Book 2 Trade Questions

[jawillroy]

Hiya, fellas! Been mulling over this stuff again (some thoughts at length over here http://festeria.blogspot.com/) and I was wondering what you guys' take was on this:

I forget the exact phrasing, but when rolling price on the speculative trade tables, I recall that Admin & Bribery skill were applicable to the roll, and could be combined, but only by one person at a time. If your ubermerchant had Bribery-3 and Admin-1, then enjoy your +4 laughing all the way to the bank... but if the Captain had the Bribery 3 and his Steward had Admin-2, well, best let the Cap'n handle the roll. That's straightforward enough.

But if those mods can only be applied by the one character, how does the broker mod figure in? Is it a case where your Admin-2 and Bribery-3 can be augmented by the best Broker's mod of +4, or is it an either-or thing?

It seems to me as though being able to rack up such a high modifier breaks the system, does it not?

 

[far-trader]

My personal take was always only one skill applied. The way it reads though seems to imply you can apply both if it is the same character. There's not much worry in CT about characters having both high Bribery and Admin skills if rolled RAW and not fudged with house rules. I just found it odd to mix them in the same effort. The system is pretty broke anyway if you let it simply run amok

So in MTU your character could:

• Attempt* to bribe (kickback) the dealers with Bribery skill.
• Or attempt* to do all the negotiating acting as their own dealer with Administration skill.
• Or you could hire a local Broker to handle the sale for you.

Only in the case of the Broker would there be no roleplaying and/or skill roll involved. In the case of Bribery it would cost you money if successful (kickback) equal to 5% x skill DM (just like a Broker fee) as well as time (1D6 days) during which you can't do anything else. In the case of Administration it would cost you time (1D6 days) during which you can't do anything else significant and cost you money equal to 5% x skill DM (just like Broker fee) to cover expenses. Unsuccessful skill checks mean no DM or kickback/expenses but you can still do the deal.

Basically it costs the same money however you do it in MTU (for simplicity), only the DIY options permit you to possibly gain a better DM (even above the +4 of the best Brokers) than would be available locally through Brokers at the expense of your time.

Also in MTU the best Broker you can find is generally based on the starport. Broker-4 at Class A, Broker-3 at Class B, Broker-2 at Class C, and Broker-1 at Class D. With no Brokers available at Class E or X.

Brokers need to be tied to a location to be effective imo. And the most skilled gravitate to the busier ports, generally. So no travelling PC Brokers in MTU. Spend enough time (something like months = skill applied) on planet and a PC could be a Broker there though.

 

[jawillroy]

That's a pretty elegant way of handling things: I do like that your method removes the "free lunch" aspects of the Bribery/Admin side of things as written, whether or not one combines the two skills. The starport restriction also makes pretty good sense.

I've also been thinking, though, about how to figure in the increased competition that a merchant's liable to face in the more established starports... either a disadvantageous dm for prices at A or B ports, or possibly a required task to even identify an available cargo in those ports, as long as the merchant remains an outsider.

 

[Whipsnade]

jawillroy,

Dan already covered all the important points, so I'd like to add a few minor ones.

• Although the rules don't explicitly mention it, the use of either skill by the players should depend on their current location. While it's rather obvious that Bribery shouldn't be attempted on certain worlds, it's less obvious that Admin may not "work" on others. The use of either skill shouldn't be automatic.
• If a player wants to use the Bribery modifier, they need to first make a successful Bribery attempt. This needn't be role-played, although that's generally a good idea, but the bribery mechanism shown in the skill's LBB:1 description should be followed along with the consequences of a failed bribery attempt. Again, the use of the skill shouldn't be automatic.
• Don't forget the population modifiers to the die roll on the Trade Goods table.
• Don't forget that A throw may be made once per week on the Trade Goods table. Not a throw per player once a week, not a throw per each ship once per week, not a throw per broker contacted once per week, and not all the other loopholes the players will attempt to torture out of the text, but A single throw once per week.

Although Dan already mentioned it, I'll mention it again because it was one of the first munchkin attempts I squashed as a Traveller GM: NO traveling brokers.

Working as a broker presumes that the individual in question has extensive local contacts and extensive knowledge of local economic activities. As Dan says, "Brokers need to be tied to a location to be effective...".

Also as Dan points out, a PC can become a broker but that will require them to remain in a certain location long enough to gain the contacts and knowledge required. If I were running a campaign where a PC wanted to use their Broker skill, they'd either have to remain on whatever world where that skill was "developed" or "redevelop" the skill in a new location over a period of time through single level stages up to their original skill level.

