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

[rust]

My main problem with Traveller's SOC stat is that it remains the same
wherever the character goes, which in my view does not make a lot
of sense even in the Third Imperium setting.

To use Ishmael's example, Prince Charles probably has a higher SOC
than the Chinese premier while in Cornwall, but a lower SOC than the
Chinese premier while on a state visit to South East Asia. The King of
Bhutan has the highest possible SOC in his homeland, but a compara-
tively much lower one when visiting the United Nations, where he has
to "compete" with far more influential and powerful heads of state.

A famous scientist like the late Carl Sagan certainly had a high SOC in
the scientific community, but a lower one among the members of the
religious community, and only a very basic one among the community
of fishermen on the Solomon Islands ("just another foreigner").

Whenever a character moves in space or between (sub-) cultures, his
SOC is very likely to change, decreasing with the distance from his ho-
me and his usual (sub-) culture.

 

[BFalcon]

rust: well, to be fair, that's where DMs come in...

 

[rust]

rust: well, to be fair, that's where DMs come in...

Of course, but the core system as written does not exactly high-
light the need for situational modifiers of that kind and does not
offer much of a guidance for their design and use (although the
Dilettante book now covers this comparatively well), and as a re-
sult many referees used (and still use) SOC much like the other
stats, it remains the same wherever the character is in the uni-
verse.

 

[BP]

Title is no more a character attribute than career. Tacking setting specific titles to an attribute was a mistake that doesn't even hold up in the setting. :roll:

BFalcon, sure conditional DMs can be applied - but in a manner inconsistent with how they would be used for any other stat.

In rust's example foreigners might be treated no less friendly than locals, yet Carl Sagan's high SOC would get a negative DM while a normal SOC would have none and just because he is Carl Sagan, as opposed to say, a non-local fisherman with the same high SOC who speaks their lingo (cultural vs. literal). No other attribute works that way.

Social Standing would best be truncated to Social (though not the best term, it is better). As used in the skill mechanics, it represents ability and effectiveness in interacting with other intelligent entities - a much broader scope. Note, this also would apply regardless of species or nature (i.e. constructs, AI robots, etc.) - allowing for consistent application of DMs for inter-species dealings and the like.

Titles, if desired, would best be generated and based on a totally independent mechanic.

 

[rust]

Social Standing would best be truncated to Social (though not the best term, it is better). As used in the skill mechanics, it represents ability and effectiveness in interacting with other intelligent entities - a much broader scope. Note, this also would apply regardless of species or nature (i.e. constructs, AI robots, etc.) - allowing for consistent application of DMs for inter-species dealings and the like.

Yep, especially since we have lots of historical examples of
persons with a very high social standing, but an almost com-
plete lack of basic social abilities. To add their modifiers for
social standing to their social skills would give a very wrong
idea of their personalities and their ability to deal with other
people. To give a sadistic sociopath like Vald Dracul (aka Vlad
the Impaler) a positive modifier on his social skills because he
is a duke with a high social standing seems not such a good
concept - unless one considers the use of the Broker skill to
find a buyer with methods like "BUY OR GET IMPALED !" plau-
sible ...

 

[Reynard]

The more I think about it I realize Social Status isn't directly tied to nobility ranking, you don't automatically become a knight because circumstances make you popular or confidant enough to hobnob with high society. In actuality noblity have prereqisites of social conduct a person is expected to meet and display as they rise in power.

Social Status is exactly that, how you are preceived and treated by others allowing you to perform social based actions. This has no inherent titling. We have titles of nobility in Traveller because this particular RPG has a nobility theme.

Traveller is supposed to be a universal scifi RPG so the nobility table is an available choice rather than mandatory just like you can deny players fusion and plasma weapons as not feasible in your universe. So keep Social Status as a game mechanic but make titles an option. If you accept nobility as background in your game don't make titles available to players if it doesn't fit what you want players to be.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Well to be honest if you have absolute control over your world or subsector and the local law enforcement types are unbale to act the whole Buy/Sell or never do business here ever again and I torture your pet for good measure will give a fairly high modifier :twisted:

Not so much use for the diplomacy though. :lol:

Reynard. That is exactly it. Everyone has a SOC score. If you want noble characters then take a term in the right career or ref wave it in.

For the vast majority of people in the OTU nobles are those people in fancy clothes you see on the Tri-D. Most people will never se one in real life and if bob the waiter is of noble blood he is keeping it very quiet becasue, well, he is waiting on tables and having some noble sons and daughters of rival families pop round to mock him and make his life hell just ins't fun.

