Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Did you allow players to arrange stats to taste?
First Impressions from MGT
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
- Status
Did you allow players to arrange stats to taste?
sablewyvern
SOC-12
Yes, I did.
first let me start by saying I didn't read all zillion pages of this thread :nonono: I read the first half dozen and the last 3-4 so I do't know if anyone mentioned this...
I picked up the MTB (Mongoose Traveller Book) and have been reading through it, ok, obsessing through it really :rofl: and I get the feeling they blended the advanced char gen from Merc/HG/Scout and MP for the incereased numbers of skill one gets (I'm fine with that) while keepinig the four year term block (speeds things up over the year-by-year way) and not dieing in generation is always good (I half-buttock that too, MTB is better)
I do like JOT skill now and the skill clustering/catagorizing reminds me of T4 sort of...I really do like the ability DM's (finally, I was using some half-buttock thing I created, that I really didn't like before).
and a few typoes and grammatical errors (like the dropped paragragh in the hiver description...tsk, tsk mongoose)
but one thing glaringly slapped in the face with its omission.....
Where the F' are X BOATS !
o: mail is mentioned, TAS is too, but not the network?...
I picked up the MTB (Mongoose Traveller Book) and have been reading through it, ok, obsessing through it really :rofl: and I get the feeling they blended the advanced char gen from Merc/HG/Scout and MP for the incereased numbers of skill one gets (I'm fine with that) while keepinig the four year term block (speeds things up over the year-by-year way) and not dieing in generation is always good (I half-buttock that too, MTB is better)
I do like JOT skill now and the skill clustering/catagorizing reminds me of T4 sort of...I really do like the ability DM's (finally, I was using some half-buttock thing I created, that I really didn't like before).
and a few typoes and grammatical errors (like the dropped paragragh in the hiver description...tsk, tsk mongoose)
but one thing glaringly slapped in the face with its omission.....
Where the F' are X BOATS !
o: mail is mentioned, TAS is too, but not the network?...
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Then, I salute your players. Especially the one who put the 3 in STR when he could have used the 6 he put in SOC.
The first character, 8B9874, is how I would expect most players to arrange stats.
It seems that all of them felt DEX was pretty important. There must be some shooting likely in your game. And, all of them felt INT and EDU was important as well.
I haven't seen all of the MGT rules. Why INT and EDU? Are they tied to initiative? Total number of skills? What role does INT and EDU play in the game?
Or, is it that the players are scientists or technically-oriented characters?
Except for character 1, STR seems least important to your players. Four out of five of them made it their lowest stat.
Is this because DEX can be used instead of STR in brawling combat in MGT?
Is there no "carry" or "weight" limit associated with STR?
Generally, what I'm seeing is a INT/EDU and DEX priority among your players. STR is generally the least desireable stat.
SOC seems to be low on the desireability scale too, except for the noble. (But, character 2 is interestesing with 3859B6. Obviously, SOC was more important than END to this player.)
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
(Slaps head) I forgot about ageing throws and bonuses during chargen. Makes more sense, now.
Did character character 2 and 4 get pummeled with the aging throws so that STR went down?
And, did character 2 get a bonus to SOC during chargen--or maybe lost a point of END due to age rolls too?
Did character character 2 and 4 get pummeled with the aging throws so that STR went down?
And, did character 2 get a bonus to SOC during chargen--or maybe lost a point of END due to age rolls too?
sablewyvern
SOC-12
Yeah, the original allocations were more in line with your expectations. Did you catch the link in my earlier post? You can analyse the characters term by term in my Mongoose forum thread (although I haven't listed original characteristic rolls, you can reverse engineer them from the bonuses/penalties accrued.
As a summary: Character 2 suffered -1 to all physical characteristics thanks to aging, and gained Edu +2, Int +1 and End +1 thanks to some nice mustering out rolls. Just to really make your point for you, though, he started with SOC 2. I'm allowing an automatic SOC-6 for all commisions, which is why his SOC ended up where it is. OTOH, he did specifically place his second lowest characteristic into Str and third lowest into End because he came from a low-g world - this in spite of the fact he intended to make a primarily combat-focused character.
