Trade: Book 2 versus Merchant Prince
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
I liked and used LBB:3. I bought LBB:7 the same year it came out, read it a few times, ran it solo a few times, and filed it away.
It wasn't that Merchant Prince wasn't good; it was. It wasn't that my players didn't use the advanced chargen in it; they did. It wasn't that I didn't plunder "fluff" and setting background from it; I did that too.
The reason that I filed Merchant Prince away was that it emphasized a type of play my players weren't interested in. It provided a greater level of detail for an economic game and we didn't play those type of campaigns. LBB:4 was filed away for much the same reasons. It has nifty recruiting, training, and battle resolution systems but I never used them because we never played in mercenary campaigns.
While we missed out by not playing economic and merc campaigns just like we missed out by not playing "high power"/noble campaigns, the fact that we didn't play in those types of campaigns meant we didn't need to more detailed rules LLB4 and LBB:7 provided.
In our campaigns, trade was just one part of the adventure "equation". Trade wasn't the sole reason for adventure. In other, equally valid, equally fun campaigns, trade is the sole reason. It just wasn't in our campaigns.
Horses for courses.
It wasn't that Merchant Prince wasn't good; it was. It wasn't that my players didn't use the advanced chargen in it; they did. It wasn't that I didn't plunder "fluff" and setting background from it; I did that too.
The reason that I filed Merchant Prince away was that it emphasized a type of play my players weren't interested in. It provided a greater level of detail for an economic game and we didn't play those type of campaigns. LBB:4 was filed away for much the same reasons. It has nifty recruiting, training, and battle resolution systems but I never used them because we never played in mercenary campaigns.
While we missed out by not playing economic and merc campaigns just like we missed out by not playing "high power"/noble campaigns, the fact that we didn't play in those types of campaigns meant we didn't need to more detailed rules LLB4 and LBB:7 provided.
In our campaigns, trade was just one part of the adventure "equation". Trade wasn't the sole reason for adventure. In other, equally valid, equally fun campaigns, trade is the sole reason. It just wasn't in our campaigns.
Horses for courses.
I'm running a primarily Books 1-3 campaign, so almost no use of Books 4-8. I also feel like the Book 3 trade system is more appropriate to PC level ships where the PCs are more focused on other activities than trade, with trade something that provides some bonus cash, and maybe (or maybe not) keeps them in the black.
I've been already quite vocal about my disliking for Merchant Prince, and how amazed I am that it survived so many editions.
While I like more LBB3, I also have som issues on tyhem, so I use to play with Don McKiney's variant for MT trading rules, or what I see as a descendent of them, MgT 1E ones.
While I like more LBB3, I also have som issues on tyhem, so I use to play with Don McKiney's variant for MT trading rules, or what I see as a descendent of them, MgT 1E ones.
I like the variety of book 3 - actual products with differing prices. Merchant Prince - it is just the same no matter what you get it seems. While you could use the tables to see what the lots actually were, they were the same price for a ton of feather or a ton of steel (and this is not metric tonnage but volume!) Price was TL based and not product based.
Unless I totally misunderstood the tables (which are pretty much the same as T5 I believe but I've not really looked at the BBB)
Unless I totally misunderstood the tables (which are pretty much the same as T5 I believe but I've not really looked at the BBB)
Ullarsskald1957
SOC-12
LBB 3 with some modification from the Paranoid Press "Merchants and Merchandise."
Trade is a cog in the mechanism.
Trade is a cog in the mechanism.
Exactly. As many people have been saying for many years, it's a game about adventure in the Far Future and not accounting in the Far Future.
The LBB:2 trade system is more oriented towards producing adventuring opportunities and creating situations which reward risk taking. The LBB:7 is more oriented towards producing economic opportunities and creating situations which reward long term planning.
While neither style of play is better or worse than the other, they are different from each other and thus have different requirements.
An "Oberlindes" style campaign about "growing" a one-lung trading company into a subsector or greater power which predominately features economics and politics would be a helluva lot of fun.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Personally I have always preferred the trade system in LBB:2 - must have missed the one in LBB:3... 
