How powerful are T5 dukes?

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Wow, I just don't know where to start...

The problem is the one I expanded on in my next paragraph. That the rich noble has a disproportionate amount of problem-solving ability. Harry is going to be the one who takes the lead here[*]. Tom, Dick and Sally never really got anything for their characters to do. (Sally? She's the one with the ex-marine combat-oriented character).

[*] Just as in the aforementioned AD&D campaign, the level 12 character is going to take the lead with most problems that isn't specifically tailored to one of the level 1 characters.​

Again, you keep conflating Title with Magic Powers. First off, I said I start with the lawyer, then we have other things to throw at them. So, Duke of Snarglepuss hired some bodyguards, fine, first things is Sally is now Chief of Security and second she can be the face when the bodyguards shoot up a bunch of folks and the police get all sorts of involved. Or she can make sure that doesn't get done by proper use of her Marine combat and leadership skills. Not to mention which being the dude with the antenna following you tends to attract the wrong sort of attention when the fighting starts. :devil: Truth is it has been along time since I read that Adventure and I never ran it so, I don't recall all the other possible ways that I could deal with a Duke and his friends.

I wouldn't have that option with my old batch of players. I've already run an Exit Visa style adventure, and my players made it clear to me that if I ever pulled anything like that again, they'd strike.

Well, that as they say in the Army sounds like a personal problem to me, soldier.

But if I did run the lawyer like that, who'd be the lead character in running the bureaucratic maze? Harry's, that's who.

Not if Dick or Tom has a way better Advocate (old CT Legal) Skill now doesn't it. If Harry doesn't speak the lingo, well again that is what friends are for, right crew mate?

Unless the lawyer likes to earn money.

Believe it or not there are people, lawyers even, who are motivated by things other than large sum of money. No, really it's true, I know I am one.

No, he can't. That was what I tried to explain. Problems that Harry's character can handle, the other players' characters need not contribute to. And problems that Harry's character can't handle, he can hire people to help him with.

You know, the more you describe the way that Harry keeps using his magic title and out sourcing everything, well, he sounds like a dick and I have to wonder why the other people are even with him. I mean around these parts he who has the wealth shares its bounties with his friends and crew mates before turning to others he knows not. In other words the whole reason these people are even together is they are friends and they use the group's resource before hiring out. Again, I freely admit to being weird and so may not be the best example.

Which is why I use the terms 'somewhat analogous' and 'the analogy is not perfect', hoping that you wouldn't insist on taking the analogy absolutely literally but instead think about how it was somewhat analogous. To wit: That the rich noble character (~the level 12 character) can handle a lot of problems (~combats) better than any of the other characters (~the level 1 characters). Not all problems, but a disproportionate number of them.

Well, then you could do that radical thing and not make everything a combat. Crazy, but it does happen. Hell, my D&D group spent far more time role-playing our hanging out in our house of Cherry Street partying, training, playing in the local politics, finding the nice restaurants in the hood, and basically living than we did fighting stuff. We went out to kill "monsters' and take their stuff when we were bored and wanted a challenge.

And I am not big on alalogy I guess, not an English major, so yeah, I took it literally. I play both games (well, I play D&D/Pathfinder and run T5) and to me they are two entirely different games and styles of play. Also, I would just make sure to do stuff that the 1st level folks can do, such certain class guild stuff. On the other hand I don't know how you got such a party together in the first place. Sort of like I don't understand how the Marine General is somehow a first level character next to a Duke when they are much closer than that.

Not big enough.

To you perhaps, but to me, way big.

Because they appear to me to require the noble to stay at home and handle problems that I don't find exciting.

And again we get to that Army phrase from above. Oh, that also means that you too can be Rent Lord. So, go gallavant about the Galaxy and take your CrImps. But then when you try and see the Marquis Leonard, expect to wait behind Coronel Sir Mitchell Connors, KE, MCG while they discuss the System Defense Budget 1106 1st Quarter. :smirk:

Oh, I'm sure that if I was handling a Cuban Missile Crisis, I'd feel the adrenaline pumping. But what's the rest of my party doing in the meantime?