 

[BP]

...To give a sadistic sociopath like Vald Dracul (aka Vlad
the Impaler) a positive modifier on his social skills because he
is a duke with a high social standing seems not such a good
concept - ...

Yes - there is where the dual use of SOC is quite, naturally, contradictory. :roll:

The more I think about it I realize Social Status isn't directly tied to nobility ranking, you don't automatically become a knight because circumstances make you popular or confidant enough to hobnob with high society. ...

Another way of saying what rust illustrated. :wink:

Social Standing was the thing that actually stuck out as one of the most blatant, non-generic aspects of Classic Traveller in the core books.

I was slightly put off (no big deal, but give me a break) when page 5 of MgT Core repeated the same non-sense. Its not just the 'title' thing (which is actually stated as optional to 'claim' or 'assume', though not optional in any other sense) - its the very definition as 'social class and level of society' in CT, reworded to 'A character's place in society' in MgT.

Not only are these setting specific - and even then not allowing for aliens and other polities - it's just not applicable in many cases. If the PC comes from the slums of some backward, poor TL, rugged moon - he may still have great 'people skills' - but no 'high social class'.

As an attribute and modifier, SOC represents ability to influence and manipulate people. Sure, high social standing may impact that. But, it is not an innate attribute of such. Conversely, such ability (and game mechanic) can and will exist despite social class or even complete lack thereof.

The definition paints such attributes into the box of 'social class' when that is unnecessary. (Easily ignored - but still a poor design decision.)

 

[Ishmael]

Yes - there is where the dual use of SOC is quite, naturally, contradictory.

Thats exactly why I chose to use attributes such as ego, rep and social level. They each describe a particular characteristic and can be used to describe an npc's personality in a simple way.
high ego and a low rep might indicate a braggart and blowhard
a low ego and high rep might be a shy man who is seen as honest, yet humble.
the SL indicates the social strata in which the character was raised, which can effect formal education and access to technologies.
a low social level might mean the character was raised in a refugee camp and a high level might mean being raised in a mansion.

How about this for an idea...
Social levels work best with someone from the same social level and dealing with someone from a different level would mean negative dm's much like when using different tech levels. Nobility would have a hard time on back-alley streets, just as low-life thugs would have a tough time in palaces.
The bigger the difference of each character's soc from the general social level of the setting, the worse the dm will be. Ina boardroom, the executive has the advantage, but on the streets, the thug would have the advantage. In a middle-class shopping mall, neither would have the advantage. Other stats such as int, edu and ego could be used for attack and defense dm's.
Social 'combat' can take place with insults and posturing possibly doing damage to ego and rep, in a similar fashion to how physical combat does damage to strength, dex and endurance.
Attacks might be insults and gossip ( damaging rep with observers ), whereas defense might be posturing/showing-off and playing to observers
Time can heal the ego, but the rep stays low until actions cause it to be raised again.

just tossing an idea out.

 

[BP]

Nothing wrong in general with those ideas. But consider, they are all special traits of a more general ability to interact and influence others.

A separate social level works great when comparing apples to apples. The problem is when dealing with a setting that supports multiple cultures and species. Then, it is woefully inadequate. Same could be said of Rep. Titles and Rep are fine additions if the setting makes use of them, but again that is fairly specific to a setting and situational within the setting. So, not really suitable as a general attribute for use with rule mechanics.

Character Attributes are about abilities that transcend character and provide a metric for comparison and thus rule mechanics. A real arse of a fellow can be quite charming when he chooses - if he has the ability. Likewise, a really generous and kind individual can still come off as a jerk or worse - if he lacks the ability. Ego is something one roleplays - wouldn't make that a rolled stat.

I've seen people try to establish personality based on attributes. Think about this for a moment. I, for one, have met plenty of: weak, clumsy people who act tough; idiots who pretend to be intelligent; ignorant cons who try to come across as educated; and, lazy people who lie about how hard and long they work. Now, these traits are related to ego, insecurities and ambitions and quite apart from actual ability. In other words - character.

Social Standing is also a trait - not an ability (though it is used in that context by the skill mechanics).

Attributes define ability - character is defined by players and refs.

 

[Ishmael]

Naturally, I disagree.

Nothing wrong in general with those ideas. But consider, they are all special traits of a more general ability to interact and influence others.

