Virtual Mining Software in HG

[-Daniel-]

Because they are discussing rules and not a world. If it were that easy to do, then there would be large organizations controlling the process. Think gambling. Yes anyone can do it, but to get real rich doing it you end up dealing with government and/or criminal organizations. And I just can't see local governments passing on the opportunity to tax the heck out of such large sums of money. Income tax and other regulatory fees etc.

Lastly, let's be honest, we play for the action not to say our character is sitting at a computer all day. Heck that is what I do in real life and it is far from exciting or fun. :mrgreen:

Sure, but it just seems a bit dumb to include something like this in the rules. As you say, it isn't really conducive to exciting gaming after all, and if it's so common as to warrant a mention in the rules and makes so much money then it just breaks everything (it's likely that it could be done previously anyway, but mentioning it wouldn't have been worthwhile because it wasn't an effective way of making money). So either it's not limited by anything and it breaks the game, or it's so limited that it's useless and therefore not worth including in the rules. Seems like a waste of space to me.

Ok, I think the issue, for me, is that a rule option has been taken and blown out to it's most extreme silly level and then that level is being used to say the overall idea is bad. I am sure the idea was not for a playing character to somehow get the money to build thousands of computers and just spend the game doing virtual mining. The reality is there would be a limit of need somewhere and the value would drop if too many folks tried to do it. This would not generate unlimited money for free because there would be a limit at some point of folks willing to pay for your unused computer time. And as folks attempted to do this full time the glut of unused computer time would devalue the process and at some point make doing it no longer worth the effort.

Clearly this option was offered as a small way for a ship to generate some money with it's unused computing power. The fact we, the forum members, have taken this to an unrealistic and silly level does not mean it would work at the intended level in a real game. Theorycrafting can often show these kinds of results. Make a rule or item seem bad when the reality of how this item or rule is used in game would not have the same impact and/or outcome.

I get you want to blow this into a much larger issue, but it really is not. If you, as a GM, want to run a game of Characters running a Server Farm, great. Have fun. But that does not make the original idea a bad one.

 

[fusor]

Clearly this option was offered as a small way for a ship to generate some money with it's unused computing power. The fact we, the forum members, have taken this to an unrealistic and silly level does not mean it would work at the intended level in a real game. Theorycrafting can often show these kinds of results. Make a rule or item seem bad when the reality of how this item or rule is used in game would not have the same impact and/or outcome.

I get you want to blow this into a much larger issue, but it really is not. If you, as a GM, want to run a game of Characters running a Server Farm, great. Have fun. But that does not make the original idea a bad one.

How is it unrealistic? It's not "one rule for ships, another rule for anything else", that's just bad game design. And the point is that you take rules to the extremes and see what happens, and if silly stuff comes out of that then maybe the rule has flaws in it (e.g. that less money should be made from the process).

 

[alex_greene]

Making infinite money for no effort does.

Theoretically, demanding money at the point of a gun should break the system, too. But it doesn't, and there are the rules in HG, and they're canon. The rules give, and no sneaky backtakes from the Referee.

If anything, virtual mining should be a major decriminalising element in the Traveller Universe.

 

[Condottiere]

Liable to capital gains tax.

 

[fusor]

Making infinite money for no effort does.

Theoretically, demanding money at the point of a gun should break the system, too. But it doesn't

That's because it's illegal and there are consequences. But I think you're just trying to find any excuse to justify this here.

and there are the rules in HG, and they're canon.

So? Is this explicitly canon for the 3I? Or just "there are rules in HG". Because not all the rules in HG apply to the 3I.

 

[alex_greene]

So? Is this explicitly canon for the 3I? Or just "there are rules in HG". Because not all the rules in HG apply to the 3I.

Yes, why not?

 

[fusor]

So? Is this explicitly canon for the 3I? Or just "there are rules in HG". Because not all the rules in HG apply to the 3I.

Yes, why not?

Why shouldn't all the rules in HG apply to the 3I? Because the 3I is a specific setting with specific assumptons, that's why. Not all tech assumptions apply there, and if they're just thrown in willy-nilly then things are going to break.

 

[-Daniel-]

And the point is that you take rules to the extremes and see what happens, and if silly stuff comes out of that then maybe the rule has flaws in it (e.g. that less money should be made from the process).

Or could it be that a rule is written for a particular use and if you use it in a level of extreme that is way past the intended use, then the flaw is how you use it? Just a thought.

 

[alex_greene]

Yes, why not?

Because earning money is not the be-all and end-all of Traveller. And even if the Travellers want to focus on making vast pots of money, it isn't meant to be a gruelling, cruel grind, eking out a credit here, a credit there, putting in 300 kW of effort to pull out 1kW of result.
It's the Far Future, not Victorian London.

 

[fusor]

Or could it be that a rule is written for a particular use and if you use it in a level of extreme that is way past the intended use, then the flaw is how you use it? Just a thought.

That's bad game design then. It's like saying that a kitchen knife is designed to be used to cut food, and then someone goes "hey, I can stab people to death with this too!" and goes on a killing spree. In game terms good design would be to say "this is an implement designed to cut food but it can also be used as a weapon for 1d6 damage and carrying one around openly may be frowned on by law enforcement", bad design to say "but you're not using it for what it was intended to be used for and that's your fault!".

When thinking up a rule, always think of how it can be used in ways that you don't intend. And then either adjust accordingly or accept the consequences - but don't pretend they're not there.

 

[fusor]

it isn't meant to be a gruelling, cruel grind, eking out a credit here, a credit there, putting in 300 kW of effort to pull out 1kW of result.

Funny, because that's what Traveller's core trading setup been all about for 30+ year - the little freighter trying to make a living in the stars. That's what appeals to people who bang on about Firefly being so much like Traveller, because hey're going from one paycheque to the next. It's not supposed to be "easy".

 

[alex_greene]

That's bad game design then. It's like saying that a kitchen knife is designed to be used to cut food, and then someone goes "hey, I can stab people to death with this too!"

"Tell me, Mr Spondulix, why you had to go all the way up to your room, pick out the gun, load it, go downstairs and shoot your wife, when there was an actual steak knife right there beside her and you could have picked it up and used it at any time?"
"Sorry, Detective, apparently someone on the Traveller forum is complaining that objects found in our universe can have more than one use. Apparently, we can't use rocks to decorate rockeries AND throw them through windows any more, either. Oh, and we can no longer use matches to light candles AND then go and commit arson. Too many uses for things, and everything's got to have JUST one use only."
"Oh. I used this gun to shoot a rat in my toilet last night."
"So you can't use it to shoot me, then, because that is a gun you can only use on rats."
"Oh darn. Then I'd better let you go then."

 

[alex_greene]

it isn't meant to be a gruelling, cruel grind, eking out a credit here, a credit there, putting in 300 kW of effort to pull out 1kW of result.

they're going from one paycheque to the next. It's not supposed to be "easy".

Whether you've been reading it wrong, or applying some sincerely warped Ayn Randian ethos to a roleplaying game, the game won't change to suit just your mindset.

Just because Traveller's like that in your game, it doesn't mean that Traveller is your game, and you alone dictate what everybody else has to do in their games, on indeed those people playing in the OTU, which is definitely not the universe you're playing in.

 

[fusor]

"Oh darn. Then I'd better let you go then."

Pity you're too busy being snarky to actually comprehend what I said. Maybe if you read my entire post instead of just quoting part out of context?

 

[fusor]

Just because Traveller's like that in your game, it doesn't mean that Traveller is your game, and you alone dictate what everybody else has to do in their games, on indeed those people playing in the OTU, which is definitely not the universe you're playing in.

I've never claimed that this is just what I do (but thanks for trying to twist my words) - in fact I said that this is what a lot of peoples' games are like (again, you conveniently ignore that). Based on your apparently cavalier, laissez-faire "anything goes so long as ADVENTURE" attitude to pretty much everything in the setting though, I'd say that you're the one whose setting is more likely to differ significantly from what others play in their Traveller sessions.

 

[alex_greene]

Based on your apparently cavalier, laissez-faire "anything goes so long as ADVENTURE" attitude

You're not the one coming up with ideas and adventures. In fact, you're the one trying feebly to knock them down.

I'm a Cavalier? What kind of multiclass is that?

 

[-Daniel-]

That's bad game design then.

And that is an opinion. Look, I am unsure if you just can't see it or if you are trolling so I am going to just stop and assume we are talking past each other rather than communicating. I do not agree that every rule must cover every possible thing. I played a game called Stargrunt. Intended for a small platoon or two per side combat. One weekend some friends tried to play the game with six companies and additional support. The gam lasted from Friday night until Sunday afternoon when one of the players quit. His comment? The game rules sucked because they were slow and unwieldy. But the rules were not intended for that use. And no, the fact they didn't work was not because bad design. Intent does matter.

So with that in mind I withdraw from this conversation and hope you find what ever rule set it is you really want/need so you can play and be happy.

 

[fusor]

Since this seems to have devolved into a pointless playground fight (instigated by a moderator who should damn well know better), I'm done with this topic.

 

[alex_greene]

Good idea. I'm out of here too. I want to check out this thing called Bitcoin.

 

[alex_greene]

Suffice to say that this would be a thing for dilettantes like Entertainers, Nobles, mathematical prodigies and maybe the occasional Rogues, to leave a freight container somewhere convenient just stuffed full of dedicated working hand computers connected to the local net, powered by rooftop solar cells, a natural solar water still and a fuel cell or something.

A decent amount of high tech, and they would be set up for life.