• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

General Encouraging your players to stand and fight

As a player, here is my take.

A quick observation notes that it is a re purposed mining laser. As such, the computer controls are not designed to deal with rapidly dodging targets.

Therefore my team approaches in an alternate bounding-overwatch fashion. dodging in different directions and randomly. Our return fire is directed at the crew of the mining laser, specifically the controller and anyone who replaces the controller.

When within range, RAM grenade.

Yes, it is possible we will lose a couple characters, we might not, or we might lose everybody. But playing Traveller properly, you can lose wonderful characters in chargen. One of the things that the death in chargen is supposed to teach is to "not grasp these characters too tightly". Death in chargen should tell the players that death comes regularly and often.

As the saying goes: "Space is a harsh mistress".
This is pretty much how I thought my group would tackle the situation. Exactly down to the duck and cover and "let 'em have it" when in range. All the while the mining laser is clumsily blasting holes in regolith (I think it was a vaccuum world ... someone correct me on that) and spewing chunks of stone with near misses.

There's a few other examples of similar outcomes, but I can't remember them all. I just wonder if maybe I should have offered more description on the laser, and maybe dropped some hints as per your "repurposed" description (I really like that, BTW).

You know ... I guess some players are just wimps, and others are more brave (crazy), while the rest of us are a shade of grey between the two.

Oh well.
 
I don't encourage them to do anything (except marrying, if I run a dynastic game, because I need a source of new PCs-but I do that mostly OOC). After all, I also play to find out what is going to happen!

That said, there will be consequences if a group of mercenaries runs from some miners. Their reputation would take a serious hit, and their work offers would suffer as well, but that's part of the trade. It's not because I, as a Referee, am disappointed with them!

Of course, even such decisions might have a positive mixed with the negative effects, but mostly, that's not how the mercenary trade works.
 
I started playing D&D after the Avalon Hill gateway drugs, in 1976. Before Traveller (Yes Billy, the WAS a time before Traveller).

Started with AH in the early '70's; found Traveller and D&D in the summer of '78. Really wanted to adventure and build a starship and travel.


As an early adopter of both D&D and Traveller, I can tell you why groups of players I have had for both games (same players, switching games for change of pace) didn't want to keep with Traveller on the long hall. NO SET METHOD OF PROGRESSION. In either game players can gather piles of cash, in both games players can garner piles of stuff, ownership of companies and noble titles.

I can't argue that the level system provides an easy growth path. However, most PbP games on RPG.net don't seem to last long enough for PCs to make major level changes. Yet hundreds of games go on. I was in a Mini6 game for almost two years and got XP once. Still loved the game.

On the flip side, there are lots of ways to progress Traveller characters. Cash, position, skills, stats. I've been in atpollard's game for nearly three years and there's been lots of change. Far as I can tell the game has a few more decades left in it.
 
On the flip side, there are lots of ways to progress Traveller characters. Cash, position, skills, stats. I've been in atpollard's game for nearly three years and there's been lots of change. Far as I can tell the game has a few more decades left in it.

The issue remains with the vast majority of players. They want a way to compare........"characters"

As I said, in Trav and D&D both a character can acquire wealth and political power, weapons and stuff.

With a level system, it is easy to compare two characters independent of money and stuff. Comparing two Trav characters is not that easy.

Ex: "My character has computer 4 and electronics 3"---"Oh yeah? Mine has Autopistol 4, medic 1 and Engineering 2"

Now, which one is more powerfull?
 
The issue remains with the vast majority of players. They want a way to compare........"characters"

As I said, in Trav and D&D both a character can acquire wealth and political power, weapons and stuff.

With a level system, it is easy to compare two characters independent of money and stuff. Comparing two Trav characters is not that easy.

Ex: "My character has computer 4 and electronics 3"---"Oh yeah? Mine has Autopistol 4, medic 1 and Engineering 2"

Now, which one is more powerfull?
On computer tasks the one with computer 4. Traveller has always been about relatively average people in exciting places. The discord is that most RPGs create heroes in the comic book style and Traveller creates heroes or villains out of the ordinary. For me that is much more meaningful than someone who can't get hurt in battle. It involves role playing with consequences.
 
