• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

T5.09 Personals

ovka

SOC-12
I understand (more or less) the system of personal interactions as presented in T5.09. It is very detailed, and appears to cover pretty much anything. The Personals methodology provides a system mechanical enough that a player's ability or inability to socially interact with others isn't improperly rewarded or penalized.

I have to ask this question though. Wouldn't it be simpler to use the existing task system. Opposed C+S using Admit, Bureaucrat, Diplomat, Gambler, JOT, Liason, or some other skill could work. Carousing used to be a skill as well.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
More and more, I think the failure to use the task system for things shows a real hole in the game. Much as I hate to say it, going back to 2d6 roll over might be an improvement.
 
Part 1

First of all, let me say that when I run a game, one of my table rules is that the referee knows the game rules so that the players don't have to. That makes it easier to bring new players into a game. If I can teach someone a game mechanic (i.e. when I tell them to make a 2D Dex+Stealth check, they know how to look up Dex and Stealth, know what to roll, and know how to determine success), that frees them up for role-playing instead of worrying about the rules. I have found that players quickly become impatient or bored if the GM has to look up values on a table, but not if they themselves are looking up values, as long as they know exactly what to look for.

In my previous post I asked why the Personals system existed as opposed to having players use a game mechanic they already know by telling them to "make a 2D Soc+Liaison check." So I thought I would play through a scenario by myself using Personals, to see exactly how that system played.

This is a long post, so I am breaking it into several different parts.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Part 2

Putting on my GM hat, I created a relatively simple example scenario. Putting on my player hat, I am a former scout, and I want to establish a relationship with a person sitting at the local bar where scouts tend to congregate so that I can ask for the whereabouts of Naval Commander Riker.

1. I sit down and offer to buy the person a drink. In Personals terms, the Purpose is Carouse, the Strategy is Casual, the Tactic is Interests (we're both scouts), and I am using the Law of Comfort. That is 1D <= (1 + 3) + 2 = 1. No problem.

2. After a while, we are really starting to have a good time. I buy the next round of drinks and tell him that I have heard of his accomplishments (*that* was *you*? You have quite the reputation over on Hefry). In Personals terms, the Purpose is Carouse, the Strategy is Enjoyment, the Tactic is Flattery, and I am using the Law of Comfort. That is 1D <= (2 x 2) + 2 = 6. No problem.

3. I continue to chat with the person and subtly shift the conversation to Naval personnel. In Personals terms, the Purpose is Carouse, the Stategy is Discussion, the Tactic is Emotion (those guys are jerks, aren't they?), and I skip the Law modifier (drinks are expensive). That is 1D <= (3 x 2) = 6. No problem.

4. Now I get to the crux of my interaction. I ask my new-found scout friend to tell me where I can find Commander Riker. In Personals terms, the Purpose is Query, the Strategy is Appeal To, the Tactic is Culture (us scouts gotta stick together), I am using the Law of Similarity, and I get a modifier of +3 for my three Carousing successes. That is 2D <= (4 x 2) + 1 + 3 = 12. No problem.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Part 3

From a role-playing standpoint, this is pretty cool. It's much better than just "I ask the guy at the bar where Commander Riker is" or the in-character version "hey buddy, where can I find Commander Riker?" It allows the player to role-play a little, but not get out of their comfort zone if they are a shy player, and it doesn't unduly reward players with the gift of gab.

From a game-mechanic/ease of use standpoint, this seems to me to be a nightmare. I spent alot of time staring at tables and looking at modifiers to determine the best course of action to ensure my success (Mods for Personals table on p. 159, Personal Interactions table on p. 160, The Five Laws table on p. 160). A player staring at these tables isn't role-playing, they are roll-playing. My players wouldn't be happy because they wouldn't really know what to look for on the tables. They would spend 10-15 minutes looking until they found the right combination to guarantee their success (like I did). Guaranteed success isn't really that fun, but the upside is it gave me the ideas to tell a good story. Unfortunately, once you determine the formula for success, you can use the same formula over and over again.

The Personals system appears to me like a gear-head solution. I'm all for gear-heads making ships, star systems, creatures, weapons, et. al., but those things don't happen during a gaming session. I started to load the personals into a spreadsheet so that I could just enter Carouse/Enjoyment/Flattery/Comfort and have the system spit out 1D < 6, but that means that I would be constrained to using a laptop or other device at the table. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not really my style.

