Certain fundamental questions need to be answered about any business operation that the PCs get involved with, either as employees or owners before we can get into game mechanics for the actual operation of an in-game business.

Image by Willgard Krause from Pixabay

Credit where it’s due:

The series title graphic combines three images:

The Clipper Ship Image is by Brigitte Werner (ArtTower).

Dragon #1 is by Parker_West.

Dragon #2 is by JL G

All three images were sourced from Pixabay.

A contents update

Anyone comparing the contents listing below will observe that there have been a couple of changes. Specifically, what was going to be Chapter 7 has been split into two – Chapters 3 (inserted) and 8, respectively. There are two reasons: first, the structure of the whole flows more naturally this way, and second, some potential readers thought (quite rightly) that personnel management was a boring activity, especially if you did that for a 9-to-5 job.

I always intended to provide an abstracted system for personnel management that would deal with those issues, but when I started outlining it, the section count ballooned sufficiently to warrant the division.

Table Of Contents

In Today’s Post

1.Ownership

1.1 Sponsors
1.2 Partners
1.3 Investors
1.4 Entrepreneurs
1.5 Shares / Corporations
1.6 With Vehicles

A few quick examples
Example 1
Example 2: Leg 2, the same group
Example 3: Leg 3, the same group
Example 4
Example 5: Same Vessel
Example 6: Same Vessel, a long time later

1.7 Hired Vehicles
1.8 Bring-Your-Own Vehicles
1.9 Bottom-lining Ownership

And, in future parts:

2. Trade Units
3. Routine Personnel
4. Mode Of Transport
5. Land Transport
6. Waterborne Transport
7. Spoilage
8. Key Personnel
9. The Journey
10. Arrival
11. Journey’s End
12. Adventures En Route

1. Ownership

When we’re young, the world seems so simple – it gets divided into those who own businesses, and those who work for thew people who own businesses. And, to be honest, that’s about as far as most people’s thinking takes them when setting up some sort of commercial entity in an RPG.

It’s simple, and this lets everybody get on with the game.

But, somewhere along the line, children learn that the real world is more complicated. Ownership can be divided between several different people in a partnership – and those shares don’t have to be equal in size. Money doesn’t just come from bank loans and profits – there are shares that can be bought by outsiders, making them part-owners of the corporation, of which there are several different kinds. And those shares come in at least two varieties, voting and non-voting.

It would be nice to be able to assume that everyone understood these terms, permitting me to launch straight into their usefulness in an RPG, but somehow, I can’t quite make that leap. To fill that void, I have to discuss the different kinds of ownership. And since this is fundamental to the issue of who makes the decisions, it more or less has to happen right off the bat.

I’ll try not to make it boring!

1.1 Sponsors

Sponsors come in two varieties – those who don’t expect their money back, and those who do – with interest. The first category are generally family, or a business owned by the family; the second are either individuals with wealth or commercial entities like Banks.

Society was very different in the era of most Fantasy RPGs – banks didn’t really exist. Instead, people relied on those wealthy individuals, and that generally meant the Nobility. On extremely rare occasions, a religious body might weigh in, but this was fairly unusual (and would have been noteworthy if it weren’t usually kept secret).

Sometimes, I run with historical accuracy in this respect, and sometimes, to make the campaign more accessible to a modern audience, I’ll throw a commercial institution like a bank into the mix.

The difference between the two is substantial, in the modern world – Banks are corporations with shares that anyone can buy. Back then, a bank was either owned outright by a particular Noble or it was co-owned by a small group of Nobles in partnership. Any bank not owned by the Nobility would have been viewed with extreme suspicion by virtue of their independence from said Nobility. The decision as to who owns the bank is therefore a critical one, if they exist in your campaign.

Before I move on, a brief word about the other kind of Sponsors: family and friends. This is usually a case of backing the individual, not the business entity. The problem is that it can require very deep pockets to establish a significant business operation, and most people don’t have that – unless they are members of the aristocracy.

