How do you pick pockets in Classic Traveller?

[far-trader]

I think (could be wrong though it's the way I read it) that what jawillroy means is:


Picking a pocket: First, the pickpocket rolls their SOC + on 2D.

If the SOC roll is successful, the pickpocket rolls their DEX - on 2D.

If the SOC roll fails, the DEX roll must either be done using 3D, or the attempt must be aborted.

JOT can apply to either roll.

Sir Malmesby moved briefly to pick the guard's pocket for his access cards, but just couldn't bring himself to do such a low thing: what would they say at the Society? He resolved to give the man a sound thrashing instead, and then relieve him of the cards. Much more straightforward.

The quote is the key to understanding this model. Sir Malmesby is high SOC and can't bring himself (failed his SOC roll) to stoop to common thievery. Knowing he has little chance of pulling it off (doesn't try DEX roll) he decides to just take the cards by force. Nothing to do with letting someone get close based on appearances or reading the mind of the victim to know what their mindset is. It's all based on the pickpocket's own characteristics. So low SOC are more likely to know a bit about thievery (survival on the streets) while high SOC are not as likely to have the same knowledge.

 

[jawillroy]

I think (could be wrong though it's the way I read it) that what jawillroy means is:


Picking a pocket: First, the pickpocket rolls their SOC + on 2D.

If the SOC roll is successful, the pickpocket rolls their DEX - on 2D.

...

The quote is the key to understanding this model. Sir Malmesby is high SOC and can't bring himself (failed his SOC roll) to stoop to common thievery. Knowing he has little chance of pulling it off (doesn't try DEX roll) he decides to just take the cards by force.

And FT wins the kewpie doll! Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clearer!

 

[HG_B]

The quote is the key to understanding this model. Sir Malmesby is high SOC and can't bring himself (failed his SOC roll) to stoop to common thievery. Knowing he has little chance of pulling it off (doesn't try DEX roll) he decides to just take the cards by force. Nothing to do with letting someone get close based on appearances or reading the mind of the victim to know what their mindset is. It's all based on the pickpocket's own characteristics. So low SOC are more likely to know a bit about thievery (survival on the streets) while high SOC are not as likely to have the same knowledge.

Possible, although it takes free will out of the hands of the PC (never good). The 2nd part (knowledge based experience due to growing up around crime, or not,) makes far more sense.

 

[jawillroy]

Possible, although it takes free will out of the hands of the PC (never good).

I don't think it does - if he wanted to, the PC could have swallowed his pride and made the attempt (albeit one made more difficult by the unfamiliarity of the act, and awkwardness born of self-consciousness.)

Rather than removing free will, I think it enhances role play.

 

[HG_B]

I don't think it does - if he wanted to, the PC could have swallowed his pride and made the attempt (albeit one made more difficult by the unfamiliarity of the act, and awkwardness born of self-consciousness.)

Rather than removing free will, I think it enhances role play.

So, if a High Soc PC in your game (not trained or familiar with) decides to kill, steal, some other act "below his station", you have him make a Soc roll?

 

[jawillroy]

So, if a High Soc PC in your game (not trained or familiar with) decides to kill, steal, some other act "below his station", you have him make a Soc roll?

Not necessarily. If I think that a player is going way out of character, I'm inclined to have some sort of repercussion occur, and I'd have thought giving the opportunity to "roll" one's way through the difficulty would go down better than my saying "you can't do that" as fiat. If a player could make a case for me that their character wouldn't have a conflict (for instance, a noble son gone consistently to seed, or a scion of a planet whose culture reveres schemers) I'd probably waive it. But part of the flavor of Traveller, for me, is that one's social standing matters. A character consistently acting "below his station" might have his SOC effectively lowered in the long run.

And I've not seen much indication in any Traveller universe that killing's below anybody's station...

 

[HG_B]

Not necessarily. If I think that a player is going way out of character,

A bit to arbitrary of GMing style for my taste but, YMMV.

 

[jawillroy]

Fair enough; I don't go crazy with it, but I figure role-playing shouldn't be shorted. If the players neglect that aspect, it's too easy for the game to devolve into an accounting exercise.

PCs ought to be free to play their characters, but the stats and skills should indicate a character's limitations as well as their abilities, no?

 

[BlackBat242]

In which case you remind the player of the issue, and if the behavior is persisted with, you bring in "in-game" consequences, you don't force the player into letting you play the character via dice rolls.

 

[beowulf2044]

I'm sure if hit with this by a player on the fly, I'd just have player roll under DEX and target roll under INT. Results would dictate next event.

 

[aramis]

In which case you remind the player of the issue, and if the behavior is persisted with, you bring in "in-game" consequences, you don't force the player into letting you play the character via dice rolls.

He's not doing that; he's imposing a penalty to the die rolls if you act in a manner inconsistent with your stats.

It would be just as reasonable to require a dex roll prior to the int roll to bounce 3 rails and hit the corner pocket... it's mostly mental, but if your dex isn't good enough, it's a LOT harder. Or reverse the order, because if you don't understand the bounce, being dexterous enough usually won't be good enough.

