Who needs stewards anyway?

[Whipsnade]

But according to the rule, a High Passenger will decide not to get aboard after all if the requisite number of proper stewards are not enployed by the ship.

Hans,

Not exactly.

All LBB:2 says is: If high passengers are carried, then a steward is required. There must be at least one steward (steward skill-0 or better) per eight high passenger on the ship.

That could mean what you say it does; potential high passage purchasers walk up to the Running Boil, learn there is no steward, and walk away. It could also mean that potential high passage purchasers, or their booking agents, never contact the Running Boil at all because it is known that the vessel cannot provide high passage services.

In my opinion, the latter is more plausible.

Cap'n Blackie and his crew don't routinely get High Passage passenger because it is known that they cannot do the job and booking agents don't/won't list them for such passages. This doesn't mean however that the Running Boil never carries High Passage passengers. A GM can insert whatever conditions and events they feel are necessary for the good of the adventure or campaign. The difference being whether at this point in the adventure the GM simply rolls on the pax table or uses the opportunity to introduce a plot point.

A parade of disappointed High Passage seeking pax passing through the Running Boil's port airlock as they check on every ship in the port is not plausible. What could be plausible is:

What's the hubbub, Slappy?

Cap'n there's seven of these there monks or something from Our Lady of Perpetual Motion wantin' to go to Dallia for a retreat. Trouble is they wants service during the flight, real noble high pax stuff 'cause they'll be meditating or singing or something.

I hates as much as the next guy to turn down seventy thousand knicker, Slappy, but we ain't got the hands for what they want. Gotta say no.

Got us covered Cap'n. You know my friend Dreyer down to the Broken Arms? He's lgotta move on kinda soon and here's the best part. He's ex-Al Morai, a purser. All we need do is give him a month's salary and he'll handle the monks for us. That's only two large and we pocket the rest.

Bring Dreyer around and we'll talk. If I like what I see, we'll talk with the monks. No promises though. Everything goes smooth and you've got yourself a finders fee too.

Sure thing, Cap'n!

The mid passengers take the ship regardless. The rule create the discrepancy that High passengers are under some sort of pressure to get on that ship, but the pressure is not enough to make them overlook the absence of stewards.

There's no "pressure" involved because if there are no stewards you don't roll for high pax. As far as the rule is concerned, the high pax do not even exist. And since when do the freight and pax tables represent all the freight and pax available on a given world at a given time? They've always represented those lots and pax potentially available to a tramp trader and nothing more.

I'll point again again that the one-to-eight ratio is an admittedly crude rule meant to quickly model what can be an extremely detailed subject. Trying to derive anything but the broadest ideas regarding personalized service aboard starships from this ratio is impossible. It's akin to the economics question I wrote of above. It's also akin to Hal's repeated and doomed attempts to work Imperial Navy budgets from crew salaries and ship constrcution costs among other things.

You're working in a canonical vacuum. Current and historical examples from the real world must be brought into the picture.


Regards,
Bill

 

[rancke]

Cap'n Blackie and his crew don't routinely get High Passage passenger because it is known that they cannot do the job and booking agents don't/won't list them for such passages.

Who says they'll list them for High passage even if there is a steward? The default situation is that the Running Boil just arrived on the world for the first time and don't know anyone from Adam. There's no hint in the rules of booking agents taking a cut of the passage tickets (Hey, that might explain the high cost of life support: half of it is a kickback to the booking agent). On some of the backwater worlds it's unlikely that there'd be any booking agents at all. On any world with an information network, Cap'n Blackie himself can advertise on it. We're up against the incontrovertible fact that the passengers are there and they want to get on to a ship. The booking agent is a straw man. If he could persuade the prospective passenger to go aboard the Running Boil why wouldn't he (With full disclosure of the lamentable state of the Boil's service to protect his good name, of course)? And if he won't and the passengers really want to go, they'll try a booking agent that will arrange it. So we're back to it being a question of the passengers chosing to take passage or not based on the presence and absence of that steward.

