Campaign Idea

[Sackett]

Due to geography, I must play solo game. Oh well, sucks to be me. I have the basic books for CT and most of the supplements, but certainly not all of canon.
I am starting a campaign. Central figure is a retired ImpNav doctor who boosted SS up to F (only good rolls he had and it was SS).
I'm planning on a marine, a scout and a character basically Imp CIA type, using SORAG. Premise... they all, save the scout worked on a mission or two together in their careers. (YeaH, i KNOW, LIKELYHOOD OF INTER-ARM WORKING TOGETHER IS LAUGHABLE.)
In place of an established fief, the ImpNav is enfeofed (?) with a world (maybe even a system) just within the frontier. Little or no population or tech, but otherwise class T-prime.
That is, IF and only if, he meets the requirements for colonization/exploitation. He is given a 5 year window to come up with the fee and plan and proof of means to begin the plan (say start within 1 year of presentation of plan.)
Sound reasonable so far? Any canonical references to colonization/exploitation rights procedures?
What would be a reasonable filing fee?

From there I plan to work thru the published adventures that I have to raise funds and make contacts, etc.

Good news is, I should have $$$ to purchase the cdroms within 60 days (crosses fingers).

 

[rancke]

I am starting a campaign. Central figure is a retired ImpNav doctor who boosted SS up to F (only good rolls he had and it was SS).

I'm planning on a marine, a scout and a character basically Imp CIA type, using SORAG. Premise... they all, save the scout worked on a mission or two together in their careers. (YeaH, i KNOW, LIKELYHOOD OF INTER-ARM WORKING TOGETHER IS LAUGHABLE.)

In place of an established fief, the ImpNav is enfeofed (?) with a world (maybe even a system) just within the frontier. Little or no population or tech, but otherwise class T-prime.

That is, IF and only if, he meets the requirements for colonization/exploitation. He is given a 5 year window to come up with the fee and plan and proof of means to begin the plan (say start within 1 year of presentation of plan.)

Sound reasonable so far?

Not really. But then again, the particular bit of canon that allows a player character to become elevated to Imperial duke isn't reasonable in the first place (IMO, of course). In my own TU, a lucky PC in the IN can reach SS 15, but that just gives him a lesser Imperial knighthood that makes him the social equal of a planetary duke -- that is, an analog of a 19th Century European duke -- whereas the Imperial peerage starts at SS 24 (=Imperial baron). Consider that Imperial marquesses runs to one per important world. That means they are the social equals of planetary rulers. If our Earth today was an Imperial member world and if it had a world government, and if said government had a hereditary ruler, he would be the social equal of an Imperial marquis. And dukes are a couple ranks above that.

Be that as it may, an Imperial high duke runs an entire duchy -- usually a subsector worth of worlds. Imperial rank and honor nobles don't run anything, but they are the social equals of those high dukes. If the Emperor wanted to provide your PC with a high ducal title, he'd have to scrounge up at least a score of worlds with at least a couple of stellar tech, high-population worlds.

The kind of member world you could stamp up by establishing a colony would need several generations to become suitable for an Imperial baron. Well... unless you have the political clout to get the Emperor to stretch a point. One of Marquis Leonard of Aramis' ancestors bought himself an empty world and got a secondary baronial title out of it.

The basic idea is interesting enough (I've used it myself for a fantasy campaign, although the fief the PCs had to prove was a small valley, not an entire world). Perhaps you should consider setting it in another place of Charted Space with a pocket empire, and perhaps a smaller fief? A continent or a biggish island (say, England-sized), perhaps.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

Due to geography, I must play solo game.

Geography alone does not necessitate solo play. While not being able to have in person games with others, there are many other possibilities, mostly via computer. If you are posting here, I am assuming you have regular access to a computer.

I'll start with PbP (play by post) which is available on this web site and others.

There are real time games via simple text chat. Many on-line email sites like Google, Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft offer this.

I've been playing for over a year in a once a week game via Microsoft messenger with people that came together here on this website.

There is also IRC and other chat programs.

There are higher end applications designed specifically for on-line gaming that have features that support mapping, dice rolling and more. Just ask and people will tell you about the ones they have used.

There is Skype and other programs that would allow free real time voice games via computer.

With many people having free long distance and conference calling, there is a possibility of gaming this way. I have not heard of anyone actually using this method though.

So, take a look at the Black Star or By Hook or by Crook PBP games (I'm currently running these) if you want to join a PbP or post in the Play by Post - OOC forum if you are looking to start up a new PbP game. Post in the Recruiting Office forum if you are looking for players via some other means.

