Nobility

[GypsyComet]

Granted, its more an intellectual curiosity, at this stage. But I had no intention bringing up bad memories.

This particular realization, that DGP was playing both sides and, intentionally or not, creating a lot of anger over the introduction of a vast and destructive war, is a recent one for me. I do not dislike the Rebellion as an event, but its handling, and the handling of the edition of the game that featured it, have been an annoyance for many years. The reactions of others, however, made it really obvious that they were soaking up the pre-Rebellion love that DGP was putting out while largely blocking out the progress of the Rebellion. The crippling or marginalization of several factions through unrecognized Black Warfare (see Knightfall) pretty much ignored because there was a sale at "G". Hard Times was a rude shock, but very few were really reading it for what it was: the obituary of the Third Imperium.

Virus didn't kill the Third Imperium. It set fire to the corpse.

EDIT: I had an extension to this talking about the Rebellion's effects on the nobility, but the internet ate it. Maybe later.

 

[savage]

DGP envisioned a schizophrenic Imperium, in which a large number of worlds were pushing strongly into TL16, the only ships worth flying were TL15+, and "G" was a chain of retailers purporting to be the next tech thing, while at the same time trying to maintain dark and isolated places to do dangerous things in. They were also showing us, in loving detail, what the Imperium of 1115 looked like at some level while also tearing it apart five years in the future. DGP gave us the Rebellion, but also led us to hate it. Passionately.

There are elements of the DGP rendition I really like, and elements that are, in hindsight, regrettable. Marc apparently feels the same way, though I doubt that his list is the same as mine. The Traveller Map shows that the march to TL16 is being slowed. Given that TL15 is being described as "just short of magic" to many inhabitants, and is only a century old, TL16 probably *should* be delayed. It was also largely unnecessary in the context of the Rebellion; even that one TL difference renders fleet combat increasingly lop-sided, which is very much NOT what was depicted.

The ubiquity of Imperial Culture depicted by DGP, while not all that surprising after a thousand years, still grates against the wild and wooly CT picture of the spinward frontier. There should certainly be parts of the Imperium like DGP's vision, but I disagree that it should *all* look like that.

For having a whole issue of the Digest dedicated to Capital, DGP was not all that helpful on the big picture of the Nobility.

Not me. I loved the Rebellion. I asked Loren, Les and everyone for the Rebellion and Virus. I think DGP did a great job in showing refs/players the cost of civil war. Would i change anything? Sure. And IMTU i have as any refs should. I never saw 3I as a functioning entity. Nobility and Communications we're bound to kill it.

On another note, Marc approved the products, certainly he moved out of the mainstream during TNE, Loren was involved too. GDW was rolling with 2300, Twilight, and their Steam universes. Shaking up 3I made sense. I think Marc still sees the vast number of unwritten 3I stories that can be told. But its just my assumption.

The TL16 didn't bother me. It's not all that impressive. Sometimes TL comes quickly and sometimes slow. I saw a lot of low pop corp worlds with TL16 in a few areas. TL16 being Dulinor's edge now that's interesting, but the product line didn't live up to it as GDW began fizzling. Magazine articles tried helping but there we're never enough.

 

[Quint]

Also being a long term Traveller player I had less of an issue with the Rebellion and the Virus and even the New Era than I did with the rules change to TNE - that's what I really hated! And yes, I was not thrilled with how the Rebellion was handled from "metaplot" perspective. Rather than there being a sense of historical inevitability it felt like there was a either an "axe to grind" or that was even more "off-screen knowledge" (like Lucan) that the fans/readers weren't privy to but that with it things made little or no sense.

I was and am a fan of the DGP content for Traveller and enjoyed much of the extra content they provided. I loved having some mechanics to help figure out UPP changes in the aftermath of serious conflict.

But, as I've also said, I am also a fan of PP - so lots of TL16 worlds never really bothered me. I also liked the concept of a "Extra-Imperial" "Grand Dukes" ruling client states, and a host of other ideas found in their products.

In T5 I like the ways that Nobles have started to be fleshed out with proxy votes and defined estates, etc. The issue is that like so much of Traveller (whatever edition) is that it gives us scraps of bone and we're left to guess as to what the actual appearance of the body is.

I think it is actually somewhere in the Proto-Traveller era that the Imperium shifts in tone from a vibrant, expansionistic polity to an obese and moribund one. This shift in tone changes the nature of the Nobility greatly, but the canon Traveller OTU has tried to be everything for everyone and ended up as a confusing mess for a lot of people - especially those of us who have been playing since the dawn of time and try to make sense of different pieces of the puzzle.

D.