If the player tries to role-play through the situation I described above, the GM without a laptop or device still has to review the tables to come up with the most appropriate Purpose, Strategy, Tactic, Law, and Modifiers to most closely fit the situation. As I said before, a GM staring at tables results in impatient or bored players. A GM with a laptop or other device that has players staring at the back of the laptop or the top of his or her head as the device is used during a game while the GM is trying to properly code the Personal goes back to the impatient/boredom dynamic.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Part 4

The Quick Personals table on p. 159 streamlines this process a bit, and may actually (from my perspective) be usable. I would streamline this a little more by generating (or setting) the four personals for each NPC when I created them. Then I would laminate index cards with the Personals table below for each player.

Carouse (Comfort) 1D-2
Carouse (Inferiority) 1D
Carouse (Similarity) 1D-1
Carouse (Superiority) 1D
Carouse (Violence) 1D

Query (Comfort) 2D-1
Query (Inferiority) 2D-1
Query (Similarity) 2D-1
Query (Superiority) 2D-1
Query (Violence) 2D-1
-1 for each successful Carouse (up to 6)

Persuade (Comfort) 3D-1
Persuade (Inferiority) 3D-2
Persuade (Similarity) 3D-1
Persuade (Superiority) 3D-2
Persuade (Violence) 3D-2
-1 for each successful Carouse (up to 6)

Command (Comfort) 4D
Command (Inferiority) 4D
Command (Similarity) 4D
Command (Superiority) 4D-3
Command (Violence) 4D-3
-1 for each successful Carouse (up to 6)

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Part 5

That leaves me with looking up the value for the NPC's personal on the character sheet for that NPC and adding the mods from the Mods for Personals table on p. 159). That actually could work well, providing a similar level of role-playing.

So let's take a quick look at the same example. Putting on my GM hat, I roll 2D for each of the NPC's four personals and get 7777. Putting on my player's hat, I have no idea what those values are. I like it already.

I sit down and offer to buy the person drink. In quick Personals terms, my check is Carouse (Comfort). That is 1D-2 <= 7. No problem.

We are really starting to have a good time now. I buy the next round of drinks and tell him that I have heard of his accomplishments (*that* was *you*? You have quite the reputation over on Hefry). In quick Personals terms, my check is Carouse (Comfort). That is 1D-2 <= 7. No problem. If either of my rolls was a 6, I know by this time that I can continue to buy drinks for thus guy and be successful.

I continue to chat with the person and subtly shift the conversation to Naval personnel (those guys are jerks, aren't they?). In quick Personals terms, my check is Carouse (Similarity). That is 1D-1 <= 7. No problem.

Now I get to the crux of my interaction. I ask my new-found scout friend if he knows where I can find Commander Riker. In quick Personals terms, my check is Query (Similarity), and I get a modifier of -3 for my three Carousing successes. That is 2D-4 <= 7. This check will succeed most of the time.

Wow! Doing it this way, we still have the chance to role-play, we don't have as many table look-ups, and the roll becomes uncertain because the player doesn't know the target. From a game mechanic/ease of use standpoint it is now on par with "make a 2D Soc+Liaison check."

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Part 6 (Last for Now)

So, that gets me back to a modified version of the question from my first post. The question now becomes why do I need skills such as Admin, Bureaucrat, Counsellor, Diplomat, Gambler, Leader, Liason, and the like. Personals include the Strategy of Active Listening. Isn't that the same as the Counsellor skill? Why would I use the Command Purpose with the Active Listening Strategy (which has a negligable effect and basically results in 4D <= 1) when I have a high level of Leader skill? And finally, why when I am trying to simplify things as much as possible for the players, would I want them to learn a second game mechanic?

In my opinion, the Personals system shows some flashes of brilliance in the area of having a game mechanic for personal interactions that levels the playing field for all players and helps to generate some role-playing ideas. It is a bit unwieldy, but the quick Personals table makes it easier to use. The problem with the quick Personals mechanic is that it makes the skills that the players work so hard to earn during character creation less useful. Perhaps a hybrid system which adds modifiers based on character skills to the quick Personals mechanic would help that situation. Or, perhaps a hybrid system which adds modifiers based on Personals to the task system. Consider the following table (I just threw in some values, I haven't really analyzed their effect):

Carouse (Comfort) Easy 1D Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Soc+Liaison, DM-2
Carouse (Inferiority) Easy 1D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Liaison
Carouse (Similarity) Easy 1D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Int+Gambler or Soc+Liaison or Soc+Leader, DM-1
Carouse (Superiority) Easy 1D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Leader or Soc+Liaison
Carouse (Violence) Easy 1D Str+Diplomat or Str+Gambler or Str+Leader or Str+Liaison

