General Why are Players doing the Ship's Accounting?

[atpollard]

I tried that, but Mr. Details kept niggling at me, so in the end I gave up and we do detailed ship's accounts and such like. Well, rather, he does them because I'm not going to.

So when you are playing out one of those great tavern scenes where characters are all interacting and players are all into the action and there are all these interactions with locals … who tracks the credits paid for every round of drinks and the bar snacks on the table and the tip for the waitress?

Then who paid the cab fair to the next location?

It was all the minutiae that was getting lost (or spoiling the flow to bother tracking during a mission with a six figure payday) that convinced me to just deduct percentages to cover “expenses” and move on.

 

[Condottiere]

The patron?

 

[Rupert]

Is he the sort of player who tries to take advantage of every credit he can get his mitts on? I've had a player like that, so it was easier to give him some numbers and let him play around with them, doing all the accounting. Not just detail-oriented, but a little less wholesome. When things were going too well, there was always the option of some sort of repair or replacement chewing up some very handy available funds.

Oh, of course. He also wants to spend ages on check for cargo at every stop, tries to balance up staying longer to look again vs just accepting what's first rolled, and so on. All this and it was not a merchant campaign, was never advertised as one.

This time round, they have no ship, and their patron just handed them a pile of cash and a job. He's already suggested buying freight tonnage and buying a cargo, but accepted that trying this on a major shipping route was unlikely to end well. So he's given up... for now.

 

[Rupert]

So when you are playing out one of those great tavern scenes where characters are all interacting and players are all into the action and there are all these interactions with locals … who tracks the credits paid for every round of drinks and the bar snacks on the table and the tip for the waitress?

Then who paid the cab fair to the next location?

It was all the minutiae that was getting lost (or spoiling the flow to bother tracking during a mission with a six figure payday) that convinced me to just deduct percentages to cover “expenses” and move on.

That I've managed to get people to accept a blanket charge for, covering the day/week.

 

[atpollard]

Here is a detailed example. I like to convert a simple “speculative trade” roll into an adventure. So in the course this hypothetical trade/adventure, the players purchased goods for Cr 20,000 (locating a seller and having an adventure to accomplish the task). They then transported the goods to another location and (after another adventure) sold them for Cr 40,000.

The accounting looks like this:
5% of Cr 20,000 = Cr 1000 buy expenses.
5% of Cr 40,000 = Cr 2000 sell expenses.
Profit = Cr 40,000 - (Cr 23,000) = Cr 17,000.

Assuming a 5 man crew partnership,
each person gets (17000/5) = Cr 3500

I like to reward initiative, luck and participation, so 50% of the expenses are money spent and 50% of expenses are a bonus to the person that closed the deal.
Player A located the seller and negotiated the purchase, so they get a Cr 500 bonus.
Player B located the buyer and negotiated a higher price, so they get a Cr 1000 bonus.

Therefore, nobody worries about cash during the two weeks of adventuring, but at the end I inform the players that …

Player A earns Cr 3500 + Cr 500 bonus
Player B earns Cr 3500 + Cr 1000 bonus
Player C earns Cr 3500
Player D earns Cr 3500
Player E earns Cr 3500
The GROUP spends Cr 1500 on expenses for the 2 weeks.

(This particular adventure took place on a single world).
The point is to just reduce the expenses to a percentage and deduct them between adventures … like once a month.

 

[spank]

Is it this one?

https://www.reddit.com/r/traveller/comments/wwuqd5/fillable_traveller_mgt2_ship_sheet

EDIT: Sorry, it doesn't have anything about Ship's Accounting.

I thought it was a printed product, maybe from the Megatraveller era

 

[kilemall]

Here is a detailed example. I like to convert a simple “speculative trade” roll into an adventure. So in the course this hypothetical trade/adventure, the players purchased goods for Cr 20,000 (locating a seller and having an adventure to accomplish the task). They then transported the goods to another location and (after another adventure) sold them for Cr 40,000.

The accounting looks like this:
5% of Cr 20,000 = Cr 1000 buy expenses.
5% of Cr 40,000 = Cr 2000 sell expenses.
Profit = Cr 40,000 - (Cr 23,000) = Cr 17,000.

