MGT Fuel

[mbrinkhues]

RPGs have always been house-ruled, and always will be. If you expect a system to work exactly as it is supposed to, straight out of the box, then I would say that your expectations are set too high. I have never, in my entire roleplaying career that spans over 25 years, purchased a game that I did not have to house-rule at least slightly before I was satisfied with it. And I would argue that purchased RPGs save you the time of making an entire ruleset and setting from scratch, but some minor alterations on an individual level are to be expected.

The same applies to most things that people purchase that they plan to use for a long time. For example, one does not buy a car and then leave it exactly as it is for its entire life; one can add decorations, or change the stereo, or add GPS, or improve the speakers. So why should I be forced to use (or be expected to use) the rules as written for every RPG? As long as house rules are set out at the start of the game and everyone at the table agrees to them, I cannot see how it could possibly be a problem.




Obviously it would be preferable to use the rules as written if one was demoing a new game to new players at a convention, but you are the only person here making an issue out of convention play. In all other practical examples of gaming, house rules are fairly standard. Otherwise, the discussion is about fuel in MGT, not about whether house rules are better than official rules.

And I should point out that Classic Traveller itself has at one point or another most likely been house-ruled to death by almost everyone who has played it.

a) I have never GMed Clunky, played it twice, immediatly dropped it for MegaTraveller when I got that rules set

b) Mega (with the Errata) and TNE actually work just fine OOB, same with quite a few other systems (i.e GURPS 3e) So one CAN do a good system OOB. And since all that systems exist, I don't have to develop that parts. So Whats the point in MGT?

d) The only non-original parts of my cars have always been due to damage (and even then original spares). Customizing is a bad thing IMHO

e) The fuel problem IS a rules problem. If MGT had used Mega or TNE as a base it simply would not exist since these games had solved the problem 10-20 years ago. And in a quite simple way. Normally one ignores the energy consumption of subsystems. But if I need the data it is there. No extra work needed.

f) New groups and conventions are a fact. One that should be addressed. Granted, 13Mann (the german publisher) doesn't support Traveller (Partially due to a lack of GM - Traveller GM in Germany seem to prefer older sets)

 

[captainjack]

a) I have never GMed Clunky, played it twice, immediatly dropped it for MegaTraveller when I got that rules set

b) Mega (with the Errata) and TNE actually work just fine OOB, same with quite a few other systems (i.e GURPS 3e) So one CAN do a good system OOB. And since all that systems exist, I don't have to develop that parts. So Whats the point in MGT?

Obviously, for you, there isn't one -which is fine. You're a satisfied post CT consumer. Play on.

e) The fuel problem IS a rules problem. If MGT had used Mega or TNE as a base it simply would not exist since these games had solved the problem 10-20 years ago. And in a quite simple way. Normally one ignores the energy consumption of subsystems. But if I need the data it is there. No extra work needed.

Explain this further, please. I cant imagine that an infinite amount of ignorable detail is what you are advocating.....is it ?

I get that you don't think that you should have to homerule a system you purchase; does that mean that you've never ever expanded or changed rules in Mega or GURPS ?

Possibly the issue is what "broken" and "rules problem" means -If I understand your position, I'd call your issue a setting or level of detail problem......rules problem to me implies that the rule -absent IRL context- is either unreadable or makes other rules unworkable (generally). I don't see that here, I really don't. Have the terms "broken" or rules problem just become shorthand for "it isn't what I want" ?

 

[rancke]

Ship has Jump drive 1, Maneuver drive 1, Power plant 1 and fuel for one jump and 14 days worth of power plant fuel. It boosts at 1G for 8 hours, jumps to another system, boosts at 1G for another 8 hours to make planetfall. How much power plant fuel has the ship expended?

The rules say one uses x amount of fuel to run the power plant for 14 days. Where's the problem ? Seven days (+/- jump variance) + 16 hours. Leaving about 6 days fuel.