Into this realm of uncertainty steps a PC. He’s been conservative in his spending over many character levels / adventures, and has built up enough wealth to start something a bit more certain than more adventuring – a retirement fund, if you will.

The amount of GP handed out in most RPGs is either obscene or totally ridiculous. By the time they hit mid-to-high levels, many PCs have a nest egg valued in the hundreds of thousands. The problem is that doing anything to relieve them of this ready cash is fairly boring to anyone else; so the problem gets ignored even as it continues to grow. Heck, just keeping track of mundane expenses is too much like work.

I once ran some numbers to assess the contribution to Gross National Product of an entire class of Adventurers, assuming various frequencies of occurrence within society, and that they paid their taxes and tithes when they were due. The answer: about 30% of the economy was directly derived from Adventurers – if those adventurers spent what they acquired.

What’s more, because Adventurers tend to stir up trouble – well, at least, it tends to follow them – a Society’s expenses will ramp up. The military may need to be enlarged, or better trained and equipped, or both; additional fortifications may be needed along the borders, and so on.

In short order, one of two things will happen: either Adventuring will be recognized as a career pathway, licensed and regulated by the Government, with professional standards and training, and the economy will have become totally dependent on a steady return from Adventurers (option 1); or Adventuring will come with strict limits to how much wealth can be acquired from the activity, the rest either being either taxed or outright confiscated (option 2). Under the latter scheme, Adventuring may be officially recognized but it’s more likely to be driven underground, overtly illegal or at the very least suppressed.

Sounds dictatorial? It is – but it must also be recognized that the biggest threat to the established aristocracy is a rebellion organized by someone competent – and that Adventurers fit the latter description admirably. Any monarch or member of the Aristocracy who is the least bit paranoid will see them as rivals or enemies, to be cut down before they grow strong enough to become a threat.

Friends or Enemies – there’s no real in-between.

Sponsors have no ‘official’ say in the running of the business. They are simply supplying the funding for whoever is in charge to use.

1.2 Partners

PC trading organizations will frequently be formed as a partnership. In theory, this requires a legal agreement between the partners that spells out anything and everything related to the the partnership.

When I first started writing the campaign background to my original superhero campaign, I was worried about future lawsuits because there had just been several such in the US. So I wrote up a partnership agreement between the players and myself acknowledging their contribution to any published work that featured one of their characters and evaluated it as an equal share (by character count) of 1/3 of the net value of the work. If there were 5 PCs and 10 NPCs in a story, the creator of one of those PCs would be entitled to 1/3 x 1/15 x 100 = 2.222% of any profits. I later got a second set of signatures waiving those royalties unless the total owed came to $100 or more. So if I got paid $120 for an article, 2.222% of that would be $2.67 – not enough to worry about. But if I wrote a book for $20 and sold 1000 copies in a month, that would be $444.44 to the creators of each PC. (In the event of the death of the contributor, ownership of the characters returned to me rather than being inherited with the rest of their estate – something that has now happened in the case of three of the major PCs).

Those agreements were signed and witnessed in 1983, some 41 years ago. Legally, they were (perhaps) not necessary, but everyone was happy to put any doubts about the issue to bed.

It’s fairly common for shares to be equal and for everyone to have to put the same amount of ‘seed capital’ into the partnership. If someone doesn’t have enough funds to match the wealthiest contributors, there may be facilities for any share in the revenues to be deducted from their outstanding balance.

Frankly, that level of detail is going too far in an RPG; keep the shares equal and assume that anyone who can’t contribute equally makes up for it in some other way. At most, reserve half the profits for reinvesting in the business and share out the rest every now and then.

Patrons have no ‘official’ say in the running of the business. They are simply supplying the funding for whoever is in charge to use.

1.3 Investors

Investors aren’t the same thing as Patrons who expect to be recompensed; they inject a sum of cash into a business and are to be repaid that amount, plus an additional sum, on a certain date. If we’re talking a lot of money, there may be several repayment points and the original sum invested repaid in installments spread over those repayment points.