There's no "pressure" involved because if there are no stewards you don't roll for high pax. As far as the rule is concerned, the high pax do not even exist.

But they do exist. If Slappy gets his friend Dreyer to sign on as a steward, the ref would roll for high passengers, wouldn't he? And a dozen of them would suddenly pop out of the woodwork.

And since when do the freight and pax tables represent all the freight and pax available on a given world at a given time? They've always represented those lots and pax potentially available to a tramp trader and nothing more.

Exactly my point. You're overlooking the second part of the argument I've tried to present, which can be summed up in the question: "How likely is it that a booking agent will send Cap'n Blackie High passengers even if he does have a steward on the crew?"


Hans

 

[rancke]

Well then, that doesn't sound like a problem. A free trader isn't a liner, but a steward is a steward.

And a good cigar is a smoke. What are you trying to say here?

And, absolutely stewards are "accredited", as much as any skill-based role: if a task roll requires steward skill, then his level of accreditation indicates his probability of success.

No, it indicates the level of competency he has persuaded an examiner to credit him with.

When it becomes a problem is when you figure that interstellar travel is commonplace.

It's true that I think a universe with considerably more passenger traffic than the costs would seem to indicate would be a better RPG environment than one where the ramifications of the high cost has been worked out. In my defense, I think the canonical background information we have indicate that passenger traffic IS higher than the costs would seem to imply.

However, I don't see how it applies to the current subject.

Well there's your problem in a nutshell.

You speak in riddles, Oh Mighty Sage. Please elucidate.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans, et al:

The prices indicate a general cost of (roughly) half a year's salary for the mythical average joe (soc 7) per MT, 1750/mo, and per MGT 1500/mo... since we know that the average lifestyle cost is thus, we can figure that the individual isn't makeing routinely more than the next soc (both are 2000), that means under MT, Cr1-Cr249/month, and MGT Cr1 to Cr499/month...

In MT, a mid passage takes a normal person 8000/250=32 months... just shy of 3 years... and more likely to be 5-10 years save-up. Under MGT, we can expect as little as 16months (8000/500), more likely 32 months...

Now, reasonably, a single person should be able to make twice the cost of living, since costs of living should account for a couple; in which case a single person can reasonably travel once a year, and a family once per 5 years on a single nearby jump route. Which, BTW, matches closely (at $5=Cr1) to the supposed middle income figures (tho the actual median income is about $45, rather than the average at $60K-$75K).

(Realistically, the cost of living for a given soc for a couple should be about 150%, not 200%, of the single rate... but that's a digression for elsewhen)...

Now, I've noticed that when expenses for travel are under the surplus per month, people tend to travel annually. When costs are about equal to the monthly income, one trip per 5-10 years, and once the costs are 3-6months income, once a lifetime. At costs of a year's wages or more, the people just plain don't go unless it is a religious or employment duty.

Given the rates, most Soc 7 travellers would fall into the once a lifetime crowd... it's the "big trip"... given safe low berths, most could afford a trip every couple years, even with children. Assuming, of course, that they can get the time off.

Now, this also means the MGT-U is about twice as many people travelling as the MT-U...
but still, very few soc 7's.
Now, Soc 10, they are more likely to go more often (it's only 4 months income for a HP), but it is still a save-up deal. In both cases.

Also, don't forget that, while vacationing, the vacation costs supplant the monthly upkeep... (I really think the Upkeep is broken... not sufficiently high above soc 7. But that's true under both MT and MGT.)

Also, given that we don't have a full economic model... Under TNE's WTH, we can get a better income/social linkage, but it's a pain.

 

[Whipsnade]

Who says they'll list them for High passage even if there is a steward?

Hans,

No one. I explicitly wrote upthread that merely showing up at a starport with a ship an steward won't get you high passage bookings unless the GM doesn't want to deal with this level of detail.

There's no hint in the rules of booking agents taking a cut of the passage tickets.