 

[rancke]

I think it is actually somewhere in the Proto-Traveller era that the Imperium shifts in tone from a vibrant, expansionistic polity to an obese and moribund one. This shift in tone changes the nature of the Nobility greatly, but the canon Traveller OTU has tried to be everything for everyone and ended up as a confusing mess for a lot of people - especially those of us who have been playing since the dawn of time and try to make sense of different pieces of the puzzle.

CT canon on nobility was so vague that it was open to a large number of mutually exclusive interpretations. As later Traveller versions added more details, some of those interpretations were ruled out, to the chagrin of those who had chosen to go with one of those interpretations. But unless you're content with leaving things wide open for interpreation, this effect is inescapable. As Robert Prior so wisely said a while back: "The very act of writing a Traveller book closes the doors on possibilities. Any game supplement does that, assuming the publisher cares about internal consistency."

Provide more support for a setting or leave it wide open: Pick one. You can't do both.


Hans

 

[Quint]

CT canon on nobility was so vague that it was open to a large number of mutually exclusive interpretations. As later Traveller versions added more details, some of those interpretations were ruled out, to the chagrin of those who had chosen to go with one of those interpretations. But unless you're content with leaving things wide open for interpreation, this effect is inescapable. As Robert Prior so wisely said a while back: "The very act of writing a Traveller book closes the doors on possibilities. Any game supplement does that, assuming the publisher cares about internal consistency."

Provide more support for a setting or leave it wide open: Pick one. You can't do both.

Hans

Agreed - and I'd have to say that this is the direction that the RPG industry has moved in. With the notable exception of GURPS the "mileu/setting-independent" system/engine hasn't done well - and I think it has survived (and thrived) by providing exhaustive options for settings. Even D&D which writes with the "DM-created Campaign" in mind is, at this point, built on a huge foundation of multiple campaign worlds and the current debate is not about providing "generic support" for D&D but instead the drive for more support for the specific settings.

I'm less in need of a new iteration of the Traveller rules and far, far, far more desirous of increased support for the Imperium (and at this point, pick the era, any era). Setting material that gave us the OTU and then discussed different spins on it would be even better if a nod to "build your own setting" was needed.

My fear is that MM has less interest in detailing the Imperium (or, perhaps, that he really only has a vague sense of the Imperium and details thing only as he has need of them) and far more interest in tinkering with the rule engine. I'm not sure that this even pleases the Gearheads among us, but that seems to be route that FFE is pointed in.

D.

 

[mike wightman]

The Imperium was a sandbox - it changed every time the rules changed. No consideration was given to consistency or sticking with previously written material.

We are the ones who refer to 'canon' - GDW did not bother with backward compatibility or what has been written before.

 

[savage]

The Imperium was a sandbox - it changed every time the rules changed. No consideration was given to consistency or sticking with previously written material.

We are the ones who refer to 'canon' - GDW did not bother with backward compatibility or what has been written before.

I don't know that they didn't care. Or that canon was not developing.
I do know that it was difficult to track, deadlines we're always around the corner and people wanted to try new things. Originally, Traveller 2300 (later 2300AD) under Les was a perfect example of doing boldly different approaches.

 

[rancke]

A hitherto overlooked source of information about nobles

(Overlooked by me, anyway).

There's a five-page article about the Imperial nobility in TD9 (p. 29-33). I haven't had the time to really go over it, but it looks very meaty with lots of interesting tidbits. Unfortunately, a quick browse indicates some discrepancies with other sources of information. It looks like it could be the source of the confusion about honor and rank nobles in GT: Nobles.


Hans

 

[Quint]

(Overlooked by me, anyway).

There's a five-page article about the Imperial nobility in TD9 (p. 29-33). I haven't had the time to really go over it, but it looks very meaty with lots of interesting tidbits. Unfortunately, a quick browse indicates some discrepancies with other sources of information. It looks like it could be the source of the confusion about honor and rank nobles in GT: Nobles.


Hans

Yeah, that's the one I've always found the most helpful. I just recently picked up GT: Nobles and I suspect that you might be right - though GT: Nobles I found more confusing than edifying compared to DGP's article.

D.

 

[Condottiere]

One way William the Conqueror controlled his barons, was to award them land all over the place, so that they would be putting in more effort to supervise them, and wouldn't be able to create a geographical area that would be their concentrated power base.

Once he was dead, they got around this by buying, swapping and dowrying that land.

Seems a little impractical in Traveller, beyond the subsector level.

 

[GypsyComet]

Seems a little impractical in Traveller, beyond the subsector level.