As folks have been pointing out since 1977, CT's trade system is broken and can be turned into a Santa Claus machine by devious players. It's up to the GM to apply the limits, hurdles, and hazards the rules neglected.


Regards,
Bill

 

[jawillroy]

[*] If a player wants to use the Bribery modifier, they need to first make a successful Bribery attempt. This needn't be role-played, although that's generally a good idea, but the bribery mechanism shown in the skill's LBB:1 description should be followed along with the consequences of a failed bribery attempt. Again, the use of the skill shouldn't be automatic.
Bill

I like this, too: generally, working with actual PCs, I'm inclined to do much more via roleplay and more or less forget the tables, and turn the whole thing into some manner of caper: that bribe might not be a kickback, but it might turn out that the seller needs the party to "do a little favor for him" and he'll give them a special price... There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I don't want my players spending their time doing the Trading Game: I want them adventuring.

 

[Whipsnade]

... I'm inclined to do much more via roleplay and more or less forget the tables, and turn the whole thing into some manner of caper: that bribe might not be a kickback, but it might turn out that the seller needs the party to "do a little favor for him" and he'll give them a special price...

Jawillroy,

That was my M.O. too. However, I realized rather quickly that, if I used the whole Do Favor A for Favor B for Favor C for... schtick to always drop my players in the soup, they would only stand for it so long.

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a cigar has to be just a cigar. Sometimes the players should be able to purchase speculative trade goods by just rolling on the tables and making a few simple choices. Sometimes the players should be able to sell speculative trade goods by just rolling on the tables and making a few simple choices. Every passenger shouldn't be a patron and/or a hijacker, every cargo shouldn't be a problem and/or a hook, and every encounter shouldn't be an event and/or a clue. Some of the time that cigar should just be a cigar.

In another example, I've written often about how I'd often pull out the Mayday map and chits when my players exited jump in a system. I'd have them plot their course to the port, make comm contacts, and perform other chores while I moved other ships on the map. More often than not, nothing happened. No combat, no hijackings, no barraty, no nothing. The players might see something or talk to someone that made sense later, but sometimes that trip to the port was just a trip to the port.


Regards,
Bill

 

[atpollard]

Although Dan already mentioned it, I'll mention it again because it was one of the first munchkin attempts I squashed as a Traveller GM: NO traveling brokers.

Working as a broker presumes that the individual in question has extensive local contacts and extensive knowledge of local economic activities. As Dan says, "Brokers need to be tied to a location to be effective...".

Also as Dan points out, a PC can become a broker but that will require them to remain in a certain location long enough to gain the contacts and knowledge required. If I were running a campaign where a PC wanted to use their Broker skill, they'd either have to remain on whatever world where that skill was "developed" or "redevelop" the skill in a new location over a period of time through single level stages up to their original skill level.

I find that completely invalidating a PC skill is often problematic. Why doesn't the pilot and engineer need to relearn their skill when you attempt to operate a new spacecraft, or relearn the gun skill for a new weapon, or relearn streetwise, etc? If you are effectively negating the Broker skill for a PC, then you owe it to the PC to substitute a different skill during generation.

IMTU, I preferred to allow the broker to acclimate his skill to a new location:
After 1 hour, the broker can function at Broker-0.
After 1 day, the broker can function at up to Broker-1.
After 1 week, the broker can function at up to Broker-2.
After 1 month, the broker can function at up to Broker-3.
After 1 year, the broker can function at Broker-4 and higher.

This forces players to make choices on how long to remain on a world and rewards the group for adventuring in a system for a while (rather than just making it harder for them to make the next mortgage payment).

 

[jawillroy]

Sometimes the players should be able to sell speculative trade goods by just rolling on the tables and making a few simple choices. Every passenger shouldn't be a patron and/or a hijacker, every cargo shouldn't be a problem and/or a hook, and every encounter shouldn't be an event and/or a clue. Some of the time that cigar should just be a cigar.

True, agreed - though my actual face-to-face playing time, in practice, ends up being so few and far between that a session spent with the tables would seem wasted. With a more regular, long-term game, I'd feel differently.

Ideally, I'd be able to trust my players with the trade scutwork: between sessions, I'd be able to say, "right, between tonight and next week, you'll be handling jumps from here to here to here - run the trading game for those steps, unless you run into hostiles; we'll pick it up face to face next week."

 

[Whipsnade]

I find that completely invalidating a PC skill is often problematic.

AT,

I cannot agree with you more strongly. A GM should take care to "involve" every skill that every player-character holds at least part of the time.

