Noble Lands

[Reban]

BTW the bottom of page 96 implies to me that Discoverer Land Grants are hereditary as well, else they would not "...have lain in safe deposit boxes for generations, waiting for the time when the world enters the Imperium."

Questing for knowledge here BTW, If I'm wrong about things then I'll take my flogging as needed.

That line doesn't exclusively imply land grants are hereditary. It does imply that Discoverer Land Grants come with some sort of "Deed". Usually a deed in real life has a map saying where the land is, a description of what the land contains in terms of area and rights to resources such as minerals and water, and it lists the registered owner. To inherit (or sell) the land officially the deed has to be legally conveyanced over to the inheritor or buyer where the registered owner on the deed is changed. Finding the deed of a Land Grant in a safe deposit box might mean that the finder can go to an Imperial Court or notary and swear that the original owner is dead and he has some connection to the deceased giving him the right to inherit.

I think the idea is that we don't track money, income or spending, during prior careers, because there is no way to tell how much your character was spending in those days. It's not like you can say that they are saving every penny for when they go adventuring one day (even though that is what most players would want, I'm sure their characters wouldn't like it so much). Any attempt to figure it out would be arbitrary, and the player is biased. So the whole thing has been simplified to the rules covering Mustering Out, which not only represents things received at that time, but also whatever that character may have left over saved from previous years (hence why it's random).

Now, that's the way it's worked in previous versions (that I'm aware of). However, now we have the Rogue career, which seems to offer great deals of money during career resolution that I have to assume you get to keep, otherwise why mention the amount? Otherwise, it's not clarified either way.

Thanks Murdoc thats a good point about tracking income and expenditure during character generation. I don't want a character to muster out with a bulging bank account because money has been rolling in each year from his Land Grant without accounting for his spending, but the idea that one day you retire and suddenly the Land Grant starts producing like you've turned on a tap doesn't sit well with me. If you've gained a title during character generation you should gain the responsibilities and benefits of the title from the time you get it.

I think the way I'll handle this is to say that the the bulk of the income from the Land Grant during character generation is soaked up by running the land grant (like employing a steward to represent you there, building your residence etc.) and by your living expenses, but when you muster out you can take a more active roll in the management of your finances and the Land Grant income becomes discretionary.

Nobles receive Lands as part of their Patent of Nobility. Explorers receive Land Grants in recognition of their discoveries.


Inheritance of Money
Children routinely inherit the assets of their parents when the parents die. The details of inheritance are prescribed by local culture, law, and by the Referee.

So, monetary assets I can see allowing to inherit, but when I read the description of Land Grants, to me, they read more like the Emperor has entrusted you (you, not your offspring) with ruling and developing a chunk of a planet.

Looks like potential errata to me.

Okay thanks for setting out the references. I see your reasoning now and its sound but differs from my understanding as follows.

The award of a Noble Title with its Land Grant from the Emperor constitutes enfeoffment. The title and land become part of the fief which may be inherited. The mechanism of inheritance will vary widely throughout the Imperium. Once inherited the Title has to be confirmed by new letters patent from the Emperor.

I think the only thing we diverge on is how attached the Title and Land Grant are to each other. I think if you are allowed to inherit the title you are always going to inherited the associated land grant as well. The reason for this is stability, 1) a system of peerage where the Emperor can grab back the land your family has been improving economically every time the title holder dies isn't going to be sustainable, 2) the occupiers or investors in the land grant will desire stability. Will they be willing to invest if at the end of one generation the economic incentive and connection to the Imperium disappears?

Its a good catch for errata that "Upon the death of the higher (or highest) Social Standing parent, one child inherits that parent’s Social Standing". That gives no guidance on how a Noble Title passes to a child, but I would assume that Soc increases and then the equivalent title is confirmed by the Emperor.

 

[Spartan159]

And yeah, this must be an an errata issue since I am terrible at getting the meme to properly stick. :devil:

This sir, is stating *exactly* what set off my reaction in the first place, a blatent attempt to put your position forth as canon when in fact it is *not* clearly supported, no matter how you interpreted Supplement 4, Citizens of the Imperium, (Which btw does not say or imply anywhere that Nobility generated anywhere else is not just as valid as the nobility as generated on pages 8-9, and does explicitly state on page 36 "Suggested uses for nobles include patrons for patron encounters, governmental officials, Idle rich, and corporate executives.), nor is it clearly supported by the aformentioned 2 charts in T5. By all means I'd like to see this clarified as to me it goes against all previous precedent.