Character 4 suffered -1 Dex thanks to aging, and got some nice bonuses to Int and Edu thanks to Personal Development and Mustering Out. His SOC and STR are exactly as he allocated them -- however, to make your point for you once more, the player has since asked me for permission to swap SOC and STR. I think this is because he set out originally to make a character of middling to non-existant combat ability, but by the end of generation decided that he his combat capabilities were significant enough that he would prefer to enhance them. His current character is actually modelled on one he played in a New Era SilTrav game, and the original character was (by player choice) useless in combat.
As to your other questions on the general value of various characteristics:
First up, I should point out I'm using a completely rebuilt version of the playtest combat system, rather than the published version, so the value of characteristics in my game may not match the official system.
It's been generally agreed by the group that Dex probably has the edge in combat value, although all three physical stats are important. Low strength is definitely a draw-back, but the advantages of high Str (wrt to ranged combat) are minimal.
The emphasis on Int and Edu has a two-part explanation. The first was a generally high rate of Int and Edu increases gained during generation. The second is the simple fact that a very large number of skills do rely on Int and Edu. A quick glance at my Mongoose thread will show an emphasis on some core combat skills for most characters, but a generally well-rounded set of secondary skills at rank-0 and rank-1 -- many of which rely on Int/Edu.
Edit: As an aside, I am pretty happy with the characters generated so far. However, if I was to start from scratch again, I'd enforce a five-term limit, instead of the six-term one these characters were built on. In fact, I'll be informing my players this weekend that any new characters will be built on five terms as a maximum. I'm already using a much harsher set of healing and recovery rules than the MGT official ones -- couple that with reduced terms for replacement characters, and I think they'll be treating combat with the respect it deserves. :devil:
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I wasn't really trying to make a point so much as I was attempting to test my assumptions.
Thanks for being honest, though.
Ya know, that's not a bad idea at all--allowing a SOC bump due to commission.
Makes me think of some house rule for CT...maybe a SOC check on 1D. When you get a commission, roll SOC or less on 1D. If successful, you get to roll 1D and add that number to your SOC.
Or, maybe 1-6 points is a bit much. Maybe, a +1 or a +2 or even a +3 SOC is in line.
Have to think about that--but, it's a good idea.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
Understood.
No worries. My intent in posting these stats was just to add some hard numbers gained from actual play into the conversation. By being as transparent as possible in presenting them, I'm hoping that they will be useful to anyone interested, regardless of their personal preferences for one play style or another. This certainly isn't a sales pitch, it's intended to help people decide how they feel about the system.
I just went with raising SOC to 6 (Navy, Marines) or 5 (Army) if currently lower, on reaching O2, because those seem like the lowest values you'd expect for an officer (exceptions may be possible, but rare, especially in a Travelleresque feudal system). I left army officers at one SOC lower because the army is definitely the least prestigious of the three services in the OTU.
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Agreed. In the end, we're all just playin' Traveller, even if we all don't play the same.
That's good reasoning, imo. A solid number would "fit" too, rather than some random number or a straight DM bonus.
I wonder, though...is there no Navy officer that is a bit of a slob, without social grace, that is looked upon as a "peasant" by the other nose-in-the-air Naval clique? Should there be a chance of something lower than SOC 6, albeit a small chance? Or, is SOC 6 rock bottom for the Navy?
I like the idea, so I'm exploring it.
Something like this would be good for inclusion in MGT's chargen, too.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
MGT already includes a SOC-minimum when you hit the upper echelons of commissioned ranks (eg, [Naval] Captain is Soc A or Soc +1, Admiral is Soc C or Soc +1), which is what got me thinking about SOC-minimums for junior officers.
I agree there would be some officers who don't fit the bill, but the number would be small enough that, personally, I don't think it's worth modelling. I can always fiat a low Soc for an NPC if I feel the need, and player could choose to forgo a Soc increase if it didn't suit the way he envisioned the character.
