Starship Prices

[Dr_Skull]

Has anyone toyed with reducing the purchase prices for starships (and components)? While I wouldn't want to do it at the macro/naval/trillion credit squadron/ wargame level, for a regular adventurer level campaign, I'd like to try reducing the price to 10% of their current list.

As it is, if you have a campaign where PC's own their starship, the costs are just ruinous. If you get into a space battle and have two of your laser guns shot up, you are financially ruined. While it may be realistic, I don't know if it makes for a better game. I'd guess that the players might have a more exciting game if they could actually pool their starting cash and afford a down-payment on a ship, and then use adventure procedes to buy a better one.

Has anyone mucked around with this, does it cause more problems than it fixes? (Leaving aside the macro-economic ramifications).

 

[far-trader]

Mucked about with yes, at 10% like you, but not actually tested.

Had to reduce a lot of the associated prices as well (fares, freight, spec prices, etc, etc,... ). I was never sure I'd looked deep enough to feel confident trying it out

Perhaps more applicable to the YTU forum though.

Let's hammer it out in posts there

 

[rust]

In my setting most of the work of starship construction is done by robots,
and therefore the prices for such ships are somewhat lower than in the
OTU. The equivalent of a Far Trader costs about 21 million ACr, the equi-
valent of a Subsidized Merchant about 31 million ACr.
Maintenance and repair are also mostly done by robots, and therefore chea-
per than in the OTU, and fuel and life support also have lower prices.

These changes reduce the average prices for freight transport and passen-
ger tickets, and make interstellar transport and travel more affordable, and
therefore more common.
A normal one-week-ticket costs about an average monthly wage, so it is
quite normal for people to travel to other planets for business negotiations,
medical treatment or university education.

It would be a bit difficult to describe the entire economy of my setting here,
but the system is logical, reasonable and works well, from per capita income
over exports and imports up to the profit margins of interstellar merchants.

 

[Dr_Skull]

Mucked about with yes, at 10% like you, but not actually tested.

Had to reduce a lot of the associated prices as well (fares, freight, spec prices, etc, etc,... ). I was never sure I'd looked deep enough to feel confident trying it out

Perhaps more applicable to the YTU forum though.

Let's hammer it out in posts there

That might be a good idea. The whole player-level trade system would be radically differrent. I suppose if you were doing a mercenary campaign, it wouldn't matter much, but a trade-heavy campaign would be a big mess.

 

[Captain Midnight]

I usually don't focus too heavily on the money end of things. If they are getting too much money and using it to avoid enjoyable and creative solutions, I'll find a way to take it away from them. If they are doing well, then I don't see the harm in letting them accumulate some cash. I don't put them into situations where they will lose something that is critical to the players enjoying the game without a way to replace it; sometimes, that's precisely the point of the game.

To me, it's a meta-game issue. If your players are taking the game in a direction you're not comfortable with, you need to either redirect them, or find out why they are doing it and work with them to change expectations. If you're wanting to run a game all about "exploring the mysterious conspiracy around these Ancient artifacts" and your players are interested in stacking up cash so they can put on a 57th-century version of "MTV Cribs", then you need to be playing something else.

 

[veltyen]

I usually don't focus too heavily on the money end of things. If they are getting too much money and using it to avoid enjoyable and creative solutions, I'll find a way to take it away from them. If they are doing well, then I don't see the harm in letting them accumulate some cash. I don't put them into situations where they will lose something that is critical to the players enjoying the game without a way to replace it; sometimes, that's precisely the point of the game.

To me, it's a meta-game issue. If your players are taking the game in a direction you're not comfortable with, you need to either redirect them, or find out why they are doing it and work with them to change expectations. If you're wanting to run a game all about "exploring the mysterious conspiracy around these Ancient artifacts" and your players are interested in stacking up cash so they can put on a 57th-century version of "MTV Cribs", then you need to be playing something else.

What Captain Midnight said.

I found that the trade tables created too much of a fixation for some of my players, and in later campaigns abstracted credit values away from the players sight. I also do much the same with statistics as well these days.

Sometimes useful. Sometimes a barrier to characterisation.

 

[robject]

Has anyone toyed with reducing the purchase prices for starships (and components)? [...]

As it is, if you have a campaign where PC's own their starship, the costs are just ruinous.

The costs are indeed enormous. I do something suggested by a JTAS article: I give them a beat-up old ship for free. In one case, the ship was compensation for a brand-new one the Merchant owned some shares in, but exploded on a shakedown run by the shipbuilder. In another case, it was inherited.

So, no loan, no payments, no bank breathing down their back. They could meet expenses, but had to make an effort to keep it in the air. Everybody wins.

 

[BillDowns]

Ship Costs

IMTU, I apply a meta-game rule - as Tech Level increases, prices & size decrease.

In practice, I actually refer to "relative" TL, so J-Drive is introduced at TL9. TL12 is +3 rTL. This would give a 30% reduction in price and volume.

I do not apply this to shipboard weapon sizes, however. They are already too small IMO.

 

[Plankowner]

I did the 10% thing like several others. However, I left the trade rules alone. It meant the players could earn a LOT of money being Free Traders (without Speculation) if they wanted. I never bought into the idea of interstellar trade not being profitable.

THEN I did things to take their money away! :devil:

Even at 2 Million Cr, a small ship is a HUGE investment, so there is still the need to get the funds to begin with, but once you have a ship, money isn't really a problem anymore. Pirate and Meteor Storms on the other hand...

 

[jawillroy]

I don't think the ships are too expensive - they should be hard to get. Travellers, ship or no ship, should be unusual birds in a proper TU: blue-skyers and groundhogs should look at them askance, and fellow Travellers should look at each other as though they were in a special club. If everyone can get a ship, then it belittles both the shipholder (your merchant prince becomes a trucking dispatcher) and the shipless Traveller (your citizen of the imperium becomes a lousy hitchhiker.)

I think that this is actually tied to one of my problems with the OTU. Everything seems to get so... quotidian. I don't want MTU to have the navy all over the place like State Troopers on I-87 - if they show, I want it to be like the cavalry coming in, (or like the HMS Foofawraw coming over the horizon, or whatever.) I want interstellar trade itself to be daring - the merchants shouldn't be a load of shipping clerks. I want my scouts to be the blazing torch of humanity parting the dark before them, then returning to make sure the stragglers stay on the path - not a bunch of postal workers. I want my marines to polish their cutlasses before a boarding party like they were on review, and make their drops with balletic precision and elan.

 

[robject]

I don't think the ships are too expensive - they should be hard to get. Travellers, ship or no ship, should be unusual birds in a proper TU[...]

...I don't want MTU to have the navy all over the place like State Troopers on I-87 - if they show, I want it to be like the cavalry coming in, (or like the HMS Foofawraw coming over the horizon, or whatever.) I want interstellar trade itself to be daring - the merchants shouldn't be a load of shipping clerks. I want my scouts to be the blazing torch of humanity parting the dark before them, then returning to make sure the stragglers stay on the path - not a bunch of postal workers. I want my marines to polish their cutlasses before a boarding party like they were on review, and make their drops with balletic precision and elan.

Agree, agree, agree, agree. Did I mention that I agree with these sentiments entirely?

 

[atpollard]

A new car costs tens of thousands of dollars, but I can buy an old car that "runs" for hundreds of dollars (1% of the cost of new).

The problem for characters is that most games start out trying to make the down payment on a new starship because there is too little information on old starships. Using Automobiles as an example, a 30 MCr new starship should be available for 3 MCr in old but useable condition and 300,000 Cr at the end of it's operational life.

Start the players with a 300,000 credit 'it runs' starship. That's 30,000 credits cash and 16,667 credits per month for 36 months (10% down and 1/18 cost for 36 months). That's a lot more affordable than a 30 MCr ship requiring 3 MCr down and 125,000 Cr per month for 480 months.

 

[jawillroy]

" Using Automobiles as an example, a 30 MCr new starship should be available for 3 MCr in old but useable condition and 300,000 Cr at the end of it's operational life."

Except that Starships are built to last decades upon decades (maintained properly) and automobiles are built to last until the warranty runs out or until the next model appears, whichever comes first. Totally different model. How many forty year old cars do you see on the road on your way to work?

That's actually just what I'm talking about. When starships are spoken of in terms of a used Buick Super, the game just starts getting boring to me.