"Well, Mister President, Secretary of Defense Sally thinks you should be prepared to blow up some Russians. Secretary of State Tom says you should keep on the Red Phone and most decidedly not blow up some Russians. Meanwhile CIA Director Dick has some very nice new U-2 and RF-8 photo-reconnissance pics that sure the hell look like Russian surface to surface missile launcher on the decks of some Russian freighters.

So, who are you seeing first Mister President?"

You'll be running in a typical Traveller campaign then? Not a campaign tailored to the baronet with the other PCs playing second fiddle to him?

To quote a random twelve year old on the internet, "Well, duh!". Okay, I don't know about typical, but focused soley on a newly minted Baronet, no.

(Yes, I know that's not what you said. But it's what I said nobles were unsuitable for: Typical Traveller campaigns. Pointing out that it's possible to run an atypical campaign for a noble (as long as the other players are content to be his retainers) doesn't refute that).

Dude, I am sorry, but truth is "typical" just isn't how I roll. "Typical" for me equals playing a working Noble for you. Boring as snot. Also, you keep acting like the other players automatically have to be working for the Duke, not say another player or just be players of the same caliber as the Duke. Just because they hang out together doesn't make the other people his Retainers. I mean unless they decide to run it that way, which is cool, but a group decision. My Count for instance is part of a crew, not as the leader. He does have his own Packet Yacht, but the Captain of the ISS Sexy is approaching the closest thing the party has to a "Leader" and that is just because it is his ship.

So? They're still peers, they're still 'One Of Us'. That's how nobilities have worked in all the historical societies I know of.

Well, that is nice, but I am not a history major, so I feel free to make my Peerage of the Pretend Distant Future a form of meritocracy. No workie, no privileges.

Oh, I quite agree. I just don't agree that it will come down to a choice. I think the working noble will come in first and THEN the rent noble will come in afterwards. Unless he happens to show up on the day the news of the next Zhodani attack arrives. But a referee can scarcely use a new Zhodani attack every time his player tries to get to see the local lord.

No doubt, that was but a singular example. My point is that the Marquis Leonard has got a schedule booked up for like the next month solid easy and maybe as far three if he is particularly busy. What I mean is Titles aren't magic powers that destroy all barriers in the way of the Noble bearing them. They can be hassled, snubbed and possibly ignored quite safely depending on all sorts of variables.

That too. Which is why I was careful to use the qualifier 'typical'. And by 'typical' I mean as in just about every campaign ever published.

Yeah, again we get to that "typical", I think this is our biggest stumbling block. You love 'em, I rarely use them. *shrugs* Such is life. Good thing too or the world would be a lot more boring.

Just to sum up: The big problem with a rich noble is that he has a disproportionate amount of problem-solving ability. Not only does he take the leade in many social situations, he can also hire hirelings and accumulate henchmen that can infringe on the spheres of the other PCs. What's the use of Tom's character having Astrogation-2 if Harry's can hire someone with Astrogation-4? That was what I tried to show in my example. Instead of the team having to break into the museum, the rich noble had several less dangerous options.


Hans

And again, I say if he is hiring out as opposed to helping his crew your Duke is a butt-munch (personal opinion only) and I am fine and dandy with my players taking the less dangerous option, probably since I am a bit of coward so I too take the less dangerous method. Me and Wash, baby: "Can't we find a less violent solution to this?". So, I am always fine with my players taking a more rational approach to a problem.

Me, as a Player in that adventure would have taken the poor Vargr to the cops to explain the situation, I am not breaking and entering on the behalf of some poor sap who got jacked up in Startown. If I did that I might get involved in something hinky and then I got all sorts of problems. And I like my Titles.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

And there is this.

Then the ref disallows the character. Ref runs the game. Such has it ever been.

We don't have a "Living Traveller" RPGA thing going (though that might be nice and would pressure a final, and hopefully workable, answer on the effect of Soc B+).

As far as a rich player having disproportionate problem-solving power, that's essentially true. But the craft of game mastering has a long history of separating characters from their stuff (including connections) to draw upon.

Noble Adventurer hires someone with Astrogator-4. Damn, turned out to be a pirate.

Hires a bunch of bodyguards. Damn, they really work for someone else. Or, they're opportunists and rob the noble and friends. Or, they're inadvertently made hostile due to a cultural faux pas and now the Noble Adventurer is blamed for an interstellar political incident and is persona non grata in the system, or has to do some crappy, non-profitable, and probably dangerous task for a superior noble.

