Revised CT?

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Did you ever read Alternity?
It gave more options for FTL drives than GURPS Space, but then limited which ones were used in its official campaign setting.

Yeah, I read that. I don't recall it having more options (maybe in terms of how they worked, but at the end of the day the end result is still usually either the ship jumping instantly, warping through normal space, or travelling through a hyperspace. Traveller's Jump Drives are actually the last option, not the first), but that was still a fairly good generic ruleset.

I like the idea of CTR being as generic as possible, with as many variant technology explanations as possible. Put the stutterwarp etc. in and give referees and players choise

[/qb]

That's what FF&S did, basically.

 

[mike wightman]

Which is another reason it is probably my all time favourite Traveller supplement.
Who knows, in time we may see its like for T20/CTR - that would be something worth having.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Problem with that interpretation is simple, Based on economic realities, which social engineering always has to face, under this price fixing scheme there are no Jump-2 or Jump-3 starships outside of Government service. They offer no advantage to build. Like they found out in California, when price fixing runs up against Market realities problems arise. For example, the prices that California Electric companies were allowed to charge was fixed. The price for the requirements to generate that electricity were not. (Fuel cost, etc.) Further the Electric Companies were themselves not allowed to generate Electricity and the prices that they had to pay for electricity were not fixed. As a result of rising fuel prices, rising demand for electricity and rising cost of electricity to the Electric Companies drove them bankrupt and caused rolling blackouts in California because there wasn't enough electricity to meet demand and no incentive for the electric company to purchase more. (They were losing money just to open their doors.) So much for price fixing.

Under that price fixing scheme there are no mortgages for Jump-2+ ships, because they can't make the payments even with full loads. SO there are not going to be many ships capable of higher than Jump-1. So the Systems off the mains become isolated and backwaters. (Problem is many of the high tech, shipyards, SubSector Capitals and High Pop worlds aren't located along any of the Mains.)


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ranger:
I think, in this case you may be missing the forest for the trees. I fully accept your take on the rules, but I think the big picture here is that it is a price fixed system rather than a market rate system. It's a socilological model of the universe rather than an economic one. It's also based in the real world of the late 70s when (for one example) the US government strictly regulated airline prices and limited competition between the carriers. The government even had bureaucrats passing judgement on what meals each airline could serve because offering larger meals was considered unfair competition.

MWM started with a very strong, but somewhat non-specific view of the future. The narure of the Jump drive itself was specifically intended to support that view. He could have allowed instintanious communications (as in Star Trek) but he specifically chose not to because he wanted a society in which communication was limited to the speed of travel (as in the 1870s British Empire).

Any rules system is going to have embedded assumptions about the world it is modeling. Some are mechanical (world building) and some are sociological (how the economy works). Even something that looks totally mechanical (combat) has some very basic assumptions about people. Part of the reason that combat is so deadly is that it assumes everyone participates, yet there is strong evidence that (especially in military situations) only a few of the people involved in a firefight actually aim their weapons if they fire at all. There are a lot of very good reasons why rule systems don't try to model it, but if you wanted a really "realistic" game you would.

So, my take is that Traveller is a rules system that models a very sociological (MWM has an MA in Sociology after all) view of the future.

Just my thoughts...

</font>[/QUOTE]You're correct, the economic model in CT is inefficient, but that doesn't mean it is "broken". It's only broken if you think the system should be focused for maximum efficiency (a modern economic argument). But a sociologist would argue that any system will accept a certain amount of economic inefficiency in exchange for social control.

You’re correct, you can't run a system where you mandate low consumer prices, but you can run one where you mandate high consumer cost. That is how the airline industry was operated in the 60s and 70s. The government set minimum prices for each route. That locked out new carriers from building a customer base by offering lower fairs to compete with established carriers. The system worked fine but it restricted air travel to a very small part of society due to mandated high cost. The airlines liked it because it provided a constant relatively high cash flow and removed the threat of any new competitors in the market.