Assuming a 5 man crew partnership,
each person gets (17000/5) = Cr 3500

I like to reward initiative, luck and participation, so 50% of the expenses are money spent and 50% of expenses are a bonus to the person that closed the deal.
Player A located the seller and negotiated the purchase, so they get a Cr 500 bonus.
Player B located the buyer and negotiated a higher price, so they get a Cr 1000 bonus.

Therefore, nobody worries about cash during the two weeks of adventuring, but at the end I inform the players that …

Player A earns Cr 3500 + Cr 500 bonus
Player B earns Cr 3500 + Cr 1000 bonus
Player C earns Cr 3500
Player D earns Cr 3500
Player E earns Cr 3500
The GROUP spends Cr 1500 on expenses for the 2 weeks.

(This particular adventure took place on a single world).
The point is to just reduce the expenses to a percentage and deduct them between adventures … like once a month.

Hmm reading all that, something occurred to me that never had before.

The speculation cargo should default be charged per ton as normal if it isn’t strictly ship’s speculation.

Reason being is speculation could be done by crew or captain, and the mortgage payers or subsidized merchant people want to capture entitled pay due- especially if it is carried multiple jumps.

My thought is crew speculation is more of a thing, those ship down payments implied by ship mortgage payments/ship shares are results of a continual campaign of built speculation equity.

 

[spank]

Hmm reading all that, something occurred to me that never had before.

The speculation cargo should default be charged per ton as normal if it isn’t strictly ship’s speculation.

Reason being is speculation could be done by crew or captain, and the mortgage payers or subsidized merchant people want to capture entitled pay due- especially if it is carried multiple jumps.

My thought is crew speculation is more of a thing, those ship down payments implied by ship mortgage payments/ship shares are results of a continual campaign of built speculation equity.

Either that, or the other players take a share of the speculation and pay the bank as usual.

Say there's 5 crew the Captain/Pilot, Navigator, Medic and Steward. The Captain and Navigator take on 20 tons of speculative cargo. There are a few ways to handle it.

1. The Captain and Navigator pay the going rate for the cargo, 20,000 per jump and keep the profits.
2. The Captain and Navigator issue shares on the cargo, 1 share each for them, and 1 share for each of the ship's share holders. So Captain 2 shares, Navigator 2 shares, Medic 1 share, Steward 1 share.
3. As above, except the Bank also takes a share a part of the mortgage.
4. As above, except the crew gets double shares and the bank charges 500 Cr/ton plus one share
5. ?????

 

[Spinward Flow]

The speculation cargo should default be charged per ton as normal if it isn’t strictly ship’s speculation.

This is what I do.
The cargo capacity "needed" by the speculative goods ought to be accounted for ... somehow ... it isn't just "free parking" (or Monopoly spaces to that effect).

When an operator owns the transporting craft outright, with "no shares" belonging to anyone else, then the freight fee per ton for transporting speculative goods can be waived (since the operator is basically "paying the fee" to themselves).

However, when you're operating under subsidy (for example), if you (as an operator) buy up a lot of 10 tons of speculative goods for transport, then that operator "needs" to buy a ticket for 10 tons of cargo capacity onboard their craft. In the case of an interstellar transport, that's Cr1000 per ton ... so for 10 tons, that's going to be a ticket price of Cr10,000 per jump (under CT LBB2 rules).

Again, if you're the owner of the craft and the speculative goods, you pay that Cr10,000 "to yourself" from your own money, which is basically a wash (-10,000+10,000=Cr0). But if you're subsidized, 50% of the revenues need to go to the government that subsidized the construction of the craft, so as the operator, you'll be PAYING Cr5000 per jump (because 10,000/2=Cr5000) in ticket revenue to the subsidizing government until you can "unload" that speculative goods lot somewhere. Therefore, until you can "flip" that speculative goods lot, it's just going to keep "burning a hole in your balance sheet" and you schlep it around in your cargo hold (at a loss).



What you really need to work out is how any profits ... after all expenses are accounted for ... ought to be shared among your crew.
Alternatively, you could set things up such that "whoever pays into the pot shares the risks AND shares the profits" while also giving out "bonuses" for finder's/seller's fees before calculating any profit margins to be divided up.

 

[mike wightman]

A subsidised merchant crew has to pay the freight cost of their speculative trade, a free trader doesn't, the mortgage provider wants a certain amount of money per month, how it is made is not important to them.