Tries to buy the museum or sue. Damn, now he's pissed off someone with more money and more local connections (and "all politics is local"). The macguffin gets stolen back. Or it was fake all along (someone already stole it and the Noble gets blamed). Or Gvoudon thinks they're trying to swindle him so he turns on them.

These are Referee problems. If the referee doesn't want to deal with rich Noble Adventurer problems, don't allow Noble Adventurers. There is no problem here.

All very nice solutions. I like your style, Bloo.

 

[Bloo]

All very nice solutions. I like your style, Bloo.

... he sounds like a dick

Ditto.

Also, I just steal.

When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I didn't mention the Term limits for Nobles.

I completely forgot to point out one potential flaw in solving the problem of a rich noble player character by tailoring the campaign to suit a rich noble character: what if the referee doesn't want to run a campaign tailored for a rich noble character?

"Let's run a free trader campaign. Roll up your characters."

"I'm afraid you can't run a free trader campaign. I rolled up a rich noble, and he'd be totally unsuitable for such a campaign. So I guess you'll have to scrap your campaign and come up with another one."​

Hans

First off, that player might need to be reminded who the Ref is.

Second there is such a thing as telling them there are limits on how far up the Peerage you will let them go. Also you could remind them this is a Merchant campaign (you did say Free Trader) so CT: Supplement 4 character or T5 non-Merchant Career are not allowed. You know sort of like if you are running Merc campaign where everyone is a member of the military unit.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

TORG!

Ditto.

Also, I just steal.

Originally Posted by Raymond Chandler
When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.

Yeah, in TORG it was Nile Empire Stormtroopers. Man, I hated them. And in a fantasy-horror game it was monsters and scrying eyes.

 

[rancke]

Then the ref disallows the character. Ref runs the game. Such has it ever been.

You're missing both points here. Firstly, the default Traveller campaign involves taking randomly generated characters and running them as a bunch of wandering adventurers. As such, you can (or ought to be able to) use whatever the character generation system throws up. Except rich people with high social levels. There are other campaigns types where some characters are unsuitable. For a mercenary campaign you need fit characters with combat skills. But that doesn't mean you can't use fit characters with combat skills for wandering adventurers. For a free trader campaign, you need people with shipboard skills (mostly). But that doesn't mean you can't use people with shipboard skills as wandering adventurers. For a professional troubleshooter campaign you need characters that would be hired as professional troubleshooter. But that doesn't mean you can't use characters who can get jobs as professional troubleshooters as wandering adventurers.

Secondly, a rich PC has disproportionate problem-solving power.

As far as a rich player having disproportionate problem-solving power, that's essentially true. But the craft of game mastering has a long history of separating characters from their stuff (including connections) to draw upon.

Which is fine for occasional use. But not as a constantly occuring theme.

Noble Adventurer hires someone with Astrogator-4. Damn, turned out to be a pirate.

Always a concern. Which is why one would keep an eye on the hireling, of course.

Hires a bunch of bodyguards. Damn, they really work for someone else. Or, they're opportunists and rob the noble and friends.

There are ways to guard against that sort of thing. To start with you hire your help one at a time and do background checks.

Or, they're inadvertently made hostile due to a cultural faux pas and now the Noble Adventurer is blamed for an interstellar political incident and is persona non grata in the system, or has to do some crappy, non-profitable, and probably dangerous task for a superior noble.

As opposed to trying to break into the museum, get caught, and be bunged up in prison for five to ten. No, wait, that won't happen because the referee is going to give the PCs a fair (or more than fair) chance to succeed. So why do you feel it's OK for him to decree by fiat that the noble adventurer will automatically fail? That's really bad refereeing.

Tries to buy the museum or sue. Damn, now he's pissed off someone with more money and more local connections (and "all politics is local").

Automatically or does the referee make a reaction roll for the NPC?

The macguffin gets stolen back.

Automatically? Or does the referee roll to see if the hired guards are the loyal types?

Or it was fake all along (someone already stole it and the Noble gets blamed).

So if the players use the referee-approved way to get the mcguffin it is genuine but if they use a non-approved way to get it, it's fake?

Or Gvoudon thinks they're trying to swindle him so he turns on them.

