Looking at the T5 Characteristics Chapter

[rancke]

There's nothing in T5 from preventing you from doing that.

Or in other words, there's no support in T5 for how to determine the social class of NPCs. The referee is completely on his own. That's not a feature, that's a bug. You can always ignore a rule that doesn't suit you, but you can't use a rule that isn't there.

And it's not like societies wherein people in all walks of life run the gamut of social classes in exactly the same proportions are all that plausible. Rolling 2D for NPC soc isn't a good rule or even a neutral rule -- it's a very, very bad rule.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Or in other words, there's no support in T5 for how to determine the social class of NPCs.

I don't know that. It's a big book. I haven't examined closely a lot of it.

There may, indeed, be a section on NPCs that I haven't read yet. Then again, maybe not.

The referee is completely on his own. That's not a feature, that's a bug.

I normally agree with you on this comment, but there is also a thing as having too many rules. There was never an NPC system in CT, and I sure never missed it. I'm not sure I'd call it a bug in this instance.

 

[rancke]

I don't know that. It's a big book. I haven't examined closely a lot of it.

There may, indeed, be a section on NPCs that I haven't read yet. Then again, maybe not.

In which case I shall willingly eat my words.

I normally agree with you on this comment, but there is also a thing as having too many rules. There was never an NPC system in CT, and I sure never missed it. I'm not sure I'd call it a bug in this instance.

I've missed it every time I came across an NPC in an adventure with an inappropriate social standing without any explanation.


Hans

 

[Daddicus]

OH....and it is also clear, in this chapter, that the average stat for a human character is still 7. A character with the UPP 777777 is average in each characteristic.

I would qualify this a bit for new folks: The average at the time you roll them up is 7. But, they can go up and even sometimes down (aging).

 

[Daddicus]

But that's just what this does. It hard codes a society that actually distinguishes between three levels of social undesirables BELOW that of the lower lower class.

Hans

Actually, I think it's OK. If we think in terms of Earth's major nations, there's a lower class, but that doesn't mean they're the dregs. A leper colony could be thought of as lower than lower class. Criminals likewise. There are plenty of lower-class people on Earth that aren't criminals. Street thugs are shunned even by the lower-class.

 

[Daddicus]

And Soc 7 is six level above social outcasts but only four level above dregs of society?

I stand by my 'quirky'.

Hans

I think we can work with them. But, you're right: different terms/titles might have been better. Still, these are generic, and are OK as a starter.

Remember, though, that any given planet will call them by different names unless they've been Imperial for a very long time. If it's important on a planet, the Ref can give them different names and relationships.

 

[David Johansen]

Take a knife. It weighs 1 kg. But, it's Burden is -1 when a scabbard is used. Thus, the knife can easily be strapped to a character's leg, and the weight of that item does not count against the character's Str rating when calculating Load.

So, yeah, you can carry a lot of stuff if you are not burdened by it. If it's not bulky.

A big, cardboard box, weighs little (let's call it 0 kg, for this example), but it's bulky, so it may have a Burden of +3, which is three points against a character's Str rating when determining Load (and it should be noted that at least one hand has to be used to carry the box).

But if I put on a ring with a burden of -3 it cancels out the cardboard box?

As far as nobility is concerned the vast majority of npcs are merely extras that the PCs don't interact with at all. 2d6 Soc represents the disproportionate number of important people fictional protagonists interact with not the actual demographics of the imperium.

 

[Supplement Four]

But if I put on a ring with a burden of -3 it cancels out the cardboard box?

No. The Burden only applies to the item. You can't remove burden from other objects.

For example, a character with STR 7 is carrying an autorifle that weigh's 3 kg, but the weapon's Burden = -4. This means that the autorifle has Burden = 0 with respect to the character's Load. It doesn't mean that you get to take a point of Burden off another item.

 

[rancke]

Actually, I think it's OK.

I did say that it might work (by which I meant that it wouldn't be hard to deliberately ignore the unreasonable aspects, not that it was actually reasonable).

If we think in terms of Earth's major nations, there's a lower class, but that doesn't mean they're the dregs. A leper colony could be thought of as lower than lower class. Criminals likewise. There are plenty of lower-class people on Earth that aren't criminals. Street thugs are shunned even by the lower-class.

