Replacement Trade System

[tbeard1999]

And if a Referee did those to me just to drain excess cash I had accumulated, it would piss me off. That's along the same lines as 'Grudge Monsters' in D&D...

The system that is at first presented fails due to a couple points.

A) It does not take into account in any way player skill levels.

Two reasons. First, the use of 2d6 precludes doing so. EDIT--see changes that allow for skills to matter.

Second -- and FAR more importantly -- giving skill bonuses robs the players of the need to *adventure*.

AGAIN, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SYSTEM IS TO MAKE PLAYERS CHOOSE ADVENTURES OVER TEDIOUS TRADE SYSTEM MANIPULATIONS.

B) The average should be a small profit, at the very minimum being able to pay crew salaries.

An optional system that I probably should have included is this -- breaking even includes the payment of all required crew salaries. If PCs fill these roles, they get the salary that month.

However -- this system partially defeats my goal of requiring adventures to be the primary source of spare cash for adventurers. In this case, a PC will get Cr1,000 to 6,000 per month.

It just feels like railroading into whatever thing the GM wants the players to do rather than things deriving naturally from what the players want to do.

I couldn't disagree more.

The current CT economic system rewards dull (and unchallenging) trade table manipulation rather than *real* adventure. My system makes *adventuring*, not mere dice rolling, the main source of reward.

As it should be IMHO.

 

[rust]

The existing Traveller trade system is not only seriously flawed logically, but (far worse) it incentivizes boring trade table rolls in lieu of adventuring.

Yep, this is how I see it, too, with only two ways to solve the problem: Either
one modifies the trade system and spends a lot of effort to turn trade into an
adventure itself (unique cargoes, interesting NPCs, a story for each trade mis-
sion, etc.) or one uses a "background system" like the one you proposed.

With a setting focussed on a small group of planets, or even a single world,
and comparatively few trade, I prefer the first approach, with the typical Tra-
veller planet hopping setting I would doubtless prefer your approach.

 

[tbeard1999]

Yep, this is how I see it, too, with only two ways to solve the problem: Either
one modifies the trade system and spends a lot of effort to turn trade into an
adventure itself (unique cargoes, interesting NPCs, a story for each trade mis-
sion, etc.) or one uses a "background system" like the one you proposed.

With a setting focussed on a small group of planets, or even a single world,
and comparatively few trade, I prefer the first approach, with the typical Tra-
veller planet hopping setting I would doubtless prefer your approach.

An astute observation. My campaigns tend to range all over the place. Typically, it's "new adventure, new system". Even when multiple adventures occur on a single planet, trade is seldom the focus.

And note that my system does not preclude trade adventures. Ships can still be chartered, players can buy speculative goods, etc. But now it's part of the adventure, rather than a boring table exercise.

 

[tbeard1999]

Skills...

As noted, the 2d6 system is simply too sensitive to give a standard "+1 per skill level" to the roll. However, there is a way to make skills matter.

The system assumes that PCs spend their time doing jobs required to run the ship. However one or more PCs can spend a month applying their talents to improving business. This is called "Rainmaking".

Any PC that does this cannot perform a normal starship job. So his job must be paid for (in the standard system, a replacement must be hired and paid that month; in the optional system, the PC won't earn the salary for his job).

The PC makes a Rainmaking roll (2d6; 8+; DM +1 per level of Admin, Trader and Broker). If he succeeds, the ship gets a +1 to the roll on the "normal" table trade table.

If he rolls a natural "12" the ship makes 2xROI, but has established a new relationship that wil increase the next (1d6) monthly rolls by +1.

If he rolls a natural "2" the ship loses 2xROI and modify the next (1d6) monthly rolls by -1 (he enraged a key customer).

Any number of PCs can make this roll, but the total benefit available to the party is +1. However, any PC that rolls can't do a starship job as above. All rainmaking attempts for the month must be declared before any rolls are made.

FYI -- statistically, this means that a successful rainmaker will earn his Free Trader Cr7,000 per month. However, his starship job will need to be replaced. It's a much better idea to let the Gunner (Cr1000 per month) do it than the Pilot (Cr6000 per month).

Rainmakers can always use their ship skills during an adventure.

Rainmaking is not available for the "risky" table.

 

[tbeard1999]

Note--revised the original post to include skills, crew salaries and modifications to the Risky Chart (which is now optional).

Note that the risky chart will average a small profit over time. In a year, a ship will average 2XROI profit (Cr30,000 for our Free Trader Crew).

However, a bad roll can be *very* costly.

 

[atpollard]

Multiply the number by the base ROI and that's how the ship has done that month. If the ship is paid off, modify the roll by the following:

10-19 Year Old Ship: +3
20-29 Year Old Ship: +2
30-49 Year Old Ship: +1
50+ Year Old Ship: +0

Just for the sake of completeness, what about a 0-9 Year Old ship that is paid off (like from those 'Adventures' that you like)?

