Making SOC Count

[welsh]

SOC is the red-headed stepchild of chargen. It's mostly ignored in gameplay (at least, in my experience) and interpreted in countless contradictory ways. So I'm thinking of how to make it more important -- in essence, how to give a PC's SOC real gameplay effects beyond the cost of living, which make for a more interesting game.

I'm making a baseline assumption: SOC is among the six basic characteristics because it was intended to be important in the game. The original LBBs refer to a distant empire, where presumably SOC is of great importance. But the frontier has a flattening effect. A group of adventurers might include a high-ranking gentleman, thrown together with scoundrels and ruffians. And this is supposed to have interesting effects. But players live in societies that pretend social standing isn't relevant. A highly class conscious society is foreign to our experience, so we ignore it.

SOC seems to have very limited effects in the rules. I recall a CT rule (perhaps I misremember) that ties SOC to cost of living, but this is gone in TTB. (MT has such a rule.) SOC is not tied in any way to the likelihood of legal harassment, which I regard as a serious fault. SOC has no effects, positive or negative, on reaction rolls -- another serious fault, given the assumption that SOC is important. The various authors of Traveller materials over the years seem to have ignored SOC also.

Starting from the most basic question: What is SOC?

A conundrum pops up immediately: SOC seems to be two things at once, a perceived social standing, and an actual baseline social standing. Your perceived SOC varies according to how you dress, and how you behave.

We also know your baseline SOC can change. MT lets you increase it by spending on cost of living. But it is more than whether you are rich or poor. Crimes can lower it; you can be a fabulously rich social outcast.

Aramis made a useful suggestion in another thread: SOC is the "general esteem of the nobility for the individual." But of course the nobility doesn't actually know you.

I'm reminded of the evolution of manners: the idea of "good manners," as well as the ideas of "proper" spelling and grammar, reached its peak in the Victorian era as a means of drawing class distinctions. Proper speech begins with those who have attended the right schools; proper manners belong to the gentry. The middle class apes such behavioral markers, separating themselves from the lower classes.

So, while the nobility doesn't actually know my four-term Scout from Adam, he lives in a society of social norms and his SOC reflects his knowledge of (and perhaps also acceptance of) those norms of proper behaviour. And given that these norms trickle down from the social norms of the nobles, this does reflect the esteem he's held in, based on noble standards.

Another useful idea comes from flykiller in this thread:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=35928&highlight=social+standing

(Yes, I observed the social norm of searching before posting....)

"social status" (2 low, 12 high) refers to citizenship status - the stake held in society, the level of trust accorded, the level of authority deemed appropriate. it is not a measure of felt personal loyalty, but rather a measure of officially perceived standing. one may have a social standing of 2 and be thought loyal, and yet be thought unsuited (note, NOT "unqualified") to hold for example the rank of infantry corporal.

This puts me in mind of a paper I read on the role of banks and credit institutions in the decline of the Southern culture of duelling. Seems a stretch? The argument is that, lacking formal means of measuring one's credit (lending via banks, credit bureaus, etc.), one must rely on private loans, and one's credit is one's reputation; attacks on a man's reputation or honour must therefore be answered.

The Imperium is obviously a difficult banking environment, but that thinking takes us towards game effects ... for the purpose of "what is SOC," let's just say that knowledge and acceptance of social norms also extends to a degree of "buy-in" to the Imperial social contract ... which in turn suggests reliability.

A problem arises: the Imperial social contract is separate from that of a world and its government. I'm just going to wave this (rather serious) conundrum away: I take it that the high-SOC strata of any world are also those who benefit most from membership in the 3I, and therefore these two things are one and the same.

That's enough typing for now ... I'm curious what others think SOC represents.

 

[atpollard]

What is INT?
What is EDU?
What is SOC?

STR, DEX, END have a direct game mechanic tied to them in the arena of combat. If I get shot, then my STR/DEX/END will matter a great deal. However, INT/EDU/SOC are ultimately used in chargen and have few hard coded functions after that (particularly in CT). Skills tend to dominate after Chargen.

