How powerful are T5 dukes?

[rancke]

The same holds true for all the other stats, skills and benefits - any many give one PC greater 'screen time'...

But wealth and social influence are generally a lot more versatile than any single skill. So while the effect is similar for stats and skills and bennies, it is very much not the same.

Mind you, a character with high stats and a wide range of skills can be a pain to adventure with if his skills just happen to overshine those of your own character.

...the nobility stuff is akin to a PC who winds up with a multi-MCr ship and very high deception ability. <shrug>

True. It's no coincidence that in a previous post I mentioned the arbitrary allocation of ships as an example of a similar feature. Later versions of Traveller eased that problem a bit by the introduction of ship shares.

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.

No it isn't. You can certainly get unbalanced parties even without making one of them a lot richer and of higher social standing than the rest. But you automatically do it when you make one of them a lot richer and of higher social standing than the rest. Therein lies the big difference.

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.

But if the campaign premise is that a bunch of randomly generated adventurers join up and have adventures, there's no rationale for excluding any randomly generated character. Except that the character doesn't fit with such a concept. Which is what I've been saying all the time. A rich noble doesn't fit with such a concept. Claiming that it's up to the referee to correct the problems the rules generate doesn't prove that they don't generate problems, now does it?

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.

Very true. But it's the less effective referees that really need the support of good rules. And, once again, the fact that a good referee can compensate for shortcomings of the rules doesn't mean that it doesn't matter if the rules have shortcomings.

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.

Only if his ideas are logically self-consistent and make for a good game.

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>

"Some credits"?!? A paltry couple of megacredits a year, you mean?!? And assuming that high social standing works the way it has worked in every historical society we know of[*] is hardly "extrapolating" anything. If Marc wants to create a funhouse mirror society where basic human nature doesn't create social distinctions and the behaviors inherent in such, he should give us an explicit description of it.

[*] That's every society we know of that has had marked social differences; it doesn't include societies without marked social difference.​

Hans

 

[rancke]

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.

See the post you were replying to for an answer to this.


Hans

 

[rancke]

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?

Certainly. Don't allow PC to randomly[*] roll up Imperial-level nobles with large estates and high social prominence. There are various ways to do so. Make SL 12 the lowest rung in local planetary nobility (the Far Future equivalent of a European baron) and start Imperial barons up around SOC 16 or 18, for example. Note that this still requires that you don't just roll SOC for NPCs completely randomly but instead assign them SOCs suitable for their station in life. But I'd advocate that no matter what anyway. Another would be to roll SOC for PCs with three dice and halve the result, although that would require revising some of the careers.

[*] After all, if a referee wants to run a campaign with such characters, he can just fiddle with the rules. :devil:​

Hans

 

[rancke]

As an aside, "all this crab-assing" consisted of ONE statement followed by me defending my opinion against a lot of attacks that might, if I was feeling uncharitable, be referred to as "crab-assing" in their own right. So let's not throw too many stones, eh?


Hans

 

[aramis]

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.

Many of us reject that line of reasoning, and further, many newer game designers explicitly put a counter rule in - Rules decisions are the provenance of the group, not the GM.

It was, IMO, Gygax's WORST contribution to the hobby. It is nothing more than Gygax giving justification to selling poorly developed and often self-contradictory rules.

 

[rancke]

Many of us reject that line of reasoning, and further, many newer game designers explicitly put a counter rule in - Rules decisions are the provenance of the group, not the GM.

It was, IMO, Gygax's WORST contribution to the hobby. It is nothing more than Gygax giving justification to selling poorly developed and often self-contradictory rules.

I do believe the referee has the final-but-one say on the rules of his campaign (The final say is the player's right to quit playing). I just don't think that relying on the referee to backstop the rules turns bad rules into accetable rules.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

It was, IMO, Gygax's WORST contribution to the hobby. It is nothing more than Gygax giving justification to selling poorly developed and often self-contradictory rules.

It did set a pretty poor precedent and seemingly it's set in to many peoples minds as OK. Still, where would we be if nobody had the courage to make a mistake?

In the end though, there has to be one referee and everyone has to take their marching orders from him/her. Otherwise a game session bogs down while a couple of people go on about what in the end doesn't really mater. More fun to play and find other solutions to overcome a problem.

 

[aramis]

In the end though, there has to be one referee and everyone has to take their marching orders from him/her. Otherwise a game session bogs down while a couple of people go on about what in the end doesn't really mater. More fun to play and find other solutions to overcome a problem.

Funny, but successful play of GM-less and shared GMing games has shown me that that is a line of BS.

A lot of people bought into it from Gygax's advice, but it really isn't true.

 

[Jazzlvraz]

Think of how many years of torture we've had to suffer with GMs and players thinking that an adversarial relationship was the "correct" way to play.

 

[Bloo]

Certainly. Don't allow PC to randomly[*] roll up Imperial-level nobles with large estates and high social prominence.

