CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?

[Grav_Moped]

You're accelerating more than "mere particles" at that point.
And if what you're "throwing" is mere deadweight for sheer kinetic impact energy ... might was well simply "throw rocks at them" (of large enough size to penetrate the atmosphere, if any) as a bombardment strategy. For one thing, unmodified planetoids are way cheaper(!) than XBoats if it comes down to the pricing of your ammunition.

Like, way to harsh my mellow, maaan....

But you could have them be suicide ships that try to jump at the instant of impact to maximize damage.

And of course I'm being silly.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Keep in mind that it needs to be winnable (remaining in the game constitutes a marginal victory condition) without requiring grognard spreadsheet-wielding munchkin skills.

Then here's an easy one for you.

Stock Type-S Scout/Courier (LLB S7, p15-17).
Convert the air/raft berth to a mail vault (net cost 1 ton, refund MCr0.6).
Upgrade the life support system (per LBB S7, cost 1 ton and MCr0.07).
Have 1 ton of cargo bay space remaining.
Net refund = MCr0.53

You now have a CHEAP starship that can earn Cr25,000 every jump (with no passengers or cargo besides mail) to worlds with population: 1+ the ship has visited before (to secure the rights to mail deliveries) which requires no more than Cr8100 per jump when using wilderness refueling (scout drives don't care about unrefined fuel!).

If you can manage the MCr15-18 cash price for a surplus ship (LBB S7 p16) with no bank financing, you can basically set yourself up as a (very) small time operator delivering mail and a few (2-3) passengers and make some pretty decent profits as an independent. Such an altered configuration would be capable of an enormous variety of adventure hooks, including passenger Patron contacts, that can lead off into adventures.

 

[whartung]

To be fair, this is somewhat true of most roleplaying experiences.

No, because roleplaying experiences have a referee in the loop with their thumb on the scale. Simply put, combat is only as lethal as the referee, and trade only as expensive.

None (or I should say very few) of RPG systems are balanced "games" vs mechanics of color in order to support the underlying campaign.

Keep in mind that it needs to be winnable (remaining in the game constitutes a marginal victory condition) without requiring grognard spreadsheet-wielding munchkin skills.

It needs to have the leeway to let the players do idiot things without necessarily destroying them, but at the same time, the referee is there to put a dark hoodie on the burgeoning munchkin and stuff it in to the trunk of the car before the players start funding governments.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Then here's an easy one for you.

Minor nitpick: Mail contracts require the ship to have a gunner, and a weapon (Type S comes stock with a double turret so that part's already covered).

Major nitpick: Mail is limited to subsidy-qualifying ships. "Subsidized merchants may receive mail delivery contracts, usually as an adjunct to their established routes." (LBB2 '81, p. 9).

As a house rule, it's certainly plausible that some entities might contract with a Type S for a mail delivery service. The text of the rule does not support it, though. The plain reading is that ships that are subsidized under the subsidy rules are likely also eligible for mail contracts, though such contracts are neither guaranteed nor mandatory. If mail contracts were an option for any other ships, it would not have been necessary for the rule to mention "subsidized merchants" at all. Again, you're proposing a quite reasonable house rule, but one that's in direct conflict with the rules as written.

To be fair, this thread is about proposing changes to CT.

 

[Straybow]

No, Mike and Spinward, and all reading, this is not a troll, and it is mildly insulting to keep insinuating such. I have thick skin and don't care about insults, except that we've been warned.

My point is that there are statements which literally can't be followed AS WRITTEN. A J1 ship with fuel to jump twice crossing a void is going "starport to starport," but not "encompassing one jump." Therefore that RAW is invalid and doesn't apply. Likewise, a passenger desiring to go to a hex with no starport, perhaps a system with only private asteroid mines with no commercial fueling or ports, could be one jump but not "starport to starport." The requirements specified in the rule are invalid, and the rule can't be applied.