The Traveller system works the same way. It insures that those with power will retain control over what gives them that power, control of the shipping lanes and the rate at which information flows over those lanes.

 

[Malenfant]

The Traveller system works the same way. It insures that those with power will retain control over what gives them that power, control of the shipping lanes and the rate at which information flows over those lanes.

...and this system is somehow stable over 1100 years? Particularly given how readily available fuel is (so that can't be much of a factor in the cost)? Riiiiight.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The Traveller system works the same way. It insures that those with power will retain control over what gives them that power, control of the shipping lanes and the rate at which information flows over those lanes.

...and this system is somehow stable over 1100 years? Particularly given how readily available fuel is (so that can't be much of a factor in the cost)? Riiiiight. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, now you are comparing apples and oranges. The system was designed as a social/economic model of how an elite would maintain control of a system given the technology and the cost of that technology. MWM's conclusion was that they would use the power of the state to impose a fixed price system. If you don't charge the legal rate you get your licesnce pulled or your landing rights revoked or what ever. The state has a lot of power to keep the price system in place.

The OTU takes that system and elaborates on it to create an 1100 year history for the Imperium, but that's not part of book 1-3, that's a subsequent development. And it clearly wasn't stable as the civil wars and the rebellion indicate. As to the price fixing system, the owners of the big shipping companies have a lot more pull in this system than the airlines did in the US in the 80s and could resist deregulation of the space shipping market than the airlines did 20 years ago.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Ranger:
The system was designed as a social/economic model of how an elite would maintain control of a system given the technology and the cost of that technology. MWM's conclusion was that they would use the power of the state to impose a fixed price system. If you don't charge the legal rate you get your licesnce pulled or your landing rights revoked or what ever. The state has a lot of power to keep the price system in place.

Wha... ???

Oh, please. MWM did no such thing. The system was designed as such to accomplish two goals:
- Be as simple as possible.
- Force the players into speculation.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually it makes almost as much sense as my theory that the per parsec was the intended method but of the two rules, neither written clearly, the wrong one was adopted as standard. The finance system for starships clearly implies the Per Parsec method of computing prices. (Only way you can finance a J-2+ ship is to charge per parsec instead of per jump.)

The speculative trade is too random and too inconsistent to finance a starship with it.

Originally posted by daryen:
Wha... ???

Oh, please. MWM did no such thing. The system was designed as such to accomplish two goals:
- Be as simple as possible.
- Force the players into speculation.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Inefficient is one thing. This is a whole new animal. It isn't just ineffecient. It makes no sense to pay more to take longer to get someplace. As much political pull as the Shipping industry and Transport COmpanies have the Manufacturing sector has to have at least as much. The local governments that need products should have even more pull. But if the transport companies have that much pull then they should be able to finance ships. They can't under this system. The Manufacturers can't compute a reasonable amount of time or expense for shipping because it depends on what is in port at the time. (Especially for the longer hauls.)

THe local governments want things for their people sooner instead of later but anything over a Jump-1 ship isn't economical so nobody will build them because there is no market for them. That is broken. Clusters like RHYLANOR would be backwaters because nobody would go there.

You can set prices and try to limit competetion, but at these levels you aren't just limiting competetion, you are eliminating trade. You are making the only trade route in general use along the Mains.

YOu might eliminate competetion but if I can't make a profit, I don't care how many competitors there are, I am still not going to make the trip.

Originally posted by Ranger:
You're correct, the economic model in CT is inefficient, but that doesn't mean it is "broken". It's only broken if you think the system should be focused for maximum efficiency (a modern economic argument). But a sociologist would argue that any system will accept a certain amount of economic inefficiency in exchange for social control.

You’re correct, you can't run a system where you mandate low consumer prices, but you can run one where you mandate high consumer cost. That is how the airline industry was operated in the 60s and 70s. The government set minimum prices for each route. That locked out new carriers from building a customer base by offering lower fairs to compete with established carriers. The system worked fine but it restricted air travel to a very small part of society due to mandated high cost. The airlines liked it because it provided a constant relatively high cash flow and removed the threat of any new competitors in the market.