How do you encourage your players to slug it out as opposed to running away without tipping your hand? Can it be done?
Assumption 1: The group exists to have and share fun.
Assumption 2: Fun is a moving target; defined by the plurality.
Assumption 3: Influencers within the group shape and manage expectations.

Rails, such as they may present, I believe, can only be justified where such facilitate group continuity. Put another way, I believe play, in and of itself, must be meaningful and purposeful -- the ends justify the means.

A catastrophic level of actual, in-game risk must be weighed against the level of actual, real-world group resilience. If the unexpected loss of a single character or (horror) a total wipe, could potentially result in the loss of continued player interest or the dissolution of the group, then expectations have been poorly socialized and player decisions are ill-informed.

While many in our hobby are socially/emotionally well-adjusted, there are individual player personalities that lean toward the tenderfoot or malcontent. Young or newly acquainted groups may have such individuals in abundance. That does not mean meaningful or purposeful play cannot take place, it simply means that the group needs structure that meets their special needs.

Many of the posts in this thread seem to follow the metaphorical elephant being described by blind men groping their distinct part of the beast. Without judgment, I observe that some embrace the crunchy, others the social; some lean into the letter others into the spirit of the rules.

To the OP, I venture that the concern expressed is connected to the attachment to expectations projected well in advance of the unfolding play. This attachment causes suffering at playtime. This attachment can result in lingering suffering so long as expectations and reality conflict.

The answer to the concluding question is an emphatic "yes." Managing expectations is at the heart of the "how." In RPG play, "managing expectations" takes the form of setting, plot hooks, and an observance of the three-hint rule (the strength of progressive hints being keyed to expectations).
  • For one-off or convention play, referee the game you want to play.
  • For sustaining play, you may often be called upon to referee the game that your group wants to play.
When the group and the referee share a common basket of expectations, the play transcends the sum of all participants and becomes the stuff of lifelong memories.

The referee that can deliver the transcendent experience for a group with a basket of expectations outside his/her comfort zone is the referee that has mastered his/her craft.
 
The issue remains with the vast majority of players. They want a way to compare........"characters"

As I said, in Trav and D&D both a character can acquire wealth and political power, weapons and stuff.

With a level system, it is easy to compare two characters independent of money and stuff. Comparing two Trav characters is not that easy.

Ex: "My character has computer 4 and electronics 3"---"Oh yeah? Mine has Autopistol 4, medic 1 and Engineering 2"

Now, which one is more powerfull?
Why are players asking that? My players don't really look at each others character sheets. They are interested more in the character they are using.
 
And they never discuss their characters between sessions? Really?

Our players typically just talk about everything that went on during the session with their characters and the NPCs. Characteristics and skills are not ever mentioned, unless a player volunteers to mention a skill their character has that wasn't used yet. During game sessions, those things are never mentioned.
 
With D&D (in all forms) it was mandatory that you fight anyone who didn't want to talk. In T&T the system leaned that way, but there were more puzzles to resolve. I remember my friend and I confronting a Sphinx that threatened dire consequences if we didn't solve its riddle. Gamma World was essentially D&D in a post apocalyptic mutant world. FASA's Star Trek RPG actually encouraged you to think for a solution (though some of my players were pretty fast and loose with phasers ... go figure). James Bond was, well, James Bond. Car Wars you really didn't live long enough for any real RPing. And the original SW RPG was all about heroics, not always shooting Imperials.

I'm rethinking my previous post. In night of conquest ... I ran it, I think three times, the first time around the players got a sense that they were out numbered from the first real event in the adventure. And they played it like a "Last plain out of Hanoi" Vietnam like scenario, which upon reflection, I guess it kind of was. But they did manage to bring some gear, and could have cut their way back to the Empress class vessel, but chose a more stealthy approach to survival.

I think the last time I ran that adventure the players got torn apart by the invaders, so, what am I trying to say ... I guess with Traveller, because of the deadliness of the combat, veteran players know to play it a bit more safe.

