Jump 1 vs Jump 2 ships in the CT Imperium

[Hal]

They may have considered it, but they didn't provide rules for it:

"The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number), and roll for each such world on the cargo table. [...] After a starship has accepted cargo for a specific destination, passengers will present themselves for transport to that destination." [The Traveller Book, p. 53]

As the Beowulf is a jump-1 ship, the referee doesn't even roll for cargo to Forboldn. If he did (for a Far Trader), passengers wouldn't appear for Forboldn if you are going to Hefry.

The rules don't even allow for the possibility of checking if any of the passengers you're carrying wants to stay on for the next jump. Whether you arrive at Whanga with every stateroom and low berth full or every one of them empty, you still make the same roll for passengers from Whanga.

Note: I'm not saying that this is reasonable; I'm saying that's what the rules say.


Hans

Hans - clearly you read the wording one way and cling to a given belief while others look at the SAME wording and see it differently.

I'm not worried about the fact that you see it one way and others see it another. What worries me is the fact that you make the assertions that you do, and others who read it will say "Well, if Hans says that is so, then it must be TRUE!". What follows is written not for your sake, but for the readers who read what you write and assume you know of what you speak. It is one thing to say "well, I can see how you can read what you understand to be true from what was quoted, but I can see a different meaning." Instead, you say flat outright that the meaning you derived from what was read is the ONLY true explanation. There is a difference.

What I'm about to do is use simple logic and some math plus a little bit of creative writing to prove a point. A reader who reads your assertion that the rules ARE as you say, will see this and realize "Hmm, maybe what Hans says isn't true.".

Count the number of characters, including spaces, contained in the quote "(Depending on jump number)". I'll spare you the effort. There are 26 characters. Now, count how many characters exist within the phrase "within one jump". There are 15 characters. Marc Miller could just as easily have used those 15 characters in his original writing to put across the idea you state is the correct interpretation. The 15 characters EXPRESSLY state that the revenue generation table is for use for only those destinations within one jump while the 26 characters do not (in the opinions of at least a few individuals). But wait, there's more. Using YOUR Logic, the table for revenue generation is for one jump only. Ok, lets use that logic and see where it gets us. Is it possible for a jump-1 ship to take on passengers for a world that is three parsecs distant? The answer is no. Ok, so now you have a NEW problem. Count the number of characters in the following quotation:

"Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. A jump-3 starship charges the same price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets)."

I count 358 characters Hans. Why would Marc Miller, or the editors at GDW include 358 characters worth of writing for a situation that can not ever exist? Put simply, because the situation can not exist, those words would never have been written. A good editor would have read those words, realized that the situation they were meant to clarify could never arise, and therefore sent back the manuscript back to the author for the express purpose of a rewrite. My english teacher in high school would have circled the offending passage in red and wrote over it "Why did you write this?".

That they were written either implies that the initial assumption you made is incorrect, or it implies that not only did Marc Miller write the initial portion of those rules badly, but that the editor missed it and let it through. You're also implying that later subsequent printings of the book afterwards - which suffered SOME minor changes from the original, were never corrected on the assumption that those 358 characters should never have been included and that a 26 character phrase could have been better served with a 15 character phrase. This would have made your "assumption" more iron-clad, and thereby, incontestable.

Either way Hans, after this, I won't argue the point with you. Why? Because I've seen you make those assertions over and over in the past and I don't think you can change your opinion on that issue. People have pointed out - not just myself, but others, that your interpretation reads into those brief words, a meaning that is not there. I've taken the time to outline the logic behind what you're saying versus the logic behind what was actually written and explaining WHY your reading of the rules goes against what was written. Hopefully, any other person who reads this will realize why we disagree with what you state is "iron clad and the RULES" and be able to say "Ok, now I understand why there is a disagreement". The reader may choose to go with your opinion - and I have no problem with that.

Last but not least.

Following situation:
You have five worlds A, B, C, D, & E such that the distances are:

A to B: 1 parsec
B to C: 1 parsec
C to D: 1 parsec
D to E: 1 parsec

Can a jump-1 ship start off from planet A and reach planet E? The answer is clearly yes. Does this mean that it satisfies the condition "The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number)" in that the world is accessible? Most definitely.

Are there circumstances where a jump-1 ship can NOT meet the "accessible" condition by virtue of its jump number? Yes. Witness:

Five worlds A, B, C, D, and E such that the distances are:
A to B: 1 parsec
B to C: 1 parsec
C to D: 2 parsecs
D to E: 1 parsec

Is World E accessible to the Jump-1 ship currently at world A (without using fuel bladders)? The answer is no. Why? Because the jump-1 ship can not make it from C to D, as that requires a jump-2 number.

