why tech 15?

[far-trader]

What about a ship with different TL components, why reinvent the wheel at each TL? We don't do that today.

I think you'll find we humans do exactly that

Even for something as simple and basic as the wheel.

FWIW IMTU, as an example, a TL15 Model/1 computer is a different beastie than a TL5 Model/1 computer. Both may cost the same (note the TL price difference though) and require the same space aboard ship, and handle the same programming loads, but that's about all they have in common. Interface, intelligence, output, etc. etc. are all very different. About as different in form and function as that stone wheel that kicked of that invention is to today's run flat all season rubber tires.

Nobody builds a TL15 starship and puts a TL5 computer in it. They put a TL15 computer in it, even if it is just a Model/1. Just like nobody would put stone wheels on a 2013 Ferrari

 

[Dragoner]

I think you'll find we humans do exactly that

Even for something as simple and basic as the wheel.

FWIW IMTU, as an example, a TL15 Model/1 computer is a different beastie than a TL5 Model/1 computer. Both may cost the same (note the TL price difference though) and require the same space aboard ship, and handle the same programming loads, but that's about all they have in common. Interface, intelligence, output, etc. etc. are all very different. About as different in form and function as that stone wheel that kicked of that invention is to today's run flat all season rubber tires.

Nobody builds a TL15 starship and puts a TL5 computer in it. They put a TL15 computer in it, even if it is just a Model/1. Just like nobody would put stone wheels on a 2013 Ferrari

But we do put 20th century alloy wheels on a 21st century ferrari, and even older steel wheels on modern cars.

Eh, I wouldn't have a univac on a starship; just because they are both model ones, it is not the actual computers that are of size, it's the electronics package, which makes much more sense than using home pc's or something as the paradigm.

 

[mike wightman]

Hang on, I'll just go and order a model T ford...

 

[Dragoner]

Hang on, I'll just go and order a model T ford...

I know a guy in a model T club, he says the prices are falling because the people familiar with them are passing away.

 

[Carlobrand]

Of course not. The interstellar jump-6 traffic of the Marches does indeed rest on Glisten, Rhylanor, Mora, Trin, and any TL 14 world with space technology a level in advance of its High Common tech level. ...

Fascinating discourse on jump drives. I agree completely. Unfortunately, jump drives are not the hang-up. Power plants are.

...There are indeed a much too large number of canonical worlds with Class A and Class B starports that seem very hard to explain. ... Please note: I'm not saying that there aren't worlds where that question can be answered satisfactorily; I'm saying that in many cases (but not all) it can't be answered satisfactorily.[/SIZE][/INDENT][/INDENT]...

I understand. It's great fun trying to explain the oddities. Sometimes they make for a better game world than the routine stuff, but some of them - well...

...Also, the whole question of maintenance and repair vs. manufacture is problematical. Any rule that links the ability to repair something to the ability to manufacture it has been simplified to the point of being flat out misleading. There is not a single car factory in Denmark, but there are lots and lots of car repair shops. ...

Unfortunately, the state of the car repair industry in 2012 Denmark bears no resemblence to the situation in the Marches. Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with the underlying argument. Economies tend to be need-driven: if there is a need for a service and an ability to profit by meeting that need, there will be those seeking to fill that need unless some other factor interferes. However, that line of reasoning tends to lead us toward the four TL 15 worlds dominating the market, which is something you disagree with:

... I don't think that the inference you draw from the available evidence that those four worlds monopolizes the shipbuilding is valid. ...

OP correctly points out that MT core material (Imperial Encyclopedia, in particular) focuses exclusively on TL 15 ships, but that MT rules suggest these ships would be hard to maintain where TL 15 worlds are rare. Your response was, "...those are four high-population TL 15 worlds, fully capable of producing all the spare parts needed to keep a lot of TL 15 starships flying." So, my inference is not drawn from the available evidence - my inference is drawn from your stated view. If my inference is not valid ...

The game setting itself is a distant corner of the Imperium in which a wide variety of tech levels are in evidence. "Ford Model-T" starships fly alongside "Ford Ranger" starships. Is that realistic? I haven't the foggiest, having no real star-spanning societies to measure the setting against. It CAN be realistic if the underlying game rules point the culture in that direction - but the underlying rules seem to point in the opposite direction. Which leaves the question: if the rules point one way, and the game setting points another, what unstated factor is causing them to apparently contradict each other?