0-9 Year Old Ship: +4

or

0-19 Year Old Ship: +3

 

[tbeard1999]

What Happens When They Can't Cover Losses

I generally require them to sell off assets (at 75% list price). I'll let them keep a weapon and an armor suit, but the rest has to be sold.

If they still can't cover losses, they can usually obtain a short term operating loan from the Benevolent Brotherhood of Starship Operators -- up to 10xROI total. Payments are 1/10 of the principal for 12 months. Default is very bad -- foreclosure on ship, denial of trade permits, etc. At that point, they have to go to loan sharks (10xROI maximum, payments are 1/8 of total for 12 months).

After that, I *really* get creative.

 

[tbeard1999]

Just for the sake of completeness, what about a 0-9 Year Old ship that is paid off (like from those 'Adventures' that you like)?

0-9 Year Old Ship: +4

or

0-19 Year Old Ship: +3

The latter. Oops. I'll fix the chart.

 

[atpollard]

The PC makes a Rainmaking roll (2d6; 8+; DM +1 per level of Admin, Trader and Broker). If he succeeds, the ship gets a +1 to the roll on the "normal" table trade table.

You might want to add Steward to the list since it increases the ratio of High Passengers to Middle Passangers - thus increasing profits.

 

[far-trader]

It's growing on me...

...of course I'd want to add a little colour to your idea. Just to keep it from being boring (no offense intended, but as is why bother, just do the adventures, ignore the trade entirely, presume break even). In a trade centric game the trade should be the bulk of time and occassionally interesting in itself and adding some colour will make it more real imo. And you can't adventure all the time

I was thinking Skills will have to factor in somehow, BUT as noted the table is break even as is, so just presume it already factors in minimum skills. Rather than factor higher skills towards profit/loss as a DM, just presume more revenue is traded off by higher salary and it still evens out.

I have to speak to Broker skill. It is not a skill Travellers should have imo. That's for the people who live on a planet and work there. And again with tbeard's table, you just presume that the best broker is hired and they are paid out of the result. Simple. Elegant.

I do think it should be based somehow on the types of worlds visited though. Still giving it some thought, don't want to mess with the elegance of the system. What I mean is the break even system (ty's system, it needs a name ty ) works for me, IF one presumes the players are operating in systems that will support them.

I prefer that Free-Traders operate in the niches, scrounging up trade and pax from the leftovers or where the better services don't go. So maybe the norm (i.e. no DM) is Class C and D starports (ignore pop, starport is the traffic) where they can find enough to stay in business without being squeezed out by the big guys. While the Class A and B sytems (the big boy systems) and the Class E and X systems (the nobody in their right mind tries to make money there systems) are both a -1DM on the regular trade (for their own reasons), but no DM on the risky trade (they are by definition risky systems to trade in). So the players will probably "work" (normal trade table) in the Class C and D systems most of the time but sometimes have to (or want to) go through other systems where normal trade is difficult but risky trade is a reasonable option.

And perhaps to flesh out the simple system tie the roll into the percentage of the hold and staterooms that are occupied? High rolls mean fuller loads, lower rolls mean running emptier? Knowing how many pax and how much cargo one has is bound to be required info at some point.

An optional system that I probably should have included is this -- breaking even includes the payment of all required crew salaries. If PCs fill these roles, they get the salary that month.

However -- this system partially defeats my goal of requiring adventures to be the primary source of spare cash for adventurers. In this case, a PC will get Cr1,000 to 6,000 per month.

Works fine with my heretical divide (almost) all Book 2 prices by 10 That way they only get a couple hundred a month, hardly enough to retire or go shopping crazy on.

The current CT economic system rewards dull (and unchallenging) trade table manipulation rather than *real* adventure. My system makes *adventuring*, not mere dice rolling, the main source of reward.

As it should be IMHO.

Agreed (largely), to a point. But the trade system does at least make the players think about the systems they intend to travel to/through. Can they get enough pax and cargo to make the payments? Where is the best place to sell that spec cargo? That sorta thing. I think your system needs something like that. Not sure my idea above is on the right track towards it but I think it might be. Just needs a little more noodling and proper stating.

EDIT: And while I'm composing you go and changed things up Not sure how that affects my points but take that into account.

 

[far-trader]

Can't say I like the "Rainmaker" idea if any character (even the Gunner?) can do it at equal ability. I think the only skill(s) that should apply would be more like Admin, Bribery, or Trader. I do agree it should be a position but subject to the multiple crew position rules, so one could have the Captain as Pilot/Trader doing the "Raindance" and flying the ship, each at Skill minus 1 of course.