Aha. I see a solution. Mark all tables and benefits and the like regarding Imperial nobles as "With Referee's Permission only." Then Chargen can't produce Imperial nobles and for randomly generated NPCs, the Ref has to proactively decide to let them be Imperial nobles.

 

[MCEvans]

My question is how did the person become noble?
Because as I see it unless they go through the Noble Career Path other than Knighthood all other titles are honorary or career driven ex. Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Field Marshall and the like. They get the SS level but are always junior to actual peerage but above honor nobles and may even get some SS level related benefits.
As for a Adventuring Noble possible, advantage nice home base to operate from, disadvantage distance travelled unless called to a Higher Noble's Court or to the Moot no "real" need to be more than 6 parsecs away from home.

Just two last parting thoughts:
Why pay someone to do something when you can get a 'friend' to do it for free
If you want something done, hire out. If you want something done right hire a professional, if you want it done right the first time do it with a team you trust.

NOTE: I'm so broke I can't even pay attention and thus don't even have the Beta, but this topic is useful for other incarnations of Traveller

 

[BytePro]

...But if the campaign premise is that a bunch of randomly generated adventurers join up and have adventures, there's no rationale for excluding any randomly generated character. Except that the character doesn't fit with such a concept. Which is what I've been saying all the time. A rich noble doesn't fit with such a concept. Claiming that it's up to the referee to correct the problems the rules generate doesn't prove that they don't generate problems, now does it?

The problems you present, however, are of your own making based on assumptions and extrapolations that you insist on for your own suspension of disbelief.

There are plenty of reasons a rich noble would join a band of adventures - several have even been presented in this thread. In the RW, wealthy people often don't actually have direct access or use of their funds, they often go without bodyguards, and modern and historical nobles, despite title and inheritance, often lack any real authority in practice - especially when they Travel. Nobles bored of their easy lifestyles and in a position or mindset to seek out places without their trappings is hardly a unique nor unbelievable fiction.

I'm gonna guess that T5 doesn't do anything different than CT in some respects...

Chargen provides benefits that may or may not equate well with planned games - but, it does not provide for the condition nor location of those benefits. It also does not provide for the initial game location of PCs. Those are left to the Ref to decide.
[In CT there are explicit rules that it is the Ref who settles/decides things not covered by the rules or in dispute...]​

In a similar vein, there has been lots of whining about CT's chargen providing a ship - as if it is a broken aspect that unfairly gives 'Players' a ship, destroying believability as to why PC's would be adventuring... Fact is, the CT rules (well, second edition) were very explicit in not making this any real 'problem' for a Ref.

In CT, a PC may only outright own a Far Trader with 5 rolls - otherwise they merely own a mortgage and are in 'possession' of a ship. Regardless, 'Fuel, crew, and other expenses must also be handled by the character'. So... that newly minted PC might be the proud owner of an unmaintained starship, with no fuel, crew and berthing fees due. They 'possess' it, but that doesn't mean it isn't 46 parsecs away, either. In theory they could attempt to sell the ship - the application of that theory is left to the Ref.

Then there is the Scout ship - again with explicit rules attached that give the Ref plenty of control over the situation. To wit, 'Possession of the scout ship is at the pleasure of the scout service'.​

Now, as to the 'issue' of rules providing 'Players' (and Refs) with too much advantage and power in relationship to others (and the setting) - rules can never make people get along, act mature, nor have fun. That is the responsibility of the group. It is the Ref's job, explicit and implied, to try and facilitate that.

Rules, dice rolls and stats do not 'make' a character - they are just tools. Players and Refs make characters - they are the ones who instill imaginary life into the numbers and descriptions and give the rationales for actions. Ultimately the Ref is responsible for the setting and implementation of the rules - as the last page in LBB#3 puts it - 'Traveller is necessarily a framework describing the barest of essentials for an infinite universe...'

 

[BytePro]

Aha. I see a solution. Mark all tables and benefits and the like regarding Imperial nobles as "With Referee's Permission only." Then Chargen can't produce Imperial nobles and for randomly generated NPCs, the Ref has to proactively decide to let them be Imperial nobles.

One simple rule would do this. <shrug>

Best would be to simply not arbitrarily attach setting nobility to a Social Status value. That was a fundamental mistake. Compounded by the way Social Status is used in task mechanics as 'people skills'.

Social Class should have always been a separate character item - with some relationship to a Social attribute in terms of game mechanics where applicable, instead of universally.

 

[BytePro]

And assuming that high social standing works the way it has worked in every historical society we know of[*] is hardly "extrapolating" anything.

Rancke, that is the very definition of 'extrapolating' - assuming based on historical trends.

 

[Jazzlvraz]

...the proud owner of an unmaintained starship, with no fuel, crew and berthing fees due.

Certainly sounds like the origin of Serenity: Mal proud, Zoe stunned .

 

[BytePro]

You paid money for this... On purpose? ... Honestly, sir. I think you were robbed.

Ship like this, be with ya 'til the day you die. - Yessir. Because it's a deathtrap.