Just as Str, Dex, and End are special traits of a more general ability to perform physical acts.
The importance of this is to provide a metric for comparison of one character against another for the purposes consistency when using rule mechanics. I'm merely suggesting a method of providing the same for attributes related to interpersonal tasks. Most RPG's punt this issue with the result that most RPG's are heavy on combat and light on talk.

A separate social level works great when comparing apples to apples. The problem is when dealing with a setting that supports multiple cultures and species. Then, it is woefully inadequate. Same could be said of Rep. Titles and Rep are fine additions if the setting makes use of them, but again that is fairly specific to a setting and situational within the setting. So, not really suitable as a general attribute for use with rule mechanics.

I see the apples in this case as being sentients that live within a social structure that is defined by their culture. They all have the same drives and needs; food, shelter, security, reproductive opportunities. The number and quality of these things are often related to the individual's position within that social structure which implies a desire for the individual to establish his position and to possible climb in position where the culture allows vertical social mobility. Thus far, this applies to pretty much any present human society one might name as well as applying to several species such as horse, lion, wolves, bison, etc.
And given that the various official races are essentially humans in rubber suits ( loosely based on human cultures and exhibiting the same drives as humans possess ), I don't feel that this argument is a strong one.
I do not feel that 'Rep', or whatever one wishes to call it, is setting specific, nor situational. It is a metric that would describe how others see the character. This has already be done in older editions as the Vargr 'charisma'. By reducing such attributes to a common set, it could actually make interactions between Vargr and humans more consistent.
Actually, 'ego', self-esteem, self-confidence, etc. is related to a predilection for displaying dominant or submissive behavior. I chose the term 'ego' due to the connotations associated to the words 'dominant' and 'submissive'. there is evidence that an individual's trend towards dominant or submissive behaviors are passed on through genetics, much like strength or endurance. The amnner in which such behavior manifests itself is shaped by the environment, which in Traveller, is determined by 'social standing'.

Character Attributes are about abilities that transcend character and provide a metric for comparison and thus rule mechanics. A real arse of a fellow can be quite charming when he chooses - if he has the ability. Likewise, a really generous and kind individual can still come off as a jerk or worse - if he lacks the ability. Ego is something one roleplays - wouldn't make that a rolled stat.

Character attributes are values assigned to differing characteristics for the purpose or comparison within the scope of the rules. They do not have to be associated with abilities. Consider RPG's in a broader sense; some 'attributes' might be lawful-good or disadvantage; nymphomaniac or comeliness.
Heck, iirc, TNE used playing cards as 'stats' for describing personality traits.
Roleplaying is the taking of these characteristics and acting with them to form a fun and interesting character. Non-attributes are the fluff that players add to the character's description which are outside of rules and comparison; "My guy's hair is blonde and he likes to read car magazines."

I've seen people try to establish personality based on attributes. Think about this for a moment. I, for one, have met plenty of: weak, clumsy people who act tough; idiots who pretend to be intelligent; ignorant cons who try to come across as educated; and, lazy people who lie about how hard and long they work. Now, these traits are related to ego, insecurities and ambitions and quite apart from actual ability. In other words - character.

I have thought about this. quite a bit, actually.
The toughguy might be high ego and actually think he is tough, thus his big mouth would get his little arse in deep $%^& if someone challenges him. Conversely, a toughguy might have low ego/confidence where he intimidates with apparent strength those he perceives as weaker than himself. The same with the other examples, which are all textbook threat or challenge displays. They are all related to the struggle for dominance within a given situation/setting and which can easily spill over into physical combat if one side doesn't back down.

Attributes define ability - character is defined by players and refs.

Attribute define the character within the scope of the rules. Players and refs define those parts of the character that exist outside of the rules.

I guess we just disagree with each other, that's all.

 

[BP]

You asked for opinions - sure we can disagree.

However, you missed comprehending/understanding several points, especially when tying things to setting specific aspects.

Str/Dex/End can all be explicitly numerically measured and compared - even Int/Edu are subject to comparable measures. As long as the units are consistent between species and cultures, such would have meaning for rule mechanics.

Social Status cannot meet that requirement in a setting free, culture independent way. Sure it can if everything is homogeneous - but that is setting specific. Not all the aliens in the OTU are, BTW - but, more importantly, as a generic system (which is the intent of the Core rules where the basic attributes are defined) this does not have to be true at all.

Yes, there are RPGs that use explicit character traits in character definitions. You are free to do so. It doesn't fit well with the character stats in Traveller which are referred to as attributes. They define character abilities. Sure, such can be used as a basis for character in the personality sense (i.e. Joey has a low INT, so I'll play him as dumb). But they do not have to - that is up to players and refs.