... That is a failure of the economic underpinnings of the rules. Reverse the argument and you will conclude that a better ship will not be sold to you for half the price, whatever the rules claim. See the Law of One Price.

I do not so conclude. Perhaps you could explain in greater detail, because nothing in that link suggests a company shopping for a ship is not going to try to get the best deal for the best price - and I've had no luck finding anything in the game that would do it either.

... If a starship of exactly the same performance as a TL 12 starship can be built for half the cost at TL15, then either there's a reason why the buyer of the TL12 starship couldn't buy one or he didn't buy the TL12 starship, in which case the TL12 starship wouldn't have been built in the first place. Since the setting material strongly implies that TL12 starships are, in fact, built all over the place all of the time, it follows that for some reason TL15 starships are not available for half the cost, whatever the rules imply.

...I'm saying that something must be preventing the Law of One Price from applying, thus making commercial TL 9-14 shipbuilding viable.)

Yes, but what is the "something"? The easiest "something" to invoke is repair difficulties, but you don't like that - and I don't disagree with your reasoning except that it leads us down a road that ends with those four worlds monopolizing the shipbuilding market. I'm having real trouble seeing how you can contend on the one hand that repair is not a problem and on the other that the sector's space traffic is not going to end up dominated by these more effective and less expensive ships. Frankly, I need a bit more for the "something" than, "Here there be dragons."

Why would anyone pay the mark-up when they could have better for less?

( the same argument has surfaced during nearly every discussion on the Imperiums macro-economic state )

Which strongly suggests there's a serious problem with the Imperium's macro-economics.

I WANT my TL-10 Free Trader. I much prefer a Traveller setting of diverse tech levels. However, bottom line is the current state of the game gives me few choices. Setting and Rules conflict. Setting implies great technological diversity. Rules strongly favor high tech: lower tech ships are BOTH more expensive AND less effective, which is arguably appropriate but nonetheless undermines the setting. I either embrace the rules and ignore canon setting that conflicts with it, embrace the setting and ignore or rewrite rules that conflict with it, or find some rationale that resolves the conflict - and we haven't had a tremendous lot of luck at that third option to date.

The missing sensor rules are in World Builder's Handbook. ...

World Builder's Handbook? Really?? DGP??? Why would ... ? WHAT FOO ...

(1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...)

Sigh. I don't imagine it's going to do the least bit of good at this late date to complain about it. Done is done.

 

[rancke]

Only for you, not the rules or the setting.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Actually, that bit of rules-quote is from MT Ref's Manual covering repairs to damage taken by a ship.

So it is. It is a rule that sums up the subject of ship repairs of every kind for every ship in the universe under every possible conditions anywhere in the universe in 78 words.

I have to say that I strongly suspect that a few exceptions (actually, a LOT of exceptions) were omitted in order to make the rules that concise.

MT does account for the idea that worlds can build ships for themselves, but using only local resources.

Raising possibility that worlds who build ships for themselves might just possibly be able to repair ships too. Even if the rules don't expressly mention it.

I mentioned 'shipping', not shipyards directly.

You didn't have to. I had mentioned shipyards directly and you were replying to that.

A starport covers both shipping concerns ( berthing, freight transfers, etc. ) and ship building. They are not the same thing although Traveller tends to try and lump disparate information into a single letter of code.

Yes, and one way it tries to do that is to say that systems with Class A starports always have shipyards and that systems with Class B starports always have boatyards. It's part of the definitions.

But it seems reasonable to assume that shipyards will be present near areas where lots of ships converge.

Reasonable, yes, but one problem with Traveller world generation is that it is in reverse order and ignores location completely. Each starport type is generated first and must be explained after the fact. Which tend to leave you with high-population industrial worlds that would logically have a lot of interstellar traffic and Class D starports. Class D?!? How can any high-tech, world with even a few thousand inhabitant possibly NOT have at least a class C starport?

The numbers from TCS ( is it even considered canon? I thought it was not. ) do bother me, because I am basing my ideas on MT's rules.

You're right, it has been decanonized (or so I've been told). But it's the best available evidence on the subject. If MT or any of the other incarnations had bothered to provide substitute rules, I'd be using them[*]. But AFAIK none of them ever did.