IMO I think we've gone astray with the whole "honorary" aspect, someone with enough power/standing that they were of a level with nobility probably gets co-opted into the system to begin with.

 

[rancke]

This sir, is stating *exactly* what set off my reaction in the first place, a blatent attempt to put your position forth as canon when in fact it is *not* clearly supported, no matter how you interpreted Supplement 4, Citizens of the Imperium, (Which btw does not say or imply anywhere that Nobility generated anywhere else is not just as valid as the nobility as generated on pages 8-9, and does explicitly state on page 36 "Suggested uses for nobles include patrons for patron encounters, governmental officials, Idle rich, and corporate executives.), nor is it clearly supported by the aformentioned 2 charts in T5. By all means I'd like to see this clarified as to me it goes against all previous precedent.

From what I've been told about the T5 rules for nobility, Marc Miller has changed their role in the Third Imperium drastically from what they were before, so any evidence drawn from earlier Traveller versions is suspect. Some of it presumably still apply, but some of it almost certainly doesn't. Which is why I would have liked it if the new version had been set forth explicitly instead of just alluded to obliquely in the various rules and tables. What is the relationship between the Imperium and its member worlds in the New Third Imperium? I'd like to know.


Hans

 

[Original_Carl]

What is the relationship between the Imperium and its member worlds in the New Third Imperium? I'd like to know.
Hans

The simple answer to your question is, "Whatever you want it to be."

You and I have been exchanging posts for a few weeks now and I think what you'd really like is a Third Imperium Atlas written for T5 before you commit to running the T5 rules. You seem to be looking for an official setting for the game that the BBB presents to bring some context to the rules in the book, and there just isn't one yet.

The T5 BBB is intentionally setting neutral, much like Classic Traveller. There are rules and game mechanics laid out, some hints about how the Imperium came about and a bunch of world-building tools. It's a "make your own game" kit.

I know you get a ton of advice from your questions, but here's some more: if you're determined to use T5 for your game, adopt the rules in piecemeal fashion. Pick one thing you like from the BBB and use it for a session or two. Adopt it to work in your game, rather than trying to adopt your game to the new rules.

Best of luck, Rancke.

 

[pendragonman]

The simple answer to your question is, "Whatever you want it to be."

You and I have been exchanging posts for a few weeks now and I think what you'd really like is a Third Imperium Atlas written for T5 before you commit to running the T5 rules. You seem to be looking for an official setting for the game that the BBB presents to bring some context to the rules in the book, and there just isn't one yet.

The T5 BBB is intentionally setting neutral, much like Classic Traveller. There are rules and game mechanics laid out, some hints about how the Imperium came about and a bunch of world-building tools. It's a "make your own game" kit.

I know you get a ton of advice from your questions, but here's some more: if you're determined to use T5 for your game, adopt the rules in piecemeal fashion. Pick one thing you like from the BBB and use it for a session or two. Adopt it to work in your game, rather than trying to adopt your game to the new rules.

Best of luck, Rancke.

This is my impression as well. If you want to use older official materials it only requires updating the old info to the new to use it. Of course, if you are wanting updated subsectors, I believe MOARN is the correct acronym, extended to planet/system profiles.

 

[rancke]

The simple answer to your question is, "Whatever you want it to be."

No it isn't. If it was whatever I wanted it to be, Marc Miller would not be ceasing to support the old Third Imperium setting that I know and changing to support the new Third Imperium setting that the T5 rules adumbrate.

You and I have been exchanging posts for a few weeks now and I think what you'd really like is a Third Imperium Atlas written for T5 before you commit to running the T5 rules.

What I would really like is a Third Imperium that looks like the Third Imperium that has been developed over the last 30 years, even if it doesn't correspond to Marc Miller's personal vision. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Miller doesn't have every legal right to drop the Old Taste and introduce his New Taste; I just wish he hadn't.

I don't give a toss for the T5 rules in themselves. I'm not going to use them to run any games anyway, since I have a set of house rules that are much superior to any commercial rules I've ever seen. What I care about is the setting that these new rules seem to imply.

You seem to be looking for an official setting for the game that the BBB presents to bring some context to the rules in the book, and there just isn't one yet.