So if the players use the referee-approved way to get the mcguffin Gvoudzon trusts them but if they use a non-approved way to get it, he automatically gets suspicious?

How very railroady.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Again, you keep conflating Title with Magic Powers.

No, I correlate Imperial peerages with social prominence and being rich with having money to spend.

First off, I said I start with the lawyer, then we have other things to throw at them. So, Duke of Snarglepuss hired some bodyguards, fine, first things is Sally is now Chief of Security and second she can be the face when the bodyguards shoot up a bunch of folks and the police get all sorts of involved. Or she can make sure that doesn't get done by proper use of her Marine combat and leadership skills. Not to mention which being the dude with the antenna following you tends to attract the wrong sort of attention when the fighting starts. :devil: Truth is it has been along time since I read that Adventure and I never ran it so, I don't recall all the other possible ways that I could deal with a Duke and his friends.

You could always try a radical approach and actually allow the players to have a fair chance of success when they use their characters' advantages.

Not if Dick or Tom has a way better Advocate (old CT Legal) Skill now doesn't it.

No, not if Dick or Tom has a way better advocate skill and a licence to practice law on Aramis and a solid network of contacts. In that case Dick or Tom gets to be the lead. In this particular situations. 'A disproportionate amount of problem-solving ability' doesn't preclude the other PCs occasionally being better at some thing. It just means that a disproportionate number of times they won't be.

If Harry doesn't speak the lingo, well again that is what friends are for, right crew mate?

Now why would Harry not speak Galanglic?

Believe it or not there are people, lawyers even, who are motivated by things other than large sum of money. No, really it's true, I know I am one.

I believe you. I just don't see why the best lawyer in Leedor should have any motive to turn down an opportunity to make money. Unless he's too busy, I suppose, in which case Harry will just have to go to the second best.

You know, the more you describe the way that Harry keeps using his magic title and out sourcing everything, well, he sounds like a dick and I have to wonder why the other people are even with him. I mean around these parts he who has the wealth shares its bounties with his friends and crew mates before turning to others he knows not.

Who says what now? Harry is being the soul of generosity. His character is using his money and social position to solve the party's problems. Why would Tom, Dick and Sally's characters object to that? Tom, Dick, and Sally may be finding the game boring, but that's precisely the problem I've claimed rich nobles cause.

As for Harry being a good sport and letting Tom, Dick, and Sally run unnecessary risks and have fun, I addressed that in an earlier post:

How many players have you known that didn't take full advantage of any and all advantages their characters had? And if you have to require your players to fail to avail themselves of their advantages in order to make a campaign work, what's the point of letting them have those advantages in the first place?

Well, then you could do that radical thing and not make everything a combat. Crazy, but it does happen. Hell, my D&D group spent far more time role-playing our hanging out in our house of Cherry Street partying, training, playing in the local politics, finding the nice restaurants in the hood, and basically living than we did fighting stuff. We went out to kill "monsters' and take their stuff when we were bored and wanted a challenge.

Didn't you just the other post claim that D&D was all about the combat?

On the other hand I don't know how you got such a party together in the first place.

One player got lucky with his die rolls in character generation.

Sort of like I don't understand how the Marine General is somehow a first level character next to a Duke when they are much closer than that.

That's quite true. If all the other players got lucky with the die rolls and got themselves retire generals and admirals, the party would be a bit more balanced because they would have their own social prominence. And if they also had an annual income of a couple of megacredits, they'd be in the same ballpark, sure enough.

Meanwhile, back where the dice aren't loaded...

And again we get to that Army phrase from above. Oh, that also means that you too can be Rent Lord. So, go gallavant about the Galaxy and take your CrImps. But then when you try and see the Marquis Leonard, expect to wait behind Coronel Sir Mitchell Connors, KE, MCG while they discuss the System Defense Budget 1106 1st Quarter. :smirk:

Not unless the defense budget is really, really urgent. That's not how nobilities work. But even if it worked like you posit, what's the problem? Harry just waits the five seconds it takes for the referee to say "You have to wait two hours to get an audience" and we've arrived at the audience.

Dude, I am sorry, but truth is "typical" just isn't how I roll.

Then why ask about what the problem is in the first place?

Also, you keep acting like the other players automatically have to be working for the Duke, not say another player or just be players of the same caliber as the Duke.

