Making SOC Count

[welsh]

I take EDU to be formal knowledge; INT the ability to put knowledge to work. Thus INT becomes a modifier for many types of skills. But the application of EDU is less clear.

As we move to the left in the UPP, the numbers become increasingly meaningless as implemented in the rules.

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.

This I agree with. I think it may be an error to assume that EDU 12 means an advanced degree, because many such degrees will have little or no practical application in the game. A PhD in ancient Vilani poetry, for example. Not that it can't mean such a thing, of course, but it doesn't have to.

Also, there is the minor problem of characters with EDU A (say), but who never (in Book 4-7 chargen) went to college. What are we to make of this?

(This, to me, argues further for linking EDU to SOC: more opportunity = broader horizons.)

Getting back to SOC, there is another chargen question: how likely is a character of low social standing to achieve high rank? Similarly, how likely is a character of high social standing to hold low rank? This varies by service, naturally, but I find the fact that these things are uncoupled bothersome. Services that act as perfect meritocracies (and there are plenty of articles and remarks here and there suggesting they do, re mustang officers etc.) don't gel with this hereditary nobility.

For my part, I take it that high SOC in most services (esp. Navy) ought to essentially guarantee a commission (although not promotion). Low SOC has the opposite effect: a commission is less likely. Exceptions: the Scouts (using Book 6), and the Merchant service.

 

[atpollard]

If you link TOO many things to SOC you may need to rename the attribute to something like "Mary Sue" and reduce CharGen to a single 2d6 roll that measures whether you were born with all advantages and success or are simply issued a Red Shirt.

 

[Iracundus]

Also, there is the minor problem of characters with EDU A (say), but who never (in Book 4-7 chargen) went to college. What are we to make of this?

They read widely, and may have taken a variety of correspondence courses but never went for a full formal degree at an educational institution.

Again I am against linking of things to SOC, because while SOC does influence things, it is and should not the be all and end all of things. Low SOC people can get scholarships, and if they are really that good they will eventually rise in SOC as they get promoted up and awarded nobility (or Party membership/connections). Similarly "black sheep" can spectacularly fail out of education despite being born with a silver spoon. Linking SOC and EDU needlessly restricts character background possibility. Sure, these extremes may not be that common in the universe but I don't think the rules should block it from happening.

 

[Leitz]

Stats should be both mechanic and guideline. High stat, bonus on die roll, low stat, penalty. If an Int 7 gets no mod then maybe Int 2 gets a minus and an Int F gets a plus. Maybe the Int 2 needs a day to make a roll and the Int F needs a minute. Either way one bad roll doesn't stop them unless the issue is terminal.

At the same time Int 2 people may have mannerisms that speak of their stat. An Int 2 Edu 2 Soc 2 person may think they are normal. Raise the Edu and they know they have to spend more time learning stuff but they are willing to do the work. Or raise the Soc and they know the pain of humiliation and mockery.

The issue is that CT games seldom use those stats on a recurring basis. If there were modifiers for stats they would become more important. If players played high Soc characters with aplomb and nobility then the game would be deeper.

I understand the aversion some DMs have to giving characters lots of money, it can change the game. Yet in atpollard's game my character has literally passed millions of credits through his hands and hasn't made that the focus of the game. He's working on a bigger task and the money is just a tool to achieve that. When chargen began he had Int 6, Edu 8, Soc 5. Due to chargen and other in game stuff he's at Int 9 (A shortly), Edu 8, and Soc B with a PSR of 7. He is smart but still sees himself as slow, and he is noble but doesn't know the forms of high society. He is rich and still puts himself into danger when he's needed.

Take atpollard's character Ben. Soc 5 at the start, he's set to marry a business based Soc E woman whose dad could buy the planet they live on. Ben is using the business minds and contacts to set slaves free and make the universe a better place. All the while trying to avoid death by grenade.

Any very high stat can change the character and potentially change the game. I'm not seeing the issue, though, outside of players and DMs not having a shared vision of what the game can be.