 

[Icosahedron]

Soc 15 is a Duke. So says LBB3. What kind of duke and how big a fief you grant him is a matter for you to decide in your own game - especially if it's solo!
For that matter, you could even change his title.

The best Traveller sources I've seen for setting up a colony are Pocket Empires and World Tamers Handbook. Between them they have pretty much everything you'll need to set up a colony, except, unfortunately, prices for documentation. I would imagine these will be priced highly enough to discourage spurious applications, but will be negligible compared with the actual colony costs. Somewhere in the region of 10^4 to 10^6 Cr, at a guess. You could go with 10^x Cr per world size number, perhaps?

PE and WTH are quite gearheaded tomes, but you could use them just to mine ideas and get some ballpark figures.

If you go with, or in the spirit of, those books, colonisation is Expensive with a capital E. You'll be spending far more than a squadron of starships, and your character's grandchildren will still be tilling fields and living in prefabs. It takes a loooong time.

I'll second Cosmic's statement that there are many ways to play via computer. Try them out, you can always fall back on solo.

 

[rancke]

Soc 15 is a Duke. So says LBB3. What kind of duke and how big a fief you grant him is a matter for you to decide in your own game - especially if it's solo!

So it is. However, the OP asked about canonical information, so I stuck to canonical dukes. Sadly, the kind of dukes you get when you promote middle class naval officers for merit are not really the kind of dukes you get when you have them rule sizable groups of star systems, yet canon insists they're the same.

Kind of like how some English admirals became dukes but they didn't become royal dukes, except the discrepancy is much bigger.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

Sadly, the kind of dukes you get when you promote middle class naval officers for merit are not really the kind of dukes you get when you have them rule sizable groups of star systems, yet canon insists they're the same.

Reference please.

Soc 15 is a Duke. So says LBB3.

Page reference please so that I don't have to scour every page. I noticed nothing in the table of contents that would indicate this subject matter and could not locate it with a quick look.

Is LBB3 that sexist? In my Charts and Tables booklet it is

F 15 Duke, Dutchess

Interestingly, this topic came up recently in a PM conversation I was having with someone.

I break nobles up into the following groups
Career Noble: given noble title because of your job
Honor Noble: given noble title because of your deeds
Hereditary Noble: inherited noble title because of your heritage

Hereditary nobles are the ones that preside over systems, sub sectors, and so on. Career Nobles have a great deal of responsibility, the backing of the hereditary nobles, and can receive land and other rewards. Honor Nobles are given respect but have no direct say in how things are run. Sometimes lands, financial rewards, and other things are given, but only to those that have done something very extraordinary.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, I just went to http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Nobility I don't know how canon this is.

In general a noble's status is lower when he leaves his sphere of influence.

Which is kind of how I treat any increase in Soc Status gained during service. Once you leave the service you may be known because of the position you held or the deeds you performed but you don't wield the same influence.

 

[aramis]

So it is. However, the OP asked about canonical information, so I stuck to canonical dukes. Sadly, the kind of dukes you get when you promote middle class naval officers for merit are not really the kind of dukes you get when you have them rule sizable groups of star systems, yet canon insists they're the same.

Wrong. MT Imperial Encyclopedia, pp.12-13.

It makes clear that Rank nobles and Reward Nobles are NOT the same as High Nobles.

Rank Nobles get their iperial title by virtue of either:
1) A local world's noble title
2) Holding some important administrative job.
Rank nobles patents are not hereditary unless they are tied to a hereditary local title; after stepping down, a courtesy title goes with.

Reward Nobles may or may not be hereditary; it's unclear but implies not except in exceptional cases.

High Nobles (of any rank) are the hereditary imperial nobility.

 

[rancke]

Wrong. MT Imperial Encyclopedia, pp.12-13.

It makes clear that Rank nobles and Reward Nobles are NOT the same as High Nobles.

No, but they are supposedly the same social level. Human nature just doesn't work that way. If you have a group of perhaps 300 dukes who are dukes because they each rule three dozen star systems, including several high-tech, high-population ones -- we're talking SERIOUS clout here -- and you have another group of several tens of thousands dukes who are dukes because they, or their ancestors, happened to... actually, I've no idea what dizzy heights of efficiency or performance it takes to become a duke while serving in the IN, except it's something a darn sight less than winning an important battle. Anyway, if you have two such groups, they're not going to be considered socially equivalent. They are not going to be the same level of nobility.

Rank Nobles get their imperial title by virtue of either:
1) A local world's noble title
2) Holding some important administrative job.
Rank nobles patents are not hereditary unless they are tied to a hereditary local title; after stepping down, a courtesy title goes with.