 

[daryen]

Hal,

The reason for Hans' interpretation is because we have two large, specific examples of starship operations. One in Adventure 13 for a Type M liner, and one in The Traveller Adventure for a Type R Trader. In both examples, all the descriptions and examples are purely based on single trips (i.e. jumps). The idea that you might board a multi-jump cargo is never hinted at, much less discussed.

Added to that, is that the only possible counter-point is a single rumor in Adventure 3 that involves transporting a special cargo on a two jump trip. Note that this cargo is an adventure specific, non-standard cargo that was not generated by the trade rules.

So, given the rules and the major examples we have, it is completely reasonable to assume that the trade rules only deal with trade one jump at a time. I believe Hans' position is much better supported than yours (and those with the same interpretation).

Important Disclaimer: I am only talking about what the CT trade rules (and their supporting examples) say. Do whatever you want (I certainly do). Also, this is only for freight cargo, NOT for speculation. Speculation is completely different.

Now, getting back to that supposed counter-example in Adventure 3, I just realized something. The only time the idea of cargos and destinations that are more than one jump away is in the rumors or special events of adventures. Why would this be? Because they are the *exceptions*. Because they get the players to think about a destination more than one jump away. And why would we need exceptions to get players to think more than one jump away? Because the trade rules only deal with the next jump.

Please know that I understand why you and others keep trying to read so much into the trade rules: because they make no sense. But that doesn't mean contorted and extended interpretations of the rules are what was intended. Also know that I heartily encourage people to extend the rules so they can make at least a modicrum of sense. I just ask that such extensions not be portrayed as what the rules originally intended. They don't.

Edit: Oh, and (sorry to any that this may offend) you are giving *way* too much credit to the editors at GDW. The editors were asleep at the wheel more than once, and none was handled all that well. Besides which, of the few editors I know, none would ever worry about counting characters. They will occasionally count *words*, but not letters. So all of that argument is rather specious at best, more likely just irrelevant.

Now, as for the last part where you are just reading the words and interpreting, that is a decent argument. However, I think the major examples (as noted multiple times) show that is not what was intended.

 

[pendragonman]

Hal,

The reason for Hans' interpretation is because we have two large, specific examples of starship operations. One in Adventure 13 for a Type M liner, and one in The Traveller Adventure for a Type R Trader. In both examples, all the descriptions and examples are purely based on single trips (i.e. jumps). The idea that you might board a multi-jump cargo is never hinted at, much less discussed.

I was unaware that examples(not rules) used in an adventure and not supported even in following supplemental rule books were supposed to imply a rule.

That surely cannot be so, as examples in an Adventure are used as literary devices to explain how things go in the context of that Adventure.
The support of my position on this is many and varied. If you need one, you can find one without my help.

Therefore I am sure that Daryen's position must be mistaken.

 

[Hal]

Now it is you that needs to answer where this is truly a logical arrangement. Do you know of any situation other than a black and white, rules lawyer's interpretation of something not produced in the LBB where the above would be the case?

We were discussing what was the possibilities under the LBB, not the Traveller Book. Yes they are supposed to be the same thing but they are clearly not if your above quote is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it is not). Therefore you are taking support from oranges, when we are arguing about apples. Or more precisely, you are taking your support from Granny Smith apples when we are talking about Red Delicious.

Hi Pendroagonman

What is in the Traveller Book in this instance matches what is in the little black book 2 Starships. When Hans quoted what he did, he was quoting the beginning of the section under the heading of REVENUE which has three subsections listed:

Cargo:
Passengers:
Mail & Incidentals:

He quotes the first full sentence plus half of the next sentence initially, and then skips to the pertinent part that is the first senentece under Passengers. The problem is - and I know that it can be especially likely to happen in English for native speakers, let alone for non-native speakers, where a given phrase can have more than one meaning. English is one language where the context of the preceding and subsequent words help define the actual meaning/intent of the phrase where it might have more than one intepretation.

Personally? I don't have an issue with someone saying "Well, I choose to believe that the rules support the interpretation of "for one jump only". No one stands behind any game master with an electric cattle prod or a taser in case a GM runs his Traveller campaign in a manner not intended by the Author(s). However, to make the assertion that this is the ONLY true interpretation despite the fact that others have stated that the words themselves and the context of the paragraphs do not support this is breathtaking. Marc used the word accessible in his writing of the rules for the revenue production portion of the game. If you read the definition of the word it states (courtesy of Dictionary.com and American Heritage Dictionary):

ac·ces·si·ble
adj.
Easily approached or entered.
Easily obtained: accessible money.
Easy to talk to or get along with: an accessible manager.
Easily swayed or influenced: accessible to flattery.

