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

[atpollard]

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.

I think that this hits the nail on the head (with one caviat) ... Citizens of democracies who deal with government agencies for a living experience it every day.

As a land planner, I recently worked on a project for the Department of Homeland Security. When the Homeland Security guidelines contradicted local landscape codes (which hold the authority of being County Laws), the local laws were simply waved with a note that the local Homeland Security Officer had decided that it needed to be landscaped 'per the plans' (No Trees or Shrubs within 100 feet of the structure.) That was the end of the discussion.

Compare that to the permits for a prominent sports figure's house, where those same officials required a variance involving 4 months work of drawings and correspondence to deviate from that same code. The Sheriff's Officer with federal training (the local Homeland Security Officer) was definitely not more charismatic than the sports figure. The 'power' and 'authority' comes with the title and position ... just like Traveller Nobility.

 

[BP]

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?

Most definitely. (emphasis mine)

Neither would happen in my case - but its possible the 'will work for food' guy is more convincing and for a fact, I would not trust the member of Congress or Parliment (or most CEOs) because of their position.

Now turn that around and the problem with Social Standing should be obvious - the fumble tongued, spoiled and aloof official met on the street corner bearing such a sign automatically has the advantage over the smooth talking 'career lowlife' who stole an expensive suit and managed to get into a highfalutin shindig!

Of course, its not just characteristics and skill DMs - there are situational ones as well and obviously both these examples would call for them. However, the fact remains that Social Standing is conditionally good or bad. The 'commoner' may obey nobility out of fear when reprisal is likely - or disdain them when not, while the 'lowlife' may not care - or may care more. And then there is the whole different society aspects. Rule mechanics wise we are left with Int driving smooth talking and people skills.

 

[dronjohny]

I prefer Drow Nobles... Because it handle easy and it automatically allowed for play? Drow noble have higher CR when we compare a with standard PC race.

 

[rust]

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.
(...)
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.

This describes a certain kind of medieval society, but only a specific part
of it. It was more or less true for people living on the noble's fief, but less
so for those subject to another noble, and not at all for those living in one
of the free cities - there the noble had to defer to the local patrician fami-
lies, and his noble rank did not mean much to them, unless he fielded the
military power necessary to impress them (which was more a matter of a
full war chest than of social standing).

To give a real world example, my hometown was an Imperial City. It res-
pected only the emperor (most of time, it did rebel rather often), it did ha-
ve no local nobility, and outsider nobles were used as hired commanders of
the city's army because they had the necessary training for such posts. No
matter their title, being a mercenary officer far below in social standing to
the mayor, to any patrician and even to the leaders of the local guilds was
the best they could hope to become - the noble in command of the watch
would have had to bow (deeply) to the guild master of the weavers. (*)

Back to Traveller, unlike any other attribute of the noble his social standing
would change with the social environment, even passing through a gate
could eliminate a positive modifier or even turn in into a negative one (no
fun to be an "aristo" during a peasants' rebellion or revolution). The same
is true for other kinds of social standing, the megacorporation CEO has not
much social standing among the members of the communist party, and the
basketball superstar will find it hard to impress a villager in Yemen.

This leaves it to the referee to decide what the actual social standing (and
modifier resulting from it) is in any specific situation, which makes the at-
tribute far more useless than all the other ones - if I have to decide about
its real value in any specific situation anyway, I can just as well do without
it or replace it with an attribute for the basic social abilities which do not
change whenever the social environment changes.

(*) The famous Götz von Berlichingen once molested some of the city's mer-
chants. The city had him captured, imprisoned him for almost two years and
only released him after he made a vow never again to leave his castle and ne-
ver again to ride a horse. He did as told for quite a while, knowing what those
angry commoners would do to him otherwise ...

 

[rust]

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?

It depends entirely on the situation when, where and under which
circumstances I meet these two. A member of parliament does not
necessarily know more about investments than someone who lost
his job because his superiors (potentially including the member of
parliament ...) made an incredibly stupid decision. If I would meet
these two in a neutral environment, I would be more or less im-
pressed by their arguments and how they present them (knowled-
ge and social skills), but not by their social standing - I have met
far too many morons in high positions and know of too many how
they got there to care for social standing as such.

