General CT questions

[RocketTurtle]

Are the vehicle prices found the CT reprints correct? Or do I still have to apply the changes listed in the Merc book?

I can't seem to find definite jump times in the book. Most of the time they refer to a jump1 ship taking one week to go to an adjacent system. Would this be less with a jump2 ship, and would a jump2 ship take one or two weeks to reach a system two parsecs away?

What are the profit margins on passenger transporting? Cargo is easily determined via normal ship costs, fuel, etc... But how much does it cost to have a passenger on board?

- Anthony

 

[Ellros]

Canon rule is that a jump takes 7 days (minus a couple hours more or less).

Jump-1 ship... 7 days

Jump-2 ship jumping one or two parsecs...7 days

Jump-6 ship take 7 days to jump 1 parsec or 6 parsecs. Range does not matter. Any jump takes 7 days regardless.

Now, whether you reduce that any is a GM call for your own campaign. In my campaign, a high jump ship jumping less than its maximum has a slightly reduced time (eg a Jump-4 ship jumping only 2 parsecs takes about 4-5 days as opposed to 7 days if he jumped 4 parsecs).

 

[Scarlett]

Aye. What Ellros said. Designed to keep things simple, I suppose. Players and Ref can look at a map and count their jumps and immediately know time in travel. Helps when no encounters are planned enroute (and the ref doesn't feel like plopping alot of randoms in the way).

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by RocketTurtle:
What are the profit margins on passenger transporting?[/QOUTE]

Depend on whether you can fill your staterooms to capacity. Jump-3 can make a small profit if all goes well. Jump-4 and above will go broke even if filled to capacity. Jump-2 will do well with a reasonable utilization percentage and jump-1 will coin money. That's why the fixed prices no-matter-the-length-of-the-jump are so implausible.

Cargo is easily determined via normal ship costs, fuel, etc... But how much does it cost to have a passenger on board?

Canonically Cr2000 per passenger (actually per stateroom). Don't ask me what you're buying with that. Food accounts for about a tenth of that, oxygen and other disposables a bit more. It's a mystery I've never been able to explain to my players . Maybe you flush most of it down the fresher.

Hans

 

[RocketTurtle]

Thanks guys, it's interesting to see all these little quirks in the reasoning in the game. Have the designers tried to patch these holes up any bit with the later versions? All I have access to is the CT reprint, and I'm considering getting T20 to help in a conversion.

I can see the desire to limit the quickness of travel by making all jump time one week, but granting a small amount of saved time seems feasable.

However, the fixed passenger rates seems like it was made to ease rate calculations. The only problem is that it's not very reasonable considering every other calculation in the game is so complex, and that certain ships just don't make money from it.

I'm hoping T5 (if it's still coming out) helps with these things. I'd certainly buy up the new version in a heartbeat. Despite my problems and the complexity, the traveller universe is just so rich in possibilities for adventure.

 

[Scarlett]

Eh ... can be manipulated. Make the jump number a multiplier for berth cost.

Still ... the way jump works can be tweaked easily enough too.

Jump 1 = 1 parsec @ 170 hrs +/- 1d6 hrs
Jump 2 = 1 parsec @ 85 hrs +/- 1d6 hrs
Jump 3 = 1 parsec @ 57 hrs +/- 1d6 hrs
Jump 4 = 1 parsec @ 43 hrs +/- 1d6 hrs
Jump 5 = 1 parsec @ 35 hrs +/- 1d6 hrs
Jump 6 = 1 parsec @ 28 hrs +/- 1d6 hrs

(notice that theoretically speaking, this system allows for the possibility of a J4 to beat a J5 to it's destination and a J5 to beat a J6 to it's destination ... if that destination is only one parsec.)

Break the fuel consumption up into parsecs as well.

But I'd still make jumping require a minimum of one parsec in jump

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by RocketTurtle:
Thanks guys, it's interesting to see all these little quirks in the reasoning in the game. Have the designers tried to patch these holes up any bit with the later versions? All I have access to is the CT reprint, and I'm considering getting T20 to help in a conversion.

The same system was used in MT, TNE, and T4. GURPS:Far Trader did a fair job of working out reasonable costing procedures. T20, far from attempting to correct anything, doesn't think there is anything wrong in the first place.