 

[jawillroy]

"Agree, agree, agree, agree. Did I mention that I agree with these sentiments entirely?"

*bows graciously*

 

[pendragonman]

" Using Automobiles as an example, a 30 MCr new starship should be available for 3 MCr in old but useable condition and 300,000 Cr at the end of it's operational life."

Except that Starships are built to last decades upon decades (maintained properly) and automobiles are built to last until the warranty runs out or until the next model appears, whichever comes first. Totally different model. How many forty year old cars do you see on the road on your way to work?

That's actually just what I'm talking about. When starships are spoken of in terms of a used Buick Super, the game just starts getting boring to me.

Perhaps a more accurate model would be aircraft or ships (ocean going)?

We often see "backwater" (Africa, areas around the Indian Ocean, some parts of South America, etc...) areas of this world using 40+ year old aircraft and the tramp freighter still is in use in those self same areas. They are increasingly rare, but they still do operate.

 

[jawillroy]

I would love to see the numbers on the costs of oceangoing ships, new and used... not speedboats, which follow the same economic model as automobiles, but the bigger yachts, liners, and freighters.

Didn't that one silicon valley pirate just recently sell his brazillion-dollar luxury clipper ship?

 

[atpollard]

" Using Automobiles as an example, a 30 MCr new starship should be available for 3 MCr in old but useable condition and 300,000 Cr at the end of it's operational life."

Except that Starships are built to last decades upon decades (maintained properly) and automobiles are built to last until the warranty runs out or until the next model appears, whichever comes first. Totally different model. How many forty year old cars do you see on the road on your way to work?

That's actually just what I'm talking about. When starships are spoken of in terms of a used Buick Super, the game just starts getting boring to me.

An automobile is typically financed for up to 5 years, a starship for 40 years.
A 40 year old starship would be comparable to a 5 year old car - there should be plenty of both in service, but the warranty has expired. An 80 year old starship would be comparable to a 10 year old car - there should be some of both in service, but this is where most people replace them because of the needed repairs. A 120 year old starship would be comparable to a 15 year old car - there should be a few of both in service, but they need lots of repairs to keep them running.
Those are the very rough 100%, 10% and 1% price levels that I was proposing.

[Begin good natured Sarcasm]
On the subject of 'old=boring', I agree completely.
I started to nod off in 'Star Wars' when Lea told Hans "you flew here in that, you're braver than I thought."
When the parts fell off the ship during the landing in 'Serenity', I actually stared to snore.
[End Sarcasm]

I agree that the price of a starship is not the point of the game, but it can be a tool for painting the background and a hook for many adventures.
"Everything is bright and shiny" can be just as dull in the wrong hands.
Arthur

 

[Icosahedron]

What Jawillroy said.

However, I also agree with ATP's secondhand market. IMTU, though, you won't get a runner at that price. Even at ten times the cost, your GM would be rubbing his hands if players decided to take such a ship 'aloft' without spending lots of time and probably a fair amount of money on fixing it up.

IMTU, 1% is 'breaking for parts', 10% is salvageable 'spares or repair', 25%+ is where you go to avoid unnecessary trouble. :devil:

So you still need to be a multi-millionaire to pay for a ship.

 

[jawillroy]

It's not that I find *old* to be boring. I find BORING to be boring. I can appreciate the romance of the clapped-out freight-hauler as much as the sleek, shiny new liner fresh from the docks.

Applying the planned-obsolescence economics of the automobile trade is both an error - starships are built to last, cars are deliberately designed to be replaceable as soon as possible - and contrary to the feel of the sort of game I want to play, and the universe I want to create.

If the economic model of automobile construction and sales were applied to starship design and construction, we would be expecting our PCs to lease their ships for a couple of years and then replace them with a shiny new one as soon as they got bored with it.

 

[Maladominus]

I'll give my players an occasional 'discount' for REALLY expensive hardware (for example, did anyone realize that a simple basic Tech Level 8 Speeder costs over 1 million credits???)

However, any discount I give them is usually some kind of "reward".... and usually doled out by some special Patron who is pleased with their performance. So it's not really a discount. IMTU, it works more like a subsidy. I have rich wealthy Patrons subsidize their adventuring expenses to some degree.