Edit: The other factor to consider is the possibility that any given Soc value doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. All naval officers may have Soc-6 at a minimum, and be treated as such by most people. That doesn't mean that they aren't looked down upon by many of their fellow officers who know what pathetic losers they really are (especially when it's some Baron who entered the service at that rank, forming opinions about some guy who was Soc-2 when he signed up and clearly should be mucking out the latrines, not wearing officers tabs.
Last edited:
Gallowglacht
SOC-12
The fact that he is Soc 6 should be enough to leave the line between Noble and Officer. If you give someone a Soc score, just use the Soc score, rather than overcomplicating stuff. If you start adding ifs, ands and buts you may aswell play it by Fiat.
The fact that he thinks that a couple of years training make up for generations of genetics, breeding, contacts and inside knowledge of real power is enough to ensure that he can be left to ensuring the maintanence teams do their job while the Nobles discuss strategy and politics over dinner.
The fact that he thinks that a couple of years training make up for generations of genetics, breeding, contacts and inside knowledge of real power is enough to ensure that he can be left to ensuring the maintanence teams do their job while the Nobles discuss strategy and politics over dinner.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
I think you may have missed my point, which was mainly that:
1. Just because you are Soc whatever doesn't mean your peers respect your position.
and
2. It's possible to have a particular Soc and not live up to the expectations associated with your position in society.
and thus, there's little point in providing for a mechanical chance that an officer has Soc below the normal minimum (assuming such a minimum is instituted).
Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you're asserting. Are you saying an eccentric noble can't choose to live a Spartan existence if he sees fit, or that everyone treats all barons the same way?
Gallowglacht
SOC-12
I think we are missing each other.
1. If its a game stat, then yeah it kinda does. Being Soc 12 earns you respect. People may oppose and disagree with you, but you are a big deal and know you are. And others know it too. All I'm saying is if you give a guy a Soc at a certain level, treat it at that level. If being an officer gives you Soc 6 then he gets treated as a Soc 6. The fact that he used to be Soc 2 no longer matters. If you don't want that to be the case, then don't raise his Soc to 6. His Rank alone can act as the reason people treat him with a little more respect now. I'm not telling you which one to pick, just suggesting that for simplicity, pick one.
"Edit: The other factor to consider is the possibility that any given Soc value doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone."
This is the bit I'm disagreeing with. Its a game stat. This is exactly what its meant to do. If you don't want all officers to be treated as Soc 6, then don't make them all Soc 6. You talk about making exceptions and not make them all soc 6, then backtrack a bit by saying that you can make him Soc 6 but that soc doesn't mean the same to all people.
Look, all I'm saying is it is easier to just not make the guy soc6 than making him soc6 with exceptions. You said it yourself and kinda backtracked. I think you were right the first time.
1. If its a game stat, then yeah it kinda does. Being Soc 12 earns you respect. People may oppose and disagree with you, but you are a big deal and know you are. And others know it too. All I'm saying is if you give a guy a Soc at a certain level, treat it at that level. If being an officer gives you Soc 6 then he gets treated as a Soc 6. The fact that he used to be Soc 2 no longer matters. If you don't want that to be the case, then don't raise his Soc to 6. His Rank alone can act as the reason people treat him with a little more respect now. I'm not telling you which one to pick, just suggesting that for simplicity, pick one.
"Edit: The other factor to consider is the possibility that any given Soc value doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone."
This is the bit I'm disagreeing with. Its a game stat. This is exactly what its meant to do. If you don't want all officers to be treated as Soc 6, then don't make them all Soc 6. You talk about making exceptions and not make them all soc 6, then backtrack a bit by saying that you can make him Soc 6 but that soc doesn't mean the same to all people.
Look, all I'm saying is it is easier to just not make the guy soc6 than making him soc6 with exceptions. You said it yourself and kinda backtracked. I think you were right the first time.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
Agreed.