With something like Champions / HERO it's all about bravado and "energy-blasting" the next guy over (PC or NPC).

I guess maybe with Traveller you want to encourage your players to find a mix of solutions. But with all the hardware available, it's hard not to think they have an itchy trigger finger.

Sorry for rambling here. Maybe this is a non-issue, but after 30+ years I guess I have a hard time trying to wrap my head around some of the thrust of this game's zeitgeist; i.e. what to do and when to do it, kind of thing.

Gotta go eat now :)
 
As an early player for D&D/AD&D I don't recall the mortality folks feel it had. Yes, characters could die, but we were usually able to scale the challenge to the party. Players could play poorly and lose characters but the mortality rate for thoughtful players was probably less than that of CT Chargen.

played d&d for quite a while. in all that time I saw only one player character die.
 
As an early adopter of both D&D and Traveller, I can tell you why groups of players I have had for both games (same players, switching games for change of pace) didn't want to keep with Traveller on the long hall. NO SET METHOD OF PROGRESSION. In either game players can gather piles of cash, in both games players can garner piles of stuff, ownership of companies and noble titles.

In D&D there is a defined method of progression so as to be able to compare any two characters. Every experienced D&D player knows how powerful a 10th level wizard is (regardless of magic items) and can compare that to a 10th level fighter (regardless of magic items).

How do you compare a random 5 term Imperial Marine (regardless of stuff) and a random 5 term Scout (regardless of stuff), or a 5 term Other (regardless of stuff)?

Any experienced player would know, however, that level alone is not a good indicator of anything other than potential. Assuming 3.X D&D (As that was where I started and so did many gamers today), a lower level fighter may actually be a better combatant because he was luck and has better ability scores (So has a better attack bonus and more hit points), and made better choices regarding skills and feats than a higher level fighter who didn't roll as well nd didn't make such good choices. I have had a game where the wizard (without magic) was a better melee combatant than the party paladin. Only went to bout 5th level, and eventually the wizard wouldn't have been able to keep up but for a while there he was better. Looking strictly at levels, you wouldn't of expected that, but that is because number of levels is not a good indicator of anything beyond potential.

In the same way, you can only vaguely compare Traveller characters based on terms served. The number of terms only give a vague impression of potential, but otherwise mean nothing. You have to look at skill levels and attributes. That 5 term marine may only have a single level in Gun Combat. The scout may have a higher level of skill with guns. In a spaceship fight, neither of them may be useful with the Other character has turret skill.

Levels and terms served are not a good indication of anything beyond potential. And potential is ultimately meaningless. It is the individual capability of the characters that matters, and to know that you have to look deeper into the character.

With a level system, it is easy to compare two characters independent of money and stuff. Comparing two Trav characters is not that easy.

Ex: "My character has computer 4 and electronics 3"---"Oh yeah? Mine has Autopistol 4, medic 1 and Engineering 2"

Now, which one is more powerfull?

In a straight up gunfight? The one with Autopistol 4. Unless drones are involved, in which case the one with Computer 4 may be better. Or with no weapons at all, it isn't clear.

In negotiating passage off world? Neither, though the one with Computer skill may be able to hack his was into their system and give himself clearance. If you consider "aggressive negotiations", the one with Autopistol can potentially fight his way off world. He would be the one that would be far more likely noticed, caught, and imprisoned however.

Which one being "more powerful" is an entire subjective answer, and depends on a specific situation. Just like when trying to compare real-world individuals.
 
Last edited:
Some Notes on D&D and Combat

A couple of points:

Each edition of D&D is distinct and different -- producing very different gameplay. OD&D and B/X D&D are quite different games than 2E, 3E, or 5e, for example. And of course 4e is very different than any other edition.

I undesstand some people see the similarities and simply gloss over the differences and see them all as essentially the same. And as long as that works for them, that's fine. It's incorrect. But it isn't something I'm going to bother arguing about. All I can do is point people to read the actual rules, thinks about the implications of those rules, and see how game play will differ greatly.