There was no hint in LBB:2 of cargo and freight brokers either, but what's been the situation since TTA and LBB:7?

Let's look at things another way by turning your question around. Do you seriously believe that all a starship need do to fill it's staterooms is "pin a note to a bulletin board"? All they need to do is show up and people will line up to come aboard? After all, that's the "reality" represented by the pax tables you keep bringing up. Do you really think the pax tables model reality? Or are they just a crude tool that allows a GM to quickly produce pax for his players while concentrating on other aspects he feels are more important.

You're confusing a rule meant to speed and streamline game play with a detail setting. A similar error would have people believing that fuel processors were invented after the 5th FW because they don't appear in FFW's rules.

We're up against the incontrovertible fact that the passengers are there and they want to get on to a ship.

No. We. Are. Not.

The only incontrovertible fact is that a pax table exists that a GM can use or ignore as he desires. The cargo and pax tables are only extremely weak models of the setting's "fictional reality" and, because of that, you cannot derive any substantive details from them.

The booking agent is a straw man. If he could persuade the prospective passenger to go aboard the Running Boil why wouldn't he (With full disclosure of the lamentable state of the Boil's service to protect his good name, of course)?

Why doesn't the same happen with freight? Why are pax somehow different?

And if he won't and the passengers really want to go, they'll try a booking agent that will arrange it. So we're back to it being a question of the passengers chosing to take passage or not based on the presence and absence of that steward.

No we're not. The Running Boil isn't listed as available for High Passages. From the POV of High Passage-seeking pax, the ship does not exist. If they lower their requirements the Running Boil is in play, but as high passage pax the ship was not an option.

But they do exist. If Slappy gets his friend Dreyer to sign on as a steward, the ref would roll for high passengers, wouldn't he?

Dreyer means they can carry the monks. Before a pax broker listed the ship as an option for their clients Cap'n Blackie and the crew should have a few more hoops to jump through.

And a dozen of them would suddenly pop out of the woodwork.

That's if the GM is using the pax tables and nothing but the pax tables. As I've been trying to point out, the "reality" of the situation is far more nuanced than the rules covering it.

You're overlooking the second part of the argument I've tried to present, which can be summed up in the question: "How likely is it that a booking agent will send Cap'n Blackie High passengers even if he does have a steward on the crew?"

There are several ways to answer that question.

Are we discussing a GM using the pax tables and stewards rules without details? Then the answer is a broker is entirely likely to send pax to the Running Boil. Cap'n Blackie and his crew have met the only requirements the GM chooses to impose.

Are we discussing a GM using the pax tables, steward rules, and embellishing them with details to make the process more realistic? Then the answer is a broker is very unlikely to send high pax Cap'n Blackie's way until other, GM imposed, mileposts are met.

Are we discussing the setting's "fictional reality" alone? Then the answer is that brokers will not send high pax to the Running Boil until other requirements are met. Simply adding Dreyer to the crew won't put Cap'n Blackie & Company in the good graces of brokers and agents whose "freight" will have grieving relatives with a propensity to sue.


Regards,
Bill

 

[rancke]

No one. I explicitly wrote upthread that merely showing up at a starport with a ship an steward won't get you high passage bookings unless the GM doesn't want to deal with this level of detail.

And what I'm interested in is what happens when you do want to deal with this level of detail. Which, mind you, is just one step up from the level of detail the rules deal with, and the same level of detail that they deal with in connection with trade.

There was no hint in LBB:2 of cargo and freight brokers either, but what's been the situation since TTA and LBB:7?

Are you sure? I can't find my LBB:2 right now, but cargo brokers do appear in TTB, and I can't imagine that they would be missing from the speculative trade system in LBB:2. Freight brokers aren't mentioned any more than passenger brokers, true.

Let's look at things another way by turning your question around. Do you seriously believe that all a starship need do to fill it's staterooms is "pin a note to a bulletin board"? All they need to do is show up and people will line up to come aboard?

