Social Climbing

[Selandia]

But unfortunately the rules don't reflect that much.

My understanding is that DM to soc roll while interacting are the rules'reflection of that reality once your transpose it into the game. As such, the rules reflect that enough to my taste.

No, that's precisely what I object to. Your social standing is rolled at the start of character generation, and I can't think of any other explanation than that it represents the standing you were born into. And short of being lucky with the mustering out throws or getting an Imperial title, you Soc remains your birth Soc no matter what station in life fate (a.k.a. the Character Generation System) guides you towards.

You are right that your rolled Soc is your birth Soc. It would would remain your Soc unless a career roll moves it. This been agreed on, from a game's perspective, if you decide to really roll an interaction (the adventure may program a reaction and the roll taken is then fake) the practical Soc ( Soc + - DM) depends of various factors relative to the parties that are assed by the Ref. Of course, a lawyer may says that DM to Roll are not temporary change to Soc and I bow to that logic, I am wrong to call it Soc or practical Soc as it should be properly called a modified Target roll. Still the players will say "what is the difference if the DM is applied to Dices or to Soc? my Target roll is still 10".

I find it easier to explain it as circumstantial evolution of your Soc, for that is how you explain the DM anyway. Not by the book, you are right. Just easier and more fun to me.

Have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

My understanding is that DM to soc roll while interacting are the rules'reflection of that reality once your transpose it into the game. As such, the rules reflect that enough to my taste.

I've not even gotten to that part. I'm talking about how you arrive at the figure (Social Standing) on which Soc rolls are based. I think the way the rolls are derived from social standing is a bit crude, but not enough to complain about.

You are right that your rolled Soc is your birth Soc. It would would remain your Soc unless a career roll moves it.

But to be plausible, it should change when your career changed¹ -- not just if you were lucky enough to roll a Soc increase. (Also, if you already were of the appropriate social standing, you shouldn't be able to roll a Soc increase).

¹ Always assuming the change was significant; a change from butcher to baker probably wouldn't affect social standing.​

This been agreed on, from a game's perspective, if you decide to really roll an interaction (the adventure may program a reaction and the roll taken is then fake) the practical Soc ( Soc + - DM) depends of various factors relative to the parties that are assed by the Ref.

In my opinion social standing is a significant roleplaying factor that comes into play in many situations that don't call for rolling dice. Get it wrong and you get the roleplaying wrong.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

In my opinion social standing is a significant roleplaying factor that comes into play in many situations that don't call for rolling dice. Get it wrong and you get the roleplaying wrong.


Hans

This. Otherwise it shouldn't be one of the six attributes. Even if not a numeric attribute (as in D&D type games, it is integral to RPing, or should be)

 

[Selandia]

In my opinion social standing is a significant roleplaying factor that comes into play in many situations that don't call for rolling dice. Get it wrong and you get the roleplaying wrong.

Yes, and to get it right you must understand both the objective and relational subjectivity of applied Soc.

as to how you arrive at the figure of Soc? What does that reflect? IMHO a player should "make up a story" (that is the Roleplaying part of Char Gen) that his consitant with the Chr Gen process he/she is going trough. His 4 or 6 or 12 reflect that (if the story is credible, of course). Then when he meet a NPC and try to entice some help, the Roll playing comes into play with you assessing DM for related skill, law level if relevant, Soc differential, Career path, common service...any relevant factor and actual roleplaying by the Players.

ex: soc 2 ed 2: my parents were junkies that went Under the radar of Child Protection and I am illiterate but athletic st 9, end 10, dex 8 and was connected to Pirates.

ex: soc 2 int 8 ed 10: I am a out of wedlock child of lowwer cast, above average intel, very hard working, that have an inquisitive mind and does not mind studing. Got through public grade school so well that I got scholarship all the way for the rest.

That kind of stuff.

have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

Yes, and to get it right you must understand both the objective and relational subjectivity of applied Soc.

I believe that I have a fair grasp of the subject. There's a limit to how specific generic rules can be and especially a limit to how unusual exceptions to them can be.

As to how you arrive at the figure of Soc? What does that reflect? IMHO a player should "make up a story" (that is the Roleplaying part of Char Gen) that his consitant with the Chr Gen process he/she is going trough.