 

[mike wightman]

Here in the UK Edu is linked to soc in the Zhodani manner - if you have high Soc you will go to public (actually private) school, be fast tracked into Oxford or Cambridge (Durham or one of the Scottish ones if you are Int limited) and hence you may have a high Edu.

You have learned stuff, you can recall stuff - but you can not improvise, abstract or have new insight - i.e. those with a low Int.

I have met many scientists who have high Edu but low Int - they can write the equations down but they can not do anything original themselves.

I explain it like this:
Int - reasoning, abstraction, innovation, wit, common sense
Edu - learning, recall

 

[Condottiere]

If you've learnt acting and mimicking, and have access to the requisite accoutrements, you can pretend to be from strata of society, though I'm going to guess it's modified by education or etiquette.

 

[Iracundus]

I understand the aversion some DMs have to giving characters lots of money, it can change the game.

That's only if the game is one in which money at the character scale matters. If the campaign is something other than people trying to make the mortgage payments on their free trader, such as something involving interstellar politics or intrigue, then money (and character gear) is not the main goal nor a particularly campaign breaking tool.

If you've learnt acting and mimicking, and have access to the requisite accoutrements, you can pretend to be from strata of society, though I'm going to guess it's modified by education or etiquette.

True, but it's an act, which can be found out, rather than something natural to the person. So rolls in moments of stress to avoid acting or saying something that reveals one's true SOC or EDU status.

 

[welsh]

If you link TOO many things to SOC you may need to rename the attribute to something like "Mary Sue" and reduce CharGen to a single 2d6 roll that measures whether you were born with all advantages and success or are simply issued a Red Shirt.

True.

So far I've suggested three things in chargen.

First, EDU = 2D6 - 7 + SOC.

The practical effects: Character with SOC A occupies 83rd percentile of social status possible in chargen. 17% of such characters will fail to get post-secondary education (EDU 7-). Meanwhile, character with SOC 5 occupies 28th percentile of social status. 17% of such characters will get post-secondary.

Second, high social standing improves odds of college admission. Given that there is no roll for "succeed in making your tuition payments," I assume the admission roll includes it, so this seems entirely reasonable.

Third, high social standing almost guarantees commission in Navy, Marines, & Army; low social standing makes it unlikely. This one is perhaps the most questionable. But not unreasonable if we assume Imperial service more closely resembles the 19th century than the US Army today.

Now, let's consider linking STR and END to SOC, based on better childhood nutrition....

Low SOC people can get scholarships... I don't think the rules should block it from happening.

True. Though if we assume low SOC people can get scholarships (this is an assumption; the Imperium is not our world), we still have to recognize that students with a full ride are the exception, not the rule. It's an improbable case, and ideally chargen should make the improbable case, well, improbable.

If only chargen had some means of accounting for probability, such as dice....

So my proposal leaves this possibility open. But I remind you that the Imperium is not our world ... the setting assumes a system of hereditary privilege.

The issue is that CT games seldom use those stats on a recurring basis. If there were modifiers for stats they would become more important.

The rules ignore stats much of the time, especially EDU and SOC.

For example, probability of a police encounter is entirely a function of law level. Reaction rolls do not account for SOC. So our party is out fishing for Arcturan Bass and head back to camp with 19 fish in the ATV, when the limit is just 15 ... and a roll of 11 against law level brings them up against Fish & Game. How will the encounter go? Will they avoid a search of the ATV, which will reveal their poaching?

The standard resolution is via a reaction roll, with a positive modifier for long service. Alternatively, we could roll 2D6 < SOC, modified with skills like Streetwise, etc.

Is it fair that low-SOC characters are more likely to get treated badly by police? Wrong question. The right question is, Who said life is fair?

 

[creativehum]

I'm curious what others think SOC represents.

For me, first and foremost, SOC pings off the pre-1975 stories that Miller says inspired Traveller and the characters and stories noted in the back of Supplements 1 and 4.