Why not? That's one of the differences between passenger liners and tramp freighters. People book passage on liners; they ask for passage on tramps. Obviously, they don't do it in the same numbers, and obviously there's one big piece of the picture missing, as someone mentioned above. People don't expect to pay the same for passage on a tramp as on a liner. Just as they don't expect the same level of comfort on tramps as they do on liners (Well... most liners ). More about that in another post.

After all, that's the "reality" represented by the pax tables you keep bringing up. Do you really think the pax tables model reality? Or are they just a crude tool that allows a GM to quickly produce pax for his players while concentrating on other aspects he feels are more important?

I expect them to be crude models of (the fictional) reality. If they don't reflect reality, however crudely, they should be changed to reflect reality, albeit crudely. And if I advance the theory that they don't reflect reality, I expect the counterargument to show that they do, in fact, reflect reality, not that they don't have to reflect reality, because they're too crude.

We're up against the incontrovertible fact that the passengers are there and they want to get on to a ship.

No. We. Are. Not.

The only incontrovertible fact is that a pax table exists that a GM can use or ignore as he desires.

So what you're saying is that the passenger tables are not supposed to reflect "reality" at all? I reject that assumption.

The cargo and pax tables are only extremely weak models of the setting's "fictional reality" and, because of that, you cannot derive any substantive details from them.

They're weak models, sure, but not completely unrelated models. There's usually some correlation between a model and the reality it attempts to model. That's supposedly a fundamental property of a model.

The booking agent is a straw man. If he could persuade the prospective passenger to go aboard the Running Boil why wouldn't he (With full disclosure of the lamentable state of the Boil's service to protect his good name, of course)?

Why doesn't the same happen with freight? Why are pax somehow different?

What doesn't happen to freight? What's different about what I claim happens to high passengers and what happens to freight?

No we're not. The Running Boil isn't listed as available for High Passages. From the POV of High Passage-seeking pax, the ship does not exist. If they lower their requirements the Running Boil is in play, but as high passage pax the ship was not an option.

Unless it's the only ship going the way the passenger wants to go. Or the first ship going. Or a more anonymous ship.

Dreyer means they can carry the monks. Before a pax broker listed the ship as an option for their clients Cap'n Blackie and the crew should have a few more hoops to jump through.

But the passengers are there. Even if they're oblivious of the existence of the Boil, they're there, the broker knows about them, and he can't get them the passage they want on a steward-infested ship, because if he could, the passengers wouldn't be there, they'd be aboard the Comfortable. Why shouldn't he propose that they try the Boil? And if they do, maybe they find that the staterooms are full of mid passengers, so they each have to pony up a High Passage to bump one of them.

Now, there's a quick and dirty fix: Q&D rule: Without a qualified steward, a ship is unable to charge High Passage unless all the staterooms could be filled with Mid passengers.

That's if the GM is using the pax tables and nothing but the pax tables. As I've been trying to point out, the "reality" of the situation is far more nuanced than the rules covering it.

And what I'm trying to do is explore a few of the nuances of the situation. Not enough to make the resultant rules unmanagable, but enough to make them a bit more plausible and maybe even a bit more interesting.

"How likely is it that a booking agent will send Cap'n Blackie High passengers even if he does have a steward on the crew?"

There are several ways to answer that question.

Are we discussing a GM using the pax tables and stewards rules without details? Then the answer is a broker is entirely likely to send pax to the Running Boil. Cap'n Blackie and his crew have met the only requirements the GM chooses to impose.

I'm discussing adding some details to the rules, preferrably within the framework of the existing rules, but if the existing rules prove to be not only crude but also self-contradictory, changing the existing rules (a bit).

Are we discussing a GM using the pax tables, steward rules, and embellishing them with details to make the process more realistic? Then the answer is a broker is very unlikely to send high pax Cap'n Blackie's way until other, GM imposed, mileposts are met.

Are we discussing the setting's "fictional reality" alone? Then the answer is that brokers will not send high pax to the Running Boil until other requirements are met. Simply adding Dreyer to the crew won't put Cap'n Blackie & Company in the good graces of brokers and agents whose "freight" will have grieving relatives with a propensity to sue.