The T5 BBB is intentionally setting neutral, much like Classic Traveller. There are rules and game mechanics laid out, some hints about how the Imperium came about and a bunch of world-building tools. It's a "make your own game" kit.

Setting neutral?!? The Traveller rules have never been setting neutral. Right from the start the rules have presented some pretty severe limits to settings. No FLT communication, one week per jump, an interstellar nobility, 20th Century US-style military, etc., etc.

...if you're determined to use T5 for your game, adopt the rules in piecemeal fashion. Pick one thing you like from the BBB and use it for a session or two. Adopt it to work in your game, rather than trying to adopt your game to the new rules.

I like my game as it is and I'm perfectly aware that I can keep on using it no matter where Marc Miller takes the OTU. I'm certainly not going to adopt any rules that doesn't fit MY Traveller Universe, so that's not a concern. What I'm interested in is to what extent I'm going to be able to use new setting material that will be published in the future.


Hans

 

[rancke]

This is my impression as well. If you want to use older official materials it only requires updating the old info to the new to use it. Of course, if you are wanting updated subsectors, I believe MOARN is the correct acronym, extended to planet/system profiles.

I will be backdating new info to the old to use it. If I can.


Hans

 

[aramis]

[m;]questioning people's motives for posting questions is generally off topic[/m;]

if you must, please do so either in Private Messages or in Visitor Messages.

I've deleted the posts in question for the moment.

 

[whulorigan]

Perhaps we are looking at the issue thru "Imperium-centric spectacles", so to speak.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason for the two C6 charts on p.67 might be for dealing with other polities which do not use the Imperial system of Nobility? A citizen of the he Solomani Confederation might have C6/Soc=D, but would not be a Marquis (he might have rank in the Party instead). Likewise, an Aslan of the Hierate with C6/Soc=D would likely be simply a more prestigious Aslan Landlord (but not a Marquis). The first C6 table may simply be a generic "scale" to accommodate other non-Noble systems.

 

[Spartan159]

That was exactly how I was taking the first chart, as a generic scale.

 

[whulorigan]

Also note that as far back as CT: LBB-1 (p.9), Soc B+ is explicitly stated as being associated with specific Noble Titles, and that such titles are commonly used (at least as far as Imperial Titles are concerned). This is BEFORE the publication of CT: Supplement 4, where the Nobles Career is introduced. Even if we restrict the use of such Noble Titles specifically to Imperial Citizens, it would seem to tie Title directly to C6/Soc. At least, that has been the standard through most previous iterations of the game as I have always understood it, apart from house-rulings.

As far as Imperial Titles in T5 are concerned, I do not think we have enough information in the Core Rules as stated to make a clear ruling on the exact relationship between Title/Land Grant on the one hand, and C6/Soc on the other, without more information from Mark Miller as to how the newly envisioned Nobles-system works. It may be that the Land Grants are specifically allocated to participants in the Nobles Career (representing High Nobles), versus those who attain a high C6/Soc score thru other means (Honor/Local/Rank Nobles?).

The T5 rules seem to be more focused on detailing the Land Grants of Nobles and the income they generate (which is of more immediate interest to players) than their specific functions relative to Imperial Government. This happens to be the exact opposite focus as compared to previous versions of Traveller, which primarily detailed governmental function and left the land grant (or "fief") a simple plot of land of a particular size with no details. An advantage of the T5 approach is that it defines the Noble exclusively in terms of his "Noble Dignity" (= read "Rank"), but leaves his actual function or authority open for the referee and/or player to work out. Thus, if a particular character is C6/Soc=E, he may be the High Noble Count who is the overseer of Imperial interests in a cluster of worlds, or he may be a Rank Noble whose dignity is tied to a particular function of Imperial Government Administration, or he may be the Count who was granted a title (and voice in Imperial Government) in recognition of being owner/head of a significant Imperial business or corporation, or the representative of some significant Imperium-wide organization to the Moot, etc. Or a close relative of any of these.

P.96 The Award of Land Grants
Land Grants are awarded by the Emperor to Nobles and to Explorer-Discoverers.
Nobles receive Lands as part of their Patent of Nobility. Explorers receive Land Grants in recognition of their discoveries.

P.116 Inheritance
Social Standing.
The children of parents with Social
Standing inherit a value one less than the highest Social
Standing held by the parents. Upon the death of the higher
(or highest) Social Standing parent, one child inherits that
parent’s Social Standing.