Query (Comfort) Average 2D Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Soc+Liaison, DM-1
Query (Inferiority) Average 2D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Liaison, DM-1
Query (Similarity) Average 2D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Int+Gambler or Soc+Liaison or Soc+Leader, DM-1
Query (Superiority) Average 2D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Leader or Soc+Liaison, DM-1
Query (Violence) Average 2D Str+Diplomat or Str+Gambler or Str+Leader or Str+Liaison, DM-1
-1 for each successful Carouse (up to 6)

Persuade (Comfort) Difficult 3D Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Soc+Liaison, DM-1
Persuade (Inferiority) Difficult 3D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Liaison, DM-2
Persuade (Similarity) Difficult 3D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Int+Gambler or Soc+Liaison or Soc+Leader, DM-1
Persuade (Superiority) Difficult 3D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Leader or Soc+Liaison, DM-2
Persuade (Violence) Difficult 3D Str+Diplomat or Str+Gambler or Str+Leader or Str+Liaison, DM-2
-1 for each successful Carouse (up to 6)

Command (Comfort) Formidable 4D 3D Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Soc+Liaison
Command (Inferiority) Formidable 4D 3D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Liaison
Command (Similarity) Formidable 4D 3D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Int+Gambler or Soc+Liaison or Soc+Leader
Command (Superiority) Formidable 4D 3D Int+Admin or Int+Bureaucrat or Edu+Counsellor or Soc+Diplomat or Dex+Gambler or Soc+Leader or Soc+Liaison, DM-3
Command (Violence) Formidable 4D 3D Str+Diplomat or Str+Gambler or Str+Leader or Str+Liaison, DM-3
-1 for each successful Carouse (up to 6)

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Keep going with this, please. You've already got very thoughtful, constructive, and concise criticism. And I think you've got the kernel of a suggestion for Marc. Boil it down a little more.
 
Proposal 1

OK, so I slept on it, and thought about it while I was walking my dog this morning. Here is what I came up with. First of all, I like the idea of a hybrid version using the task system modified by the quick Personals. I would have a table similar to the one I posted in Part 4 of my analysis. For now I'll go with that one (but see below), however I am open to modifications.

1. The player starts by indicating what they want to do with the Personals interaction.

2. The player selects an entry from the quick Personals table.

3. The player selects the C+S that they want to use. They can select any characteristic and any skill (or knowledge). The catch is, they have to explain how their selection relates and can be applied to the task at hand. This gives the player the opportunity to use their character's strengths while also coming up with a role-playing justification for what they want to do. Almost any suitable justification will do, subject to GM approval.

4. The initial encounter is the character's attempt to get their foot in the door. The roll is modified by Flux.

5. If the roll for the initial encounter fails, the player can use "Please Reconsider" to attempt another task roll. Each attempt must use a different different C+S selection. The player must still justify their C+S selection, and the roll is still modified by Flux. Below are my suggested "Please Reconsider" entries for the quick Personals table. Using "Please Reconsider" means that the Actor cannot use any of the "Superiority" quick Personals during the rest of this Personals interaction.

Carouse (Reconsider) 1D+(2 per reconsider attempt)
Query (Reconsider) 2D+(2 per reconsider attempt)
Persuade (Reconsider) 3D+(2 per reconsider attempt)
Command (Reconsider) 4D+(2 per reconsider attempt)

6. Assuming the player eventually succeeds at the initial encounter and doesn't give up, additional task rolls during the rest of this Personals interaction are opposed. The player must select a different quick Personal for each task roll and a different C+S for each task roll. The quick Personal selected for the initial encounter may may be repeated once (exception, "Please Reconsider" can be used any number of times). The C+S selection may not be repeated during this Personals interaction, but C+S is considered different as long as C is different or S is different (so C1+S1 is different from C2+S1 and C1+S2). The player must still justify their selections, but Flux is no longer considered. The Target of the opposed task roll does not get the modifier to the die roll indicated on the quick Personals table. That DM only applies to the Actor.

7. As with the initial encounter, a failed task roll can be rerolled using "Please Reconsider." The player must make a new C+S selection and must still justify their selection. As with the initial encounter, using "Please Reconsider" means that the Actor cannot use any of the "Superiority" quick Personals during the rest of this Personals interaction.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Example Using Proposal 1

So let's see how this plays out with the same example. All NPC and PC characteristics are assumed to be 7, and all skill levels are assumed to be 3.

