Revised CT?

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
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,

Could you post (or send me) the full description of this ship?


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Casey:
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.

Well, was it even technically a d20 book in the first place. I thought you couldn't have XP tables in the book to qualify as such, but there is one there.

The whole prior history class not having to equal character class and vehicle feats being like driver certs for example.

Yeah, I don't get things like that. I'd have the vehicle feats as skills, myself. And then have something like "High Tech Background" or "Low Tech background" as feats you need to have that grant or deny access to certain skills (at least initially).

The other big problem I have is that you can take character classes before you even start a given career. So you can be an 18 year old Scout, even though you haven't even gone into university let alone enter the Scouts. That is horribly counter-intuitive.

I think I'd either say that you had to take class levels in the career you're in (because it's just easier that way), or severely limit how many non class-levels you can take so as to avoid the IMO ridiculous situation of having someone who does terms in one career but doesn't actually take any class levels in that career at all (eg a Merchant career who takes all his levels in Rogue and Academic).

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.

It's on the list of stuff to do...

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.

Thing is, T20 encourages multiclassing so much I have to wonder what the point of having separate classes is - it'd be easier to ditch classes altogether and just allow players to make characters that they want from the ground up.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Casey:
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.

Well, was it even technically a d20 book in the first place. I thought you couldn't have XP tables in the book to qualify as such, but there is one there.</font>[/QUOTE]iirc it's ok to have the xp/level table, you just can't explain how it's supposed to be used, like when your xp's total equals that of the next level you level up and all that entails

I like the idea of a Tech Background Feat as a requirement for certain feats and skills, heck even certain classes/prior history (some already have kinda like that). That will be going in the MTU files here

It is reminding me of something similar, a TL penalty for checks outside your homeworld TL, maybe MT or TNE??

 

[Malenfant]

FWIW I never understood why Weapons and Armor Specialisations were feats and not skills in D&D either. There's some aspect of game design there since you don't add skill levels to "to hit" rolls by default.

Ditto for driving a vehicle. But IIRC T20 has that both as a feat AND a skill, which is doubly confusing.

But really, why should you have a feat to use armor when a skill would work just as well? Is it just because there's not much more you can do with it at higher skill levels?


There are also elements from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed that I'd yoink for use in T20. They have "Talents" there, which are those feats that are obviously more like "advantages" (like 'get +2 on all Spot and Listen rolls' or "you are ambidextrous") - you can only get those at first level to reflect that you can only be born with those.

 

[Flynn]

Feats are used when a level of variation in skill is not mechanicly important. The d20 philosophy is that you can either wear armor correctly or you can't. Skill with weapons is scaled by BAB, but if you removed BAB, then changing it to a skill makes sense. Otherwise, it works well in its current incarnation. It may not meet your ideal, but it does work within the system for which it was designed.

Hope that helps,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Feats do seem to have a binary nature, yes.

Thing is, there are a lot of feats in T20 that don't need to be feats at all, like Naval Architect, Surgery and Geological Survey. These are skills, surely? You could argue that any skill can be a feat if those are.

There are also, looking through it again, a vast number of feats that give you +2 to this or that. And some feats are taken verbatim from D&D (Sprited Charge, Mounted Combat, Mobility).

 

[Flynn]

Ah, such is the nature of the D20 System and the OGL. I do agree that some of those feats might be better represented as either skills or modifiers to existing skills. However, I'm enjoying the game I'm running with the rules as they are, and I'd rather put my efforts to making the game fun rather than fixing the niggly bits.

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
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,

Could you post (or send me) the full description of this ship?


Hans </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, well, its a HG design, using Bk5.

Actually, Hans, what I posted WAS the design... I cut and pasted from my SS... including the per cycle op costs...

