How do you handle playing or running a game with noble PCs?

To me, titles and SOC are independant.

SOC is the Fame of the character, combined with the Social Skills of the character, nothing more. If you can talk your way out of a tight situation, time and time again, you'll become famous in your own circle. If you're in the public eye, that SOC applies both to your own circle and that of the general public (if it's too high, expect adoring fans, right when you're trying to sneak in through customs with those illegal weapons or drugs).

Titles, you're either born to or you earn... doesn't matter if you're a SOC 12 rogue - you'll not be a nobility unless your father was or unless you have a damned good reason for it. If you want to play a noble, either you're going to be cut off from your funds or you'll be playing a Dilattente, in my book... a naval character will have probably either done so behind their parents back (involking a cutoff clause) or will have parents who "earned it the hard way, so he can damned well do so too", in which case he'll likely be cut off in any case.

Reynard: you're quite right to point out that high level businessmen and politicians are, as far as they're concerned, nobility (they don't get the land grant, but for all the other perks...) which makes me baffled why someone earlier said that the UK grants too many titles - all the title is, is an acknowledgement from the Queen that someone has served their country and deserves some recognition... they can't pass it onto their children these days, so I fail to see the problem. Historically, though, titles were passed out among the nobility like sweets to kids - partly as a way to keep them happy and from thinking how great it would be to be king... nowadays we live in a "classless society" so the upper class is supposedly gone (it's not, but it is starting to drift into the US-style celebrity/businessman upper class where money is all that matters).

I'd use the table in the MRB as a guide as to how much the player can get away with, eg "Do you know who I am?", rather than expecting the title, land grant (and hence income) and duties from being a noble. Being a noble, a player would likely be tied down to a family home or palace for most of the time administering the lands he was granted in the name of the next-highest noble - hardly fun, which is why most nobles are disowned, cut off or younger siblings in RPG games.

A quick note - younger siblings, historically: The eldest son inherited the lands, so was groomed to be the successor. The second-born was traditionally inducted into the church. Later sons were, basically, spares and had no inheritence. This pretty much filtered down through the classes, but with fewer and fewer going to the church as you get lower (the lack of ability to read was likely one reason). Daughters were expected to cement alliances and treaties by marrying.

Of course, in the 3rd Imperium, with equal rights being what they are, you may find that you have a high SOC character. Fine - just tell them that they're the 4th child of whatever noble they rolled up, so aren't entitled to a thing, but have an arranged marriage to some backwater noble's daughter (or son), so took to their heels. That's where noble-born rogues come from - no money, used to a high class of living and a good reason to try to make themselves scarce. :)

Oh and since they wanted the title, despite a lack of income, you'll expect them to keep themselves at a level befitting their rank, or their SOC rating will drop at the rate of 1 per month that they're living at a sub-standard and to keep the approriate standard will be expensive. You might be surprised at just how quickly some players will drop the idea. :)
 
Reynard said:
The various militaries, especially Navy, seems to be at least feasible to advance into nobility. That seems historical. Entertainers have a decent chance to promote into the 10+ range of nobility which reinforces my idea that the actual SOC attribute is a measure of fame and reputation rather than automatically being noble. Elton John and Paul McCartney were just lucky to get both.
It's certainly possible to interpret high social status as someone that nobles are willing to hob-nob with rather than actual nobles. That doesn't help with those characters who ARE actual nobles, though.

Speaking of which I look at the Nobility career and there it is! Personally, the 21st century businessperson is nobility in everything but name. Tell me politicians don't consiter themselves as a form of royalty. In Traveller we call them, respectively, Administrators and Diplomats. A Duke is a business CEO or a government President. Dilettantes are still just spoiled rich kids.
An Imperial duke is the ruler of an empire comprised of 30 to 40 worlds with a total population in the tens or even hundreds of billions. He's not an absolute ruler, true, but even with the limits he has in the exercise of his powers, he's still far above a mere business CEO or even a government president. He's a guy who'd quickly put someone like the President of the US in his place if the fellow got uppity.