With D&D (in all forms) it was mandatory that you fight anyone who didn't want to talk.

This is not true in the case of OD&D or B/X D&D. (Perhaps for other editions as well. I never played anything past AD&D and haven't played AD&D for decades now)

If one looks at how XP is awarded in these two editions of the game one sees that the XP for "killing things" is far, far less valuable than for bringing a treasure haul out of the dungeon.

Here is the table for XP rewards for monsters from Lamentations of the Flame Princes, a something-clone of B/X D&D:

screen-shot-2016-02-27-at-9-59-52-am.png


You'll note that if the party kills, say, six Level 4 monsters each player will net 75 XP. However, if they can carry out 2,400 gold pieces worth of treasure they will get 400 XP each.

Here's the thing: Fighting monsters is inherently risky. Picking up treasure and carrying out is not. If one can get to the treasure without having to fight one can get more XP without the risk of death. (Here is a post from my blog on a fuller write up about this.)

Thus, in early editions of the game it was not expected the game was about fighting because the rewards actually pushed play toward the recovery and looting of treasure. Fighting might happen -- but it was not the focus.

I'm not saying many people didn't focus on combat. I'm saying in terms of the rules there was no expectation you would fight every monster. In fact, the rules encourage players to find ways to avoid the risk of combat and sneak out with the treasure without a fight since that was the best risk vs. reward strategy.

As for low PC death counts:

Yes. If the GM "balances" the encounters then there will probably be fewer, if no, deaths. For the record, in the LotFP game I am running I never balance encounters. My job as Referee is to present challenges to the players. Their job is to approach them with caution and see if they can overcome them without dying. I'm not worried about making matters "balanced." I am concerned with making sure my players sometimes face problems with no obvious solutions. (I count "running up and killing it" as an obvious solution.) Instead the players have to poke and prod and observe and plan and see if they can pull off a solution with unknown and sometimes overpowering obstacles.

My players are smart. And they like to be challenged. And they come up with awesome solutions.

But the point is they could die. The early editions of D&D are not protective of the PCs. This doesn't mean the PCs die all the time however. If the Players are smart with their PCs they can find ways of getting the treasure and surviving. (I suppose I should note here that I never have THE solution for defeating an enemy. Ever. There are options. But invariably the players come up with solutions I never thought of.)

The point is that there is a risk of death hanging over the PCs the whole time. (Here is a post I've written about that on my blog.) A threat of death is not the same thing as they will die. The threat of death only means there are consequences and risk.

I was very upfront about all of this with the players before we began play. So they have been thoughtful and cautious and smart in their play. They parlay when they can; they come up with asymmetrical plans of attack when they have to; they avoid combat if it isn't needed. We've had some deaths... but out of 6 initial PCs we still have 3 from the original group. (Two deaths, and three are trapped in a Nether Realm and might be rescued.) But the game itself is not making it safe for those three PCs. It is the players managing the actions of their PCs that is keeping the death count low.)

Classic Traveller grew from the original D&D rules (which is both obvious and confirmed by Marc Miller bluntly stated in a recent interview). It makes sense the focus of the game... its deadliness, its focus on material acquisition being the focus of the game... would mirror that of OD&D.

There have been many invitations and changes in how to play RPGs over the years. Some make such game play completely differently in other games. For example, in Burning Wheel the PCs are much more robust than those found in OD&D or Classic Traveller, and the XP system is driven by the PCs chasing their passionate beliefs despite risks entailed with chasing them ("I am loyal to my lord no matter what" can land a PC in a lot of trouble if the Lord is constantly getting into trouble). But, of course, the PCs of BW are much less squishy than those found in OD&D or CT.

Whereas a character in OD&D and Classic Traveller is much better off weigihing carefully whether passionate beliefs are worth much given the risk entails with acting on them. The PCs of such games -- if using the rules as written --will often be much better served by behaving as amoral mercenaries, treasure hunters, and explorers than people devoted to causes or doing what is right.