Such completely benign circumstances can void the rule. Am I really "mistaken" about what "starport to starport, encompassing one jump" means? Not at all. So, when those restrictions DON'T apply, what rule DOES apply?

I have quoted every single word many times

Really? I haven't found a single post where you've quoted the sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, nor the sentence at the end of the preceding paragraph. Maybe the search feature is dodgy. You've consistently cited the middle of the paragraph, out of context.

So for all these years you have been arguing based on CT 77 edition rather than 81, TTB, ST etc?

No. I'm merely showing that 77 wording is even more ambiguous than later editions based on the same text. My argument is that per parsec is the only practical pricing that makes sense. My points are that the text truly and simply supports per parsec pricing. I also point out that the LBB 81 change actually reinforces the per parsec reading of RAW.

As for limiting passage and cargo booking to one jump, LBB2 77 p. 7 and TTB p.53 share the same text (presumed the same for LBB2 81):
"The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number)..."

"Should" is not "must," and "depending on" is not "limited to." Words have meaning, and to claim some other meaning or interpretation (however well intended) is certainly not AS WRITTEN. Claiming "limited to jump number" from that sentence is not RAW, it is RAI. Under RAW, the referee is free to make judgments on destinations "depending on jump number." My example is reducing the number of passengers going two or more jumps away because some aren't willing to spend an extra week or so in transit. Joke's on them; they may end up waiting more than a week for ship that can reach in one jump to show up.

Maybe other editions of Traveller are more specific. Fine and dandy, but that has not effect on CT RAW.

A jump 3 ship charges the same as a jump 1 ship for passengers.

Yes, just not the way you claim. "Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on jump distance." Therefore a J3 ship charges the same as a J1 ship to reach the same destination. The example says the J1 ship charges three tickets to reach a destination 3 parsecs away. You can't get around that clear statement. The J3 passage would technically be 1 "ticket," but the cost must be the same as the 3 tickets charged by the J1. To charge 10k for J3 and 30k for J1, that would be passage sold on the basis of jump distance, which RAW disallows in the sentence you don't like to quote.

You are correct, 77 did not specify "three tickets." This is why 81 actually reinforces the reading of per parsec, even though 81 introduced the "starport to starport, encompassing one jump" requirement. That specific enumeration of 3J1 = 3 tickets overrules the "one jump" requirement. The example says there are two intermediate destinations to reach the announced destination, not two empty hexes, which overrules the "starport to starport" requirement.

If there remains any doubt, the leading sentence of the paragraph (which you conveniently leave out of quotes) says, "Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices." Therefore, jump drive capacity cannot dictate a limit on selling passage. The example says the J1 can sell passage to the announced destination 3 parsecs away. Likewise, jump drive capacity does not force the ship to sell multiparsec passage at the same price as a single parsec passage. The J1 can book passage multiple parsecs away and charge per parsec. Therefore the J3 can book passage multiple parsecs away and charge per parsec. To do otherwise would mean drive capacity is the ONLY determinant of passage price across multiple parsecs, exactly opposite AS WRITTEN.

My driving force is not rules lawyering, but that it doesn't make sense to force a higher jump number ship to carry passengers or freight cheaper than the same passengers or freight would be charged taking a J1 across multiple parsecs. The best way to solve the contradictions in the rules AS WRITTEN is to make per parsec pricing the standard.

Note that simple per parsec still falls short of what a real economic model would do. It should be worth more money (rather than the same cost) to get to a destination faster. Multiparsec jumps should have a premium added to the fare.

I'd like to include promptness incentives that make higher Jn ships viable on freight and passenger fees. They'll get to (and have to) charge more -- sometimes a lot more, but the cost will reduce the available volume of cargo and passengers accordingly. Most of these customers will be, in effect, NPCs using the speculative cargo rules in the way PC ship-owners would.

Exactly. Per parsec with premiums.

 

[mike wightman]

There are no contradictions, just misunderstandings and misconceptions. The rules are very clear:
jump number dictates the next destination of the ship,
ships charge for freight and passengers at standard rates that are the same regardless of jump distance, and since the next destination has to be within the jump number of the ship there is no per parsec pricing in the rules as written.

 

[Spinward Flow]

My point is that there are statements which literally can't be followed AS WRITTEN.

No.
Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

Therefore that RAW is invalid and doesn't apply.

Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

The requirements specified in the rule are invalid, and the rule can't be applied.

Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

Such completely benign circumstances can void the rule. Am I really "mistaken" about what "starport to starport, encompassing one jump" means? Not at all. So, when those restrictions DON'T apply, what rule DOES apply?

The one you've been refusing to admit has been there all along because your interpretation is too narrow.
Multiple attempts have been made to inform and broaden your horizon view of the question. You have refused ALL attempts to date.
You are continuing to refuse even now.

The rules are "transport to the ANNOUNCED DESTINATION" ... which is usually a starport, but doesn't always have to be.
The announced destination could be "gridsec coordinates BLAH BLAH BLAH" nowhere near a starport (such as deep space, a remote moon or planetoid, a secret rendezvous point, could be anywhere other than a starport). Your ship is simply hired to transport goods and/or passengers to THAT location. If the location isn't a starport, expect the quantity of goods and/or passengers bound for that location to be reduced (most likely to zero, so why would you announce that you're going there?).

Alternatively, you could divert to make a drop while en route to somewhere else.
Most of your cargo and passengers are booked for transport to Terra, but some of them are booked for transport to Terra's moon Luna. So you jump into the Terra system, land at Luna first to offload the cargo and passengers bound for Luna first before maneuvering to Terra to offload the cargo and passengers bound for Terra. What's the difference between the two? The ANNOUNCED DESTINATION.

Usually the ANNOUNCED DESTINATION is going to be a port of call ... a starport (or a spaceport) ... but it doesn't necessarily have to be. The destination can be a "dead drop zone" or other arrangement (although these would not be common or the norm). Most reputable merchants in pursuit of steady profits however will simply stick to the starports for unloading and loading, simply because it's easier for them when it comes to rapid turnover of cargo and passengers ... but they can potentially divert their course to make deliveries elsewhere so long as the diversion doesn't disrupt their schedule too much.

S imple
E asy
E ffective

You just need to broaden your mind to the possibilities and it will make a lot more sense.
Stop thinking so narrowly and widen your scope to include the dizzying array of alternatives that can be covered (particularly in an adventure hook sense).

No. I'm merely showing that 77 wording is even more ambiguous than later editions based on the same text.

No.
Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

My argument is that per parsec is the only practical pricing that makes sense.

Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

My points are that the text truly and simply supports per parsec pricing.

No.
Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

I also point out that the LBB 81 change actually reinforces the per parsec reading of RAW.

Wrong again.

"Should" is not "must," and "depending on" is not "limited to." Words have meaning, and to claim some other meaning or interpretation (however well intended) is certainly not AS WRITTEN.

Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

Maybe other editions of Traveller are more specific. Fine and dandy, but that has not effect on CT RAW.

This from someone who was claiming that GURPS Traveller provided the desired inferences while refusing to accept the correct CT RAW inferences and interpretation that has been repeatedly explained exhaustively, at length, with test case scenarios demonstrating the correct interpretation using maps showing how it works in practice.

Yes, just not the way you claim. "Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on jump distance."

Quoting the correct answer while refusing to accept or understand it.

If there remains any doubt, the leading sentence of the paragraph (which you conveniently leave out of quotes) says, "Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices."

Quoting the correct answer while refusing to accept or understand it yet again.

To do otherwise would mean drive capacity is the ONLY determinant of passage price across multiple parsecs, exactly opposite AS WRITTEN.

Again ... you are obviously refusing to reckon with the intent of the Rule As Written, therefore you refuse to accept it.

The best way to solve the contradictions in the rules AS WRITTEN is to make per parsec pricing the standard.

Again ... you are obviously refusing to reckon with the intent of the Rule As Written, therefore you refuse to accept them and just make up your own instead.