At medium to high character levels, most PCs won’t need outside investors except for the biggest and most expensive ventures, like attempting to control an entire season’s grain crop (which may run into the millions).

At lower levels, investors may be more necessary to a venture.

No more than 2 minutes of game time, absolute maximum, should be spent worrying about the terms of the investment, which should be kept as simple as possible. Most of the in-game time should be spent with one character interacting with another – roleplaying, in other words. The GM can facilitate this by preparing a (brief) agreement in advance, but that prep also feels like a step too far to me. The advantage of doing so is that it can then get inserted into the prep folder for the future adventure in which money from the business gets distributed.

Investor timetables are usually short term (10, 14, 20, 21, 28, or 30 days), medium term (60, 90, 100, or 120 days), or long-term (1, 2, 5, or 10 years).

Investors usually have no say in the running of the business.

1.4 Entrepreneurs

This is one step closer to sharing ownership of the business or venture. An Entrepreneur puts resources into a business just like a partner would, but the amounts don’t need to be equal, and don’t get repaid directly; in return, they get a percentage of the profits.

Agreements of this type usually specify a mechanism by which the titular head of the business can buy out the entrepreneur with part or all of his share of the profits.

Another approach, which is simpler (i.e. ‘good’ for use in an RPG) is to specify a total sum that has to be paid to the Entrepreneur whenever the business can afford to do so; this bottom-lines the investment in a convenient way. For example, the original investment might be 100,000 gp; the repayment amount might be 110,000 gp, a 10% return, or 120,000 gp (a 20% return).

There’s usually some facility by which the Entrepreneur can demand that the business pay up in x days – that might be 30, 60, 90, or 120 days from the date of the demand. This protects them from managers who sink everything into growing the business and never get around to having the spare cash on hand to pay out the debts.

I would not permit anything more complicated than these arrangements in an RPG, which can be easily spelt out in two sentences. Again, most of the focus should be on personalities and interactions between characters, not on terms of investment.

Entrepreneurs are important plot tools because PCs should be approached to be Entrepreneurs investing in other businesses.

1.5 Shares / Corporations

The most complicated option is to divide ownership of the business into lots of little pieces (called shares), and then sell these in some sort of market. This sort of financial solution didn’t exist until the 18th century, as I understand the history, and originally arose from the insurance industry – people paid into a corporation which invested the money to produce a fund that would be used to insulate the participants from accidents and disasters to the tune of an amount nominated in the investment.

There are two types of shares: voting and non-voting. (Actually, there are many more, but that’s getting too complicated for an RPG). Profits, less a reserve for growing or future-funding the business, get divided by the total number of shares to determine how much the shareholder gets. The company gets the money when a share is purchased, but doesn’t lose money when that share gets sold; instead, the new owner pays the old owner whatever the agreed value is.

Voting shares get a say in the makeup of the board of executives, who in turn decide who the manager of the business is (usually the largest shareholder or a professional employed by the board for the purpose). Non-voting shares get money but no control, and are valued at about 1/2 as much as voting shares, but the exact amount varies.

Stock markets exist to facilitate the trading of shares – i.e. the sale and purchase of shares – and until they came into existence, shares were considered to have a fixed value. When share prices began to ‘float’, i.e. to respond to the laws of supply and demand, updates might have been daily or hourly. These days, they are instant and constantly updating. This matters because companies that are ‘traded’ or ‘publicly owned’ always have more shares available for sale, so if the price goes up, they effectively have more money.

Most of this is far too complex for an RPG. I’d stick with the concept of a fixed share price (maybe updated once a game year), and non-voting shares (if any have been issued) are worth exactly 1/2 as much.

But I would also simplify the number of shares by using the K (i.e. 1,000). Instead of issuing 10,000 shares or 100,000 shares, issue 10 or 100 shares, and denote the fact with a K next to the number. Multiply the share price by 1,000 as well. Keep things as simple as possible.

