Last call for feedback: Spec trade and cargo & other stu

[captainjack23]

In case I forget, special thanks to all who posted. Aramis especially, he did lots of basework here.

The first round of feedback from the thread hasn't been used to update this version. Don't worry, I haven't ignored it.


Some thoughts on the Trade rules

From the players perspective, they will be less involved in the planned/contract trade (unless they get good steady safe jobs with a shipping line......how likely is that :wink: ?) . So, they will have more of the spec side in front of them - and the cargo that's available for that (and freight) the is most likely to be excess or last minute loads not accounted for by regular shipping.

So, , I'll suggest suggest that the freight lots only have to be considered a fraction of what would likely exist; and the spec lots similarly considered -but with more available than freight.

So, yes, a hi pop industrial tech 15 planet may only have a few tons available - for the players. O this planet, for this week, the merchant marine is very efficient, and the brokers too -this is what missed the boat (the boat being the .5 gigaton freighter that just left).

And yes, I'd have the available lots change every week for this reason. A sudden giant surplus (great roll, blazingly good effect) could be because a ship is late, and brokers have no interest in waiting to get the synthicaf bean harvest moving...., and the captain knows a guy (who knows a guy, who has this dude who owes him a favor in charge of the ministry of trade...)

One thing. Read the spec trading rules.....once a proce has been determined, the trader can just start shovelling until his hold is full .

Thats gotta be changed.

That said, I'm thinking that the limits should be similar to the freight lots.

I'm not sure how much it is needed to try and balance the lots by type - given that these are the spot loads, they may represent partial lots that overfilled the regular freight hull or lots that came up too short (profit or space) to be worthwhile for the megafreighters to lift.

So, there are probably 1000 and 10000 dTon lots - they just aren't available or practical for character traders.

Additionally, looking at the available cargo (freight and spec) can allow less worry about destination/source interactions....a smaller sample of the cargos will be much less reflective of the actual trade - so, as long as theres lots of variance in what the players may get, balancing isn't as much of an issue (particulalry using a basic model for the basic version of te game)



Some lots perhaps should be small - do we want 600 tons of diamonds or scifi gem equiv ? So, they'd use the above ranges (d6x100,d6x10,etc) but in cubic meters instead of dtons ;perhaps even Kg for lots that will never fill even one container or subcontainer

Most of the small lots seem to specialty goods in any case -limited to specific trade codes, so probably just having some as size S and the rest unchanged should do without stretching credulity too much ("you bought six-hundred displacement tons of TL15 micro cpu chips....and then sold them ? all as one lot ?...thats it, I quit ")


Standard container discussion goes here for lasck of a better place:
Speaking of which, standard containers: from several campaigns, and my own , this seems to work well with the basic freight and mail lot sizes, which one assumes are sealed and point to point shipping.

Containers, ImpMerchSpec, owner transportable, single use. 

Bulk =100dton
Standard =5ton
Small = 1ton
subcontainer = 1/10 dton (1.4 cubic meters) (the mid passage allowance for luggage, I believe)

So, to start
make it more consistent with the freight table.

Assume that both spec and freight are the spot market - mainly leftovers and late arrivals. Works if the system is explicitly identified as being aimed at characters as small opportunistic carriers. (classic tramp freight)

Step 1:

Figure out how much is likely to be there.

I'd suggest a trade index based off of TL and Pop. (THe nature of the goods is determined by Tradecodes).

Realistically, it should be based upon some rough value conversion and include a resources index of some kind, but that way is too picayune for my gaming needs.

Let's Use TradeIndex=Sqrt(TLCd*PopCd) where TLCd is the Tech Level as a number and PopCd is the Population code as a number.

Tons to be available should be 10^((Trade Index+1d6)/3)...

