Book 1 (1st Ed.) nobles

[aramis]

IF: In this case it's NEITHER MTU not OTU, but specific case of early publications and deriving intent.

BGG: SMC is well past 1st Ed LBB's. 1980 is well past 1st ed LBB's...

The 1st ed is changed rapidly; 2nd printing is different from 1st ed. In several key points, from what I've read.

 

[aramis]

IF: In this case it's NEITHER MTU not OTU, but specific case of early publications and deriving intent.

BGG: SMC is well past 1st Ed LBB's. 1980 is well past 1st ed LBB's...

The 1st ed is changed rapidly; 2nd printing is different from 1st ed. In several key points, from what I've read.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BGG: SMC is well past 1st Ed LBB's.

I was referring to the sector supplement (Supp. 3?) not the campaign, which came much later.

Originally posted by Aramis:
1980 is well past 1st ed LBB's...

Yes, but as I said, I think that was still the predominate ruleset whereby the supplement and the adventure were released. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Aramis:
The 1st ed is changed rapidly; 2nd printing is different from 1st ed. In several key points, from what I've read.

I kick myself about once a week for not hanging on to my 1e black box...

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BGG: SMC is well past 1st Ed LBB's.

I was referring to the sector supplement (Supp. 3?) not the campaign, which came much later.

Originally posted by Aramis:
1980 is well past 1st ed LBB's...

Yes, but as I said, I think that was still the predominate ruleset whereby the supplement and the adventure were released. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Aramis:
The 1st ed is changed rapidly; 2nd printing is different from 1st ed. In several key points, from what I've read.

I kick myself about once a week for not hanging on to my 1e black box...

 

[Jame]

I noticed that they left out viscounts and earls.

 

[Jame]

I noticed that they left out viscounts and earls.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
"Imprecise," yes. But using it to refer to anything more than what you can count on fingers smacks of "indiscriminate."

Lazy maybe. I wouldn't say indiscriminate. Still insisting on the strength of that one word and one word alone (a word with a rather flexible meaning that seems to have been used in an imprecise way) that there is a difference between dukes in character generation and dukes in every other reference in the game strikes me as unwaranted as well.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
"Imprecise," yes. But using it to refer to anything more than what you can count on fingers smacks of "indiscriminate."

Lazy maybe. I wouldn't say indiscriminate. Still insisting on the strength of that one word and one word alone (a word with a rather flexible meaning that seems to have been used in an imprecise way) that there is a difference between dukes in character generation and dukes in every other reference in the game strikes me as unwaranted as well.

 

[aramis]

Earl is just another name for Count; an Earl's wife is in fact a Countess, as is a female holding the title in her own right (sole heir, of oldest of females with no male heirs.).

Viscount has equivalents in some but not all european systems of nobility; currently the most common use I've encountered (outside the SCA) is that of the Courtesy Title of the heirs to a County in Britain. I've read that it was common enough in France, and hence why it appears at all in Russia...

Duke/Herzog/Vevoda/Dux is fairly common
Marquis/Margraf/Marchio/Markize is likewise common
Count/Comes/Contes/Graf is nearly ubiquitous in former Roman dependencies
Baron is less common as a title in its own, but is better known and more often used in science fiction.
Knighthood is not a rank of nobility in some systems, but is either the lowest rank of noble or highest rank of non-noble


In pre traveller Sci Fi, of which I've read a bunch, but by no means an exhaustive or even vast sample, I have encountered only a few ranks of nobility and royalty:

Emperor
King
Prince
Duke
Count
Baron
Demi-baron (Dune)
Lord


If we were to revise to include the various grades-common, we'd wind up with something akin to:

Emperor
King
Arch Duke
Prince
Grand Duke
Duke (Royal)
Duke (Noble)
Marquis
Count
Viscount
Baron
Baronet or Signeur
Knight
Lord

That Marc (uncharacteristically) restricted to 5 the player titles (instead of 6) is an oddity in itself, ESPECIALLY given the 3 additional ranks mentioned in the back of Bk 3...

BGG: Unless you purchased it VERY early on, it may not have been 1st printing... since 7th printing is different from first, and is still "1st Edition"

There was a discussion on one of the traveller boards (I think it was here, I'm searching for it) that references the appearance and disappearances of various bits in the so called "first edition".

And, while "Second Ed" is 1981, Supp3 gets revised along with it... I've seen/owned two different printings, and they are not identical in content. But both of them support a "Largish" imperium.

Hans: Which printing LBB's are you using?

 

[aramis]

Earl is just another name for Count; an Earl's wife is in fact a Countess, as is a female holding the title in her own right (sole heir, of oldest of females with no male heirs.).

Viscount has equivalents in some but not all european systems of nobility; currently the most common use I've encountered (outside the SCA) is that of the Courtesy Title of the heirs to a County in Britain. I've read that it was common enough in France, and hence why it appears at all in Russia...