Inheritance of Money
Children routinely inherit the assets of their parents when the parents die. The details of inheritance are prescribed by local culture, law, and by the Referee.

So, monetary assets I can see allowing to inherit, but when I read the description of Land Grants, to me, they read more like the Emperor has entrusted you (you, not your offspring) with ruling and developing a chunk of a planet.

This would seem to go against the purpose for the Imperial feudal-structure of government in the first place. The Emperor appoints Nobles to oversee Imperial affairs in his stead due to the immense travel and communication time lag created by the lack of FTL communication and J6 Travel. The purpose of having the feudal structure (and associated inheritance) is so that the oversight of Imperial affairs and the local Imperial Administration continues in a seamless fashion. To this end, Imperial Nobles raise their heirs in the traditions of duty and honor associated with the Imperial Nobility, and expect their heirs to assume their duties once they have passed on. The purpose of the Land Grants is to generate a source of income for the Noble commensurate with their Noble dignity, while at the same time create the potential for development of that land resource (a double benefit to both Noble and Emperor - The Noble is self-motivated to develop a resource for his own profit, which also benefits the Emperor by having the lands of one of his worlds made more profitable for trade).

The award of a Noble Title with its Land Grant from the Emperor constitutes enfeoffment. The title and land become part of the fief which may be inherited. The mechanism of inheritance will vary widely throughout the Imperium. Once inherited the Title has to be confirmed by new letters patent from the Emperor.

I think the only thing we diverge on is how attached the Title and Land Grant are to each other. I think if you are allowed to inherit the title you are always going to inherited the associated land grant as well. The reason for this is stability, 1) a system of peerage where the Emperor can grab back the land your family has been improving economically every time the title holder dies isn't going to be sustainable, 2) the occupiers or investors in the land grant will desire stability. Will they be willing to invest if at the end of one generation the economic incentive and connection to the Imperium disappears?

Its a good catch for errata that "Upon the death of the higher (or highest) Social Standing parent, one child inherits that parent’s Social Standing". That gives no guidance on how a Noble Title passes to a child, but I would assume that Soc increases and then the equivalent title is confirmed by the Emperor.

I think Reban sums it up perfectly according to traditional canon.

 

[Selandia]

I have no problem with the rules of page 116 on inheritance of title.

Just as an example The daughters of the Earl of Grantham do not hold title or land (If I understand the TV serie) but they have Soc beyond A. Some nephew, with a high soc (true blue blood afterall) will inherit the land and the title, that makes the dif between him been a _lets say_ b or c and E.

They might not be the rule in force amongst the aristo on your city block, but they make some highly playable sense, beside a good TV show.

As to the inheritance of the controlled land ( as opposed to the one Owned), isn't historically the issue of hereditary right to fief a big part of the fight between King and Nobles? Isn't the issue of breaking up the land for inheritance purpose an issue (France and England had if I am right a different take on that)? This is a truely ambiguous issue in need of a debate. What do my players stand to inherit when they kill their father (if they don't get caught)?

At any rate, I believe that once you use the money you get from your fief to purchase land and business, you end up owning assets you may pass (subject to inheritance laws) to your junior heirs. So the High Soc need not to have a formal title to actually own land

By the way, we are talking about imperial nobility, local planetary nobility may have their own rules and title and matching Soc right?

By the way 2, you can be Soc High Enough to be brother to prince of Wales and make your rolls on a wet navy career rather than noble career (although there was that other royals' show where the older sister was really rolling on the plot table )

Have fun

Selandia

 

[whulorigan]

By the way, we are talking about imperial nobility, local planetary nobility may have their own rules and title and matching Soc right?

To my knowledge there have never been any standardized rules for local planetary nobility. They have always been "house-rules" due to the wide variety of possible titles and positions.

My suggestion for them would be that an autocrat of a world would have a C6/Soc equivalent to the appropriate Imperial Noble that would otherwise be assigned to that world (or perhaps 1 less). Major nobles of that world 1 less than the autocrat, and minor nobles 2 less than the autocrat. And that of course presumes that the world in question has an aristocratic form of government in the first place. Local planetary titles would have a very wide degree of variation based on local culture.

