Revised CT?

[aramis]

Revenue per cargo/passenger DTon, after LS, in CT
Paid Shipping: Cr1000/Td
Paid Mail: Cr5000/ton (Full or empty on route)
HPsg: ((Cr10000-Cr2000)/5) Cr1600 (assuming the 1T Baggage is cargo) or Cr2000 if not
MPsg: Cr1500/Td SO
Cr3000/Td DO
LPsg: Cr900/Td

Prices from TTB, pg 52-55
This is post life support, but before all other expenses.

Now, under CT, the maximum passenger run is rather small... max of 21 HP (Pop A to Pop8+), max of 27 MP, and 39 LP, before TL and skill effects. Median from a Size A world is more like 10HP, 14MP, and 21LP.

LP are less viable than cargo... unless the ship wins the low lottery...

So, 10 HP, clearing KCr8 each, is KCr80. KCr60 for MP, instead.

Now, if one assume the ability to make Cr1500/Td for purchased cargoes on spec, the following J2 design can make it High-pop to high-pop; it's tight, but will generally break even after all expenses. Risky, but provided a broker is aboard, it's doable.

300Td Hull. 1J2 PP2 for 2 weeks, with a model 1/bis computer
Fuel Tankage of 63 tons supports 1 jump and 2 Weeks.
There are 36 Large Staterooms, providing for 6 crew, with the remainder for passengers. There are 47 tons of cargo space. Total Cost is MCr120.1. Payments per month are KCr500.417, Salaries per month are KCr24.3, and Fuel costs are KCr31.5 per Jump. Crew consists of 1 Pilot, 1 Navigator, 1 Engineer, 1 Medic, 2 stewards and 0 Gunners.

Operational Cycle is 2 Weeks, with a costs total of KCr267.16233333 and expected revenue of KCr0.257 for an expected profit of KCr-10.162333333per cycle, using refined fuel, and alloting for annual maintenance.

If one allows for pulling Cr500 extra from spec (doable, very much so, under both Bk2 and Bk7 cargo methods), one can make money on this beast. The income is more stable, and hence a better risk than a standard A2, provided it serves a high-pop route. (and there are several such routes in the marches.)

A J3 is much harder to prove, but... Under MT, with much of the fuel load gone, one can make spec on a J3. Again, passengers provide a stable load.

J4 and higher are either taking particularly good runs on large circle routes (which can make a profit of more than KCr 5 per ton) or are paid up front, and struggle to meet expenses.

Charter runs, or "Self-Charter" runs (Call them double jump, out and back for story purposes), can be wonderful money-makers for smaller J2 and J3 ships. Double occupancy MP runs can make excellent monry makers, even if one assumes using the lower of the two world's rolls for both legs... admitedly, not in the rules per se, but a faily obvious way to handle such a call.

Also, the Bk 2 rules (which are not replaced by Bk7) imply that passengers for such ships are space-available passengers.

If we assume an 80 year lifespan, J3 ships CAN make a profit at replacement rate. Even at 60... by savign for a replacement at 1/2 the monthly payment rate, one caan buy a new vessel in just over 20 years... so once you have enough for the second vessel, J2 and J3 200-400 Td vessels can and will make money at replacement rates if purchased outright.

A real-world situation: Many small villages in Alaska form co-ops to purchase planes outright for bringing supplies in and mail in and out. These coops raise the startup money for one plane purchased for cash. The planes have aan expected lifespan of about 20 years (This is counting the crash rates therein). They often can buy a second in 7-10 years fromm the replacement captial fund. They can keep two planes full and flying, and have enough capital to replace either in case of a crash... These are often operated by crews who are on salary, with limited performance bonuses; they fuction in many ways much like Traveller's tramps.

Stebbins-Ambler Air Transport, Inc, was just one such company. They folded due to an inability to maintain the operational aircrafft due to a lack of new spare parts being available for C119's, plus a freakishly bad year. (Both operational planes crashed; no deaths nor injuries, but it took 10 years for the head mechanic to finally get one back up... they bough two more during the time frame, and due to old airframes, had to turn two of the four into parts birds; because of the crash location, crash 2 could not be scrapped to put parts 1 back in service...) I happen to have occasionally rousted for them back in High School.

