Jump 1 vs Jump 2 ships in the CT Imperium

[rust]

I think the hints of what was implied and would later become "The Imperium" are clear in many ways in the original "generic" rules.

Yes, of course. But I think we should remember that these "laws" are rules
to play in the setting of the Imperium, they are not the laws of that Impe-
rium.
There is a difference between game rules that are intended to make it easy
to play a certain setting (and therefore are simplified and generalized) on the
one hand, and the "inner logic" or "internal laws" of the setting itself on the
other hand.
I have no doubt that the "real laws" of the Imperium would be much more
complex and would work much better than the simplified rules used to model
them.
To treat the system rules as setting laws is a bit like treating a map as the
real terrain - it will not work.

Ah, sorry, my English makes it extremely difficult to explain what I mean -
I lack the terminology for this ...

 

[far-trader]

...

Ah, sorry, my English makes it extremely difficult to explain what I mean -
I lack the terminology for this ...

No no, I see what you mean, and agree. I'm not sure I could put it any better. The game rules are for playing and very simplified to the goal of having fun playing, and in this they are not a good mirror for the actual "reality" of the universe of the game.

But they do (have to) offer some insight into the game universe "reality" or they fail to be "fair" rules. And of course the whole unintended consequences thing jumps up as the setting is expanded while the rules remain pretty much the same as originally set up and people apply them without thinking through the consequences.

Before we can make any attempt at "fixing" the rules we need to establish for which rule set. The universe is very different from B2 to B5, and different again from CT to MT, and so on and so on...

 

[atpollard]

You know, I keep hearing this from some people. Just how do you roll speculative trade anyway that you can exploit it that way?

The way I recall it working is you roll randomly on a table and get what is offered. Once per week. You can take it or leave it. You don't get to choose the thing with an actual value mod of -5 on this world and then jump to a world with a +5 avm for it and make a gazillion credits. You might get lucky but more likely you won't and you'll only make a good profit.

Profit in the LBB1-3 Speculative trade system (ignore the Merchant Prince system to earn the big bucks) is always a percentage of the base price, so cargos with a high cost per dTon will earn you most of your profits. [Lesser priced cargo is only useful when you are attempting to build up that inital working capital, since that is all that you can afford.]

So at every port roll for a speculative cargo and determine the purchase price based on the modifiers for that world and the random die roll. If the modified price comes out less than 100% of the base price, then you can be reasonably certain of making a profit on it. [As a personal preference, I restrict my trades to non-perishable goods worth more than 10,000 credits per Dton base price.]

For the sake of argument, assume that you eventually purchase one ton of a 100,000 cr per dTon cargo for 90,000 cr. (You can do better, but this is a fairly typical 'good deal'). Assume that there is a world seven parsecs away that has a combined +3 to the sale price due to trade modifiers (like Electronic parts on a Non-Industrial, Poor world) and a +3 Broker available.

You spend 14 weeks and 7000 credits transporting the cargo 7 parsecs (mean Ref says only J1 ships available) and 15,000 credits on a Broker-3 to sell it. You are rolling 2D6+6 for the sale price.

The WORST that you can do is a modified roll of 8 or 110% of the base price. Total costs are 112,000 credits for the 1 dTon cargo and the lowest sale price is 110,000 credits. You have a 1 in 36 chance of loosing 2000 credits on the deal. A more average roll would be 6 on 2d6 for a modified roll of 12 and 170% of base price. Total costs are 112,000 credits and the sale price is 170,000 credits - you earn 58,000 credits on the deal. A good roll would be 9+ (better than a 1 in 4 chance) for a modified roll of 15+ and 400% of base price. Total costs are 112,000 credits and the sale price is 400,000 credits - you earn 288,000 credits on the deal.

Imagine of you had purchased 10 dTons of the cargo instead of 1 dTon.
Imagine a 1 MCr per dton cargo.
Imagine another +1 modifier to the sale price.

Now to really abuse the system:
Some Refs FORCE the sale, but others allow you to say no and keep the goods. Keep trying to buy and sell cargo on each world and wait for 50% or less to buy and 200% or greater to sell. Some versions of the ‘Trader’ skill let’s you roll 1 of the 2D6 price dice in advance. A ‘Group’ could also apply Bribery as a skill to raise/lower prices.

Can you now see some potential to earn a LOT of money in a good deal. A couple of those good deals and the ship is paid off.

 

[spank]

Profit in the LBB1-3 Speculative trade system .............
................... Can you now see some potential to earn a LOT of money in a good deal. A couple of those good deals and the ship is paid off.

The real trick having the self control required to scrape together the Cr required to do this, I find what far trader said about PC acting as they will to be very true.

 

[far-trader]

Can you now see some potential to earn a LOT of money in a good deal. A couple of those good deals and the ship is paid off.

I can see it happening sure, but not reliably which seems to be the point made by some. At least not in my experience.

