Affording a spaceship?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But having a piece of capital capable of producing wealth, actually producing wealth with it, and being wealthy are separable, even if there is a logical path connecting them.

They may be separable, but they do lead one to the next to the next. Take my example of a small prop plane. It's a piece of equipment that a person of average or moderate wealth can actually afford to buy today. However, most people don't buy them - why is that? Because few people can afford the $2000+ per month hangar fees, the thousands of dollars in fuel, the insurance, the maintenance, and other assorted costs.

If you have an expensive piece of capital then you either need to be producing wealth with it (in which case you will become wealthy) or you need to have enough wealth to maintain it independent of the asset (it's a toy, costing you a pittance of your money), otherwise the costs of simply owning the piece of capital are going to eat away at the value of the capital until you reach the point that you must either sell it or lose it to a debt collector or tax assessor.

And, as I said, this is exactly the reason why you don't see people of average wealth with yachts, private jets, or mansions. If a person of average wealth does manage to come into possession of such an expensive item (say through inheritance) they are extremely likely to sell it because they cannot afford to maintain it.

Now, in a gaming world where the GM completely ignores hangar fees, fuel costs, taxes, maintenance costs, insurance, and the myriad of other costs that should be realistically leveraged against a spaceship - well, in that kind of world you surely can win a ship in a poker game then keep operating it virtually forever without having to worry about losing it. OTOH that's the kind of economics that is so handwaved it doesn't make much sense in the first place, so trying to analyze it in any kind of sensible way is impossible.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Now, in a gaming world where the GM completely ignores hangar fees, fuel costs, taxes, maintenance costs, insurance, and the myriad of other costs that should be realistically leveraged against a spaceship - well, in that kind of world you surely can win a ship in a poker game then keep operating it virtually forever without having to worry about losing it. OTOH that's the kind of economics that is so handwaved it doesn't make much sense in the first place, so trying to analyze it in any kind of sensible way is impossible.

In a setting like that, I wouldn't want to even use GURPS wealth rules for ship ownership. I might take a page from BESM, and create a new "Own a Starship" advantage.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

They may be separable, but they do lead one to the next to the next. Take my example of a small prop plane. It's a piece of equipment that a person of average or moderate wealth can actually afford to buy today. However, most people don't buy them - why is that? Because few people can afford the $2000+ per month hangar fees, the thousands of dollars in fuel, the insurance, the maintenance, and other assorted costs.

If you have an expensive piece of capital then you either need to be producing wealth with it (in which case you will become wealthy) or you need to have enough wealth to maintain it independent of the asset (it's a toy, costing you a pittance of your money), otherwise the costs of simply owning the piece of capital are going to eat away at the value of the capital until you reach the point that you must either sell it or lose it to a debt collector or tax assessor.

And, as I said, this is exactly the reason why you don't see people of average wealth with yachts, private jets, or mansions. If a person of average wealth does manage to come into possession of such an expensive item (say through inheritance) they are extremely likely to sell it because they cannot afford to maintain it.

Now, in a gaming world where the GM completely ignores hangar fees, fuel costs, taxes, maintenance costs, insurance, and the myriad of other costs that should be realistically leveraged against a spaceship - well, in that kind of world you surely can win a ship in a poker game then keep operating it virtually forever without having to worry about losing it. OTOH that's the kind of economics that is so handwaved it doesn't make much sense in the first place, so trying to analyze it in any kind of sensible way is impossible.

No, this doesn't hold water at all.

In a world where spaceships need the same kind of care as modern airliners just to kept in flyable condition, never mind actually fly, sure. Even being given one as a gift you'd probably have no sensible alternative to auctioning it before it cost you too much money.

In other worlds, spaceships are hardier objects. You grandfather leaves an old scoutship in a cave, you come back 60 years later, wipe off the bat droppings, and fly it away. Or slightly more moderate, you have to replace some parts and do some work on it but it's not very expensive. That doesn't require economics to be handwaved, it just requires ships be more durable goods.

And of course a chunk of those expenses you're talking about are regulatory or derived from regulation, which also can be very different in many 'space' settings.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

No, this doesn't hold water at all.

In a world where spaceships need the same kind of care as modern airliners just to kept in flyable condition, never mind actually fly, sure. .

You might want a different object for your analogy. 747s fly from New York to London and back every day with no major maintenance for weeks at a time. Probably more effort has to go into cleaning the passenger compartment than fiddling with the engines.

