One can also raise one's own merc unit.
The Imperial forces seem to be pretty much professional, mustang heavy, lifer-dominated services.
social standing
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
One can also raise one's own merc unit.
The Imperial forces seem to be pretty much professional, mustang heavy, lifer-dominated services.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
I would suggest one addition to that. If the character is not noble but exceeds SOC A, they might be granted a noble title. But, that is not by any means guaranteed (maybe a roll of some sort with mods for medals, particular previous success... that is getting noticed... etc.).
If the character has levels above A and are not noble they are instead noted as say, A +2 meaning they're socially level C but not a noble and still a commoner.
I don't get the critique. It wasn't intended to be anything like lower people have a say in credit rating, more like the higher your SS the more it is assumed you are 'good for it' as you are considered honorable and invested in the system, and about connections that will loan you credits for your projects because of your ranking.
As to popularity, I'd say you missed several paragraphs of my exposition and the 'class behavioral association' reaction modifiers. You can be just as unpopular being a Duke amongst SOC 3 'salt of the earth' as vice versa.
<Shrug> if that works for you. I'm not really gearing this to make OTU nobility work, other then varying mechanics one could use to taste.
Possibly, I was thinking Streetwise is more about getting underhanded/illegal resources, but it could possibly help a high SOC person be at least less grating or stick out like a sore thumb amongst the hoi polloi.
What I had in mind though was people using SOC as a tool, same as you would have the STR guy break open the door, the high DEX character be the sniper, and the INT person crack the code.
Get the high SOC character to romance the soiree, while the low SOC works the docks to get that illegal laser shipment.
Theoretically the latter Rank modifier could work, I would tend to rule though that it would only be in the context of associations and events related to their service, outside of their zone probably not so much. Rank might get the invite to the Marine Ball, but not an invitation to the high SOC club where real connections are made.
Last edited:
That might work to explain the large numbers of high SOC around.
ShapeShifter
SOC-13
I'm surprised that I never read up on this thread before!
I agree that SOC is dolefully underexplained and meagrely developed in the RAW. I've often wondered if there were any elaborations in JTAS, White Dwarf or fanzines to flesh it out.
Going by the Dumarest Model which influenced the game at its earliest stages, I think a binary arrangement of SOCIAL STANDING fits with what Tubb often described throughout the books: essentially the HAVES and HAVE-NOTS. That distinction was very stark. There was rarely, if any, middle ground.
Thus I would have SOC 0 for the HAVE-NOTS, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, those with no money, no voice, no power, and the inability to travel off-world (whether to escape persecution, flee tyranny, look for employment, etc.); and SOC 1 for the HAVES, the wealthy, privileged, voters, nobles, those who could leave a planet.
Interstellar orgs such as the Universal Brotherhood, or the Cyclan are really outside of those distinctions, although the UB certainly looked like the HAVE-NOTS with their sandals, humble robes and constant begging, and the Cyclan were often at the right hand of the HAVES, sublty altering the affairs of worlds and star-systems for their sinister benefit.
I agree that SOC is dolefully underexplained and meagrely developed in the RAW. I've often wondered if there were any elaborations in JTAS, White Dwarf or fanzines to flesh it out.
Going by the Dumarest Model which influenced the game at its earliest stages, I think a binary arrangement of SOCIAL STANDING fits with what Tubb often described throughout the books: essentially the HAVES and HAVE-NOTS. That distinction was very stark. There was rarely, if any, middle ground.
Thus I would have SOC 0 for the HAVE-NOTS, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, those with no money, no voice, no power, and the inability to travel off-world (whether to escape persecution, flee tyranny, look for employment, etc.); and SOC 1 for the HAVES, the wealthy, privileged, voters, nobles, those who could leave a planet.
Interstellar orgs such as the Universal Brotherhood, or the Cyclan are really outside of those distinctions, although the UB certainly looked like the HAVE-NOTS with their sandals, humble robes and constant begging, and the Cyclan were often at the right hand of the HAVES, sublty altering the affairs of worlds and star-systems for their sinister benefit.
I feel that I must disagree. It is a misuse.
Conflating a hereditary position with social skills is a mistake.
Some, in Traveller Chronicle for TNE.
That could add some complexity to the character sheet, as it would not longer be one more stat, if it needs to keep modifiers aside...
I'm with Whipsnade in this. SOC is different to other stats in that having it high may (unlike other stats) be a hindrance as much as an advantage, depending on where you are and the contrast with other people arround you.
We can see a good example of this in Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper, where while the pauper is out of place i nthe Royal Court, so is the prince in among the Pauper's people.
Agree, the other stats are ordinals markers, SA is a cardinal marker. The reaction to SS is subjective, but the global stat system of Traveller need a form of objectivisation, a marker, for basic interractions of PC and NPC:
SS 02 ask time of the day to SS 14: bodyguard beat SS 02 :devil:
have fun
Selandia
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
Another problem with SOC, that has already been briefly brought up, is that the level of a character will have different importance in different circumstances.
For example, a noble character with a SOC of say C will command respect and attention in a "normal" social setting or one where nobles are present. On the other hand, they wouldn't have so much pull with low SOC criminals and losers.
A low SOC who is the head of a powerful crime group, syndicate, mob, gang, whatever, will command considerable respect from other low SOC characters. So, say the Captain of a successful pirate ship would have considerable respect among pirates and criminals. Even the police would cut such a character some slack not wanting to unnecessarily offend a powerful crime group and have it seek revenge. Sort of letting petty stuff slide in the same way a noble could get a pass on stuff that's not worth fighting over.
