V1.0 Rules Clarifications Thread

[Gruffty the Hiver]

I think Rank would work well, that way you could have that 20 year rank 0 guy but officers would be less likely to hang around..there are only so many positions to go around.

Allen

That seems counter-intuitive and backwards to me. Promotion would actually shorten your career....

It's an artefact of merging re-enlistment and Promotion. I may have to split the two out again.

Personally I would prefer the two aspects to be separated out again. However, I *do* think there should be a -DM applicable to re-enlistment based on Rank or age or number of terms served.

No previous version of Traveller had a maximum/limit on the number of terms a character could serve. Whether a character continued in a career was generally down to either the dice or a decision to end the career taken by the player themselves or between the Ref and the player. I think a -DM to the re-enlistment throw (based on Rank or age or number of terms served, as above) would serve nicely as a "natural limit" to the number of terms served...

... unless people want to play really, really highly skilled but really, really old and infirm characters ... TL-15 Zimmer frame, anyone? ...

 

[AKAramis]

No previous version of Traveller had a maximum/limit on the number of terms a character could serve.

Sorry Grufty, but you are wrong.

CT had a 7 term limit, exceeded only by natural 12 reenlistment rolls.

Service beyond the seventh term is normally impossible, and retirement is mandatory for an individual who has completed a seventh term of service. However, persons who throw mandatory reenlistment must instead serve that additional term of service. It is theoretically possible for an individual to be required to serve ninth and even tenth terms under mandatory reenlistment.

And 2300 use a roll terms or higher (but isn't "Really" traveller according to many) for reenlistment.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

No previous version of Traveller had a maximum/limit on the number of terms a character could serve.

Sorry Gruffty, but you are wrong.

Yup - see my "hands up I goofed" lines in the first post of the re-enlistment thread I started

CT had a 7 term limit, exceeded only by natural 12 reenlistment rolls.

Service beyond the seventh term is normally impossible, and retirement is mandatory for an individual who has completed a seventh term of service. However, persons who throw mandatory reenlistment must instead serve that additional term of service. It is theoretically possible for an individual to be required to serve ninth and even tenth terms under mandatory reenlistment.

See my reply to your post on the re-enlistment thread

And 2300 use a roll terms or higher (but isn't "Really" traveller according to many) for reenlistment.

Dunno about 2300, never bought, played or read it.

 

[JimG]

One more question:

Is there a limit on Characteristics?

With some lucky rolling a 7 term Diplomat ended up with a 17 Soc...

 

[Mongoose Gar]

There isn't, yet, but there probably will be in the next version.

 

[AKAramis]

There isn't, yet, but there probably will be in the next version.

Human limit in all prior editions (excluding T20 and GT as "Not Editions of Traveller") was 15 for all stats except Soc, and even Soc had a 15 limit for PC's.

 

[jlcatch]

I have a question on benefits.

The second paragraph on p.28 of character creation implies that if a survival roll is failed, then a character gets *no* benefits from the career (which seems *very* harsh to me).

The Merchants mishap table has entry 2 'You are bankrupted by a rival. You lose any Benefits from this career and gain the other Trader as a Rival.' and entry 6 'A series of bad deals and decisions force you into bankruptcy. You salvage what you can. You may take a Benefit roll for this term.'

These appear to contradict each other. Is the intention that failing a survival roll only loses the Benefits for that term, or is the first of those results only there for the case of a character getting a mishap roll as a result of an Event ?

 

[Golan2072]

Several clarification questions:

1) As point-buy characters have no Events, how do they benefit from the Connection rule?

2) If you receive a zero-level skill in an area where you already have a zero-level skill, you gain nothing new, right?

3) P.31 of CharGen lists the cost of restoring a wounded characteristic as Cr2,000 per point, yet the example on p.32 shows a character who've suffered from 2 points of damage to his Strength and has to pay Cr1,000 rather than Cr4,000. Which is the correct figure?

