If your game is pre-TNG, the transporter requires careful tuning to hit a location with no reciever, that's got a lot of clutter -- in Day Of The Dove, intraship beaming was a tricky task. How many times are the characters willing to accept a high TN, with the result perhaps a crippling injury?

It's not cheap, in terms of energy. We see it done a lot on starships, because it's probably cheaper (and certainly more convenient) than using a shuttle -- but it's not free. You can't transport through shields, and probably not through a cloak, either.

[Tobian]

Actually that's an interesting point. Does anyone have a set of transporter TN's because while a couple of players might, after a few lots of experience, max out on System OPS, it doesn't follow who ever is beaming them out does! (even if it's the transporter chief)

I figure there has to be two methods of transport. One is where a person can just tell the computer to do it, in which case you can simply add a +5 (for the computer, as a Tricorder would have) and roll 2D6 - OR you can do it manually, for tricky operations, such as beaming survivors off an exploding ship, or players in and out of a Borg cube etc. Then you have things like Cardassian monotanium armour plating, which I think should also add a +4 to transporting, as it does to 'lock on' manouvers, as this is essentially what you are doing. (This could also add an extra dimension to NPC's beaming players off their ship, making the players want to add such things on their ship!)

I guess the ballance would be in factoring all of the dificulties so that it isn't too easy or unbeatable! (of course that's what courage points are for too!)

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Tobian
The largest problem with the 'transporter window' comes when players use the line 'keep a pattern lock on me at all times!" now if they are one of many away teams across a planet, then it's unfeasible to always be there, but when it's just one ship in a stationary orbit above them.. twiddling their thumbs and waiting for them to report back, then unless you always have a spatial anomaly / enemy vessel / damaged transporter, it's virtually impossible to use that line.

For every gamesmasters trick, there's a savy player (or worse - ALL of them!) who's mind is already working ona way to foil all your plot devices

Not really. It makes sense that any phenomena that can disrupt a matter stream can also wreak havoc with targeting scanners. Just because players demand a pattern lock doesn't mean its possible.

A list of spatial or stellar phenomena that disrupt transporter matter streams or targeting scanners clipped to the 'ol Narrator's screen is a good idea.

In fact, why don't we generate that list here ? If you've got one, post it and state whether the phenomena you've invented (or researched) involves the matter stream or the targeting scanners.

[Tobian]

As a rule of thumb, there isn't usually any stelar phenomenon between a ship and a planet, because if there was it'd do hideous things to that planet (and the ship and the away team ) - all you really have at your disposal are things such as ION storms - or exotic weather phenomenon on your target planet.. or perhaps asteroids if you are in an asteroid belt at the time.

[C5]

On my latest campaign, players were on a planet with a very instable atmosphere (almost constantly ionised or whatever treknobabble they didn't question), and I rolled 2 dice everytime they had to transport : 2-7, okay, 8-9 difficulty increaded, 10-12, unable to transport, wait for a few minutes. That led them to ask in advance how the condition were everytime they had to transport, and then wait for a few minutes when it wasn't - which at one time included them being stuck in a wharehouse with lots of guards closing on them.

On the matter of discretion, I wondered if transporter activity actually makes a noise (the chiming sound we hear on the show). I can recall at least one time in DS9 where Quarks seems to hear the Nagus transporting into his closet - and in STIV the whale biologist sees a flash in her rear mirror when Kirk transports into the Bird of Prey. So one could rule that a transporter makes enough sound and light to be heard and seen by people nearby and then isn't the stealthiest way to move.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Tobian
As a rule of thumb, there isn't usually any stelar phenomenon between a ship and a planet, because if there was it'd do hideous things to that planet (and the ship and the away team ) - all you really have at your disposal are things such as ION storms - or exotic weather phenomenon on your target planet.. or perhaps asteroids if you are in an asteroid belt at the time.

You're thinking too big. Not all phenomena are on the level of a solar system. Transporters take things apart at the molecular level (maybe even the quantum level); Thus, phenomena at the quantum level probably have more relevance. Cosmic string interference anyone ?

[Owen E Oulton]

There's also simple orbital mechanics - if the ship is in geosynchronous orbit (40,000km for an Earth-sized planet) it's at the extreme edge of transporter range. If it's in a lower orbit (and "standard orbit" appears to be less than 1000km), it will be spending a lot of time (at least 50% - I don't really care to work out the geometry if it) with the planet between the ship and the away team.

And tha's simply assming only one away team - if there are several, the ship will have to be dividing its attention and orbita loiter periods between all of them. Add to that the fact that the ship will also be interested in other planets, moons and so on in the system, and the ship might not even be orbiting the planets itself!

Add in other factors - if the planet is of a sufficient tech level, the ship may have to take measures to avoid detection. While Starfleet's shielding technology is apparently good enough to avoid detection by radar and other late-20^th-early 21^st means, they'd still have to look out for visual detection (satellites with video cameras, astronauts in orbit, telescopes, et cetera).

[Tobian]

Owen it's less than 50% of the time at such a low orbit, however there is nothing to stop a starship from being in a gesotationary orbit and within transporter range.

yes avoidance is a good reason to be in an orbit, iby a fairly routine modulation of the shields most 24th century starship can avoid detection. however yes - visual identification could be a problem in certain circumstances.

A Cosmic string is a rather dire plot device to be using in a planetary orbit situation, since the planets residents would prbably be more concerned with the violent earthquakes, tidal waves, atmospheric ionisation and life threatening radiation levels in their atmosphere !

[Balok]

Things we have seen that interfere with transporters:
<ul>
<li>Range limitations, which are exacerbated by dense materials (i.e. beaming through rock cuts the range limit)
<li>Certain kinds of ore in the vicinity, or especially between the two transport sites.
<li>Position of the starship (sort of another way of saying "range limitations").
<li>Certain atmospheric conditions (but these are unlikely on Class M planets).
<li>Certain spatial conditions that affect only higher order systems (buzzwords like "subspace rift, quantum discontinuity, and so forth are handy here). These may not have any effect on normal systems or matter, and so could exist near planets.
<li>Transporter scrambler/inhibitor fields. The Dominion War revealed that such devices exist at Federation tech levels; there are also examples of them from more advanced tech levels.
<li>Anti-transporter technology like the remat detonator (although Federation transports are supposed to be able to detect it, they don't always succeed).
<li>Shields (except Dominion transporters)
<li>Cloaking devices (speculative)
<li>Insufficient power (for example, if the entire output of the engines is being channeled to fight a tractor beam -- this one is dodgy, because there are always batteries, or emergency generators)
<li>Battle damage to the transporters or related systems.
<li>Sabotage/internal mishap (The Enemy Within)
<li>Situations where use of the transporter has a significant liklihood of resulting in a prime directive violation.
<li>Incapacity of the crew members operating the mechanism (temporary) -- That Which Survives.
</ul>

I would also rule that the transporter makes the noise and light show we've seen in the episodes. The noise could be from displaced molecules, and the light is waste from a carrier (ACB) that's not 100% efficient), or from displaced molecules. That has stealth implications.