Maybe Admin for normal trade, Bribery for risky trade, or Trader for either.

 

[tbeard1999]

Spreadsheet Added

Here's a spreadsheet that you can use to generate a custom Starship Finance Chart. Thread link.

 

[tbeard1999]

Can't say I like the "Rainmaker" idea if any character (even the Gunner?) can do it at equal ability. I think the only skill(s) that should apply would be more like Admin, Bribery, or Trader. I do agree it should be a position but subject to the multiple crew position rules, so one could have the Captain as Pilot/Trader doing the "Raindance" and flying the ship, each at Skill minus 1 of course.

Maybe Admin for normal trade, Bribery for risky trade, or Trader for either.

But they can't do it at equal ability -- each roll is modified by the skills of the character making the roll.

To limit its applicability, require that Rainmakers have an applicable skill.

In most cases, the following skills should be applicable -- broker, trader, and carousing.

Depending on the setting, admin (in a tightly regulated economy) or bribery (in a corrupt economy) might be useful.

Depending on the referee's conception of Jack of All Trades, it might be useful (at -1 perhaps).

I think that a Steward could affect passenger satisfaction, but I don't think that the net effect is enough to warrant a +1 on the Rainmaker roll. Depends on the referee's conception of the campaign I suppose.

Remember that successful rainmaking has a significant impact on the profits of the ship. So I'd stay with the rule that a Rainmaker cannot do another job while Rainmaking. (In hyperspace, he's producing marketing materials, doing financial modelling, preparing presentations, maybe entertaining a key buyer who's on the ship, etc.).

And note that the whole goal of the system is to make it necessary to engage in adventures to get lots of spending money.

 

[CosmicGamer]

An optional system that I probably should have included is this -- breaking even includes the payment of all required crew salaries. If PCs fill these roles, they get the salary that month.

Since this is my biggest objection to your system, for me, this option would be added.

However -- this system partially defeats my goal of requiring adventures to be the primary source of spare cash for adventurers. In this case, a PC will get Cr1,000 to 6,000 per month.

Your goal! Let the characters/players decide what the goals are, no? I can understand that if you have some adventure you worked hard on, preparing art, maps, and so on, you don't want all that effort wasted. But if my character owns and/or operates a trade ship, to me, I should role play them as having a desire to make money via trade.

The current CT economic system rewards dull (and unchallenging) trade table manipulation rather than *real* adventure.

To me, if you dislike trade there is no reason to use it or rewrite it. You are, of course, free to do so and if it works for you, great! Some GMs can make trade a pretty interesting thing of it's own though. If every combat is like a duel with all participants taking no actions other than shooting and rolling dice it would be as boring as you are describing trade.

AGAIN, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SYSTEM IS TO MAKE PLAYERS CHOOSE ADVENTURES OVER TEDIOUS TRADE SYSTEM MANIPULATIONS.

So many issues with this statement, but I'll simply say that for your style of play, why not go a different direction. Instead of having players be a trading ship crew but role play that they are not, just make them drifter adventurers. They go from job to job and don't need a ship. If a ship is needed for a particular adventure, they book passage, rent one, steal one, or the patron provides it. Maybe they do use their own ship for adventuring, but if they don't have the skills or desire to trade, why would they as long as adventuring pays the bills. For this type of character, I could see role playing them as only taking on freight and never speculating. "Bah, speculating is a waste of time. Looking for buyers, haggling over price with some guy in a suit with a stick up his bum. A waste of time I tell ya. I'd rather just pay some local hardhat to offload freight while I go to the bar for a drink."

 

[tbeard1999]

Your goal! Let the characters/players decide what the goals are, no?

<smile>

Maybe you haven't read my lecture on this, but I design games that I want to play.

To the extent that your taste agrees with mine, you should like my games. The reverse is true as well.

And at least I do you the courtesy of explicitely identifying my design goals.

<shrug>

If you disagree with my contention that adventures should be the primary source of spending money for PCs, then you probably don't need my system.

OTOH, if, like me, you resent having an illogical trade system that can enrich the players merely by a couple of lucky dice rolls, then my system should prove useful to you.

So many issues with this statement, but I'll simply say that for your style of play, why not go a different direction. Instead of having players be a trading ship crew but role play that they are not, just make them drifter adventurers. They go from job to job and don't need a ship. If a ship is needed for a particular adventure, they book passage, rent one, steal one, or the patron provides it. Maybe they do use their own ship for adventuring, but if they don't have the skills or desire to trade, why would they as long as adventuring pays the bills. For this type of character, I could see role playing them as only taking on freight and never speculating. "Bah, speculating is a waste of time. Looking for buyers, haggling over price with some guy in a suit with a stick up his bum. A waste of time I tell ya. I'd rather just pay some local hardhat to offload freight while I go to the bar for a drink."