Hans
 
After reading this thread for a while and remembering hdan referring to the Dilettante sourcebook I bought it yesterday. Mongoose addressed the issue very well including highlighting the Social attribute separately from the nobility aspect. So even for a non-Imperial campaign SOC is very useful to describe a person's social confidence and fame.

I already use the SOC stat to develope a character's background and personality but Dilettante expands this and give great advise for noble characters.
 
I've been wondering about this and the best I could think of is replace Social Standing with Charisma but leave an avenue where the characters and npcs could either start with a noble rank (Have the Dilettente book) or gain it during character generation perhaps even after during the game!

I don't like the idea that your social rank defines your charisma, yes some people look upon those of prestige more than others but I figure it should be separate so you can distinguish between say a noble whose otherwise a charismatic idiot with a good heart and the black hearted and ruthless megalomaniac whose spent the last few decaded plotting their way to the throne...

And of course everything between... still thanks for this, will look back here its been an interesting read and given me a few ideas to think over!
 
Social status and charisma have similar (or perhaps I should say overlapping) social effects through very different social mechanisms. If you want to account for both, you need to provide rules (and stats) for both. If you want to keep the rules simple, you have to lump them together. It's a tradeoff. Traveller goes for the simplicity.


Hans
 
"An Imperial duke is the ruler of an empire comprised of 30 to 40 worlds with a total population in the tens or even hundreds of billions. He's not an absolute ruler, true, but even with the limits he has in the exercise of his powers, he's still far above a mere business CEO or even a government president. He's a guy who'd quickly put someone like the President of the US in his place if the fellow got uppity."

What I referred to was the three assignments under the Noble career. If a noble was just the old concept of inheirited money and resource without earning it then there would be variants of the diletante only. Instead they also have one for business and one for government. I forget his history but I'd guess the Emperor was originally groomed in the Diplomat assignment. He may have been dilettante and just inheirited the Emperorship.

So, for me, the Noble career represents not just outright nobles and royalty in *our* history but the rise of the society's most powerful and influential. The 'duke' rank, to me, represents CEOs of megacorps with wealth and influence to rival the Emperor while a Diplomat with the rank of Duke, according to Book 8, rules subsectors or an entire sector. The difference between Duke Strephon and other of duke rank is... he's the Emperor. Quite frankly he should be rank 16.

The Imperium campaign makes nobility far reaching and prevalent in a vast society even though many worlds have goverment types that aren't, by their nature, bearers of nobility. This means the role of nobility can not be so... controlled. There are thousands of worlds and many, many billions of people in the Imperium so there will be a proportionate amount of nobility especially at the lower end. Not all of them run a planet or a subsector and that often explains diletantes in the Career generation. In most cases players start the game mustered out meaning you're no longer officially engaged in your career. For a noble that means you no longer serve in the direct capacity of a noble but still are noble. Now you use your talents from administering the affairs of the family or government, representing the interests at home or abroad or just spent mummy and daddy's money for your own reason. If you we so god awful blessed to reach duke rank then you're on your own now for a reason, retired or disgraced or dreamwalking or on the Grand Tour or just slumming it.

So yeah, lots of nobles, be a noble.
 
I have a character of Soc 9 in the Traders of Gaths XII Pbp here, would Dilettante be a useful book to get for a character of that Soc ability?

As an aside, he is a Darrian exile who joined the Imperial navy (gaining a Soc bonus as a benefit) - he has black market connections and now is employed as a free trader.
 
Reynard said:
What I referred to was the three assignments under the Noble career. If a noble was just the old concept of inheirited money and resource without earning it then there would be variants of the diletante only. Instead they also have one for business and one for government. I forget his history but I'd guess the Emperor was originally groomed in the Diplomat assignment. He may have been dilettante and just inheirited the Emperorship.
Drawing on knowledge from previously published information (pre-MGT material, that is) the Emperor was groomed to be an emperor. Just because all player character nobles are limited to three career tracks doen't mean that all Imperial nobles has to be shoe-horned into one of them.(At least, I really hope the Mongoose PTB (Powers That Be) don't think that such is the case).