Up to J3, one can make a profit on standard Bk2 rates, given the following caveats:
1) It operates restricted runs, High-pop to High-pop, TL's fairly close.
2) It relies upon passengers, mail, and/or priority cargos, not shipment cargos.
3) Freight purchases are restricted to 1st die for purchase is less than 3 on a 2d table; if possible, don't buy unless there is a 3 point difference in 1st die between local and destination price.
4) Shipments are taken on last minute only, to fill empty space.

They really get helped a LOT by
1) DO MP (even if price reduced by KCr2)
2) Priority cargos (T20).
3) good skills.

A broker 1 is usually an additional spread of 2 points on price, and thus 10% under CT.
Broker 3, however, can result in spectacular results on polar rolls, thereby allowing multi-thousand percentage runs.
Broker 4: A broker four, at absolute worst case, produces a buy at 8 and sell at 6, before world type mods. A broker 4 coupled to a trader 3+ can therefore make almost all purchased load runs show at least 40% gain on investment.

that trader 3 is to be able to get a price good next week. A trader 1 allows him to bypass purchasing cargoes which have any chance of rolling a 12... and even 11's... and thus being potentially unprofitable.

Trade on spec, under Bk2, actually benefits from buy then determine destination... you know the cargo, and larger jumps allow exponentially more worlds to fall in range, and thus provide better sale margins.

 

[rancke]

[Edited after getting some good advice from Malenfant]

OK, I dug out my HG rules and designed a 200 T jump-3 ship. Unles I've forgotten or overlooked something (it's been a long time since I last did HG designs), it looks like this:


TYPE AL3 SMALL LINER

The Type AL3 Small Liner is a TL 15 design created to provide regular jump-3 middle passenger service to planets that dosen't generate enough passengers to support larger ships.

TTL15 HG Design
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Volume Power Cost
Hull 200 T Close Structure 200.0 - 16.0

Bridge -20.0 - 1.0
Computer 2bis -2.0 0 18.0

ENGINEERING
Jump-3 Drive (4%) -8.0 - 32.0
Maneuver 1G (2%) -4.0 - 6.0
Power Plant 3 (3%) -6.0 +6.0 18.0
Jump fuel (30%) -60.0 - -
Power Plant fuel (3%) -6.0 - -

ACCOMODATIONS
23 large staterooms -92.0 - 11.5
Cargo space -2.0 - 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------
0.0 6.0 102.5
[ 92.25]</pre>[/QUOTE]Crew (and salaries): Pilot (6,000), Engineer (4,000), and Medic (2,000).


This ship will have the following operating expenses (Based on 35 jumps/year and 90% utilization):
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Crew salaries: 144,000
Crew life support: 210,000
Passenger life supp.: 1,260,000
Maintenance: 9,225
Fuel: 1,155,000
Port fees: 3,500
Mortgage & Profit: 5,785,625
-------------------------------
8,567,350</pre>[/QUOTE]In order to make a decent profit the ship will have to sell tickets at a cost of Cr13,600 apiece. In other words, Cr8,0000 is Cr5,600 too low.


Hans

PS. Please note that the fact that I use the absurdly high canonical life support costs does not in any way mean that I think they make sense. I just don't want to complicate the discussion with side issues.

 

[Malenfant]

Hans, try putting the table in a 'code' block. That should preserve formatting.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Hans, try putting the table in a 'code' block. That should preserve formatting.

Thanks, Constantine.


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

no prob. Looks much better now

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Perhaps the Cr5,600 can be made up if you factor in the cost of booze and pay per view movies. I mean those passengers are trapped in there for a week, the ship owner's got them by the short and curlies.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Are there 12 months in a year or 13? (I was under the impression that there are 13 standard, 28 day, months in a year and Holiday. (365 days in a Standard Year.) And then shouldn't mortgage payments be 1/260th instead of 1/240th? (So over 40 years the ship costs the 220% of the price listed in the rules.) Or do you not pay mortgage in the month you are supposed to spend 2 weeks in maintenance? Since every ship does require annual maintenance.