4) If I understand correctly, on the Homeworld table, you could choose only once from each column, even if your homeworld has more than one trade-code, right?

5) "P.10 of CharGen: "Throw Education 8+ to gain any one skill" Do you mean any one of the Specialist skills on the Navy's Skills and Training table, or ANY skill from the general skill list?

6) Is the Anagathics DM to Survival one-time or cumulative?

7) Does the Vehicle Damage table use 1D6 or 2D6?

 

[Cpt BlackThorne]

On Page 15 of the Playtest document, under the ranks and skills section for Broker, at Rank three it says "Experienced Broker". Is this a notation of Skill for what you are known for, or has something new been added for Brokers to fiddle with?

 

[Mongoose Gar]

I have a question on benefits.

The second paragraph on p.28 of character creation implies that if a survival roll is failed, then a character gets *no* benefits from the career (which seems *very* harsh to me).

You only lose the Benefits for your current term when forced out by a mishap. (Page 28 needs a cleanup.)

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Several clarification questions:

1) As point-buy characters have no Events, how do they benefit from the Connection rule?

2) If you receive a zero-level skill in an area where you already have a zero-level skill, you gain nothing new, right?

3) P.31 of CharGen lists the cost of restoring a wounded characteristic as Cr2,000 per point, yet the example on p.32 shows a character who've suffered from 2 points of damage to his Strength and has to pay Cr1,000 rather than Cr4,000. Which is the correct figure?

4) If I understand correctly, on the Homeworld table, you could choose only once from each column, even if your homeworld has more than one trade-code, right?

5) "P.10 of CharGen: "Throw Education 8+ to gain any one skill" Do you mean any one of the Specialist skills on the Navy's Skills and Training table, or ANY skill from the general skill list?

6) Is the Anagathics DM to Survival one-time or cumulative?

7) Does the Vehicle Damage table use 1D6 or 2D6?

1. By, er, handwaving at this point. Most likely, by the point-buy heretic making up a character background and then building connections into that.

2. Yep.

3. 2,000 credits/point.

4. Once from each column. That whole table needs a rewrite, but I need to see what I can do with trade codes before I get to it. I want every world to have at least one trade code.

5. Any skill in the game.

6. -1 DM to each Survival roll you make, but it's no cumulative.

7. 2d6.

 

[Halfbat]

Hi Gar
A few questions
1. Can you give figures for Subdermal armour and how high it can go?
2. Can you give details for the other Combat Implant benefits?
Cheers

 

[AKAramis]

4) If I understand correctly, on the Homeworld table, you could choose only once from each column, even if your homeworld has more than one trade-code, right?

4. Once from each column. That whole table needs a rewrite, but I need to see what I can do with trade codes before I get to it. I want every world to have at least one trade code.

If you do that, then you are

• adding a whole lot of otherwise useless codes
• invalidating all prior sectors (and going to torque off loads of Grognards)
• making a lot of work for yourself

A far better solution is "None of the above" or simply allowing an education list skill for each column empty.

 

[SableWyvern]

invalidating all prior sectors (and going to torque off loads of Grognards)

I'm with AKAramis on this.

Given the vast wealth of Traveller information on the net and in previously released works, I see it as pretty much mandatory to maintain as much compatibility as possible.

If you're going to start messing around with Trade codes and other elements of UWPs in such a fashion as the old stuff needs significant work in order to be utilised, you'd better be presenting a new system that offers some awe-inspiring improvements on what has come before.

Including a stripped down version of UWPs, trade codes, etc... will work, because it's easy enough to ignore the irrelevant parts of previous releases. Adding additional information that is easily derived from previous releases may also work.

I'd be very careful about how you proceed with this.

Edit: OTOH, I'm not sure how far GT diverged from the Traveller standard in this respect. If it did diverge, and was successful in doing so, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. :?

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Oh, whatever I do, I won't invalidate old UWPs.

