Adventure Game vs Roleplay Game?

[Ezra]

The podcast I linked below is addressing D&D games, but he makes a point I find compelling at this stage of my gaming, and I'm curious how it applies (or if it applies) to Traveller. I'd like to start by saying, I mostly began playing TTRPGs in the 2000s, and I cut my teeth in the hobby in an era where "Don't metagame" was doctrine for most tables, so the perspective in this podcast was new to me, but it may not be new to gamers who started playing before me. Moreover, I definitely subscribed to the philosophy that good gaming should avoid metagaming, that immersion was desirable, and that story was paramount in the past. But years of playing and running RPGs have changed my perspective somewhat.

At around 1h18m someone makes a point that people who disparage metagaming and subscribe to a view that good roleplaying, story, and immersion are more important than the rules discourage players from mastering the system, so when combats take place, the players often default to "I attack the nearest [enemy/alien/monster] next to me" because the referee does not allow them to discuss game strategy and thereby master the system.

I have run games where this absolutely happened. In fact, I ran a GURPS Traveller campaign every week for a year, and at the end of that year, I still had players who would say, "I attack/shoot/stab the guy closest to me."

The rest of this podcast discusses an "adventure game" vs modern roleplaying game dichotomy that I also found interesting. The podcasters adopt a position that narrative and playacting should take a back seat to "the game." As I said, they are talking about adventure games, but I'm curious if or how others think this speaks to Traveller, and if so, where does Traveller fall in this spectrum of "adventure game" versus "roleplaying game"?

 

[Badenov]

So, any TTRPG that has any source of conflict at all is going to have elements of 'adventure game' in it's roleplaying game. I am imagining the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups commercials from the 1970's. The questions are going to be 'how granular is the game engine?' and 'what is supported?' which will determine what it's possible to do. Together the players and GM should organically work out how much detail they'd like in their game, and that will determine how/if the tactics happen.

Whether you're playing it as a roleplaying environment or a character-scale wargame is up to each group's interests. Personally, I like both and play both.

If the GM does not allow players to discuss strategy for an encounter ICly, I would find a new GM - that's an amazing breach of player agency. Particularly as the opponents are coordinating inside the DM's head with no conversation required. As long as players are in contact (and in Traveller at TL9+, that should be assumed except in the presence of deliberate interference or plot-relevant environment), they should at least be able to discuss tactics ICly. If a discussion takes too long, the DM can demand a decision or decide you've spent your turn discussing, but pre-fight, planning is totally legit. If players are new to a system, not allowing it to be discussed OOCly will guarantee losing them as interested players.

We played Traveller using the FATE engine, where you can use an action to 'create an advantage' that will give you a +2 on a roll. It's a super vague thing, but we did it a lot because at various times we were faced with more difficult challenges and needed those +2's. When we were learning the system, we had many OOC rules discussions, and asking the DM, 'How would this tactic play out with the numbers?' is a legit question because an adventurer would know, 'If I do X, it will help this much'. The answer is sometimes vague depending on IC character knowledge, but there is always an answer. Sometimes it is, "You think that will work," and the DM is thinking, "And the players will learn that this monster is very resistant to that thing." Anything else is the GM forcing the players to read a book he's written.

We shifted to D20 to Yuma, a fusion of 1st ed D&D and Cowboy games like Boot Hill, and the look and feel of that game is nearly opposite to FATE. And when we started, we had more questions than ever because those rules are very crunchy. Most actions do devolve into 'I shoot at the enemy' simply because that's a pretty effective method of winning the fight, but position, cover, and other things have effects, too.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I'm curious if or how others think this speaks to Traveller, and if so, where does Traveller fall in this spectrum of "adventure game" versus "roleplaying game"?

Traveller is an adventure game at its core ... but when it's done RIGHT it also becomes a roleplaying game.

The key insight (that I'll offer to this topic) is that there is an asymmetry between mastering the game mechanics and mastering the roleplay aspects.