Note that simple per parsec still falls short of what a real economic model would do.

Good thing the Rules As Written are not trying to set up "a real economic model" then.

It should be worth more money (rather than the same cost) to get to a destination faster. Multiparsec jumps should have a premium added to the fare.

And yet ... what do the Rules As Written consistently say across multiple editions (LBB2.77, LBB2.81, MT, TNE)?
Here, I'll quote YOU directly to make the answer obvious.

"Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on jump distance."

When passage is sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination ... where distance cannot be a factor ... then per parsec pricing is expressly, explicitly and obviously the wrong interpretation from the start.
Clue sent.
Awaiting reply.

Exactly. Per parsec with premiums.

I give up.
You're contradicting yourself(!) in your own post so as to come to the WRONG conclusion with unshakeable confidence and certainty while refusing to be moved by either argument or evidence, even when you present the evidence yourself.

 

[robject]

Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.
...
I give up.

You gotta change your tactics. The bludgeon obviously doesn't work.

 

[robject]

My point is that there are statements which literally can't be followed AS WRITTEN. A J1 ship with fuel to jump twice crossing a void is going "starport to starport," but not "encompassing one jump." Therefore that RAW is invalid and doesn't apply. Likewise, a passenger desiring to go to a hex with no starport, perhaps a system with only private asteroid mines with no commercial fueling or ports, could be one jump but not "starport to starport." The requirements specified in the rule are invalid, and the rule can't be applied.

In the adventure Twilight's Peak, which ran on Classic Traveller, the convoy made deep space jumps.

"RAW" has flaws and can't be trusted.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You gotta change your tactics. The bludgeon obviously doesn't work.

Hence ... giving up.

Ample opportunities to LEARN have all been consistently refused.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
- Upton Sinclair

 

[robject]

Hence ... giving up.

Ample opportunities to LEARN have all been consistently refused.

Yes. I note that your teaching style usually doesn't lead to its intended learning. Hence I think your tactics need to be rethought.

 

[Grav_Moped]

In the adventure Twilight's Peak, which ran on Classic Traveller, the convoy made deep space jumps.

"RAW" has flaws and can't be trusted.

Good point. The rules as written are often misaligned with the "engineering/physics" and economics of the OTU as written.

Doesn't mean the rules are unplayable if you keep things within their scope of validity, but it does mean you're handwaving a lot of things you might not realize are being glossed over until the players encounter the rough edges and start asking awkward questions.

 

[mike wightman]

The adventure is setting canon, the setting broke many of the rules as written.

 

[robject]

The adventure is setting canon, the setting broke many of the rules as written.

Bending and breaking rules was not an OTU thing; it was a GDW thing.

Call it "testing the limits" maybe.

Finally, when someone did something that threatened enough consistency with other parts of the rules, then perhaps that's when things started to get tightened down. But it could also just be a common recognition that something was Bad Juju for Traveller overall.

Jump torpedoes. Were they explicitly anathematized by GDW? Or were they simply ignored and allowed to fade into singularity?

And I might say that GW was the first offender with jump torpedos, but that's not true. GDW was the first offender, as rules began to collide between 1977 and 1980.



If you wanted to try something, you wrote it into JTAS or an adventure. That sufficed as an RFC and then you'd get people talking about it. But the publisher didn't really rule against things.

 

[Straybow]

You gotta change your tactics. The bludgeon obviously doesn't work.

To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Why bother reading and discussing such things as the meaning of words and sentences?

 

[Straybow]

No.
Your point is that you have no intention of following the Rules As Written.

I sense a straw man... you have yet to address a single point coherently.

The one you've been refusing to admit has been there all along because your interpretation is too narrow.

I'm dealing with something called RULES AS WRITTEN. One reads the words, and that's what is written. You keep talking about RULES AS INTERPRETED, in which your interpretation is somehow more valid than what is actually written.

The rules are "transport to the ANNOUNCED DESTINATION" ... which is usually a starport, but doesn't always have to be.