 

[atpollard]

If I would meet
these two in a neutral environment, I would be more or less im-
pressed by their arguments and how they present them (knowled-
ge and social skills), but not by their social standing - I have met
far too many morons in high positions and know of too many how
they got there to care for social standing as such.

What Traveller game mechanic would you say reflects "social skills" if not their "SOC" Characteristic?



Some people are either not being intellectually honest in this discussion, or they dwell on a world completely alien to me.
I meet homeless people fairly frequently as part of my job, and generally find them friendly, drunk or high, and frequently suffering from a mental illness.
I also meet Rotarians and owners of (both large and small) businesses fairly frequently as part of my job, and generally find them busy, intelligent, stubborn and frequently full of themselves.

I would argue that these two groups represent the essence of Traveller SOC. Neither group are 'noble', but they are clearly not part of the same socioeconomic group. The homeless are closer to SOC 2 than average and the Business Owners are closer to SOC C than average. The claim that members of both groups have equal chances of scheduling a meeting with the mayor or being stopped and questioned by a police officer (typical uses of a SOC characteristic) seems unimaginable.

Does this mean that there are no low SOC individuals who are persuasive (entitled to a positive DM)?
Absolutely not! However, I suggest that such an individual is an exception rather than the norm.
Being dressed (and smelling) like a homeless alcoholic entitles one to the negative DM for a low SOC, even if a high 'PERSUATION' skill ultimately offsets that SOC disadvantage and yields a net positive modifier.

 

[rust]

What Traveller game mechanic would you say reflects "social skills" if not their "SOC" Characteristic?

I think that Traveller lacks a convincing game mechanic for social
interaction, there is no attribute or other stat which really covers
a character's "social aptitude" as the source of modifiers for his
social skills.

To use your example of homeless and Rotarians, the members of
both groups interact with other members of the same group, and
with the same SOC for all members of each group (lowest for all
homeless, much higher for all Rotarians) all the members of each
group get the same (negative for the homeless, positive for the
Rotarians) modifier for their social skills. I think we could agree
that this is far from realistic, even within each group there certain-
ly are differences between those with a high social aptitude and
those with a low social aptitude - the homeless John A may have
the same SOC as the homeless John B, but one may have a way
with people while the other is a true sociopath.

The claim that members of both groups have equal chances of scheduling a meeting with the mayor ...

This must be a cultural thing, over here a mayor who would refuse
to meet a homeless person, or who would give the impression that
he intentionally makes it difficult for this person to meet him, could
just as well step down immediately. He will try to let his staff handle
things, but if the homeless person insists on a meeting, there will be
a meeting (and probably someone from the press present to make a
nice picture).

 

[BP]

...Some people are either not being intellectually honest in this discussion, or they dwell on a world completely alien to me.

Not at all. There is a difference between social skill and social level.

...The claim that members of both groups have equal chances of scheduling a meeting with the mayor or being stopped and questioned by a police officer (typical uses of a SOC characteristic) seems unimaginable. ...

That is mixing up appearance (and chemical influences) with innate or learned social ability. Obviously, that would require a situational modifier - but not a character modifier, since that would mean their 'base potential' changed with their outfit.

How many times have you seen a police officer stop and question a homeless person who wasn't where they didn't belong (which they would often be by their nature) or doing something questionable in a public place? I've seen plenty of police officers stop and question folks of means (I've also worked in a police station). Officers I've known are specifically trained, and very good, at not being biased or type casting in this way - as crime of all types crosses all social strata.

In game, a mayor who held nobility in high esteem, yes would likely be more amenable to a socialite. But, likewise, a mayor in a different government - a mayor 'of the people' - might be biased against a high social level. A people person, on the other hand, is likely to get a positive response regardless of the mayor's views (i.e. would be more likely to pick up on them and capitalize to their advantage).

...Does this mean that there are no low SOC individuals who are persuasive (entitled to a positive DM)?
Absolutely not! However, I suggest that such an individual is an exception rather than the norm.

Plenty of people in low income areas are plenty persuasive. I find it no more exceptional than with the higher social strata. This is a people thing that is not tied to status. I can't even see that having money makes it easier - many folks with money seem to be jerks just because they have money - and many are not. Depending on the situation, this may or may not be an advantage - depends mostly on their 'ability' to handle people. Again, their people skills may allow them to take advantage of their status - but, their status doesn't innately give them people skills.