• For people who master the game mechanics, good roleplay becomes an emergent property of that mastery.
• For people who master their roleplaying skills, a good grasp of the game mechanics is NOT an emergent property of that mastery.

So it's "easier" for someone who is capable of meta-gaming to navigate their way to being a good roleplayer ... but it's harder to do the reverse (not impossible, but definitely a higher challenge).

Meta-gaming taken to the extreme of abuse becomes MUNCHKIN style.
Meta-gaming taken to the extreme of good taste™ becomes awesome roleplaying ... because stuff happens for REASONS, and you can intuit the thought processes and "cleverness" going on behind what Players are "doing" with their characters in the context of the game's situations.

 

[kilemall]

I think Traveller can handle both styles and is better suited to a mix of them.

If you aren’t roleplaying but munchkin minmaxing the system, it’s at best a wargame and maybe everyone should be playing computer games.

But on a roleplaying level, if you have a bunch of strangers thrown together it would be accurate to play them as individuals attacking in the simplest uncoordinated manner possible.

If however one or more characters have leader, it would be more accurate role play for them to step up and at least have a plan, even if it’s bad.

And if the same or different people have Recon, Tactics and/or Forward Observer or other heavy weapons skill and equipment, they are going to have relevant military expertise that can and should foster role play in competent fighting.

Those players at the least need to know the system in order to make skilled choices in line with their characters, including presented with relevant information/awareness that the character would know as a result of their expertise.

RPG system in service to roleplay, including knowing the system when its front and center for a combat.

 

[mike wightman]

I think an awful lot of the munchkins in rpgs today do not know the origins of the game or how it used to be.

Remember the caller and the mapper?

The DM describes the scene, the players discus but then only the caller can tell the DM what the group does. The mapper gets the job of listening to the DM and making a map as you go.

D&D evolved from wargames - in a wargame you take turns, very few of the turns are against the clock as if you are playing competative chess...

out of character discussion was common, game rules were often discussed before an action was decided upon, and yes the metagame was discussed during the game.

I have never gamed with anyone who is more into the narrative amateur dramatics of "role" playing than they are into the sit back and roll some dice for fun and relaxation.

 

[Condottiere]

It depends on what you want from the experience, and if that's compatible with everyone else's expectations, who happen to be sitting around the table.

 

[whartung]

I have run games where this absolutely happened. In fact, I ran a GURPS Traveller campaign every week for a year, and at the end of that year, I still had players who would say, "I attack/shoot/stab the guy closest to me."

If this tactic was leading to success, why change it?

In some computer games, there's the concept of the Trinity. The Trinity is: Tank, Healer, Damage. In WoW a group has 1 tank, 1 healer, and 3 Damage dealers.The fundamental game play is that the Tank has the abilities to mitigate damage, and keep the attention of the monsters. The healer is tasked with keeping the tank alive, the Damage do the bulk of the damage, and, as players, strive to avoid taking damage so the healer can focus on the Tank.

People have asked "how can we make the monsters smarter". And the problem with that is, to make the monsters smarter, they would have to have first class knowledge of the Trinity, ignore the Tank, then kill the healer (which tends to be a "squishy" type of character).

Do that, and the monsters have a leg up on the encounters. The game design isn't really around that concept though, so it doesn't really happen.

Obviously it's not like this at all in Traveller, but that doesn't mean the players, perhaps focus on the Leader of the opposition, rather than the front line troops. "Sam, if you get a bead on that Colonel, take the shot! We'll distract the guys behind the wall!" The premise here if you get the Colonel first, the other folks will break and run. But if you don't, they have better cover, more ammo, etc. to defeat the party if the encounter lasts too long.

But, if just attacking the "closest" guy nets the party consistent victory, why shouldn't they do that?

Also, someone who is "attacking the nearest guy" may well not be invested in the combat. Nobody is calling out "don't do that, do this instead". Nobody is putting their head over the wall to see the tactical reality at play that may lead to better decisions, but, rather, just shooting at anything that moves.

So, as an encounter designer, it's important to help make sure those details are conveyed to the party so that they can make better decisions.