I don't believe that it's reasonable to require a player to explain odd results when the odd results are so common. It takes an exceedinly odds set of circumstances to explain a social standing (attribute) that does not conform to your social standing (place in society). As I've argued, player characters (and NPCs too) have a specific station in life. They're scruffy adventurers or they're starship crewmen or they're Imperial ex-servicemen or they're corporate troubleshooters or they're something else. Whatever they are, they naturally belong to a particular social level or possibly a small range of social levels. Andf to explain why someone gainfully employed as a starship officer has the social status of a dreg of society is PD difficult. Most players and referees that I know of "explains" it by ignoring the discrepancy.

His 4 or 6 or 12 reflect that (if the story is credible, of course).

Of course. And that's the problem.

ex: soc 2 ed 2: my parents were junkies that went Under the radar of Child Protection and I am illiterate but athletic st 9, end 10, dex 8 and was connected to Pirates.

Og sure, SOME social standings are easy to explain. But what if you're a Soc 2 Edu 2 who successfully enlisted in college, joined NOTC, and became an officer in the Imperial Navy, without happening to roll any soc boosts for mustering out benefits? How do you explain the Soc 2 Imperial Navy captain (ret.) then?

ex: soc 2 int 8 ed 10: I am a out of wedlock child of lowwer cast, above average intel, very hard working, that have an inquisitive mind and does not mind studing. Got through public grade school so well that I got scholarship all the way for the rest.

Thus clawing your way up into the middle class. Your usual rags-to-riches hero doesn't remain lower class.


Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

Og sure, SOME social standings are easy to explain. But what if you're a Soc 2 Edu 2 who successfully enlisted in college, joined NOTC, and became an officer in the Imperial Navy, without happening to roll any soc boosts for mustering out benefits? How do you explain the Soc 2 Imperial Navy captain (ret.) then?
...
Thus clawing your way up into the middle class. Your usual rags-to-riches hero doesn't remain lower class.

Hans

WRT the first situation, a ref shouldn't leave the SOC at 2 in that instance, as an IN Captain is the 12th level of rank and, while they may not be enobled for their service, would certainly be well above 2. It couldn't reasonably stand, unless there was extra colour there to explain it. A captain who was dishonourably discharged, expelled without pension or muster benefits, had his wife leave and take everything, and was shunned by most of society? That might explain a SOC of 2.

WRT the second element above, I agree. Gaining education and wealth, and choosing not to exhibit social behaviour generally associated with narcotic-ridden 17th generation social security recipients in public housing with imposed birth control after the first X kids, should see the character's SOC rise accordingly.

 

[Carlobrand]

There are some unspoken assumptions here. What Soc-2 ways? ...

Yes, there are unspoken assumptions. I assume there is something that the people around the character recognize as social status: clothing, grooming, bearing, style of speech and so forth. Without that, there's no way to communicate social status short of tattooing it to your forehead or having everyone carry around a copy of Order of Precedence to consult when they meet strangers. Social Status is a meaningless attribute if people can't recognize it.

...Who says he still have his Soc-2 ways and hasn't learnt flawless Soc-7 ways? ...

Just my opinion of course, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ...

Half the battle of raising one's Soc is the business of unlearning old habits and learning new ones - like bathing regularly, or using underarm deodorant, or when not to curse like a sailor.

Only exception would be those rare breeds of pedigreed ducks that get their names in some database, as someone need only type a few keystrokes to check their pedigree.

...Judging by the character generation rules¹ (dangerous, I know, but what else do we have?), below-noble social standing plays a very small role in Imperial life (and noble standing doesn't seem to have much influence either). ...

Except that the game also does this reverse thing with low status and the criminal element, if I recall a'right. I don't for a moment believe folk can walk around and say, "Oh, you're a six, and you're a seven." (Although that does seem to be an option in MegaTrav. ) However, a two is a pretty extreme rating. COTI gives a bonus to enlist as a pirate if your social is 7 or below, so one presumes there's something there that invites their positive opinion. and you can "earn" a minus to social in that career, so something quantifiable is being lost.

MT Player's Handbook describes social as, "the most volatile of the characteristics and can vary as the character’s reputation becomes known by others. Social Standing also indicates the basic standard of living the character likes to maintain..." You walk up dressed like a hobo and with an unwashed odor about you, they're going to tend to think of you as low-class. If you dress well, they may give you the benefit of the doubt until you open your mouth and yell, "Come on, Dover, move your bloomin' arse!" You might look good and speak well and find yourself tripped up because every time some official runs your name through the database, they find you on the watch list for suspected pirates.