For me, INT, EDU and SOC are all similar in that they are a roleplaying aid more than a game mechanic aid. A Character with a high INT is able to solve problems quickly or to focus on multiple tasks at the same time (like flying the ship and carrying on a debate on planetary politics at the same time) while a character with a low INT would require more time to solve the same problem and would need to stop talking to focus on piloting the craft. A Character with a high EDU would have access to lots of formal facts and the ability to think like/understand other cultures. A character with a low EDU would have more practical than theoretical facts and a narrow world view, so he would struggle to understand strange cultures. SOC represents the character's native socioeconomic group. A wealthy drug dealer who clawed his way up through the ranks still thinks more like the SES of his culture than his wealth. Likewise, a butler might actually function at a SES far above his finances.

I use SOC to identify which group of people the character will fit in with as "one of us" and when he will seem like an "outsider". The further the SOC of the Character is from the SES of the setting, the more clearly he will stand out as someone who does not quite fit in.

In the PbP, Ben Webb has a SOC of 5. That places him in the lower blue-collar end of the spectrum. Thus when Ben hangs out in a Bar in a SOC 4-6 neighborhood, he blends right in like a local. Ben feels relaxed because these sort of people are familiar to him. Ben works for people who drag him to a party hosted by SOC 14 and attended by SOC 10+ guests. Ben can be cleaned up and dressed on a multi-thousand credit suit and try his best to be on his best behavior, but Ben will never blend in as someone who IS SOC 10+.

So for me SOC is an aid to how well you fit in with a group of people and how much you need to 'pretend' to be someone else. In this sense, a SOC 7 has the best chance to fit in anywhere since it will be less of a difference for SOC 7 to pretend to be SOC 2 or SOC 12 (+/-5) than it would be for a SOC 2 to pretend to be SOC 12 or SOC 12 to pretend to be SOC 2 (+/-10).

 

[kilemall]

I am rather 'big' on this topic.

Here is my IMTU post, quoted-

[FONT=arial,helvetica]This one is very underutilized IMO in most TUs, besides the 'do I get a yacht' question and the matter of nobility privilege, and was the stat that got me thinking about the whole use of stats and how they are largely neutered in favor of skills.

I don't have a 1000 star empire with the emperor and 'loyal' vassals as organizing principle, just the opening phase of Earth's exploration and expansion. So I do not have nobles in the classic OTU sense.

Went through thinking about all manner of human history, cultures etc. and decided that this is a valid character differentiation. EVERY society, from ancient to modern democracy/communist/fascist setup, has stratas of people that are 'in' and 'in power', and those that are not.

Also, being human, the power elite AND the common citizen are IMO more comfortable dealing with people 'at their level' across cultures and nations moreso then 'their own kind' at a different social level. There is a behavioral element to one's 'place in society'.

Americans especially like to think that we are all one great big fluffy meritocracy hence ignoring this stat, but even so there is strata based on wealth if nothing else, with behaviors that apply.

I have read some Mongoose Traveller on 'keeping up' re: social events and what sort of neighborhood you live in at what price, and I like that. I think IMTU the stat is actually something tracked to include demographics, a valuation of the neighborhood the player lives in, credit rating/societal reputation, attitudes, honor, and associated behaviors.

So, I am amping up the use of SOC in three ways.

1) SOC can go up or down by player action in game. In particular scandals, conviction in crime, failing to meet financial obligations, or lack of activity within X community can drop the stat, increased wealth, moving into the right clubs/social circles, achievements and reputation can increase it. SOC can change more readily then the other stats.

Players will want to manage it carefully, if for the 'credit rating' aspects if nothing else, and can be a major RP element to increase or prevent dropping.

2) SOC is the base stat for Fiscal Checks.

For loans/investments, it would be a task check with appropriate skills such as Trader, Admin, etc. but basically who you know and what reputation you have, and how much you can expect to raise/be granted. Difficulty Level would be set by the referee by a number of factors in play, particularly how much the amount sought is divided by the character's income, under how much a cloud the character is under with LE or society in general, etc.