So what is the fictional reality and how can it be simulated better than the current rules does it without making the rules unmanagably complicated?

Answering this post has given me some ideas that I will propound in another post rather than make this one even longer than it already is.


Hans

 

[rancke]

It occurs to me that a big part of the problem I have with the existing rules arises from the fact that they conflate two kinds of high passage.

There's the kind of high passage that comfort-minded passengers want and don't mind paying a premium for: Better food and being waited on. Better amenities too. As opposed to the kind of mid passage that most people settle for, transportation in single stateroom with ordinary meals and a minimum of service.

And then there the pieces of paper (pseudoplast?) that organizations issue to their people when they want them to get somewhere fast and/or with a lot of baggage. As opposed to the pieces of paper that they issue to people they want to get somewhere eventually. These are the kind of High and Mid passages characters get in the mustering out process and from the JTAS.

To distinguish, I'm going to call the second kind of passage 'vouchers' in this discussion. "High Passage" I'll call "Priority Passage Vouchers" (PPV) and "Mid Passage" I'll call "Regular Passage Vouchers" (RPV). I'll also spell the comfort-defined kind of high and mid passage without capital letters.

I submit that people seeking high passage are unlikely to seek it in a Free Trader, however many stewards they may ship. People wanting to go to some forsaken backwater, on the other hand, are quite likely to fork over a PPV whether the ship has a steward or not. For one thing, they may not even carry any RPVs. Why negotiate a Cr10,000 ticket down to an Cr8,000 ticket if Uncle Imp is paying anyway and you're going to pay with the same voucher anyway?


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

In Traveller, there is a fictional setting in the far future. Reality does not apply. For me, the game is an escape from reality and a chance to imagine what is impossible today.

A few hundred years ago, when the Americas were first being settled, how well would they have been able to model and predict the life expectancy of Americans?

Take todays tables of life expectancies for men and women of different countries. Doesn't this reflect reality? But does everyone die at the age indicated in the tables? Of course not. People die at younger and older ages and only a small fraction die at the exact age in the table.

Add some detail, maybe ethnicity, health background, peoples careers. Does the table represent reality now? Better, but not perfect. Insurance companies and others use these tables as a tool.

And that is how I see the tables and rules in Traveller. It is simply a tool to use and it is up to the GM and players to decide how to use it. I do not expect these tools to be perfect in all circumstances.

If you feel that every table and rule reflects exactly the way things work in every system throughout the future universe, well, your universe may be a bit boring for me.

Once you start making a background for the passenger (noble with servant and others have been given) they no longer fit the generalizes tables and rules.

In regards to stewards and booking passage, what I take from the rules is that if your ship does not have the appropriate accommodations, people who are looking for high passage will possibly decide not to book passage or to only pay for mid passage. That is assuming they even checked to see if your filthy, rusty, tiny ship was booking passengers.

To me, a person needs to book passage FIRST before they are a high, mid or low class passenger. Prior to this, they may be a high class ticket holder or a person looking to travel and willing to pay for high class accommodations, but they are not a high passenger.

If a ship is not equipped with low berths, would there be an issue with a rule or table reflecting that there are no low berths passengers available? If a ship has no high passenger accommodations why is it an issue that the rules state you can't find any?

If a character tries to sell what would be considered by most to be a mid passage and call it high passage, the GM can use the rules and say you can't find any high passengers but there are some people who would like to book mid passage.

If the GM has created a passenger with such detail that the GM knows this passenger is not paying cash and instead has a high passage ticket/voucher and needs to desperately get out of the system and needs to leave right away and can not wait for another ship with better accommodations, then this isn't a passenger as per the general tools and rules. This passenger sounds more like someone involved in some plot the GM has up his sleeve. This passenger may even use their high passage ticket/voucher to get low passage if it is the only thing available. Do the rules specifically state you can't do this? Maybe this passenger is smart enough to know you are overcharging and trades the high passage for a mid and some cash or credit.