In this case, we have four possible ways the adjective could be utilized, which means you NEED the context to determine what precisely it means. Contextually speaking, Part A is what is quoted in from Cargos, part B is quoted from Passengers, and contextually speaking, accessible means being able to be approached or entered. Can a jump-1 starship enter a hex that is 5 parsecs away? In a single jump, no. In five consecutive jumps providing there is enough fuel available? Yes. Is there a condition that mandates a single jump in the rules as written? No. Is there a condition that says "depending on jump number"? Yes. That phrase however, does not specify a single jump - it merely qualifies that accessibility issues, depend upon jump number.

All things considering? Arguing the point becomes an issue of "no you can't" versus "yes I can" with neither side conceding the point in favor of the other. I'm not going to lose sleep over it

As far as I can determine, if you agree that the revenue productions rules do not require a "per jump" interpretation, then my original point and reason for starting this thread stands:

Jump-1 ships, are the most economically viable ship overall. If the ship is purchased with a Jump-2 engine or higher, the bank payments for the ship will kill it because the revenue producing volume of the ship is not sufficiently large enough to make those higher bank payments inherent with higher priced jump-2 ships or jump-3 ships etc. If you presume that one buys ships "cash on the barrel" (ie without bank mortgage help), the rate of return on such ships using the original Traveller "per jump" income rules, will give a rate of return of about 1 to 2%. If an invester can make more money (ie have a higher return rate on his investment) by investing in something planetside (such as a factory for example), then the competition for investment funds will make such "investments" unlikely. Note that I'm saying "unlikely" as opposed to impossible.

As best as I can tell based on the CT rules? Jump-2+ ships are the domain of those agencies that either engage in speculative trading, or are the domain of subsidized shipping - which requires that the government step in and keep the vessel finanicially stable. All other higher jump ships require that the agencies who own such vessels either make a living solely on speculative cargo trade, or they must be such that their owners is not concerned with making a economic living by means of that asset, but finds value by some other means. For example, a Jump-6 freighter's best asset is that it has SPEED instead of cargo capacity. Why would a freight line create a hull with jump-4 capabilities, and then create an identical looking hull for jump-6 with the intent to hide the fact the other has jump-6?

Those who reject the "accessible" aspect of the CT rules as well as the per jump income rules of Traveller - both foundational aspects of the rules, will discover that their "logical outcomes" of the Imperium will differ greatly from that of the original premise. I don't have an issue with that myself. Frankly, there SHOULD be a per parsec aspect of payment instead of a per jump payment. If trade is the lifeblood of the Third Imperium, and one world that is highly industrialized supplies technincal goods for other non-industrial worlds, then somehow, someone has to be shipping FREIGHT from the industrial world to the non-industrial worlds (and vice versa). That means for it to be stable and long lasting, it has to be commercially viable.

Now - why bother starting a thread about "unrealistic" underlying rules from CT despite what I stated above? To point out that piracy was possible under the original rules, and that anyone who argues the point from the "revised" viewpoint needs to take that into consideration.

Point of Note: At one point in time, I started working on creating a webpage dedicated towards running a play over the internet game of Pirates and Navy. Too many people discuss/debate piracy in the abstract and never get anywhere. Before I gave up in disgust after dealing with a few notables, I was working on a way to use vector movement ONLY, where each planet rotates around the primary star in a given fashion, and each location of any given object, be it a ship, an asteroid cluster, a space sensor platform, or what have you, could be recorded and kept track of using our all too capable desktop computers. Want to know where the stumbling blocks were?

A) sensor rules.
B) Jump navigation rules.
C) Trade volume rules.
D) Naval asset availability rules.
E) Jump shadow liabilities and jump precipitation issues.

If I ever decide to resume my research into Polar coordinates as a means of keeping track of objects within a star system and run such a game, you can be sure that I will tell the participants "Stuff a sock into your mouth regarding the objections you may have on GM game design decisions made. This is the set of parameters you are operating under. Either accept it or be booted from the game."

The goal?

Create the actual parameters of a star system where all known facts are presented up front. Let the pirate "team" only know those things they can discover on their own and let them do as they decide they will do. Let the "Navy" team know only what they can know, and let them do as they decide to do. If a pirate can either manufacture the circumstances by which they will attempt an act of piracy, then they will have to deal with the situation as it unfolds - as will the navy player.