The flip side for the underclass is utilizing the power of The Street to work around society's conventions and resource allocation structure to get things done outside the rules set by the power elite. So Social Standing is the primary stat for Streetwise checks, but in reverse from the normal stat/task check- it's rolling SOC or higher with Streetwise added in and DL modifying.

3) SOC is the primary modifying stat for reaction rolls in a social setting.

On a reaction roll, check the difference between the characters' SOC.

If the same, +3.

If the difference is 1, +2.

If the difference is 2, +1 mod.

If the difference is 3, 0 mod.

If the difference is 4, -1 mod, etc. etc.

Each level of Liaison and/or Steward adds +1 to the reaction roll.

In general, the attack factor should not be taken literally except in a frontier/bar/urban hell type setting, the attack should come as a verbal attack. Which may turn into a fight/duel/vendetta, depending.


There are two exceptions to the above.

* If a natural 2 or 12 is rolled, the SOC modifier is completely ignored- kindred spirits or despised personalities have come to the fore, ignoring class behavioral issues due to a strong deep reaction.

* Corporations, businesses, crews, military forces, none could operate if people with critical skill sets cannot get along due to SOC issues, so in a professional setting people tend to use their professional persona.

For that purpose, everyone who is 'being professional' is treated as SOC 8, no positive or negative mods between each other, Liaison and/or Steward +1 per skill level.

If one character is acting professionally and the other retains their 'natural' social reaction persona, the professional is treated as being at 8 and the social at their level, mods and Liaison apply.

Referees may exact different rolls for 'maintaining professionalism' in the face of provocation or excessive length of time 'on the job'.

Note that at upper levels of the military, government and corporations, one is expected to perform at social events, as 'an officer and a gentlemen' or as a gracious business/community leader, and drinking, long party hours or peer pressure may cause a character to drop out of their professional persona, with possibly positive or negative effects.[/FONT]

 

[RandyB]

IMO, part of the problem with SOC is less "social" and more "scoioeconomic". That is, granting the existence of exceptions, there is usually a close tie between social status and economic status. Given the propensity for Traveller to be played on a "barely scraping by" economic standard, high SOC implying high economic resources is an uncomfortable possibility. (Hence the invocation of the aforementioned exceptions, which thus become sufficiently common as to comprise a new normal.)

 

[kilemall]

IMO, part of the problem with SOC is less "social" and more "scoioeconomic". That is, granting the existence of exceptions, there is usually a close tie between social status and economic status. Given the propensity for Traveller to be played on a "barely scraping by" economic standard, high SOC implying high economic resources is an uncomfortable possibility. (Hence the invocation of the aforementioned exceptions, which thus become sufficiently common as to comprise a new normal.)

I don't know that this is a problem.

The character Inara in Firefly specifically joined the ship for freedom and different places/experiences, while providing the ship's company a measure of access to people and resources they would otherwise never enjoy.

Arguably Shepherd has high SOC too, when he chooses to reveal it.

 

[Leitz]

I don't tie money straight to Soc, though higher Soc can be bought if the character chooses to. Either by direct purchase of a title or moving up in society incrementally.

While America is less stratified outside of money, some other countries are more so. Generally the higher Soc gets a bit more deference. so a positive modifier for the higher Soc. Skills like Steward, Liaison, and Diplomacy might mitigate a negative modifier.

In general I use Soc like any other tool; if it can help my character reach their objective, great. If not, great. In the PbP my character has gone from a 5 to a B and I try to play him as someone accepting the responsibility of nobility while still a bit rough on the form. Improving his presence has become a big part of the game. In future scenes atpollard and I are looking to expand the use of Soc and make a Noble based game.

 

[Condottiere]

It's a solidification and simplification of concepts that are hard to relate to in a modern sense, though not in a feudal one.