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, there are unspoken assumptions. I assume there is something that the people around the character recognize as social status: clothing, grooming, bearing, style of speech and so forth. Without that, there's no way to communicate social status short of tattooing it to your forehead or having everyone carry around a copy of Order of Precedence to consult when they meet strangers. Social Status is a meaningless attribute if people can't recognize it.



Just my opinion of course, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ...

Half the battle of raising one's Soc is the business of unlearning old habits and learning new ones - like bathing regularly, or using underarm deodorant, or when not to curse like a sailor.

Only exception would be those rare breeds of pedigreed ducks that get their names in some database, as someone need only type a few keystrokes to check their pedigree.



Except that the game also does this reverse thing with low status and the criminal element, if I recall a'right. I don't for a moment believe folk can walk around and say, "Oh, you're a six, and you're a seven." (Although that does seem to be an option in MegaTrav. ) However, a two is a pretty extreme rating. COTI gives a bonus to enlist as a pirate if your social is 7 or below, so one presumes there's something there that invites their positive opinion. and you can "earn" a minus to social in that career, so something quantifiable is being lost.

Yes - "street cred" and all that.

If you walk like a thug, and talk like a thug... and dress with lots of leather and bling -

MT Player's Handbook describes social as, "the most volatile of the characteristics and can vary as the character’s reputation becomes known by others. Social Standing also indicates the basic standard of living the character likes to maintain..." You walk up dressed like a hobo and with an unwashed odor about you, they're going to tend to think of you as low-class. If you dress well, they may give you the benefit of the doubt until you open your mouth and yell, "Come on, Dover, move your bloomin' arse!" You might look good and speak well and find yourself tripped up because every time some official runs your name through the database, they find you on the watch list for suspected pirates.

Much of social standing in a technological civilization is related to your reputation among your peers (or followers on social media, etc), as well as verifiable information from law enforcement, and so on.

 

[rancke]

Yes, there are unspoken assumptions. I assume there is something that the people around the character recognize as social status: clothing, grooming, bearing, style of speech and so forth. Without that, there's no way to communicate social status short of tattooing it to your forehead or having everyone carry around a copy of Order of Precedence to consult when they meet strangers. Social Status is a meaningless attribute if people can't recognize it.

But the rules do not reflect that. Everything you say is what I've been complaining about. MT gives a little lip service to the idea, but at the end of the day the rules do not recognize that the PC with Soc 2 who walks like a solid citizen, talks like a solid citizen, and do the work of a solid citizen would be treated as a solid citizen; at the end of the day his Soc remains 2.

Just my opinion of course, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ...

Just what I'm saying. The rules, however, say that even if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, if it started life as a sparrow, people will treat it as a sparrow.

Half the battle of raising one's Soc is the business of unlearning old habits and learning new ones - like bathing regularly, or using underarm deodorant, or when not to curse like a sailor.

And there are no provisions for that very fact in the basic rules. At best, with MT, a Soc 2 PC can start the process and spend money on a Soc 3 lifestyle for a while (I forget what exactly the rules require to effect a permanent¹ increase in Soc). Once he makes it to Soc 3, he can begin spending as a Soc 4, and so on and so on. Why can't he start spending as the Soc 8 he can afford to live as and make it to Soc 8 (permanently¹, mind you) in one go? And why didn't he start doing that 20 years ago when he first got a job that allowed him to²?

¹ As permanent as Soc can ever be.

² In many cases required him to -- I just don't believe in a Soc 2 Imperial service officer.​

And do note that the rules says absolutely nothing about bathing and speaking. They only deal with lifestyle costs (presumably that includes nice clothes).

Only exception would be those rare breeds of pedigreed ducks that get their names in some database, as someone need only type a few keystrokes to check their pedigree.

The rules do not distinguish such breeds, nor the breeds that don't get in databases. Nor do they recognize that Imperial society appears to care very little about social status -- at least not the social status of commoners.

...Judging by the character generation rules1 (dangerous, I know, but what else do we have?), below-noble social standing plays a very small role in Imperial life (and noble standing doesn't seem to have much influence either). ...

Except that the game also does this reverse thing with low status and the criminal element, if I recall a'right.

How does that counter my argument? The few instances of social standing dropping as a result of character generation works exactly as the soc boosts, only the other way around. By which I mean that they work just as badly. Your lower lower class (Soc 3) pirate who receives a drop becomes a dreg of society, but your gentleman pirate (Soc 10) gets reduced to the upper middle class. He's no longer fit company for the gentry, but doctors and lawyers³ consider him their peer. :rofl:

² Upper middle class doctors and lawyers, of course; doctors and lawyers who were dregs of society would be in awe of his exalted social standing.​

No, wait, that one deserves more than one rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't for a moment believe folk can walk around and say, "Oh, you're a six, and you're a seven."