In any event, it is not outside the realm of possibility that many planetary hereditary monarchs may very well be appointed to the position of Imperial Noble for their particular world as well.

 

[Hal]

For what it is worth, I've been looking into the nobility issues myself with a keen eye. One thing I noted right off the bat, is the fact that Military personnel who have been in the Military, stand to make more money than do landed Knights. Take a look at the pensions and compare them against noble lands that are on worlds with trade classifications of "NONE" or one trade classification.

Then we get into the issue of the value of a proxy. In one instance, it states that the value of a proxy is about 10,000 credits. In other locations, the value of the proxy is listed as about 100,000 credits - or 10 times the amount listed elsewhere. But this is where I find it gets interesting...

"A Proxy is assignable to any other Noble of equal or greater rank. It is revocable at the end of any calendar year, and renews automatically if not revoked. A Noble who enters the Moot while in session automatically revokes his Proxy and may participate and vote in the deliberations of the Moot."

Question: What is the difference in "ranking" between a Landed Knight with a Fief, and a courtesy knight? More importantly - per the above, since only those with a social status above knighthood actually have votes at the Moot - what is the ranking system for those who hold land and those who do not? For instance, does a landless courtesy ranked Marquis outrank a landed (aka enfeofed) Baron?

In the end, it boils down to the fact that we do NOT have any actual guidelines as to what Nobles do in the Third Imperim per T5. More importantly? Look more closely at what it says about the income generated by the fiefs. It states on page 75:

"A Land Grant creates a token annual profit (the amount remaining after expenses are deducted from income), based on the trade classifications of the world, equal to Cr10,000
per TC."

Note that this is income after all expenses. One COULD argue the point that expenses such as maintaining a household could argued to have been deducted already - and hence, the income SHOULD be available on a year by year basis after the income is awarded. Likewise however, one could argue, that upon the death of the original holder of the fief - outstanding debts, medical expenses, etc - could have taken their toll upon the family estates until the player character is ready to assume control of his holding directly.

In the end, it should be noted that there are no guidelines on how many of any given noble exists within a given region. Were Marc to want that level of detail for his own Official Traveller Universe, he'd have to say just how many VOTES there are for the moot itself, then determine just how many of each class of proxies there are as votes within the Imperium (as given per page 96). Also? To answer someone else's question - per page 75, it states that any one who receives a land grant, retains it upon mustering out. So whether or not someone starts the game back at home administering to their estates, or is engaged in Noble pursuits - or is galavanting throughout the universe TRAVELLING, is immaterial. They retain their Grants.

Now, what if...

What if you have a player, whose status starts out as Gentleman (social status A) and the player wants to specify that his father is a Knight, and that he's the firstborn son eligible to inherit the land upon his father's death. There is NOTHING to prevent this from occurring in game play, especially if the player initially rolls a 10 for status at start of character generation. Or perhaps of even more interest - is the fact that perhaps the status of a character rose, not directly because of what his participation in life per se, but because his Father's professional life kept on reaching a point where he was knighted and given land for loyalty and duty above and beyond the call.

In short? Much of what is in the book (PDF that is, as I will be reciving my copy of the book sometime around June 27th) seems to be both more revealing and at the same time, more VAGUE. Perhaps Marc intended it this way so that in a Thrid Imperium where nobles run the government and have specific responsibilities - they get the land grants and all the other fun stuff that goes with it. In other universes, perhaps Nobles are vestigual elements akin to the Appendix. If they rupture, the entire empire runs the risk of dying...

 

[whulorigan]

Then we get into the issue of the value of a proxy. In one instance, it states that the value of a proxy is about 10,000 credits. In other locations, the value of the proxy is listed as about 100,000 credits - or 10 times the amount listed elsewhere. But this is where I find it gets interesting...

"A Proxy is assignable to any other Noble of equal or greater rank. It is revocable at the end of any calendar year, and renews automatically if not revoked. A Noble who enters the Moot while in session automatically revokes his Proxy and may participate and vote in the deliberations of the Moot."

Actually, this is a published Errata. The correct value is Cr 100,000.

Question: What is the difference in "ranking" between a Landed Knight with a Fief, and a courtesy knight? More importantly - per the above, since only those with a social status above knighthood actually have votes at the Moot - what is the ranking system for those who hold land and those who do not? For instance, does a landless courtesy ranked Marquis outrank a landed (aka enfeoffed) Baron?