Trade index (by Aramis):

   Population                           
TL   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
 1   1   1   2   2   2   2   3   3   3   3
 2   1   2   2   3   3   3   4   4   4   4
 3   2   2   3   3   4   4   5   5   5   5
 4   2   3   3   4   4   5   5   6   6   6
 5   2   3   4   4   5   5   6   6   7   7
 6   2   3   4   5   5   6   6   7   7   8
 7   3   4   5   5   6   6   7   7   8   8
 8   3   4   5   6   6   7   7   8   8   9
 9   3   4   5   6   7   7   8   8   9   9
10   3   4   5   6   7   8   8   9   9  10
11   3   5   6   7   7   8   9   9  10  10
12   3   5   6   7   8   8   9  10  10  11
13   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  10  11  11
14   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  11  12
15   4   5   7   8   9   9  10  11  12  12
16   4   6   7   8   9  10  11  11  12  13
17   4   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  12  13
18   4   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  13
19   4   6   8   9  10  11  12  12  13  14
20   4   6   8   9  10  11  12  13  13  14

Use the TI table from Aramis (above): for any planet TI = (Sqrt(pop * Tech) + 1d6-3)

Alternately, use ((TEC+POP)/2 +/- 1d6-3) so as not to zero out any of the tech 0 cultures. Table should be the same as above, excpt w/. a line for TL 0

[The variable dice (1d6-3) for initial TI allows for some variance due to planets being more or less productive, diversified, and /or unusually resource rich. I'd also optionally suggest that it not be rolled till the players get there (the base pop*Tech is in the traders guide book) which allows for assumption of cyclic production, trade booms and failures & screwing with players heads and pocketbooks. you'll get some oddities, the TI 1 planet suddenly jumping to 4, for instance, but write those off to an oil strike/dotcom boom or some such ]

use 1d6 -3 +TI for total lots available.
[Don't want too many lots, but also some variability -plus, only the worst planets should have the potential for no lots.]

Important: as with freight, available lots work as in freight & can't be broken up for purchase. Unlike freight, they have no set destination, and can be broken up for sale at the new owners discretion.

assumption: these are the lots of commodities on the quayside, or in brokers warehouses -they are containerized and ready to go -generally terms are as delivered to docking bay; cost includes container, which are owner openable.
Stuff, in custom lots, probably requiring transport and packing, seem more of a event-driven roleplaying issue.

determine the actual contents of the lots as in MGT 3.2 (d66);
one change needed:allow repeat rolls to stay - but roll lot size separately for each.

use the following tables for the size determinant (remember - we are dealing only with player size loads):

some goods will be defined as small lots: -3 to size. any result below 0 is in lots of d6 x1/10 dTon (1.4 cubic Meters).

roll 1d6
0-    = d6 x 1/10dTon
1,2,3 = d6x1 ton
4,5    = d6x10 ton
6-7    = d6x100 ton
8+     = d6x1000 ton

+2 if TI 12+
+1 if TI 9-11
-1 if TI  3-5
-2 if TI  2-
-3 if designated as small lot

I'm tempted to add bulk lots (+5) , but anything at all in the 1000dTon range is likely out of range for the players hold space. To some extent, I included that as a booby prize for hight TI worlds -their leftovers are pretty damn big, often as not.

For the mods to the size table break points are vaguely: high stellar+(TI 12+) space using (TI 9-11), basically not industrialized (TI 3-5) and primitive (TI 0-2)
Assumptions: primitives(TI 0-2) have either very little, or very small hand made lots of interest. not industrialized planets (not necc the trade code rather TI 3-5) , seldom produce big lots of much anything due too either small population, or low tech.
Space using planets (TI 9-11)are integrated into the imperial economy and standardized trade habits, and high stellar + (TI 12+) just plain has easy mass production of anything. (note that for a TI of 12, the minimum is 10 pop, 14 tech; for a 13, the minimums are 16 tech, 10 pop.)

The non modified TI range (6-8 ) represents the backwaters that don't produce much for trade, or are just starting to get integrated into the economy.

Step 2.

determine final price per lot as in spec trade rules in MGT 3.2

-keeping in mind that the amounts are not open ended.

Step 3.
Find yerself a sucker.

 

[EDG]

Thanks, that kinda summarises things so that outsiders to the discussion can make some sense of it .

First, the Trade Index - drop the "square root" version of the equation, I know (from places like rpgnet) that people tend to get hysterical when they see sqrts in RPGs. Just say "the average of TL and Pop" and you'll avoid the mobs .

Is the TI constant? Or does it change every day (is that what the 1d-3 roll is for?)

Also, this might be a place where the Ri and Po trade code can play a roll - if a planet is Ri, then add X (X=2? 3? 4?) to the TI. If it's Po then subtract X from the TI. The whole point of those codes is to say how much resources are on the planet so it makes sense to me to have them directly influence the roll.