Actually, the rule implies that you expend all the fuel each trip, since you have to pay for a full load of fuel each trip. That's regardless of what you do during that trip. Maneuver for a day, 6-8 days in jumpspace, 5-6 days in port (14 days in all): pay for one load of fuel. Maneuver for 28 days: pay for one load of fuel. Maneuver for 28 days while firing your lasers 24/7: pay for one load of fuel.

Sure, I suppose one can argue that the consumption should be different for different levels of use, but where is the real benefit?

My players would consider saving several thousand credits each month to be a real benefit.

Most such calculations in real life are based on averages rather than summing up incremental pro rated values.

Right, but these rules don't exact payment for the average but for the maximum.

Freighter has jump drive 4, power plant 5, maneuver drive 1, and 25% cargo space. Hov much difference does it make to its economic potential that it is using 5% on power plant fuel tankage?

I'd assume that would be on the order of (profit value of cargo *((actual cargo space)/ (cargo space plus fuel space))*10, right ? That isn't in the rules, I admit, but its a basic math and trade idea that if value is equal more is better, right ?

Actually, I was just going for "20% smaller payload". For high jump values, the difference really is significant. I chose jump-4 because there are canonical examples of jump-4 ships, but it has an even bigger impact on jump-5 and jump-6 traffic.

Not my point at all, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I too like self consistency - quite a bit. I guess I'm just not grasping how it is being applied to this criticism ?

1) The rules imply that the fuel needed to provide life support is negligible (A power plant X can keep a maneuver drive X running 24/7 for 28 on a full load of PP fuel; there is no explicit requirement for fuel to keep life support running).

2) A ship that uses its maneuver drive 24/7 for 28 days uses up one full load of PP fuel.

3) A ship that uses its maneuver drive for 24 hours every 14 days[*] use up two full loads of PP fuel.

[*] Fuel is paid for each jump.​

Statement 2 and 3 are self-contradictory.

When my players ask me why they have to pay 5000 credits for a full load of fuel instead of 500 to top off the tank, I can either use that classic explanation 'Because I say so', or I can change the rules. What I can't do is explain it so that my players say "Oh, that makes sense". That, to me, is the very hallmark of a broken rule.


Hans

 

[DonM]

Notice how they're taking the process more seriously now that Mongoose's manuscripts have proven to contain so many "whoopsies".

Wow...

I don't think a statement of mine has ever been taken so OUT OF CONTEXT.

And my name is "Don M", not Dom. I did not say anything about Mongoose whoopsies. I said we're taking the approval process more seriously. MongooseMatt will tell you Marc is more involved and earlier in the process before, and that is all good. Yes, it does take time away from T5, but it's time well spent.

However, you've also broken a cardinal rule of the T5 forum.

 

[Starviking]

Purely a hypothetical thought, but if one assumes that 99.9% of the energy generated by a power plant is used to maintain the magnetic bottle containing the fusion reaction (or some other internal process), then the fuel consumption rate of the power plant is fairly constant irresepective of the external power demand. The only way to save PP fuel, is to shut down the power plant.

Under this assumption, the fuel consumption rules work just fine and make perfect sense.

EDIT: After all, you have the option of using a fission power plant or a fuel cell with a reaction drive if you wany more 'realism'.

That would be a pretty inefficient power plant. Even in that case the solution would be to have several power plants or have a smaller power plant that you can rely on to power everything.

 

[DonM]

If you think MGT fuel really needs adjustment, instead of ranting in a forum, write an article for Signs and Portents. I'm sure MongooseMatt would love to get your submissions.

 

[DonM]

Perhaps this is another argument for another thread, but why is anybody other than Marc Miller vetting manuscripts from any other publisher in the first place? Who are Dom and Robject to have any authority to decide or judge what should or should not be acceptable? Are they even paid employees of FFE? Are they recognized authorities on Traveller? Have they published their own Traveller material? If I were a Traveller publisher then I would be very suspicious of anyone other than Marc Miller himself who is allowed to influence his decisions about what was acceptable for publication (particularly given recent history).