Social Standing

This tends to be very much based on the polity you grew up in, and/or have based yourself in, and in our case, that would be in the Third Imperium.

Despite appearances, you really have only a limited number of the titled Imperium nobility and their immediate families, seen from the perspective of the overall population, and twelve pretty much puts you in the stratosphere of the decimal point, zeroes, percenter, in any particular solar system. Or subsector.

The middle class would be six, seven and eight, lower middle, middle middle, and upper middle.

The upper class starts from nine, with it's plus one modifier, and that includes the squirearchy, culminating in the Knight title at eleven.

The petite bourgeoisie sort of straddles the line between five to seven, while haute bourgeoisie between eight and nine.

What we're interested in is the working class, basically those people who seem to get a minus one modifier in interactions, though in theory not within their own social interactions; since most of the middle class works as well, I guess what we're dealing with is the proletariat.

If you have no social standing, that means you're dead to society, which would place you at zero. No one wants you, not even a military desperate for cannon fodder.

One would make you untouchable; you're barely tolerated for tasks performed which the rest of society considers spiritually or actually contaminating.

Two would be a step above that, though shares the same modifier; here would fall the outcasts of society, not necessarily the homeless, but certainly those that would be forced to make the streets their home.

The lower class would have a roof over their heads, or have the means to ensure this, at least for the time being. While the modifier remains the same, the number may fluctuate with the job and habitation you are able to maintain.

Since there's no colour coding to indicate automatically what Social Standing you possess, it can come from facial recognition through media notoriety or fame, but mostly through attitude, mannerisms, bearing, speech and wardrobe, that we unconsciously pick up through cultural acclimatization.

That means you can act and dress as to possess a more higher social standing than your actual characteristic, but that requires a high intelligence, education and art/performance to pull it off for any length of time. Deception probably helps as well, as can diplomacy, persuade and carousing.

The modifier can be negated through an active demonstration of your outward appearance, intelligence and education, or known achievements; though that works both ways, if you happen to be of a high social standing and considered a buffoon, and have demonstrated cowardice.

 

[Enoki]

Another way to use SOC is to impose on players social responsibilities equal to their status.

For example, if the character is a noble or of high SOC, you might impose a meeting with the head of state on some planet that he lands on. After all, the local head of state might see his arrival as a big deal...

Or, they might have some degree of celebrity status. That might mean the media / press, sycophantic followers or stalkers, or the future equivalent of paparazzi show up for interviews, cheering, or the awkward picture shoot that gets into the news.

For low SOC characters you might increase the likelihood of the police or other authorities hassling them for whatever.

It can be used in many settings that way, not just in personal interactions.

 

[welsh]

What [snip] (+/-10).

I agree entirely.

EDU is also underused. And not just in play, but in chargen. We can easily get anomalous, silly results like INT 4, EDU B, SOC 5 ... so this impoverished kid who happens also to be quite stupid has a PhD! Some would argue that this kind of thing makes the game richer; I argue it's just dumb.

Elsewhere, kilemall helpfully suggested that 2d6 + SOC - 7 = EDU, so how much schooling you get is a function of how much social standing (and, presumably, money) your family has. That still leaves us with the possibily of UPPs like 6863AA, but it's an improvement. And I think coupling EDU to SOC makes more sense than coupling EDU to INT in a context where social standing is seen as being so important.

Speaking of kilemall....

1) SOC can go up or down by player action in game. In particular scandals, conviction in crime, failing to meet financial obligations, or lack of activity within X community can drop the stat, increased wealth, moving into the right clubs/social circles, achievements and reputation can increase it. SOC can change more readily then the other stats.

This gets to the essential question I posed above: what is SOC? Is it the actual social standing of the character? The perceived social standing of the character? Or something else?

Above I suggested it's knowledge of social norms; also implied is adherence to said norms, out of habit or whatever. Knowing how to address a noble is one thing, and being comfortable around a noble is another. As such, it can almost be viewed as a skill. I suggest that SOC would be not entirely static (see Pygmalion/My Fair Lady), but also not so changeable as suggested.