As the player, I tell the GM "I want to get to know the guy at the bar, buy him a few drinks, and ask him where I can find Commander Riker."

I sit down and offer to buy the person drink. For the initial encounter I select Carouse (Comfort) 1D-2 and Soc+Streetwise. Justification - I am trying to get to know a new person (Streetwise) and am telling the person a little about myself (Soc). That is an Easy 1D Soc+Streetwise check, DM-2, DM Flux; or 1D-2+Flux <= 7 + 3 = 10. No problem.

We are really starting to have a good time now. I buy the next round of drinks and tell him that I have heard of his accomplishments (*that* was *you*? You have quite the reputation over on Hefry). I select Carouse (Comfort) 1D-2 again (I can repeat my initial encounter quick Personal once) and End+Bureaucrat. Justification - I am continuing to drink while trying not to overindulge (End), and showing my shared knowledge of the Scout service (Bureaucracy). That is an opposed (2) Easy 1D Edu+Bureaucrat check, DM-2; or 1D-2 <= 7 + 3 = 10 vs 1D <= 7 + 3 = 10. Because the NPC does not get the DM, the roll succeeds.

I continue to chat with the person and subtly shift the conversation to Naval personnel (those guys are jerks, aren't they?). I select Carouse (Similarity) and Int+Career:Scout. Justification - I am using the fact that we are both Scouts (Career:Scout), and that Scouts are much smarter than Spacers (Int) to further our comraderie. (Whether or not Scouts are truely smarter than Spacers is irrelevant. What matters is that the two characters agree that it is true. :rofl:) That is an opposed (2) Easy 1D Int+Career:Scout check, DM-1; or 1D-1 <= 7 + 3 = 10 vs 1D <= 7 + 3 = 10. Because the NPC does not get the DM, the roll succeeds.

Now I get to the crux of my interaction. I ask my new-found scout friend if he knows where I can find Commander Riker. I select Query (Similarity) and Int+Admin. Justification - I am asking him to remember (Int) what Captain Riker put on the paperwork (Admin) he filed earlier today. That is an opposed (2) Average 2D Int+Admin check, DM-1, DM-3 (for my three Carousing successes); or 2D-4 <= 7 + 3 = 10 vs 2D <= 7 + 3 = 10. Because the NPC does not get the DMs, the roll succeeds.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Analysis of Proposal 1

From a game mechanic/ease of use standpoint it is not quite on par with the GM saying "make a 2D Soc+Liaison check." The player has to determine what C, S, and quick Personal to use, and this method requires one additional table lookup. On the plus side, the player knows where to look for C & S because of the standard task game mechanic, and the afformentioned laminated card would be used for the additional table lookup. This table is much easier to use than the Peronals table cross-referencing Purpose, Strategy, and Tactic. Though it is functionally equivalent to the Quick Personals table and the Five Laws table, it is easier to use than either of those.

Using this method, the player gets a chance to role-play without needing to have the gift of gab. Most of the look-ups are performed by the player so the player isn't waiting for the GM to look anything up. The one look-up that the GM has is the Mods for Personals table, and that can be done concurrently with the player look-ups. The look-ups are standardized and don't require 15 minutes of studying a table to determine the best option. The player can use this method to their advantage to increase their chance of success without guaranteeing it. The skills the player earned during character creation are not ignored. The player completely controls the action.

It's not perfect, but it seems to me to be better than the Personals system by itself. It also seems less arbitrary than the task system by itself. I like the fact that the player controls the action, but would want to make sure that a newbie player had a firm handle on the task game mechanic before I presented it to them. Unfortunately, requiring a role-playing justification, while great for a table/house rule doesn't really make for a good game mechanic in a rule book.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
Can it work without a characteristic? I.E. a Skill Check with whatever mods the player can talk the referee into accepting?
 
Can it work without a characteristic? I.E. a Skill Check with whatever mods the player can talk the referee into accepting?

For the opposed checks that would probably work. For the initial encounter, I'm not so sure. You might need it to help you get your foot in the door. I would have to think about that.