Finally, would this work with the EDG 1.2 worldgen rules (if those end up being adopted)?

Oh, and also: GT:Far Trader uses a similar concept to the TI (called the World Trade Number - later modified to the Bilateral Trade Number) to enable people to draw out where the trade routes are between worlds. You basically end up with a load of BTNs than you can then use to plot the low trade routes where many thousands of credits flow per week (which tend to be plentiful and linking many worlds), and the massive trade routes where tens of billions of credits flow per week which tend to be between the big economic powerhouses. Can these rules be used in a similar way, to determine where the trade routes are likely to be?

 

[AKAramis]

Thanks, that kinda summarises things so that outsiders to the discussion can make some sense of it .

First, the Trade Index - drop the "square root" version of the equation, I know (from places like rpgnet) that people tend to get hysterical when they see sqrts in RPGs. Just say "the average of TL and Pop" and you'll avoid the mobs .

Is the TI constant? Or does it change every day (is that what the 1d-3 roll is for?)

Also, this might be a place where the Ri and Po trade code can play a roll - if a planet is Ri, then add X (X=2? 3? 4?) to the TI. If it's Po then subtract X from the TI. The whole point of those codes is to say how much resources are on the planet so it makes sense to me to have them directly influence the roll.

Finally, would this work with the EDG 1.2 worldgen rules (if those end up being adopted)?

Oh, and also: GT:Far Trader uses a similar concept to the TI (called the World Trade Number - later modified to the Bilateral Trade Number) to enable people to draw out where the trade routes are between worlds. You basically end up with a load of BTNs than you can then use to plot the low trade routes where many thousands of credits flow per week (which tend to be plentiful and linking many worlds), and the massive trade routes where tens of billions of credits flow per week which tend to be between the big economic powerhouses. Can these rules be used in a similar way, to determine where the trade routes are likely to be?

Yes, they can.

As to the Sqare root: just use the bloody table... it's important to marginalizing marginal worlds.

Here's a list of the differences between the two methods:

  0    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13
  1    0  0  1  0  1  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  4
  2    0  0  0  1  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  3  2
  3    1  0  0  0  1  0  1  1  1  1  2  1  2
  4    0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1  2  1
  5    1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1  1
  6    1  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1
  7    2  1  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1
  8    2  1  1  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0
  9    2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1
 10    2  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0
 11    3  2  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1
 12    3  3  1  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0
 13    4  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0
 14    4  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  1  0
 15    5  3  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  1
 16    4  4  3  2  2  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0
 17    5  4  3  2  2  1  2  1  1  0  1  0  1
 18    5  4  3  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0
 19    6  4  4  3  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1
 20    6  5  4  4  2  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0

So they really do different things.

 

[EDG]

Yes, they can.

...and you're going to elaborate on this, right?

As to the Sqare root: just use the bloody table... it's important to marginalizing marginal worlds.

Then don't provide the formula. Seriously, if rpgnet is anything to go by then people throw total hissyfits at the thought of square roots in RPGs. Not that I agree with them at all, mind.

Here's a list of the differences between the two methods:

So the differences are only great at the extremes (I think we can toss out the pop 13 worlds though, and I dunno if MGT is keeping the pop 11 and 12 worlds).

(you'll note, BTW that it was obvious you'd made a mistake in the table on the other thread, but I didn't throw in a snarky comment about how it "undermines by credibility". Just sayin').

 

[captainjack23]

Yes, they can.

...and you're going to elaborate on this, right?

As to the Sqare root: just use the bloody table... it's important to marginalizing marginal worlds.

Then don't provide the formula. Seriously, if rpgnet is anything to go by then people throw total hissyfits at the thought of square roots in RPGs. Not that I agree with them at all, mind.

Here's a list of the differences between the two methods:

So the differences are only great at the extremes (I think we can toss out the pop 13 worlds though, and I dunno if MGT is keeping the pop 11 and 12 worlds).

Aramis is right about which version to use, and EDG is right about hiding the formula. Not using a sqrt was an unspoken motivation for me, since while I don't mind sqrt functions, it does cause problems in .....perception from some populations. Oddly, I hadn't thought about just presenting the table sans formula......and not a frikkin word out of you about me and tables, Dr Ganymede ! :lol:



that said, any other thoughts ?