...Being dressed (and smelling) like a homeless alcoholic entitles one to the negative DM for a low SOC, even if a high 'PERSUATION' skill ultimately offsets that SOC disadvantage and yields a net positive modifier.

So, simple ingame example: A Duke dressed as a homeless alcoholic? Does he automatically get a low SOC and is no longer a Duke?

At the formal ball - negative DMs surely (unless its a costume ball)!
Hitting the slums for info - positive DM for blending in, or would you disagree?

Now, the DMs above would be situational and outside a characteristic DM. What the Social Standing mechanic fails to do in this case is tell you how good the Duke would be at playing the role - in fact, one would presume he would have a harder time Persuade-ing when dealing with the homeless because of his normal social level.

 

[Hans Rancke]

Not at all. There is a difference between social skill and social level.

And this is the crucial point. Soc denotes social level, so the reaction bonus you get from Soc is NOT a bonus for having good social skill or charm. Unfortunately, Traveller doesn't have any way to represent social skill or charm. So it's natural to use 'Soc' for this purpose, but it's a fallacy. Of the six basic attributes, I think 'Int' would be closest to something that wasn't wildly wrong. (Not that intelligence is all that correct, mind you).

It doesn't help that the effect you get from people who are impressed with your social level (the Toady Effect, as it were, although that's a bit unfair, but I can't think of a better term) often overlaps the effect you get from being a charming fellow (the Joviality Effect ;-)). But you get those similar effects by two entirely different processes, and there are times where one effect apply and the other one doesn't.

You can't decouple Social Level from social level without changing it and renaning it (say, Charm). And then you'll have to introduce some other way for social level to manifest.

That's not a bad idea, BTW. Changing the sixth basic attribute from an external condition to an innate characteristic would make it more like the other five attributes. But it does require a drastic rules revision.

Perhaps one could have both Charm, Social Skill (e.g. Social-3), and Social Level, the last as much a part of the character as a military rank would be and no more.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

Another thing that'd be good to have for social tasks is a way to gauge an npc's hostility as a result of these social tasks. This might be something similar to npc reaction rolls from other versions, such as Gurps, etc.
Also, this may be separate from 'success' or 'failure' in some tasks.
For example, to get information out of someone...
_ The target is friendly and sympathetic to your cause but won't talk because he is not a rat/stool-pidgeon, or because someone else, who he can't talk about, has something on him, blackmail or extortion, etc.
_the target is openly hostile but talks out of fear or coercion.

Friendliness or hostility levels will affect future interactions with the target
hostility level can reach a point which triggers a fight/flight response thus changing the situation from talk, to combat or a chase.

Even if we handle this differently in-game, I think most of us agree that social aptitude is different from social standing, and that the social standing dm is based, not on what the character's actual soc really is, but on what the target npc thinks it really is.

 

[BP]

...
That's not a bad idea, BTW. Changing the sixth basic attribute from an external condition to an innate characteristic would make it more like the other five attributes. But it does require a drastic rules revision.

For MgT Core, minimally drop the word 'Standing' and change the one line definition from 'A character's place in society.' to 'A character's ability to interact.' Done. The nobility text is stated as an optional thing anyway, and stated as 'in the Imperium'. Sure, it could also be added to several skills (Deception, IIRC) and its meaning changes subtly in chargen for those careers that use it - but not in any real way. (Expect Dilettante makes more use of it and some character books may make use of it in a way that is dependent on standing).

Of course, official rules will not change - they have been printed and in the broader Traveller world have been broken with respect to the intent and use of characteristics for over 30 years and not errata-ed. I have never had a problem ignoring the 'level' and title aspects and using Soc as a useful and valid characteristic.

Military rank, for most careers, is ignored by the RAW. I've always handled such things as rank, social level (including nobility), and authority with situational DMs (when rolls are even appropriate). A high level cop may have an advantage in dealing with normal civilians - but at a disadvantage when alone in the slums. A General may do well in a military town - but badly amongst thugs in a bar. A Knight may do good in a feudal or imperialistic culture, but be ignored for such in any other culture. It all depends.