The nobility in the tales of the Dumarest books, the Demon Princes books, the novels The Stars My Destination, King David's Spaceship and others are often aloof and removed from the concerns of the people the interact with or rule, and often fall toward the decadent. Social standing in these tales is a privilege, seldom earned, with attendant power that some noble treat seriously and others abuse.

Meanwhile, the same books cover the travails of those at the low end of the social scale, the poor, the abused, often living as slaves (even if never named as such).

Social Standing for me, then is a mark of safety -- or lack there of. High SOC means you are part of a club that works to protect what it has from those who don't. Even if the nobles struggle with each other (and certainly they do) the won't work to bring the entire structure down. (In fact, it is generally unthinkable. The notion of a social order often based on heredity is a given in the tales above, and not a matter of colorful bureaucratic titles that Nobility became in the OTU through the years.)

This translates into tension between different classes of people, and offer intrigue, conflict, and a solid grounding for adventure for RPG sessions.

When Ilook at the early OTU (Proto-Traveller) material found in Adventures and Library data I see exactly the kind of abuse of power and tension baked into the setting. (The tension later becomes forgotten or flattened.)

In all of this, for me, SOC then is a reflection of safety, cloud, and resources than can be gathered as a member of one "club" or another.

Thus, if a PC noble arrives on a world and ends up in trouble, he can show up at the door of noble living on the world and expect aid. He is of the same class and part of the same order one would expect them both to uphold.

Meanwhile, a character of low SOC who finds himself in trouble will have few resources to tap. And yet those social circles at the bottom end of the scale will also often take care of their own. They also have their ways of dealing with problems, gaining resources, and taking action if push comes to shove.


As Welsh points out in his first post: "The original LBBs refer to a distant empire, where presumably SOC is of great importance. But the frontier has a flattening effect."

This means that while the nobility are present in the far flung worlds, their influence and power will be low or high depending on the political and social climate of the world. Some worlds (or significant portions of the world) will embrace the Imperium and what it offers, and others will reject the Imperium. Where the clout of the nobility falls on this scale will offer grist for adventure. The clout can rise and fall depending on the outcome of events, sometimes even due to the actions of the Player Characters. All of this, of course, is grist for adventure, as conflicts and plots and political upheaval and risk of overplaying one's hand are all possible... leading to the opportunity of the PCs having things to do in an evening's play.


Notice that my focus is in no way 'modeling' the culture into the rules... at least not as explicitly as has been done upthread. I want to state this clearly because I believe (though I might be wrong!) that my approach and focus is different than some of the posts above. (I'm not contradicting those approaches. Welsh asked about how we see SOC. I'm answering the question. This is something I've been thinking about, and I think best when typing.)

So, in my examples, what matters most to me is what happens to the PCs in tight situations. Characters on different points on the SOC scale will have different options if they seek out or need help. In a class driven society (and the original rules as well as the tales that inspired them assume this) members of different classes will recognize each other, even if they are from different cultures.

Given this, "Which NPCs do the PCs go to?" is the part I am interested in. What new problems, adventure, or crisis is set before them based which door they knock on.


If these social conflicts are baked into the setting they also offer rich opportunities for role play and conflict. A high SOC character might decide he is not impressed with the decadent nature of his fellow nobility and put himself by betraying his birthright or coming into conflict with other nobles. (Duke Leto Atreides in Dune in an example of such a noble.) On the other hand, a character might be a low SOC striver, desperate for a taste of high society and wanting to gain the good graces of nobility no matter what, or even find himself knighted for actions in service to a noble.


As for the mechanics and rules, I believe INT, EDU, and SOC are already these three characteristics are already based into the rules firmly, if not explicitly.

We know that INT and EDU are named as possible DMs in rolls for Engineering and Electronics. And since I view the descriptions of the skill use in the Classic Traveller rules as one example after another of how to apply skills, characteristics, and throw values I assume that INT, EDU, and SOC can influence any roll the Referee and the Players see fit. That is, should a high, moderate, or low SOC apply as a DM for a reaction roll? It depends entirely on the circumstances. But if the circumstances warrant it, absolutely yes. The Classic Traveller system was built on the assumption that anything could end up being a modifier to a roll, with the Referee adjudicating the circumstances and deciding a) if a roll was needed, and b) what the details of the roll would be.