However, the fixed passenger rates seems like it was made to ease rate calculations.

And so it admittedly does. But how much more complex is it to say, for instance, [Jump number +1] times 2000Cr for a middle passage, +25% for a High Passage? (This would be for regularly scheduled liners going between worlds with sizable populations. Tramp ships in out of the way places should be able to charge whatever the traffic will bear, bearing in mind that some times the traffic won't even bear that much).

The only problem is that it's not very reasonable considering every other calculation in the game is so complex, and that certain ships just don't make money from it.[/QB]

You know that and I know that .

Hans

 

[RocketTurtle]

Can anyone answer my question about the vehicle price changes? It seems rather odd that a ground car would cost only Cr400 and an ATV Cr3000 with the changes listed in the Mercenary book.

 

[hirch duckfinder]

i like the idea that all jumps take the same time . the implication is that physical distance is not a factor -maybe some kind of " bent space " situation is going on . actually it makes it more plausible to me rather than less plausible . the jump drive was a major breakthrough in physics which was incomprehensible prior to its discovery .
as for the cost of travel to the passenger - the above could explain the consistent price over any distance . i suggest that gms just alter the rules for costs to the ship owners according to local market forces etc . hey , just take what you need from the rules and make up the rest . i dont get too hung up on passengers and costs etc - i prefer to get some adventure going and use other plot devices to control wealth . an economics simulator doesnt sound much fun to me .

 

[BigBadRon]

IMTU I reduce the Jump time by a variable number of hours derived from a number of dice equal to the amount that the Nav roll was beaten by.
So if the navigator on a ship set up the Jump vectors and coordinates, and the player rolled well, then the ship could arrive very early.

Eg: if the target is 8+ on 2d, and the roll (with DMs) is 12, then the ship will arrive 4d hours early - up to a whole day.

If the roll fails I usually still allow the Jump, but add time on to it, based on the amount the roll was failed by.

Sounds like a good reason to pay the most highly-skilled navigators the best money, and for navigators to keep improving their skills.

Preprogrammed Jump data, bought at a starport becomes a risk, because you have no way of knowing how good the data is until you use it. A cruel Ref might give you some code produced by a guy with Nav-0.

Oh, I only allow the roll to be made as the ship enters J-space, so the navigator can't keep recalculating until he gets a good result.

Groups of ships, such as squadrons or task forces, would share navigational data if they wanted to arrive somewhere together, thus avoiding the problem of a lone ship dropping into the system way ahead of the others and letting the locals know something was going on.

 

[Scarlett]

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
i like the idea that all jumps take the same time . the implication is that physical distance is not a factor -maybe some kind of " bent space " situation is going on . actually it makes it more plausible to me rather than less plausible . the jump drive was a major breakthrough in physics which was incomprehensible prior to its discovery .
as for the cost of travel to the passenger - the above could explain the consistent price over any distance . i suggest that gms just alter the rules for costs to the ship owners according to local market forces etc . hey , just take what you need from the rules and make up the rest . i dont get too hung up on passengers and costs etc - i prefer to get some adventure going and use other plot devices to control wealth . an economics simulator doesnt sound much fun to me .

Sure .... that works. And it's what the Traveller theme supports. "Loops in space". The better ,more advanced, more powerful the drive - the larger a "fold" or "loop" it can generate.

I've always thought the week's time stuck there was primarily to facilitate adventures on the ship more. Yaknow - stuck in space with no place to go ... and there's a murderer onboard ... or a disease runs rampant ... etc.

Granted, there's actually good reason to want the details of economics, logistics, physics, politics and sociology to work. It helps with immersion. If something that doesn't seem to make sense is present on a player's mind, then it's hard to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

That's why I feel free to manipulate my TU in any way that seems palatable to both myself and the players. And they're perfectly free to make suggestions towards that end.

Granted, I'm more of an action and adventure oriented player/ref ... and I don't really want to get too bogged down in paperwork and debates over technicalities. But between encounters and/or with brews (or on the boards) , I find it enjoyable to discuss the "reality" of the player's universe.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by RocketTurtle:
Can anyone answer my question about the vehicle price changes? It seems rather odd that a ground car would cost only Cr400 and an ATV Cr3000 with the changes listed in the Mercenary book.