Speculative trade by PCs...

it depends on how much each PC puts into buying the speculative goods as to how much each makes as a profit or loss.

If each crew member puts in equal amounts of money then they get an equal share of profit/loss.

 

[spank]

A subsidised merchant crew has to pay the freight cost of their speculative trade, a free trader doesn't, the mortgage provider wants a certain amount of money per month, how it is made is not important to them.

Speculative trade by PCs...

it depends on how much each PC puts into buying the speculative goods as to how much each makes as a profit or loss.

If each crew member puts in equal amounts of money then they get an equal share of profit/loss.

The Mortgage company expects the players to take in a certain amount of money amount, and the LBBs do mention submitting an economic plan to guarantee payments are submitted. Part of that may well be the requirement to pay the ship for every ton carried, whether for hire or speculation.

In addition there is the question of who owns how much of the ship, If all PC own equal amount of the ship, and put in equal amounts It should be an even split. If there are some with extra shares of the ship they may expect extra shares of the speculation or extra pay for hauling it.


Take for instance the set up in Twilight's Peak. " Shares: Once overhead costs are paid and the initial money put into buying trade goods is recovered, the remainder is profit to be distributed to the captain and and owner, and to some of the crew. In this case, there are 100 shares. Sixty go to the owner. The remaining forty may be divided up in any equitable manner, so long as all agree"

 

[mike wightman]

The Mortgage company expects the players to take in a certain amount of money amount, and the LBBs do mention submitting an economic plan to guarantee payments are submitted. Part of that may well be the requirement to pay the ship for every ton carried, whether for hire or speculation.

I very much doubt it, the PC business plan says they will carry freight, they actually engage in speculation, the mortgage company gets their monthly wedge of cash, that is all they are interested in the actual details once the loan is granted.

In addition there is the question of who owns how much of the ship, If all PC own equal amount of the ship, and put in equal amounts It should be an even split. If there are some with extra shares of the ship they may expect extra shares of the speculation or extra pay for hauling it.

We are not talking about the ship ownership, we are talking about the speculative trade goods purchase. Even if only one PC is responsible for the mortgage payments the whole crew that contributes to the speculation get a cut of the profits. The ship "mortgage holder" may ask for the freight price, if so the crew can say fair enough and not let the mortgage holder join them in the speculation. If the mortgage holder wants to divide the mortgage up between the crew then it becomes a different dynamic.

Take for instance the set up in Twilight's Peak. " Shares: Once overhead costs are paid and the initial money put into buying trade goods is recovered, the remainder is profit to be distributed to the captain and and owner, and to some of the crew. In this case, there are 100 shares. Sixty go to the owner. The remaining forty may be divided up in any equitable manner, so long as all agree"

And this is how a crew mutinies...

the ship owner can decide only they can engage in speculative trade... suggest that to a PC party and see how it goes.

 

[KrisComet]

So when you are playing out one of those great tavern scenes where characters are all interacting and players are all into the action and there are all these interactions with locals … who tracks the credits paid for every round of drinks and the bar snacks on the table and the tip for the waitress?

Then who paid the cab fair to the next location?

It was all the minutiae that was getting lost (or spoiling the flow to bother tracking during a mission with a six figure payday) that convinced me to just deduct percentages to cover “expenses” and move on.

A thank you for sharing. As the gamemaster I usually let the characters work with the ships captain on how shares are or are not tolerated. The captain in general decides a lot, usually with an attempt to solicit agreement from the masses, but who pays what and all that minutia I do not get involved unless I think their math is wrong.

 

[spank]

I very much doubt it, the PC business plan says they will carry freight, they actually engage in speculation, the mortgage company gets their monthly wedge of cash, that is all they are interested in the actual details once the loan is granted.

At this level the loan likely includes several covenants, Such as "The borrow will maintain a cargo space utilization rate of 85%", "The Borrow will maintain an available cash balance of a minimum of 500,000 Credits", "The Borrow will not operate at worlds below a population level of 5", or "The Borrow will not cross the Great Rift". Each of these would parallel real world loan covenants and it would be entirely reasonable for the bank to expect the ship to be paid each month for 85% of it's freight capacity (or more) in order to ensure positive cash flow.

