Rethinking ship shares for MTU

[Jak Nazryth]

I’ve gone back and forth over the years on this particular subject.
The question is reality vs. playability.
Traveller is one of the only game systems I know where much of the fan base see it as a reality simulator (future reality)
I’ve seen posts on various threads where people get downright insulting towards each other if somebody’s math is slightly off, or if there’s a disagreement between how much energy it takes to fire a laser rifle (and the fact it could never happen even in a “traveller backpack” because you can’t stack enough electrons in a nickel cadmium matrix to generate 1.21 gigiwatts (lol)… to fire a sustained pulse to melt through a .24 inch steel plate… blah, blah, blah…. Yes folks, someone on another forum around 2002 actually did the math and concluded that a laser rifle couldn’t even fire a single shot because it’s power pack was far too small to “hold” enough electrons required to create a 5d6 laser beam attack…… Sometimes people forget this is a science fiction role playing game..
But I digress.
The question is the cost of ships, the playability and enjoyability, and economy of ships.
I know there are lots of us, I used to be one, that likes the expense side of ships, trying to pay the bank, struggling to find enough cargo/passengers etc… to make it. One of my friends, a long time rpg’er, hates traveller because it’s “always about the ship”… as in everything you do, no matter what, is a never ending quest to make a payment. He rightly points out “I struggle to make my house payment and pay my own bills each month… why on earth would I want to play a game on the weekends where I have to do the same thing? I want to escape my reality for a few hours, not simulate it…” And he has a point.
Noted, that you can run almost any kind of campaign style be it military, or special ops, or whatever where the players are a “crew” or mission specialists working for a government or merc group etc… and therefore never have to worry about ship payments. But for the “traditional” tramp freighter, “follow your nose to adventure” style game, the ship payments can dominate all aspects of the game.
So when I restart my own traveller campaign in early 2014, I’ll be making the following changes.

Each ship share = 5%, so if you roll right, a merchant can get own 25% of a free trader (or far trader IMTU) right off the bat.

I might even say each ship share = 10% but each player is limited to 1 “result” on the mustering out tables.
Another option is to keep the ship shares and the costs identical, but the player are on their very last year of paying off the ship. So they only have to struggle for one IN GAME year after starting the campaign.

Other systems have other options on how you own and who you owe, for instance a crime lord, or other “under the table” arrangement. But to keep it within the Traveller framework, I think this might work out the best.
And this won’t “break the economy” either. One single ship with a group of very lucky individuals (they are player characters, not NPC’s after all) will not corner the market in the Spinward Marches because their bank payment is half the cost of the other average Joe..

Anyway, any thoughts?

 

[F33D]

Each ship share = 5%, so if you roll right, a merchant can get own 25% of a free trader (or far trader IMTU) right off the bat.

I might even say each ship share = 10% but each player is limited to 1 “result” on the mustering out tables.
Another option is to keep the ship shares and the costs identical, but the player are on their very last year of paying off the ship. So they only have to struggle for one IN GAME year after starting the campaign.

Anyway, any thoughts?

I like the direction you are going with this. I might even go as far to say that 5 "shares" gets the party one ship. You can combine but must valuable "shares" based on what they were earned for in the Char gen.


p.s. - that electron calculation you refer to above was not valid for nuclear batteries.

 

[DickTurpin]

As you are no doubt aware, there are many ways to avoid being buried under a huge ship mortgage; using a patron's ship, being hired crew, working passage or just being paying passengers to get from planet to planet. Many successful campaigns have been based on these 'no ship' models.

But, even though owning a ship is not really required to play Traveller, there is no denying that owning their own ship grants the players a degree of independence that is difficult to find any other way. I agree that making payments can be an overwhelming chore if your players do not enjoy the trade rules or do not have a character with a high Broker skill.