Several reasons:

1. The game system often rewards players with starships in character creation.

2. I like my players to have a starship; it fits my campaign goals better.

3. My trade system works fine for me. I've used versions of it for many years.

4. Without the trade system, I have to waste a lot of time and energy depriving players of money that they got from ill-conceived trading rules merely by making a few dice rolls. I resent having to do that and I submit that this one of the most demoralizing things about extended Traveller campaigns. In my opinion, the trade system competes with adventuring, rather than complimenting it.

5. My system does not prevent occasional speculation - it's just now part of the adventure, rather than an automatic thing characters can do.

 

[far-trader]

But they can't do it at equal ability -- each roll is modified by the skills of the character making the roll.

Heh, apologies

Somehow my brain totally blanked your skill notes (you even used the same ones I did) in the post and went straight to the Gunner doing Rainmaking and presuming using Gunner skill. Silly of course

 

[tbeard1999]

Here are some of the problems I have with the speculative trade system:

1. Brokers dramatically improve the chance of success.

+1 Broker takes 5% of the profit, but averages +12.7% profit increase.
+2 Broker takes 10% of the profit, but averages +28.6% profit increase.
+3 Broker takes 15% of the profit, but averages +50.2% profit increase.
+4 Broker takes 20% of the profit, but averages +77.7% profit increase.

(Assuming no other modifiers apply).

So...why would any sensible party not ALWAYS use a Broker+4? Note that the rules do not impose any rolls to locate a Broker. And even if there was such a roll, Brokers still dramatically increase profitability, since they cost nothing unless they actually make profit.

2. Interaction of purchase DMs and resale DMs can lead to staggering profits. For instance, there's a wide variety of goods with purchase DMs of -2 to -7 on agricultural worlds. Such goods will average a cost of about 40% of list price. These goods typically get a +1 to +3 on other worlds that are not agricultural worlds. This means that they will sell for 120% of purchase price. And if the players are sensible enough to hire a broker, these goods will average selling for 246% of list price. THIS IS SIX TIMES the original purchase price. Even allowing for broker's commissions, the average profit will be almost FOUR TIMES the cost:

Base Cost		100
Actual Cost		40
Gross Sales Price	240
Profit			200
20% Comm.		-48
Net Profit		152

Astute players -- mine at least -- will very quickly crack the chart and find the most profitable groupings of system. If they can hit only 3 deals like this (and I was dealing with AVERAGES), they will grow their capital SIXTY FOUR TIMES. More distressingly, a little good luck and they can grow it HUNDREDS of times. And since they can choose whether they will buy a particular lot of goods, only idiots will lose money on the speculative system over the long run.

With such an opportunity, no sane starship crew would EVER waste time adventuring...

And don't get me started on the starship cargo/passenger/costs model...

 

[atpollard]

I think that a Steward could affect passenger satisfaction, but I don't think that the net effect is enough to warrant a +1 on the Rainmaker roll. Depends on the referee's conception of the campaign I suppose.

No disagrement from me.
I was simply basing the suggestion on LBB 7 and included it as one of the listed skills that affected Starship Revenue in the 'official rules'.

"Steward: Steward skill serves as an attraction to high passengers. DM + 1 for each level of Steward skill for high passengers on the Passenger Table." LBB 7, pg 38.

 

[atpollard]

So...why would any sensible party not ALWAYS use a Broker+4? Note that the rules do not impose any rolls to locate a Broker. And even if there was such a roll, Brokers still dramatically increase profitability, since they cost nothing unless they actually make profit.

One small caviat is needed.

If I use a pair of jinxed dice and roll a 3, the broker-4 will increase that to a 7 on the trade table (100% of sale price). If I decide not to go through with the sale of my 1MCr cargo and sell it on the next world (using a new pair of dice), then I still need to pay the Broker his 200,000 credits.

Granted the benefits far outweigh the risks, but you implied that there were no risks (which is not quite correct).

 

[tbeard1999]

One small caviat is needed.

If I use a pair of jinxed dice and roll a 3, the broker-4 will increase that to a 7 on the trade table (100% of sale price). If I decide not to go through with the sale of my 1MCr cargo and sell it on the next world (using a new pair of dice), then I still need to pay the Broker his 200,000 credits.

Granted the benefits far outweigh the risks, but you implied that there were no risks (which is not quite correct).

Correct; I misread the chart. The broker commission is paid on the sales price (which makes more sense). However, this doesn't materially alter the numbers in my example.

And since nothing requires players to buy goods with low profit potential, I still think that the system makes it WAY too easy for players to make money by rolling a few dice and exploiting a defective system than by adventuring.