I would almost certainly say yes to the above question. A Marquis is a Marquis (that is his level of Social Distinction, regardless of how he acquired it). He will always "officially" outrank a Baron, even if the defacto reality may make the Baron more powerful.

And, until we discover what changes have been made in T5, we cannot even be entirely certain if their is such a thing anymore as a "courtesy knight" who is not landed with a fief (or even if there are unlanded "Honor/Courtesy Nobles").

In the end, it boils down to the fact that we do NOT have any actual guidelines as to what Nobles do in the Third Imperium per T5. More importantly? Look more closely at what it says about the income generated by the fiefs. It states on page 75:

To answer someone else's question - per page 75, it states that any one who receives a land grant, retains it upon mustering out. So whether or not someone starts the game back at home administering to their estates, or is engaged in Noble pursuits - or is galavanting throughout the universe TRAVELLING, is immaterial. They retain their Grants.

CORRECT. Also, to quote T4 - "Marc Miller's Traveller" - (yes, I realize that it is a different version of Traveller, but it is the direct predecessor from which T5 evolved):

"A Noble can be described as an individual who is a member of the upper class in society. Nobles, fore the most part, perform few consistent functions throughout their lives. Nobles most often have large amounts of ready money to spend, and they may possess useful influence in high places . . . (Not every character of Noble Social Standing follows [the Noble Career]. Regardless of their career, however, they still hold their Noble Rank)."
- T4 Core Rules p. 33 - Noble Career Generation Table.

In short? Much of what is in the book (PDF that is, as I will be reciving my copy of the book sometime around June 27th) seems to be both more revealing and at the same time, more VAGUE. Perhaps Marc intended it this way so that in a Thrid Imperium where nobles run the government and have specific responsibilities - they get the land grants and all the other fun stuff that goes with it. In other universes, perhaps Nobles are vestigual elements akin to the Appendix. If they rupture, the entire empire runs the risk of dying...

Possibly. As I stated in an earlier post, this may be so that the focus of the CharGen table is the character and what immediately pertains to him/her as far as play is concerned, while leaving the specific responsibilities vague and open so that player and GM can determine these things as suits their campaign.

Perhaps when Marc is done with all of the shipping madness he will be able to weigh in on some of the questions that have been raised on these threads.

 

[Original_Carl]

What if you have a player, whose status starts out as Gentleman (social status A) and the player wants to specify that his father is a Knight, and that he's the firstborn son eligible to inherit the land upon his father's death...

I considered this, too and it is the reason I "ruled" for MTU that while titles (Soc) may be inherited, land grants may not, except in the case of Discoverer Land Grants. I've examined the arguments about the Imperium's stability, but I think I can role play around that.

In my opinion, most of this inheritance stuff should only come into play when the characters start having children or decide to make clones and raise them. This is something that has never happened in any game (Traveller or otherwise) I've run in the past 20-odd years. Not to say that it won't or doesn't, but it seems to me that second-generation characters are very rare.

 

[Hal]

I considered this, too and it is the reason I "ruled" for MTU that while titles (Soc) may be inherited, land grants may not, except in the case of Discoverer Land Grants. I've examined the arguments about the Imperium's stability, but I think I can role play around that.

In my opinion, most of this inheritance stuff should only come into play when the characters start having children or decide to make clones and raise them. This is something that has never happened in any game (Traveller or otherwise) I've run in the past 20-odd years. Not to say that it won't or doesn't, but it seems to me that second-generation characters are very rare.

Part and parcel of why I posted that particular question - is because I've one player for whom that theme constantly surfaces when he games in my GURPS FANTASY campaigns. It also showed up when we discussed resuming a Traveller campaign inspired by T5. Truth be told, he's not keen on T4, and he hated how limited the traveller character "upgrade" rules were in CT and MT. In other words, what you roll up is pretty much writ in stone what it will remain throughout the campaign.

That having been said - one reason I LIKE the concept of rolling characters instead of building them, is that Rolling characters requires a player to live with the results of the rolls. A "built" character usually ends up as a "min/max" exercise where most characters will follow the same formula without much variance between them.

Time will tell. Oh, almost forgot what I intended to respond with earlier...