Yes, it's a marginal existance for th corporate entity... but it provided steady mail, fuel, luxuries, and spare parts service to two villages, for most of a decade, having started with one surplussed plane.

The only reason J2 and J3 don't work is the amount financed... 480 payments of 1/192 the financed amount. (5/4 the financed amount, *1/240th of that). Why Marc didn't do the algebra for the finance terms ahead of time, I don't know. Stating "Minimum down payment of 20%, and monthly payments of 1/192'd of the financed amount" is much more flexible, and mathematically equal for 20% down payments.

So that above J2 design, simply by doubling the down, saves KCr125 (give or take a few hundred, due to rounding) per month, or KCr62 per jump... and now can make a stable and steady profit on a J2 run betgween two pop 8+ worlds.

Then again, I suspect, that, if Marc had known when he penned CT that it would become SO overanalyzed, he'd have done more research....

And, yes, Hans, I count myself amongst the overanalyzing gamers...

 

[aramis]

By the way, just so that you know the types of routing of which I was writing, some examples of J2 Pop8+ to Pop 8+ in Regina Subsector, as presented in The Traveller Book (CT Big Black Book).
Efate-Alell (9-8)
Menorb-Efate (9-9)
Feri-Enope

The slightly less viable, but doable include Reina-Yori. Yori-Yurst, some "Less desirable" E-port runs.

Thats one subsector, and not the spinward main...

A J3 could make the Feri-Menorb-Alell-Feri or Efate-Menorb-Feri triangles. It would need a 40% down to make payments, but could make it on passenger service alone, under Bk2 mechanics.

And I am figuring out a J3...
200Td Hull. 1J3 PP3 for 2 weeks, with a model 2/bis computer
Fuel Tankage of 63 tons supports 1 jump and 2 Weeks.
There are 22 Large Staterooms, providing for 4 crew, with the remainder for passengers. There are 5 tons of cargo space. Total Cost is MCr108.6, not finnancable, Salaries per month are KCr18, and Fuel costs are KCr31.5 per Jump. Crew consists of 1 Pilot, 1 Navigator, 1 Engineer, 0 Stewards, 1 Medic, and 0 Gunners.
Operational Cycle is 2 Weeks, with a costs total of KCr13.344 and expected revenue of KCr0.113 for an expected profit of KCr99.656per cycle, using refined fuel, and alloting for annual maintenance.

She can replace herself every 45 years, assuming 100% retention, and NO high passeners!

She can afford to pick and choose cargo loads, since she's got a small hold..., and she can (with a broker in the crew) make several thousand per ton routinely (2-3 KCr/Td one jump of three profit).

Oh, and both designs have an air/raft...

MT designs, again, have more space in comparison to CT designs, once above J1. (TNE designs generally don't, due to M-Fuel)

So, for simplicity sake, include the algebra already done to convert financing from payments on base price to finanaced amount, and also list the "Standard" financing, please.

(Double check my math here... financed amount is 4/5ths, so the 1/240th is on 5/4 financed amount.)

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]I'd say it is actually the other way around. You have an image of how the world works (a social model) and then you design rules that reflect that. So, the social model isn't engineered into the rules so much as the rules are a product of the social model you start with.

I reacted the same way you did the first time I read MWM's comments. He was explaining why the OTU was so promenent in MT. Basically, what he was saying was that after ten years of developing more detailed rules that fit into the OTU background, the two had become one. The rules were so detailed by that point that they pretty much just reflected how the OTU worked. I didn't use to see it that way, but since I've been tinkering around designing a Firefly setting for Traveller I see what MWM meant. You can't design a CG or economic rule without first asking "what is it that I am trying to model here"?

I'm all for a section in CTR that says just that and lays out examples and options people can use in designing their own settings and explains how they will effect that game. So, start with a baseline of the CT rules and then say, but if you want instintanious communications, a market rate for passangers and cargo, etc. here is what it will do to the game play...