I like your idea for increasing the value of ship shares to meet your group's interests; making rules adjustments to increase your group’s enjoyment of the game is a hallmark of a good GM after all. I would be cautious of implementing it as a full rule change however; I have had a character end up with 27 ship shares after a six term Free Trader career. If that happens to a couple of your players the group might have to try to figure out how to fly two ships at once.

 

[Condottiere]

Unlike down to earth rpgs like D&D and Shadowrun, where PCs will have to can fairly easily gain transport to the next scenario, you do have to make the acquisition of a starship a rather more difficult proposition, otherwise you'd be jostling with hundreds at the jump point, filled with families during the school holidays.

Having said that, it appears the two best bargains you can get are the 100 and 400 ton hulls at 2 and 16 MCr respectively; after that, you might as pay bespoken rates.

The shares should be for a completely functioning example, but the actual ship might be missing some components, thereby depreciating it considerably, and allowing the players to use their expertise to rectify it, whether scavenging parts in a junkyard, or finding one that fell off the back of lorry.

You could turn the hulk of a scout into the Mystery Van on a straitened budget, with the connivance of the DM.

I don't recall this being an option, but if you remember the movie Dune, there's this interesting part where shuttles fly into the hold of the starship, thereby acting as a carrier/tender. You have a certain amount of mobility, if a car ferry is available. A corporate Learjet, or even Air Force One could be envisioned.

 

[F33D]

Unlike down to earth rpgs like D&D and Shadowrun, where PCs will have to can fairly easily gain transport to the next scenario, you do have to make the acquisition of a starship a rather more difficult proposition, otherwise you'd be jostling with hundreds at the jump point, filled with families during the school holidays.

Not really. Just like in D&D, the PC's are special because they are ... PC's. They aren't NPC families with children. In other words, not the rabble.

 

[Jacqual]

I know how you and your players feel, I don't like my bills why would I do that in a game for fun.

Back when I started traveller (CT) I did this when I started my campaign, which was a merchant campaign btw. I had 4 players 2 Merchants, a marine, and a scout.

I had the Merchants muster out everytime they rolled ship on the muster out chart they ended up better off. I will put a little chart up so you can see what I did.

Roll Result
1st Free Trader with 40 years of payment (Brand New)
2nd Free Trader with 30 years of payments (10 years old)
3rd Free Trader with 20 years of payments (20 years old)
4th Free Trader with 10 years of payments (30 years old)
5th Free Trader paid off (40 years old)
6th Free Trader paid off (30 years old)
7th Free Trader paid off (20 years old)
8th Free Trader paid off (10 years old)
9th Free Trader paid off (Brand New)
10th Free Trader paid off (Brand New and armed with pulse lasers and sand casters)

For every 5 years old the ship was I rolled on a quirks table I had written up, which is now long lost. But it contained both good and bad traits that the ship may have, like the ship was built at a higher TL, or it was haunted, maybe it included an advanced robot steward, was built to high luxury standards, was a fuel pig the power plant went through 20% more full which made it important to be near fuel. Just little things like that, made my life easier and my players happy.

 

[phavoc]

It really depends on how you want to run the game. It's easy enough to have your shipless adventurers stumble upon a derelict, win one in a sabacc, err poker game, inherit one, be rewarded one, etc, etc.

If you as the GM feel it's in the group's best interest to get a ship to fly around in, then simply manufacture the scenario(s) that allow this to happen. Maybe they start off as crew for a relative, there's a fight, the ship-owning relative is killed and the family member takes over and tries to make a go at it. Maybe a ship is a family hand-me down. It's not up to the dice rolls unless you want to make it that way.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Some people like creating their own game but I like to minimize rule changes so that no mater what game I join or who joins one of mine, everybody is on the same page. So no offense but

making rules adjustments to increase your group’s enjoyment of the game is a hallmark of a good GM after all.

would be a last resort and I'm more inclined to go in this direction:

It's easy enough to have your shipless adventurers stumble upon a derelict, win one in a sabacc, err poker game, inherit one, be rewarded one, etc, etc.