Basically agreed. Your Soc provides you a certain, loosely defined, but most certainly real, amount of power in certain situations. However, just like I don't treat Charisma or Presence stats in games that have them as absolute indicators of everyone's attitudes towards a character, not everyone will view Soc A in the same light, nor will any given person view all Soc A characters like all other Soc A characters.
Absolutely disagreed. If you knew someone who was once a weakling, who worked out and became a Mr Universe title winner, your understanding of that person would be influenced not just by who he is, but also who he was. The same applies with respect to Soc, and moreso, I would think, given that Soc is a social value.
A character's history doesn't just disappear when his stats change. Can somone who started out Soc 2 not be proud that they have worked their way up to the rankof Duke? I'd be shocked if they weren't, and they are certainly going to be distinctly different from most people born to nobility and who inherit the title.
Some people will look to an individal's history when forming opinions. In some cases, that will be of benefit, in others it will be a penalty. Similarly, if you're interacting with a group of people vehemently opposed to the nobility, there's a chance that high Soc will be detrimental (although, not necessarily so).
On the whole, a good Soc should be of benefit, and a low Soc a hindrance. That doesn't mean there can't be fluctuation around that mean.
With specific respect to granting officers Soc bonuses, I definitely believe that the exceptions would be so rare as to not be worth quantifying. Everything else I've mentioned has either related to the possibly nebulous nature of Soc in general, or was a concession to people who may disagree with that position.
If Soc only measured the typical degree to which you can garner respect, I would probably agree with everything you've said, wholeheartedly. However, it is not merely that -- it also maps directly to rank and noble title, and I absolutely do not believe that title equates to respect or the ability to lead. As such, to my mind, Soc is a slightly amorphous characteristic. It's effect should, IMO, be consistent enough to be a reliable indicator to a player the sort of power and respect he can muster, but not a discrete, absolutely quantifiable value.
Having said all that, I have a feeling that, for the most part, my take on Soc would probably not lead to distinctly different effects on play than yours.
[Apologies for typos, my wireless keyboard is playing up a bit]
Edit: Having been pondering this issue, here's the way I'll probably be dealing with Soc DMs -- Soc means exactly what it does, but rolls that allow for Soc DMs will also tend to attract situational modifiers (ie, Trying To Talk Your Way Into the Gala Ball, Persuade + Double Soc DM, -3 DM "seen vomiting in the gutter six nights this week"/+1 DM "wearing Grand Orb of the Poohbah"/-1DM "host can't stand new money"). Thanks for pushing me on this issue, because it's helped me get a firmer grip on what Soc actually means to me and how I will deal with it in game.
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
SOC was always meant to be somewhat flexible, too. If the players made a fortune in speculative trade, and it changed their financial status considerably for the rest of their lives (or a long time), then it is permissible to change SOC to reflect the change.
This is mentioned in CT but highlighted in MT.
The reverse is true, as well. If you've got a noble who eats stored hot dogs all the time, penny pinches, only owns one set of clothes, bathes once a month, and speaks in slang all the time, then the perception of that character drops--so should his SOC.
There are different ways of thinking of SOC. SOC could be your acutal, true SOC no matter what others perceive, but, then again, SOC could be viewed strictly by how others view the character.
The CT reference escapes me (I think it was a magazine article that I haven't read in a long time--but I believe it was a DGP publication), but I do remember a discussion in the MT rules about how the GM should raise or lower a character SOC over time, depending on their social circumstances (and their audience--a SOC A means nothing to some strange aliens the characters run into).
Let's not forget that Vargr CHR is always changing, too.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
That works with Soc as written.
This seems to require de-coupling Soc from noble title, though, which makes Soc B+ suddenly become very confusing. Hence why I like the idea of applying situational DMs. Your slang speaking, hot dog gorging noble simply accrues a semi-permanent -DM to Soc check until he gets his act together.
Without the added complications of noble title, fluctuating Vagr Chr would cause far fewer hassles.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Have you also considered (though it's probably a moot point if players are allowed to arrange stats) the flip side of the coin?