Ex: Joey has a low INT and EDU, which means most INT/EDU based checks he'll be at a disadvantage, but I may choose to roleplay him as a know-it-all who claims a distinguished educational background!

Heck, if he gets lucky, or has good PR spin - he could have a high or low reputation, which would also vary by location, culture, etc. Likewise, he may have a big ego, or maybe he doesn't - either could explain his delusional or phony personality. Point is, I'd rather decide that, than have the dice do it with some attribute or peg a value to something that will situationally vary in meaning. So, yeah, on that we seem to disagree. :|

 

[Ishmael]

Str/Dex/End can all be explicitly numerically measured and compared - even Int/Edu are subject to comparable measures. As long as the units are consistent between species and cultures, such would have meaning for rule mechanics.

Attributes are consistent in the rules across cultures and species; attributes are rated relative to an average human. There is no reason to assume that my proposal would be any different. If anything, 'Edu' would be more sensitive to culture, race, and social class than anything I've brought up.

Social Status cannot meet that requirement in a setting free, culture independent way. Sure it can if everything is homogeneous - but that is setting specific. Not all the aliens in the OTU are, BTW - but, more importantly, as a generic system (which is the intent of the Core rules where the basic attributes are defined) this does not have to be true at all.

Perhaps I should have been more clear about how I was using 'Soc'. Like Max Weber, I'm splitting it between 'class', which is determined by the economic position in society ( and as described in the game rules is some cases ), and a combination of 'status' and 'power' ( non-economic place based on prestige, honor, etc. and political influences ). In my proposal, I'm using 'status/power' as the Rep trait.
Like the others stats, the values for these would be relative to an average human, European/American, circa 1980. This allows for the modeling of Edo period Japan ( which is the basis for Aslan society ) merchants, who had a relatively high 'class' due to their influence over economics despite having a very low 'status' as a group that was only one step above hinin
For those cultures that do not exhibit social stratification, everyone would have similar/same 'class' and 'rep' values within that society.

Yes, there are RPGs that use explicit character traits in character definitions. You are free to do so. It doesn't fit well with the character stats in Traveller which are referred to as attributes. They define character abilities. Sure, such can be used as a basis for character in the personality sense (i.e. Joey has a low INT, so I'll play him as dumb). But they do not have to - that is up to players and refs.

Attribute and trait have the same meaning; the difference between the two is a matter of semantics.
Education is not an ability.
Intelligence is not a personality trait.
Personality strongly influences behavior which has limits put upon it by culture. As a result, it can be incredibly useful to know a character's personality, especially an npc's, in order to be able to estimate the character's behavior in a manner that is consistent. Just remember, personality is not the same as behavior.
The 'ego' stat might even be combined with other stats to find a more detailed personality profile in the manner of Jung's personality types, or the Myer-Briggs personality types.

Ex: Joey has a low INT and EDU, which means most INT/EDU based checks he'll be at a disadvantage, but I may choose to roleplay him as a know-it-all who claims a distinguished educational background!

Heck, if he gets lucky, or has good PR spin - he could have a high or low reputation, which would also vary by location, culture, etc. Likewise, he may have a big ego, or maybe he doesn't - either could explain his delusional or phony personality.

Which is precisely the sort of situation that I'd hope to model using numerical measurements that allow comparison and ordinary rules mechanics to give concise and repeatable outcomes.

Point is, I'd rather decide that, than have the dice do it with some attribute or peg a value to something that will situationally vary in meaning. So, yeah, on that we seem to disagree. :|

Funny...I never mentioned dice or any other method of determining the values..only that they exist and what they would refer to. Besides, they could just as easily be assigned based purely on a player's character concept.

Claiming I have no comprehension or understanding of the subject, with only a difference of opinion as evidence, seems a bit presumptuous.

 

[BP]

...Claiming I have no comprehension or understanding of the subject, with only a difference of opinion as evidence, seems a bit presumptuous. ...

Such a claim would be insulting - and I have no intent to insult. Apologies if I came across that way.

You did not comprehend/understand my points. Different claim - and one for which fault to a greater or lesser extent has to lie with my explanations.

Point is, I'd rather decide that, than have the dice do it with some attribute or peg a value to something that will situationally vary in meaning. So, yeah, on that we seem to disagree. :|

Funny...I never mentioned dice or any other method of determining the values..only that they exist and what they would refer to. Besides, they could just as easily be assigned based purely on a player's character concept.