(As a side note: Notice that one of the four options of the Experience rules in CT is to increase one's EDU by +1. If EDU didn't matter to the game why have that as an option. In my view it is expected that that last three characteristics are supposed to matter as firmly and concretely in game play as the first three. While the application of the last three characteristics are not as clearly spelled out as the first three in terms of mechanics, by using the various examples found through the book as analogies, it seems clear that they can and should be used whenever it seems appropriate.)


I do not see high SOC tied to wealth. One can be noble and be destitute. One can be of low social standing and never be accepted by those who were born into nobility. For me (and I'm not pushing this on anyone else) I see a class conscious society in which who one was born to, where one was born, what sort of manners and expectations one has matter a great deal to many people.

How much money one wants to spend to keep up appearances is a choice of the Player for his or her character. It is a matter of roleplaying and the character's bank account. If the character wants to spend lavishly than he can... as long as he can. And if he can't but still wants to he'll have to find the money somehow. And if a character is low SOC but wants to wear the best clothes, that too is a roleplaying choice built from the credits in his bank account.


Nor do I see SOC tied to EDU or INT. Others have already laid out the logic and examples of how how why any of the three characteristics can be at varying values but still make sense. I will simply add that I don't see the Traveller character generation system as being built to produce any old human beings or building out all the citizens of a society, but rather compelling travellers. That is, Player Characters as protagonists in tales of adventure who are often compelling because they are quirky, unexpected, and not at all what one would expect.

That is, as the original Main World generation system was not built as a comprehensive tool for categorizing societies, but rather a "prod to the imagination" by creating strange edge cases that inspired interesting interpretations, so the UPP's random results is there to make us ask, "Who is this guy?" and come up with answers that produce an often compelling and unique individual that stands apart from most people. I understand that many people don't like these quirky results (either for UPP or UWP) and work to smooth out the edge cases and unexpected or strange results. I am not one of those people. I love the way the system produces edge cases, unexpected, or strange results.)

With this in mind, I find the definitions of INT and EDU found in the text of Book 1 to be too literal. Tying them directly to IQ and Schooling limits the fun of interpreting them in different ways in character creation, but also hamstrings interesting interpretations of their worth and effectiveness during play. Removing the definitions of IQ and Schooling are one of the few changes I'd make in the CT rules.

For me each of the characteristics (but especially the last three, and then, even mores the last one) need to be interpreted by both the Player for his character ("My guy has a high INT, but average EDU, and here's what his high INT generally means") and the circumstances at hand... (Referee: "The device is of a sort and manufacture that none of you have ever seen before. Anyone with a high intelligence might get a glimmer of its purpose, but no one's education is going to help on this one..." The interpretive nature of these characteristics is (for some of us) part of the fun of using rules like this, where we build out the characters and the world, defining elements, details, and meaning as we play.

 

[McPerth]

What is INT?

(snip...)

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.

To me, in most RPGs, INT is more a matter of cleverness than intelligence, as, as you say, true intelligence is likely to be player's instead of character's.

One can be quite intelligence, and still be dumb, focused in abstract matters (or in own's job) and totally oblivious about the surrindings, and IMHO that would be a low INT, even if the IQ could well be that of a genius.

OTOH, one can have an average (or even lower) IQ and still be clever, well aware of the surrundings and hablo to think quickly, and that, again IMHO would mean high INT stat.


As for SOC, it's perhaps one of the most dificult thigns to explain, as it may well represent many things. There have been in history various cases of being considered social pariahs ahd yet having high inflence, even in high social circles. The medieval Jews in Europe, some liberts reaching minister status in Claudius' court, etc... would be fine examples of those cases.

Also, as some have already said, high SOC may mean diferent things in diferent societies. So, in the Consulate, high SOC means psionic, while low to average SOC means being a prole, capacity, influence or wealth nonwhistanding.