I modified the passage rules to say that HP is single occupancy, MP is 8,000 for single and 6,000 for double occupancy, so that you can make get 12,000 a cabin on MP. That just makes more sense to me, but I still see the system as rigged (intentionally) against the small, independent operator.

 

[daryen]

A point of clarification here.

I completely agree (at this point) with Malenfant's position that Traveller is not a "generic" scifi RPG, but has significant societal and technological assumptions built directly into the rules. However, I don't agree with his premise that this is a problem. To me, it is these assumptions that help define what Traveller "is". Without those assumptions, you just have a generic RPG, not Traveller.

My object is with one of those assumptions. Namely, any economic or societal structure that somehow enforces a "per jump" cost structure on cargo and passenger service cannot work. That system would fail within 100 years, much less the Imperium's 1100 years. Such a system is completely untenable.

So, my object is with one of the assumptions built into the system, not that assumptions are built into the system.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by daryen:
[QB]I completely agree (at this point) with Malenfant's position that Traveller is not a "generic" scifi RPG, but has significant societal and technological assumptions built directly into the rules. However, I don't agree with his premise that this is a problem. To me, it is these assumptions that help define what Traveller "is". Without those assumptions, you just have a generic RPG, not Traveller.

That's exactly the problem though - many people have claimed over the years both here and elsewhere that Traveller is a generic sf RPG that you can make any background. That simply isn't true, because of those inbuilt assumptions.

Strictly speaking, it is more accurate to say claim Traveller is a game engine that can be used to create a broad subset of interstellar scifi that shares the assumptions that are already hardwired into the system.

Over the years, this hasn't been a problem because the various editions of Traveller have had the sort of background that it was built to simulate - the inbuilt assumptions haven't been a problem. But now, we're approaching a period where Traveller is going to be the ruleset for a broad range of backgrounds (2320AD, HH, etc) that do NOT share those assumptions.

So it seems to me that QLI has to decide what Traveller should be - either it should be a generic sf ruleset with no inbuilt assumptions that can be used to run a wide range of different settings, or it should be a more specific sf ruleset with specific assumptions that has to be be tweaked and changed in order to work with other settings on an individual basis.

So far I'm getting the impression that in theory the game wants to be the former, but in practise is going to be the latter. I'd much rather see it turned into a generic ruleset if it's going to be used as the core rules for other settings.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
That's exactly the problem though - many people have claimed over the years both here and elsewhere that Traveller is a generic sf RPG that you can make any background. That simply isn't true, because of those inbuilt assumptions.

Again I say bahh, that's your opinion and not universal truth

I have used the core CT rules to run MSFU (my sci fi universe - I'm not allowed to call it a Traveller universe anymore ) which used modifed versions of nearly every section of CT.

Again I ask, at what point did my group stop playing Traveller if we were using those LBB's and nothing else but house rule tweaks and imagination - encouraged to do so by the rules themselves.
Examples:
character generation - use the tables for term resolution but then select rather than roll for skills, later on we added serving in more than one career during prior history
combat - used AHL, but included new armour and weapon types - even Dune style personal shields for a time
ship design/operation - ignored the jump fuel requirement (not Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica enough for our tastes back then ), used a per parsec trade model
ship combat - from the book, but with shields added
no psionics - (Oh dear, there goes the OTU, Zhodani and all...

)
world design and animal encounters - by the book

As for the background universe - there was a nearby evil Federation, the PC's spent most of there time hopping from independent world to independent world beyond the border.
The worlds visited and adventures therein were inspired by the works of Niven, Pournelle, Harrison, Tubb.

Strictly speaking, it is more accurate to say claim Traveller is a game engine that can be used to create a broad subset of interstellar scifi that shares the assumptions that are already hardwired into the system.

This I agree with, almost.
CT is a set of game engines, the subset of campaign types is unlimited,and my argument remains that the assumptions hardwired into the system can be ignored and you are still playing Traveller.