Now jet _fighters_ (and maybe even better Stealth fighters) might be the maintenance hogs you want but modern airliners work hard with no more than moderate care.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You might want a different object for your analogy. 747s fly from New York to London and back every day with no major maintenance for weeks at a time. Probably more effort has to go into cleaning the passenger compartment than fiddling with the engines.

Now jet _fighters_ (and maybe even better Stealth fighters) might be the maintenance hogs you want but modern airliners work hard with no more than moderate care.

I think airliners are probably sufficient. If someone gave me clear title to a 747 I doubt I'd be able to afford to keep in in working condition. An F-22 might be worse.

But er...by 'no major maintenance', do you mean they don't have to crack open major systems and repair them? Because my understanding is that they need to have very regular close inspections for surface damage to be safe to fly, and that may not be major compared to other things required from time to time but it's kind of not cheap.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You might want a different object for your analogy. 747s fly from New York to London and back every day with no major maintenance for weeks at a time. Probably more effort has to go into cleaning the passenger compartment than fiddling with the engines.

Now jet _fighters_ (and maybe even better Stealth fighters) might be the maintenance hogs you want but modern airliners work hard with no more than moderate care.

Sigh... another thing that hopefully VDS will address...

In the meantime, I agree with Ulzgoroth - it is possible to have items that have ongoing costs and profitability that are out of proportion (one way or the other) to their value.

For spaceships, the maintenance and upkeep may be negligible over a given span - perhaps the ship has a very long fuel supply or captures its own fuel, and perhaps "basic" parts can be provided by onboard system. And regulatory costs like licenses and fees may not even apply depending on where and how the ship operates!

For other items it becomes even fuzzier. Take the example of Li Mu Bai (from Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) during his warrior days - the Green Destiny was an extremely valuable sword, probably in the ballpark of $1M, but between his vows and the likely profitability of even an elite warrior, he could not have a level of Wealth that would simultaneously permit purchase of the sword and at the same time represent the real wealth level of a warrior monk.

This comes through for a lot of items which are perhaps very expensive but do not have a real method for generating real new wealth.

So I agree that it would be nice to have separate ways of addressing the various wealth factors.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Sigh... another thing that hopefully VDS will address...

Why wait? Spaceships already provide rules for making craft that is more maintenance-demanding by cutting down corners during construction/design.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Why wait? Spaceships already provide rules for making craft that is more maintenance-demanding by cutting down corners during construction/design.

(1) Where? I confess that I am not a huge fan of the Spaceships line - I do not like being told that all ships must contain X systems any more than I would like being told all characters must have Y skills.

(2) This is only for spaceships, I would like it for other things as well.

(3) Maintenance costs can vary wildly based on a number of parameters. It should really be that maintenance is its own parameter for each item, to be improved (or degraded) individually. F-22's are extremely expensive and require a TON of maintenance, a light cargo plane the same mass is both cheaper, lower quality, and MUCH lower maintenance. There should be a way to say "this item needs to be low-maintenance, here is the SWAP (size, weight, and power) and cost associated with doing that" or "I just need something that will last a week - how cheap or light can I make it?"

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I do not like being told that all ships must contain X systems any more than I would like being told all characters must have Y skills.

Uh. It just means that the system operates by 'chunking' the mass of the ship in a particular way. I'm not a really happy with how Spaceships turned out, but this sounds like a misunderstanding.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

(1) Where?

Spaceships 2, IIRC.

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I confess that I am not a huge fan of the Spaceships line - I do not like being told that all ships must contain X systems any more than I would like being told all characters must have Y skills.

Then use smaller and larger systems. 20 is just the default way to split the mass of the ship.

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

(2) This is only for spaceships, I would like it for other things as well.

Given that right now the SS-based system is also used for other vehicles (boats, subs, giant humanoid robots etc.), sure, go for it.

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

(3) Maintenance costs can vary wildly based on a number of parameters. It should really be that maintenance is its own parameter for each item, to be improved (or degraded) individually. F-22's are extremely expensive and require a TON of maintenance, a light cargo plane the same mass is both cheaper, lower quality, and MUCH lower maintenance. There should be a way to say "this item needs to be low-maintenance, here is the SWAP (size, weight, and power) and cost associated with doing that" or "I just need something that will last a week - how cheap or light can I make it?"

Well, cargo planes are mostly Cargo Holds, so they can afford to not take the discount on the production cost in exchange for modified 'sturdiness'.

Meanwhile, F-22s are, as far as I understand, 99% made of cutting-edge stuff (at the time of invention), and it would take decades and billions of dollars to make them as sturdy and reliable as a chunk of cargo space.