 

[captainjack23]

Thanks, that kinda summarises things so that outsiders to the discussion can make some sense of it .

Outsider. Unclean.

First, the Trade Index - drop the "square root" version of the equation, I know (from places like rpgnet) that people tend to get hysterical when they see sqrts in RPGs. Just say "the average of TL and Pop" and you'll avoid the mobs .

see below

Is the TI constant? Or does it change every day (is that what the 1d-3 roll is for?)

Yeah, did I forget to mention it ? My choice would be to only roll it when the players land (the TI would be known) or otherwise show up, and I'd also suggest rolling it gain each week. the logic is that the spot market, which i'm simulating, not the main trade flow) is fairly volatile, and pegged to turnaround times for nearby shipping -so, some change will occur most weeks. Thats one which is a GM option, to give the players a fire under their butts if they find a local surplus.

Also, this might be a place where the Ri and Po trade code can play a roll - if a planet is Ri, then add X (X=2? 3? 4?) to the TI. If it's Po then subtract X from the TI. The whole point of those codes is to say how much resources are on the planet so it makes sense to me to have them directly influence the roll.

I'll take a look. I'm not sure I want the results so closely tied to whatever criteria (possibly as yet unpublished) is finally used for worldgen. see my notes below.

Finally, would this work with the EDG 1.2 worldgen rules (if those end up being adopted)?

well, it should. Given the parallel development of the threads, I intentionally tried to not tie it to much of an assumption about the actual flow of trade on the larger scale - so it should do for most worldgens along the CT-MGT-EDG continuum. Although, as I've suggested, the main problem is that really good trade worlds shouldn't become so likely as to regualarly show up near (J3 or so) each other....and I think the EDGverse is okay on that. I'd prefer less IN worlds, and also Ag worlds, but I don't think it's a game wrecker. mostly just a game....flow....changer...thing. Crap, its late. :?

Oh, and also: GT:Far Trader uses a similar concept to the TI (called the World Trade Number - later modified to the Bilateral Trade Number) to enable people to draw out where the trade routes are between worlds. You basically end up with a load of BTNs than you can then use to plot the low trade routes where many thousands of credits flow per week (which tend to be plentiful and linking many worlds), and the massive trade routes where tens of billions of credits flow per week which tend to be between the big economic powerhouses. Can these rules be used in a similar way, to determine where the trade routes are likely to be?

Not as they exist here. These are simulating the spot market as influenced by overall trade flow, and also are inherently destination free (the players figure that bit out). Aramis has some really good stuff on the more macro level trade flows between worlds that I quite honestly glossed over to create this subset trade system. Anything addressing that side of things would probably include the TI, but would need to account for demand effects, actual tonnage, hulls, distance based value attenuation, and track world resources much more closely. So, ya see.....thats for the "merchant prince" suppliment.

This system assumes that the players are picking up the odds and sods...probably getting access to .1-.5% at most of the actual trade flow. its extreme volatility makes it much easier to apply to a wide variety of situations, and to model with dice.

 

[atpollard]

Taking a hint from the real world, Parcels can be sent at a variety of speeds and at a variety of costs – from Private Courier (the fastest and most expensive) to Bulk Freight (the slowest and least expensive). The total quantity of goods shipped by each method varies inversely with cost (very few goods are delivered by private courier but LOTS of goods are shipped by Bulk Freight).

WHAT IF the following cargo lots are available at any port:
d6 x 1 tons at 4000 cr per dton
d6 x 10 dtons at 2000 cr per dton
d6 x 100 dtons at 1000 cr per dton
d6 x 1000 dtons at 500 cr per dton

Obviously, ships would fill up on the higher priced cargo first. A small ship might only carry the expensive cargo (like a private courier does not deliver furniture), but a large ship could still fill it’s hold with cargo. This works for both the ‘regular route’ and the ‘tramp freighter’. This would represent a small shipment where the owner wants his cargo ‘on the next available ship’ through a large shipment where the owner ‘needs the lowest possible price’ and is prepared to wait ‘on standby’ for discount space on a super-freighter.