[*] Always assuming they weren't completely ludicrous. ​

Besides, there were too many "might"'s in your arguments to consider it as solidly based on published materials.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but published material is so vague on the subject that I doubt I'd ever claim that any ramifications I read into them was anywhere near solid. Better than anything else I've seen is the most I'll claim.

And yet published materials focus nearly exclusively on hi-tech (14 or 15) ships and vehicles, which give the distinct impression that they are common.

But AFAIK there is no outright canon statements to that effect. Which means that I don't see the problem with concluding, based on other parts of canon, that the impression you mention is false.

From similar logic one might also get the impression that the only 200T merchants in the universe are Beowulf Class Free Traders[**]. I consider that impression equally false.

[**] OK, exaggerating a tiny bit for effect here.​

And the only ones that can be considered 'canon'.

Canon just proves that TL 15 starships exist. That does not prove that only TL 15 starships exist.



Hans

 

[rancke]

Unfortunately, the state of the car repair industry in 2012 Denmark bears no resemblence to the situation in the Marches.

It wasn't meant to. It was a counterexample to show that the ability to manufacture and the ability to maintain and repair are not necessarily linked (correlated, yes, linked, no). I was claiming that any defintion that did link those two was flawed and pointing out that all the different canonical definitions of TL do link them.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with the underlying argument. Economies tend to be need-driven: if there is a need for a service and an ability to profit by meeting that need, there will be those seeking to fill that need unless some other factor interferes. However, that line of reasoning tends to lead us toward the four TL 15 worlds dominating the market, which is something you disagree with:

It's something I think the canonical setting description disagrees with. (And hence I do too).

OP correctly points out that MT core material (Imperial Encyclopedia, in particular) focuses exclusively on TL 15 ships, but that MT rules suggest these ships would be hard to maintain where TL 15 worlds are rare.

Not every MT rule. Page 89 of MT:Imperial Encyclopedia states that maintenance can be performed at a Class A or B starport. That's without any qualifications, so that would be any class A or B starport regardless of the tech level of the system.

Your response was, "...those are four high-population TL 15 worlds, fully capable of producing all the spare parts needed to keep a lot of TL 15 starships flying." So, my inference is not drawn from the available evidence - my inference is drawn from your stated view. If my inference is not valid ...

You've lost me.

The game setting itself is a distant corner of the Imperium in which a wide variety of tech levels are in evidence. "Ford Model-T" starships fly alongside "Ford Ranger" starships. Is that realistic? I haven't the foggiest, having no real star-spanning societies to measure the setting against. It CAN be realistic if the underlying game rules point the culture in that direction - but the underlying rules seem to point in the opposite direction. Which leaves the question: if the rules point one way, and the game setting points another, what unstated factor is causing them to apparently contradict each other?

And I've answered that. The unstated fact is that the rules are simplified for the sake of running role-playing campaigns, quite possibly to the point of being wildly misleading if any attempts are made to deduce setting ramifications from them.

I suspect that the rules and the setting were written... how shall I put it... with a considerable degree of autonomy from each other. Obviously there are setting ramifications to be mined from rules and rules to be derived from settings. And no doubt some of that did take place, at least in broad terms. But I sincerely doubt that the rules writers spent a lot of time working out detailed ramifications of the setting and vice versa. Not even when they were the same people.

I do not so conclude. Perhaps you could explain in greater detail, because nothing in that link suggests a company shopping for a ship is not going to try to get the best deal for the best price - and I've had no luck finding anything in the game that would do it either.

Let me try to put it another way. You seem to be arguing[*] that if the rules are a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the game reality, the setting would not include many TL9-14 ships because they would be outcompeted by cheaper TL 15 variants. Whereas I'm saying that since the setting (seemingly) does include shipyards building TL9-14 ships all the time, the rules can not be a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the game reality.

[*] I'm paraphrasing; hopefully in doing so I'm not distorting your arguments. If I am, my apologies.​

I'm having real trouble seeing how you can contend on the one hand that repair is not a problem and on the other that the sector's space traffic is not going to end up dominated by these more effective and less expensive ships. Frankly, I need a bit more for the "something" than, "Here there be dragons."

Why? Why not accept that the subject is too complex to bother with unless you're being paid for doing so and use the rules for what they're meant for, running an RPG campaign and not to simulate an multi-world economy?

Which strongly suggests there's a serious problem with the Imperium's macro-economics.