The prices listed in book 3 of the reprints are the corrected prices. Do not under any circumstances apply the book 4 modifiers to them.

Unless of course you think it would be a gigle.

 

[TheRaptor]

DaveShayne is correct about the price changes. Those changes are only for the first edition books. The second edition is contained in the reprints.

James

 

[hirch duckfinder]

Originally posted by Frank Lee Scarlett:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
i like the idea that all jumps take the same time . the implication is that physical distance is not a factor -maybe some kind of " bent space " situation is going on . actually it makes it more plausible to me rather than less plausible . the jump drive was a major breakthrough in physics which was incomprehensible prior to its discovery .
as for the cost of travel to the passenger - the above could explain the consistent price over any distance . i suggest that gms just alter the rules for costs to the ship owners according to local market forces etc . hey , just take what you need from the rules and make up the rest . i dont get too hung up on passengers and costs etc - i prefer to get some adventure going and use other plot devices to control wealth . an economics simulator doesnt sound much fun to me .

Sure .... that works. And it's what the Traveller theme supports. "Loops in space". The better ,more advanced, more powerful the drive - the larger a "fold" or "loop" it can generate.

I've always thought the week's time stuck there was primarily to facilitate adventures on the ship more. Yaknow - stuck in space with no place to go ... and there's a murderer onboard ... or a disease runs rampant ... etc.

Granted, there's actually good reason to want the details of economics, logistics, physics, politics and sociology to work. It helps with immersion. If something that doesn't seem to make sense is present on a player's mind, then it's hard to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

That's why I feel free to manipulate my TU in any way that seems palatable to both myself and the players. And they're perfectly free to make suggestions towards that end.

Granted, I'm more of an action and adventure oriented player/ref ... and I don't really want to get too bogged down in paperwork and debates over technicalities. But between encounters and/or with brews (or on the boards) , I find it enjoyable to discuss the "reality" of the player's universe.</font>[/QUOTE]i toally agree . the week aboard the starship is great . the players never know if it will pass straight off or be the scene of several adventure sessions . and i agree about immersiveness - this is the single most important factor in a good game - and if something doesnt ring true it ruins the suspension of disbelief . however i find that the best way is often not to makes things too expicit . its a tricky balance to strike .
and yup - its fun to be anal about these things here and other places . its just that i have always anticipated the rescue/encounter with mysterious stranger/fight/mystery with rather more glee than the transportation of machine components .

 

[Scarlett]

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
I have always anticipated the rescue/encounter with mysterious stranger/fight/mystery with rather more glee than the transportation of machine components .

With you 103.141592653589 ... % on that.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RocketTurtle:
Thanks guys, it's interesting to see all these little quirks in the reasoning in the game. Have the designers tried to patch these holes up any bit with the later versions? All I have access to is the CT reprint, and I'm considering getting T20 to help in a conversion.

The same system was used in MT, TNE, and T4. GURPS:Far Trader did a fair job of working out reasonable costing procedures. T20, far from attempting to correct anything, doesn't think there is anything wrong in the first place.

However, the fixed passenger rates seems like it was made to ease rate calculations.

And so it admittedly does. But how much more complex is it to say, for instance, [Jump number +1] times 2000Cr for a middle passage, +25% for a High Passage? (This would be for regularly scheduled liners going between worlds with sizable populations. Tramp ships in out of the way places should be able to charge whatever the traffic will bear, bearing in mind that some times the traffic won't even bear that much).

The only problem is that it's not very reasonable considering every other calculation in the game is so complex, and that certain ships just don't make money from it.

You know that and I know that .

Hans[/QB]</font>

In our arithmetic-phobic society, I understand simplifying fare costs, but look at current air-fares. The only rule seems to be, Whatever the traffic will bear.
And then look at cruise fares!
"The value of a thing is what it will bring in the market place."

 

[hirch duckfinder]

Originally posted by Frank Lee Scarlett:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
I have always anticipated the rescue/encounter with mysterious stranger/fight/mystery with rather more glee than the transportation of machine components .

With you 103.141592653589 ... % on that. </font>[/QUOTE]you're all torque .