Feel free to apply some system of modifiers to the (d6) roll based on world data, I am mostly suggesting the (x 1 dT at 4000 Cr/dT, x 10 dT at 2000 Cr/dT …) part.

A similar spread could be used to generate speculative cargo as well – there is a small quantity of high priced goods available and a large quantity of low cost goods available.

 

[captainjack23]

Taking a hint from the real world, Parcels can be sent at a variety of speeds and at a variety of costs – from Private Courier (the fastest and most expensive) to Bulk Freight (the slowest and least expensive). The total quantity of goods shipped by each method varies inversely with cost (very few goods are delivered by private courier but LOTS of goods are shipped by Bulk Freight).

WHAT IF the following cargo lots are available at any port:
d6 x 1 tons at 4000 cr per dton
d6 x 10 dtons at 2000 cr per dton
d6 x 100 dtons at 1000 cr per dton
d6 x 1000 dtons at 500 cr per dton

Obviously, ships would fill up on the higher priced cargo first. A small ship might only carry the expensive cargo (like a private courier does not deliver furniture), but a large ship could still fill it’s hold with cargo. This works for both the ‘regular route’ and the ‘tramp freighter’. This would represent a small shipment where the owner wants his cargo ‘on the next available ship’ through a large shipment where the owner ‘needs the lowest possible price’ and is prepared to wait ‘on standby’ for discount space on a super-freighter.

Feel free to apply some system of modifiers to the (d6) roll based on world data, I am mostly suggesting the (x 1 dT at 4000 Cr/dT, x 10 dT at 2000 Cr/dT …) part.

A similar spread could be used to generate speculative cargo as well – there is a small quantity of high priced goods available and a large quantity of low cost goods available.

Its an interesting idea. I like the idea that the big lots are slowly filling containers of surface-3rd class-ship at leisure cargos just waiting for someone to have a spare space in their hold. The courier lots are afun idea, too - they have a deliver by date and payment upon delivery requirements, plus possibly a bond posted at both ends......thats a scenario maker right there.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

So, what is in the lots would be determined by the trade codes of the world, similar to what Gar has proposed already in v3.2?

I actually like the idea of what he did there, with the common rolls based on trade codes, but the possibility of others just due to what might be lying around.

 

[captainjack23]

So, what is in the lots would be determined by the trade codes of the world, similar to what Gar has proposed already in v3.2?

I actually like the idea of what he did there, with the common rolls based on trade codes, but the possibility of others just due to what might be lying around.

yes, that seems the best way to integrate the trade codes into trade...which seems like a good idea, for some reason. :wink:

[edit: I wasn't clear here-yes, I would use Gars method as presented in 3.2. The hope is that this system can just sit on top of it or plug into whatever method he decides to use, mainly to limit the quantities available to player characters. I'd just just add the Small qualifier to a few lots, and keep duplicate results, perhaps. see below]

And, yes, I liked it too. main issue , as noted, was the shovelling effect...no upper limit. It individalizes the codes, and reults in a wider range of stuff...the non-coded worlds will tend to have more of the same old stuff.
About that: I'm still thinking about the effect of removing the "duplicate results are thrown out with no reroll" rule as it stands. It does keep the general distribution of common goods less clumped - in other words, non specialized worlds shouldn't bnecc have lots more of the common goods than, say an In world, simply because the In world will hav its lots more spread out....should it ?

Allowing duplicate lots to remain will cause the common goods to pile up , although, perhaps thats part of the issue of why they're there. The size effects will tend to attenuate this effect, but will it do so enough?

One possibility is adding a mod to the size table if this is the second or later lot of the same stuff....but thats one more mod, and....well, we all know how I feel about that.....

SO, some thoughts about that issue would be helpful, as with any suggestions as to what lots from the table should be explicitly "small" ? (available only in sub 1dTon lots)

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I think the idea of dumping duplicate codes was because there was no limit on what you could buy. If there is now a limit, then having multiple rolls means something (2 lot sizes to pick from).

 

[captainjack23]

I think the idea of dumping duplicate codes was because there was no limit on what you could buy. If there is now a limit, then having multiple rolls means something (2 lot sizes to pick from).

Which is the intent - however, the flip side of that is that worlds with less variety of possibilites, and thus more restrictive trade codes, will as a result have many more of the common lots than the advantagous trade codes.