I keep assuming that the odds of a randomly generated character not being the same caliber as a duke are quite high.

Well, that is nice, but I am not a history major, so I feel free to make my Peerage of the Pretend Distant Future a form of meritocracy. No workie, no privileges.

I don't see how that would work, anyway. Do you keep the duke at home doing his ducal duties half the time while the rest of the party are off on adventures?

No doubt, that was but a singular example. My point is that the Marquis Leonard has got a schedule booked up for like the next month solid easy and maybe as far three if he is particularly busy. What I mean is Titles aren't magic powers that destroy all barriers in the way of the Noble bearing them. They can be hassled, snubbed and possibly ignored quite safely depending on all sorts of variables.

And my point is that that's exactly how titles do work in societies with nobilities. When a peer asks for an audience, you clear your shedule enough to squeeze him in. Indeed, that's how social prominence works in any society. If a rent noble is not prominent enough to get squeezed in, his social rank is not that high in the first place.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Second there is such a thing as telling them there are limits on how far up the Peerage you will let them go.

Indeed there is. And limits to how much spending money I'm prepared to let them have. And those limits preclude filthy rich people in general, people with Imperial level social prominence, and people with duties that would interfere with their role in my campaign.


Hans

 

[Jazzlvraz]

...the default Traveller campaign involves taking randomly generated characters and running them as a bunch of wandering adventurers.

It sounds as if many of the respondents here are aware of what's default in Traveller, and have made deliberate, affirmative decisions to go other directions. In my mind, being a Referee *requires* creative input, or else you're just some sort of pass-through; players can run themselves through anything that's been published.

That's another ancient Traveller play-style: running yourself through the ANNIC NOVA; creating a new vehicle, gun, character, or star system, even if you'll never use it in a "real" game; or just putting your feet up with a lovely beverage and re-reading your far-too-many linear shelf-feet of Traveller books for the umpteenth time.

 

[Jazzlvraz]

Secondly, a rich PC has disproportionate problem-solving power.

I think one of Magnus's points is that, unless the Noble is a , his entire group shares his problem-solving power; possibly not equally, of course, but shares nonetheless.

 

[Reban]

Inheritance issues

I just spotted in Hemidan's opening remark about what Nobles get:

• Life ‘insurance’ (DNA and memory scan archived to build a clone as a replacement if needs be),

It just piqued my interest. Relict or Life Insurance Clones get Soc implanted from the original i.e. Duke Clone gets Soc=F

But do they get the title? Probably not if there are other heirs. Makes me wonder if there are lots of high Soc Clones running around scheming against their Original's heirs and hiring PC to help them "regain their rightful titles". That's a good reason for a "Duke" to be a Traveller :rofl:

On the other hand maybe Imperial Law states that the Title passes to the Relict until there are no more clones left to inherit, or maybe provisions for this are written into each individual patent of nobility?

Either way a lot of power comes on the shoulders of a newly decanted clone.

 

[rancke]

I think one of Magnus's points is that, unless the Noble is a , his entire group shares his problem-solving power; possibly not equally, of course, but shares nonetheless.

And the point I've been trying to make is that if a character has a disproportionate amount of problem-solving ability, it is difficult not to give its player a disproportionate amount of "screen time".


Hans

 

[rancke]

It sounds as if many of the respondents here are aware of what's default in Traveller, and have made deliberate, affirmative decisions to go other directions. In my mind, being a Referee *requires* creative input, or else you're just some sort of pass-through; players can run themselves through anything that's been published.

None of the campaigns I've run would have been suitable for rich, prominent characters. None of the published adventures and campaigns that I can think of are suitable for rich, prominent characters, though there may be a few that has escaped my notice (or my memory). All the ones that rely on lack of money as a motivating factor to start with. "The patron want sto hire you to break into a shipyard." "We don't need to do that." "You're stuck on Vanejen for lack of money." "No we're not. I can pay for tickets for all of us." "Your jump-2 drive is reduced to jump-1 for the duration and you need money to..." "I'll pay for the repairs."


Hans

 

[Jazzlvraz]

...if a character has a disproportionate amount of problem-solving ability, it is difficult not to give its player a disproportionate amount of "screen time".

Why would any player in a group of friends accept a consistently disproportionate amount of screen-time at the expense of their companions? Once in a while, sure, but everyone should expect the disproportion to roll around to them in their turn.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Yeah, what he said.