Why bother? This is the only business structure in which the founder of the business can be forced out. There can be hostile takeovers, shadowy figures in the background manipulating share prices and secretly buying stock through proxies and so on – there are a number of plotlines that can’t happen any other way.

Why would a business owner take the risk? Two reasons: first, it is to be hoped that the business will outlive them, so it’s a measure of immortality. And second, money. Corporations can issue more stock any time they want, provided there’s a market for them, i.e. someone who will buy them. They usually keep a certain number available at all times (how many is up to the manager of the corporation) and issue a new batch whenever the available shares dip below the reserve.

It’s possible for a business to grow too fast, outstripping the business’ capacity to recruit and train new employees, set up new offices and points of sale, and so on. A corporate structure is better able to cope with huge rates of expansion. For example, a milling operation that has some technological edge over the competition might need to construct 10 or 20 new mills just to keep up with the demand for their services – at maybe 100,000 gp each, maybe more. With any other business structure, the manager has to individually negotiate with wealthy people for the money and keep doing it until they have ‘enough’; that’s a more than full-time job under these circumstances. Issuing 50K shares at 40K gp each raises the necessary money without personal involvement by the manager.

Share ratios are another important point to discuss, but hard-and-fast facts are hard to pin down. In essence, there’s a limit to the number of non-voting shares that can be issued – some say 2 for every 1 voting share, others say 10 or 20 for every voting share, still others denounce the whole concept and simplify the whole concept to voting stock only.

Compounding and confusing the whole are the ability of the board of directors to re-designate a block of shares from one category to the other. “I have 40K shares, you only have 30K – but you’re in charge because half of my shares are non-voting. But if X happens, the board will reissue my non-voting shares as voting shares and you’ll be history. So don’t let X happen.”

Proxies. I absolutely hate the term because by far the greatest spam suppliers that I have to deal with – a ratio of ten-to-one – are various spammers offering proxies for shares, especially of cryptocurrencies. A proxy simply means that the owner has given someone else the authority to vote on their behalf. He who controls the most shares controls the company, effectively. Getting proxies for key voting blocs is another way of taking control of a corporation away from the current CEO.

This can all get very complicated and chew up an inordinate amount of game time. Simplify everything as much as you can, then look for ways to simplify it even more. As a simple rule of thumb, for example, if you issue 10% more shares, the value per share should drop to 10/11ths of what it was. Reality is more complicated than that, but reality can get stuffed in this area.

Don’t make share trading about the shares, make it about the people who own and control those shares – personalities, in other words.

No-one ever makes a company publicly-traded without anticipating that one day they will lose control of it. No matter how much they safeguard against it, one day it will happen – even if it takes a unanimous decision by the rest of the Board Of Directors in conspiracy against you. Of course, they would have to be fairly certain that you were no longer competent to run the business before taking such a drastic step.

1.6 With Vehicles

At least initially, the value of any significant vehicle is going to vastly outweigh the value of the cargoes it carries, by a factor of 25-30 or more. The less-substantial the vehicle, the smaller this ratio becomes – at the absolute bottom end, a rickety old 2-wheeled cart (think Gandalf’s arrival in Hobbiton for Bilbo’s Birthday) may in fact be worth less than a 1-character’s share of the cargo.

There’s a fairly simple technique for correctly distributing the cost of the cargo.

1. Divide total cost by # of characters contributing.
2. Subtract from (1) the value of the vehicle, less any previous such deductions.
3. If the result is less than 0, the owner contributes 0 to the purchase of cargo.
4. Otherwise, the result is the amount they have to kick in to the cargo purchase.
5. Subtract from (1) the character’s contribution. This is the shortfall in funding.
6. Divide (5) by (# characters contributing -1).
7. Add (6) to (1). This is the amount the other participants have to pay.
8. Each time the contribution of the vehicle reaches 0, it resets to 1/2 the previous initial value.