Of course it would be a poor player who couldn't find a solution to that problem, it would be a small matter to have a friend "ship" the speculative goods.

We are not talking about the ship ownership, we are talking about the speculative trade goods purchase. Even if only one PC is responsible for the mortgage payments the whole crew that contributes to the speculation get a cut of the profits. The ship "mortgage holder" may ask for the freight price, if so the crew can say fair enough and not let the mortgage holder join them in the speculation. If the mortgage holder wants to divide the mortgage up between the crew then it becomes a different dynamic.

If the players expect the mortgage holder to pay a share of the speculative goods, then pay the ship's overhead, and only take a single share they are very deluded. He has every right in that situation to either charge the going rate for freight, or expect an extra share. They certainly wouldn't expect to find and NPC that would speculate with them and ship the goods for mere a single share of the profits.

And if the crew expects to be able to cut the mortgage holder out of the speculation, then they will likely find themselves hiring space on an NPC's ship.

Of course in the end it works better if everyone has an equal share of the mortgage and the speculation. Atleast at first, But eventually you still have to balance how you handle profits, cashing out, and players who don't cash out. For example if 3 out of 4 players wants to buy some battledress and the 4th wants to re-invest. At that point what happens? Do all the other Players have to cash out the same amount? In that case one player has extra cash sitting around, do you tell him he can't re-invest? Is he limited to only investing cash still in the pool? Can he take the 200,000 Cr he didn't spend on Battledress and start his own speculation? Does he have to pay the other 3 players to ship his speculative cargo?

 

[kilemall]

I always understood that part of the subsidized deal was doing a dedicated route of service.

That can make speculation painful depending on jump pairs and the general planets themselves. Presumably part of the routes are through some real backwater worlds hence the motivation for subsidizing service.

Another take I have is megacorps subsidy. This is where a megacorps subsidizes a major line to get something like j-3/j-4 service on a dedicated route to ensure their products get rapid service.

 

[Spinward Flow]

For example if 3 out of 4 players wants to buy some battledress and the 4th wants to re-invest. At that point what happens?

Payday (or thereafter) ... when shares of profits have been distributed/disbursed.

I always understood that part of the subsidized deal was doing a dedicated route of service.

That can make speculation painful depending on jump pairs and the general planets themselves. Presumably part of the routes are through some real backwater worlds hence the motivation for subsidizing service.

Depends on the "shape" of the subsidy group of star systems.
I've made this point before (in other threads) but I think it bears repeating here.

When you're dealing with a subsidy, there is a group of 2-12 star systems/mainworlds that are "in" the subsidy grouping. A starship is obliged (by contract) to spend 70% of each year operating within that subsidy group of star systems. You CAN LEAVE that grouping with your starship, but you need to COME BACK to fulfill your annual obligations (under contract). So "off route excursions" (including vacations!) ARE ALLOWED, but you do need to "return to your subsidized territory" each year. Additionally, each star system in the subsidy group needs to be visited at least once per year.

Within that subsidized grouping of systems, there is no "demand" that a starship "ride these rails" (and no others) in order to meet their contractual obligations. This is where the "shape" of the subsidy group comes into play.

If the subsidy "in group" of star systems is a "big ring" then you're basically going to be "going around the ring" and your routing is largely pre-determined by the shape of that "big ring" ... because you need to visit each star system at least once per year.

If the subsidy "in group" of star systems is a "long string" then you're basically going to be going "end of the line to end of the line" at least once per year in order to reach all of the star systems.

But if your subsidy "in group" is a close cluster of star systems, you can essentially "tramp" your way around within that cluster of star systems WITHOUT any sort of pre-planned routing ... so long as you go to each of the star systems in the subsidy "in group" at least once per year.



Point being that when there's a tight cluster of star systems with a variety of trade codes to make speculative goods arbitrage that much easier/profitable to engage in, you only need those star systems to be in your subsidy group and you can "tramp trade" between them without needing any pre-planned route to follow like a railroad.



There are going to be groups of trade codes that will require more than a single jump in order to "marry up the markets" between them ... and it's in these contexts where having a pre-planned route between worlds more than a single jump apart starts to pay dividends (and engender competition to corner those markets).

 

[kilemall]

Payday (or thereafter) ... when shares of profits have been distributed/disbursed.