If you as the GM feel it's in the group's best interest to get a ship to fly around in, then simply manufacture the scenario(s) that allow this to happen.

 

[tolcreator]

The problem is that in Traveller, ships are expensive to buy, but cheap to run. if you owned the ship outright, doing the minimum of passengers and a passing attempt at freight, will keep a Beowulf class in the black indefinitely. Actually filling the cargo hold will make you wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. So to, will simply *selling it* and settling down off the proceeds

In the two main examples of free traders in cinematic medium (Han Solo and Firefly), it seems that ships are cheap to buy, but expensive to maintain and run. So it's easy to get one, but you have to work hard at keeping it in the air.

I remember years ago on the TML someone had found a website selling old cargo ships, and we were all amazed at how *cheap* they were. Again of course, in the real world, it's the cost of running the thing that's the problem. I do sometimes wonder if that wouldn't be a better paradigm...

"I've got this job, it'll take 2 weeks...."
"2 weeks! No time! We've got a mortgage to pay. Unless you're offering us 200Kcr for that job..."
as opposed to
"Well, it dosn't cost us much to leave her sitting in port, sure"

To do it for reals tho, you'd have to completely rework the economics (i.e. price of various components, return on freight, speculative trade, etc).

 

[F33D]

In the two main examples of free traders in cinematic medium (Han Solo and Firefly), it seems that ships are cheap to buy, but expensive to maintain and run. So it's easy to get one, but you have to work hard at keeping it in the air.

Actually, both. The Falcon just happened to be a hunk of junk and thus took a lot of work to keep running. Also, there was no large cargo hold so he was relegated to smuggling.

 

[phavoc]

The problem is that in Traveller, ships are expensive to buy, but cheap to run. if you owned the ship outright, doing the minimum of passengers and a passing attempt at freight, will keep a Beowulf class in the black indefinitely. Actually filling the cargo hold will make you wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. So to, will simply *selling it* and settling down off the proceeds

In the two main examples of free traders in cinematic medium (Han Solo and Firefly), it seems that ships are cheap to buy, but expensive to maintain and run. So it's easy to get one, but you have to work hard at keeping it in the air.

I remember years ago on the TML someone had found a website selling old cargo ships, and we were all amazed at how *cheap* they were. Again of course, in the real world, it's the cost of running the thing that's the problem. I do sometimes wonder if that wouldn't be a better paradigm...

"I've got this job, it'll take 2 weeks...."
"2 weeks! No time! We've got a mortgage to pay. Unless you're offering us 200Kcr for that job..."
as opposed to
"Well, it dosn't cost us much to leave her sitting in port, sure"

To do it for reals tho, you'd have to completely rework the economics (i.e. price of various components, return on freight, speculative trade, etc).

Nah. A creative referee can always separate a PC from his credits. That milk cargo run carrying chemicals turns into an onboard explosion due to mislabeling. Chemicals turn out to be too hazardous so you buy grain... gee Mr. Customs's officer, I don't know where that dreampower came from... whaddya mean you are confiscating ALL my cargo???

Even sitting in port can be hazardous to your bank account. Watch out Mr. Loader driver! That's my ship!! (with a few new portholes now evidently).

Players who don't somewhat follow painstakingly crafted adventures must be punished! No, really, that was just what the dice said...

 

[dragoner]

Nah. A creative referee can always separate a PC from his credits. That milk cargo run carrying chemicals turns into an onboard explosion due to mislabeling. Chemicals turn out to be too hazardous so you buy grain... gee Mr. Customs's officer, I don't know where that dreampower came from... whaddya mean you are confiscating ALL my cargo???

Even sitting in port can be hazardous to your bank account. Watch out Mr. Loader driver! That's my ship!! (with a few new portholes now evidently).

Players who don't somewhat follow painstakingly crafted adventures must be punished! No, really, that was just what the dice said...

Supplement 13 will be good for this, you could practically run an entire adventure out of it.