If I'm an upwardly mobile gentleman (SOC A) but get caught doing something dishonorable, my SOC-as-ability is unaffected, while the social consequences to me may be devastating -- and this may prompt me to take off to the Spinward Marches in an attempt to outrun my reputation. On the other hand, a middle-class social climber can improve his SOC by learning when to use the fish fork.

To me, then, SOC changes as slowly as any other characteristic, and tells us about the character's background. It affects the character's ability to fit in, whether at the Duke of Glisten's costume ball, or in some Startown dive.

SOC also has lots of external markers: dialect and accent ("I say, Constable, detaining my chaps is rather infra-dig, wot!"), clothing and accessories, physical appearance or beauty (money can buy good looks already, in our time), manners and customs. These things don't change overnight if you make more money, or if your embezzling is found out.

Problem: as I suggested in the second (quite muddled; sorry) part of my original post, high SOC implies buy-in to Imperial cultural norms, and these include -- as is suggested repeatedly in various incarnations of the rules -- a culture of honour. Unfortunately, the decisions of a player aren't constrained by his character's raising. So to make SOC matter to the player, we need consequences for the character. These don't seem to exist if SOC isn't fluid.

 

[Enoki]

An easier way would be that EDU can't exceed INT by say, more than 3 (the exact number could vary here). I'd also link INT to SOC to a degree. While you do find dumb rich people in high society, they usually don't last that long. On the other hand, there are quite a few poor and stupid in the lower classes.
These are individuals that simply grew up never having any real intellectual stimulus in their life. On the other hand, generally more wealthy individuals grow up in surroundings where there is that stimulus.

 

[Iracundus]

I disagree with linking SOC, EDU, and/or INT with rules. They can exist independently of each other IMO.

There are plenty of dumb people who inherit money and who grow up in privileged circles, living off the wealth of their more talented parents or ancestors. Those are the low INT high SOC people. Some of them might crash and burn and lose their fortunes, but plenty of them exist and survive in high society because their wealth cushions them from the effects of many of their mistakes.

I would argue you can have low INT but high EDU. These would be the boring pedantic professors, or the rich kid put through university and who jumped through the hoops enough to get a degree but who has no real intellectual interest or curiosity of their own. High INT low EDU would be streetwise people but with little formal education. They would be quick-thinking and adaptable to situations. Low INT high EDU people might have had exposure to a lot of formal facts or general knowledge but they may not have the ability to manipulate it in new situations. Said professor might be functional within the limits of their regular lecture topics but be totally lost if put into a situation where he needs to use his book knowledge to improvise a solution to an adventure predicament.

Low SOC people might get high EDU through scholarships. High SOC people might end up with low EDU because they were so bad they couldn't even go through the motions and make it through the education system (i.e. gentleman's C).

In many modern societies we equate SOC with wealth (and just see how low SOC 5 on the last page was instantly equated to being impoverished), but even so there are often unspoken social standards. A high wealth newcomer may still have low SOC because they are uncouth and get seen as tacky and lacking in good taste. Although people have referred to past societies with aristocracy, this can occur in any society with existing old money or where connections count heavily. The SOC dynamic therefore can work in the Solomani Confederation, where high SOC translates to connections to the Party and maybe perceived ideological purity. High SOC low wealth can mean a person from high society fallen on hard times. It could also perhaps mean someone of normally low wealth but who is accepted into high society because of something else in their background such as a high profile artist or activist, or maybe a scholar with controversial work. These individuals might exist in high society as a client of a patron.

 

[Condottiere]

That's what happens when you randomize character traits.

 

[Iracundus]

Certainly it can be frustrating if a player wants to play an intelligent scientist and ends up with low INT and/or low EDU, but I'm just saying that these "mismatches" of INT, EDU, SOC can and do exist in societies, and are not mistakes that need patching up with rules.