As you suggested, I would require the player wanting to use their PC's Broker skill to remain in a certain region and, as you suggested, I'd allow them to "redevelop" that skill over a period of time and through various tasks in a different region.

It's not a matter of invalidating the skill, more a matter preventing any chances for it's misuse in an already broken speculative trade system.

I often tried to "involve" skills in additional ways too, as I'm most of us did. Even before DGP's tasks system arrived and skill use became relatively less fettered, I didn't think skills should be limited to the tables and rolls listed in CT.

With regards to traveling brokers, I did suggest one "loophole" of sorts to my players but they never took up the opportunity. I felt that a subsidized merchant flying a fixed route could make a good case for having a working broker aboard. The PC's skill in that case would reflect their personal knowledge and the many official contacts the subsidy route implies.

My players expressed no interest in a subsidized trader campaign, most likely because they knew I'd strictly enforce the On Route/Off Route time requirements, and I never got the chance to explore my "subsidized broker" ideas.


Regards,
Bill

 

[jawillroy]

My players expressed no interest in a subsidized trader campaign, most likely because they knew I'd strictly enforce the On Route/Off Route time requirements, and I never got the chance to explore my "subsidized broker" ideas.

What a shame! It sounds like a really cool idea to me... particularly because as far as I can see, most Free Traders are liable to be no less constrained to certain clusters of worlds than a subbie. Not by designated route, but by plain sense: the last round of solitaire merchanting I did IMTU didn't involve many more than five or six systems, mainly because I couldn't justify the dual risks of piracy and misjump that came with visiting C-ports. A subsidized route could potentially be a lot more interesting than what I was doing.

 

[Whipsnade]

Ideally, I'd be able to trust my players with the trade scutwork: between sessions, I'd be able to say, "right, between tonight and next week, you'll be handling jumps from here to here to here - run the trading game for those steps, unless you run into hostiles; we'll pick it up face to face next week."

Jawillroy,

I was often able to trust my groups with those sort of chores and, equally importantly, they were able to trust each other with those sort of chores.

This may have been because most were wargamers and wargamers with play-by-mail experience. That meant they were well aware of all the "trust" issues surrounding die rolls one makes in private and reports to someone else. The player who handled the between session "autoplay" would usually show up next week with xeroxed sheets showing their decisions, the die rolls, and the results.

CT doesn't have much in the way of detailed event tables to act as "circuit breakers" for this type of between session play, but Mongoose's many nifty event tables could certainly be used without the need to make any modifications.


Regards,
Bill

 

[hdan]

IMTU, I preferred to allow the broker to acclimate his skill to a new location:
After 1 hour, the broker can function at Broker-0.
After 1 day, the broker can function at up to Broker-1.
After 1 week, the broker can function at up to Broker-2.
After 1 month, the broker can function at up to Broker-3.
After 1 year, the broker can function at Broker-4 and higher.

That's a cool idea and adds lots of flavor to a merchant campaign. IMTU I would probably change that up though (we Trav GMs are a fractious lot!):

A player character who received ANY brokering skill in his most recent term would start off with full brokering privileges on all worlds in the subsector.

Depending on the "geography" of the subsector, this might be restricted or expanded as reasonable. A Merchant working out of the Sword Worlds would have brokering contacts in the whole confederation, but possibly not in Darrian space.

If the player is a travelling broker going to a new world outside of his usual sphere of influence, the player cannot use Broker directly, and should either hire someone or attempt bribery, etc.

Each subsequent successful trade mission (ie, cargo and passengers delivered on time and unharmed) involving the world allows one more level of Broker to come in to play, representing development of the trade route.

For example:
* First time on world, you need to hire a broker or use one of the other DMs available.
* Second time you can start to do your own brokering at Level/1.
* Third successful trip, you get up to Broker/2, etc.

 

[jawillroy]

In the case of Bribery it would cost you money if successful (kickback) equal to 5% x skill DM (just like a Broker fee) as well as time (1D6 days) during which you can't do anything else. In the case of Administration it would cost you time (1D6 days) during which you can't do anything else significant and cost you money equal to 5% x skill DM (just like Broker fee) to cover expenses.

Had a look at LBB7/Merchant Prince to review: Your treatment of bribery - at least as far as kickbacks are concerned - is similar to the LBB7 approach. (They halve the effect of Bribery skill and include a kickback percentage, and they pretty much nerf Admin skill out of the resale roll and into only helping attract middle passage customers, which seems kinda silly to me.)

Unsuccessful skill checks mean no DM or kickback/expenses but you can still do the deal.