 

[Epicenter]

Not really. Just like in D&D, the PC's are special because they are ... PC's. They aren't NPC families with children. In other words, not the rabble.

I've always felt that Traveller failed to exploit a pretty interesting range of options by not just acknowledging this, but running with it.

For instance, if the Traveller "earn your ship economics" were written for "everyone else" in mind. This would illustrate the economics of getting a ship to gearheads, economists, and similar types who love to simulate using Traveller but don't play it as a RPG.

Then simply plug in a set of extra rules you use for players if the GM wants to ensure the players have a ship to start. Like the "old and broken Free Trader which you inherited" would have various levels showing what kind of money a ship would have to make per-jump to stay operational with suggested "wear values" for different kind of campaigns. This would allow GMs to tailor the kinds of money players make to keep them lean and hungry or have them continually fixing up their ship and eventually getting a new one and so forth.

 

[F33D]

I've always felt that Traveller failed to exploit a pretty interesting range of options by not just acknowledging this, but running with it.

For instance, if the Traveller "earn your ship economics" were written for "everyone else" in mind. This would illustrate the economics of getting a ship to gearheads, economists, and similar types who love to simulate using Traveller but don't play it as a RPG.

Right. I don't run Papers & Paychecks games. So, I drop the ship merc rules for players. They will occasionally take some freight or a couple passengers to tide themselves over between lucrative adventures but, it doesn't earn them more than is needed for basic survival.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

@ Dick Turpin
One of my recent house rules with this version of Traveller (Mongoose) is that I limit my players to only 3 terms (4 if they convince me). When I started playing traveller around 1980, it was very strange for a group of 14 year old kids to play a 58 year old guy. That's what you had to do sometimes to FINALLY get the skill "pilot - 1" skill on a random chart.. or what ever skill you were after... Mongoose allows a point-buy system. Also... the way I see it... in a "reality simulator game"... why would anyone retire at the age of 50 something so that they can finally go on adventures through the galaxy? The way I see it, most entrepineuere types do not wait until they are in their mid-to-late 50's to strike out on their own. Most "go on their own" by their late 20's or early 30's. It's true that they will not have as many skill points as someone who has 5 or more terms under their belt, but IMTU I give experience points at the end of each game. The mongoose game mechanic for "training up" skills is still in effect, but I give out 1 xp, (sometimes 2 for a finale type adventure). My players can spend their xp's based on the point-based system at the end of the character creation chapter in the core rules (this includes buying up their character stats, just not skills). So, in a relatively short time, my players can increase their skills to match someone with 5 terms etc... My xp system awards people from "learning by doing" as apposed to "simply training".
@ F33D
lol... yeah my point about the "not enough electrons" is that some people use current technology to justify what might happen 3000 years into the future. For instance, I'm into airsoft guns a lot. In fact I play airsoft almost every single weekend. NiCad's batteries suck. Everyone has switched to LiPo's.. (Lithium Polymers), but this example the guy used 13 years ago.. a NiCad was "current" battery technology, which sucks ass only a decade later. I just wanted to make a point between reality simulation and fun sci-fi role playing game. I'm not gong to even mention nuclear batteries... what ever that is... BUT to your point with star ships.... Yes, MOST players, ESPECIALLY those without a Traveller background, view a ship as a simply taxi cab, (or a riding horse)... a means to take you from adventure to adventure... BUT I didn't what to make whole sale changes to the game mechanics, OR the spirit of the original concept when Mark Miller invented travller (captain/crew owing their own tramp freighter having adventures in back water ports etc...) So I simply increased the value of a ship share from 1% each to 5% or even 10% each. I like the idea of used ships... so if players go with the 10% rule, they WILL get a used cantankerous tramp trader that they will have to repair/upgrade as the campaign unfolds.