 

[atpollard]

INT has serious problems if viewed as IQ. For one, the IQ of the character will be the IQ of the player in 99% of the cases. It is incredibly hard not to see what you see or to see what you don't see. For the sake of argument, how does an average (IQ 100 = Int 7) PLAYER actually play an INT E Character? How does the Character see insights that the Player can't?

I have been reading up on IQ and discovered that it is largely misunderstood anyway, so I have begun to endeavor to view INT as an attribute that anyone can both play (game mechanics and rules) and roleplay.

INT=2
What if INT 2 represents someone who is slow to solve problems. His innate methodology to decide anything is to sleep on it for a few days and slowly come to a decision. He is capable of solving any problem any other character can solve (he is not dumb as a rock), but he is incapable of making a fast decision on a problem without just guessing. In addition, INT 2 tends to be obsessive. Once he focuses on something, he can do nothing else except the one job that he is focusing on. If you give him a second task while he was still focused on the first task, he will become frustrated and he will completely stop one task to refocus on the new task.

INT=15
Here we have the other extreme of human ability. Here is someone who will instantly process the data and reach a decision. He had no greater chance of solving the problem, but he will not require more than a moment to reach the conclusion of either a solution or the inability to solve it. He is also a natural multitasker and is capable of working on many problems at the same time and keep track of each and every task. As a steward, he can tell you at any moment where each passenger is, what they are doing, what they are scheduled to do next and organize things so that everyone has what they need when and where they need it. While keeping a list of things the Engineer needs to repair and playing chess with the Navigator.

Since few characters are INT 2 or 15, most will fall between these extremes with different degrees of each trait. Below INT=7 and the character tends to take more time to think about things, above INT=7 and the character tends to make quick decisions and multi-task.

So just for fun, back to INT 4, EDU B, SOC 5 (anomaly):
William is borderline autistic. Everything has to be just so in his ordered world and he is almost incapable of correctly reading the non-verbal communication of other people. However, William is fascinated with Machinery and spends hours studying and designing intricate clockworks. His work with ever smaller machines in an attempt to create a perpetual motion device led to several important breakthroughs in nano-fabrication. William insists on spending 8 uninterrupted hours - from 0800 to 1600 - every day working on his 'project' and becomes abusive to anyone who disturbs his work. Because of his eccentric behavior in public, most people are uncomfortable around William and he is something of a social outcast in spite of his PhD and the wealth from his patents.

 

[welsh]

I'd also link INT to SOC to a degree.

That's not unreasonable, as intelligence is developed, and social standing brings opportunity.

One option is to link it via EDU:
SOC = 2D6; EDU = 2D6 - 7 + SOC; INT = 2D6 - 7 + EDU

But this has the unfortunate side effect of making high-INT, low-SOC characters into unicorns. If a character has SOC 5, then he's likely to end up with below-average intelligence, and I think the link is too strong.

I'd rather resolve the anomalies with a +DM on INT based on above-average EDU, which renders INT 3, EDU A impossible. As it should be -- INT 3 places you in the 8th percentile of problem-solving ability. High EDU for that character ought to be out of reach.

This leaves INT A, SOC 4 within the realm of possibility.

I disagree with linking SOC, EDU, and/or INT with rules. They can exist independently of each other IMO.

They can. But "Can these things be independent" is the wrong question. The right question is, "How are these things linked in the context of the game?"

The problem with game effects of INT, as Enoki points out, is that the intelligence of the PC is in most cases the intelligence of the player. And as I suggested off the top (and as Condottiere reiterated), the problem with SOC is that living in a society in which social status is fundamental to your identity is foreign to us.

Can we assume that a low-SOC character can get a scholarship, in the context of an empire governed by a hereditary aristocracy? How often did this happen in, say, 18th century England? I'm entirely comfortable linking EDU to SOC for the simple reason that the setting implies such a link is reasonable.

And indeed, you acknowledge as much:

I would argue you can have low INT but high EDU ... the rich kid put through university and who jumped through the hoops enough to get a degree but who has no real intellectual interest or curiosity of their own.