It's unusual for sociologists to distinguish between as many as nine social classes. The only place that I recall seeing the term 'middle middle class' used is some of Mack Reynolds' books. One of my old textbooks divides the middle and lower classes into five ('upper middle', 'middle', 'upper working', 'working', and 'poor'). A comparatively recent study of Britain divides all of society into seven classes. In all cases that I know of, the homeless are included in the lower lower class, whatever it's called.

Adding three levels below that and four above seems a little excessive.

Jack London does speak of social differences among tramps, but I don't think many non-tramps bother with the distinctions between hobos, bindlestiffs, and stumblebums.

I think we can work with them. But, you're right: different terms/titles might have been better. Still, these are generic, and are OK as a starter.

Remember, though, that any given planet will call them by different names unless they've been Imperial for a very long time. If it's important on a planet, the Ref can give them different names and relationships.

But a generic system (or an Imperial system) would look on it in generic terms. And if one society did actually distinguish between different classes of homeless, a generic system would simply assign them all to the one class it usually used for homeless people and possibly add a footnote (^* This society distinguishes between five kinds of homeless people, designated 0.1 to 0.5.).


Hans

 

[aramis]

I did say that it might work (by which I meant that it wouldn't be hard to deliberately ignore the unreasonable aspects, not that it was actually reasonable).


It's unusual for sociologists to distinguish between as many as nine social classes. The only place that I recall seeing the term 'middle middle class' used is some of Mack Reynolds' books. One of my old textbooks divides the middle and lower classes into five ('upper middle', 'middle', 'upper working', 'working', and 'poor'). A comparatively recent study of Britain divides all of society into seven classes. In all cases that I know of, the homeless are included in the lower lower class, whatever it's called.

Adding three levels below that and four above seems a little excessive.

Jack London does speak of social differences among tramps, but I don't think many non-tramps bother with the distinctions between hobos, bindlestiffs, and stumblebums.


But a generic system (or an Imperial system) would look on it in generic terms. And if one society did actually distinguish between different classes of homeless, a generic system would simply assign them all to the one class it usually used for homeless people and possibly add a footnote (^* This society distinguishes between five kinds of homeless people, designated 0.1 to 0.5.).


Hans

I've encountered social workers distinguishing between various forms of homelessness... The veterans with PTSD, the other mentally ill, the addicted, the criminal*, the unlucky, and the homeless by choice. And the homeless themselves know the differences. The unlucky usually try to keep their stuff, as do the vets; the others keep very little.

It boils down to scope. People in the US can routinely keep a 7 word phrase in mind, verbatim, for several minutes.

So, you look at your scope. You find the meaningful breakpoints, and then mark the most important ones, until you get a comfortable number.

*locally, a significant fraction of the homeless are natives ejected from their village, usually for alcoholism, but any consistent pattern of minor crimes will get banishment. The banished often wind up homeless in one of the cities. Many of them are violent; some are violent and alcohol dependent; most are also mentally ill, but in specific antisocial ways...

 

[rancke]

I've encountered social workers distinguishing between various forms of homelessness... The veterans with PTSD, the other mentally ill, the addicted, the criminal*, the unlucky, and the homeless by choice. And the homeless themselves know the differences. The unlucky usually try to keep their stuff, as do the vets; the others keep very little.

Do they also rank them? Jack London encountered distinctions among tramps that were genuine social distinctions. Do your social workers formally rank veterans above the unlucky and the homeless by choice above them?

So, you look at your scope. You find the meaningful breakpoints, and then mark the most important ones, until you get a comfortable number.

I agree. And dividing planetary society into 9 ordinary levels plus three more below and four more above is a quirky amount of detail. Mind you, I did something like that myself in my attempt to make the plentiful number of PC dukes¹ make sense by making them non-Imperial dukes. But at least I have a pretty generic definition to distinguish between different levels (number of people a title or position 'represented').

¹ Note that when it comes to Imperial dukes, one randomly generated PC is IMO an overly plentiful, indeed excessive, number.​

Hans

 

[Daddicus]

...
It's unusual for sociologists to distinguish between as many as nine social classes. The only place that I recall seeing the term 'middle middle class' used is some of Mack Reynolds' books. One of my old textbooks divides the middle and lower classes into five ('upper middle', 'middle', 'upper working', 'working', and 'poor'). A comparatively recent study of Britain divides all of society into seven classes. In all cases that I know of, the homeless are included in the lower lower class, whatever it's called.

Adding three levels below that and four above seems a little excessive.
...

Hans

Oh, I totally agree. The only reason to have as many levels as they do is to fill up the 17 available hex numbers. (And I'm sure glad it didn't use EHex!)