In other societies, SOC may just mean which city area you grew up, th clothing you wear and your manners:

• High SOC: excuse me gentleman, could you please tell me where can I find a hotel?
• Low SOC: hey pal, where can one sleep here?

One thing that makes SOC different form other stats, as some poeple has already pointed, is that its effect must be for comparative, haveing a higher SOC is not always better tan having low one, depending on who you are treating with and the city área you move into (as I already told in another thread, Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper shows us both cases, and both of them have trouble, the low SOC one in a palace, and the High SOC one in the slums).

 

[kilemall]

I'm not seriously suggesting this alternative, just throwing it out there to stimulate the thought that we can use these stats in different ways.

Instead of SOC being an analog of social CLASS, it could measure the socialization ability of the character, more like D&D CHARISMA or the idea of EQ, emotional quotient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

High SOC are gregarious people who get high mods on reaction tables and everybody loves them. Low SOC people are unpleasant or clueless people who get negatives on reaction rolls, and are likely to be misunderstood and not beloved.

 

[kilemall]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]As for SOC, it's perhaps one of the most dificult thigns to explain, as it may well represent many things. There have been in history various cases of being considered social pariahs ahd yet having high inflence, even in high social circles. The medieval Jews in Europe, some liberts reaching minister status in Claudius' court, etc... would be fine examples of those cases.

Also, as some have already said, high SOC may mean diferent things in diferent societies. So, in the Consulate, high SOC means psionic, while low to average SOC means being a prole, capacity, influence or wealth nonwhistanding.

In other societies, SOC may just mean which city area you grew up, th clothing you wear and your manners:

• High SOC: excuse me gentleman, could you please tell me where can I find a hotel?
• Low SOC: hey pal, where can one sleep here?

One thing that makes SOC different form other stats, as some poeple has already pointed, is that its effect must be for comparative, haveing a higher SOC is not always better tan having low one, depending on who you are treating with and the city área you move into (as I already told in another thread, Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper shows us both cases, and both of them have trouble, the low SOC one in a palace, and the High SOC one in the slums).[/FONT]

I would deal with the disparities you mention by the mechanism of Rank vs. SOC, and the simple expedient of 'I listen to the smart low SOC minister, but I would never allow my daughter to marry him'- who you socialize with vs. 'business'.

As for your different neighborhood example, that's largely what the reaction table SOC mods are all about. Woe betide the Baron loudly demanding service in Star Shantytown!

 

[welsh]

The nobility in the tales of the Dumarest books, the Demon Princes books, the novels The Stars My Destination, King David's Spaceship and others are often aloof and removed from the concerns of the people the interact with or rule, and often fall toward the decadent. Social standing in these tales is a privilege, seldom earned, with attendant power that some noble treat seriously and others abuse.

Have not read that stuff, but this is more or less my take on the nobility. It is not important that the Imperium is fair or good, and I regard as unfortunate the tendency in certain later materials to make it so, because....

This translates into tension between different classes of people, and offer intrigue, conflict, and a solid grounding for adventure for RPG sessions.

Embedding SOC effects in chargen, to me, reflects that universe. And I understand why this bothers some people -- essentially, for exactly the same reasons SOC often goes ignored in games. It's a question of how you envision the TU.

I disagree that chargen is intended to produce edge cases; in my view, it is skewed towards the average (777777) and that it can produce contradictory results is not a feature, but a bug. Worldgen makes links (small worlds most probably have thin atmospheres); chargen does not, and then the rules largely ignore some of its features (such as social standing). YMMV, obviously.

So, in my examples, what matters most to me is what happens to the PCs in tight situations. Characters on different points on the SOC scale will have different options if they seek out or need help.

And it may be helpful at this point to move on from chargen.

What game effects ought SOC to have?

I've mentioned some. High SOC ought to mean fewer police hassles, greater ease in navigating bureaucracies, easier dealings with the bank, and so on. You'll have an easier time renting an ATV if you "look reliable."

