Real-world examples of Rank 9?

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Well, let's say that all corporate heads have equal power over their own corporation (this is a nice part about GURPS, it doesn't care about structure or titles, just who has the power). I'm not sure about the answer to "Is the head of Facebook or Walmart more powerful?" What I am sure about is that the answer isn't going to come down to the fact the head of Walmart can boss about more grunts.

Part of that will be in how much power each level of Rank has. Amazon might be 4 points per rank (forex, due to global reach and horizontal spread across the market), while WalMart might be 2 points per level (being retail only and limited to the USA). Let's put Facebook (global, social media only) at 3 points per level. If Facebook and Walmart have the same number of employees, then the CEOs would have the same Rank but different power levels.

The problem with saying that the maximum Rank is 8 is that you lose genericity. Your Rank 8 for a Roman consul doesn't equate to the Rank 8 Star Fleet Admiral.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you've forced lower ranks that have important real distinctions into the same Rank level to keep the range of Ranks in the organization down, you might wind up with a squad leader or equivalent having the same Rank as all their subordinates...

Or you have Rank 1 in the Galactic Imperium Forces in charge of 1,000,000 grunts.

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

The only Ranks that actually matter are the ones to which PCs and major NPCs belong (and in a pinch, you can fudge NPCs).

But this is GURPS, and I've a couple of times played characters in charge of armies, which means that every Rank possible is already one that matters as it has come up in character design and play.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

What dukes are you thinking of? The ones that I'm familiar with were kings in all but name, but like other mediaeval monarchs had very little actual authority by modern standards.

This is not a thread for discussion of medieval versus modern law and custom; so I'll respectfully disagree, and leave it with a couple of notes. The power dynamics are a lot more complex than either of our posts; but a medieval noble, if nothing else, held both hard civilian and hard military power; something that does not occur in the US military save for the highest offices of government (technically, only the US president, and the various secretaries of the US armed forces, as I understand it).

So, while there are areas where a modern military commander would hold more hard power; I feel that the balance of areas where a medieval noble holds hard power, "favour" the medieval noble.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

But this is GURPS, and I've a couple of times played characters in charge of armies, which means that every Rank possible is already one that matters as it has come up in character design and play.

The ones to which PCs and major NPCs belong in the current game. I don't see the need for a one-size-fits-all approach to rank.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

This is not a thread for discussion of medieval versus modern law and custom;

Well, no. But that doesn't mean that "a mediaeval duke" automatically becomes a usefully unambiguous example.

so I'll respectfully disagree, and leave it with a couple of notes.

Okay.

The power dynamics are a lot more complex than either of our posts; but a medieval noble, if nothing else, held both hard civilian and hard military power; something that does not occur in the US military save for the highest offices of government (technically, only the US president, and the various secretaries of the US armed forces, as I understand it).

US customs are not universal. Mediaeval nobles held a lot less of either military or of civil power than you seem to think. And a duke who could raise an army of 12,000 for a campaign (including mercenaries and the forces of subordinate allies who had to be promised rewards for participating) was an unusually powerful one. Which is to say, that's a generous estimate of the force the William of Normandy amassed to conquer England.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

The ones to which PCs and major NPCs belong in the current game. I don't see the need for a one-size-fits-all approach to rank.

I maintain that there are games where all levels of the rank chart would be relevant. Ground-pounder grunts working their way up through the ranks to Leader of Earth Forces, for example.

[Donny Brook]

I like the approach of defining Ranks by placing 8 at the top and apportioning 1-7 in reference to that, in relation to the scale of the the society.


As for a real world remark, it is very common to find high rank individuals also having parallel rank in related organizations. For example, a general might have an Administrative Rank, or in another society, a Party Rank that GURPS can accommodate to make such a character.

[YankeeGamer]

Wasn't there something somewhere that broke down ranks further...perhaps a rank 1.5 for someone between rank 1 and rank 2?

[AlexanderHowl]

Social Engineering gives rules for microsocieties with Ranks 0-4 and macrosocieties with Ranks 0-12. They also give rules for increasing the numbers of underlings per level of Rank. For example, if each level of Rank give ten underlings of the previous level, then a Rank 12 individual would have one trillion underlings.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

US customs are not universal.

Yes, but the original post I was responding to, included the US military; which is something I feel more informed about than that other listed examples. therefore, that is what I addressed.

But good job on implying I am a bigot for responding to a part of someone's post that I know something about, with some of what I know about that topic.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Mediaeval nobles held a lot less of either military or of civil power than you seem to think.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

And a duke who could raise an army of 12,000 for a campaign (including mercenaries and the forces of subordinate allies who had to be promised rewards for participating) was an unusually powerful one. Which is to say, that's a generous estimate of the force the William of Normandy amassed to conquer England.

Given that my original point was how much "1 Standard Unit" of subordinates "weighed", the question of the relative power of any individual duke, relative to any other duke, is actually irrelevant to even my subordinate and related points. So nice strawman.

But I find that is a thing people tend to do; including here - that is, respond to something other than the point I am trying to make, and then disprove that thing I wasn't actually trying to argue.

And my understanding that a medieval noble, all other numbers the same, holds more "relative power" in "Standard Subordinate Units" than a modern US military commadner, has not actually been disproven. And that on that point, my original argument about "1 Standard Unit" of subordinates, being somewhat distinct from the literal, countable number of points, does not actually rest.

But sure. Your unsupported assertions beat my unsupported assertions, including about a point I wasn't trying to make, in a thread in which half the points being argued between us, are actually irrelevant, in an argument I never wanted. But then you had to imply I'm a bigot and threw a strawman at me, and that, I have to respond to, lest your insulting points stand.

Now, can we drop this, and talk about Standard Subordinate Units? I'm close to dropping this topic, and am wearied of trying to discuss things on this forum.

I shall come back tomorrow to see if it is even worth it to continue.