Moving along:

In many modern societies we equate SOC with wealth (and just see how low SOC 5 on the last page was instantly equated to being impoverished)....

SOC 5 puts you at the 28th percentile. That may be above the poverty line (depending on where the poverty line lies in this particular society), but it's hardly middle class.

And it's entirely fair to link social standing with wealth, in the general case, because in developed societies wealth is the means by which social standing is created. There are indeed "unspoken social standards," or as I suggested, social norms. And as I pointed out, those norms originate from a ruling class and flow downwards. So while you have unusual cases -- the crass nouveau riche being the obvious example -- the general rule holds true. And that's where the probabilities involved in die rolls come in.

For low SOC characters you might increase the likelihood of the police or other authorities hassling them for whatever.

I suggest this is one of the obvious game effects of SOC. High-status individuals see less police hassles, get better treatment from official bureaucracies, are able to exert influence ... low status individuals get the opposite. But high social status itself can be a cage, in the context of the Imperium's culture of honour. For a high-status character to break that code even in minor ways ought to bring severe consequences.

 

[Iracundus]

INT has serious problems if viewed as IQ. For one, the IQ of the character will be the IQ of the player in 99% of the cases. It is incredibly hard not to see what you see or to see what you don't see. For the sake of argument, how does an average (IQ 100 = Int 7) PLAYER actually play an INT E Character? How does the Character see insights that the Player can't?

INT I see as encompassing ability to think out of the box and be flexible, not just being "smart" in formal knowledge.

The GM can help if the player is missing an obvious insight or failing to connect the dots that their high INT would get.

Likewise if an intelligent player plays a low INT person, the character might still eventually reach the same conclusion but it would be through trial and error or after a lot of "showing the work" by writing things down and comparing notes. The high INT person might keep a lot of it in his head and be able to make those deductive leaps quickly and easily. So maybe allow the player to have that eureka moment but the character only gets it after days of working late into the night.

INT=2
What if INT 2 represents someone who is slow to solve problems. His innate methodology to decide anything is to sleep on it for a few days and slowly come to a decision. He is capable of solving any problem any other character can solve (he is not dumb as a rock), but he is incapable of making a fast decision on a problem without just guessing. In addition, INT 2 tends to be obsessive. Once he focuses on something, he can do nothing else except the one job that he is focusing on. If you give him a second task while he was still focused on the first task, he will become frustrated and he will completely stop one task to refocus on the new task.

INT=15
Here we have the other extreme of human ability. Here is someone who will instantly process the data and reach a decision. He had no greater chance of solving the problem, but he will not require more than a moment to reach the conclusion of either a solution or the inability to solve it. He is also a natural multitasker and is capable of working on many problems at the same time and keep track of each and every task. As a steward, he can tell you at any moment where each passenger is, what they are doing, what they are scheduled to do next and organize things so that everyone has what they need when and where they need it. While keeping a list of things the Engineer needs to repair and playing chess with the Navigator.

Since few characters are INT 2 or 15, most will fall between these extremes with different degrees of each trait. Below INT=7 and the character tends to take more time to think about things, above INT=7 and the character tends to make quick decisions and multi-task.

So just for fun, back to INT 4, EDU B, SOC 5 (anomaly):
William is borderline autistic. Everything has to be just so in his ordered world and he is almost incapable of correctly reading the non-verbal communication of other people. However, William is fascinated with Machinery and spends hours studying and designing intricate clockworks. His work with ever smaller machines in an attempt to create a perpetual motion device led to several important breakthroughs in nano-fabrication. William insists on spending 8 uninterrupted hours - from 0800 to 1600 - every day working on his 'project' and becomes abusive to anyone who disturbs his work. Because of his eccentric behavior in public, most people are uncomfortable around William and he is something of a social outcast in spite of his PhD and the wealth from his patents.

