High(er) Passage?

[phavoc]

Please describe the disaster that requires abandoning ship that wouldn't be better dealt with by using the ship as a giant life raft until help arrives?

I can't. Nobody can. We can discuss things in abstract, but the reality is we have no data to draw upon except past historical data for similar activities. And in that, the points that I made have held true for thousands of years. The Costra Condordia is a prime example of hubris and stupdity. It had up to date charts, modern navigational equipment, modern ship technology, but it ran into the same problem that has plagued mariners since day one - rocks.

Will a fusion reactors magnetic containment rupture? I dunno. Will the hydrogen leak into the corridors, ignite and blow parts of the ship apart from the inside? I dunno.

Don't get me wrong, abandoning ship in a life raft is seriously cool ...
... I just have trouble with a ship jumping in and suffering a catastrophic failure (after arrival, because a disaster before jump just leaves you drifting at the 100 D limit and a disaster during jump leaves you dead) while also being too far for help to arrive and on a trajectory into the sun.
That starts to snap those suspenders of disbelief.

You are operating from the assumption that Traveller takes place within the 100D limit, and disasters only strike where convenient and timely rescue is available.

I don't disagree that staying within the hull provides you the best opportunity for safety from the hazards of space. But that may not always be possible. What would a ship do that is disabled and in a decaying orbit and no other ship is nearby, nor is there any ground capability for rescue? Stay on board the hulk as it hits the atmosphere and burns up? Even getting into space suits isn't enough because there is no safe place to go.

What event in Traveller makes it essential to escape from a ship in a small craft?
Fusion power plants do not explode.
MD and JD are just inert machinery without power.
Most life threatening disasters would not provide adequate warning to evacuate.

I just have trouble coming up with a plausible crisis.

Everyone has trouble coming up with "plausible" causes because we have nothing to work from. Safety gear is required for those "what if" cases that cannot be planned for, that cannot be predicted, and that DO occur at the worst possible times. Assuming that everything has a simple defined answer isn't how safety planning operates. Of course, a lot of time disaster planning is only AFTER a disaster and nature teaches us the hard way we ain't infallible or all-knowing.

Like everything else in Traveller, prices are highly abstract.
...snip...Even the prices on middle passages I think should vary more; a middle passage on a passenger liner is going to be very different experience from a middle passage on a freighter.

Agreed. A wider range of passages, cabins and such would most likely be available. But officially they don't exist. Fortunately there are player mods!

I always thought you use the standard price because it makes a game simpler. The concept of price variance is definitely in the realm story device such as bartering for an item you really need on some back world or using the Haggling in a bazaar (Persuade) under some of the conditions mentioned in the last post. As with any game, don't abuse by going in to every shop and store and demand the clerk behind the counter MUST haggle every item's price.

I see no reason the players can't try to dicker down a stateroom price if they can roleplay it. Rundown ship with few passengers signing up and the captain is desperate to get off world should gain a few DMs as you convince him to lower the price to get at least some money. Then again, that could go the other way when your players NEED to get off world (imperial entanglements) and the captain of the only available ship willing can demand more.

Using supply and demand does make more for opportunities for role-playing and using those skills that don't always get used. Airlines typically operate their pricing structures in reverse - as time gets closer to departure prices tick UP towards the maximum. Cruise lines, though, operate in reverse, and prices can decline precipitously as departure looms closer.

I don't have any info on how passenger liners operated back when they were the only form of transport. I don't believe they operated using the airline model of pricing (a hideously complex set of pricing algorithms). I would expect they would have been more willing to haggle if there were a large number of empty slots available. Then again it would probably depend on the passage type and what was being haggled over. I don't suspect they would be willing to offer the $100,000 suite for "just" $40,000 because it was unsold. But I would think that they may offer a discount of some sort just to fill it. Part of that cost would depend upon the other costs associated with it (staff, food, booze, etc), which affects profit margin too.

 

[Reynard]

"I just have trouble coming up with a plausible crisis."

Watch your favorite scifi outer space movies or shows and notice how we somehow enjoyed the implausibility. The most plausible ones were often the most boring.

 

[Condottiere]

At some point, it might just be more comfortable and economic to have your own business jet/space yacht.

 

[Reynard]

Rarely do the rich travel with the small people when they can easily afford their own.

 

[Epicenter]

What event in Traveller makes it essential to escape from a ship in a small craft?

There's really only one I can think of; disasters that happen when a ship is leaving a world or making re-entry to a world. Since basically all canon Traveller ships are designed to land on a world's surface, and very large percentage of journeys in Traveller seem to be of the planet-to-planet variety, a lot of disasters are going to happen during re-entry and takeoff (in atmosphere and close orbit).

If the problem involves the time limit of "the ship is going to make uncontrolled re-entry then slam into the surface of the world" (or possibly, "the ship is going to make uncontrolled re-entry then get shot down by COACC before it slams into the surface as a gigantic inert mass-weapon"), passengers and crew would leave the ship in smaller vessels that could make a stable orbit and controlled re-entry if necessary (not all worlds are going to have a COACC rescue service), particularly in a close orbit scenario, the ship might last hours, but rescue services might not actually be able to respond that quickly, particularly if ships are relatively safe so it's simply not cost-effective to have orbital rescue on standby 24/7.

It'd be dangerous and in our 21st century, pretty much suicidal to leave a vessel under such circumstances, but perhaps it might be safer in the future and some chance is better than no chance.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Lots of rhetorical questions follow.

How many overly safety conscious people are willing to risk a missjump and a whole weeks worth of "what ifs" that are a lot more dangerous if they happen in jump space? If one is willing to risk this, how much is additional safety in normal space worth to these risk takers?

How many safety conscious people will have a need to be traveling to the region of adventurers. The most dangerous raggedy edges of space that have a lack of services and help when needed?

How necessary are extensive safety measures in a system that has dozens of ships coming and going each day, patrol vessels, support vessels and so on available.

The point here is how much demand is there for more safety. How many ships would find it worthwhile to supply extra safety features? This can vary within a setting from one location to another.

Of course, a lot of time disaster planning is only AFTER a disaster and nature teaches us the hard way we ain't infallible or all-knowing.

and how often does the "what if's" occur?

In real life, vehicles sometimes have "what ifs" and end up in the water? What if there is no help nearby? Are there people that would pay more if they knew the train or bus or plane has Scuba gear?

Anyways, the point is not in these details but that demand for safety will also be based on many factors such as the likelihood of the "what ifs". Space and cost. Capable people to use it. Lots of other factors.

How about a recent scare because a one in a million happened recently and got lots of media - demand suddenly goes up.

Agreed. A wider range of passages, cabins and such would most likely be available.

Agreement here.

But officially they don't exist.

I see many things in the rules as "this is the norm" not "this is how it always is". Very useful for the GM to use on a regular basis and as a baseline for working out the not so normal.