No, but they can say, "Your status is enough lower than me that, based entirely on your social standing, I have a negative modification to my reaction to you."

However, a two is a pretty extreme rating. COTI gives a bonus to enlist as a pirate if your social is 7 or below, so one presumes there's something there that invites their positive opinion. and you can "earn" a minus to social in that career, so something quantifiable is being lost.

I assume that the quantification is a game artifact and I'm fine with that, in theory. I just think that the quatification is clumsy and crude and, worst of all, based on all sorts of fallacious notions.

I very carefully didn't say that social status had no role in character generation. I said that it played a very small role.

MT Player's Handbook describes social as, "the most volatile of the characteristics and can vary as the character’s reputation becomes known by others. Social Standing also indicates the basic standard of living the character likes to maintain..."

Yes, but MT character generation and social interaction rules don't embody this concept. As I said, MT pays lip service to it, but that's all. And IMO that's far, very far, from sufficient.

You walk up dressed like a hobo and with an unwashed odor about you, they're going to tend to think of you as low-class. If you dress well, they may give you the benefit of the doubt until you open your mouth and yell, "Come on, Dover, move your bloomin' arse!" You might look good and speak well and find yourself tripped up because every time some official runs your name through the database, they find you on the watch list for suspected pirates.

But there's no provision for the possibility that you dress well, bathe regularily, use deodorant, speak well, and isn't in the database as the son of a hobo but as an Imperial service officer (ret.). Which is what I submit would be the default for any son of a hobo who had managed to become an Imperial service officer and spent 20 years in the service.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

But there's no provision for the possibility that you dress well, bathe regularily, use deodorant, speak well, and isn't in the database as the son of a hobo but as an Imperial service officer (ret.). Which is what I submit would be the default for any son of a hobo who had managed to become an Imperial service officer and spent 20 years in the service.

Hans

A valid point.

The closest counter example that I can think of is from the old movie "Ensign Pulver".
Do you remember the captain of the supply ship? (Burl Ives)

He grew up the poor son of a maid and was determined to become so big and important and powerful that he would never have to say 'thank you' to anyone for anything.
In spite of all of his success, he remained a petulant thug at heart ... his background (low initial Soc in Traveller-speak) colored his perceived social status. Where he should have been the social equal of the ship's doctor, you never got that impression.

An example in the other direction is "PT-109". Mr Kennedy should be a mediocre mid-Soc Lieutenant, but the Kennedy name and character still shines through.

Admittedly, both of these examples are Hollywood drama rather than real life, but Traveller is a game of Space Opera, so a Hollywood cinema explanation fits a little better than gritty realism.

YMMV
(but I like a game with 'big darn heroes' and 'mustache twirling villains')

 

[rancke]

The closest counter example that I can think of is from the old movie "Ensign Pulver".
Do you remember the captain of the supply ship? (Burl Ives)

[Captain Morton] grew up the poor son of a maid and was determined to become so big and important and powerful that he would never have to say 'thank you' to anyone for anything.

In spite of all of his success, he remained a petulant thug at heart ... his background (low initial Soc in Traveller-speak) colored his perceived social status. Where he should have been the social equal of the ship's doctor, you never got that impression.

An example in the other direction is "PT-109". Mr Kennedy should be a mediocre mid-Soc Lieutenant, but the Kennedy name and character still shines through.

It's not the ability to emulate Mortons and Kennedys that I object to. It's the lack of provision for any other (and, I submit, more common) types.

Another thing: Captain Morton may suffer a dent in his social status from being the son of a serving maid, but it sounds to me like it's more because of his character (I haven't seen either movie). Also, I bet his social standing is still better than that of a bootblack, however bad his manners may be.


Hans

 

[Selandia]

I believe that I have a fair grasp of the subject. There's a limit to how specific generic rules can be and especially a limit to how unusual exceptions to them can be.


Whatever they are, they naturally belong to a particular social level or possibly a small range of social levels. Andf to explain why someone gainfully employed as a starship officer has the social status of a dreg of society is PD difficult. Most players and referees that I know of "explains" it by ignoring the discrepancy.

And did those ref told you how they handle the practical role playing problems they created by denial of those discrepancy? Neighter you or me are bound by somebody else's mistakes, although I would like to know how they handle that problem.