If a character with high Soc, say a Baron with Soc B, enters the services out of duty or tradition, his Soc should be dropped, at least for the duration of his service.
Using your numbers, perhaps a temporary drop to Soc 5 while enlisted rank, then Soc 6 upon commission, and back up to full Soc eventually with enough promotions or upon leaving the service. A Baron or other noble as an armed services person shouldn't be pulling rank via Soc on their superior officers right.
More for colour then anything since it will reset upon mustering out.
Which then makes me wonder if any Soc gain by fiat of commission and promotion should reset upon mustering out as well. Along the lines of "Sure, you were an Admiral in the navy, but now you're just a regular drifter like the rest of the Travellers we get through here." The only Soc changes that should be permanent imo are those gained through other methods, Rank has privilege, but not that kind of privilege.
Just some points to ponder.
If a character with high Soc, say a Baron with Soc B, enters the services out of duty or tradition, his Soc should be dropped, at least for the duration of his service.
Using your numbers, perhaps a temporary drop to Soc 5 while enlisted rank, then Soc 6 upon commission, and back up to full Soc eventually with enough promotions or upon leaving the service. A Baron or other noble as an armed services person shouldn't be pulling rank via Soc on their superior officers right.
More for colour then anything since it will reset upon mustering out.
Which then makes me wonder if any Soc gain by fiat of commission and promotion should reset upon mustering out as well. Along the lines of "Sure, you were an Admiral in the navy, but now you're just a regular drifter like the rest of the Travellers we get through here." The only Soc changes that should be permanent imo are those gained through other methods, Rank has privilege, but not that kind of privilege.
Just some points to ponder.
Last edited:
sablewyvern
SOC-12
My personal take is that, while a junior officer's noble title may carry less weight with his superiors (and he certainly remains subject to the chain of command), he retains full rank and privelege otherwise. Walter John William's Dread Empire's Fall is pretty much in line with my thinking on this.
For junior ranks, I don't think it's an issue. A measley Soc-6 is, if anything, a low reward for the cachet you can gain simply for having been an officer in a society with a proud military tradition. For the higher echelons, IMTU, legitimate and permanent titles of nobility pretty much go hand in hand with top military ranks (in part, to provide commanders, especially Naval commanders, with the authority they need to get things done).
I can see perfectly reasonable arguments for doing things differently, though.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Actually real life provides examples of high nobles (Including the Prince of Wales) serving as low-mid ranking officers, sometimes using a "alternate persona" to ease the problems with adressing them. Sometimes the force even benefitted from that(1). Literature gives us similar concepts like "Cornet Prince" from "Falkenbergs Legion/Prince of Mercenaries", using a very thin disguise to "step down" socially.
Another concept is that of the "gentleman ranker", man of good birth but without the funds to purchase a commision. They served as enlisted and NCO but attended the Mess during evenings.
The idea of the "honor title" like the (in)famous Southern "Colonel" isn't all that new either. Granted, the title is only worth something among people who consider it "something special". So status might vary depending on the situation. The Honorable Colonel(ret) O'Neill, Oder of the Starship might be a honored guest at the local governeurs ball and "just another drifter" with starport authority
Guess that calls for roleplaying
(1) IIRC the Royal Navy dropped the requirement to stand while toasting the King because one PoW serving there banged his had a few times to often on the low cyling
Another concept is that of the "gentleman ranker", man of good birth but without the funds to purchase a commision. They served as enlisted and NCO but attended the Mess during evenings.
The idea of the "honor title" like the (in)famous Southern "Colonel" isn't all that new either. Granted, the title is only worth something among people who consider it "something special". So status might vary depending on the situation. The Honorable Colonel(ret) O'Neill, Oder of the Starship might be a honored guest at the local governeurs ball and "just another drifter" with starport authority
Guess that calls for roleplaying
(1) IIRC the Royal Navy dropped the requirement to stand while toasting the King because one PoW serving there banged his had a few times to often on the low cyling
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I've owned the first two book in this series for a couple of years now, but I haven't gotten around to reading it. Good book?
- Status