In other words, the dukes generated by the Character Generation System are not rank nobles, since their titles are awarded without reference to holding a specific administrative job -- or a specific high military rank either. GT:Nobles makes that even clearer, but since you don't accept GT as canon, I won't bother to provide quotes.

Reward Nobles may or may not be hereditary; it's unclear but implies not except in exceptional cases.

I assume you're talking about honor nobles here. According to IE:13, "Only patents for knights, baronets, barons, and marquis [sic.] may be issued for achievement; patents for count and other high ranks are too important to be given as mere rewards."

So no CGS dukes among the honor nobles either.

High Nobles (of any rank) are the hereditary imperial nobility.

And I hope we at least agree that a PC who is lucky enough to throw enough sixes during mustering out to reach SS 15 isn't going to become a high duke (Be a bit difficult to go adventuring if the Emperor expects him to run a duchy at the same time).


Hans

 

[aramis]

You should note that the CG system seems to produce mostly rank nobles, Hans. They have the courtesy titles, and usually sufficiently high non-social rank, to establish that they are in fact former holders of some important offices.

Therefore, any Counts and dukes from CG are by definition FORMER rank nobles; they can not be Reward Nobles, and unless in the Noble Career, are unlikely to be hereditary Imperial Nobles of even baronial rank... But they carry the courtesy title, having served their time.

Simple logic, really.
1) They can't be Reward, since it's explicitly not for Dukes and Counts.
2) They can't be High, since
2a) there would be way to many worlds run by retired admirals
2b) high nobles are usually in the Noble career and
2c) high noble promotion is by necessity promotion by attrition (and implies a 1:18 to 1:36 ratio!)
3) Rank nobles get to keep a courtesy title after stepping down

Therefore, the majority should be courtesy titles.

As for your assertion about rank vs title... just go to an SCA event. Or any military base... A retired Col (no authority at all) gets saluted by the Active Duty LtCol. (who has LOTS of authority).

 

[CosmicGamer]

they are supposedly the same social level. Human nature just doesn't work that way.

I'll point out again the term 'sphere of influence'. Would a duke who is traveling outside their sphere of influence have the same 'social level' as the duchess whose territory they are passing through? What kind of 'social level' does a famous athlete or entertainer have? What would the 'social level' for a war hero who fought an in system war be in their hometown, in their system, in the neighboring system, in a system farther away... To me, the Soc stat is a pain in the assteroids because it is not very realistic if you take it at face value all of the time.

Be a bit difficult to go adventuring if the Emperor expects him to run a duchy at the same time Hans

Running the duchy can be an adventure in itself.

 

[rancke]

You should note that the CG system seems to produce mostly rank nobles, Hans.

My point is that the CG system does not produce high, honor, OR rank dukes. It's possible (albeit rather rare) to become a duke when you're still an ensign. But captains who start with a decent social standing have an excellent chance of becoming dukes. If they had an SS of 10 when they joined, all they need is to throw two sixes on the benefits mustering out table (they got a +1 SS when they became captain). The same when they started with SS 9 and had one assignment as attache or aide on the way up. Just what position that can be held by a captain (let alone an ensign) requires the holder to be an Imperial duke[*]? I can see no way that the SS advancements handed out by the CG system to non-admiral officers can possibly represent elevation to the rank nobility. Captains and below just wouldn't occupy positions that require the holder to be a duke.

[*] And for those of us who regard GT as canon, the only navy position that requires the holder to be a duke is (according to GT:Nobles) First Lord of the Admiralty.​

Hans

 

[Sackett]

Easy does it

The premise for the fiefdom was simply to stimulate settlement in the area since it is frontier and border with known hostiles. Ergo the military mindset.
Also, given the history of hereditary governance versus elevation by merit, my money goes with merit, but that is personal observation, not game related.
He did get a MCG, promotion to Captain and a Purple heart his last term (the PH persuaded him it was time to leave, retirement pay be damned).
My thinking was, he did heap big brave that impressed someone enough to pull a few strings (imagine when Prince William of England was deployed if someone saved his behind). The title was vanity and carries little weight, the real reward was the opportunity to TRY colonization IF he can muster the required resources.That's as far as the strings could be pulled.
I'm not saying that this is all probable. Shoot, how much of what happens in a game is? Is it plausible?
I've tried PBP and online and I'm too old fashioned. My problem, I know.

 

[Icosahedron]

So it is. However, the OP asked about canonical information, so I stuck to canonical dukes.
Hans

Well, except for your Soc24 baron...