Duke/Herzog/Vevoda/Dux is fairly common
Marquis/Margraf/Marchio/Markize is likewise common
Count/Comes/Contes/Graf is nearly ubiquitous in former Roman dependencies
Baron is less common as a title in its own, but is better known and more often used in science fiction.
Knighthood is not a rank of nobility in some systems, but is either the lowest rank of noble or highest rank of non-noble


In pre traveller Sci Fi, of which I've read a bunch, but by no means an exhaustive or even vast sample, I have encountered only a few ranks of nobility and royalty:

Emperor
King
Prince
Duke
Count
Baron
Demi-baron (Dune)
Lord


If we were to revise to include the various grades-common, we'd wind up with something akin to:

Emperor
King
Arch Duke
Prince
Grand Duke
Duke (Royal)
Duke (Noble)
Marquis
Count
Viscount
Baron
Baronet or Signeur
Knight
Lord

That Marc (uncharacteristically) restricted to 5 the player titles (instead of 6) is an oddity in itself, ESPECIALLY given the 3 additional ranks mentioned in the back of Bk 3...

BGG: Unless you purchased it VERY early on, it may not have been 1st printing... since 7th printing is different from first, and is still "1st Edition"

There was a discussion on one of the traveller boards (I think it was here, I'm searching for it) that references the appearance and disappearances of various bits in the so called "first edition".

And, while "Second Ed" is 1981, Supp3 gets revised along with it... I've seen/owned two different printings, and they are not identical in content. But both of them support a "Largish" imperium.

Hans: Which printing LBB's are you using?

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BGG: Unless you purchased it VERY early on, it may not have been 1st printing... since 7th printing is different from first, and is still "1st Edition"

Ahhhh...I picked up Traveller in 1978, and I have no idea which printing it was.

*kicks self again*

Regardless of edition or printing, I still don't understand the fuss - Social Standing is and will continue to be an imprecise measure of a character's precedence unless the system is tweaked to reflect phenomena like the noble with both a planetary title and an Imperial title and the noble who's fallen on hard times, without the means to live at his station. In either case, I don't see how rooting around in canon that is silent on the subject makes a whit of difference. This canon-angels-dancing-on-pin-heads stuff just eludes me - can someone convince me why this matters?

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BGG: Unless you purchased it VERY early on, it may not have been 1st printing... since 7th printing is different from first, and is still "1st Edition"

Ahhhh...I picked up Traveller in 1978, and I have no idea which printing it was.

*kicks self again*

Regardless of edition or printing, I still don't understand the fuss - Social Standing is and will continue to be an imprecise measure of a character's precedence unless the system is tweaked to reflect phenomena like the noble with both a planetary title and an Imperial title and the noble who's fallen on hard times, without the means to live at his station. In either case, I don't see how rooting around in canon that is silent on the subject makes a whit of difference. This canon-angels-dancing-on-pin-heads stuff just eludes me - can someone convince me why this matters?

 

[aramis]

To me, it matters because I'm active in the T5 discussions, and I'm hoping the OTU as we know it doesn't make the leap.

In which case, examining the original motifs is important.

 

[aramis]

To me, it matters because I'm active in the T5 discussions, and I'm hoping the OTU as we know it doesn't make the leap.

In which case, examining the original motifs is important.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Aramis:
To me, it matters because I'm active in the T5 discussions, and I'm hoping the OTU as we know it doesn't make the leap.

In which case, examining the original motifs is important.

That's staggeringly esoteric, but perfectly reasonable.

(And the OTU "making the leap" comment is ominous, but that's probably best left for another thread. )

I'm just a simple gamer with a ready handwave or a snappy houserule - parsing sources to divine shades of intention is light-years removed from my own experience or needs.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Aramis:
To me, it matters because I'm active in the T5 discussions, and I'm hoping the OTU as we know it doesn't make the leap.

In which case, examining the original motifs is important.

That's staggeringly esoteric, but perfectly reasonable.

(And the OTU "making the leap" comment is ominous, but that's probably best left for another thread. )

I'm just a simple gamer with a ready handwave or a snappy houserule - parsing sources to divine shades of intention is light-years removed from my own experience or needs.

 

[aramis]

If my wife hadn't said "no" I'd have been off to the Seminary in 1998....

Examining subtleties of text is fun for me...

And MTU has NEVER reflected "Local Nobility." (Exception: worlds with monarchies.)

 

[aramis]

If my wife hadn't said "no" I'd have been off to the Seminary in 1998....

Examining subtleties of text is fun for me...

And MTU has NEVER reflected "Local Nobility." (Exception: worlds with monarchies.)

 

[jawillroy]

I've said it before and will say it again.

Traveller is Talmudic.

 

[jawillroy]

I've said it before and will say it again.

Traveller is Talmudic.