That's not... you are very much lacking in imagination. - I imagine that's so, sir.
...
Sooo... not running now?

Not so much. But she will.​

 

[Reban]

My question is how did the person become noble?
Because as I see it unless they go through the Noble Career Path other than Knighthood all other titles are honorary or career driven ex. Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Field Marshall and the like. They get the SS level but are always junior to actual peerage but above honor nobles and may even get some SS level related benefits.

As I see it following the Noble Career path is the same as becoming actively engaged in politics. The career path allows for engaging in intrigues. If they go right you get bumped up a step, if they go wrong you get exiled and shunned from the halls of power.

You can still gain a title by increasing your Soc* but you're not wheeling and dealing with other power brokers. Your title and all that goes with it are just as valid but you might not climb the ladder in the same way as career path Nobles. Pure Soc Nobles have to play the long game. It may take generations of marriage and alliances to gain higher ranks.

T5 introduces proxy votes for nobles. these can be rented out by nobles to other nobles who are active in politics.

Think of it a bit like this. A noble is like a member of a realworld political party, they have power and connections but part of their power is in supporting Nobles on the career path, who are like party members that actually stand for and gain elected office. Those people have a lot more real power but they have to work hard marshaling and keeping it. They have to do down right dirty things while working their way up from mayor to senator/MP to President/Prime Minister but they all need those indispensable people; the voters.


*note I'm not saying its automatic, its in the hands of the Ref.

 

[rancke]

The problems you present, however, are of your own making based on assumptions and extrapolations that you insist on for your own suspension of disbelief.

That's true. If I didn't mind inconsistencies and self-contradictions in game rules, inconsistencies and self-contradictions in Traveller rules wouldn't be a problem.

There are plenty of reasons a rich noble would join a band of adventures - several have even been presented in this thread.

a) Rich nobles obscure enough not to be noticed when they skived off, yes. Imperial nobles no more than there would have been reasons why an Emperor's son went walkabout in 18th Century Europe. b) Even if there were, it still doesn't solve the gaming problem that rich nobles present.

In the RW, wealthy people often don't actually have direct access or use of their funds, they often go without bodyguards, and modern and historical nobles, despite title and inheritance, often lack any real authority in practice - especially when they Travel.

Which real world would that be? Present day democracies where nobles have been marginalized[*] or historical societies where the nobility was as big a part of society as Imperial nobles are of Imperial society?

[*] And their millionaire replacements do, in fact, tend to have chauffeurs and secretaries in tow wherever they go. And lawyers and business managers back home to tend to their fortunes.​

And you're overlooking the fact that players with rich characters can afford to have their characters acquire henchmen and hirelings even if they don't start out with any. If I was playing a character with an annual income of a couple of megacredits, I'd certainly want at the very least a battle butler along.

Unbalanced parties are not a problem if the player running the Big Guy is willing not to use his advantages. Which brings us back to the point that the rules that provide such advantages are bad, because otherwise using them to the limit wouldn't be a problem.

As for authority, I've not mentioned authority with one word. I've talked about social prominence and the inherent influence thereof. Influence and authority are not synonymous. Talking about social standing that didn't allow give you social influence is like talking about strength that didn't allow you to lift things.

Nobles bored of their easy lifestyles and in a position or mindset to seek out places without their trappings is hardly a unique nor unbelievable fiction.

No, planetary nobles like that are quite believable (although if they are rich, they still present the problem of disproportionate problem-solving power). However, either Imperial nobles are not the Far Future counterparts to historical nobles but to historical emperors or they don't have the social standing that an interstellar nobility would have. Either you have a few Imperial nobles per billion people or you have millions of Imperial nobles with influence small enough for continental and planetary rulers to outrank them.

The discontinuity lies in equating the Imperial nobles that rule over subsectors with the "Imperial" nobles that rule over those comparatively small fiefs the T5 rules hand out. For every one of the former you would have thousands of the latter. Which means that they would not effectively have the same social standing.

BTW, note that there are two different and distinct issues here: 1) The gaming problems associated with riches such a the T5 rules hand out, and b) the plausibility of an Imperial peerage numbered in the millions. Don't get them mixed up.

Since I've already addressed the issue of ships provided by the character generation system in a previous post, I'll just skip that part.

Now, as to the 'issue' of rules providing 'Players' (and Refs) with too much advantage and power in relationship to others (and the setting) - rules can never make people get along, act mature, nor have fun. That is the responsibility of the group. It is the Ref's job, explicit and implied, to try and facilitate that.

Once more: The ability of a good referee to backstop bad rules does not make bad rules good.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Rancke, that is the very definition of 'extrapolating' - assuming based on historical trends.

My mistake. What I meant was that extrapolating that Far Future nobilities would work pretty much like historical nobilities was akin to assuming that Far Future humans work pretty much like present day humans. A given.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

...extrapolating that Far Future nobilities would work pretty much like historical nobilities ...

Huh? Why would they? Plus there is no standard upon how nobility worked in history.