Remember, not all initial checks will Carousing. The example in T5.09 is a Query.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
I figured that Other Mods could figure prominently for Getting Your Foot In The Door:

- Your Rank + Number of Terms (assuming the same service)
- Among Military vets, your # of Medals, or even your # of Wound Badges.
- Your Fame
- Between Scouts, the number of discoveries you've made + the number of terms spent in Xboat service.
- Between Nobles, your SOC of course, but what about the number of Fiefs you possess?
- Between Rogues, the number of successful capers.
- Jail time served, in years, if the other guy also did time.
 
Regardless, I think your improvements would make good suggestion-based errata. They keep the spirit of the rules but improves Ease Of Use.
 
Another sleep, and another dog walking. At 5am it is quiet and the stars are beautiful. It gives me about 45 minutes of "think about Traveller" time. This morning I stared at Venus and Jupiter and asked myself what I wanted to know about those planets, who I would ask to find out, and how I would ask them. :D

It would certainly make the mechanic easier if the player only had to select a skill and not a characteristic. I wouldn't want to increase the quick Personals list much more than it already is. With the addition of the "Please Reconsider" entries, that makes four blocks of six each. I don't want to give the players analysis paralysis. But there is nothing wrong with expanding the Mods for Personals table a bit. It is currently a very small table.

Perhaps, your suggestions for various similarities could go there. :coffeegulp: Perhaps strategies and tactics could go there. Perhaps ... my mind is whirling with possibilities right now. I have to distill those possibilities into something that doesn't spoil the "ease of use" factor. I'll try to have another proposal this weekend.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
I'm still working on proposal v2. I had another burst of inspiration this morning. :ssb: Rather than have the player choose the characteristic or eliminate the characteristic from the roll, would it make sense to use tC6?

C6 is the characteristic that governs group dynamics (Soc = large group hierarchy, Cha = small group hierarchy, and Cas = genetic group hierarchy). tC6 means to use the characteristic that is indicated by the target's genetic profile (Soc for humans, Cha for Vargr, Cas for Droyne, etc.). If you want to influence someone else, you need to play into their group hierarchy.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka
 
From a role-playing standpoint, this is pretty cool. It's much better than just "I ask the guy at the bar where Commander Riker is" or the in-character version "hey buddy, where can I find Commander Riker?" It allows the player to role-play a little, but not get out of their comfort zone if they are a shy player, and it doesn't unduly reward players with the gift of gab.

From a game-mechanic/ease of use standpoint, this seems to me to be a nightmare. I spent alot of time staring at tables and looking at modifiers to determine the best course of action to ensure my success (Mods for Personals table on p. 159, Personal Interactions table on p. 160, The Five Laws table on p. 160). A player staring at these tables isn't role-playing, they are roll-playing. My players wouldn't be happy because they wouldn't really know what to look for on the tables. They would spend 10-15 minutes looking until they found the right combination to guarantee their success (like I did). Guaranteed success isn't really that fun, but the upside is it gave me the ideas to tell a good story. Unfortunately, once you determine the formula for success, you can use the same formula over and over again.

The Personals system appears to me like a gear-head solution. I'm all for gear-heads making ships, star systems, creatures, weapons, et. al., but those things don't happen during a gaming session. I started to load the personals into a spreadsheet so that I could just enter Carouse/Enjoyment/Flattery/Comfort and have the system spit out 1D < 6, but that means that I would be constrained to using a laptop or other device at the table. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not really my style.

If the player tries to role-play through the situation I described above, the GM without a laptop or device still has to review the tables to come up with the most appropriate Purpose, Strategy, Tactic, Law, and Modifiers to most closely fit the situation. As I said before, a GM staring at tables results in impatient or bored players. A GM with a laptop or other device that has players staring at the back of the laptop or the top of his or her head as the device is used during a game while the GM is trying to properly code the Personal goes back to the impatient/boredom dynamic.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

There are other ways.

In a completely different universe, we were in a Star Trek 'episode' where our captain had to make one of those impassioned Kirk 'truth justice and the Federation Way' speeches.

He's NOT a people person and was going for the roll, when the ref made him make the speech, with hilarity ensuing.

He got it done well enough for a reasonable roll, and we succeeded.
 
I'm still working on proposal v2. I had another burst of inspiration this morning. :ssb: Rather than have the player choose the characteristic or eliminate the characteristic from the roll, would it make sense to use tC6?

C6 is the characteristic that governs group dynamics (Soc = large group hierarchy, Cha = small group hierarchy, and Cas = genetic group hierarchy). tC6 means to use the characteristic that is indicated by the target's genetic profile (Soc for humans, Cha for Vargr, Cas for Droyne, etc.). If you want to influence someone else, you need to play into their group hierarchy.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

Ahh, got you covered.