As for the vetting of manuscripts, Marc Miller should accept that this is his responsibility as IP Owner. If he does not wish to spend time vetting manuscripts provided by his licensees then it would seem to me that the solution is to either allow licensees to publish what they please without requiring his approval, or to pull their license and thus not be further troubled by any licensees taking up his time.

I've talked about this previously, and it's no secret... "robject" and myself are (with Marc) members of the T5 development team, and we do stuff for Marc. One of those tasks is to review drafts for Marc and give him our input, which he cleans up and sends to MongooseMatt, who makes sure to get them in the hands of Mongoose authors.

As to why us, that was Marc's decision. I'm honored he asked, thrilled to be along for the ride, and willing to assist as I can.

If you want more answers about Marc's position, his email is farfuture@gmail.com. He's more than willing to answer your questions.

 

[captainjack]

Actually, the rule implies that you expend all the fuel each trip, since you have to pay for a full load of fuel each trip.

Where ?

That's regardless of what you do during that trip. Maneuver for a day, 6-8 days in jumpspace, 5-6 days in port (14 days in all): pay for one load of fuel. Maneuver for 28 days: pay for one load of fuel. Maneuver for 28 days while firing your lasers 24/7: pay for one load of fuel.

Okay, i see your point, but for the record that wasn't what you asked me. Part of the issue seems to be that the rules don't say that you can turn the plant off, I guess, which is why the 6-8 days in port matter. I'm not sure why it needs to be stated that it has no off switch, but, yes, if not, I guess that is correct.

As to the lasers I'd assume that they are insignificant in terms of fuel expenditure (relative to all functions) when used in other than an absurd manner -such as firing it 24/7. do you players generally use them as highbeams to light up space, jumpspace and the local hangar ?

My players would consider saving several thousand credits each month to be a real benefit.

Okay, good, I get that. If you assume that a powerplant can't be turned off, and/or that one can/should be able to minimize fuel use in a significant way, I can see a savings...although running the numbers suggests that the savings might be much smaller.....given the cost of powerplant fuel, several thousand each months seems to be an excessive estimate if one is saving money see, a sub carries 12 tons -about 6000 refined, although if you buy unrefueled and refine it yourself, 1200 - and I can't imagine why one wouldn't for that at least if one was intent on saving money........and a heavy freighter carries 16 tons -so that's in the same ballpark. So, if one can save say -half the fuel costs it's 600 -800 credits ? Seemsa bit of a small benefit to hang a rules rewrite on.....especially since the powerplant fuel is dwarfed by the demands of the jump drive.

So, if the players are insisting ( or need to) on using refined fuel bought at the tap, and have a big ship , then, yes, they could save an impoprtant amount of money - and it could, I suppose be even more important if they have a systemship....although all this seems to be predicated on 1. the powerplant not having an off switch, whichs seems a rather excessively strict constructionistic way to read rules, but, hey, whatever works.
and 2. some absolute knowledge of how much power each and every system in the ship should draw ?

Actually, I was just going for "20% smaller payload". For high jump values, the difference really is significant. I chose jump-4 because there are canonical examples of jump-4 ships, but it has an even bigger impact on jump-5 and jump-6 traffic.

Which is not what you asked. The relative reduced value is always going to be the volume minus the power fuel divided by the volume minus whatever amount of fuel space you want to assume is better, including zero .

In any case, higher Jump only indirectly increases power plant fuel -as it requires a bigger powerplant, if jump is the highest rated component.

1) The rules imply that the fuel needed to provide life support is negligible (A power plant X can keep a maneuver drive X running 24/7 for 28 on a full load of PP fuel; there is no explicit requirement for fuel to keep life support running).

Actually, this can equally suggest that the cost of the manuever drive is what is negligible. Or that Laser use is negligible.

2) A ship that uses its maneuver drive 24/7 for 28 days uses up one full load of PP fuel.

3) A ship that uses its maneuver drive for 24 hours every 14 days[*] use up two full loads of PP fuel.