But, again, it still falls down upon if the current behavior is successful, then why change it?

 

[Badenov]

Interestingly, Iron Heroes (the d20 3.x offshoot, roughly 3.25 in the timeline) had classes that specialized in improving group dynamics, with team buffs and other abilities that mainly benefitted other party members. In a novel, this would be the team leader/organizer, though as a modern-ish RPG (considering 2005-ish to be 'modern') player groups didn't normally have a leader. That was a game that promoted tactics other than 'I swing again' as all classes had 'tokens' and each class had a different thing they did to generate tokens.

Short answer - the game mechanics (1) need to be known to the players, and (2) need to provide advantages over 'I swing again', or they will be ignored.

 

[Dragoner]

Is stat damage metagaming? I don't know, I have always appreciated players knowing the rules, though all players are really different so the question seems to boil down to white box theoretical player. I kind of let be get in where you fit in, and not force players to play outside their comfort zones.

 

[gchuck]

If all you want to do is 'blow' stuff up, why even run a campaign? As long as you can keep the encounters somewhat new and interesting, what's the impetus?

 

[whartung]

If all you want to do is 'blow' stuff up, why even run a campaign? As long as you can keep the encounters somewhat new and interesting, what's the impetus?

To cohesively blow things up.

To blow things up in order to get closer to the Bad Guy at the end so you can blow them up, and, perhaps, pocket a little cred at the same time.

 

[Enoki]

I would say that Traveller is more like a wargame trying to be an RPG. The character generation system is geared towards a single scenario character or set of characters rather than you start out with a basic character that grows as the game progresses. It works more on scenarios that have a finite set of characteristics and after which you move on to a completely new set of characters and a new scenario.

Sure, to some extent you can recycle characters generated from scenario to scenario, but it the overall game really isn't geared to handle that. Characters can, and in many cases will, die and there is no resurrection or whatever like most RPG's have.

On a larger scale, like designing fleets and armies for a campaign in a subsector or the like, Traveller is definitely a wargame. You don't even have to generate characters to run something like that and the rules will work to allow you to game it. You can do a trade and world building game the same way to some extent. If rules for the later were added, how to terraform long term, or for operating a world and its economy, it'd be the same thing, and Traveller is almost there as it is.

It can also be difficult to operate in a scenario with a small party that is isolated from events around them. In the typical RPG, the players face head on their opposition that comes in series one after the other with usually only a limited number of things that the 'monsters' can do. Players know what each monster class does and can effectively deal with each in turn as they come.

In Traveller, you can have a much more varied set of opponents and there can be stuff going on besides just the smash and grab sort of kill the monsters, loot the treasure.

 

[Spinward Flow]

In Traveller, you can have a much more varied set of opponents and there can be stuff going on besides just the smash and grab sort of kill the monsters, loot the treasure.

 

[mike wightman]

I would say that Traveller is more like a wargame trying to be an RPG. The character generation system is geared towards a single scenario character or set of characters rather than you start out with a basic character that grows as the game progresses. It works more on scenarios that have a finite set of characteristics and after which you move on to a completely new set of characters and a new scenario.

That describes the early RPGs, D&D was also a wargame first an rpg second. CT 77 outlines the different modes of play, one shot scenarios to campaigns. Experience is front loaded to the character, very little classic sci-fi is zero to hero. Characters in novels often show improvement, but not the sort of difference between a 1st level character and a 12th level or 20th level.
There is the often fogoten Experience chapter in LBB:2, so character improvement is possible, just don't expect the WHite Wolf paradigm of play ten games and be as powerful as the underlings of the prince.

Sure, to some extent you can recycle characters generated from scenario to scenario, but it the overall game really isn't geared to handle that. Characters can, and in many cases will, die and there is no resurrection or whatever like most RPG's have.

Traveller has resurection if the sci fi you base it on has it. Gholas, clones, mind downloads, cyborgisation. T5 now has clone insurance and wafer back up as part of mustering out...