A few quick examples

Example 1

Vehicle = a small cart, value 80 gp
Total Cargo Cost = 500 gp
# of participating characters = 5

1. 500 / 5 = 100.
2. 100 – 80 = 20.
3. n/a.
4. Character #5 pays 20 gp and contributes the use of his cart.
5. 100 – 20 = 80.
6. 80 / (5-1) = 80 / 4 = 20.
7. 20 + 100 = 120. Characters 1, 2, 3, and 4 have to pay 120 gp each.
     All five contributions are considered an equal share
8. When next the characters purchase cargo, the cart has a value / 2 = 40 gp.

EG Leg 2, same group:

Vehicle = a small cart, value 40 gp
Return from sale of previous cargo = 700 gp
Total Cargo Cost = 1200 gp
# of participating characters = 5

1. 1200-700=500 gp; 500 / 5 = 100.
2. 100 – 40 = 60.
3. n/a.
4. Character #5 pays 60 gp and contributes the use of his cart.
5. 100 – 60 = 40.
6. 40 / (5-1) = 40 / 4 = 10.
7. 10 + 100 = 110. Characters 1, 2, 3, and 4 have to pay 110 gp each.
     All five contributions are considered an equal share
8. When next the characters purchase cargo, the cart has a value / 2 = 20 gp.

Example #3, Same group

Vehicle = a small cart, value 20 gp
Return from sale of previous cargo = 1800 gp
Total Cargo Cost = 1400 gp
# of participating characters = 5

1. 1400-1800=-400 gp; -400 / 5 = -80
2. -80 – 20 = -100.
3. Character #5 pays 0 toward the ‘cargo acquisition’, instead
     receiving 100gp profits, but contributes the use of his cart..
4. n/a
5. -80 – (-100) = 100 – 80 = 20.
6. 20 / (5-1) = 20 / 4 = 5.
7. 5 + (-100) = -95. Characters 1, 2, 3, and 4 receive 95 gp each in profits.
     All five contributions are considered an equal share
8. When next the characters purchase cargo, the cart has a value / 2 = 10 gp. After that, it might as well be 0.

The appearance of negative numbers (indicating that there’s a profit to be distributed) might have thrown readers for a loop, but that’s the value of these examples.

Example #4

Vehicle = 3-masted Trading ship and minimal crew compliment. Value = 75,000 + 500 per trip wages.
Total Cargo Cost = 20,000 gp
# Of participating characters = 4 PCs, 2 investors = 6

1. 20,000 / 6 = 3333.33 gp
2. 3333.33 – 75,500 = -72166.66 gp.
3. Character #4 pays 0 toward the cargo but contributes the vessel & crew.
4. n/a
5. n/a
6. 3333.33 / (6-1) = 666.66
7. 666.66 + 3333.33 gp = 4000.
     Characters 1, 2, 3. and 2 investors pay 4000 gp each.
     All six are considered to have an equal share in the cargo.
8. Next trip, the value of the ship and crew will be 72166+500= 72666.

Example #5, Same Vessel

Vehicle = 3-masted Trading ship and minimal crew compliment. Value = 72166 + 500 per trip wages = 72666.
Revenue from sale of previous cargo = 32,000 gp.
Total Cargo Cost = 18,000 gp
# Of participating characters = 4 PCs (2 investors)

Note that unless the investors have agreed in advance, which they usually will, their payout from the previous leg can’t be reinvested in cargo; it has to be held to be repaid to them.
     32,000 / 6 = 5333.33 each, or 10,666,66 between them.

It’s unusual, but for the sake of this example, I’m going to assume it has happened.

This effectively reduces the profit from the PCs perspective to 32,000 – 10,666.66 = 21333.33. This is still enough that each will receive a profit, even after the purchase of a new cargo.