[*] Fuel is paid for each jump.​

Statement 2 and 3 are self-contradictory.

Statement 2 is correct as far as the rules go: statement 3 is the result of your interpretation that anything not stated does not exist, as far as I can tell, at least as applied to the powerplant having downtime.

The asterix is somthing you'll have to explain to me; its true for jump fuel, which uses all its fuel, but honestly, I think you're pushing the [owerplant part of this to destruction - do you also rule that if they just scoot around insystem for 14 days that they have to expend the same amount of fuel as they would for a trip using jump drive ? In other words, pay for the jumpfuel ? That seems to be how your interp of this rule should be applied......

When my players ask me why they have to pay 5000 credits for a full load of fuel instead of 500 to top off the tank, I can either use that classic explanation 'Because I say so', or I can change the rules. What I can't do is explain it so that my players say "Oh, that makes sense". That, to me, is the very hallmark of a broken rule.

Well, you could tell them that they need to buy an off switch, or use more unrefined fuel, or you could consider interpreting the rules less formally.

I'd have more sympathy for your position as regards the need to houserule if it wasn't for the fact that your rules interpretation is so exclusionary. This isn't a criticism, per se, but I do think that your reading of the rules is pretty unusual; as is your distaste for having to houserule as a result.

 

[robject]

When my players ask me why they have to pay 5000 credits for a full load of fuel instead of 500 to top off the tank, I can either use that classic explanation 'Because I say so', or I can change the rules. What I can't do is explain it so that my players say "Oh, that makes sense". That, to me, is the very hallmark of a broken rule.

Hans, I am nearly positive that your players never ask you this, because you haven't used this rule for X years. So who is asking this question of whom?

 

[mbrinkhues]

Obviously, for you, there isn't one -which is fine. You're a satisfied post CT consumer. Play on.



Explain this further, please. I cant imagine that an infinite amount of ignorable detail is what you are advocating.....is it ?

I get that you don't think that you should have to homerule a system you purchase; does that mean that you've never ever expanded or changed rules in Mega or GURPS ?

Possibly the issue is what "broken" and "rules problem" means -If I understand your position, I'd call your issue a setting or level of detail problem......rules problem to me implies that the rule -absent IRL context- is either unreadable or makes other rules unworkable (generally). I don't see that here, I really don't. Have the terms "broken" or rules problem just become shorthand for "it isn't what I want" ?

Exactly. I don't do houserules, I don't play in groups that do. If a system needs houserules, it's too bad to play. Bad games are a waste of time/money since there are enough good ones around.

And yes, ignorable details are what I want. Classic example is the power consumption in MT/TNE etc. For a "Traders chasing Grandfather" game it's not needed. For a "Patrol craft and Pirats" scenario that uses "running silent/passiv sensors etc." (As present in MT, TNE) it makes a lot of sense to be able to "reduce reactor output" and adds to the feeling.

Similar to rules about food supply in many games. They normally are ignored but when the voyage includes a treck through wastelands, they come in play. T2K maintenance rules are ignored in the Merc:2000 background but in a Twilight background they come into play. And so on.

And lack of a clear rule, more so if other incarnations of the game had them for decades, is an error. Power point fuel is the tip of the iceberg named "individual system power consumption"

 

[atpollard]

That would be a pretty inefficient power plant. Even in that case the solution would be to have several power plants or have a smaller power plant that you can rely on to power everything.

I find it amusing that we (RPGers) are so quick to accept that fusion will generate several orders of magnitude more power at several orders of magnitude less cost, but are shocked that efficiency should not be comparable to an internal combustion engine.

What is the efficiency of a modern fusion reactor?
Last I heard, the goal was still 'break-even'.

How much energy does a high pressure magnetic confinement bottle require?
Last I heard it was enough to make many question whether it could ever be a viable rocket nozzle.

Even at 0.1% efficiency, the Traveller Fusion reactor would still be a cheaper way to generate power than a fuel cell or fission.