It's only a problem if you try to figure out the Imperium's macro-economics from a rigid interpretation of the game rules.

I WANT my TL-10 Free Trader. I much prefer a Traveller setting of diverse tech levels. However, bottom line is the current state of the game gives me few choices. Setting and Rules conflict. Setting implies great technological diversity. Rules strongly favor high tech: lower tech ships are BOTH more expensive AND less effective, which is arguably appropriate but nonetheless undermines the setting. I either embrace the rules and ignore canon setting that conflicts with it, embrace the setting and ignore or rewrite rules that conflict with it, or find some rationale that resolves the conflict - and we haven't had a tremendous lot of luck at that third option to date.

No, we haven't. It would be brilliant if we could, but failing that, I advocate favoring the setting over the rules most of the time. (There are some setting bits that should be revised, but they don't so much contradict the rules as they contradict basic logic and common sense.)

That doesn't mean you have to discard the rules. It just means you shouldn't base your world-building on it. Just because you think a world would produce more cargo in a week than the tables say is available to the PCs doesn't mean you can't use them to figure out how much cargo is available for the PCs. It just means you shouldn't use them to determine how much cargo the world produces in a week.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Okay, this is actually kind of fun.

It was a counterexample to show that the ability to manufacture and the ability to maintain and repair are not necessarily linked (correlated, yes, linked, no).

Okay, cool. Not a good example (Denmark connected by trucks and jets to the world's manufacturing centers is NOT Regina separated by parsecs from the industries of Rhylanor), but I do agree with the underlying argument - if TL-7 WalMart can manage it's Just-in-Time inventory system, Regina can certainly figure out how to keep enough parts on hand to meet routine demands - with the caveat that sometimes things don't go quite to plan, and the guy in the TL 15 Free Trader may still find himself stuck at Regina waiting months for that uniquely TL-15 part for his fusion plant. But, that's more the exception than the rule. (I wish it was a bit more the exception in the modern day, but that's another story.)

I wonder if they'd give him a loaner.

It's [TL 15 worlds dominating the market]
something I think the canonical setting description disagrees with. (And hence I do too).

As do I. The tricky part is coming up with a good rational to support the canonical setting description.

Page 89 of MT:Imperial Encyclopedia states that maintenance can be performed at a Class A or B starport. That's without any qualifications, so that would be any class A or B starport regardless of the tech level of the system.

Agreed. Routine maintenance up to and including that annual maintenance bit can be conducted at ANY Class A/B starport. On the other hand, "In any situation, repairs to a damaged ship following a battle must be conducted at shipyards of the required Tech Level (although it is an option of the referee to make exceptions to this rule)." (MT Referee Manual, Pg. 96) That's pretty clearly restricted to battle damage. One could argue for not applying it to civilian craft; there are a lot more Free Traders out there than Imperial cruisers, and the port's more likely to have the needed parts in stock. But, that's an IMTU decision, not explicitly stated in canon (though they very kindly gave us permission to do so).

...The unstated fact is that the rules are simplified for the sake of running role-playing campaigns, quite possibly to the point of being wildly misleading if any attempts are made to deduce setting ramifications from them.

I suspect that the rules and the setting were written... how shall I put it... with a considerable degree of autonomy from each other. Obviously there are setting ramifications to be mined from rules and rules to be derived from settings. And no doubt some of that did take place, at least in broad terms. But I sincerely doubt that the rules writers spent a lot of time working out detailed ramifications of the setting and vice versa. Not even when they were the same people. ...

And, again, I agree with you. That doesn't solve the problem. What rationale can we apply to resolve the conflict they created for us? Or, do we alter rules to preserve setting? Or, do we alter setting to preserve rules? Or both? Any of those are acceptable solutions within a given person's private universe, but my preference would be to preserve rules AND setting, without just shrugging and saying, "Well, that's just the way it is."

Let me try to put it another way. You seem to be arguing[*] that if the rules are a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the game reality, the setting would not include many TL9-14 ships because they would be outcompeted by cheaper TL 15 variants. Whereas I'm saying that since the setting (seemingly) does include shipyards building TL9-14 ships all the time, the rules can not be a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the game reality.
...

And, I would be right. And, you would be right. Ergo, rules and setting are in conflict - which you seem to agree with.