Some of the speculative cargo we rolled was low value with less profit in hauling it than in taking freight. Maybe our ref fudged the rolls cause it sure seemed like we were offered a lot of wood, steel, grain and fruit. Except when we were short of funds and couldn't buy the computers, vehicles and such.

Very often a good cargo would end up over 100% purchase price with DMs. And more than once we had to take a loss when the sale roll was less than the purchase roll. I'm pretty sure the rules are in fact once offered for sale you can't back out.

In all the time we played we only rolled a few good speculative cargoes and one super speculative cargo, but it was a biggie. Gems on a Non-Industrial world for cheap. We held onto that for a while until we got to a Rich world and walked away quite rich ourselves. So rich we stopped trading.

Like I say, maybe our ref had a good head on his shoulders and realized what would happen if we got too rich too quick and decided to fudge the rolls a bit to keep the game fun.

Two points.

1 - The Broker charges his percentage on the sale value, not the purchase price. Unless we've been wrong all these years.

2 - You can only use one of Broker, Bribery, or Admin. At least that was the way we read it.

Still, a good game can be had even where the ref allows the players to pay off their ship quickly. That's the important part. Use the rules to have fun. Don't let the rules dictate how you play, especially if it ruins the fun. And don't try to look behind the curtain and figure out how the universe runs, the Emperor is just an ordinary man with a special effects machine and some twisted logic

 

[Anthony]

I disagree with each point.

Incidentally, since it wasn't clear, my assertion is not that everyone will accept those principles. It's that the majority of people who object to the current rules are likely to find those principles sane.

 

[far-trader]

Incidentally, since it wasn't clear, my assertion is not that everyone will accept those principles. It's that the majority of people who object to the current rules are likely to find those principles sane.

OK, I think I see better what you mean now. Sounds like it needs it's own thread to be better worked out without the clutter of the Imperium getting in the way then.[FONT=arial,helvetica][/FONT]

 

[Anthony]

OK, I think I see better what you mean now. Sounds like it needs it's own thread to be better worked out without the clutter of the Imperium getting in the way then.

Not really; there aren't that many details to work out (short version: pick up Far Trader). What I was basically reacting to was:
Icosahedron proposed, rather than arguing rules which he asserted "we all agree bear no resemblance to reality", that we come up with realistic rules.
Daryen said that we can never get agreement on what is realistic.

My assertion is that if you accept the predicate of "the current rules bear no resemblance to reality", it actually wouldn't be that hard to come up with a trade system which would be broadly accepted as basically realistic (if not necessarily very interesting).

 

[far-trader]

Not really; there aren't that many details to work out (short version: pick up Far Trader). What I was basically reacting to was:
Icosahedron proposed, rather than arguing rules which he asserted "we all agree bear no resemblance to reality", that we come up with realistic rules.
Daryen said that we can never get agreement on what is realistic.

My assertion is that if you accept the predicate of "the current rules bear no resemblance to reality", it actually wouldn't be that hard to come up with a trade system which would be broadly accepted as basically realistic (if not necessarily very interesting).

All together too many extreme limits in almost all of that to make it worth discussing in that context

We don't all agree they bear no resemblance to reality and some of us may agree on what is realistic either as it stands or in some alternative.

OK, so maybe I don't get where you're going at all after all.

I think there are far more details to work out than you imagine and it would be big job to work out even a basic trade system that satisfied both reality (however one might define that for a game about the far future and interstellar trade) and gameplay for even the limited set of 2 people (the creator and one other ref). And let's face it, if you can't even get 1 other to say "yes that works, I'll use it" then it's really only an exercise in YTU/MTU customization.

If you really want to fix it, it has to account for all the rest of the game, whichever rules set that falls under. Not saying your simple answer of GT Far-Trader is right or wrong, only that as a solution it's limited and shows just how much work is needed to come up with such a system. It's not a problem that lends itself to simple or basic when coupled to realistic.

 

[Anthony]

I think there are far more details to work out than you imagine and it would be big job to work out even a basic trade system that satisfied both reality (however one might define that for a game about the far future and interstellar trade) and gameplay for even the limited set of 2 people (the creator and one other ref).

Okay, here's a simple, realistic, playable trade system:

If you have a merchant ship, make a merchant roll every trip. On a success, you make your operating expenses plus some margin (say, 10% of your base expenses times your margin of success). If you fail, you lose money. If you don't engage in merchant behavior for a week, you automatically make no money from merchant shipping. If you engage in speculative trade, you gain additional profits (or losses) based on the amount of money you are investing (a gambling table is possible; if not, assume the average profit is 0.2% of your investment).

 

[far-trader]

Simple and playable but I think we have differing definitions of realistic

That is abstracted over realistic.

Perfect for a game focused on other than trade where the players still have to account in some way for paying for the ship they got.

 

[Anthony]

Simple and playable but I think we have differing definitions of realistic

You're confusing detailed with realistic. Now, I'll admit that a wholly abstract trade system is boring, but I see no reason to assume that ordinary mercantile activity will be interesting.