Og sure, SOME social standings are easy to explain. But what if you're a Soc 2 Edu 2 who successfully enlisted in college, joined NOTC, and became an officer in the Imperial Navy, without happening to roll any soc boosts for mustering out benefits? How do you explain the Soc 2 Imperial Navy captain (ret.) then?

For that to happen, the PC has to be a hell of a roller and an even better storyteller. If a Ref ignore those discrepencies, it is their IMTU. I would not ignore it in MTU. How do I explain the Soc 2 Navy Captain? I do no have to, the player that will have to game a consistent PC is the one with the burden of making a story that he/she could game with. When roling NPC I adjust the Stat to their role.

Thus clawing your way up into the middle class. Your usual rags-to-riches hero doesn't remain lower class.


Hans

Right, that is why I use an actual Soc as oppose to Initial Soc to resolve many interraction. Init Soc get modify according to rules (and for PC that is also "storied" into PC Gen). Once we are there, I know the PC and their story and frame it into roleplaying. The birth Soc 2 might not be written in their face, that is still the "secret" of their birth once they decide to play the rag to riches space opera character. They may boast about it to show how meritfull they are or may go out of their way to hide it and consider it their secret flaw. If it is a Playable character, I will go along.

have fun

Selandia

 

[atpollard]

It's not the ability to emulate Mortons and Kennedys that I object to. It's the lack of provision for any other (and, I submit, more common) types.

Another thing: Captain Morton may suffer a dent in his social status from being the son of a serving maid, but it sounds to me like it's more because of his character (I haven't seen either movie). Also, I bet his social standing is still better than that of a bootblack, however bad his manners may be.

Hans

I agree.
SOCIAL is presented as a hard and fast science (like STRENGTH), when in reality it should be far more fluid ... perhaps able to raise or lower by a point per year.
More of a 'Liberal Arts' attribute than a 'Physical Sciences' attribute.

 

[aramis]

It's not the ability to emulate Mortons and Kennedys that I object to. It's the lack of provision for any other (and, I submit, more common) types.

Another thing: Captain Morton may suffer a dent in his social status from being the son of a serving maid, but it sounds to me like it's more because of his character (I haven't seen either movie). Also, I bet his social standing is still better than that of a bootblack, however bad his manners may be.


Hans

You've got the causality backwards. Being the son of the maid is why he's the jerk he is. He's from a low class upbringing, never bothered learning to be better, and his soc remains a 2. Which colors his interactions with others; both his reactions to authority and to subordinates.

It's a staple of much sci fi (and a lot more fantasy) that one's upbringing always reflects within one's personality. (Modern studies on economic outcomes do show some surprisingly similar results; it's not the same result. Namely, Self-made wealth tends to be socially and economically extremely different from 1st gen wealth, and both from 3rd to 4th gen wealth, with 5th gen and later being yet another paradigm.)

That all said, I've generally let Carousing raise apparent soc and Streewise lower it.

 

[HG_B]

(Modern studies on economic outcomes do show some surprisingly similar results; it's not the same result. Namely, Self-made wealth tends to be socially and economically extremely different from 1st gen wealth, and both from 3rd to 4th gen wealth, with 5th gen and later being yet another paradigm.)

If you have time at some point could you elaborate?

That all said, I've generally let Carousing raise apparent soc and Streewise lower it.

Interesting. On a point for point basis (considering the skill level) or, difficulty adjusted roll depending how far they want to stretch from their real Attribute score?

 

[rancke]

And did those ref told you how they handle the practical role playing problems they created by denial of those discrepancy?

As I said, by ignoring them.

Neither you or me are bound by somebody else's mistakes, although I would like to know how they handle that problem.

We're not bound to follow rules that we believe are flawed either, but that's completely irrelevant to the question of whether they are flawed or not.

For that to happen, the PC has to be a hell of a roller and an even better storyteller.

It seems to me that all that is needed is to roll a 2 on Soc and have a not unlikely concatenation of rolls during character generation.

If a Ref ignore those discrepencies, it is their IMTU.

Not aimed at you in particular, but I'm SO tired of people justifying bad rules by pointing out that a referee doesn't have to use them or that a good referee can compensate for them. While this is perfectly true, it is also totally irrelevant. I'm especially annoyed by the reliance on good referees. Rules are there to help mediocre and bad referees too. Indeed, the good ones need rules a lot less that the bad ones. Referees aren't there to help the rules, the rules are there to help referees.

