Pensions

[Habibo]

On the Pensions benefits chart it goes up to 9 but the classes only go to six so can you just keep rolling even though there are no official levels.

 

[allanimal]

On the Pensions benefits chart it goes up to 9 but the classes only go to six

Pensions are based on the number of terms served in a career, not the rank (what I assume you mean by "classes only go to six")

so can you just keep rolling even though there are no official levels.

I don't think there is anything from stopping you continuing in a career even after you reach the highest rank. The rules are unclear whether you can continue to get promoted after you reach rank 6. It should be clarified.

 

[-Daniel-]

On the Pensions benefits chart it goes up to 9 but the classes only go to six so can you just keep rolling even though there are no official levels.

Why do you believe a Career can only go through six terms?

 

[Habibo]

well the scout and scholar career only go up to rank 6 which i guess is the 7 terms not six.

 

[allanimal]

well the scout and scholar career only go up to rank 6 which i guess is the 7 terms not six.

Rank and number of terms are not equivalent.
* if you don't pass your advancement roll, your rank will be less than your terms
* some events can enable multiple promotions in one term
* a commission after earning non-commissioned ranks in a military career can make these diverge as well.
* probably other things too...

Bottom line, you could be rank 0 in a career and served 8 terms. (Really unlucky on those promotion rolls) You would get a pension based on the terms, not the rank.

 

[-Daniel-]

well the scout and scholar career only go up to rank 6 which i guess is the 7 terms not six.

allanimal has already outlined most of what I would have shared. A Rank is not some form of leveling up indication. I have a five term merchant for example that only made it to rank 2 because of poor rolls. But I will also say the idea of a 9+ term character is something I have never attempted.

 

[cavebear]

I was wondering about the "Golden Handshake". The 4 term marine combat vet who retires as a Sergeant should not get the same pension as a 4 term Lieutenant Colonel. It should not just be about terms but about rank or "position" for non-military careers. After all, life is not fair and the character with a higher "position" like an executive (or officer) will get a better pension than the janitor (even though the janitor is really good...). Could there be something to deal with that?

Just a thought.

 

[grauenwolf]

I am of mixed feelings about that. In theory you could do something like Rank+Terms, but also keep in mind that a high rank also gets bonuses to all his roles for cash and goods. That means he is more likely to get ship shares, which are directly usable or convertible into a larger pension.

 

[cavebear]

I am of mixed feelings about that. In theory you could do something like Rank+Terms, but also keep in mind that a high rank also gets bonuses to all his roles for cash and goods. That means he is more likely to get ship shares, which are directly usable or convertible into a larger pension.

I understand completely. What you said made me do some thinking about some of my own assumptions about the disparity of "pensions", "Bonuses" (when leaving a position) and other "Golden Handshakes".

It could be that after so many decades of insanely crazy wages for senior management in so many companies that I have let that colour my thinking a little. Perhaps in the far "Traveller" future when people have the ability to move parsecs for different jobs (mega-corporations anyone?) that the wage difference between the top and the bottom have narrowed to the point that there is only two to four times the wage difference...

Excepting the hugely wealthy corporate owners/operators who would of course be making tons more than the common workers. They of course are the usual patrons for the game anyway

 

[CosmicGamer]

Personally I felt that in the future where people likely live a bit longer, a retirement at 48 seamed a bit odd.

For the 3I and military or government jobs, one could say that it is a flat rate retirement pay made available to all who serve at least 5 terms.

But with all the possible worlds and all the possible jobs and all the possible ranks and a variable amount of time in the career.... Retirement could get quite complicated real quick. And the goal is to adventure and play accountants in space not accountants managing their retirement funds from their rocking chairs.

 

[cavebear]

Personally I felt that in the future where people likely live a bit longer, a retirement at 48 seamed a bit odd.

For the 3I and military or government jobs, one could say that it is a flat rate retirement pay made available to all who serve at least 5 terms.

But with all the possible worlds and all the possible jobs and all the possible ranks and a variable amount of time in the career.... Retirement could get quite complicated real quick. And the goal is to adventure and play accountants in space not accountants managing their retirement funds from their rocking chairs.

I've taken a bit from the Clement Sector and adjusted the average life span to 250 years. After all, given 37 more centuries and a long history of learning how to deal with radiation in space and all the other issues you can imagine we would have to deal with out there, life spans are bound to change.

Most people would never leave the original home planet and those that do would probably end up depending on advanced genetic engineering to over come a host of issues (that is, genetically modifying sperm and egg in the lab before implanting viable embryo's back into the womb). One of those would be (in my opinion) increasing life span.

Now after a few centuries of genetically modified humans filling up the home system before discovering faster than light travel, it would be these modified humans that would be the explorers and colonists that explode out into the galaxy.

Over the next few millennium they would only get tougher and have their life spans increased as they modify their children to overcome even more obstacles.

So yeah, when even we do not retire until our late 60's why on earth would anyone retire at that age if they are going to live for 250 years? I would say they just move from one interesting career to another. Perhaps get bored and just want to explore or challenge themselves in some other way.

BTW, when the whole human population except those that never left the human home world (and probably never had their children modified) have been genetically engineered to be tough as nails, smart and live as long as 250 years, even a planet full of people that has been colonized for a thousand years, the poor and down trodden are going to be survival machines compared to those on the home system. They are not stupid but may not always be educated if their planet is poor or has gone through some catastrophe and the education system has collapsed. They are not weak, they are going to be able to survive that which would presently kill us.

 

[-Daniel-]

So yeah, when even we do not retire until our late 60's why on earth would anyone retire at that age if they are going to live for 250 years? I would say they just move from one interesting career to another. Perhaps get bored and just want to explore or challenge themselves in some other way.

I would agree with this overall idea, but it requires the effects of ageing must be changed from the present start at 34 years of age. Otherwise the physical impact on someone would be the same regardless of a life span of 90 years or 250 years. I mean why extend the life span to 250 years if I am going into "Ageing Crisis" long, long before that. 8)

 

[cavebear]

So yeah, when even we do not retire until our late 60's why on earth would anyone retire at that age if they are going to live for 250 years? I would say they just move from one interesting career to another. Perhaps get bored and just want to explore or challenge themselves in some other way.

I would agree with this overall idea, but it requires the effects of ageing must be changed from the present start at 34 years of age. Otherwise the physical impact on someone would be the same regardless of a life span of 90 years or 250 years. I mean why extend the life span to 250 years if I am going into "Ageing Crisis" long, long before that. 8)

Yep. Again I took a little hint from the Clement Sector and do not bother with aging rolls at the beginning of a characters play time.

There is enough that can kill off the characters without resorting to dying of old age! :lol:

 

[-Daniel-]

Yep. Again I took a little hint from the Clement Sector and do not bother with aging rolls at the beginning of a characters play time.

There is enough that can kill off the characters without resorting to dying of old age! :lol:

Amen to that, lots of options for end of life. :lol:

 

[grauenwolf]

Retiring at 48 isn't a great idea, as the pension will still be less than your cost of living. It's more like a small retirement fund at that point.

 

[cavebear]

Retiring at 48 isn't a great idea, as the pension will still be less than your cost of living. It's more like a small retirement fund at that point.

Totally agree. I was just rolling up characters for fun and ended up with a Navy/Line/Crew member who after 6 terms left and had been granted that SOC 10 (started out with SOC 4) and low and behold he now has a monthly living cost of 2,500 cr/month and a pension of only 12,000 cr/year so he had better hustle like a Hollywood streetwalker if he wants to keep up his life style as he is 18,000 cr/year short. Good thing he is a decent pilot as that 6,000 cr/month is going to come in really handy! :mrgreen: