Noble Lands

[rancke]

As for being faceless even if they have stats, the point is that they have stats because there is an expectation of interaction with them that will not occur with the vast majority of the population. That interaction may not be enough to justify a 'face' (I'm not about to figure out the personal life history of Random Thug #6 unless there is a need for it) but the NPC is nonetheless more significant than the person the character passed on the street or even the cabbie who dropped the player off in Downtown.

But being more significant does not necessesarily mean that they're significant enough to rate the possibility of being Imperial nobles. Indeed, if they don't, as you say, 'have a face', they most certainly do not rate anything like that. I'm not saying that a society where 1 in 36 of the billions of faceless unstatted NPCs around are Imperial nobles makes sense; I'm saying that a society where 1 in 36 of the faceless statted NPCs listed in various Traveller books are Imperial nobles makes very little sense either.

I would no more allow random chance to make a casual acquaintance of the PCs an Imperial noble than I would let random chance make a casual acquaintaince of the PCs in an Age of Sail campaign the Crown Prince of England or a casual acquaintance in a modern campaign an ex-president of the US. And, yes, I do believe Imperial nobles ought to be so rare that these analogies are sound (or err on the side of the rarity of crown princes and presidents). In my campaigns, if an Imperial noble shows up, I put him there for a purpose and I have a narrative justification for his appearance.


Hans

 

[esampson]

But being more significant does not necessesarily mean that they're significant enough to rate the possibility of being Imperial nobles. Indeed, if they don't, as you say, 'have a face', they most certainly do not rate anything like that. I'm not saying that a society where 1 in 36 of the billions of faceless unstatted NPCs around are Imperial nobles makes sense; I'm saying that a society where 1 in 36 of the faceless statted NPCs listed in various Traveller books are Imperial nobles makes very little sense either.

I would no more allow random chance to make a casual acquaintance of the PCs an Imperial noble than I would let random chance make a casual acquaintaince of the PCs in an Age of Sail campaign the Crown Prince of England or a casual acquaintance in a modern campaign an ex-president of the US. And, yes, I do believe Imperial nobles ought to be so rare that these analogies are sound (or err on the side of the rarity of crown princes and presidents). In my campaigns, if an Imperial noble shows up, I put him there for a purpose and I have a narrative justification for his appearance.


Hans

I think you and I are both actually in agreement, just through different routes. I would never just blindly roll C6 for a character and follow it (Oh, the guy at the starport who is mucking out the freshers on your ship? Turns out he's a Baronet).

I know I may offend some rules purists with that kind of thinking, to which I reply 'Regina'.

 

[Selandia]

Bad example since NPCs apparently have the same chance as PCs of being knights and baronets. Unless there are new rules about that in T5?

In my campaigns PCs are special in the opposite direction when it comes to social status. None of them have any chance of being Imperial noblemen (Though I'm not saying I might not some day run a campaign where such exalted beings would have a place).


Hans

So it only means that NPC rolls are like PC: special snowflakes factory when you compare them with Downtown New-York snowflakes o: But you just do not roll your NPC blindly, like esampson says.

Making your PC Soc max 10 is very fine with me and just show that neighter real life nor real roll should interfere with a good game

I do not roll on beast maker for every fly or ant on the planet, nor do I roll the jump roll of every ship leaving planet, nor throw 100 dice to roll a crowd in which I purpose rolled a pick-pocket (and sure you don't). Most interactive NPC have a purpose and are crafted to match IMTU. Of course when the players jump in a cab and yell "follow that truck" I might not have predicted the move and might not have a ready NPC. I will not waste 10 min rolling the life of the driver. Two dices for dex, one dice for driver skill and that is all. Might be a Baron if I cared to roll Soc, but I do not care.

BTW, soc B or C are not always noble, Beatle Paul was Soc 13 way before the Queen made him Soc 11

It is the Ref that ultimately decide anything he/she whishes to decide in his universe (and if the players do not have fun he wil not remain ref).

have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

So it only means that NPC rolls are like PC: special snowflakes factory when you compare them with Downtown New-York snowflakes o: But you just do not roll your NPC blindly, like esampson says.

Not unless I use the rules as written, no. Indeed, I tend to make NPCs in lower class occupations lower class, NPCs in lower middle class occupations lower middle class, etc., with nary a SOC roll at all. But we're talking Traveller rules and the implications thereof, not house rules, aren't we?

Mind you, if T5 has changed the rules for making NPCs, I could be sadly out of date. But unless that's the case, I stand by my assertations.

Making your PC Soc max 10 is very fine with me and just show that neighter real life nor real roll should interfere with a good game.

Actually, I make SOC 12 upper middle class and SOC 13 planetary gentry. PCs who manage to reach SOC 15 or 16 in character generation get appropriate planetary titles or minor Imperial knighthoods equivalent to appropriate planetary titles. For an Imperial baronial title they need to reach SOC 24.

Of course when the players jump in a cab and yell "follow that truck" I might not have predicted the move and might not have a ready NPC. I will not waste 10 min rolling the life of the driver. Two dices for dex, one dice for driver skill and that is all. Might be a Baron if I cared to roll Soc, but I do not care.

My point is that the likelihood that he'd be a baron if I cared to roll Soc is too low to calculate. It's certainly much, much less than 1 in 36.

BTW, soc B or C are not always noble, Beatle Paul was Soc 13 way before the Queen made him Soc 11

I've seen that theory advanced in a vain attempt to make sense of the (old) rules many times to be sure.

It is the Ref that ultimately decide anything he/she whishes to decide in his universe (and if the players do not have fun he wil not remain ref).

True but irrelevant. The worth of a rule is not changed one iota by the fact that a referee is free to ignore it. Rules must always be evaluated on the assumption that they're being used. Anything else makes no sense at all.


Hans

 

[Selandia]

But we're talking Traveller rules and the implications thereof, not house rules, aren't we?

Mind you, if T5 has changed the rules for making NPCs, I could be sadly out of date. But unless that's the case, I stand by my assertations.

There is no rule on NPC generation in T5 (glad to be corrected if someone could find the NPC chapter), folks just use some of the Character generation rules when needed for purpose of systemic consistency in interaction scheme with PC.

Quote from page 69
Characters are the central focus of Traveller: they are the alter-egos of the players, and all activity is centered on them.

Those Character generation rules exist to create alter-ego, the Non Player Individuals are created by the whim of the ref that can randomize some result with dices. The term Non Player Character is a misnomer in T5. I'll try to loose that bad habit of calling NPI NPC

Now we are not talking house rules but T5 rules? Right, You want an admission that T5 is far from perfect? So admitted. Now back to How imperfect it is.

To go back to the thread, are the Caracters of T5 special snowflake? Are the missjump roll diff for PC ship? Could the economic of transportation financing make sense with those missjump roll?

Like the economic of space habitat could hardly make sense using the Spaceship construction rules (I think we finaly agreed on that) and Asteroid belting or space habitat exist simply because so it is stated in Traveler's canon, the macro economic of shipping does not have to make sense given the roll number involved in PC adventuring. Therefore the "real level of risk" faced by banks is not to be figured from our roll but by the financing formula provided in the rules. If your PC is a banker that finance potentially missjumping ship (at PC roll rate) at the current rule stated interest rate, so be it and lets see if he made himself a money printing machine.

Actually, I make SOC 12 upper middle class and SOC 13 planetary gentry. PCs who manage to reach SOC 15 or 16 in character generation get appropriate planetary titles or minor Imperial knighthoods equivalent to appropriate planetary titles. For an Imperial baronial title they need to reach SOC 24.


My point is that the likelihood that he'd be a baron if I cared to roll Soc is too low to calculate. It's certainly much, much less than 1 in 36.


I've seen that theory advanced in a vain attempt to make sense of the (old) rules many times to be sure.

So we agree on not following the rules all the time.

I enjoy your opinion, but I still find that theory far from a vain attempt

True but irrelevant. The worth of a rule is not changed one iota by the fact that a referee is free to ignore it. Rules must always be evaluated on the assumption that they're being used. Anything else makes no sense at all.


Hans

Quite the contrary, games rules are not Law enforced by police and juge or by promises of the flames of hell. You are free YOU are free to decide whem they are good enough to be used. Rules must always be evaluated on the assumption that they're used at the right time, the right way and on the right matter to acheive their ends ( what the rules are trying to acheive, p.12, 13, 18-21.)

If you want to have a philosophical or Sunday school debate about heritical vs orthodox rules compliance I am a no starter, unless a Cop with a gun or a Juge could impose on me an absurd letter of the law, I always seek the spirit of the law and I am too old to change that life line, no matter how much I like you or my next wife.

As to ignoring rules, some rules have as only canon the fact that they can be ignored. They are sometime called Optional rules, sometime called Subsidiary rules but some rules can be ignored while some just cannot be ignored for the whole to make sense. When T5 says (p18) that FTL is possible and that communication is made at the speed of transportation, live with that or change game. When it says p21 "Specific rules within Traveller can randomly generate and define more than a million different worlds with the rolls of a few dice, or allow a player to carefully craft specific
worlds", that rule is good (imho) because the only part that is always applied is the part that says you do not always apply the rule.

have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

Now we are not talking house rules but T5 rules? Right, You want an admission that T5 is far from perfect? So admitted. Now back to How imperfect it is.

Since I was talking about what Traveller writers have been doing when creating NPCs ever since The Kinunir, I was actually talking about all Traveller rules from CT forward. I merely threw out a caveat about T5 in case it had modified those earlier rules because we're in the T5 forum. So I suppose that the admission I want is that my original claim is true: that the rule that makes it possible for a PC to start as an Imperial baron is a bad example of rules that treat PCs differently from NPCs -- treat them as 'special snowflakes' to use Wil's term.

So we agree on not following the rules all the time.

Of course I agree on that. I never follow bad rules, to mention one example. But my ability to ignore bad rules doesn't redeem said rules. They remain bad rules.

Quite the contrary...

I don't know what to say to that. The statement I made seems to me to be self-evidently true. I can only suppose that you must be misunderstanding me somehow.

...games rules are not Law enforced by police and jugde or by promises of the flames of hell.

Where is this coming from? I've never claimed that such is the case. Indeed, the statement that the ability to ignore a bad rule doesn't change the fact that it is bad obviously implies that game rules are not enforced.

You are free YOU are free to decide whem they are good enough to be used. Rules must always be evaluated on the assumption that they're used at the right time, the right way and on the right matter to acheive their ends ( what the rules are trying to acheive, p.12, 13, 18-21.)

But this presupposes that there is a right time, a right way, and a right matter.

As to ignoring rules, some rules have as only canon the fact that they can be ignored. They are sometime called Optional rules, sometime called Subsidiary rules but some rules can be ignored while some just cannot be ignored for the whole to make sense.

Again you're stating something that is true but irrelevant to my statement.

When T5 says (p18) that FTL is possible and that communication is made at the speed of transportation, live with that or change game.

Relevance?

When it says p21 "Specific rules within Traveller can randomly generate and define more than a million different worlds with the rolls of a few dice, or allow a player to carefully craft specific worlds", that rule is good (imho) because the only part that is always applied is the part that says you do not always apply the rule.

I don't see that as a rule at all, good or bad. But be that as it may, once again I fail to see the relevance.


Hans

 

[Selandia]

Since I was talking about what Traveller writers have been doing when creating NPCs ever since The Kinunir, I was actually talking about all Traveller rules from CT forward. I merely threw out a caveat about T5 in case it had modified those earlier rules because we're in the T5 forum. So I suppose that the admission I want is that my original claim is true: that the rule that makes it possible for a PC to start as an Imperial baron is a bad example of rules that treat PCs differently from NPCs -- treat them as 'special snowflakes' to use Wil's term.
... relevance
... relevance
... once again I fail to see the relevance.


Hans

And you got the T5 answer you asked, and since you are on a T5 forum you are right: your caveat "unless I am sadly out of date" does apply.

By the way BBB p185 use the expression NPC so I wont have to loose that bad habit to call NPI NPC. That section is, for the record, the equiv of LBB3 p.19 "Encounter" chapter not the equiv of LBB1 p.8 "Non Player Character"

For people that are, to quote Hans: "sadly out of date", lets update:
To quote LBB1 p.8:
"Non Player Character"
"Sometime players will encounter people not manipulated by an actual people, ... In any cas their skills and abilities should be determined using the character generatilon procedure, and noted for the effect they may have on play."

I have not seen those words (or their equiv) in T5 and so the rule that shackled NPC gen and PC gen do not exist in T5.

As for the other Trav system, you are right as far as I know their rules and I'll keep breaking those rules whenever usefull. Here is my caveat: in CT you decide if a NPC roll from LBB1 or Sup 4 Citizen in the Noble carrer, while that decision is made by the players for a PC. So a PC or a NPC are never quite treated the same way in the game, even when the Char Gen Rules apply to both as Ref (include you and I) do not build their NPC the way a Player build his PC.

Aint going to waste time arguing relevance here, if you dont see it, we may not be talking about the same thing and I'll move on.

Have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

And you got the T5 answer you asked, and since you are on a T5 forum you are right: your caveat "unless I am sadly out of date" does apply.

Apparently it does not apply, since you tell me that there are no rules for treating NPCs differently from PCs when it comes to character generation. So no "special snowflake" status for PCs according to the T5 rules.



Hans

 

[Selandia]

Apparently it does not apply, since you tell me that there are no rules for treating NPCs differently from PCs when it comes to character generation. So no "special snowflake" status for PCs according to the T5 rules.



Hans

read again the root post, it quoted BBB p 69, to save you the trouble here is the quotes again

"Characters are the central focus of Traveller: they are the alter-egos of the
players, and all activity is centered on them."

Character in char gen are defined as alter ego of players, and therefore do not include NonPlajerC. You say "There are no rules for treating NPC differently from PC" nice try, but it work the other way around: there are no more rule forcing identical treatment of PC and NPC; the relative power of PC to NPC is referee's discretion in the absence of rule pretending to impose a behavior on referees.

Only if you insist on no special snowflake in your universe will there be none as no rule forces you to give a specific special status to PC. In a no special snowflake universe YOU decided to give PC a "Special" treatment by shaping them to NPC standard in the absence of rule. No one could pretend T5 OTU forbid special snowflake and nobody gonna lure me to char gen NPC in T5 on the ground that a rule in LBB1 was not abolished by a rule in T5. I'm gonna snowball to snowflake if I need or ice cube to snowball if I wish without even the usual tongue sticking to a rule.

I know you like to break or ignore official rules to make your own (quite fine with me), but I am sorry for your loss: no rule to break here save your own.

have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

Character in char gen are defined as alter ego of players, and therefore do not include NonPlajerC. You say "There are no rules for treating NPC differently from PC" nice try, but it work the other way around: there are no more rule forcing identical treatment of PC and NPC; the relative power of PC to NPC is referee's discretion in the absence of rule pretending to impose a behavior on referees.

Tell you what, let's wait for some T5 supplements featuring NPCs to come out and see whether those NPCs have SOCs appropriate to their stations in life or randomly assigned by the throw of 2D.


Hans

 

[Selandia]

Tell you what, let's wait for some T5 supplements featuring NPCs to come out and see whether those NPCs have SOCs appropriate to their stations in life or randomly assigned by the throw of 2D.


Hans

Fine with me, there may also be an errata

have fun

Selandia

 

[Dagrill]

Bill Gates has a lot of money. He may have a lot of land, too, but he does not have economic control (per p.49) over his land. He is not a noble. I think he'd fit the Rogue career better (due to that career's main focus being the acquisition of money).

Hi,

But he does have control over my computer because it uses Microsoft windows 7, I can no longer run DOS programmes, which makes me very unhappy as I can no longer access my old traveller universe on Gal24

Regards

David

 

[Dagrill]

As a matter of practicality, it seems that Imperial titles and land grants would have to be inheritable, but subject to imperial approval. Obviously, as with any fifedom, the Emperor can take back the grant, and the title, at any time for any reason. The aristocracy serve at the pleasure of the Emperor.

Now the Emperor will find it proper policy to "rubber stamp" such inheritances as a general principle, but He still retains the power to revoke. Again, as a practicality, by the time a lord dies, and word gets back to the Core and back, several months have passed.

Hi,

I like this approach, I think it safe to assume that inheritance of a title would be a little more meritocratic than Salic law, but that a member of the family
other than the PC had inherited the title even if they were the first born, unless the PC had demonstrated the skills necessary by pursuing a term in the noble career during chargen.

It would mean that the PC could be closely related to someone with a lot of clout, which could be good or bad depending upon family relationships.

Kind Regards

David

 

[pendragonman]

Hi,

But he does have control over my computer because it uses Microsoft windows 7, I can no longer run DOS programmes, which makes me very unhappy as I can no longer access my old traveller universe on Gal24

Regards

David

DOSBOX

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

More petrol! And flares!

Tell you what, let's wait for some T5 supplements featuring NPCs to come out and see whether those NPCs have SOCs appropriate to their stations in life or randomly assigned by the throw of 2D.


Hans

Actually, I am in the process of using both methods. And some I roll and modify. So let me get back to work and hopefully in a month or two you have your NPCs. Of course, the published versions won't show where I fudged a roll to keep some say, Enlisted as opposed to yet another damned Officers. Those happened behind the screen, but I have done it. I figure there just more Enlisted than Officers, even though by pure roll almost all of the NPCs (using pure Player CharGen) probably would all be Officers and have more than three Terms. But, I have to work with the guidelines of the Patron.

Speaking of, I need to get food and start back on that. So much work, so little time. I love my job...mostly.

 

[rancke]

Actually, I am in the process of using both methods. And some I roll and modify. So let me get back to work and hopefully in a month or two you have your NPCs.

Good for you. You're working on a T5 module? Tell us more (if you can).

(Let me add that in the adventures I write I do the very same thing).


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Not for me...yet.

Good for you. You're working on a T5 module? Tell us more (if you can).

(Let me add that in the adventures I write I do the very same thing).


Hans

Right now, I am doing Greg P. Lee's T5 Cirque NPCs (both some vetting and outright creation). Then, I start work on my own stuff.

 

[Dagrill]

Actually, I am in the process of using both methods. And some I roll and modify. So let me get back to work and hopefully in a month or two you have your NPCs. Of course, the published versions won't show where I fudged a roll to keep some say, Enlisted as opposed to yet another damned Officers. Those happened behind the screen, but I have done it. I figure there just more Enlisted than Officers, even though by pure roll almost all of the NPCs (using pure Player CharGen) probably would all be Officers and have more than three Terms. But, I have to work with the guidelines of the Patron.

...mostly.

Hi,

I think using the PC chargen system for NPC's is a big mistake, all the first 4 naval characters I generated using T5 ended the first term as officers and the same for the first marine I created. (First career term after college), I didn't send any of these to Greg.

When I'm generating npc's for other versions of traveller I usually ignore
soc, (unless creating a noble then I assign), give them the career and rank I want and if they end up without a key skill I need tweak 1or 2 of the skill rolls. I found Careers book 2 great for Port Authority NPC's.

Regards

David

 

[Selandia]

Hi,

I think using the PC chargen system for NPC's is a big mistake, all the first 4 naval characters I generated using T5 ended the first term as officers and the same for the first marine I created. (First career term after college), I didn't send any of these to Greg.

When I'm generating npc's for other versions of traveller I usually ignore
soc, (unless creating a noble then I assign), give them the career and rank I want and if they end up without a key skill I need tweak 1or 2 of the skill rolls. I found Careers book 2 great for Port Authority NPC's.

Regards

David

Amen

have fun

Selandia

 

[whulorigan]

In light of the most recent Errata Document (v. 0.71), concerning Nobles it is clearly stated that the "Gentleman/Peer" entry for C6/Soc = A should be removed from the Ranking Noble table for WorldGen on p.436, as they are not Nobles. Fine and Good.

In light of that, the Nobles Land Grants table on p. 96 lists that a C6/Soc=A Gentleman receives one Hex on a non-Mainworld (located anywhere). This is the same page that has Discoverer Land Grants for Scouts at the bottom of the page.

Though this is not stated anywhere explicitly, is the intent of this (at least in part) to imply that Scouts who receive a Discoverer Land Grant get a Single Hex randomly allocated (I do not believe it tells us anywhere how big a Discoverer Land Grant is)? Does this also imply (though not explicitly stated) that such a Scout has his C6/Soc raised to "A" when he receives such a grant?

Or is the intent that a Discoverer's Land Grant is of a size equal to the equivalent Noble Grant per the Trade Classifications of the World/Feature discovered (per p.492 - see bottom right cloumn and Example at bottom of page).

What are people's thoughts?