This is nothing close, but the best I could come up with. Some people seam to be arguing that there is a person who needs to fly to get somewhere immediately and is planning to fly first class. There is a flight that has no first class seating available but does have regular passage available and the airline still advertises and charges for a first class ticket but then throws you in the 'cattle' section when you board assuming you will be happy and content because you were originally willing to pay the higher price and you can't wait for another flight. Is that similar to a ship with no steward still trying to book high passengers?

Do the rules state you can't lie about having a steward, hence roll as normal, book all your passengers, and then deal with the riot when people realize they have been duped?

 

[rancke]

In Traveller, there is a fictional setting in the far future. Reality does not apply.

Quite right. However, to me and at least some others, "reality" does apply. What is "reality"? It's the fictional reality of the fictional universe called the OTU. And I define it as "pretty close to real world reality, except in certain specific cases". Most importantly, "reality" is internally self-consistent. If a rule seems to indicate that "reality" is self-contradictory, the rule is wrong rather than "reality" being self-contradictory.



Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans, given that the vouchers are good for the stated passage types, and that soft cannon (FASA stuff, IIRC; I've read it but don't have it) provides that Luxury Liners (as opposed to travel liners like the type M) don't accept vouchers, and charge KCr15+ per jump...

I think you're conflating High Passage with Luxury Passage; they are not the same, and the government vouchers wouldn't be for luxury anyway.

A merchantman with a spare room can provide midpassage: mess with the crew, make your own bed, read the books and watch the vids you brought with.

With a steward, they provide HP; not messing with the crew, tho' perhaps with the officers if the ship makes such a distinction; Laundry services; probably some crew provided entertainments; arranging some social activities for passengers, possibly even with the crew.

It's not "Cruise line style" where there is stuff to do every hour of the day; the second rate on modern cruise ships is far better than a High Passage would be.

 

[robject]

I think you're conflating High Passage with Luxury Passage; they are not the same, and the government vouchers wouldn't be for luxury anyway.

Now, I like that explanation; it seems to fit MTU quite well, and even has a precedent -- the Yacht and the Safari ship.

 

[rancke]

Hans, given that the vouchers are good for the stated passage types, and that soft cannon (FASA stuff, IIRC; I've read it but don't have it) provides that Luxury Liners (as opposed to travel liners like the type M) don't accept vouchers, and charge KCr15+ per jump...

I think you're conflating High Passage with Luxury Passage; they are not the same, and the government vouchers wouldn't be for luxury anyway.

No, but you've made me realize that I am conflating something, namely my attempt to fix two bits of broke canon with said canon, for which I apologize.

I'd better explain myself:

I'm talking about the per jump price and the total lack of any mention of what ought to be the most common form of passage, two to a stateroom passage ('Economy Passage', as I've dubbed it).

Per jump ticket costs don't make economic sense and can't be made to make economic sense no matter how much government regulation you invoke.

Traveling two to a stateroom is expressly mentioned in the rules. The only reason why people wouldn't avail themselves of it would be that someone forbade it, and why would anyone do that? Or because an economy passage efectively cost the same as a mid passage. Who'd travel two to a stateroom if your voucher entitles you to a single stateroom?

So my fix was to say that High, Middle and Low Passage weren't tickets, they were ticket vouchers. Tickets are priced per parsec. You can exchange your voucher for a ticket to any passage (up to jump-3). A Priority Passage Voucher allows you to get high passage, 1 dT of baggage, and to bump someone if there isn't room for you. They were originally conceived of as for the use of important officials on urgent business. A Regular Passage Voucher allows you to get middle passage in a single stateroom. Organizations don't issue vouchers for economy passage.

I know this contradicts some parts of the original rules, but I think it's a good way to fix the original rules and to merge them with the new rules from FT.


Hans

 

[robject]

I know this contradicts some parts of the original rules, but I think it's a good way to fix the original rules and to merge them with the new rules from FT.