So, what you're saying is you agree that the rule defining passage "starport to starport" isn't valid. When I say it isn't valid because it defines the term in a way that can't be fulfilled in every case, you say that I "have no intention of following the Rules As Written." But when you don't follow the same rule your fecal matter doesn't stink? When I say the rule based on "transport to the announced destination" governs instead, I'm "Quoting the correct answer while refusing to accept or understand it." When you quote it, you're a certified genius; a giant among mental midgets. Then you demonstrate you don't understand it AS WRITTEN.

You just need to broaden your mind to the possibilities and it will make a lot more sense.
Stop thinking so narrowly and widen your scope to include the dizzying array of alternatives that can be covered (particularly in an adventure hook sense).

Ah, so only a narrow-minded fool could possibly disagree with you. You have a "dizzying array of alternatives," while I'm beleaguered with trying to read and understand what the rule actually says. Silly me!

"Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on jump distance."

When passage is sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination ... where distance cannot be a factor ... then per parsec pricing is expressly, explicitly and obviously the wrong interpretation from the start.
Clue sent.
Awaiting reply.

You just misquoted it. The rule says JUMP distance isn't a factor. I'm not interpreting it, I'm applying it AS WRITTEN. It is your interpretation that contradicts AS WRITTEN.

Exactly. Per parsec with premiums.

I give up.
You're contradicting yourself(!) in your own post so as to come to the WRONG conclusion with unshakeable confidence and certainty while refusing to be moved by either argument or evidence, even when you present the evidence yourself.

No, you skipped a paragraph where I transitioned from analyzing RAW to proposing how CT should be fixed. I then cited Grav_Moped who seems to have a similar idea of how CT should be fixed.

 

[Straybow]

Yes. I note that your teaching style usually doesn't lead to its intended learning. Hence I think your tactics need to be rethought.

It would help if he read what I wrote and responded to that, rather than his straw man arguments. I know, I know. It's considered rude to point that out.

 

[robject]

I'm dealing with something called RULES AS WRITTEN. One reads the words, and that's what is written. You keep talking about RULES AS INTERPRETED, in which your interpretation is somehow more valid than what is actually written.

But it's an interesting phenomenon, one that doesn't crop up in Traveller very often (not as much as Biblical hermeneutics), or so it seems to me. But I have seen it here on COTI before, for example with people who discussed topics with Hans Rancke, and I'm sure it's cropped up in the TML.

Eneri reads Rule A and says "this means X".
Sharik reads Rule A and says "this means Y".

It's fascinating when it happens, because... it seems to me... that there's a more fundamental base assumption that sets up the understanding for hypothetical Rule A.

It's not that they don't understand "A". It's that they have a base assumption by which they interpret the "A".

So really to understand his position you have to understand his presuppositions.

Which for each of us are generally axiomatic.

BUT at least we might understand the other person.

And move on.

 

[McPerth]

After some reports, posts deleted and a moderator warning, and due to several people ignoring them and keeping with a unacceptable tone and comments too close (if not outright) personal attacks, this thread is closed, pending staff review, that might lead to more actions

 

[aramis]

Given the repeated reports this thread is generating...

Off topic posting of material from ruleset X when Ruleset Y only is in the title is a rule 6 and rule 2 violation

Condescending tone is also bad for the forum. Thus also rule 6.

Taking an immovable stance is also a rule 6 violation (excepting Staff about board rules)

the persistent border of personal attacks back and forth between Spinward Flow and Straybow is a rule 1 violation. By both. Public warning.

While I've been taught that it's always best to praise in public and chide in private, the latter has not been working.

If one has come to COTI to have one's view of the OTU validated, one is likely to be disappointed.
if one has come to COTI to have one's ideas checked and cross-checked, there are a lot of grogs here willing to engage in proper discussion - evidence, willingness to admit error, willingness to change one's view, COTI is a good place for that.

Therefore, further violations of rules 1, 2, and 6 in this thread are likely to be suspensions.