So, for me, the Noble career represents not just outright nobles and royalty in *our* history but the rise of the society's most powerful and influential. The 'duke' rank, to me, represents CEOs of megacorps with wealth and influence to rival the Emperor while a Diplomat with the rank of Duke, according to Book 8, rules subsectors or an entire sector. The difference between Duke Strephon and other of duke rank is... he's the Emperor. Quite frankly he should be rank 16.
The Emperor is rank 17. Archdukes are rank 16.

The only megacorporate CEO we know about is Count Blaine Trulla Tukera of Tukera Lines. The others are quite probably also high-ranking Imperial nobles. Even the richest Imperial noble is unlikely to rival the Emperor's portfolio, though -- he has stock in all Imperially licenced corporations.

The thing is, there are perhaps 10 or 15,000 Imperial peers in all, most of them barons, out of a population of 15 trillion. That's one Imperial baron or better (SL12+) out of every one billion people, whereas there seem to be two people with social level 12 in every three average-sized high school classes. So the numbers simply don't add up. They can't possibly be reconciled. The best one can do is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is what Traveller has done for 30 years.

So my advice is to ignore the Imperial nobility and interpret the noblity careers to deal with planetary nobility. They're so much more suitable for the typical Traveller adventure than Imperial nobles are. (That's not to say that it wouldn't be possible to run a campaign with Imperial nobles; just that it wouldn't be a typical Traveller campaign). Perhaps subdivide SL11 and 12 into three or four levels each and let anyone who gains a social level in character generation go from 11/1 to 11/2 to 11/3 and so forth. (Anyone who rolls a 12 to begin with could get 11/2 instead).


Hans
 
"The Emperor is rank 17. Archdukes are rank 16."

Ah, so Emperor is really off the scale for players unless they are VERY lucky or cheating during character generation. Somehow I thought I heard the Emperor referred to as duke. Dukes are then relatively more common.

"The only megacorporate CEO we know about is Count Blaine Trulla Tukera of Tukera Lines. The others are quite probably also high-ranking Imperial nobles. Even the richest Imperial noble is unlikely to rival the Emperor's portfolio, though -- he has stock in all Imperially licenced corporations."

Point well taken.
That means there is room for all those high rank nobles *we don't know of*.

"The thing is, there are perhaps 10 or 15,000 Imperial peers in all, most of them barons, out of a population of 15 trillion. That's one Imperial baron or better (SL12+) out of every one billion people, whereas there seem to be two people with social level 12 in every three average-sized high school classes. So the numbers simply don't add up. They can't possibly be reconciled. The best one can do is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is what Traveller has done for 30 years."

Traveller has a generation system that allows nobility and not all that statistically difficult. Not every one will be running megacorps or star clusters. Still, nobles are common enough and shouldn't be just written off as impossible. By the way, I have almost every book from the various iterations of Traveller since the early 80s. I'm going crazy trying to find your source for the number of nobles in the Imperium. I probably keep skipping that page in a Journal issue.

As this thread inquires, Traveller make noble characters possible for gameplay. Rather than deny their existance we find reasons, in typical Space Opera tradition, to play them. My last post made a few suggestions, let's hear how others shoehorned their nobles in.
 
Reynard said:
Traveller has a generation system that allows nobility and not all that statistically difficult.
That was the point I was trying to make. The numbers don't add up.

Not every one will be running megacorps or star clusters.
No, some of them will be mailmen and shopkeepers. One out of every 36 would be an Imperial baron (or close relative of one)).

Still, nobles are common enough and shouldn't be just written off as impossible.
I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating not accepting the figures implied by the Character Generation System uncritically. Even for local nobility, one in 36 is more than a little generous; going by Real Life, one minor noble (lowest noble rank) out of several thousands is more reasonable. So I'm advocating squeezing in several noble levels (in other words, a planetary nobility) between the planetary gentry and the Imperial nobility.