Coming back to the game, it hit me that the UPP got short shrift and was largely ignored by both task and RPG elements, and so I rerigged everything to work off of C + S, as I am now led to believe that T5 does.

So in my IMTU thread I posted each UPP stat and how they work moreso then previous versions- this is the Social Standing version which has a largish section on Soc based interaction. Perhaps you can use it.

Remember this is CT, so you will have to convert this into whatever T5 does.

This one is very underutilized IMO in most TUs, besides the 'do I get a yacht' question and the matter of nobility privilege, and was the stat that got me thinking about the whole use of stats and how they are largely neutered in favor of skills.

I don't have a 1000 star empire with the emperor and 'loyal' vassals as organizing principle, just the opening phase of Earth's exploration and expansion. So I do not have nobles in the classic OTU sense.

Went through thinking about all manner of human history, cultures etc. and decided that this is a valid character differentiation. EVERY society, from ancient to modern democracy/communist/fascist setup, has stratas of people that are 'in' and 'in power', and those that are not.

Also, being human, the power elite AND the common citizen are IMO more comfortable dealing with people 'at their level' across cultures and nations moreso then 'their own kind' at a different social level. There is a behavioral element to one's 'place in society'.

Americans especially like to think that we are all one great big fluffy meritocracy hence ignoring this stat, but even so there is strata based on wealth if nothing else, with behaviors that apply.

I have read some Mongoose Traveller on 'keeping up' re: social events and what sort of neighborhood you live in at what price, and I like that. I think IMTU the stat is actually something tracked to include demographics, a valuation of the neighborhood the player lives in, credit rating/societal reputation, attitudes, honor, and associated behaviors.

So, I am amping up the use of SOC in three ways.

1) SOC can go up or down by player action in game. In particular scandals, conviction in crime, failing to meet financial obligations, or lack of activity within X community can drop the stat, increased wealth, moving into the right clubs/social circles, achievements and reputation can increase it. SOC can change more readily then the other stats.

Players will want to manage it carefully, if for the 'credit rating' aspects if nothing else, and can be a major RP element to increase or prevent dropping.

2) SOC is the base stat for Fiscal Checks.

For loans/investments, it would be a task check with appropriate skills such as Trader, Admin, etc. but basically who you know and what reputation you have, and how much you can expect to raise/be granted. Difficulty Level would be set by the referee by a number of factors in play, particularly how much the amount sought is divided by the character's income, under how much a cloud the character is under with LE or society in general, etc.

The flip side for the underclass is utilizing the power of The Street to work around society's conventions and resource allocation structure to get things done outside the rules set by the power elite. So Social Standing is the primary stat for Streetwise checks, but in reverse from the normal stat/task check- it's rolling SOC or higher with Streetwise added in and DL modifying.

3) SOC is the primary modifying stat for reaction rolls in a social setting.

On a reaction roll, check the difference between the characters' SOC.

If the same, +3.

If the difference is 1, +2.

If the difference is 2, +1 mod.

If the difference is 3, 0 mod.

If the difference is 4, -1 mod, etc. etc.

Each level of Liaison and/or Steward adds +1 to the reaction roll.

In general, the attack factor should not be taken literally except in a frontier/bar/urban hell type setting, the attack should come as a verbal attack. Which may turn into a fight/duel/vendetta, depending.


There are two exceptions to the above.

* If a natural 2 or 12 is rolled, the SOC modifier is completely ignored- kindred spirits or despised personalities have come to the fore, ignoring class behavioral issues due to a strong deep reaction.

* Corporations, businesses, crews, military forces, none could operate if people with critical skill sets cannot get along due to SOC issues, so in a professional setting people tend to use their professional persona.

For that purpose, everyone who is 'being professional' is treated as SOC 8, no positive or negative mods between each other, Liaison and/or Steward +1 per skill level.

If one character is acting professionally and the other retains their 'natural' social reaction persona, the professional is treated as being at 8 and the social at their level, mods and Liaison apply.

Referees may exact different rolls for 'maintaining professionalism' in the face of provocation or excessive length of time 'on the job'.

Note that at upper levels of the military, government and corporations, one is expected to perform at social events, as 'an officer and a gentlemen' or as a gracious business/community leader, and drinking, long party hours or peer pressure may cause a character to drop out of their professional persona, with possibly positive or negative effects.
 
Back
Top