I think one of Magnus's points is that, unless the Noble is a , his entire group shares his problem-solving power; possibly not equally, of course, but shares nonetheless.

Yes, that is my point and thank you for putting it so much better than I have been.

 

[BytePro]

The same holds true for all the other stats, skills and benefits - any many give one PC greater 'screen time'... the nobility stuff is akin to a PC who winds up with a multi-MCr ship and very high deception ability. <shrug>

The rules are not designed to really produce 'balanced' characters for any given setting, even the OTU. It is nonsensical to impart such a mentality on the random character generation. The only way for that to work is if random rolls were offset by non-random countering adjustments. I.e. the sum of all stats would have to be equal, or consistently offset by other rules. The sum of all skill levels would have to be the same - regardless of age. Etc.

If a plot requires a Duke, I don't randomly roll till I get a Duke - I make up a Duke NPC. Likewise, if an adventure/campaign or whole setting is founded on the premise that the PC party are all low on the social scale - then it is the Ref's job to make it so. Either adjudicating limits/options before or during chargen, or providing some adjustments later.

An RPG is not a computer game. A ref who can't adjust the rules nor adjust to them has, by definition, not learned how to be an effective ref.

Marc liked nobility in his game and built it into chargen. Marc has an idea how nobility 'works' in his setting, and it only has as much to do with other folks' notions - published or otherwise - as he decides.

All I hear is that the book states PCs could end up with some Credits, a title and some potential connections. Extrapolating this to automatically include entourages and social power that precludes adventuring is a self limiting choice. The same counter productive logic could be argued for any other PC 'advantages'...<shrug>

Personally never used Soc for PC nobility, other than occasionally the title stuff. Which is pretty much all original LBB1-3 CT directly provided as an option, with anything else explicitly at the 'discretion of the referee' [Reprints LBB#1pg9].

I generally don't use the standard mustering benefits, either, except where they fit our intended games.

Personal favorite is swords in space. No. Just plain no. That just cracks me up! In my games, for space faring folk, Blade means fighting/hunting knife, ala a ka-bar. Any rationale that has folks swinging sharp edged blades in a confined, technically equipped space because bullets (or lasers) might pierce the hull is half thought through at best. :devil:

 

[Vladika]

What about a Remittance Man?

What about a Remittance Man?

If you want a member of the nobility along, or need to justify it, the Remittance Man may be the solution.

Perhaps a younger son/daughter Black Sheep of the family? This could minimize the "Clout" or "Unlimited funds" syndrome. After all, their presence at home is unwanted and they are paid to "stay away". Funds would be there but not in particular vast sums.

Also, being high Soc, but undesirable, their influence (family or individual) could very well be non-existent.

 

[rancke]

Why would any player in a group of friends accept a consistently disproportionate amount of screen-time at the expense of their companions? Once in a while, sure, but everyone should expect the disproportion to roll around to them in their turn.

I've addressed this twice before, so I won't repeat myself. I'll just state that it happens. Rules that encourage such behavior are flawed even if a good referee or a good player can rise above them.

It's amazing how many people think that just because a referee (or in this case, a player) can overcome the detrimental effects of a flawed rule, that somehow makes the rule OK.

This is not the case. "You don't have to use the rule" does not refute the claim that a rule is a bad.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

I've addressed this twice before, so I won't repeat myself. I'll just state that it happens. Rules that encourage such behavior are flawed even if a good referee or a good player can rise above them.

It's amazing how many people think that just because a referee (or in this case, a player) can overcome the detrimental effects of a flawed rule, that somehow makes the rule OK.

This is not the case. "You don't have to use the rule" does not refute the claim that a rule is a bad.


Hans

Hans, you skip rule #1 of RPgs:

The referee is in charge. The ref defines the rules, documents are only guidelines.

Any ref that allows themselves to be pushed around by a player rules laywering loses their ref card.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

That would be you.

/ker-snip/

This is not the case. "You don't have to use the rule" does not refute the claim that a rule is a bad.


Hans

You seem to think the rule is broken and some of us, or at least me, don't think it is.

EDIT: So, is this all crab-assing or do you actually have a solution? Just wondering, I mean if you have put all this time and effort into thinking about this, what is your proposed solution?