The scenario? A desert world, with laws against wilderness refueling from the world's water stocks, can only permit gas giant refueling. Its tech base is that of the 1940's or so, with imports from outlying worlds to take up the slack. Thus, most grav vehicles are preferred because they don't require a large energy production infrastructure or road building infrastructure. Unfortunately, such imports also require a maintenance infrastructure that costs double of what it would otherwise. In this, you have a class E starport. Some enterprising individual thought "Gee, if I can transport some vessels from Lunion to Ianic, whose only purpose is to gather fuel from the local gas giant, transport the fuel to the main world as well as refine the fuel during transit - can I make an economic nich for myself?"

In short? It was a carefully constructed scenario where the pirate(s) would see what the playing field was like, and be able to make their plans. The Navy on the other hand, would need to protect the assets and deal with unforseen circumstances. It would have given BOTH the pro and anti piracy proponents some real experience in determining what is involved in suppressing piracy as well as what is involved with initiating it and perhaps SURVIVING it.

Maybe someday.

Edit:
Clarification: Initially this post was in response to pendragonman in the sense that he wrote about whether or not Hans use of a quote from THE TRAVELLER BOOK constitutes a relevant qoute or not. I then answered it as far as his comment was concerned. However, I continued on addressing issues raised by HANS and company. It seemed that I was confusing pendragonman with the others, when in fact, I was unclear that it was not to him I directed the remainder of the post. My apologies.

 

[Hal]

Hal,

The reason for Hans' interpretation is because we have two large, specific examples of starship operations. One in Adventure 13 for a Type M liner, and one in The Traveller Adventure for a Type R Trader. In both examples, all the descriptions and examples are purely based on single trips (i.e. jumps). The idea that you might board a multi-jump cargo is never hinted at, much less discussed.

I see. The cat may look at the king, but the king may not look at the cat?

I know that seems cryptic, so lets look at an actual EXAMPLE that will make my quote above less cryptic.

Situation: Gm is running a campaign where you have two player characters captaining two separate ships. Assuming that a Jump-4 ship is viable, lets say that we have a Jump-4 ship for one player, and a jump 1 ship for the other player. Both are on the same world at the same time, and both want to find passengers for their ships. The world's "astrography" is such that you have the following:

2 worlds within jump-4
3 worlds within jump-3
8 worlds within jump-2
2 worlds within jump-1

The GM rolls up all of the potential revenue that can be made via passenger service and via freight service. Both captains forego the fun of searching for speculative cargo.

Now, the GM has determined that one world 3 parsecs away, is accessible to the Jump-1 ship by means of 3 consecutive jumps through inhabited star systems with fuel available.

Having generated the results for 15 worlds for the Jump-4 captain, how is the GM supposed to justify that the Jump-1 captain can not find the same passengers/freight lots that the Jump-4 captain has available. How is the GM supposed to justify that although the Jump-1 ship CAN in fact make it to the world 3 parsecs away, can't post that his jump destination will be the world three parsecs away, and that three tickets are required to reach it, and that cargo lots will have to pay for three jumps transit?

Note that this situation is PRECISELY the same situation as envisioned in the original rules, and matches precisely the same results - but ONLY if the captain of the Jump-1 ship can take on those passengers destined for the world three parsecs away. By the rule of the "per jump only" - such captain can't even TOUCH those passengers.

Hence the saying I started with. The cat can look at the king is the Jump-4 ship. The King may not look at the cat is the jump-1 ship. Either the passengers and freight are there, or they are not. Your way requires at that moment, that BOTH be true.

 

[pendragonman]

Ahh, I see. Hans was snipping phrases out of context to support his argument. No wonder I couldn't find that wording anywhere. I was looking for the whole para he outlined.

Perhaps we should start using citations so that we will all know where each phrase used in defense comes from?

 

[robject]

Now, getting back to that supposed counter-example in Adventure 3, I just realized something. The only time the idea of cargos and destinations that are more than one jump away is in the rumors or special events of adventures. Why would this be? Because they are the *exceptions*. Because they get the players to think about a destination more than one jump away. And why would we need exceptions to get players to think more than one jump away? Because the trade rules only deal with the next jump.

I think there's waaay too much analysis going on here. I see no problem allowing flight manifests to affect the cargo and passengers one takes on. At the same time, I've never run the rules that way. I don't think we can argue from the text, because the ambiguity in the text is what caused the argument in the first place.

Edit: Oh, and (sorry to any that this may offend) you are giving *way* too much credit to the editors at GDW.

Daryen is right on the money here. Anything that looks ambiguous in the rules is probably due to ambiguity in the mind of the company. Or sloppiness. But probably ambiguity.

 

[daryen]

Situation: Gm is running a campaign where you have two player characters captaining two separate ships. Assuming that a Jump-4 ship is viable, lets say that we have a Jump-4 ship for one player, and a jump 1 ship for the other player. Both are on the same world at the same time, and both want to find passengers for their ships. The world's "astrography" is such that you have the following:

2 worlds within jump-4
3 worlds within jump-3
8 worlds within jump-2
2 worlds within jump-1

The GM rolls up all of the potential revenue that can be made via passenger service and via freight service. Both captains forego the fun of searching for speculative cargo.

OK, I am going to skip the cryptic quote and the rest of the example, as this is all I need.

First, despite your incredulity, yes, I am saying the captain of the J1 ship has to destinations to chose from, while the J3 captain has 13 possible destinations to choose from. Such are the limitations of J1 vessels. Don't like it? Get a better ship.

Second, your umbrage at Hans' assertions is kind of silly considering that you are doing the exact same thing from your point of the argument. But, hey, such is the nature of these arguments, eh?

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. When we get done figuring out which cargo(s) we want, the passenger section starts, "[a]fter a starship has accepted cargo for a specific destination, passengers will present themselves for transport to that destination.

So, note that while we roll up cargos for all possible destination worlds, we only roll passengers for the specific world we are going to. Notice that we don't roll up available cargos and available passengers, then choose the best combination. No, we select the cargo first, and only then do we figure out which passengers are available.

Also note the implicit assumption that we are picking a single destination. It doesn't say that for each destination we have cargo for, but rather it says, "[a]fter a starship has accepted cargo for a specific destination." And we only roll for passengers to that destination. It says nothing about any intermediary stops, because the system assumes there *are* no intermediary stops.

Now, just for fun, let's assume you are right. Let's assume you can pick any destination that can (eventually) be reached with your jump number. You are assuming that all ships will only travel in a straight line. What about circles?

In a simple case, let's take three worlds, A, B, and C, that form a triangle. We are already going to roll for both worlds anyway. Assuming we can take cargo for multiple destinations, why can't we take cargo for *both* worlds? In that case, who are we going to screw? Let's say C. That means we get to charge double rates for what is effectively a J1 trip just because we are going somewhere else first. That's a pretty good trick! And, based on your interpretation of the rules, that is completely feasible and reasonable.

Also, let's try a different case. Let's assume we have a J1 and J2 ship, and there are three worlds in a line: D, E, and F (so we know they aren't the three worlds above). Both are on D. Assuming we are able to cover multiple jumps, the J2 captain just has to accept cargo for F, but make sure his "published" itinerary shows he is going from D to E, then to F. Now he can charge for two jumps, just as the J1 captain can. When he leaves, he modifies his itinerary to just go straight to F and he still gets his doubled money because he has already been paid.

Why aren't these "cheats" and "hacks" covered in the rules if they are written to mean what you want them to mean? The reason is because they don't work like you claim they do.

The Traveller trade rules, as presented in Book 2 and TTB, assume that you are only getting cargo for your next jump. The hacks I mention above aren't dealt with because they can't happen. You figure out the cargos available for the next jump, choose one, toss in some passengers, and go. It really is that simple.

 

[daryen]

I was unaware that examples(not rules) used in an adventure and not supported even in following supplemental rule books were supposed to imply a rule.

That surely cannot be so, as examples in an Adventure are used as literary devices to explain how things go in the context of that Adventure.

Uh, actually, yes, those are actual rules. In both of those examples I mention, they are descriptions of how those ships work at all, not just in the context of the adventures.

That is why the ship operations of the Types R and M, the character generation rules for Shriekers, the world descriptions and interpretations, and the weapons introduced in the various adventures are *rules* that are being added to the game, not just simple features for that specific adventure.

Shriekers always work that way, sonic guns always work that way, and Type R Fat Traders always work that way, whether in the adventure or not.

And it is kinda funny that you accuse Hans' of making quotes out of context (which he isn't) when you are just picking and choosing what sources you want to use. The Adventures, in addition to the Supplements and Rules and whatnot, are all part of the Traveller canon.