That situation where a player rolls up status 10? Based upon rules elsewhere - children of nobles have a social status 1 less than that of their parents, and the sole heir has their status improved upon the death of the holder. As a consequence, having a 48 year old male whose father still yet lives upon exit from his career path in character generation, isn't all that unlikely. Yes, that situation COULD occur as the rules depict it, which - as most GM's with players know, will be seized upon with eager grubby mitts!

 

[whulorigan]

What if you have a player, whose status starts out as Gentleman (social status A) and the player wants to specify that his father is a Knight, and that he's the firstborn son eligible to inherit the land upon his father's death. There is NOTHING to prevent this from occurring in game play, especially if the player initially rolls a 10 for status at start of character generation. Or perhaps of even more interest - is the fact that perhaps the status of a character rose, not directly because of what his participation in life per se, but because his Father's professional life kept on reaching a point where he was knighted and given land for loyalty and duty above and beyond the call.

It seems to me that this is more an issue of the referee making a House Ruling for his particular campaign. No referee is under obligation to let a player play whatever type of character he wants, let alone make up a background for his character that does not meet with referee approval. If you do not want Nobles as Player Characters in your campaign (or at least landed ones), then simply make that understanding clear to the players up front. Any "Noble" Characters generated by CharGen can then be explained simply as non-inheriting younger sons/daughters (which at sufficient levels of C6/Soc may still allow the honorific "Lord" or "the Honourable Gentleman" as a courtesy title). In cases where the CharGen process makes it clear that the increase in C6/Soc is a direct result of the career path (and not incidental family background, such as a life event, or the generic "C6+1" result), substitute an extra mustering-out roll instead of the increase in C6/Soc (i.e. your character was very fortunate and got extra wealth or material goods instead of C6/Soc).

In this way, the background canon of the noble feudal structure of the Imperium remains intact, but the problem of PC-Nobles is dealt with, if that is a problem for your campaign-tastes.

Just a suggestion.

 

[PinkSplice]

If there's a second edition, this will probably have to be dealt with. Until then, it's gamemaster discretion.

 

[Original_Carl]

Part and parcel of why I posted that particular question - is because I've one player for whom that theme constantly surfaces when he games in my GURPS FANTASY campaigns. It also showed up when we discussed resuming a Traveller campaign inspired by T5. Truth be told, he's not keen on T4, and he hated how limited the traveller character "upgrade" rules were in CT and MT. In other words, what you roll up is pretty much writ in stone what it will remain throughout the campaign.

This one of the most distinguishing and in my mind compelling features of Traveller. That is, you begin play with the character you wanted. In nearly every other RPG you start out with a broke-a$$ n00b who can barely swing a sword or casts only one spell or doesn't know a gauss gun from a meson projector. Nearly every computer RPG follows this trope, too. Start with a n00b and build him to 1337, usually by attacking and killing anything that moves.

Some people have a really hard time letting that go and seeing Traveller as unique in this regard: an opportunity to create the character you want at the START of play rather than creating the character you want as the RESULT of play.

I've had issues with my own players failing to make this quantum leap of understanding. They ask me questions like, "How do we level up?" (you don't) and "How can I increase my skill in X?" (take classes and study for a year). They're stuck in the mindset that their character at the start of play is a n00b and must gain stat and skill improvements as a direct result of play (kill-loot-level). "But I shot that guy and killed him! Don't I get XP?" (No.)

I tried presenting this as, "You have the opportunity to create the character you want at the start of play. You can make a young kid, fresh out of college, or a grizzled veteran of dozens of wars, or anything in-between. It's up to you." I have mixed results. Usually they accept it and then ask if they can have Psionics. o:

That was a not-so-brief aside.

I'd like to mention that if players have a problem with not inheriting land as a result of their high Soc, tell them to do one term as Noble. They'll get land, they'll get a muster out roll, they might even get elevated and get some more land. I'll go so far as to say that any character with a high Soc should absolutely take a term as Noble to get the land grants and proxies. Otherwise they're just leaving money on the table.

Not that a high Soc in itself isn't an asset -- it is, and especially when dealing with, well, anyone. That Soc is a big factor is getting answers to questions, getting requests fulfilled, etc. But not doing a term in Noble if you have a high Soc is, in my mind, a poor character creation decision.

The test characters I've made so far have ended up with high Soc as a result of the process (especially the military guys) and it struck me immediately that the first thing any character with Soc A or greater should do as their last term (or two) is Noble. There's really no downside, other than the +4 years.