Jak

 

[F33D]

BUT to your point with star ships.... Yes, MOST players, ESPECIALLY those without a Traveller background, view a ship as a simply taxi cab, (or a riding horse)... a means to take you from adventure to adventure... BUT I didn't what to make whole sale changes to the game mechanics, OR the spirit of the original concept when Mark Miller invented travller (captain/crew owing their own tramp freighter having adventures in back water ports etc...)

Don't worry about that. That was only 50% of the "spirit". The other 50% was starting with a ship and NOT being a trader...

 

[steve98052]

I'm looking at the Mongoose Core book. On page 36, it says that ship shares are 1% of a ship, that characters can pool their shares toward a ship, and that they can take a 10% bonus for an Old Ship. On page 136, there's a table of things that can be wrong with an old ship.

One simple change to those rules would make ships a bit more attainable: allow more than one roll on the Old Ships (up to the number of characters with at least one Ship Share).

However, I find the Old Ships table to be a bit limiting. Rather than the table's short list (-1 to repairs, -1 to sensors, +50% maintenance, -1 structure, cargo taint/enemies/psionic haunt, -1 pilot, hidden cargo/extra turret/library errors, good reputation/library goodies, -10% maintenance/sensor upgrade/luxury, computer/weapon/sensor upgrade, black-list/-1 hull/leaky reactor), there are all sorts of things that can make an old ship more interesting.

In terms of making the game more fun, the best old ship quirks are those that can eventually be corrected at great cost, are troublesome enough to be worth fixing when possible, but aren't urgent enough to get in the way of adventures. For example, in my "lost pet" adventure idea, I included a ship that was enough of a fuel hog that a section of the cargo hold was tied up by a supplemental fuel tank. One of the Classic Traveller adventures included a Far Trader that always used Jump-2 fuel, but could only manage Jump-1. Research Station Gamma had a ship that broke down on a low-tech world, stranding characters in the system until they could scrounge up enough money to order replacement parts -- and then they'd still be stuck until the parts arrived.

As others have noted, an additional way to go about it is to say that the ship belongs to a patron, and characters are free to use it subject to the patron's restrictions. In the case of a Scout ship for a retired Scout, the patron is the Scout service, and the restrictions are little more than the possibility that they might be called back into duty if the need arises. In the case of Leviathan, I don't remember the details, but they were strict enough to justify putting a rather large ship in the hands of characters.

If the goal is simply to get rid of the strict accounting associated with detailed trade rules and detailed expense rules, one can put that into the care of a player who is into that sort of thing and let the rest of the party ignore it -- or if no one is interested, just assume that the ship's routine operations cover its routine expenses with a certain amount to spare, but if they want enough extra money to buy cool stuff they have to earn it through adventuring -- a troublesome passenger or cargo, planet-side adventures, etc.

 

[Condottiere]

At this point you call in a cost accountant and a business consultant.

 

[dagrillac]

I’ve gone back and forth over the years on this particular subject.
The question is reality vs. playability.

Each ship share = 5%, so if you roll right, a merchant can get own 25% of a free trader (or far trader IMTU) right off the bat.

Anyway, any thoughts?

Hi,

when I started my campaign I gave each share a 2 MCr value for Merchants, 5 MCr for the Noble and 1 MCr for the Scout, I think I was slightly generous in retrospect as we have encountered salvage at least 3 times and on the first occasion the player's had no space in the hold, making a nice mini adventure,

all my other traveller campaign's have involved at least one ship, never ran a mercenary campaign, but this might be the type your player is looking for,

kind regards

David

 

[simonh]

The thing is, we're all old farts with mortgages, but there was a time back when I first started playing Traveller when that wasn't true.

This thread has inspired me. When my kids are a few years older I'll run a short Traveller merchant campaign with them. It'll do them good to try their hand at managing the revenues, expenses and investments side of the game while also getting a look at the best Traveller adventuring has to offer.

Right now they're perhaps a little young at 8 and 10, but they're into Mermaid Adventures so it won't be long.

Simon Hibbs