Well, attributes have a numeric value, however derived ('peg a value'), but that response reinforces that we disagree on what they 'refer to'. I am referring to Mongoose Traveller and the base characteristics that are applicable to all characters in a setting independent way.

...Attribute and trait have the same meaning; the difference between the two is a matter of semantics.
Education is not an ability.
Intelligence is not a personality trait.
Personality strongly influences behavior which has limits put upon it by culture. As a result, it can be incredibly useful to know a character's personality, especially an npc's, in order to be able to estimate the character's behavior in a manner that is consistent. Just remember, personality is not the same as behavior....

I tend to refer to 'characteristics' as attributes (since it avoids another use of 'character') - which seems understood, like in the previous quote. Traits have a different meaning in different games and I specify character traits. Again, what you are talking about is fine, but it is not overall how Traveller characteristics explicitly work. There are some rule mechanics that use ability to influence random aspects, of course, and Ref or Player can choose to use them to determine personality - but, again that is an option, not a part of the rules as written.

Sticking to game semantics as defined in the rulebooks: The first line under Character Creation -

In Traveller, a character's abilities and skills are determined largely by his training and past experience.

Notably - there is no mention of personality traits, behaviors, etc. MgT then goes on to define 'characteristics' as describing 'base mental and physical potential'. I.e. ability.

Thus, Edu represents ability (in the game). MgT defines it as 'A measure of a character's learning and experience.' The rule mechanics use it to affect probability of knowledge based on formal or informal education. It is not a personality trait. It is not species dependent, though some species might have a a greater tendency to be higher or lower (+/- DM and/or min/maxes). Its use doesn't have to be situationally dependent. [ Again - this is as opposed to 'Social Standing' which would be dependent on species and situation (i.e. are you operating in the slums, middle class or upper class areas and in what way!].

The 'base mental and physical potential' is obviously reflected in the rule mechanics ala the DMs. However, a low Dex doesn't define a PC/NPC as 'clumsy' per se - i.e. a specific personality trait. Only that they are more likely to fail physical tasks involving coordinated movement. They can be roleplayed as clumsy, or not - and still be true to the 'characteristic'. I've know plenty of people I'd qualify as having a low dex - but not clumsy because they simply avoid activities that would show this. Also by moving slower, more deliberately for example - also an option in the rule mechanics. I've also know people who only act clumsy (usually from an insecurity), yet would have a high dex. This behavior is an aspect of their personality - not their ability.

Many RPGs use chargen to define the character's character - i.e. personality and behavior traits. So, Low Dex might be defined as clumsy - in which case that is how the character should be roleplayed. Traveller does not explicitly do this. Not saying this prevents anyone from doing so - it is just not the design. This is part of what I like about Traveller (CT and Mongoose, haven't played any others).

All the attributes normalize across species, except Soc. Of the aliens in the OTU, the societies differ quite dramatically. There really is no one metric that would compare them. However, individual ability to interact socially (i.e. manipulate, avoid offense, etc.) can be 'normalized' just like the other attributes.

As to your proposals - rep doesn't normalize well. Ego is a personality characteristic, not an ability.

As stated in the first response to your query - 'Nothing wrong in general with those ideas.' They are used in other RPGs and no reason one couldn't extend 'characteristics' to include things that define a character's personality in order to determine 'behavior in a manner that is consistent' - i.e. add rule mechanics. In specific campaigns and settings this might be useful - especially rep (insult battles, however, I would look to Int, Edu, and Soc for qualifiers). MgT has actually done this in some of the books, I believe (don't use them myself).

However, in the context of replacing Soc with 'ego, rep and social level' to address the dual use of Soc, I see no advantage. I am referring to your post that started this thread of discussion - which is the context I've been discussing all along. Basically, Soc is not defined as an ability like the other characteristics.

This is not a problem for me - I drop the 'standing' and simply refer to a 'social' ability. Thus, I can normalize to other cultures - i.e. all humans interacting with species X may get an automatic -2 DM, etc. Titles and social level are a separate aspect of a character that make no sense to be a numeric value, since they vary so much, and whose use can be reflected situationally in the rule mechanics as adhoc DMs (usually I stick to the Difficulty DMs).

[Obviously I am prone to 'word vomit' - my aim is not to argue nor insult - but to enjoy discussing things. I try, but my written words often suffers in conveying this. ]

 

[Ishmael]

You did not comprehend/understand my points. Different claim - and one for which fault to a greater or lesser extent has to lie with my explanations.