Over the years, this hasn't been a problem because the various editions of Traveller have had the sort of background that it was built to simulate - the inbuilt assumptions haven't been a problem. But now, we're approaching a period where Traveller is going to be the ruleset for a broad range of backgrounds (2320AD, HH, etc) that do NOT share those assumptions.

Oh no, I agree again
With the exception of 1st edition CT which was a blank sheet campaign wise.
Oddly enough by the end of the MT/DGP era I was running MSFU with MT based rules, and the MT OTU setting using Twilight2000 1st edition rules

So it seems to me that QLI has to decide what Traveller should be - either it should be a generic sf ruleset with no inbuilt assumptions that can be used to run a wide range of different settings, or it should be a more specific sf ruleset with specific assumptions that has to be be tweaked and changed in order to work with other settings on an individual basis.

In much the same way that GURPS has been tweaked to produce GURPS Traveller and Transhuman Space, both of which deviate from GURPS Space assumptions/guidelines/rules???

So far I'm getting the impression that in theory the game wants to be the former, but in practise is going to be the latter. I'd much rather see it turned into a generic ruleset if it's going to be used as the core rules for other settings.

I completely agree with the final statement.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Again I say bahh, that's your opinion and not universal truth

Well, it's not just my opinion alone...

Again I ask, at what point did my group stop playing Traveller if we were using those LBB's and nothing else but house rule tweaks and imagination - encouraged to do so by the rules themselves.

Depends. If you take D&D and replace the chargen with new classes and races - or even strip out classes altogether, and then change how combat and magic works, are you still playing D&D? (Monte Cook did that with Arcana Unearthed. And if I was to play it I'd say I'm playing AU, not D&D).

As for the background universe - there was a nearby evil Federation, the PC's spent most of there time hopping from independent world to independent world beyond the border.
The worlds visited and adventures therein were inspired by the works of Niven, Pournelle, Harrison, Tubb.

Well, I'd say your changes to the rules don't sound extreme enough to warrant saying that it's so different from Traveller as to be unrecognisable, but there are obviously differences - mostly in that you've stripped out the setting-specific rules and whittled it down to the generic ruleset. The background setting is clearly different though.

CT is a set of game engines, the subset of campaign types is unlimited,and my argument remains that the assumptions hardwired into the system can be ignored and you are still playing Traveller.

I think there are degrees of difference. You're probably playing a purer, more generic version of Traveller than wsa provided in the rulebooks, because you removed the elements that chained it to the Charted Space universe.

In much the same way that GURPS has been tweaked to produce GURPS Traveller and Transhuman Space, both of which deviate from GURPS Space assumtions/guidelines/rules???

Don't think GT deviates much from GURPS Space... neither really does Transhuman Space (even though it could do in practise since it's PbG, they didn't really go down the route of making things wildly different).

 

[kafka47]

I have been lurking thus far, but, I really wonder why we would need to make a tweaked up version of CT when we will be getting (hopefully) an errata free version of MegaTraveller with the CD ROM coming down the pipe.

Granted, even I, who prefers MT over CT always used CT combat rules (before I actually understood how MT works) but I think what we might want to do is create a simplified but deadly form of combat rules. BITS has certainly made strives in this direction but it has been a while and I wonder how compactible they are with creating a truly generic system. Therefore, creating something like Mayday that could be overlaid with any of the Traveller game systems would be an accomplishment. From my understanding of this and other threads, Starship Combat also has to be simplified and maybe rules for minatures (although, I never a fan of the latter).

Therefore, what we might be asking for is a T20 version of Striker but with a technological curve that would include all possible Milieus including that of the Ancients...

So why don't we just call it T5 and get it out there...

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by kafka47:
I have been lurking thus far, but, I really wonder why we would need to make a tweaked up version of CT when we will be getting (hopefully) an errata free version of MegaTraveller with the CD ROM coming down the pipe.