Depends on the "shape" of the subsidy group of star systems.
I've made this point before (in other threads) but I think it bears repeating here.

When you're dealing with a subsidy, there is a group of 2-12 star systems/mainworlds that are "in" the subsidy grouping. A starship is obliged (by contract) to spend 70% of each year operating within that subsidy group of star systems. You CAN LEAVE that grouping with your starship, but you need to COME BACK to fulfill your annual obligations (under contract). So "off route excursions" (including vacations!) ARE ALLOWED, but you do need to "return to your subsidized territory" each year. Additionally, each star system in the subsidy group needs to be visited at least once per year.

Within that subsidized grouping of systems, there is no "demand" that a starship "ride these rails" (and no others) in order to meet their contractual obligations. This is where the "shape" of the subsidy group comes into play.

If the subsidy "in group" of star systems is a "big ring" then you're basically going to be "going around the ring" and your routing is largely pre-determined by the shape of that "big ring" ... because you need to visit each star system at least once per year.

If the subsidy "in group" of star systems is a "long string" then you're basically going to be going "end of the line to end of the line" at least once per year in order to reach all of the star systems.

But if your subsidy "in group" is a close cluster of star systems, you can essentially "tramp" your way around within that cluster of star systems WITHOUT any sort of pre-planned routing ... so long as you go to each of the star systems in the subsidy "in group" at least once per year.



Point being that when there's a tight cluster of star systems with a variety of trade codes to make speculative goods arbitrage that much easier/profitable to engage in, you only need those star systems to be in your subsidy group and you can "tramp trade" between them without needing any pre-planned route to follow like a railroad.



There are going to be groups of trade codes that will require more than a single jump in order to "marry up the markets" between them ... and it's in these contexts where having a pre-planned route between worlds more than a single jump apart starts to pay dividends (and engender competition to corner those markets).

Reasonable interpretation just as long as it’s understood the 70% figure and loose required service levels are not RAW. The rule says specific route which does suggest rails, but the maintenance period plus transit to/from a qualifying starport suggests at least some leeway.

Since the entity is making the payments, they can pull up the operating merchant by the short hairs if service is not being performed.

That’s all up to the interpretation of the ref and could readily be different deals within the same universe and polity/market.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Reasonable interpretation just as long as it’s understood the 70% figure and loose required service levels are not RAW. The rule says specific route which does suggest rails, but the maintenance period plus transit to/from a qualifying starport suggests at least some leeway.

LBB2.81, p7:

LBB S7, p19:

LBB S7, p22:

as long as it’s understood the 70% figure and loose required service levels are not RAW.

LBB S7 says otherwise.
See above if you don't believe me.

The rule says specific route which does suggest rails

The rule says the route will generally (emphasis added) be assigned and determined before the subsidy is granted. Obviously this is to create pressure for a "business model use case" of the subsidized craft which can be evaluated (by the subsidizing government) in an approvals process. This is meant to be a "show your work before we buy" type of exercise which can prove that the venture can be economically viable. Remarkably few people (let alone governments) are eager to finance unprofitable investments.

Again, it depends on the "shape" of the collection of subsidy "in group" of star systems.
With a long string (or ring) of star systems, you're probably "riding rails" in terms of subsidy routing.
If you've got a "cluster" of star systems all nearby to each other (all within 1-2 parsecs of each other?) then a pre-planned "ride the rails" route structure can become an impediment, so a different business plan model of "tramping around WITHIN the subsidy in-group" makes more sense.

So while assigned/pre-planned "ride the rails" fixed routes are generally going to happen in a lot of cases, that isn't the EXCLUSIVE AND ONLY way that subsidy arrangements can be set up. There are other options ... you just need to make a compelling enough business model case to the subsidizing government officials to get your plan approved.

That’s all up to the interpretation of the ref and could readily be different deals within the same universe and polity/market.

Exactly.

 

[mike wightman]

I can't see any of your links, for some reason they are blocked in the UK.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I can't see any of your links, for some reason they are blocked in the UK.

LBB2.81, p7:
https://i.imgur.com/K0efBRR.png

LBB S7, p19:
https://i.imgur.com/nxmdtCy.png

LBB S7, p22:
https://i.imgur.com/1xR5pKz.png

If the UK is blocking imgur ... that's the fault point.