 

[far-trader]

Quick Ship Design System. A set of tables based on the complicated T4 ship design system (a descendant of Fire, Fusion, & Steel created up by fans that were as easy to use as High Guard.


Hans

No, that was supposedly as easy as HG. It wasn't as easy. At least according to my players.

All I can say is that I found it not only as easy as HG but very much like HG.


Hans

I have to agree with Hans, I found it as easy as HG. Easier actually. Are you sure you had the latest version when you used it? QSDS 1.5 iirc. There might have been some additions, I kind of remember the earliest versions being a little buggy but so much better than T4 that they were a godsend.

I disagree with Hans about the carried craft requirements being wrong though They finally got real about the required volumes. Unless you agree that (as I've long suspected) B2/HG is actually about design mass and not volume

 

[far-trader]

..."Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. A jump-3 starship charges the same price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets)."

...Why would Marc Miller, or the editors at GDW include 358 characters worth of writing for a situation that can not ever exist?

My simple explanation for the inclusion of the extra verbiage is because while the PCs won't find passengers or cargo doing that from the rolls on the tables, the ref may want to do it for a special case or more likely the PCs themselves may decide to do it on some NPC ship.

No great hidden meaning to read between the lines and count words to see the designer meant something else. To use your "logic" why, if passengers and cargo are meant to go multi-parsec on one ship did the designers simply not say that? Wouldn't that have used less words? Doesn't the fact they didn't mean that's not what they meant?

 

[far-trader]

Situation: Gm is running a campaign where you have two player characters captaining two separate ships. Assuming that a Jump-4 ship is viable, lets say that we have a Jump-4 ship for one player, and a jump 1 ship for the other player. Both are on the same world at the same time, and both want to find passengers for their ships. The world's "astrography" is such that you have the following:

2 worlds within jump-4
3 worlds within jump-3
8 worlds within jump-2
2 worlds within jump-1

The GM rolls up all of the potential revenue that can be made via passenger service and via freight service. Both captains forego the fun of searching for speculative cargo.

Now, the GM has determined that one world 3 parsecs away, is accessible to the Jump-1 ship by means of 3 consecutive jumps through inhabited star systems with fuel available.

Having generated the results for 15 worlds for the Jump-4 captain, how is the GM supposed to justify that the Jump-1 captain can not find the same passengers/freight lots that the Jump-4 captain has available. How is the GM supposed to justify that although the Jump-1 ship CAN in fact make it to the world 3 parsecs away, can't post that his jump destination will be the world three parsecs away, and that three tickets are required to reach it, and that cargo lots will have to pay for three jumps transit?

Note that this situation is PRECISELY the same situation as envisioned in the original rules, and matches precisely the same results - but ONLY if the captain of the Jump-1 ship can take on those passengers destined for the world three parsecs away. By the rule of the "per jump only" - such captain can't even TOUCH those passengers.

Hence the saying I started with. The cat can look at the king is the Jump-4 ship. The King may not look at the cat is the jump-1 ship. Either the passengers and freight are there, or they are not. Your way requires at that moment, that BOTH be true.

o:

What ref (and remember this is before we all had computers and programs for the drudgery) is going to roll umpteen different cargo/pax sets for all the accessible worlds under your interpretation of accessible?

Let's see, we're playing in the Spinward Marches and the PCs have a bog standard type A Free-Trader and they're on Efate. Gee, I have to roll for over 150 worlds in the Spinward Marches! That's the famous Spinward Main you may have heard of. As the French would say Eff Off! Hell I wouldn't even do it with a computer program.

The intent of the rule is clear. You are to roll from among all the accessible worlds within range of a single jump of the ship, not all the possible worlds a ship might be able to reach. That would get truly ridiculous with J2. What few worlds would be inaccessible is the much smaller set. I'm not going to roll the cargo and pax destined for Terra from Regina. THERE ISN'T ANY!

I go even further and insist that before cargo or pax will begin presenting for transport that the ship has to declare it's destination and departure time. That seems far more logical and reasonable than what your side is proposing.

And you can bet that if some Free-Trader Captain said we're going to location X (two jumps away) and someone shows up only to find that "oh we'll be stopping at location B (one jump away) on the way for a week so the charge is double for you and it's going to take longer... well, that person is not going to be doing business with that Captain.

 

[Zowy]

I can't believe all the circular reasoning being used in this thread. :rofl:

 

[Hal]

o:

What ref (and remember this is before we all had computers and programs for the drudgery) is going to roll umpteen different cargo/pax sets for all the accessible worlds under your interpretation of accessible?

Dude!