Ever have a splinter you couldn't get at? Inconsequential, the thing isn't going to kill you - it doesn't even really hurt that much - but it's devilishly hard to ignore. This is one of those things.

And, honestly, it goes a wee bit beyond that. Following rules, I'd be putting players in a TL-10 Free Trader that, even if they filled every room and crammed every inch of cargo space with cargo, couldn't make its monthly payments. Sure, they could speculate; if they didn't lose the ship before they got the hang of it, they'd do OK, but that's a pretty big 'if'. Or, I could bend rules and declare the ship to be the same price as the old CT ship, or put them in that nifty TL 15 model - all of which just gives me that niggling "splinter-in-your-finger" feeling.

If I'm watching a medieval movie and - through some collosal blunder on the part of the director - a peasant shows up with a Timex on his wrist, it spoils the movie for me. I remember watching Star Wars for the first time and hearing Harrison Ford prattle on about making the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs, and I about had a kinipshin. For all the occasional bits of nonsensical magic-tech (sandcasters vs. lasers, etc.), I do not come to Traveller to play Flash Gordon; this is one of those obscure little details that just bugs the heck out of me.

 

[far-trader]

...sometimes things don't go quite to plan, and the guy in the TL 15 Free Trader may still find himself stuck at Regina waiting months for that uniquely TL-15 part for his fusion plant. But, that's more the exception than the rule. (I wish it was a bit more the exception in the modern day, but that's another story.)

I wonder if they'd give him a loaner.

Sure, if he's got a Triple-I Member Card! Remember, only Imperial Irridium Interstellar members get free towing up to 100D from the nearest starport and a courtesy starship* while repairs are made as just one of the many benefits for the low annual fee!

* starship type varies by local availability, insurance and operational costs not included

...but seriously, no, not likely, and the bank is still going to want those payments if you're operating a mortgage. I guess he'll just have to resort to some kind of private (ad)venture to pay the bills while the ship is laid up

 

[aramis]

A quick scan of Amazon or Ebay will reveal that the 'Law of One Price' is more of a rule of thumb than a hard reality.

From first hand experience, identical electronics have very different prices in Hong Kong, New York and Kingston (Jamaica).

The "Law of One Price" is not for a singular world, but for a single trade flow in the long term. It's accepted on faith as truth for modern economics (which are really still stuck in the 1960's)...

The rule is that for a single given trade flow, eventually a fairly stable "fair price" will be reached that both sides agree upon. It's not just a simplification, but a gross oversimplification that, in practice, does not happen because there's no isolated trade flows not involving monopolies.

Modern trade flows are highly volatile, and most are NOT long term... and almost none are unmolested by regulation - so the "law" of one price never really stands a chance to happen.

I don't see that changing, either. We know the canonical Third Imperium is in bed with, if not really just a front for, the owners of the megacorporations, and in great part, the 3I is the megacorporations in disguise.

 

[rancke]

...Regina can certainly figure out how to keep enough parts on hand to meet routine demands - with the caveat that sometimes things don't go quite to plan, and the guy in the TL 15 Free Trader may still find himself stuck at Regina waiting months for that uniquely TL-15 part for his fusion plant.

I see that as a feature rather than a bug. See below.

Agreed. Routine maintenance up to and including that annual maintenance bit can be conducted at ANY Class A/B starport. On the other hand, "In any situation, repairs to a damaged ship following a battle must be conducted at shipyards of the required Tech Level (although it is an option of the referee to make exceptions to this rule)." (MT Referee Manual, Pg. 96) That's pretty clearly restricted to battle damage.

I think there would be a spectrum of damage to a TL15 starship ranging from stuff that can be repaired with TL5 duct tape and baling wire, over small stuff that requires a basic repair shop and generic spare parts (or a TL15 3D printer) and more serious stuff that require a more advanced repair shop and more specialized spare parts (or a small TL15 fabrication facility and a stock of TL15 alloys and plastics) to damage that require spare parts manufactured to order by TL15 subcontractors. (Somewhere along that spectrum lies damage that require major machinery that is unlikely to be found outside of a shipyard to repair (i.e. requiring the removal of hull plates to install big components.)) It overlaps but does not entirely correspond to the spectrum above. But that's a side issue.)

Battle damage is very likely to lie on the "need to be in a TL15 system" side of the spectrum. So the rules simplify that to all battle damage requiring repairs in a TL15 shipyard.