And yet I seem to recall an Amber Zone style scenario that suggested just that, with the encountered Noble putting a lot of parsecs on the Yacht and needing the PCs to be part of it for some reason. In practice you'll see the likely heir(s) being sent on the long errands, or being left in the hot seat while the Title Holder runs two subsectors away to deal with a problem. Nothing quite like a local agent on the take realizing that the game is up when the Marquis shows up instead of his easily misled third son.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

By the way, Thomas and I, over at the Traveller Wiki, implemented nobility data on the world entries.

Here is an example of a world entry with nobility data:

External Link: [http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Regina_(world)) ]

The entry reads local nobility.

Not all of them have it yet, but many do and the number increase everyday.

The data utilizes this table of information:

External Link: [http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Imperial_Nobility/summary ]

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[whulorigan]

By the way, Thomas and I, over at the Traveller Wiki, implemented nobility data on the world entries.

Here is an example of a world entry with nobility data:

External Link: [http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Regina_(world)) ]

The entry reads local nobility.

Not all of them have it yet, but many do and the number increase everyday.

The data utilizes this table of information:

External Link: [http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Imperial_Nobility/summary ]

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

I am wondering if the term "Local Nobility" might lead to confusion. Historically in Traveller, "Local Nobility" was a term used for the Nobles (either Planetary or simply Imperial "Legacy Titles" with no function - the usage varied and/or was somewhat unclear) that happened to reside on a world.

The Nobles in the T5 World Nobility Extension which you are referencing are referred to as "Landed Nobles" (previously called "High Nobles") in Imperiallines #7, and refer specifically to those Nobles which are the official Imperial representatives and/or Imperial overseers of the world in question.

Perhaps the term should be changed to "Landed Nobles".

 

[GypsyComet]

Perhaps the term should be changed to "Landed Nobles".

High Nobility and Landed Nobility are, as labels, mostly interchangeable.

 

[whulorigan]

High Nobility and Landed Nobility are, as labels, mostly interchangeable.

To the best of your understanding, what are the distinctions between the two terms? And should we maintain a current distinction in terminology, or has one morphed into the other under the T5 ruleset?

 

[whulorigan]

The data utilizes this table of information:

External Link: [http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Imperial_Nobility/summary ]

You may want to double-check the Basic Nobility Details table on this page.

The eHex codes for the "Social Rating" column do not match those in the "Code" column (which are the correct values, BTW).

Also, the comments in the "Notes" column correspond to the pre-T5 Nobility assignments (which is still useful information to preserve - it just should be noted as such^*). T5 Nobility assignments seem to be associated with a single world based on Trade Classification(s), though their fiefs may include far reaching territorial grants scattered across various worlds within an entire subsector or sector based on the level of nobility.

^* - In which case "Marquis" should be listed as 1 important world and viscount should be listed as 2-3 unimportant worlds. A single unimportant world was one of the possible grants for a Baron under the old system.
​

 

[maksimsmelchak]

I am wondering if the term "Local Nobility" might lead to confusion. Historically in Traveller, "Local Nobility" was a term used for the Nobles (either Planetary or simply Imperial "Legacy Titles" with no function - the usage varied and/or was somewhat unclear) that happened to reside on a world...

Perhaps the term should be changed to "Landed Nobles".

Good idea.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

High Nobility and Landed Nobility are, as labels, mostly interchangeable.

*** What's the difference, Jim? ***

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

You may want to double-check the Basic Nobility Details table on this page.

The eHex codes for the "Social Rating" column do not match those in the "Code" column (which are the correct values, BTW).

Also, the comments in the "Notes" column correspond to the pre-T5 Nobility assignments (which is still useful information to preserve - it just should be noted as such^*). T5 Nobility assignments seem to be associated with a single world based on Trade Classification(s), though their fiefs may include far reaching territorial grants scattered across various worlds within an entire subsector or sector based on the level of nobility.

^* - In which case "Marquis" should be listed as 1 important world and viscount should be listed as 2-3 unimportant worlds. A single unimportant world was one of the possible grants for a Baron under the old system.
​

Great observations.

*** What are A-level (Social Standing 10) nobles if they are below knights? ***

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[whulorigan]

Great observations.

*** What are A-level (Social Standing 10) nobles if they are below knights? ***

Simple answer: Imperial Nobility begins at Soc = 11 (B). So they are NOT Nobles. You could think of them (unofficially) in terms of any number of historical titles of untitled aristocracy: Imperial Gentleman, Esquire, etc. But there is no official title.

Now that is not to say that they might not have some local/planetary title of social distinction not recognized officially at an Imperial level (i.e. "Thane", "Proconsul", "Patrician", "Grand Jeddak", etc), but those types of titles will be numerous and varied based on local culture.