LBB3 p22 (1st ed) near Patron Encounters Table and Reaction Table.
No, LBB3 isn't sexist, that was my abbreviation. - I'm not PC and it was my idea.


When nobles move outside their sphere of influence, they are afforded respect but have no power - they are a visiting dignitary. Presumably they will still have their wealth (creating it's own influence) and will move in the same circles as local nobles. Essentially, their rank will be capped at the level of their host.
Unless the visitor is a High Noble, in which case the local noble may still grovel and the definition of 'sphere of influence' needs to be examined further.

I think to some extent Chargen has to be taken as a whole, rather than being split into separate years. So your ducal captain didn't become a duke in his fourth term, he was already a duke, and was therefore quickly promoted to captain.
It's a game, sometimes the rules don't give perfect results and you need to interpret the most likely meaning from the numbers you roll on the dice.

 

[aramis]

[*] And for those of us who regard GT as canon, the only navy position that requires the holder to be a duke is (according to GT:Nobles) First Lord of the Admiralty.​

Hans

Which is yet another GT break from Real Canon... where almost every sector or numbered fleet commander whose soc is identified is a Lord of some stripe... a synonym for Noble, and used only for Baronettes and higher...

Santanocheev is, himself Lord Santanocheev. (CT G03 5FW)
Vice Marshal Lord Calavan (ibid.)
Army vice-marshal Adam Lord Bryor (ibid.)
Dulinor's Brother was Sector Admiral of the Illellish fleet (MT IE, p5)

We don't know their specific soc, other than it's higher than 11.

It sure looks like Sector CO's in all forces seem to be at least likely rank nobles, but not of need Dukes, tho with successive important posts, they can apparently gain higher courtesy titles.

Which said, while not identified as such, the only courtesy titles mentioned are for former rank nobles and for heirs. That retired admiral is no longer a rank noble, but he's a courtesy title of the duchy that he's held because he was a CO at sector or domain level.

 

[rancke]

...the only navy position that requires the holder to be a duke is (according to GT:Nobles) First Lord of the Admiralty.

Which is yet another GT break from Real Canon...

It does break slightly with the original CG system, I admit, since CG allows for someone to become a Grand Admiral with a SS of 4 (start with SS 2, +1 as captain, +1 as admiral), but I don't see that as a major break.

...where almost every sector or numbered fleet commander whose soc is identified is a Lord of some stripe... a synonym for Noble, and used only for Baronettes and higher...

Barons and higher. Baronets are essentially hereditary knights and are not peers.

Santanocheev is, himself Lord Santanocheev. (CT G03 5FW)
Vice Marshal Lord Calavan (ibid.)
Army vice-marshal Adam Lord Bryor (ibid.)
Dulinor's Brother was Sector Admiral of the Illellish fleet (MT IE, p5)

We don't know their specific soc, other than it's higher than 11.

Hutara Ilethian presumably has the same social standing as his father and brother, although he wouldn't be a duke in his own right. But as sector admiral, he is only required to be a baron himself (according to Nobles, that is), so he either has a courtesy title (as the younger son of the previous Duke of Dlan) that is considered good enough, or (more likely) he has been given a rank noble baronial title (or higher) in his own right. Santanocheev is the son of the Count of Fornice; again that might provide him with a suitable courtesy title, or he could have gotten a rank barony when he became rear admiral.

It sure looks like Sector CO's in all forces seem to be at least likely rank nobles, but not of need Dukes, tho with successive important posts, they can apparently gain higher courtesy titles.

Now that's a deduction that does not follow. Most senior sector officials have to be at least barons. If the Imperium wants to promote a gifted commoner to such a position, it has to stick a rank noble title (either hereditary or lifetime) on him. But it can also appoint one of the existing Imperial nobles to the position, thus finding gainful employment for another younger child and prevent the proliferation of noble titles.

Which said, while not identified as such, the only courtesy titles mentioned are for former rank nobles and for heirs. That retired admiral is no longer a rank noble, but he's a courtesy title of the duchy that he's held because he was a CO at sector or domain level.

Is there a single canonical example of a noble title that we can say for sure is a courtesy title? I can't think of one. The essay on nobles in IE mentions that patents may be revoked or transferred at the conclusion of duties (and I agree that former commoner-turned-rank-noble Everyman would retain the social status of his former (now courtesy) title), but I don't recall any examples.


Hans

 

[Leitz]

Sounds like an interesting proposition..."Here's a title, let's see if you can make anything of it". In general I would expect peace ennoblements to be granted as a measure of status, not of actual power. Even in Soc F groups you have pecking order, and you can have a Soc 7 with more power than any of them.