MT is still my favourite incarnation of the Traveller rules, but there is far too much of the OTU in every book to claim that it is a generic set of sci-fi rpg rules IMHO.
If all references to the OTU background were removed from the core four books, I'm including the Referee's companion here, and the setting confined to an expanded Rebellion Sourcebook then MT would have remained as generic as CT.

Granted, even I, who prefers MT over CT always used CT combat rules (before I actually understood how MT works) but I think what we might want to do is create a simplified but deadly form of combat rules. BITS has certainly made strives in this direction but it has been a while and I wonder how compactible they are with creating a truly generic system.

ACQ is one of the best combat systems for Traveller there is IMHO, being based on T4's rules with a Snapshot/AHL makeover.

Therefore, what we might be asking for is a T20 version of Striker but with a technological curve that would include all possible Milieus including that of the Ancients...

Seconded

So why don't we just call it T5 and get it out there...

I don't think it's going to be based on any of MWM's draft documants, from what Hunter posted it's more of a polishing of CT with a task system and new combat system.
But as far as the sentiment behind your post, the sooner the better (after rigorous playtesting of course )

 

[daryen]

Sigg,

What Hunter is proposing is, for the lack of a better description, T20 without d20. To replace the missing stuff, he will take inspiration and direction from CT. The whole point is to have T20 for the d20 players and CT20/CTR for those that refuse to use d20. Therefore, there is no internal competition, and QLI expands thier market. (Sometimes even getting double sales.)

And, quite frankly, it has to be that for it to make sense for QLI to publish. If it doesn't directly leverage as much of T20 as possible, then it would hurt their market.

T5 is a completely different animal. T5 will be a creation of MWM himself; it will be what he thinks is the right thing for Traveller.

T5 and RCT/CTR/CT:M/CT20 are completely different creations that would be made to accomplish completely separate goals.

[As an aside, the more I think about it, I kinda like calling it CT20. Its a play on the fact that it is based on T20 and on CT: CT20.]

 

[mike wightman]

Would naming it CT20 not make people think it is a d20 based game?

 

[far-trader]

Yeah, CT20 is kinda catchy but it does lead to thinking it's a d20 game. I'm not too sure "Classic" will be a big selling point for a game you're trying to make generic and interesting to a new market either.

What about just "Traveller" in a nice red color, all caps, under a thin red line, on a simple black background, maybe with "Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far Future" under it In a nice portable format of course, maybe say about 8 and 3/4 inches by 5 and 3/4 inches

OK, so I'm only half-serious. I think calling it just Traveller, no qualifiers, no abbreviation, is the way to go, if that's allowed and cool with MWM.

 

[Flynn]

daryen,

Personally, I prefer calling it CTR, so that it's reminescent of the founding ideas behind it, as Hunter has expressed it: it's a Revised CT, first and foremost, leveraging T20 where it needs to in terms of ship construction, world generation, etc. All character stuff is essentially CT, and that's what people will judge it by, in the long run.

But that's just my opinion,
Flynn

 

[kafka47]

I can see how Hunter wants to overall CT to make more in line with the rest of Traveller (working on the assumption that all rules come ultimately from CT) but would not this better served as a supplement? (of something less than 100 pages) This way provide a universal rule set that GT or T20 could use a matrix for translation of new concepts. But, I would rather see more new Traveller stuff from T20 and developing the milieux that it will spawn than to go back. The main T20 rulebook is enough for me to rework any CT for a generic universe.

But if it is a generic universe that we are after...why not just use the reprints and create whatever universe one pleases.

MT is still my favourite incarnation of the Traveller rules, but there is far too much of the OTU in every book to claim that it is a generic set of sci-fi rpg rules IMHO.
If all references to the OTU background were removed from the core four books, I'm including the Referee's companion here, and the setting confined to an expanded Rebellion Sourcebook then MT would have remained as generic as CT.

I guess that is true. You see, I bought the original MT books through osmosis. I first bought the Players Book ignoring the OTU, as it did not suit my generic campaign. Then I bought the Referee's Manual, a few months later and still ignored the OTU. Then over a year and half later, I succumbed to buying the Imperial Encyclopedia (only for the Starship descriptions)...therefore, kept a generic universe.