1. (21,333.33 – 18,000) / 4 = 833.33 gp payout
     (technically, should be less than zero – this matters in the next step).
2. -833.33 – 72,166 = –72,999.33 gp.
     Next leg, the ship will contribute only 72,166 – (18000/4) = 67,666 to the venture.
3. Character #4 pays 0 toward the cargo but contributes the vessel & crew.
     He receives a full share of the proceeds, 21333 / 4 = 5333.25 gp.
     That leaves 21,333.33 – 5333.25 = 16000.08 gp for the other 3 PCs.
     But the cargo is going to cost 18000, a shortfall of 1999.92 gp. Call it 2000.
4. n/a
5. n/a
6. 2000 / (4-1) = 666.66
     Characters 1, 2, and 3. pay an additional 666.66 gp each.
     All four are considered to have an equal share in the cargo.

Over many trips, the contribution of the ship will diminish as the owner’s share of the cargo costs gets subtracted from the contribution value of the vessel.

Which brings me to:

Example #6, Same Vessel, a long time later

Vehicle = 3-masted Trading ship and minimal crew compliment. Value = 2866 + 500 per trip wages = 3366.
Revenue from sale of previous cargo = 40,000 gp.
Total Cargo Cost = 24,000 gp
# Of participating characters = 4 PCs

1. (40,000.00 – 24,000) / 4 = 16,000 gp payout
     (technically, should be less than zero – this matters in the next step).
2. 24,000 / 4 = 6,000gp – 3366 = 2634 gp.
     The contributing value of the ship & crew are not enough to cover the owner’s share in the purchase of the next cargo.
3. n/a
4. Character #4 pays 2634 toward the cargo and contributes the vessel & crew.
     But he’s entitled to a full share of the 40,000, so he gets paid 7122 gp.
5. 24,000 – 2634 = 21,366 to be paid by the other 3 characters.
6. 21366 / (4-1) = 7122 each.
7. But each one will also get 10,000 go from the sale of the old cargo.
     So Characters 1, 2, and 3. receive 10,000-7122 = 2878 gp each.
     All four are considered to have an equal share in the cargo.
8. The ship’s contribution now resets to the original 75,000 + 500, divided by 2, = 37,500 + 500.

A couple of final observations:

• If you know what the calculations are doing and understand why, you can vary them into more convenient forms. This can solve problems that the original process fails to address, as in Examples 3, 5, and 6.
• I deliberately set the cargo costs and revenues low in examples 5 and 6 to reflect ‘that’s all they can afford’ not ‘that’s how much the ship can carry’.
• That results in a massively asymmetric investment contribution by the owner of the ship. In real life, characters 1, 2, and 3 would probably kick in part of their profits against future contributions to get everyone onto an equal footing as quickly as possible.
• The ship has one captain (presumably the owner) and he employs the crew. You can’t have divided loyalties at sea or in an emergency without courting mutinies. The examples reflect this.
• The GM should calculate payouts etc between game sessions. No barter rolls, no nonsense, no nothing. Giving out the ‘cash’ should be part of the pre-session warm-up the same as handing out xp.
• Note that the emphasis is on profits, not on costs.
• Finally, the whole expedition should be considered merely background, a side effect of delivering the PCs to ground zero for their next adventure. It should never, ever, be the be-all and end-all, and the GM should strenuously resist any attempts by the players to focus on it.

That’s all fine for a partnership structure. If there’s a single owner, and the other PCs are considered employees, it’s even simpler – one character is responsible for all the costs and gets all the rewards. But this is even more asymmetric than partnership examples 4-6, can foster resentments, and is NOT recommended.

Things have to get handled a little differently with a corporation.

But first, let’s look at the situation where none of the PCs has a vessel to contribute, because it’s far more likely to be the case.

1.7 Hired Vehicles

If none of the PCs owns a ship, there are two solutions: find the financing (loans etc) to buy a ship (or a series of covered wagons, or whatever) or hire an existing vessel.

Ships are not cheap, and until the PCs establish themselves as a safe and lucrative investment, it’s likely that no-one will lend them anywhere near enough to buy one outright. That leaves option (b), at least for the foreseeable future.