A character who is played mismatched to their SOC should have their SOC slowly lowered or raised (and in some cases, quickly lowered) until it matches their activities.
Thus, you could have a noble who still has their title through inheritance or what-have-you but is now a black sheep and no longer commands any respect from other nobles because of his actions. In this case you might do something like have SOC B (5) with the number in parentheses being the character's perceived social standing. This would only be necessary for a noble character who has their title but has been black balled or otherwise shunned because of their activities.
For example, a noble character with a SOC of say C will command respect and attention in a "normal" social setting or one where nobles are present. On the other hand, they wouldn't have so much pull with low SOC criminals and losers.
A low SOC who is the head of a powerful crime group, syndicate, mob, gang, whatever, will command considerable respect from other low SOC characters. So, say the Captain of a successful pirate ship would have considerable respect among pirates and criminals. Even the police would cut such a character some slack not wanting to unnecessarily offend a powerful crime group and have it seek revenge. Sort of letting petty stuff slide in the same way a noble could get a pass on stuff that's not worth fighting over.
A character who is played mismatched to their SOC should have their SOC slowly lowered or raised (and in some cases, quickly lowered) until it matches their activities.
Thus, you could have a noble who still has their title through inheritance or what-have-you but is now a black sheep and no longer commands any respect from other nobles because of his actions. In this case you might do something like have SOC B (5) with the number in parentheses being the character's perceived social standing. This would only be necessary for a noble character who has their title but has been black balled or otherwise shunned because of their activities.
Last edited:
Hence my reaction roll modifiers and the general commentary that SOC is changeable by player action.
<Smacks forehead> Ya, I've only said that about 100x now. What part of fiscal power and connections is not clear?
The point is when Mr. Duke unthinkingly acts arrogantly or foppishly to people on the bottom rung of society, even just by unconscious mannerisms, he's going to grate on them, and so will the lower rung on him. My use of the word 'popular' has to do with reactions, not popularity in a general sense.
I haven't got into law privilege yet, other then that earlier suggestion of something like LL + (7-SOC)= Applied LL.
So a SOC 7 in a LL7 environment gets treated as LL7 including harassment and bribery. A SOC 3 gets treated like LL 11, a SOC 12 gets treated like LL2.
You could apply that to neighborhoods being SOC whatever and judge LE altered behavior based on that value.
If one finds the differences too harsh one could go with a more typical characteristic sliding scale-
3 +2LL
5 +1 LL
9 -1 LL
B -2 LL
Last edited:
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
That's not a bad system for LL, but one would also have to take into account how honest the system is. That is the GOV type would have an effect here.
For example, dictatorships and oligarchies would be far more friendly to nobles in many cases because they are of like mind. What law enforcer wants to p off the dictator or his noble buddy?
Oligarchies would expect privilege from being nobility. They would be almost untouchable by police.
Bureaucracies and bureaucrats would hardly want to annoy someone of importance and risk their career.
On some worlds, if illegal activity were widespread it might be that low SOC characters with connections and money from criminal activity could literally get away with murder.
So, tying SOC to LL and GOV would take more context about the world on which the interaction is occurring.
For example, dictatorships and oligarchies would be far more friendly to nobles in many cases because they are of like mind. What law enforcer wants to p off the dictator or his noble buddy?
Oligarchies would expect privilege from being nobility. They would be almost untouchable by police.
Bureaucracies and bureaucrats would hardly want to annoy someone of importance and risk their career.
On some worlds, if illegal activity were widespread it might be that low SOC characters with connections and money from criminal activity could literally get away with murder.
So, tying SOC to LL and GOV would take more context about the world on which the interaction is occurring.
I disagree. It should be about both, the tribalization of social class implied by it, and how The Street gets equipment and resources in a different way then The Man.
Huh?
That depends ENTIRELY on how you ref it. Since this arena is not classically defined, the elements you list aren't conflated at all unless the ref makes it so.
The way I'm using it-
Low SOC with streetwise in use is about contacts in the underworld, same as High SOC gets you official contacts and resources.
Leader would be used to motivate people into doing things the leader wants done- applicable at any level, or the professional SOC 8 level I postulate.
If there is any charismatic reaction or stat to use, Leader should be it.
Liaison would be the all-purpose reaction skill, because gosh that's what it IS, the specialized skill of getting dissimilar people with different or conflicting agendas to be able to talk, possibly work together. In the case of SOC discrepancies, it works for anyone.
Probably the most important thing the Liaison person should do is get everyone to put on their 'professional' persona, then work out agreements after precluding SOC-driven poor reactions. Same with Leaders, they can do what they do more effectively without SOC failures.
Rank would work within a service, but IMO would be more about 'following orders', the reaction to a general's persona could still be disgust but the order is followed.
These skills are all different, and would interact with SOC in different ways. I don't see how I am conflating them systematically.
I hope you are not thinking nobles should get some kind of awe/charisma bonus or that I am suggesting that in the slightest. More an ease of interaction of each SOC level with 'their own kind'.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The funny thing is that having a hard social standing attribute is more suitable for a medieval campaign, upto steampunk Victorian.
In a modern, or let's say post modern, society, it's a great dual more nuanced outside of those that wield executive power, from sector dukes till the Emperor.
In a modern, or let's say post modern, society, it's a great dual more nuanced outside of those that wield executive power, from sector dukes till the Emperor.