On the other hand, speaking as a fellow in sales, there are times when you *can't* do the deal... even if we're talking roll play vs role play, if a failed roll happens, maybe it means you're getting stuck with a hold full of cargo you can't sell.

Broker-4 at Class A, Broker-3 at Class B, Broker-2 at Class C, and Broker-1 at Class D. With no Brokers available at Class E or X.

LLB7 does things this way, too.

I'm not really satisfied with how either LBB2 or LBB7 deal with relative tech levels. LBB2 ignores them; LBB7 overgeneralizes. It makes sense that TL15 computers would be very expensive on a lower tech world, but would the demand necessarily be there? I can see a tech 1 world having a great demand for high quality blades from offworld, for example, and even firearms: but what's a tech 1 world going to need electronic parts for? Doorstops? Capacitors and resistors might make really nifty beads... unless we consider the Starport itself (and the other merchants visiting it) to be the market, and not the world itself...

 

[hdan]

I'm not really satisfied with how either LBB2 or LBB7 deal with relative tech levels. LBB2 ignores them; LBB7 overgeneralizes. It makes sense that TL15 computers would be very expensive on a lower tech world, but would the demand necessarily be there? I can see a tech 1 world having a great demand for high quality blades from offworld, for example, and even firearms: but what's a tech 1 world going to need electronic parts for? Doorstops? Capacitors and resistors might make really nifty beads... unless we consider the Starport itself (and the other merchants visiting it) to be the market, and not the world itself...

LOL, I thought that the different in TL between worlds was ALWAYS a -DM, to simulate that it's harder to find someone willing to pay top CrImp for a machine they can't get serviced locally. I can see a low-TL leader importing high TL item and hiring off worlders to supply and maintain his equipment though....

I wonder if it makes sense to consider the cargo's TL, which is often the purchase world's TL, but can be made lower for goods mass produced for sales off world? So you could buy (for example) a TL-8 computer from a TL-12 world with a -4 DM to purchase price, but then you could sell it on a TL-8 world without any negative DM's.

This does open a whole can of worms though, as to what cargoes should be considered "TL Limited". Common items won't have a TL limit, and high-tech luxuries will be MORE desirable in low-TL worlds.

Argh, it's probably best to just stick with Book2, maybe going through and annotating certain trade goods (like computers or air/rafts) as being "TL sensitive", and giving them (DM = Cargo TL - Local TL)

 

[jawillroy]

LOL, I thought that the different in TL between worlds was ALWAYS a -DM, to simulate that it's harder to find someone willing to pay top CrImp for a machine they can't get serviced locally. I can see a low-TL leader importing high TL item and hiring off worlders to supply and maintain his equipment though....

Yep: in LBB7 when calculating a resale price, you subtract the market tech level from the source tech level, multiply by 10% and multiply that by the base price, then add it to the base price; so buying VERY at high tech worlds and selling at VERY low tech.worlds is advantageous, but goods from VERY low tech worlds are worthless at VERY high tech worlds. So much for low tech raw materials, eh?

Argh, it's probably best to just stick with Book2, maybe going through and annotating certain trade goods (like computers or air/rafts) as being "TL sensitive", and giving them (DM = Cargo TL - Local TL)

Other nifty annotations:
Time sensitive/special handling cargo: How long can you transport fruit or meat before they're worthless? Are you sure about keeping those in the same hold you're transporting radioactives?
Legal restrictions: Can you sell those assault rifles on that high law planet? Are there restrictions on liquor sales on Bluestocking Zeta?
Practicalities: Who's going to buy aircraft on a vacuum world?

A lot of handwaving might be achieved successfully if we look at starports as intermediate stops in the journey of a cargo between manufacturer and user: how many sales might be from ship to ship, and never cross the extrality line?

 

[RandyB]

I like this, too: generally, working with actual PCs, I'm inclined to do much more via roleplay and more or less forget the tables, and turn the whole thing into some manner of caper: that bribe might not be a kickback, but it might turn out that the seller needs the party to "do a little favor for him" and he'll give them a special price... There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I don't want my players spending their time doing the Trading Game: I want them adventuring.

Unfortunately, one of the main drivers in CT towards "the Trading Game" is the ship's mortgage, because "the Trading Game" is generally the best way to get enough credits on a regular basis to actually pay said mortgage.

So if you want them adventuring rather than "doing the Trading Game", I'd suggest eliminating the ship's mortgage by whatever means you can make yourself comfortable with, from outright payoff to taking it offstage so that the players don't have to keep track of it.