Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Traveller tends to be more country roads, with a couple of highways.
And the Pony Express.
And the Pony Express.
Rules Only: Travelling without a starship: finding space flights between systems
- Thread starter harunmushod
- Start date
harunmushod
SOC-7
Only covers in-system travel.
...so there's so much to do on so many worlds in there, if the Travelling is taken from a smaller perspective, moving about a single planet for a while on tasks, missions, contracts or journeys then there's plenty of game-time that can be enjoyed
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If Tesla establishes enough recharging stations, you probably could go coast to coast on your electric scooter.
Presumably in three millenia from now, those would be faster, and can hold a charge longer.
Presumably in three millenia from now, those would be faster, and can hold a charge longer.
Daidoji Dave
SOC-12
In Mongoose Traveller I would assume traffic outbound along trade routes and communications routes. Then ask for a Broker roll to to find a ship going to other destinations. (Or I'd take Carouse or Streetwise with a longer time increment. Really this a chance to feel out whether the group just wants to roll dice and move on, or get a scene of play out of it.) On a 0 or -1 effect I might place a ship going to another body in the same system, or to an adjacent system if it's already a multi-jump route.
That's useful too though. I've got my reasons for running Mongoose, but I do regret they didn't carry forward all the tools from Classic.
That's useful too though. I've got my reasons for running Mongoose, but I do regret they didn't carry forward all the tools from Classic.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The problem with stowing away is life support costs.
Unless there's a large enough number of crew and passengers that having less oxygen per person is not noticeable.
Unless there's a large enough number of crew and passengers that having less oxygen per person is not noticeable.
Solo by Zozer Games has rules for Trade without a Starship.
Might be used to transport yourself.
I think there was something in Classic Traveller, at least about chartering a ship.
Might be used to transport yourself.
I think there was something in Classic Traveller, at least about chartering a ship.
JTAS #5 considers types of ships (excluding the military) in port, with most detail for their haulage of cargo rather than passengers, but that might be easy enough to fill in.
Rules are the charter requires paying for the entire freight tonnage and high passage capacity at 90% standard rates, or put another way Cr900 per cargo ton and Cr9000 per passenger berth.
Ship operator is responsible for all crew, life support, fuel, mortgage and other operational costs.
I don’t recall any provision for small craft or ATV air/raft rental, as a quick and dirty I would probably charge Cr900 per ton for ground vehicles and Cr1800 for the craft or grav vehicles.
Canonical CT/MT, not exactly; there is a JTAS article "Speculation Without a Starship" in issue 5, page 39.
A simpler method, implied but not stated, is to simply treat the port as a place to check for ship encounters.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
For vehicle rentals, I'd just simply use the charter rates per vehicle displacement ton.
So an interplanetary charter (Cr1 per ton per hour, minimum 12 hours) would have a Cr120 rental fee for a 10 ton ATV for 12 hours (minimum). An air/raft would have a Cr48 rental fee for a 4 ton air/raft for 12 hours (minimum).
Interstellar charters would count the vehicle displacement as cargo (Cr900 per ton per 2 week time block). This would mean a 10 ton ATV "counts" as 10 tons of cargo (so Cr9000 per interstellar charter ticket) even though the carried ATV berth is "not available" for carrying third party cargo. This is because the vehicle in that berth is still "available" for use by the party who has signed the charter for the complete contents of the craft the vehicle is stored in (so the vehicle "comes with" the charter of the craft, so to speak).
Note that such an extrapolation of the CT charter rules (vehicle berths "count" for charters) makes such vehicle berths valuable for charters, rather than just being "deadweight tonnage" that generates no revenue at all. By making the services of a berthed vehicle available to third parties who charter interplanetary/interstellar craft, additional revenues to defray overhead costs can be obtained while clients gain the benefits of access to the services those vehicles make available to both operators and clients alike.
Good take on the carried vehicle aspect.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
We make every pretense of competency around here ... 
Kakistocrat
SOC-12
1977 Book 2 (pp. 1–2) only has a brief description of the availability of regular interstellar travel service:
which unfortunately doesn’t address the frequency of service (i.e. how many ships service a system per month).
I think that the Freelance Traveller article which frankm referred to previously is The Eaglestone Trade Index, which seems to have influenced the ship traffic rules in Traveller⁵.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Kakistocrat
SOC-12
My comment was in regard to harunmushod’s original post in this discussion — in particular, the “travel between systems is assumed to be available instantly if the travellers can pay the fare” portion of that post in regard to the 1977 Traveller rules.If you want a house rule, I provided one you can use in Post #4 of this thread ...
Rereading this, have a minor problem with it as an air/raft may be smaller then an ATV but it costs 20x more in keeping with being a higher tech flying and potentially suborbital vehicle.
Not a dealbreaker and people looking to make background costs a minor element in the play session certainly can go this way. It just bothers me in breaking the mechanism of paying for greater capability and capital cost/payback ethos.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
That's because air/rafts and ATVs serve different purposes and mission roles.
Yes, an air/raft is more expensive to buy/maintain, but it's smaller, has less capacity and next to no environmental protection.
Yes, an ATV is cheaper, but it's larger, has a higher capacity and offers a lot of environmental protection but its mobility is limited.
Point being that there are tradeoffs involved.
The effort isn't to "normalize prices to capability" but rather to normalize prices to chartered tonnage instead.
I don’t think you would accept that papering over cost when doing one of your starship business case design epics.
But that’s because you value that process for creating a working breathing design that you know why it is taking the ships in unexpected directions. And I would gather not so big into the minutiae of chartering economics.
Which is fine. Entertainment and ref effort choices. The readers can choose what they value for their tables.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Uh ... thanks ...?
I think ...?
The simple fact of the matter is that my most recent research in starship economics have been in the direction of "maximum flexibility" which then creates a myriad possible use conditions ... and I simply can't model out ALL of them. However, I would like to think that I at least provide sufficient tools to extend the "stock/default use case" to determine how deviation on the margins ought to shake out to the bottom line.
Hence why I figure that "counting vehicles as cargo capacity" that needs to be paid for makes for the simplest solution.
After that it then becomes a question of tailoring the craft (and its vehicle services) to whatever the mission details translate into design specs from which the economics flow.
It's better to provide the tools and let people play with them as much as they want.