Yes, exactly. The high EDU shows he may have a lot of knowledge of machinery and mechanics but his low INT translates into the mental rigidity and inability to quickly adapt to new circumstances. He might have to mull over and digest new information for a long time whereas a high INT might absorb it and integrate it with his existing knowledge quickly.

 

[welsh]

One further remark, re linking EDU and SOC: if we do that, we have to throw away any assumptions re what level of EDU indicates what degree.

EDU 7 becomes simply the average educational accomplishment of the average middle-class Imperial citizen/subject. To decide whether EDU 8 is a postsecondary degree, we have to decide first how much education the average middle-class guy/gal actually has.

 

[Condottiere]

Human resources receives so many applications, education is a sort of a letter of introduction, or short cut certification.

Education

While I don't really think we'll be getting much smarter in the future, nor that our ancestors were any dumber than we are, education evolves, and theoretically, what they'll be teaching in High School in the future should be similar to college courses today, not that those are too hard in most cases.

Except in Lucasian space, since computers have speech recognition and are talkative, and it's rumoured that the literacy rate is abysmal. I think they get away with icons and emojis.

So the norm is six to eight, and eight tends to light up in the advanced education skill table, so let's say that six is senior high, seven is junior college or form six, and eight is college. Then you get to graduate.

Nine would be a bachelors, that plus one dice modifier is added to the success of most of your job applications, unless you happen to be over qualified for that barrista or McJob.

You can't have zero education, because humans always learn something, if only through experience. Even a feral childhood should get you to education one.

Lack of an education isn't tragic, since unlike intelligence, you can always acquire one. Should low intelligence cap education? No. That education just takes a lot longer to assimilate into that soft spongy brainy matter, and the low processing power and minuscule RAM means it might take a while until the relevant information pops up as a memory.

In this age of Siri and Google, we can ask the Cloud to look up any information (that hasn't been corrupted in the databanks). But an education will first allow us to figure out the right question to ask, and when it's delivered, in what relevant context it fits.

Five would be junior high or middle school, four would be grade or primary six, three would be the three arrs, reading, 'riting, and arithmetic.

With two, you're illiterate, but can communicate vocally. With other civilized humans.

Normally speaking, not everyone that graduates from high school actually gets past a five in education, which seems a pretty good standard for a character to have.

Not to worry, we love the poorly educated, which I suppose would those of education four and below.

 

[kilemall]

Most of the material that has been published on college in game seems to assume that graduation is equivalent to a US bachelor's degree at EDU 8. I tend to infer that EDU 7 is associates (a US 2 year degree), and EDU 6 is high school graduation. Above 8 is Masters then PhD programs- or personal knowledge equivalent therein.

These are equivalents of course- a widely read and precocious teen might have got to EDU A by 18, and presumably in the FAR FUTURE information access and self-study/training is even more ubiquitous then it is now in the early decades of the internet here on our backwards TL planet.

I also treat EDU as a personality characteristic, a habit and a problem solving preference.

Example- I ended up using Word to produce a brochure for a family event. I had not done so before, I just knew it had to have the capability, so I hacked it out, even though I have never cracked a Word manual or taken a course.

An INT/Computer skill task roll in game terms.

My father's response to seeing this done was to take a course at the local community college.

So he would do an EDU/Computer roll seeking to do the same thing.

I go one step further- high EDU people roll against their stat for innate knowledge, or how/who to look up to get that knowledge.

Low EDU people work off of rumors, and are more likely to hear them because they go to and are networked into similar people who operate on verbal forwarded knowledge, not formal vetted information, as a matter of habit and confidence.

The kind of person that says 'I heard from this guy I know who works in interstellar trade' rather then looking up the top 3 experts on the PlanetNet.

The other way I look at INT vs. EDU is to think Robots or Computers, INT=CPU and EDU=storage.

In that sense using INT as more of a time factor for problem solving seems very much in line with that metaphor.

 

[Iracundus]

EDU for me encompasses general knowledge and also general theoretical knowledge. So a high EDU character might know of past historical events and people like past Emperors from past exposure during the course of their education even though they may not be historians.