Or is this a case of rule contradictions that need a minor fix?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Hans,
Cool ship. I think your price is a bit high though. Isn't standard design 80% of the base design? So if they are built in quantity the price would be MCr82? Also I would recommend a Flattened Sphere hull as Close Structure can't land. (You paid for it anyway. If it is Close Structure your hull should only cost MCr12.)

I know that we had the conversation months ago about how many jumps a ship makes in a year. Canon does state 25. But lets let it stand at 35. 35 is a 9.6 day cycle, two days in system and 7 in jump?

How are you figuring Life Support? Isn't it KCr2 per occupied stateroom per 2 weeks? (Or in this case with 90% occupancy rate KCr900.) If it is per jump cycle, then it would be MCr1.4 per year at 90% occupancy with 35 jumps. Your Crew Lifesupport would be either KCr150 (per 2 weeks) or KCr210 (Per Jump).

Your Mortgage per year would be MCr4.1. Your Annual Maintenance is KCr82. Crew Salary KCr144. Lets use the lower Life support numbers. Total cost of the ship under a mortgage is MCr5.376.

Your passenger revenue at 90% occupancy and 35 jumps a year is only MCr5.040.

Even with all these assumptions, (and where is it you are getting 18 Mid passages per hop out of 3D6-1D6 on Pop 7 or 8 worlds, 3D6 Pop 9 and 4D6 Pop 10, is definitely beyond statistical probability, keeping TL level and sticking to Pop 8+ worlds then you do get to add 3 to the number of passengers.) you still can't finance this ship.

I know you claimed that you can't afford to give them KCr8 as a passage price. You know that if you have the Pilot become Pilot/Steward it only adds KCr9 to your annual costs and increases your potential profit by, KCr560 because you can add 8 High Passengers (And statistically you will if you stick to Pop 8+ worlds)? You will, doing this, also statistically keep your ship at about 90% occupancy. The ship now pays for itself. (Barely.)

With the normal canonical cycle of 2 jumps per month, one week planetside and one in jump per jump cycle, this ship doesn't even get close to breaking even. Though it can probably make its replacement cost in the neighborhood of, given the high passenger addition, in 34.5 years, provided you paid cash for it in the first place.

 

[aramis]

Drop the mortage and replace it with 1/480th for replacement schedule, and you save a bunch more!

Financing makes the evil.

Also, don't forget that crew skills can make the difference in numbers... as they are pure positive DM's.
That 3d6-1d6 should average out to ~7mp..

J3 at book rates (LS included) requires some spec trade to make it work. It does, however, provide a good basis to maximize the passenger potential.

J4 is a little touchier; the only reasons for J4 runs is spec trade; anythign else is not going to have the density. But, with Broker 4 and Trader 3+, again, that can turn to a money mill. (I've had players make millions under just those conditions using a Type T...)

 

[BetterThanLife]

OK. If you bank everything above expenses you replace the ship in 34.5 years. (100% recapitialization?) At a more reasonable recapitalization plan would be 50% but then it takes over 70 years to replace the ship!!!

(OK I am now absolutely convinced that the way I have been playing for 20 years, charging passage per distance instead of per jump, is the way to make the system reasonable.)

 

[Malenfant]

Maybe we should start targetting Traveller to mortgage agents and bankers. I'm sure they'd have fun with it...

 

[RobertFisher]

Forgive me for not having thoroughly read every post in this thread. I've been away for a while. I'm sure everything I'm going to say has probably been said & said better. But this topic is too exciting & frightening for me to not add my 2 centicredits.

I think that CT is one of the best RPGs ever published. I think it fully holds its own when I compare it to the latest & greatest. I'm pretty certain there is a market for a "lighter" game, because I know many people in real life & online who prefer such.

While T5 certainly does look to bring some good, fresh ideas to the table, I don't really see a need to replace CT. Besides, it seems certain that T5, for various reasons, isn't going to see print soon.

I'm not crazy about the proposed revisions, though. (Which I'll detail below.) The thing that scares me about a revised CT is that QLI's Book 1-3 reprint might then go out of print & that I may not like RCT at all.