Hiring a ship in a fantasy realm should not be overly arduous. Someone else will be the Captain (it’s their ship) and will provide the crew – and hopefully all of these NPCs will be trustworthy!

It would be extremely unlikely for the captain to risk being a participant in the venture. At least for the first few trips, he would expect to be paid for the use of his vessel, his crew, and his services – in advance.

In effect, the price of hiring the vessel etc for the next leg gets added to the cargo cost. As a rough guide, determine a total weekly wage bill, divide the value of the ship by 1000 to get a weekly cost, and assume that the trip will take 50% longer than it should.

Why 1000? 1/20th x 1/50th of a year = 1/1000.

Technically, it should by 1040, but it’s worth sacrificing the accuracy for the ease of calculation.

The GM should divide up the labor pool into bands:

1. Green Crew
2. Experienced Crew
3. Ship’s Officers
4. Captain

Experienced Crew will earn 2-5 gp per week. Green Crew will earn 1-3 gp per week, and probably at the lower or middle end of that. Ship’s Officers will earn 5-25 gp per week, captains will earn 10-25 gp per day.

Each captain will generally have a reputation / profile to how much they pay in each band – generous here, less generous there. Some buy crew loyalty by reducing their own earnings somewhat to better crew pay.

An example band might be “Green- middle, experienced middle-high, officers high, captain medium” – which would translate to 2 gp, experienced 4 gp, officers 20 gp, self 12 gp /day = 12×7= 84 gp / week.

All the GM needs to do is decide how many of each there are on board and the calculate the total weekly wages bill.

5 x Green Crew = 5×2 = 10 gp;
15 x Experienced Crew = 15×4 = 60 gp;
6 x Officers = 6×20 = 120 gp;
1 x Captain = 1×84 = 84 gp;
Ship = 75000/1000 = 75 gp.
total = 349 gp / week.

If the trip is expected to take a week, pay for 1.5 weeks:

1.5×349 = 523.5 gp, round up to the nearest 5 for convenience: 525 gp.

If the trip is expected to take 4 weeks, pay for 6:

6×349 = 2094 gp, round up to the nearest 5, gives 2095 gp.

Note that if the trip actually only takes 4 weeks, there won’t be a refund!!

1.8 Bring-Your-Own Vehicles

Corporations work differently. They have two options: enter into a lease agreement with the owner of a vessel for the exclusive rights to their services for a period of time or the completion of X voyages, whichever comes first; or buy their own vessel outright, issuing enough shares to cover the cost.

Of course, if the corporation is completely dependent on a single vessel, anything could happen, and everyone would be ruined – so why buy one when you can buy three, and stagger their departure times so that none of them are ever in the same place at the same time?

Profits per vessel might nosedive (for a while), but the reward in mitigation of losses the first time one encounters a dragon, or hurricane, or whatever, will more than make up for it.

Clever marketing would promote the frequency of passage as a benefit; other ships might stand to in port until their holds are full, these ships will sail even if their holds are empty. Experience would also contribute to a sense of reliability that independent captains would struggle to match; what they have to offer in competition is flexibility.

1.9 Bottom-lining Ownership

When it comes right down to it, there are only a few things people really need to know when it comes to ownership.

• Where is the money coming from?
• Who owns what?
• Who controls what?
• Who gets paid how much, and when>?
• Personalities are more important than technical mechanics.

So long as those three facts are understood completely, you don’t need to pay closer attention to questions of ownership. But they don’t exist in isolation from each other; they interact and interrelate, and each has multiple options and permutations to consider.

Get as complicated as you have to in order to be able to answer the questions – but then, boil it all down to these simple facts. Everything else will just get in the way – at least until the technical details make a difference as part of a specific adventure.

Whew! I thought this would be a short section, leaving enough time to include chapter 2, which starts to get into the heart of the system, the Trade Unit, but there was rather more to say and explain than I expected. This post is now of comparable length to the first, perhaps even a little longer, so this is where I’m going to call it.