One could argue for not applying it to civilian craft; there are a lot more Free Traders out there than Imperial cruisers, and the port's more likely to have the needed parts in stock.

That may or may not be the case. There are a lot of Imperial cruisers and only room for a limited number of free traders. :devil:

And, again, I agree with you. That doesn't solve the problem. What rationale can we apply to resolve the conflict they created for us? Or, do we alter rules to preserve setting? Or, do we alter setting to preserve rules? Or both? Any of those are acceptable solutions within a given person's private universe, but my preference would be to preserve rules AND setting, without just shrugging and saying, "Well, that's just the way it is."

That would be my preference too. But I doubt that the entire economy of the Imperium is a subject we have much chance of understanding in sufficient detail to figure it out. I hope I'm wrong.

And, honestly, it goes a wee bit beyond that. Following rules, I'd be putting players in a TL-10 Free Trader that, even if they filled every room and crammed every inch of cargo space with cargo, couldn't make its monthly payments. Sure, they could speculate; if they didn't lose the ship before they got the hang of it, they'd do OK, but that's a pretty big 'if'. Or, I could bend rules and declare the ship to be the same price as the old CT ship, or put them in that nifty TL 15 model - all of which just gives me that niggling "splinter-in-your-finger" feeling.

Or you could do what I do: Declare that no bank is going to finance a brand new ship for anyone whose business plan is "I'm going to jump around and see if I can pick up enough scraps left over by the regular shipping lines to keep in the black" and make the ship 40 or 50 years old and worth 20 or 25% of new price, with a correspondingly lower bank loan. That will allow the PCs to coin money because the bank loan is the major component of operating expenses. However, the catch is that sooner or later something is going to break down and cause a major repair bill and months of idleness with no income.

Essentially, any free trader is betting that he can make enough money to tide him over the bad patches before something essential breaks down. Those who win that bet goes on to found fledgeling lines; those who lose it goes bankrupt and the bank sells the ship to the next bunch of optimists.

A setup like that will also reduce the pressure to earn money every waking moment, allowing the PCs more freedom to stay on a world for a couple of weeks to pursue an adventure (Just don't impose breakdowns while the ship is idle). From an adventure-promoting point of view rather than a merchant point of view, month long delays to get a ship repaired is a feature, not a bug.


Hans

 

[Hyphen]

Curiously enough, I have problems with more class B starports than I have with class A.

Would it work to say, "Contrary to what is generally assumed, the main task of Class-B 'ports is to repair ships built at the Class-As. Construction of non-starships is a sideline business."

;-)

 

[robject]

MT is such an almost-good system. I wish we could just collectively take the thing, rewrite it, and re-release it.

An off-and-on discussion through the years. Another set of eyes is always welcome.

 

[Carlobrand]

...Or you could do what I do: Declare that no bank is going to finance a brand new ship for anyone whose business plan is "I'm going to jump around and see if I can pick up enough scraps left over by the regular shipping lines to keep in the black" and make the ship 40 or 50 years old and worth 20 or 25% of new price, with a correspondingly lower bank loan. That will allow the PCs to coin money because the bank loan is the major component of operating expenses. However, the catch is that sooner or later something is going to break down and cause a major repair bill and months of idleness with no income.

An excellent idea - except that I'd be still be rewriting rules since the only time I see a free trader come up is when some player takes the merchant class and gets lucky. CT Book 2, pg 24: "Receipt of this ship as a benefit confers possession of the ship, but also liability for the monthly payments (about Cr150,000) for the next forty years. ... If the ship benefit is received more than once, each additional receipt is considered to represent actual possession of the ship for a ten-year period. The ship is thus ten
years older, and the total payment term is reduced by ten years." MT Player's Manual, pg 25: "The first receipt of the ship provides use of the ship; each additional receipt pays off ten years of the ship’s 40 year mortgage."

Consarn splinter!

 

[rancke]

An excellent idea - except that I'd be still be rewriting rules since the only time I see a free trader come up is when some player takes the merchant class and gets lucky. CT Book 2, pg 24: "Receipt of this ship as a benefit confers possession of the ship, but also liability for the monthly payments (about Cr150,000) for the next forty years. ... If the ship benefit is received more than once, each additional receipt is considered to represent actual possession of the ship for a ten-year period. The ship is thus ten years older, and the total payment term is reduced by ten years." MT Player's Manual, pg 25: "The first receipt of the ship provides use of the ship; each additional receipt pays off ten years of the ship’s 40 year mortgage."