Low SOC brings the opposite. But it can't be all bad. There are plenty of other activities where high SOC hurts characters -- anything where it helps to be streetwise, any transaction that goes on under the table, etc.

(Here I note that the game takes tasks where an attribute might have applied, and creates a specific skill, Streetwise, to deal with them.)

The most difficult aspect to apply, though, is the assumption that high SOC indicates some buy-in to that Noble culture, and to its notions of honour. The high SOC character can do something illegal, but only in the service of some Noble interest, and not purely for himself ... but of course, the player behind that character may have other views entirely.

The only real way to make that work is to apply shame and disgrace with heavy-handed glee. So your SOC-4 character may have trouble checking into the hotel -- ID checks, snobby clerks, credit checks, etc. -- while the high-SOC character breezes through. But when our high-SOC man is recognized as that disgraced gentleman involved in the Whatsit Affair, he'll face consequences worse than ID checks and snobbery: the blackball.

That is, should a high, moderate, or low SOC apply as a DM for a reaction roll?

I suggest dispensing with reaction rolls entirely at times. When dealing with a clerk at the Ministry of Bureaucracy, roll 2D6<SOC, sensible DMs apply.

 

[welsh]

Instead of SOC being an analog of social CLASS, it could measure the socialization ability of the character, more like D&D CHARISMA or the idea of EQ, emotional quotient.

That's a fascinating idea for an alternative TU.

 

[kilemall]

That's a fascinating idea for an alternative TU.

I just thought of it too. Never know what these discussions will prod into being.

Works well for the high SOC career rolls too, indicates more an ability to navigate the officer's club or embassy social currents then social rank.

Not sure about the low SOC criminal rolls, that could be more a matter of being brutish nasty and bad-tempered is thought well of- a stretch.

 

[creativehum]

I suggest dispensing with reaction rolls entirely at times. When dealing with a clerk at the Ministry of Bureaucracy, roll 2D6<SOC, sensible DMs apply.

I dispense with all sorts of rolls if it makes sense there is no tension to be resolve and it make sense how the situation would move forward.

Application for rolls varies greatly between play styles and Referees. (For a variety of reasons I'm not fond of Characteristic checks in Traveller.)

For me, I'd make the Reaction roll (with appropriate DMs) because I want to know if something unexpected occurs. For example, a hostile reaction might mean the clerk is very familiar with the nobles family, and for one reason or another is caught up in memories of incident where his own family was brutalized by some relative or ancestor of the PC.

But that's me. Not anything I'd push on people.

As for edge cases, I may not have been clear: It isn't there to consistently produce edge cases. Simply that edge cases can pop up. (I certainly understand your lack of interest in them.) My comment about UWP is based on lots of folks (some of them on this board, some of them who has passed) who really hated the results the Main World system generated. "Nonsensical" is a word I've seen used in reference to them. I was going by those kinds of comments. I understand you are satisfied with the results.

 

[creativehum]

I'm not seriously suggesting this alternative, just throwing it out there to stimulate the thought that we can use these stats in different ways.

Instead of SOC being an analog of social CLASS, it could measure the socialization ability of the character, more like D&D CHARISMA or the idea of EQ, emotional quotient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

High SOC are gregarious people who get high mods on reaction tables and everybody loves them. Low SOC people are unpleasant or clueless people who get negatives on reaction rolls, and are likely to be misunderstood and not beloved.

I think this is an excellent point. The tools of the game are there for the Referee to help build the setting he wants. Redefining SOC as needed to relate the "social currency" of a given setting is a great idea. GDW, of course, did exactly this by redefining the sixth characteristic for the different races it introduced.

 

[welsh]

"Nonsensical" is a word I've seen used in reference to them. I was going by those kinds of comments. I understand you are satisfied with the results.

If I get a nonsensical result, I just override it. Problem solved.

 

[Condottiere]

You need fool proof identification for it to work.

In an interstellar polity where communications and verification is speed of travel.

 

[creativehum]

If I get a nonsensical result, I just override it.

Hence my point about UPPs and UWPs and how some people respond to them above.