By the way, I have almost every book from the various iterations of Traveller since the early 80s. I'm going crazy trying to find your source for the number of nobles in the Imperium. I probably keep skipping that page in a Journal issue.
It's an estimate. High nobles are fairly easy to figure out. There is one Emperor; five archdukes; one high duke per subsector, except not all subsectors are duchies, so call it 270 dukes (the Imperium has about 300 subsectors); one high count per cluster of 4-6 worlds; and one high marquis or high baron per system, except Imperial nobles seem to double up on titles in some cases (e.g. Norris, is both Marquis of Regina and Baron of Yori; Marquis Leonard of Aramis is also Baron of Lewis).

The big fudge factor is the honor and rank nobles. According to GT:Nobles (p. 136-7), there can be up to one baron per 250 million people on high-population worlds (emphasis mine). That would make the number of barons 60,000 or less. I'm going with a lower figure due to the "up to" part. (Still, thinking it over, I'm probably low in my estimate. Call it 30,000 Imperial nobles instead).

As this thread inquires, Traveller make noble characters possible for gameplay. Rather than deny their existance we find reasons, in typical Space Opera tradition, to play them.
I don't deny the existance of Imperial nobles. I deny the existance of 417 billion of them (one in 36, remember?) in the Imperium.


Hans
 
I think tying social standing to nobility is a setting issue. It works with the OTU, but might not be appropriate for other settings.
I use social standing as a measure of social 'class' the character was born into and lived in before going through the entire career process. Although its not in the rules, I use it to determine how much of the character's education is formal book learning and how much is just picking it up from talking to people or listing to news/gossip.

For personality, I added in 'ego', which is the strength of a character's personality or how the character sees himself. A high value might be a type 'A' domineering person, whereas a low value might be a shy, person with low self-esteem. I'd use this for interpersonal tasks and as a modifier for morale.
Also for interpersonal tasks, I added 'rep' which is similar to how charisma is handled, and it is a measure of how other's see the character.

And just because I like the number ''3" and wanted 3 physical characteristics, 3 social characteristics, and 3 mental characteristics*, I also added 'intuition'. This is a measure of sub-conscious data gathering and processing which is something of a wildcard for tasks... "I got a bad feeling about this."
It'd also work as psi strength is your setting has psionics, but doesn't get used as such until after training.

imtu, nobility is just a title thats bestowed on a character, nothing else.

*strength, dexterity, endurance
intelligence, education, intuition
social standing, ego, reputation
 
Hans Rancke said:
I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating not accepting the figures implied by the Character Generation System uncritically.

totally agree with this.
It helps to understand that the chargen does not model the actual populations. It models a very specific subset of the overall population... adventurers.
 
Ishmael said:
It helps to understand that the chargen does not model the actual populations. It models a very specific subset of the overall population... adventurers.
This is a very reasonable explanation, and one that has been propounded many times before. Unfortunately, from the very beginning (The Kinunir), Traveller authors have been using the character generation systems to roll up NPCs, which has given us canonical examples of Imperial barons (or close relatives of Imperial barons) who are customs inspectors and enlisted men. It's like having Napoleon's younger son crewing a fishing boat.


Hans
 
Hans Rancke said:
Unfortunately, from the very beginning (The Kinunir), Traveller authors have been using the character generation systems to roll up NPCs, which has given us canonical examples of Imperial barons (or close relatives of Imperial barons) who are customs inspectors and enlisted men. It's like having Napoleon's younger son crewing a fishing boat.

Just because the original authors made that mistake in ye olden days, doesn't mean it has to be carried forward for another or 4 editions, eh? If it makes no sense, don't use it.
 
Ishmael said:
Just because the original authors made that mistake in ye olden days, doesn't mean it has to be carried forward for another or 4 editions, eh? If it makes no sense, don't use it.
That's part of the reason why from time to time I bring it up on the various Traveller forums I frequent. If a future Traveller author happens to read it and happens to agree with me, maybe he won't carry it forward automatically.

Unfortunately, part of the problem is "hardwired" in the rules. IMO you can't really convey the vast social distance between someone who is the most prominent person out of several thousands and someone who is the most prominent person out of 250 million if all you have to do it with is the difference between SL11 and SL12.


Hans
 
There has been anecdotal evidence that its not in the hands of future writers, however. Rather its in the hands of 'powers that be' which have allegedly been very strict in enforcing conformity with previous editions. So much so, that it has given the appearance of driving a respected author or two away.