I'm fully aware of that rule and I consider it a monumentally silly one. Quite apart from the very serious problem I have with the aforementioned stupidity of a bank giving a free trader a loan for a brand new ship, the presence or absence of a starship is a tremendously campaign-affecting factor, and I'm not about to allow random chance to dictate my campaigns to such a degree. The only time I see a starship is when my players and I decide ahead of time to play a campaign where they run a ship. And if we do, they're going to get the use of a starship on whatever conditions I consider best for the campaign regardless of what occur in character generation. I don't let them stand around in the starport looking silly if none of them rolled up a starship, and I don't allow them to fly around in a fully paid up starship if they're lucky enough to get it five times. Or to roll up several ships between them.

As for wanting to stick to the RAW, I don't get it. Any rule that you'd have to use on a regular basis (like, say, trade rules), I can understand a desire for them to work properly, make sense, and be consistently applied. But character generation is a once-in-a-campaign occurrence, so why would you balk at fiddling with them until they make enough sense for you?


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

I'm fully aware of that rule and I consider it a monumentally silly one. Quite apart from the very serious problem I have with the aforementioned stupidity of a bank giving a free trader a loan for a brand new ship, the presence or absence of a starship is a tremendously campaign-affecting factor, and I'm not about to allow random chance to dictate my campaigns to such a degree. The only time I see a starship is when my players and I decide ahead of time to play a campaign where they run a ship. And if we do, they're going to get the use of a starship on whatever conditions I consider best for the campaign regardless of what occur in character generation. I don't let them stand around in the starport looking silly if none of them rolled up a starship, and I don't allow them to fly around in a fully paid up starship if they're lucky enough to get it five times. Or to roll up several ships between them.

As for wanting to stick to the RAW, I don't get it. Any rule that you'd have to use on a regular basis (like, say, trade rules), I can understand a desire for them to work properly, make sense, and be consistently applied. But character generation is a once-in-a-campaign occurrence, so why would you balk at fiddling with them until they make enough sense for you?

Hans

Agreed. If I were to change any rule to make them more workable, that would be at the top of the list: the company they're retiring from offers to sell them a 30 year-old ship the company's about to retire at 25% of its cost, with the bank agreeing to finance the more affordable amount over 40 years (or perhaps 20).

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

We at the industrial heartland of the Sidur, produce some Tl 15 drives. We got some Tl 16 drives on the research block, but This post overlooks some obvious aspects. tl 15 drives are badass. The pinnacle of human development in locomotory engineering. If Droyne can HAND BUILD high tech drives, humans with aadvanced Model 9s can work structural miracles.

 

[Hyphen]

Hans, do you have any comments on my earlier Class-B 'port suggestion?

 

[rancke]

Hans, do you have any comments on my earlier Class-B 'port suggestion?

My suggestion would be to make Class B starports provide everything a Class A provides except ship- and boat-building. (This would include major repairs, so it might theoretically be able to build boats (and maybe even ships) but it wouldn't actually be doing it.)

I'd also make it explicit that Class C starport may include some of the facilities provided by better class starport (particularily refined fuel); they just don't provide them all.


Hans

 

[sfchbryan]

Ayup. MT is such an almost-good system. I wish we could just collectively take the thing, rewrite it, and re-release it. Even just finishing some of the details they left out would be nice - like how to integrate the various TL-9 passive detection gear into the space combat system, since it's not entirely unlikely to have a ship using those. MegaTrav-II!

MT is a good system - the biggest problem is too many people on this board expect 3 96 page books to cover every last possible permeation of any question. At some point, the GM has to make decisions on how their Traveller Universe works.

Don't hold your breath waiting on MWM to do anything with MT - It would be a direct competitor with T5.

Carlobrand, nothing is preventing you from generating a "4th" Edition for your own use. It is what I did. Player's Manual, Referee's Manual, Imperial Encyclopedia, Referee's Companion, World Builder's Handbook, and Nautical Force Command. All formatted to look exactly like the MT manuals and with the MT errata folded in along with anything else I wanted IMTU. (In my case, all references to the OTU were moved to either the Imperial Encyclopedia or the Rebellion Sourcebook.) It isn't hard, just tedious.