Ullarsskald1957
SOC-12
Personally I have always preferred the trade system in LBB:2 - must have missed the one in LBB:3...
But, but, 2 and 3 ARE right next to each other.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Ok I will flat out state it.
Can a mod please change the title to Book 2 rather than Book 3 since the trade system is in LBB:2 and not LBB:3?
edit Many thanks
Can a mod please change the title to Book 2 rather than Book 3 since the trade system is in LBB:2 and not LBB:3?
edit Many thanks
Last edited:
Barsanuphius
SOC-12
Alas I have not looked at either. Though I have the digital copies on CDrom, (From FFE T5 Kickstarter), I am not as familiar with CT rules. Simply why.
Actually, if you have traded in any version of Traveller, you have probably used rules based on one or the other.
LBB2 lists individual cargoes like liquor and steel and machine tools and computers ... each with a radically different price from hundreds of credits per ton to millions of credits per ton and buy/sell price modifiers that are unique to that type of cargo.
Merchant Prince creates a generic cargo with a price based on TL and Trade Codes of the worlds, but the actual commodity contained in boxes could be anything. You are just buying and selling "something".
Whatever trade system you have used, probably resembles one of those two original concepts.
MT, TNE, and T4 used the same trade system as Bk7.
T20 uses a modified/expanded version of Bk2.
T5 is related to and derived from Bk 7, but not the same.
GT core is its own thing.
GTFT is a different thing again, but procedurally similar to GT.
GTIW hybridizes GTFT and Bk2...
HT uses a close derivative of Bk2; it's further than T20, but still obviously derived from Bk2.
MGT uses a unique system, as well, but it incorporates some ideas from Bk7 and T20; the special credit in MGT1 is because I dumped all my price research at Gareth upon his request...
CT-77 and CT-81 both use the same Bk 2 trade system, but the rules for how many lots are available for freight and how many passengers are available are quite different.
CT-83 (aka TTB) and CT-84 (ST) use the same as CT-81.
Note that, in CT, using CT-77 or CT-81 will affect profitability due to different operational cost regimes, no matter which trade system you use with it.
T20 uses a modified/expanded version of Bk2.
T5 is related to and derived from Bk 7, but not the same.
GT core is its own thing.
GTFT is a different thing again, but procedurally similar to GT.
GTIW hybridizes GTFT and Bk2...
HT uses a close derivative of Bk2; it's further than T20, but still obviously derived from Bk2.
MGT uses a unique system, as well, but it incorporates some ideas from Bk7 and T20; the special credit in MGT1 is because I dumped all my price research at Gareth upon his request...
CT-77 and CT-81 both use the same Bk 2 trade system, but the rules for how many lots are available for freight and how many passengers are available are quite different.
CT-83 (aka TTB) and CT-84 (ST) use the same as CT-81.
Note that, in CT, using CT-77 or CT-81 will affect profitability due to different operational cost regimes, no matter which trade system you use with it.
Nice recap aramis!
Today, I treat trade like any other check - make up the target and modifiers as I go.
Circa CT-81, I spent many hours writing programs to automate the trade rules.
It was fun, but I'm sure I spent a lot more time fiddling with them than they actually saw f2f play use.
Today, I treat trade like any other check - make up the target and modifiers as I go.
Circa CT-81, I spent many hours writing programs to automate the trade rules.
It was fun, but I'm sure I spent a lot more time fiddling with them than they actually saw f2f play use.
I'm using MgT trade rules, with some tweaks here and there. Still fiddling with it.
bluekieran
SOC-5
I'm using MgT2e trade rules, but have zero experience of the others - including MgT1e.
I like them so far, but there is a ridiculous amount of dice rolling - thankfully there is an online tool that will do it for you, though I think only for OTU worlds where it knows the trade codes and UPP.
I like them so far, but there is a ridiculous amount of dice rolling - thankfully there is an online tool that will do it for you, though I think only for OTU worlds where it knows the trade codes and UPP.
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