The Traveller system works the same way. It insures that those with power will retain control over what gives them that power, control of the shipping lanes and the rate at which information flows over those lanes.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually Small independent traders wouldn't exist beyond Jump-1. No other CT jump numbers, even with full loads, using the "Standard one week in Jump, one week planetside" can make its mortgage payment.

Ah, but that is the standard for tramp ships. They arrive in a system, they spend maybe a day getting to port and discharging cargo and passengers, then they spend 5 days scrounging around for a new load of cargo and passengers, then they spend maybe a day loading and getting out past the jump limit. With the jump of 7 days on the average that comes to an average of one jump every 14 days. But regular passenger and freight companies don't operate that way. They have local factors whose job it is to make sure there's a full cargo ready to load as soon as the ship has discharged its previous cargo. They have ticket agents or contracts with travel agencies guaranteeing so and so many passengers every trip. They have 5-year contracts with local manufacturers to ferry so and so many dT of cargo every trip. As a result of this, they can arrive, discharge, load, and depart, giving them a turnaround of certainly no more than 10 days per jump (I could give you a good arguement for a 9 day turnaround, but just to be on the safe side I usually go with 10).

Ships engaged in long-distance trade are especially able to do their jumps in less than 14 days. They don't even have to unload in most cases. Just arrive, refuel, jump to the next system. If there's a refuelling station at the jump limit they can do it in less than 8 days per jump.

And before someone asks what regular service has to do with PCs: 1) What the competition charges for freight and passengers affect what a tramp ship can charge. 2) Some PCs don't have their own ship and have to get from system to system by regular transport. 3) Some PCs eventually turn their single tramp ship into a fledgeling line; at that point they need to know how things like factors and regular schedules work.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Passage values are be part of the setting, surely?

Personally, I don't even see what the big deal is with these. If you don't like 'em, change 'em. Surely there isn't a single standard passage rate across all of Charted Space - that makes no sense at all.

Same deal as with your impossible worlds. It's a mistake the referee shouldn't have to spend his time correcting.
And a standard passage rate does make sense as long as you assume a generic ship generation system. When you konw how much it costs to run a ship and have a notion of what a fair profit is, you can calculate a fair price for a passage. If that cost and that profit is the same across all of Charted Space, the resulting passage price will be the same all across Charted Space.

That doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't point out to a referee that local conditions such as seasonal variations, price wars, monopolies, etc. can change prices locally. But based on the expenses a jump incurs there is a minimum passage price that will allow the line to survive, absent subsidies of one sort or another.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Many of the issues people might have with the OTU aren't with the rules, but address points that appear to be part of the rules, but are rather part of the setting instead.

That would be a great help (provided one was willing to give up on the OTU), except, if those are 'merely' the rules for passage prices in the OTU (all across Charted Space), where are the rules for passage prices in all the other universes that the wonderfully generic Traveller rules allow us to play in? I sure can't find them anywhere.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Ranger:
You're correct, the economic model in CT is inefficient, but that doesn't mean it is "broken". It's only broken if you think the system should be focused for maximum efficiency (a modern economic argument). But a sociologist would argue that any system will accept a certain amount of economic inefficiency in exchange for social control.

No, it's broken if you think the owners of a jump-3+ starship should be able to avoid bankruptcy.

You?re correct, you can't run a system where you mandate low consumer prices, but you can run one where you mandate high consumer cost.

Ah, but that's just the point Bhoins and I have been trying to make: Cr8,000 per passenger is too low for any ship with a jump level of 3 and above.


Hans

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ranger:
The system was designed as a social/economic model of how an elite would maintain control of a system given the technology and the cost of that technology. MWM's conclusion was that they would use the power of the state to impose a fixed price system. If you don't charge the legal rate you get your licesnce pulled or your landing rights revoked or what ever. The state has a lot of power to keep the price system in place.

Wha... ???