As an aside, most theoretical research on reactionless propulsion suggest that it would be unimaginably power intensive (like generating black holes power intensive). This suggests that all of the handwavium (reactionless thrusters, grav plates, inertial compensation) will require every bit of power that can be extracted from that hydrogen. Think iron as the exhaust.


With respect to 'multiple reactors', I agree that ships should have multiple reactors. However, I also feel that initiating a multi-megawatt output controlled fission reaction using simple hydrogen and generating negligible radiation or waste heat should require more time than 'turn the key and start her up' - like an automobile engine. IMTU I like an hour startup.

So if you intend to save fuel by shutting down the weapon's fusion power plant, don't expect to ge able to maneuver and shoot at the same time for less than an hour.

 

[PathfinderAP]

What is the efficiency of a modern fusion reactor?

But you know, we are talking about a universe that has "Jump Drive"
if they can come up with that, who knows what other advancements?

The Sci/Fi of 50 years ago is alot different to todays Sci/Fi, Why the diffrence?, their current understanding of what in theory could be done,
(or at least accepted)

Saying what can and can't be done in Science fiction is like saying how long a piece of string is,


Instead use what works for your game,

 

[PathfinderAP]

Exactly. I don't do houserules, I don't play in groups that do. If a system needs houserules, it's too bad to play. Bad games are a waste of time/money since there are enough good ones around.

What?, really, so you have never bought a newer edtion of a game?
(any updates to the game were "house rules" to the last version)

The rules for every RPG, in fact every game starts out as a house rule,
Games don't suddenly pop in to being via some sort of quantum flux in the fabric of reality,




Or maybe it does?....it could explain how alot of crappy games got in to print

o:

 

[rancke]

Okay, I see your point, but for the record that wasn't what you asked me.

I wasn't really asking you for any information, I was trying to refute the statement you made here:

The point is the rule works for this edition, it also is more compatable with older editions compared to the desired changes. If one can show where it makes a difference to rule mechanics and/or play, then it needs changing. I just haven't heard it yet; and, "suspension of disbelief" isn't what I'm asking for.

Part of the issue seems to be that the rules don't say that you can turn the plant off, I guess, which is why the 6-8 days in port matter. I'm not sure why it needs to be stated that it has no off switch, but, yes, if not, I guess that is correct.

If you postulate that power plants cannot be turned down, you make it work for power plants massing 1 dT. Any bigger, and you have to wonder why no ship designer ever came up with the idea of having multiple power plants.

As to the lasers I'd assume that they are insignificant in terms of fuel expenditure (relative to all functions) when used in other than an absurd manner -such as firing it 24/7. do you players generally use them as highbeams to light up space, jumpspace and the local hangar ?

No, but ship design require that you have a power plant big enough to power the lasers 24/7, instead of capacitors big enough to keep them firing for a couple of hours. (Note: Capacitors are CT, although I don't think they're in Book 2).

Okay, good, I get that. If you assume that a powerplant can't be turned off, and/or that one can/should be able to minimize fuel use in a significant way, I can see a savings...although running the numbers suggests that the savings might be much smaller.....given the cost of powerplant fuel, several thousand each months seems to be an excessive estimate if one is saving money see, a sub carries 12 tons -about 6000 refined, although if you buy unrefueled and refine it yourself, 1200 - and I can't imagine why one wouldn't for that at least if one was intent on saving money...

You can't do that by Book 2 rules -- no fuel purifier, IIRC. :devil:

OK, seriously, a fuel purifier take up cargo space, causing a loss of revenue. I once calculated that the break-even point is a cost of Cr350 for refined fuel. Below that, it's cheaper to buy refined than to carry a fuel purifier. Be that as it may, not all ships have fuel purifiers. The ship in The Traveller Adventure did not have one. Seems to me the rules should work in either case. So we're talking about a difference of around 5000 credits per refuelling.