In OD&D and CT character creation is fairly quick, backstory doesn't matter much, and the point is to move forward into adventures that demand the PCs are considered expendable. (This is why character creation is relatively quick. If a PC dies you make a new one rather quickly.) But this doesn't mean the Player is willing to treat his PC as dispensable. He can work to hang onto his PC as long as he can, making decisions -- clever and sometimes cowardly -- to stay alive as long as possible while still moving toward his goals.
 
The issue remains with the vast majority of players. They want a way to compare........"characters"

As I said, in Trav and D&D both a character can acquire wealth and political power, weapons and stuff.

With a level system, it is easy to compare two characters independent of money and stuff. Comparing two Trav characters is not that easy.

Ex: "My character has computer 4 and electronics 3"---"Oh yeah? Mine has Autopistol 4, medic 1 and Engineering 2"

Now, which one is more powerfull?
This reply is spot on:
In a straight up gunfight? The one with Autopistol 4. Unless drones are involved, in which case the one with Computer 4 may be better. Or with no weapons at all, it isn't clear.

In negotiating passage off world? Neither, though the one with Computer skill may be able to hack his was into their system and give himself clearance. If you consider "aggressive negotiations", the one with Autopistol can potentially fight his way off world. He would be the one that would be far more likely noticed, caught, and imprisoned however.

Which one being "more powerful" is an entire subjective answer, and depends on a specific situation. Just like when trying to compare real-world individuals.

I would add that a first level thief in B/X D&D can run circles around the dangers the DM presents if the Player is particularly clever.

Later game pull the rug out from under the Player's ability by making the game all about skill rolls solving problems. But in early editions of the game the rules are there to provide a framework for the Players to come up with solutions that go beyond the rules.

How will the PCs best survive the gunfight? A combat involving drones? Get off a world about to immolate into civil war? The mechanics of CT might well help the PCs. But there are countless options and actions the Players can take to aid their PCs' chance of success that go beyond the mechanics of the game.
 
Last edited:
played d&d for quite a while. in all that time I saw only one player character die.

I've had sessions aplenty with one death. I've even had some well foreshadowed TPK's. It's all in how the GM runs the game.

Under 3.X, with "balanced encounters" in the proper mix per the DMG, no TPKs. One that was 1 shy, but it was a case of they fled from the mind flayers, the cleric realized he'd dropped an artifact, went back to get it... SLURP!
The dwarf and a human went to find the cleric; SLURP, SLURP!
etc.
The halfling and the NPC wives fled in the skyboat...
 
In general, upon reflection, as older players came into new PC groups, going over the years from 1980 up to about 1993 or 94 (middle school to university), the older the players got, the more conservative. Pre-teens were likely to shoot at anything. Teens were a little more cautious, but still gung ho. Post teens were fairly cautious, though they did have their moments.
 
Read about the number of times in combat during the Revolutionary War the colonial militia ran away at the first shot from the British, or the number of times volunteers during the Indian Wars vanished with the first shot fired. Your players behavior is not that surprising at all.

Based on S.L.A. Marshall's interviews during World War 2, maybe 25% of the U.S. soldiers actually fired shots in anger. I would recommend that anyone who can get a copy of Marshall's Men Against Fire and read it. I understand that Marshall's work has been challenged, however, I am not at all prepared to disregard it. Looking at his analysis of infantry operations in Korea, for the M-1 rifles to be the last to run out of ammunition in a fire-fight lasting several hours tends to me to indicate that not everyone was firing. Some of the comments in Lt. Col. John George's book Shots Fired in Anger tend to support Marshall, and some with the Marauders indicate the effects of everyone firing in a unit against a Japanese attack. Moshe Dayan's Dairy of the Sinai Campaign has some fairly harsh comments regarding Israeli units that turned in a poor performance. Robert Sherrod's very vivid account of the Battle of Tarawa also shows that only a limited number of men in that battle actually were fighting. A lot were simply staying out of the Japanese fire. Fire ratios may have improved since then, but that would be the result of training triggered by the Marshall book.
 
Back
Top