All that has to be done is for the player to say "Hey, I want to go from Efate to Regina. I'm interested ONLY in those passengers/lots available there. I just picked up speculative cargo that will only sell well on Regina, so I may as well head out that way. Whatcha got?

There is no need to roll for all 15 worlds!

 

[Hal]

o:

And you can bet that if some Free-Trader Captain said we're going to location X (two jumps away) and someone shows up only to find that "oh we'll be stopping at location B (one jump away) on the way for a week so the charge is double for you and it's going to take longer... well, that person is not going to be doing business with that Captain.

Each time you book passage, you are in effect offering a contract to do as you specify. Taking tickets for paying passengers, and then going somewhere else is NOT part of the agreed upon contract. Something like that would be breach of contract and punishable. However, there are no "RULES" within the game that specify that...

 

[far-trader]

Dude!

All that has to be done is for the player to say "Hey, I want to go from Efate to Regina. I'm interested ONLY in those passengers/lots available there. I just picked up speculative cargo that will only sell well on Regina, so I may as well head out that way. Whatcha got?

There is no need to roll for all 15 worlds!

OK, my type A2 Far-Trader is ready to depart from Regina, let's roll cargo and pax for my destination...

...Terra. You would agree it is "accessible" wouldn't you?

Please have your full fare or freight payment when presenting. That'll be about MCr2.0 per high passage and MCr0.2 per ton of freight or low passage. We anticipate the trip will take about 4 years*. No refunds if you or the cargo do not survive the trip due to circumstances beyond my control (like simple death due to natural causes, or a cargo with a limited shelf life).

:smirk:

* of course being we have a full cargo and pax load we don't really need to waste a whole week at each stop, so the actual trip might be much quicker

How many people do you really think will have MCr2.0 and the desire to go all the way to Terra from Regina?

What freight do you see being worth the cost of shipping for MCr0.2 per ton that can't be had for half the expense, twice as quick, from half as far away?

Is it not so much simpler and logical to just accept that the intent is that my destination has to be withing 2 parsecs of Regina?

I'm not saying there wouldn't be some trans-shipments, but they would be a small subset of the full set of the first jump, and smaller yet for the third and succeeding jumps.

 

[daryen]

Dan,

Cool loophole. I didn't think of that one. All I came up with is the lame circle and "lying J2 captain" ones.

But again, the point of the paragraph about passengers and comparing the J3 vs 3 J1 fares is just to provide the contrast for clarity. It wasn't meant as an "enabling rule" to pick any destination out of a hat regardless of the jumps between then.

Oh, and forget Regina to Terra. Just do Efate to Glisten. On your J1 Free Trader. You *can* do it, and you don't even have to leave the sector. So, let's start rolling those cargos. How many is that? And remember, you can't roll for passengers until *after* you have already chosen you cargos!

Sarcasm aside, I will repeat my base premise one more time: Hal et. al. are reading *way* too much into the rules. The rules are there to help the players decide on their next destination. It is a driver of "travelling" and adventure. That's it.

 

[Hal]

OK, my type A2 Far-Trader is ready to depart from Regina, let's roll cargo and pax for my destination...

...Terra. You would agree it is "accessible" wouldn't you?

Smirking is a sign of a "I gotcha" right?

Now - lets imagine us both at the table, and you pull that stunt on me. Assuming you and I are friends and that the smirking is a friendly sort of "Gotcha", don't be surprised when I smile back and give you the following reply...

Ok, did you post that your destination was Terra without consulting with your navigator? No? Good. Here are the maps (assuming that I had been ambitious enough to create a full scalel bunch of sectors between the spinward marches, through the corridor sectors, on down through the bulk of the third Imperium, and then finally, towards Terra). If your jump-1 ship can NOT make the entire journey, then you are going to be stuck when you announce your intent to travel to Terra and you fail to make it there after accepting money. At the least, you will be hit iwth breach of contract. At the worst, with intent to defraud your passengers.

Now, lets say for the sake of argument, that you CAN make the jump to Terra from say, Regina with a jump-1 ship.

As GM, I'd smile and say "Ok, you're contracting to take your passengers AND freight to Terra. By accepting their money, you are bound by the usual conditions and exceptions of getting your passengers and freight to your announced destination in a timely fashion. As fate would have it, the newsies are filled with excitement as word spreads like wildfire, that your ship intends to make a four year one way journey towards Earth. Who all will undertake that journey!