I would not ignore it in MTU.

But the rules offer you absolutely no help in the matter.

How do I explain the Soc 2 Navy Captain? I do no[t] have to...

You do if you want to substantiate a claim to the effect that the rules work perfectly well.

...the player that will have to game a consistent PC is the one with the burden of making a story that he/she could game with.

If he is free to change his character's social standing to something he is able to work with and he wants to play a Soc 2 retired Imperial Navy captain, then it's his problem to make it work. If you insist that he run with whatever character the character generation system sticks him with, then it's your responsibility to provide him with a background story that works for him.

I believe in that so strongly that I'm omitting my usual 'in my opinion' and 'YMMV' boilerplate.

When roling NPC I adjust the Stat to their role.

So do I. That doesn't make the rules as written work any better.


Hans

 

[rancke]

You've got the causality backwards. Being the son of the maid is why he's the jerk he is. He's from a low class upbringing, never bothered learning to be better, and his soc remains a 2. Which colors his interactions with others; both his reactions to authority and to subordinates.

No I haven't. I just don't think it's relevant. Not all maid's sons grow up to be jerks.

It's a staple of much sci fi (and a lot more fantasy) that one's upbringing always reflects within one's personality.

It would be foolish to claim that a person's personality isn't shaped by his upbringing. But that doesn't mean the end result is the same every time.



Hans

 

[ian54]

There's no reason why Social Standing cannot improve, but it should take time like the ability and skill training rules, perhaps it can adjust according to adventures, doing stuff for patrons, etc.

 

[Selandia]

As I said, by ignoring them.


We're not bound to follow rules that we believe are flawed either, but that's completely irrelevant to the question of whether they are flawed or not.

That is quite relevant, for some rules MUST be followed and their flaws become lethal to the game. If you say "I love Traveller but I will not provide players with starting stat because stats are only gross approximation... and are flawed..." then you are not playing Traveller. If something could be made to work then it is workable, nothing that I can make work is so flawed that I will deprive myself of whatever I could squezze out of it. Unworkable rules are flawed, workable rules are rules as usual.

Not aimed at you in particular, but I'm SO tired of people justifying bad rules by pointing out that a referee doesn't have to use them or that a good referee can compensate for them. While this is perfectly true, it is also totally irrelevant. I'm especially annoyed by the reliance on good referees. Rules are there to help mediocre and bad referees too. Indeed, the good ones need rules a lot less that the bad ones. Referees aren't there to help the rules, the rules are there to help referees.


But the rules offer you absolutely no help in the matter.


You do if you want to substantiate a claim to the effect that the rules work perfectly well.

I am so tired of people (not aimed at you in particular) believing that I work for the marketing folks of Traveller and that I am accountable for their "Holy writing" simply because I gave hope for perfect rules (spouse, world, beer, car...)and grab my fun using what is available. Please NEVER believe that I pretend something is perfect, unless I fix it I will update my signature tonight so that everybody get the point.

If he is free to change his character's social standing to something he is able to work with and he wants to play a Soc 2 retired Imperial Navy captain, then it's his problem to make it work. If you insist that he run with whatever character the character generation system sticks him with, then it's your responsibility to provide him with a background story that works for him.

No, my responsability is that he has fun (where is the canon about me roleplaying the PC by imposing a life story upon him?) and Yes you are right, that is why I don't force anything that would kill the fun upon a player (enforcing unbearable stat that will drive him away of the table is that). I use "pick 2 out of 3 dices" (not canon I know, not the rules I know, I do not work the altar of CT shrine you know, I am a bloody heretic). Soc 2 or any 2 become a choice (I never had a 3X2 roll).

I believe in that so strongly that I'm omitting my usual 'in my opinion' and 'YMMV' boilerplate.


So do I. That doesn't make the rules as written work any better.


Hans

I do not know of rules that work perfectly as written. Only of peoples that make workable things work, to have fun or because they get paid. If you know a set of perfect rules for Sc-Fi RPG please help me and show them to me.

have fun

Selandia

 

[mike wightman]

At the risk of going into the pit with this, Americans see social status as a matter of wealth, to us Brits social status is to do with family breeding and history, wealth is of secondary importance.

In the US if you become wealthy you move in higher social circles, in Britland if you don't come from the right family it doesn't matter how much cash you flash, you are still a vulgar pleb.

It's the reason wealthy industrialists in the 19th century were able to marry their children off to the impoverished gentry.