I think the Book 1-3 reprint serves the role just fine. I'd rather see QLI push it more than replace it with a RCT. (Because I'm getting older & increasingly frightened of change.

)

Originally posted by hunter:
If it happens what you'd see is an updated version of the CT rules with a slightly modified MT task system that is compatible with the T20 task system on 'terms of difficulty' (ie: Easy, Hard, Average, etc.).

I've found I've come full circle. I prefer the freeform "task system" we used in the old days (pick a number of dice, pick a target number, pick some DMs) to more structured MT system.

That being said, I suppose I wouldn't mind the task system. I'd just prefer it not be presented as the one-true & best way of doing things. I'd rather the rest of the rules not be too heavy on tasks.

The personal combat system would be changed over to be compatible with the task system. Armor and Damage would likely be very similar to T20's system.

This is maybe the part that worries me the most. It all looks--OK--in pixels.

But I'd rather have the tried & true system with a few tweaks (e.g. cover modifiers) than a new system that has to prove itself.

Granted, I'm sure the new system would be based on proven ideas, but it will still be a new expression of those ideas that would need to have the bugs worked out.

The important thing is that it remains simple in order to promote players thinking above the level of the rules & referee's running it based on knowledge & common sense rather than rules.

Characters would not change much as far as background goes, but the randomness would be optional meaning you could randomly generate your character pretty much like original CT or you can pick and choose everything instead. Adding optional rules like Advantages and Disadvantages is something I would also consider.

This all sounds good. Keep the classic system, but have some explaination of more freeform & less random chargen options.

I'm not big on ad/disads, but that's not a problem.

Vehicles, Starships, etc. would use the T20 systems which are already CT compatible, though these systems might get updated slightly.

I haven't seen the T20 systems, so that scares me a bit.

But only a bit. It looks reasonable in pixels.

New techs would also probably be added, but noted that some campaign settings may only use some of the technological concepts detailed in the rulebook. This would allow us to specify for example in the OTU, nanobots, cybernetic enhancements, FTL communications and such are not used. If a referee wanted to use them, they of course could but the referee would know that the published material for the OTU will not be written with these technologies in mind.

I'd like the option for some updated tech, but when I've seen games updated in this fashion, it almost always ends up being more trouble than its worth to try to keep stuff out of a specific campaign.

If you manage to pull it off so that I can run classic or new style with equal ease, I'll be impressed.

In conclusion, I think there is a market for CT, but I don't think CT needs revision to make it marketable.

If I were going to go beyond a reprint: I would provide an MT style task system, but wouldn't change the rest of the system to use it. I'd provide some ideas for alternate ways to handle chargen/experience. I'd add some tweaks to personal combat, such as cover modifiers. I might rename some of the components in ship building, but the change would be cosmetic.

I would add rather than change.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
OK. If you bank everything above expenses you replace the ship in 34.5 years. (100% recapitialization?) At a more reasonable recapitalization plan would be 50% but then it takes over 70 years to replace the ship!!!

1/480th, assuming every thirteenth month is down for annual maintenance, is fourty years. Same as a mortage.

And as I said in the other (and more on topic) thread: it's possible to make back in under a year with a good broker.

Only subbies will service backwater worlds... that's why subbies exist.

Lines are not ALWAYS big craft operators... it is entirely possible that much of the megacorporate shipping runs on smaller ships than we think of normally; the HG design sequence has no economies of scale, unlike the real world, (Ton for Ton, bigger ships tend to cost slightly less for the same features, as one can have more parts premade. Lesser cost per ton means less payment share and/or recapitalization per ton.)

It's obvious MWM was no econ major. But, that being said, when the real cost of operations is examined, most merchantmen would still be J1, as there is loads of profit to be made, and some J2 and even J3 private operators would make it.

The more I look at CT and MT's trade systems, the more I like the fixed cost as a government methodology for encouraging tourism.