 

[AKAramis]

Oh, whatever I do, I won't invalidate old UWPs.

making them incomplete (by adding new but inobvious ones) is invalidating them, since the GM must now recalc trade codes.

Most of the MT additions were obvious: Va for Vacuum, Ic for Ice Capped (No atm and positive hydro), De for no water... They did have game effect: which tables you generated the cargo on. (Too bad the DGP guys didn't take the one step further and vary base price by good.)

 

[SableWyvern]

Oh, whatever I do, I won't invalidate old UWPs.

No worries.

I'm actually doing system generation for my anticipated campaign already, so I'll be interested to see how this pans out.

 

[hdrider67]

Back to my starship financing nit-picking.

I rolled up a very successful Navy Capt yesterday. The officer walked with a shuttle and ten ship shares.

The shuttle (in the classic book) is of rather substantial value. The way the chargen is written, the shuttle seems to be paid for (no mention of shares or spots in the table).

Old rule shuttles are 33Mcr.

Is he sells his shuttle and uses his ten shares, it would appear being a ship owner with an exceedingly low payment would be no trouble at all. Not bad for a 50 year old who looks and feels 30.

 

[SableWyvern]

Is he sells his shuttle and uses his ten shares, it would appear being a ship owner with an exceedingly low payment would be no trouble at all. Not bad for a 50 year old who looks and feels 30.

OTOH, a ship without any kind of shuttle or ship's boat poses some potential difficulties...

 

[hdrider67]

Is he sells his shuttle and uses his ten shares, it would appear being a ship owner with an exceedingly low payment would be no trouble at all. Not bad for a 50 year old who looks and feels 30.

OTOH, a ship without any kind of shuttle or ship's boat poses some potential difficulties...

True.

Then again, 95 tons is a lot of used cargo space and making a profit on a tree or far trader that's only got a 20Mcr loan is much easier than if you had to pay off a loan almost twice that amount.

I'm assuming the shuttle would fetch 2/3 of its new price (22Mcr).

If a free trader is financed in full (can't be done but it serves my math purpose) it would cost 75Mcr (75shares to own outright -0 shares times 1Mcr share value) gives me a price of 75Mcr financed

So, 75Mcr/500=150Kcr per month payment.
37/75 Mcr gives me an idea of the total P&I balance on this loan. .493

Take that same figure and apply it to the following scenario.

I sell my shuttle for 22Mcr and I have 10 shares worth 1Mcr each.

37-22Mcr is 15Mcr. Assuming the shares represent a percentage of remaining loan payoff, rather than actual cash we need to do the loan now.

15/.493=30Mcr and change. Now we apply the shares. 30Mcr*.9=27.4Mcr
This gives me a loan payment of ~55Kcr per month.

That free trader would operate in the green operating with a full hold making a single jump each month.

There's a problem, though. The banks operating these loans don't seem to use the same interest rates if you go by the table.

Seeker: To buy a Seeker you need 50 shares worth .5Mcr each. What a bargain! You can buy one ship outright for 2Mcr less than its total value! If you did finance the ship with the 0% down option you get a divisor of 1.23 27Mcr/1.23=~22Mcr

Far trader: 41/100=.41 Apply this to the loan and it's significantly more than the free trader cost. 41/.42=~100Mcr That extra 4Mcr in actual ship value means you pay 25Mcr more, or higher than the cost of a seeker.

Yacht .44 (42/.44=~102Mcr) That extra 5Mcr in actual ship value means you pay 27Mcr more, or more than the cost of a seeker.

Corsairs return you to having a real bargain. At 1.16 I can finance the ship for less than actual value (137Mcr/1.16=120Mcr) That's not bad at all for a 139Mcr ship!


Sorry for the lengthy post. It boils down to my observation that the share values are skewed.

I'm thinking shares need to represent a percentage point of value, rather than a set Mcr amount.

Then again math has never been my strongest suit. I might be missing something here.