However, it was the evil DGP with their rag, called Traveller's Digest that pushed me over the edge to officially adopt the OTU...even though, I had made concessions prior...such as buying all the Alien Modules save the K'kree (which was impossible to find in Canada, at the time). But, even those concessions did not alter the generic universe...it only made it richer...although, I had a hard time integrating the Solomani...so I just kept that information from the players...

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by kafka47:
I can see how Hunter wants to overall CT to make more in line with the rest of Traveller (working on the assumption that all rules come ultimately from CT) but would not this better served as a supplement?

No, Hunter wants to produce a Revised CT using T20 as the basis so that he can sell a primary sourcebook to "CT is the only system" people and to "d20 is the work of the antichrist" people. The reason this is important is so that he can sell his T20 supplements and products to BOTH the T20 buyers and the CTR buyers.

And, since it is expected that anyone interested in CTR wouldn't touch a d20 product with a ten foot pole, CTR has to be standalone. CRT is not a T20 addon, but a T20 alternative.

I could be wrong here, but I can't see how any other implementation would make sense from QLI's perspective.

 

[JustinThyme]

I was very much excited when hearing of T20, and purchased the book soon after release. But like so many others, I returned to the original Traveller ruleset because I didn't know anything about d20. I couldn't see investing in and learning Dungeons & Dragons so that I could play Traveller.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sol Pniering:
I was very much excited when hearing of T20, and purchased the book soon after release. But like so many others, I returned to the original Traveller ruleset because I didn't know anything about d20. I couldn't see investing in and learning Dungeons & Dragons so that I could play Traveller.

You do realise you don't actually need to learn or buy a D&D book to play T20, right?

It's got an XP chart in it (not quite sure how it managed that while still having the d20 logo), and it isn't exactly rocket science to figure out how to get attributes in a 3-18 range

.

 

[aramis]

Mal, for many, the basic premises of the D20 engine are not well laid out in T20; familiarity with another level-based D20 (Especially D&D3E) is quite helpful in digesting those rules. (And to think, I helped playtest it... ah, but I'd been running 3E prior..)

Having all the requisite components does NOT mean it is unneedful to have at least read the D&D rules; it wasn't able to actually explain a number of bits that D&D explains in great depth.

Both due to page count and to the D20 Open License.

 

[Malenfant]

I guess T20 could explain the basic concepts of things like feats and so on better.

When I tried to make a character in T20 (which was a while ago), I had read D&D3e but hadn't played it yet. That said, I found the problem was more that the explanations in T20 itself were confusing and not very clear. I don't think knowing D&D really helped (and even now that I have played D&D, some of the concepts in T20 still don't make much sense to me).

I don't think the problem is in requiring any D&D background - I think it's more down to the explanations provided for things in T20 itself not being all that clear.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I guess T20 could explain the basic concepts of things like feats and so on better.

Yes. I'm hoping the new player's book will be revised enough in this regard. Since it's OGL it won't have the d20 restrictions.

I give kudos to CotI and eclipse and his T20 Pulp PBEM group for really helping me grasp T20's harder concepts. The whole prior history class not having to equal character class and vehicle feats being like driver certs for example.

Once you grasp things like that, even if you aren't particullarly fond of them, chargen is IMO a lot easier. Personally I find T20 chargen a lot more flexible than CT while still having some of the random wonkiness. You could always just spend say 28,000XP on class levels, choosing as you go or adapt one of the several point based d20 methods.

Now that you have your THB back Mal you might want to give T20 chargen another go. If you take a look at the Tell me about your Character thread here on CotI, you'll find several T20 character examples. Personally I tend to create T20 PCs with at most three classes, usually two, to reflect job changes and such.

I'm not too keen on adding more classes and feats but that's a personal grip of mine with d20. I like the more generic flexible classes like most in the THB than straightjacketing a character concpet with narrow classes and it has a fairly broad set of feats without getting too cheesy or large.

As always YMMV,
Casey