The house rule is certainly a time-honored tradition for Traveller players.

 

[Maladominus]

Steward-bots is all you need.

If anything the role of starship steward/stewardess is perfectly suited for limited-AI robots. Get rid of the fleshy (overpaid) humanoid workers. Give the job to the bots! Save money for the megacorporation. More profits for the CEO!

 

[rancke]

The house rule is certainly a time-honored tradition for Traveller players.

Yeah, but I like to think of this one as a house rule that reflects how thing "really" are in the OTU better than the canonical rule does .


Hans

 

[aramis]

Yes, it contradicts Bk 2 which says one person per stateroom except in rare occasions. page 57 of TTB notes that commercial ships must have one stateroom per member of the crew. Perhaps DO staterooms might be permissable; only one Traveller product line makes that assumption for paid passage (T20) and knocks the costs down a bit. (Having spent time with 6 people in a 6x6 meter cabin, it was claustrophobic after a day, despite having to hike through rain to the mess hall... a week in those conditions would be a nightmare.)

Also, when a system of vouchers becomes common, it will become the default price. basics of econ: if X is the going voucher rate, and X is less than cost, no one accepts vouchers except in desperation; if X is higher than cost, few have incentive to charge less than voucher value, as they know they can get voucher value simply by sticking to vouchered value.

Now, looking at CT, we only have three types of passage offered, and three types of passenger; HP which gets steward service, MP wich doesn't, and LP which is deep freeze. Page 52 of TTB is explicit: passages are 1 person per SR, with an implication of one adult per stateroom.

Lets look at the overhead (I did this when Hunter was making the DO rules for T20)
MP, SO: 4Td, KCr2 OH, Profit KCr6, profit KCr1.5/Td, total cost KCr8
MP, DO: 2Td*, KCr2 OH, Profit should be KCr1.5/Td thus Profit thus KCr3, cost thus KCr5 cost
HP SO: 4Td, Cr2,625 OH, Cr7,325 profit, profit rate Cr1843/Td. Total KCr10
HP SO, rounded: 4Td, KCr2.6 OH, KCr 7.4 profit, 1.85/td
HP DO, rounded: 2Td, KCr2.6 OH, KCr 1.85/Td= KCr3.7, cost = KCr6.3

Note above presumes paying a crewmember in another slot to double as steward.
Counting steward quartering at SO as per requirements on TTB 52...:
HPSO, rounded: 4.5Td, KCr2.6, Pr KCr 7.4, KCr1.65/Td
HPDO, rounded: 2.5Td, KCr2.6, Pr KCr1.65/td = KCr4.125, price = 6.725 (round up to 7)



Note that, for T20, the numbers work out different, since Hunter reduced LS cost to Cr1500 for mids and non-officer crew.
T20 SO HP: Total KCr10, LS KCr2, Stw KCr0.5*, Tons 4.25, Profit/Td =Cr1765
T20 DO HP: Total KCr8, LS KCr2, Stw KCr0.5*, Tons 2.25, Profit/Td=Cr2445
T20 SO MP: Total KCr8, LS KCr1.5, Tons 4, Profit/Td=1625
T20 DO MP: Total KCr6.5, LS KCr1.5, Tons 2, Profit/Td=2500

*(relistically, it's (KCr1.5+KCr3)/8, but since it's oft undervalued, round up a bit, and tonnage is counted with stewards as crew and thus DO.)

And all the above ignore the baggage allowance as being mass and in stateroom. If it's actual Td, increase all HP tonnages by 1.