Or an Edu roll to know that certain military incendiaries need to be cooled below ignition point because they are self-oxidizing.

 

[jawillroy]

He's not doing that; he's imposing a penalty to the die rolls if you act in a manner inconsistent with your stats.

Or rather, I'm incorporating effects of stats more completely into the game when they need to be. If you're just going have the players play whatever way they want regardless, what's the point of rolling the statistics up at all?

Don't we do this sort of thing with INT and EDU all the time? The player might not know the answer to a question, but if there's a fact we can expect a character to know, we let 'em roll EDU and fill in the blank. If a player understands something that his idiot of a character is highly unlikely to, we apply a roll there, too, on the principle that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

I could just as well have said, "right, you fail your SOC roll, so you CAN'T make the pickpocket attempt." But that's not what I suggest: I say that the task's made harder by (let's say) the burden of cultural inexperience and moral opprobrium, but the player still has the choice of biting the bullet and giving it a shot - or picking another means of solving the problem.

 

[HG_B]

but the stats and skills should indicate a character's limitations as well as their abilities, no?

Yes, but your using a stat to limit physical ability that has zippo to do with the physical ability. "In character" is for the player to define. The penalty for the player already exists if he gets caught. Like I sad, it's a matter of style.

 

[far-trader]

Yes, but your using a stat to limit physical ability that has zippo to do with the physical ability. "In character" is for the player to define. The penalty for the player already exists if he gets caught. Like I sad, it's a matter of style.

What physical ability? The question is moot if the character has the physical ability (Skill) to attempt the action. I really don't see where you see a problem with expecting the player to role play their character and if they choose to attempt something beyond/outside the scope of their original character, asking for some test to see if the character might be able to do it is fine. Otherwise you as the ref leave yourself open to carte blanche abuse. Next the player will be insisting his player can fly... "I flap my arms, and make my STR roll. I fly up to the roof to get away." Ref: Yeah, sure you do. (extreme example of course)

And again I'll repeat, picking pockets is so very much more than just manual dexterity, and manual dexterity is only a part of DEX. Simply making a DEX check in this case is a poor model, but fine for a one-off quicky in some circumstances, not great as a routine application though.

 

[jawillroy]

Y physical ability that has zippo to do with the physical ability.

I disagree. I'm a bass player and a guitar player, and reasonably deft. Yet there is no question in my mind that in an attempt to pick a pocket, I would absolutely be caught: probably before I even got close enough to fish the pocket. I simply don't have the set of social skills necessary to achieve the act. (Maybe streetwise skill could apply? Hmm.) I haven't had the practice or the inclination. Now, if I hadn't been born to a pair of WASPy academics, hadn't had upper middle class advantages, and had been forced to make my way for myself in the streets from a small age - say, in Mumbai - things might be different.

If Pickpocketing were a standard skill that a character could come by - say, in the Other tables somewhere - we wouldn't be arguing about this, because there would probably be a significant disadvantageous modifier for "unskilled pickpocketing", as with the Bribery skill. It would be a skill that a few characters had, the rest of the careers could attempt it at their peril, and that would be that.

I'm just trying to make the task in question a little more interesting than, say, doing a card trick. Picking a pocket isn't a purely physical act. There's a qualitative difference between harmless legerdemain and lifting someone's watch without them knowing it - whether that comes from basic life experience, or moral qualm.

 

[HG_B]

I really don't see where you see a problem with expecting the player to role play their character and if they choose to attempt something beyond/outside the scope of their original character, asking for some test to see if the character might be able to do it is fine. Otherwise you as the ref leave yourself open to carte blanche abuse. Next the player will be insisting his player can fly... "I flap my arms, and make my STR roll.

So, flapping your arms and flying = reaching into someones pocket if you have arms? Pls explain.

 

[far-trader]

So, flapping your arms and flying = reaching into someones pocket if you have arms? Pls explain.

Both have about as much chance (zero) of succeeding in the real world.

 

[aramis]

Yes, but your using a stat to limit physical ability that has zippo to do with the physical ability. "In character" is for the player to define. The penalty for the player already exists if he gets caught. Like I sad, it's a matter of style.

Picking pockets is NOT just a matter of physical ability. It also involves personal bearing, acting like nothing went wrong, misdirecting the mark's attention, and a number of other mental factors.

 

[HG_B]

Both have about as much chance (zero) of succeeding in the real world.

If you have arms, the chance of reaching into someones pocket is zero? Okie dokie. ROFLMAO :rofl:

 

[jawillroy]

If you have arms, the chance of reaching into someones pocket is zero? Okie dokie. ROFLMAO :rofl:

Okay. What are the odds that, say, a Safeway middle manager and sleight-of-hand afficionado can pick out someone on the street, get close to him without his noticing, put your hand in his pocket without his noticing, come up with his wallet without his noticing, and then get away before he knows it's gone?

Now try the same thing for a Mumbai ten year old street kid.