I'm not sure that this is a problem, but it is an oddity. Its explainable given 1. the assumption of volitility of the spot market, and 2. that more restricted trade worlds are likely to have more of the same old crap piled up due to differences in shipping patterns.

But, does that seem like a handwave ?

 

[captainjack23]

As it says, last call. I'll try to post it here, too, as I get it to Gar.

 

[captainjack23]

One comment before I fall over asleep. I've gotten a few questions about the freight rules - my intent is to leave them as they are, and build the Spec cargo around that. So, no change to freight, and the actual goods generated for the spec cargo are as per 3.2.

 

[tbeard1999]

Any set of spec trade rules can be unreasonably exploited by the players if the players are given all of the information about how the price is determined.

For instance, if the players know that their stuff will sell for 100% + (2d6-7+Broker Skill), then they would be foolish not to do as much spec trading as possible, if they can get at least a DM of +1. The chance of loss on a given transaction is less than 50%, so players aren't overly troubled by volatility.

And volatility is what makes so many folks lose in speculative markets.

An alternative approach would be to treat speculative goods as truly speculative -- i.e., a high chance of losing money, but a small chance of making a small fortune. Any number of mechanics might work, but here's one that's simple and easy to analyze for problems:

After the goods are purchased, roll 2d6 to determine demand:

On a 2-9, there is no demand, so the goods can be sold for 25% of what the players paid for them.
On a 10+, there is high demand.

If spec goods are not sold within 3 weeks of purchase, apply a -1 to this roll, since the market has gone cold.

No other modifiers on this roll.

If there's a high demand, roll for the selling price. Selling price will be 200% + [(2d6 + broker skill) x 25%]. If doubles are rolled, roll again and add. Keep doing this for as long as doubles are rolled.

Statistically, the players will make a fair profit on the goods (about 18%). But most of the time, they'll lose money and about 1 time in 6, they'll make *lots* of money.

This means that most of the time, the players will lose money. But when they score, they'll score big. That's what speculation is truly about.

Note that all prices are based on what the players *paid* for the goods. If they are based on the book price of the goods, the equation gets much harder to balance (and the result is the same, so why add needless complexity).

At the referee's discretion, rumors that goods are easy to move might modify the demand roll by +1 (or -1 if untrue and/or widely disseminated, causing a glut of such products in the target market).

 

[captainjack23]

Any set of spec trade rules can be unreasonably exploited by the players if the players are given all of the information about how the price is determined.

For instance, if the players know that their stuff will sell for 100% + (2d6-7+Broker Skill), then they would be foolish not to do as much spec trading as possible, if they can get at least a DM of +1. The chance of loss on a given transaction is less than 50%, so players aren't overly troubled by volatility.

And volatility is what makes so many folks lose in speculative markets.

An alternative approach would be to treat speculative goods as truly speculative -- i.e., a high chance of losing money, but a small chance of making a small fortune. Any number of mechanics might work, but here's one that's simple and easy to analyze for problems:

After the goods are purchased, roll 2d6 to determine demand:

On a 2-9, there is no demand, so the goods can be sold for 25% of what the players paid for them.
On a 10+, there is high demand.

If spec goods are not sold within 3 weeks of purchase, apply a -1 to this roll, since the market has gone cold.

No other modifiers on this roll.

If there's a high demand, roll for the selling price. Selling price will be 200% + [(2d6 + broker skill) x 25%]. If doubles are rolled, roll again and add. Keep doing this for as long as doubles are rolled.

Statistically, the players will make a fair profit on the goods (about 18%). But most of the time, they'll lose money and about 1 time in 6, they'll make *lots* of money.

This means that most of the time, the players will lose money. But when they score, they'll score big. That's what speculation is truly about.

Note that all prices are based on what the players *paid* for the goods. If they are based on the book price of the goods, the equation gets much harder to balance (and the result is the same, so why add needless complexity).

At the referee's discretion, rumors that goods are easy to move might modify the demand roll by +1 (or -1 if untrue and/or widely disseminated, causing a glut of such products in the target market).

Thanks !

At the very least, I'll paraphrase your comments about losing one's shirt and the need for secret volitility for the GMs discussion.