Oh, please. MWM did no such thing. The system was designed as such to accomplish two goals:
- Be as simple as possible.
- Force the players into speculation. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree, with the caviat that I think MWM did both. I think he cleary designed the system to force players to use small, short jump ships and still have to skirt the law to make money, but I also think that the price fixing system fit into his view of how a future elite would try to maintain control of the system that gave them their power.

MWM has said on a couple of occasions that rules model a social system. That's why I think the fixed rate passage system was both. MWM had an idea of how society would work, and he came up with simple rules to model that society.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ranger:
You're correct, the economic model in CT is inefficient, but that doesn't mean it is "broken". It's only broken if you think the system should be focused for maximum efficiency (a modern economic argument). But a sociologist would argue that any system will accept a certain amount of economic inefficiency in exchange for social control.

No, it's broken if you think the owners of a jump-3+ starship should be able to avoid bankruptcy.

You?re correct, you can't run a system where you mandate low consumer prices, but you can run one where you mandate high consumer cost.

Ah, but that's just the point Bhoins and I have been trying to make: Cr8,000 per passenger is too low for any ship with a jump level of 3 and above.


Hans </font>[/QUOTE]I see your point, but I still think the rule is intended to do exactly what it does. The base problem is the ratio of income off the fixed rate against expenses if you have a mortgage payment. That means that the only long haul ships are corporate or government owned.

If you want to fix that you can go to a market based pricing system or you can just tweek the system by removing the single occupancy requirement for passanger cabins. That is why I always saw the system as over priced, not under priced, because two people traveling together have to each pay for a cabin, when it is clear from book 5 that double occupancy works fine. Limiting the number of passangers to the number of cabins and then fixing the price for passage works great for limiting the income and keeping any serious competition from entering the market. It keeps prices artificially high for passangers and income artificially low for carriers.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Ranger:
MWM has said on a couple of occasions that rules model a social system. That's why I think the fixed rate passage system was both. MWM had an idea of how society would work, and he came up with simple rules to model that society.

If that statement is true, then I can't see how anyone can argue, to any degree, Malenfant's point. If a social model is engineered directly into the rules, then the whole canard of a "generic system" pretty much dies on the spot.

And if it was an intentional economic/social model, then it really needs to be fixed. There is pretty much no way that such a system is sustainable for 100 years, much less 1000 years.

 

[Malenfant]

I think this highlights a major problem with the game as it stands.

I mean, look at us here - we're arguing about travel fares and mortgages. People worry enough about this sort of thing is real life, why would anyone want to carry on doing it in an RPG?! You gotta draw the line somewhere surely. I guess you could rip apart the economics of any other sf universe too, but people just sit back and accept it because they want to have fun with the game, not bicker over accounting and economics.

And people wonder why Traveller isn't more popular...?! I think this stuff needs to go straight out of the window in a revised CT.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I think this highlights a major problem with the game as it stands.

<snip>

And people wonder why Traveller isn't more popular...?! I think this stuff needs to go straight out of the window in a revised CT.

Good point, but I wouldn't throw it all away because a lot of people like running merchant based campaigns.
Once again the sensible choice is to offer a few different options for the economic model and let referees decide how they want to run things in their game.
YMMV

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Once again the sensible choice is to offer a few different options for the economic model and let referees decide how they want to run things in their game.[/QB]

Yeah, it definitely shouldn't be hardwired as one option in the rules.

 

[Wayne]

I would like to see that as an option.

Hell, I would like a CT:R to be setting free with lots of options for char gen, travel, tech, world gen, economics, ect..

You could than point out what rules are used in the OTU.

Something like FF&S for the whole rule set.

 

[Wayne]

This looks to be the way that QLI is going any way.

You have the T20 rules (not setting free, but setting light) and a number of different settings coming out. Gateway Domain and TNE: 1248 (both in the OTU), and then Legacy of the Aldenata, Honor Harrington and 2320AD/Twilight 2020 (in anther shared setting)

CT: Revised would give you a non D20 rule set to use with the above settings (at lest, that how is see it)