Merchant Prince
- Thread starter JBRocky
- Start date
MegaTraveller's Referee's Manual essentially has the Merchant Prince trade rules. 9 pages in the section, 5 of which have useful tables.
If you don't have MT anymore, or don't have the full set of books, I heartily recommend picking up the MegaTraveller CD-ROM from Marc Miller, via his company, Far Future Enterprises.
http://www.farfuture.net/cdroms.html
If you don't have MT anymore, or don't have the full set of books, I heartily recommend picking up the MegaTraveller CD-ROM from Marc Miller, via his company, Far Future Enterprises.
http://www.farfuture.net/cdroms.html
Last edited:
I'd suggest you to take a look at Don McKinne's MT Trade and Commerce Variant. I give you the link, understanding I'm allowed to do it, as you can also find it in his signature (DonM's): http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html
Oooh yeah, very well done. Of course I'd want to simplify it even further, but maybe he's boiled it down as good as you can get.
Frankly (and said many times), I found Merchant Prince already in CT one of the worst rules changes made in Traveller. I still wonder why they were carried on to MT, TNE and T4 (IDK about other versions), and I find one of the best changes in MgT.
I know what you mean. I dislike Merchant Prince, because it's not fun. I know people who do like Merchant Prince, so apparently for some people it IS fun.
Nevertheless, it took out too much to interest me.
There's a happy medium somewhere. Don's attempt puts some life back in it, but for me there's a problem with the core mechanic.
I find the idea interesting, but the presentation... or the follow-through... ah well.
It's simple and straightforward to present. It can fill big ships.
I think T20 (and CT from which it was derived) has a much more fun model, and I'm very fond of the 3d6 Actual Value Table (in no small part because the one used is essentially my work).
MgT's is nice, better than Bk7/MT, but I still like the discrete system in T20 and Bk2.
Heck my problem is that I actualy work in the Logistics business so I tend to like this type of stuff. However I don't want to to be the focus of a campaign. I want to be something that can be quickly done so characters can move on to the next adventure. After if done right or wrong a far Trader can't quite make enough to pay the bills so you need that supplemental income.
See, the thing is, under Bk3, a free trader built under Bk2 CAN break even. Just barely, but it can break even on freight alone if very nearly full, and if doing well on the spec, can make a LOT of money.
Bk7 using Bk5 designs, due to economies of scale differences from fixed vs scalable components, you can't break even until much larger - 1000Td+... and the potential income per ton is much less even on spec - maximum possible per-ton gain is around KCr25 per ton, vs Bk3's maximum of MCr37.5 per ton. Expected gain per ton is also lower, but not so severely so - KCr1.5 vs KCr2 - but given the lost tonnage to bridges, fixed crew minima, and computer size, Bk7 is not financially workable for small ships.
Last edited:
Then that's another reason to be grateful to you, as I also like it
.The maximum possibility gains are higher in LBB2, but less certain. In MP/MT system you're not especulating, as long as you're not takin risks (or quite low ones). If you buy at planet X, you know what your costs will be (regardless what you find to buy), and if you sell at planet Y, you also know what your earnings will be (again, regardless what you sell there). Oncly the Actual Value table may change this, but on the long run its effects will be cancelled, as what you lose once you'll win another time (and if you have a broker in your crew, on the long run it will surely help you).
I guess no one wants the focus pof its RPG campaign to be too close to its RW job. We have real life for that :devil:.
Some of the most blood-thirsty merc players I've ever encountered were active duty infantrymen...
I guess they were not allowed (or even inclined) to be so blood-thristy in their real life jobs...
I wouldn't be so certain... some of their in-character actions are near perfect replication of US Army or USMC tactical doctrines in action. They wanted realistic action, and Traveller was what worked for them. (They derided T2K2E for massively unrealistic wounding rules.)
One of them was unable to reenlist due to lack of high-school equivalency. (He'd joined the reserves in HS, served 2 years active, but couldn't re-up until he graduated or got his GED. He got his GED some 8 years later, and joined back up.) For his "relaxation" he ran Palladium or played Traveller.
Another was out for medical. Another was still active duty.
Actually, what they really got was to be able to play the officers, rather than the junior NCO's (which ALL of them, even the no-high-school-diploma guy, were).
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
As a retired Army Quartermaster, I like working in stuff like Merchant Prince too. However, my bottom line is that NO BANK is going to finance a ship purchase or build unless it can be shown that the vessel will consistently, without engaging in speculation, produce a rate of return high enough to cover all costs including the financing.
Given that, the costs of a ship have to change a bit, along with how cargo is handled and charged and passenger fees.
I am working on a build system for ships up to 5,000 tons, where the costs for a civilian ship differ considerably from that of a military ship. A couple of quick and dirty fixes do not seem to work well.
As for cargo handling and charges, I am looking at having each Traveller displacement ton of approximately 500 cubic feet equivalent to 5 measurement tons of Real World shipping space, and able to carry 5 tons of mass. Charges will be based on the mass/volume relationship, with high volume/low mass cargos being charged differently from high mass/low volume cargos.
Passengers will be charged on distance jumped, not per jump, longer jumps will cost more.
Costs will go up in some areas, specifically maintenance and insurance, as insurance is not factored into costs at all. The maintenance cost will be 10% of the total power plant (power plant, jump drive, maneuvering drive) package per year, and 1% of the total ship cost per year. Insurance cost will be 5% of the value of the ship per year, based on purchase or build price. Landing fees will be based on passenger and cargo capacity, along with a flat port charge. Larger ships will pay more.
Scouts will be a bit out of the circuit when it comes to costs, as they will have flat landing fee charges, and can get maintenance done at scout bases, along with Class A and B starports. In my Universe, the Scouts handle what would be called Coast Guard activities in the real world, and there is a substantial Scout presence at all Class A and B starports. The increased cargo ability when it comes to mass should make it easier for retired Scouts with a scout ship to make some money for additional equipment, and adventuring.
Oh I have worked with enough Owner Operators that you are right about no way a Far Trader would get any sort of Financing if there was no way to make a profit. However just crunching numbers to make more money is not fun and to much like work. Thats why I want people to have adventure kind of like Firefly. After there is a good chance Josh Weadon had some insperation from Traveller. Just that my back ground can help me toss in some stuff most poeple would not think of.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Well, if I can get everything working properly, the player with the Trader or Scout will only have two numbers to work about, his operating costs and his fixed overhead (financing, maintenance account, insurance, etc.). His ship is going to be a bit less expensive to purchase. Military ships, on the other hand, are going to cost like crazy.
I am also evaluating the idea of putting in removable passenger pods in the cargo area.
Similar threads
General
Lanthan Traders?