...although all this seems to be predicated on 1. The powerplant not having an off switch, whichs seems a rather excessively strict constructionistic way to read rules, but, hey, whatever works.

I'm confused. I thought you were the one who sought to explain the steady consumption of fuel by postulating that power plants can't be turned down. Which, wouldn't 'save' the rule, since the power plant could be shut off while the ship is in port, but would reduce the savings of not using the maneuver drive to a third.

and 2. some absolute knowledge of how much power each and every system in the ship should draw ?

I'm assuming that if the rules require a power plant X to support a maneuver drive X, then the maneuver drive needs to power produced by a power plant X in order to function at its full effect. Same assumption for energy weapons. I'm also assuming that if the rules require a power plant X to support a maneuver drive X PLUS life support, then life support alone is below the resolution of the rules (i.e. negligible).

In any case, higher Jump only indirectly increases power plant fuel -as it requires a bigger powerplant, if jump is the highest rated component.

Even worse, surely? Now you have a power plant 4 to run a maneuver drive 1, only now it uses enough fuel to run a maneuver drive 4.

1) The rules imply that the fuel needed to provide life support is negligible (A power plant X can keep a maneuver drive X running 24/7 for 28 on a full load of PP fuel; there is no explicit requirement for fuel to keep life support running).

Actually, this can equally suggest that the cost of the manuever drive is what is negligible. Or that Laser use is negligible.

That would be the case if you didn't need a power plant 2 to run a maneuver drive 2 (using twice as much fuel as for a MD1), a PP3 to run an MD3 (using thrice the amount of fuel), etc. But as this is the case, I don't follow your logic. You're not suggesting that life support requirements double when you replace your MD 1 with an MD2, are you?

2) A ship that uses its maneuver drive 24/7 for 28 days uses up one full load of PP fuel.

3) A ship that uses its maneuver drive for 24 hours every 14 days[*] use up two full loads of PP fuel.


[*] Fuel is paid for each jump.
Statement 2 and 3 are self-contradictory.

Statement 2 is correct as far as the rules go: statement 3 is the result of your interpretation that anything not stated does not exist, as far as I can tell, at least as applied to the powerplant having downtime.

I'm basing it on the assumption that you don't pay for something you don't get, and you don't have room for new fuel if you haven't used up the old load.

The asterix is somthing you'll have to explain to me; its true for jump fuel, which uses all its fuel, but honestly, I think you're pushing the powerplant part of this to destruction - do you also rule that if they just scoot around insystem for 14 days that they have to expend the same amount of fuel as they would for a trip using jump drive ? In other words, pay for the jumpfuel ? That seems to be how your interpretation of this rule should be applied...

[Text detailing the operating expenses of the March Harrier in The Traveller Adventurer, p. 130]
"Fuel: The ship requires 50 tons of fuel for each trip. Refined fuel is preferred, at a cost of Cr25,000 (Cr500 per ton). Unrefined fuel can be purchased (Cr5000; Cr100 per ton) at starports or is available free from gas giants or oceans. Unrefined fuel creates a possibility of drive failure or misjump."
​

OK, I guess the requirement to pay once per trip isn't a rule, since it comes from an adventure module.

I'd have more sympathy for your position as regards the need to houserule if it wasn't for the fact that your rules interpretation is so exclusionary. This isn't a criticism, per se, but I do think that your reading of the rules is pretty unusual; as is your distaste for having to houserule as a result.

The rule says that a full load of power plant fuel "allows operation for four weeks". It does not distinguish between staying in orbit for four weeks and maneuvering 24/7 for four weeks. Absent that, it's not unreasonable to assume that the rule requires you to buy new fuel every four weeks. If the rules don't require that, you would expect the operating expenses listed in, say, TTA to reflect that, wouldn't you? Come to that, a line to that effect in the rules themselves would be nice, wouldn't it?


Hans

 

[rancke]

Hans, I am nearly positive that your players never ask you this, because you haven't used this rule for X years. So who is asking this question of whom?