No, I understood. I just disagreed. I had thought that I had made my reasoning clear, but it now seems apparent that we are each operating from differing base assumptions, interpretations and definitions from each other.

I'll write a better and more detailed description of my viewpoint on this, which covers more than just a single 'social standing' characteristic and alternate ideas about character behaviors. I am fully aware that some of what I write will not follow the rules-as-written, but if I felt that they were always correct, then I'd have no reason to to consider these sorts of ideas.
I'll post it later tonight or tomorrow in a new thread.

 

[GypsyComet]

To give a sadistic sociopath like Vald Dracul (aka Vlad
the Impaler) a positive modifier on his social skills because he
is a duke with a high social standing seems not such a good
concept...

Two comments here.

The first is that using the different stats to modify a task will represent different approaches to making the task easier. Using Soc to modify a Broker check is more about using connections and your ability to simply open doors that the lower classes would assume are locked. The sure knowledge that with position comes privilege is hard to explain to someone who has never experienced it.

Which dovetails into the second point. Most of the world, and certainly most of the Traveller playing populace, has absolutely no concept of what the nobility could be like, and what sway they held over those around them simply by their social position. As an example that some of us can get into, think of the set of personal behavioral controls that kick in when your boss is around. Escalate that to *their* boss, and then to the CEO. At some point the idea of even being noticed by these people will strike many as undesirable, and you certainly would not mouth off at them. Any of them could cost you your job, no matter how much effort and time you spent in establishing it. Switching this to a long-established and entrenched nobility adds home, family, reputation, and in extreme cases the lives of yourself, your loved ones, or your entire city to the things at risk should you sufficiently annoy them.

Citizens of democracies no longer have the background to really "get" nobles.

 

[BP]

In general, yes - because that is talking about different societies! This is a flaw with 'Social Standing' as a characteristic - its very definition in MgT is 'A character's place in society.'

Ignoring the fact that Core is supposed to be setting independent - even the OTU is made up of numerous societies as reflected in the UWP Government Codes. So, Social Standing doesn't even work as such in the OTU. To be fair, there is a provision for dealing with aliens on pg 41 - it may not apply, or for different concepts halves the DMs (crude to say the least). However, this still fails to deal with the differences in human societies.

The simple solution is redefining Social Standing to be an ability (and drop the 'Standing') - like all the other characteristics*. This then speaks to a general ability to deal with others - skirting the society issues entirely. Setting specific aspects (ex: cultural and species) being handled by DMs as needed - just like any other task check.

Thus, the career lowlife will have an advantage over the esteemed noble if his ability to deal with others (i.e. Social ability) is higher than the noble. Likewise, a lower titled noble with higher ability will more likely 'win' against a higher ranked noble (though politics and other aspects may come into play). This is the situation that the current Social Standing concept fails at in relation to the game mechanics. Also, titles can be taken away or artificially acquired - shouldn't change character ability. Not to say such shouldn't impact the odds to get things done in certain situations, but such is a conditional that is not suitable for a characteristic and the task mechanic and is something the Ref should explicitly control via other mechanics (i.e. difficulty or situational modifier). In other words, the smooth talking character should have an added edge when also having a title (real or otherwise) in situations where such would matter. (Likewise, if he tries to use the benefits of nobility, and the locales are in a revolution - he may find himself in rather an unpleasant bind. Better hope his Soc is high enough to help him talk his way out of it!)

The above, I hope, demonstrates the the weakness of having Social Standing preform a dual role of social ability and nobility ranking.

*Example: Edu does not denote any specific level of formal education. If it did, it would contradict the college option in many of the career books. It does affect the ability (via odds) to get into college in those other books.

 

[GypsyComet]

*Example: Edu does not denote any specific level of formal education. If it did, it would contradict the college option in many of the career books. It does affect the ability (via odds) to get into college in those other books.

Because getting into and through college is not the same as learning anything there.

 

[BP]

That too! :lol:

 

[atpollard]

Thus, the career lowlife will have an advantage over the esteemed noble if his ability to deal with others (i.e. Social ability) is higher than the noble.

Do you really believe that there exists a chance that a man holding a "will work for food" sign on a street corner has better odds of talking you into investing your retirement savings in a new project than a member of Congress or Parliment that you meet at your CEO's dinner party ... no matter how smoothe a tongue the "career lowlife" has?