 

[far-trader]

You're confusing detailed with realistic.

No but the two are tightly related.

Now, I'll admit that a wholly abstract trade system is boring, but I see no reason to assume that ordinary mercantile activity will be interesting.

I guess you don't know why business tycoons are in it then. It's all about the deal. The score. Playing the system and winning.

I might as well say I see no reason to assume that ordinary soldiering activity will be interesting and suggest we abstract combat adventures to a simple roll of a die each week, live or die, perhaps with a middle result of simply injured. Booorrring.

It's different strokes for different folks is all. And in Role Playing I want roles to play, not to play rolls.

I've actually wanted to play a detective solving crimes in most of the role playing games I've been in over the years but haven't found a ref who might pull it off and a group that would go along with it.

OK, now I'm way off topic :rofl:

 

[Anthony]

I guess you don't know why business tycoons are in it then. It's all about the deal. The score. Playing the system and winning.

Yes, but that's more akin to gambling than anything that's interesting in RPG terms.

 

[daryen]

It's different strokes for different folks is all. And in Role Playing I want roles to play, not to play rolls.

Sure, but with Anthony's Abstract Trade System, it is about the roles, not the rolls.

Assuming the adventure/campaign is using the trade as a backdrop and not the focus, the Anthony's Abstract Trade System is perfect. You take care of all the details of trade in a single role so that the players can focus on the actual adventure. Very nice.

Now, if the point of the adventure/campaign is the trade, then Anthony's Abstract Trade System is not appropriate. But then he said as much, too.

 

[far-trader]

Sure, but with Anthony's Abstract Trade System, it is about the roles, not the rolls.

I really don't see that. Not about the roles of traders anyway.

Assuming the adventure/campaign is using the trade as a backdrop and not the focus, then Anthony's Abstract Trade System is perfect. You take care of all the details of trade in a single role so that the players can focus on the actual adventure. Very nice.

Sure, but why are we assuming the game is not about trade if we're looking for new realistic trade system? Isn't that kind of like making boots for a cat? I know I was presuming that if we're talking about fixing or making a new trade system the whole point was for a game, if not primarily then at least secondarily, built on playing out trade. Not, say, adventures of the Rolling Stones on tour.

Now, if the point of the adventure/campaign is the trade, then Anthony's Abstract Trade System is not appropriate. But then he said as much, too.

I guess I missed where he said that. Unless you mean after the fact where he says he finds trade boring. Which was right after I said it would be great where trade is not the focus of the game.

And the point is he said it was a trade system. That's what all this is about. A game that is not really about trade doesn't really need a trade system. Anymore than a game that is not really about mercenaries really needs an advanced weapons combat system.

 

[Anthony]

Sure, but why are we assuming the game is not about trade if we're looking for new realistic trade system?

This is really a system for how routine trade works. However, essentially everything covered by the printed trade rules is, in fact, routine. The non-routine stuff is generally a cargo with its own built-in plot -- the 'agricultural tools' you're shipping into a war zone, the box of live teleporting kittens, the mystery box that everyone wants, the special contract to move cargo through an area which has had an outbreak of piracy, and so on.

 

[aramis]

Yes, of course. But I think we should remember that these "laws" are rules
to play in the setting of the Imperium, they are not the laws of that Impe-
rium.

No, they are not for the Imperium.

Bk2/3 rules are generic. They predate the OTU.

Bk7, having significant imperial setting materials, is likely the imperial setting's unique rules.

 

[rust]

No, they are not for the Imperium.

I know, but that was not my point, it was just a reply to Spank's remark on
the Imperium and megacorporations as creators of the trade "laws".

 

[rancke]

Just how do you roll speculative trade anyway that you can exploit it that way?

The way I recall it working is you roll randomly on a table and get what is offered. Once per week. You can take it or leave it. You don't get to choose the thing with an actual value mod of -5 on this world and then jump to a world with a +5 avm for it and make a gazillion credits. You might get lucky but more likely you won't and you'll only make a good profit.

Step 1) You get a PC with a decent Bribery or Admin skill.

Step 2) You build up a nest egg.

Step 3) You work the trade system for the usual modest profits while awaiting the rolls that allows you to load up on high value-for-bulk commodities at 40 or 50% of cost.

Step 4) You jump to the next world and sell the rest of your cargo. You then check what you can get for your high-value, low-bulk cargoes. If the result is merely 120 or 150% of cost, you keep your stuff and jump to the next world. (Note: This is why you need a PC with a suitable skill -- you can't use local brokers).

Step 5) Repeat Step 4 until you find a place where they'll buy your stuff at 200% or more.

Step 6) Sell the doodads you bought for, say, Cr40,000 apiece for Cr400,000 apiece. (Once you get enough of a nest egg, you'll be dealing in computers bought for MCr5 and sold for MCr40).

Repeat until you grow tired of making money.


Hans