You're quite right that the 'my players' I mention are hypothetical, since I've been using reasonable power plant fuel consumption rates for a long time now[*]. But they're not so hypothetical than I can't imagine their reactions if I had required them to buy Cr5000 worth of fuel twice a month.


Hans

[*] Even more hypothetical nowadays, when I run Space 1889 instead of Traveller ​

 

[Jame]

But you can add more fuel - several ship designs in the core rules do this. It is only a stated _minimum_.

If you can, check the other thread. I gave page references showing this (and people are still arguing over something that does not exist. . .).

In my opinion which is admittedly exactly the opposite of humble, this stated minimum is too low. Though it is your game rules and you are expected to do what you wish. And for the record, I did write up a fuel-efficiency progression if you'd like to put it into S&P.

As for the page reference that I alluded to (mind that this is the first edition printing):
Page 107, TMB: Power Plant # requires X amount of fuel to get 2 (two) weeks of operation.

 

[MongooseMatt]

In my opinion which is admittedly exactly the opposite of humble, this stated minimum is too low. Though it is your game rules and you are expected to do what you wish.

No, it is _your_ game. You are free to change it and, by doing so, you won't be violating any rules - that is the beauty of a low minimum. If we had gone the other way and made the minimum very high, that would have raised more issues and caused more problems for more people.

For you, there is no problem. Simply regard it as an absolute, cut to the wire minimum that few, if any, ship designers will follow. Then proceed as normal.

And for the record, I did write up a fuel-efficiency progression if you'd like to put it into S&P.

Umm, I have no idea - I haven't seen it, and I don't decide what goes in S&P. Submit it!

As for the page reference that I alluded to (mind that this is the first edition printing):
Page 107, TMB: Power Plant # requires X amount of fuel to get 2 (two) weeks of operation.

We are quoting the same page Again, it is just the minimum stated, not a blanket amount, and you are welcome to raise or lower that limit as you might, say, the price of a plasma gun. You won't break anything by doing so.

 

[captainjack]

Hans

Hans,



A fuel processor takes up one ton, and can process a subs power plant fuel about 14 hours. It saves 4800cr per trip; seems a good return on one ton, really-and that's just for the power fuel. (keep in mind that if you have 2 days to kill, all the fuel, another 40 tons, is added to the balance: another saving of 26000 cr. So for one ton, you need to have a cargo worth over 30000 credits all the time for a fuel processor to be a bad investment. ) I can't see your analysis working for the values in MGT, I fear.


Also, or the record, I wasn't postulating that ships cannot turn off their power plant. That was what you seemed to be suggesting with your fuel consumption rules.
We are starting, I think, to read for debate points and not discussion - which is a good point to stop at.

Okay, regardless, I get that you don't like the rule, and have some good reasons for that( absent the hyperparsing of sentences in adventures from other editions; I mean come on.... ) That's a fine reason for changing it, and you did, but not proof that the rule is broken.

Perhaps too, the rules need more clarification, for certain values of GM's and campaigns; I guess the issue centers around the extent one expects a perfect set of rules geared for one's own campaign, which I really can't see any benefit from discussing further.

Thanks for trying to explain though; I do appreciate the effort.

 

[Jame]

No, it is _your_ game. You are free to change it and, by doing so, you won't be violating any rules - that is the beauty of a low minimum. If we had gone the other way and made the minimum very high, that would have raised more issues and caused more problems for more people.

For you, there is no problem. Simply regard it as an absolute, cut to the wire minimum that few, if any, ship designers will follow. Then proceed as normal.

o:

o:

Good answer then. You thunder-stealer! :devil:

Umm, I have no idea - I haven't seen it, and I don't decide what goes in S&P. Submit it!

I would if I believed I'd get any response from the editor.

 

[scrabble]

I would if I believed I'd get any response from the editor.

So, you will not submit anything because you believe that you will not receive a response from the editor? How defeatist of you! Have you even tried to submit anything, or are you simply assuming that you will fail and therefore it is not worth the effort?