Why would you limit SL's to 12?
the chargen is for adventurers, not the general population, after all. You have already shown that the rules/setting itself extends far above the ordinary chargen rolls for SL in an effort to preserve a sense of reality.
On the other side of the issue, has the Imperium successfully combated poverty such that there are no SL0 and SL1 people left, then?

The easiest and best thing is to totally separate 'nobility' titles and SL. Perhaps it might be better that if the pc has a noble title, it might serve as a dm to the player's SL roll. Not the other way around.
 
During character generation we had a PC who started with social status 9 and as a result of various advancement and mustering rolls would have ended up at 13.

Instead of trying to justify a Marquis as an adventurer I tried this:

Advancement to Social Status B (knight) no change.
After this the character was allowed a roll on one of the portfolio benefit tables in Dilettante (I can't remember exactly which one of the top of my head) instead of an increase in social status
The character ended up with an estate and an investment portfolio that generated about Cr13,000/month between them and the character needed to spend about Cr5,000/month to maintain his social status leaving about Cr8,000/month which isn't exactly a fortune in Traveller

As a final touch the character was given the title Baronet (still at social status B)
 
Ishmael said:
There has been anecdotal evidence that its not in the hands of future writers, however. Rather its in the hands of 'powers that be' which have allegedly been very strict in enforcing conformity with previous editions. So much so, that it has given the appearance of driving a respected author or two away.
That's something I haven't heard of.

Why would you limit SL's to 12?
I don't. I limit the range that planetary nobility would fit into to one or two levels. The planetary "gentry" (i.e. higher than the upper middle class, but not nobility) would IMO be level 10. Imperial barons are level 12. In between is where we have to fit the analogues of barons, viscounts, ealrs, marquesses, dukes, archdukes, princes, and kings (or the equivalent in societies with no noblilities -- elected presidents are accorded the same courtesies as kings).

On the other side of the issue, has the Imperium successfully combated poverty such that there are no SL0 and SL1 people left, then?
I don't think there ever been any official definitions of what each social level actually corresponds to. I've always assumed that SL0 is slaves, and thus not to be found in the Imperium, and that SL1 is social outcasts (such as tramps). Then we have EIGHT levels (2-9) to spread the rest of the hoi polloi across. Perhaps lower lower, middle lower, upper lower, lower middle, middle middle, upper middle... oh dear, that's only six levels... perhaps we can divide the middle lower class and the middle middle class in two?

The whole system is in dire need or a thorough revision. But at the moment I simply don't worry about the differences between the lower middle lower class and the upper middle lower class... ;)


Hans
 
I feel that putting specific definitions for what each social level means would be a serious mistake.
Isn't it enough that it is a stat that can be used for dm's in tasks related to social interactions? after all, social level is a measure of the character's place in society aka. the level of social influence the character has.
This, quite often, has little to do with titles and nobility.
Who has a higher Soc stat... Prince Charles*? or Wen Jiabao**?
Who has the greatest level of influence on this world?
Prince William or Steve Jobs? ( possible future King of England vs. Corporate leader )

Social standing does not need to have 'titles' tacked on. I think they are limiting because they force preconceived notions of social structures upon the game. Not all settings, nor even individual worlds within a setting, will have nobility and feudal trappings associated with it. Not every game must be set in the OTU.

I do keep track of the different levels of the social strata. I find it very useful for world building in that I can determine the penetration of technology and wealth ( quality of living ) into different areas by tracking income distribution curves ( based on Gini values and gdp from PE please please please get Dynasty done already ). It'd be a mistake to think that the distribution of social levels in a world's population is anything like the nice neat bell curve of the 2d6 chargen.
I also intend to have a go at applying the Human Development Index to countries of a world, but that's another topic.

anyways, I think its a mistake to attach nobility and titles to social standing; noble titles are a background/setting issue and not a generic rules issue. Generic rules should use soc simply as a stat that's used in social oriented tasks. imo

* Prince of Wales, heir to the English throne.
** Premier of the People's Republic of China
 
Back
Top