On a world with a population of how many hundred of millions - you don't think you can't find a single passenger who would have both the means and the desire to go to Earth? Lets I roll via the charts and come up with 12 potential high passengers willing to take that trip. Your ship (assuming a beowulf) has room for 6. As GM, I might say "Well, of those 12, two were families of 4, 1 was a married couple, and the rest were single men. Who do you take? Assuming that you want the full 6 staterooms filled, you take the one family of 4, and either the married couple or the two singles. Presto - 6 passengers on a 4 year tour. A Gorgeous Movie star Named Ginger, a Gorgeous drop dead Mary Ann, and a Family of Thirsten Howell the 4 billionth three hundred million, etc etc etc and his wife and two kids. Did I forget that their passage is contingent upon you accepting their 3 dogs and one bloodvark?

Passengers have to buy a ticket for each leg of the journey (ie Jump) so you don't get the entire funds at once. Revenue for the freight your ship manages to accumulate will be paid into an escrow account with two agents sent along in low berth to insure that the conditions have been met before giving you the password for the account - which will be set up in advance via x-boat mail ahead of time via a bank to bank transfer.

Now, as a GM? I have a FULL fledged advenure to run. I know what comes first, and I know what comes next, and I even know that it is possible that midway to Earth, the married couple decides to get a divorce. The family didn't bring enough funds to pay full passage and are thus mercilessly booted off the ship midway to earth. In the meantime, your destination is STILL earth, so on any given world where you lose your passengers slated to go to Earth, you can probably find more just like them.

Now - where did you find the loophole you were smirking over?

All of this presupposes your ship's navigator was able to find that you could make it to Terra because there is an unending line of star systems one parsec after another in a direct chain to Terra from Regina. If you have a jump-2 ship and are running with a "bank mortgage" on your back, then you can be CERTAIN that getting to Terra is going to be a problem - requiring that you make systemic speculative cargo runs throughout your journey. As an added complication? The bank that currently holds your mortgage will sell your morgage to another bank more close to your destination than the Bank of Regina is. They will probably include "agents" for you to contact on your route to Terra, because it IS a bona fide schedule.

More importantly? That schedule will become common knowledge for anyone who pays attention to the news and can do the math themselves in figuring out what route you have to go. If anyone thinks your ship is worth hijacking or pirating - you've just made certain that they can guess where you will be and when.

Oh, almost forgot. Those passengers will have to be told "During our scheduled layover for maintenance, you will be required to find your own accomodations on the planet where the ship is being serviced. Failure to arrive at the ship at your scheduled time will result in forfeiture of your paid funds.

(On that note? That means you always accept their money BEFORE you jump, which means that they have to pay their ticket in advance for ONE jump).

Other than that, I see no problem with the problem you just presented to me

 

[Hal]

Dan,

Cool loophole. I didn't think of that one. All I came up with is the lame circle and "lying J2 captain" ones.

But again, the point of the paragraph about passengers and comparing the J3 vs 3 J1 fares is just to provide the contrast for clarity. It wasn't meant as an "enabling rule" to pick any destination out of a hat regardless of the jumps between then.

Oh, and forget Regina to Terra. Just do Efate to Glisten. On your J1 Free Trader. You *can* do it, and you don't even have to leave the sector. So, let's start rolling those cargos. How many is that? And remember, you can't roll for passengers until *after* you have already chosen you cargos!

Sarcasm aside, I will repeat my base premise one more time: Hal et. al. are reading *way* too much into the rules. The rules are there to help the players decide on their next destination. It is a driver of "travelling" and adventure. That's it.

Interesting comment daryen. What you seem to be ignoring in your excitement of a "Gotcha" is this...

Once your cargo hold is filled with freight with a given destination and a given posted schedule - the captain can not take on any more freight. Each passenger aboard the ship pays on a "per jump" basis, not all one lump sum at once. If they decide to get off at a given world, or perhaps should die unexpectedly or what have you, there are OTHER worlds where you can post your schedule for, and hope some passenger desires passage to your destination.

Not a gotcha moment in the slightest, nor does it require rolling up oodles and oodles of cargoes and/or freight or anything else for that matter. The schedule has been set, now the player characters need to see that they make it happen.

 

[daryen]

[Bunch of stuff deleted]

Other than that, I see no problem with the problem you just presented to me

But now you are making stuff up and leaving the rules behind.

If you take the rules given, and you assume the limit of only selecting destinations that you can make on the next jump, then you can use the rules as written with no modifications.

If, however, you open the door to destinations beyond the next jump, you have lots and lots of open questions that have to be answered outside the rules. (Just like you did in the referenced post.)