On a larger scale, like designing fleets and armies for a campaign in a subsector or the like, Traveller is definitely a wargame. You don't even have to generate characters to run something like that and the rules will work to allow you to game it. You can do a trade and world building game the same way to some extent. If rules for the later were added, how to terraform long term, or for operating a world and its economy, it'd be the same thing, and Traveller is almost there as it is.

I agree, there is a lot of solo/wargaming that can be done with the minigames - generating characters, building ships (and later all sorts of vehicles), trading, planet and subsector construction.

It can also be difficult to operate in a scenario with a small party that is isolated from events around them. In the typical RPG, the players face head on their opposition that comes in series one after the other with usually only a limited number of things that the 'monsters' can do. Players know what each monster class does and can effectively deal with each in turn as they come.

The universe does not points balance the threats you face.

In Traveller, you can have a much more varied set of opponents and there can be stuff going on besides just the smash and grab sort of kill the monsters, loot the treasure.

Very true, but isn't that the difference between typical sci fi vs typical sword and sorcery.

 

[Badenov]

In Traveller, you can have a much more varied set of opponents and there can be stuff going on besides just the smash and grab sort of kill the monsters, loot the treasure.

Very true, but isn't that the difference between typical sci fi vs typical sword and sorcery.

That's the difference between gaming styles, to be sure, but I don't think it's tied to game genre. I've had quite interesting and varied encounters in the sword and sorcery genre, because our that's our DM's style. (Same DM who ran our Traveller game.)

 

[Condottiere]

Eventually, most dungeon masters are going to be artificial intelligence, so reaction time, complexity, and the sandbox, will progressively improve.

 

[casquilho]

The universe does not points balance the threats you face.

I am quoting this because I do not want it to get lost in the other words on Mike's post. Too many of the newer TTRPGs spend a lot of energy trying to make sure everything is balanced and the PCs are given a higher chance to survive regardless of their choices and actions. Mike makes a great point here.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The universe does not points balance the threats you face.

This.
So much THIS.

A lot of GAMES strive to balance things in ways that create "fair fights" for the Players, such that victory can be/ought to be attributable to Player skill and decisions/choices more than just random chance.

Anyone who does "real world warrior-ing" knows that Fair Fights Are A Mugs Game™.
Very very VERY few professional combatants want to engage in a "fair fight" between equals.
Why?
Because in reality, the "name of the game" is to OVERMATCH your opponent, rather than to "fight fair" with an equal chance of winning (and therefore, losing). The whole point and purpose is to "stack the deck" in your favor as much as possible and then CRUSH your opposition as quickly and reliably as possible, giving them the least opportunity to retaliate effectively.
Why?
Because in reality, "fighting fair" is for SPORTS ... not for (mortal) COMBAT.

Giving your opponent "a fighting chance" is good sportsmanship/fair play in sports ... and monumentally stupid on a battlefield where lives are at stake (including your own).

To quote a mildly famous general ... your job is NOT to die for your country, it's to make THEM DIE for THEIR COUNTRY.



Or to put it another way ... there's no kill like OVERKILL ...

 

[Ezra]

If you aren’t roleplaying but munchkin minmaxing the system, it’s at best a wargame and maybe everyone should be playing computer games.

Doesn't the Traveller chargen preclude min-maxing for the most part, especially if the referee enforces roll-in-order characteristics?

 

[Grav_Moped]

The other angle on this is that PCs do all their level-up grinding before entering play, during character generation. You don't really need to balance against that* because the PCs are, or should be, reasonably competent.

Success may require equipment or allies that the PCs either have or need to get, but they start play pretty much with the skills and abilities needed. It's not like the ref has to pit them against sewer rats for a few sessions so they get the skills to tackle pickpocketing street urchins, and so on...

The flip side of this is that even a Space Marine with years of experience, Battle Dress and a FGMP-15 can still be taken down in a drive-by shooting during lunch at a street-side cafe -- there's a limit to how much leveling-up is possible.

---------
* Well, as a referee you probably ought to make success -- or something that can be viewed as success -- possible, for the sake of comity.