Note that the CT rates won't match MGT rates, since MGT requires 1 level of steward (from level 0 up) per 2 HP, and 1 level per 5 MP... Presuming a hired steward is level 1... and since the rules don't permit DO, we'll figure those momentarily... and figure for 2 jumps a month
MGT HP: 6Td**, KCr6/Pc (to 2Pc), LS 1250†, Stw Sal500, Expn.=1750, PrJ1=4250(=708/Td), J2=10250(=1708/Td)
MGT MP: 4.4Td***, KCr3/Pc (to 2Pc), LS1100†, Stw Sal200, Expn.=1300, PrJ1=1700(=386/Td), PrJ2=4700(=1068/Td)

Given that the rates are less than cargo for J1, for even HP, the rates in MGT are flat broken... unless one assumes a normal steward to be level 2... but that's a digression...

a DO for MGT should be figured to be roughly the same value per ton as SO, but note that LS is per stateroom not per person...
DO HP is thus 4Td, but LS 750, Stw still 500, for 1250 Exp, thus 708*4=2832, and 1708*4=6832 2832+1250=3082... and 8082 for J2, so call it KCr 4/Pc...

MP drops to 2.4Td, and 600S, and still 200 Stw, for 800 expn., so 386*2.4=926 thus 1726 for 1Pc, 1068*2.4=2563.2 thus 3363 for J2.. make it 1750 and 3500.

So...

JN _HPSO _HPDO _MPSO _MPDO _LPSO Cargo
J1 06000 04000 03000 01750 01000 01000
J2 12000 08000 06000 03500 01200 01200
J3 20000 15000 10000 05833 01400 01400
J4 30000 22500 15000 08750 01600 01600
J5 40000 30000 20000 11667 01800 01800
J6 50000 37500 25000 14583 02000 02000


** explicitly says one ton of cargo space for baggage, and includes 1/4th the steward's SR)
***1/10th of a steward's SR.
†Includes steward

 

[CosmicGamer]

...If a rule seems to indicate that "reality" is self-contradictory, the rule is wrong rather than "reality" being self-contradictory. Hans

Hard to put what I'm thinking into words. In general, Id' say that there is a lot of inaccuracy in words and different people can have different perceptions of what the same word means.

Most reality varies form one persons perception of it to the next. Is long division hard? Is reading ancient history fun? Ask 10 different people to pull the green crayon out of a box of 64 crayons and a few different shades of green will be chosen. Is one right? Is one wrong?

In general, yes, I believe a rule can be broken. A rule that says 2 + 2 = 5 would be broken. Wait, what if the rule is about characters that have 2 Int and 2 Edu? hmmm

Rules :nonono: since when do characters in Traveller play by the rules?

 

[rancke]

In general, yes, I believe a rule can be broken. A rule that says 2 + 2 = 5 would be broken. Wait, what if the rule is about characters that have 2 Int and 2 Edu? hmmm

According to the rules, such characters cannot possibly have more than four levels of skill, not even physical skills, regardless of its physical attributes. The brick stupid combat monster does not exist in any universe that can be described by the Traveller rules.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

According to the rules, such characters cannot possibly have more than four levels of skill, not even physical skills, regardless of its physical attributes. The brick stupid combat monster does not exist in any universe that can be described by the Traveller rules. Hans

First, I'm not real familiar with CT LBB 1-3 rules, and have no clue what rules came out after them. Can you give a reference for your rule? Also, perhaps if you give a quote in the rules for a description of 'brick stupid' and 'combat monster'. Or are these your terms?

Also, I'm sorry, but the point of this post escapes me. Is it supposed to be an example of a rule you think breaks reality?

 

[rancke]

First, I'm not real familiar with CT LBB 1-3 rules, and have no clue what rules came out after them. Can you give a reference for your rule? Also, perhaps if you give a quote in the rules for a description of 'brick stupid' and 'combat monster'. Or are these your terms?

Also, the point of this point escapes me, Is it supposed to be an example of a rule you think breaks reality?

Skill limits. I'm not sure where they first show up, but you're not allowed to have more skill levels than your Int+Edu. So if you have Int 2, Edu 2, you can't have more than four skill levels. 'Brick stupid' is my own technical term for someone of limited mental accomplishments . 'Combat monster' is someone who's real good in a fight.

Yes, I think limiting someone's physical skills based on his mental attributes breaks reality.


Hans