So, Sackett, your idea crosses a border the canon material does not answer suitably for many folks. Assume that it's a risky offer and your character can make the title have some validity. That sense of "can" is what adventures are made of.

Addendum. Think of this forum. We have social titles and can buy higher. However, some folks have established through service, trust, and hard work a level of power that I really can't buy. That's fairly natural and makes sense in lots of places.

L

 

[CosmicGamer]

LBB3 p22 (1st ed) near Patron Encounters Table and Reaction Table.

hmm, my book says copyright 1977, 1981. Page 22 is one of several pages of vehicles. The patrons encounters and reactions tables are on page 27. I see no mention of nobles.

No wonder people can't agree on things if the resources they have can be so different.

 

[aramis]

Hans, the thing is that a hereditary High Baron's Son promoted to duke, but not in the noble career, is as obviously not a High Duke without exceptional circumstances. It's more likely his dukal title is courtesy from some rank title, since the Ducal title can not be a reward title.

You can't put the high nobles in, because they are busy with their career, being a serving high noble. Norris is the oddball exception; he was not a career noble, and was not a duke, either, until his brother and his father died. He was a courtesy title count, by virtue of his father, until the day his brother died, when he became a courtesy duke, and the day his father died, he became a high-duke, and switched careers. Not long after, he appoints himself sector admiral....

And Hans, a real world Baronet is a form of purchased title introduced in the 1800's... a Traveller Baronet is a Baron created by an Archduke, per both S11 and MTIE. (And the to essays differ. More than I realised before this week.) Most would be non-hereditary reward nobles, some would be low-end rank nobles. None would be high nobles. Effective soc 11.5. They hold precedence after the barons proper, but above the knights, and are not inherently knights.

 

[rancke]

The first part of the post does not seem to contradict anything I've said or refute my basic claim, so I have no useful comments to it.

And Hans, a real world Baronet is a form of purchased title introduced in the 1800's...

"A baronetcy is not a peerage, so baronets, like knights, are commoners as opposed to noblemen." [Wikipedia:Baronet]

...a Traveller Baronet is a Baron created by an Archduke, per both S11 and MTIE. (And the to essays differ. More than I realised before this week.) Most would be non-hereditary reward nobles, some would be low-end rank nobles. None would be high nobles. Effective soc 11.5. They hold precedence after the barons proper, but above the knights, and are not inherently knights.

The essays do indeed say that baronets are "a special form of baron". They also claim that knights are part of the Imperial nobility. Apparently usage of the term 'noble' has changed by the Classic Era. I'll try to remember in the future.

If you read the description, though, it would seem that only that usage has changed. What's special about baronets vis-a-vis barons is that they have none of the attributes of barons, except for being hereditary. If the Imperial variety are hereditary, that is. As you say, there may also be life baronetcies. In the Imperium, at least.

I stand by my claim that in real life baronets are "essentially hereditary knights", but I admit there are complications. For instance, the whole concept of knighthood would seem to make a hereditary knight a contradiction in terms (though Britain actually has three hereditary knighthoods), so baronets aren't knights by a strict definition. But they're ranked in between the knights (two of the orders of knighthood outranks them), they're addressed as 'Sir', just like a knight, and they're not peers, the way barons are.

As for the Imperial nobility, it's a nuisance that it is almost, but not quite like Real Life nobles, but give me a few days to adjust and I'll be all right with it.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Traveller makes a distinction between "Noble" (Knight, Baronet, Baron, Marquis, Count Duke, Archduke) and Peer (Baronet, Baron, Marquis, Count, Duke, Archduke) explicitly, and by use, Royals (Grand Count, Grand Duke, Prince, Imperial Consort, Emperor/Emperess-sovereign).

Real life early English Baronets were NOT usually hereditary. The remainder are the few who are descendant from those few who were granted heritable titles. It was the Crown raising monies by sale of titles later. Likewise, the crown has since done away with the right of knighting of the eldest son of baronets.

Also, note that the Wikipedia entry is NOT well written, but every time a pursuivant tries to edit it, especially using references like Fox-Davies, it gets changed back to "wrong"... or at least "vague"... http://www.answers.com/topic/baronet has a better essay.

Not all knights in the British system are Nobles, but many peers are also knights; many nobles likewise have no titles at all, but still are noble by birth... but Traveller nobility is grounded strongly in non-modern systems... essentially, it's the Russian system with English titles. And 200 of the 1300 baronets in the UK are, in fact, peers as well... holding multiple titles.