That's how I play, too. The referee can't motivate players with a whip ("the beatings will continue until morale improves").
ref: "All you have to do is <insane plot complication>."
players: "No."
Heroic Traveller
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
That's how I play, too. The referee can't motivate players with a whip ("the beatings will continue until morale improves").
ref: "All you have to do is <insane plot complication>."
players: "No."
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Sort of my method as well, except I am usually the party gun bunny. Things can get pretty wet...or smokey.
I've found the whip a viable option when the alternative is a machinegun... in other words, if the desired plot complication is bad, you make the alternatives far far bloody worse.
Not so easy in Traveller, but works great in Star Wars. How do you get the PC's to kill the local COMPNOR Youth Leader? By having them overhear him commenting about their special treatment on the tour and his plan to rat them out to Imperial Security. (they later hit the kids with a thermal detonator.)
Then again, I tend to "reward" players who reject the obvious hooks with my packing up my books and going home... and make that clear ahead of time. That's the biggest benefit of not gaming at my own home. (Biggest for my players is not dealing with my animals nor mess.)
I don't use a whip. I try to provide several plots for the players to decide between. I also try to let the players see what happens (if anything) with any plots they ignore.
Also, don't forget Marc's recipe:
the basics, the gimmick, the push, the pull, and (optionally) the enigma.
Cheers,
Baron Ovka
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Hmmm, just let them know a few months later via newsfeed that a rumor they ignored led to a multimillion credit payoff- for someone else.
Even better if the big payoff went to a competitor.
Have to throw chum in the water to get a feeding frenzy going.
lostscout5
SOC-12
Huh, another interesting thread guys. I would try what Oz and Aramis said. Don't give them a choice. If one on your players is a detached scout or military reservist, have them called up for a special mission.
lostscout5
SOC-12
Something else to consider. I usually play a heroic type (usually slightly insane as well :rofl: ). In one adventure I had my character rush into a fire fight and the ref had a sniper blow my brains out. He was getting tired of my antics. Honestly I understood, so I didn't have a problem with it. But the other players in the group did. Their characters rushed mine into a low berth and spent the next three play sessions trying to get my character brought back to life. The ref eventually relented and they made it to a high tech world. They re-grew my brain! Yea!
Point is, you really only need one hero in the group to motivate the others. Some times a dead hero will do.
Point is, you really only need one hero in the group to motivate the others. Some times a dead hero will do.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
robject, can you name some of the heroic situations you've been envisioning?
There's so much to talk about on this topic (obviously!) but I'm really curious about drilling more into what your'e talking about.
Overall, I think epicenter00's post (the third in the thread) really nailed down some of the mechanical concerns. Certain editions of _Traveller_ make getting involved in violence very dangerous, and so the Players are encouraged to mitigate risk all the time. He brings up some really smart points on this issue.
Other than that, I never assume the Players must do what I'm expecting. There are rumors and options for paths to pursue, but never a plot or actions they must take.
In the context of your concerns, I simply pay attention to that the Players are interested in. (Not what they say, mind you, but what they actually are interested in revealed through behavior.) And then I feed that with opportunity and risk. I put in NPCs they they learn to like or love, causes or peoples they care about, and then light a match.
But none of this might have anything to do with what your'e talking about. Could you name some specific examples of the kinds of things you're thinking about?
There's so much to talk about on this topic (obviously!) but I'm really curious about drilling more into what your'e talking about.
Overall, I think epicenter00's post (the third in the thread) really nailed down some of the mechanical concerns. Certain editions of _Traveller_ make getting involved in violence very dangerous, and so the Players are encouraged to mitigate risk all the time. He brings up some really smart points on this issue.
Other than that, I never assume the Players must do what I'm expecting. There are rumors and options for paths to pursue, but never a plot or actions they must take.
In the context of your concerns, I simply pay attention to that the Players are interested in. (Not what they say, mind you, but what they actually are interested in revealed through behavior.) And then I feed that with opportunity and risk. I put in NPCs they they learn to like or love, causes or peoples they care about, and then light a match.
But none of this might have anything to do with what your'e talking about. Could you name some specific examples of the kinds of things you're thinking about?
I think you played in one of my games.
...and are you sorry you shot him in the head?
(or just sorry you let them talk you into regrowing his brain)
If you are playing MgT:
Not a patron, but a valued contact or ally. After a few intro scenarios to prove value, the ally is now in deep trouble. OMG what will the characters do?
Players hate losing their stuff. In this case, the "damsel in distress" (lose valued ally) scenario. Sometimes what appears to be heroism is self interest.
Play the players. Select the ally from a player who is the whines the most, but can rally the players the most not to lose "their stuff" (the valued ally).
Not a patron, but a valued contact or ally. After a few intro scenarios to prove value, the ally is now in deep trouble. OMG what will the characters do?
Players hate losing their stuff. In this case, the "damsel in distress" (lose valued ally) scenario. Sometimes what appears to be heroism is self interest.
Play the players. Select the ally from a player who is the whines the most, but can rally the players the most not to lose "their stuff" (the valued ally).
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
A format you can follow to sort of "coax" your players into heroics is as follows:
Give them a task, on that is reasonable and rather mundane. Get them started on that.
As they go, the task becomes something they didn't foresee. They are drawn into an intrigue, something that makes them have to get involved in stuff they'd rather not be. You can do anything from simply change the direction things are going, to widening the task, to blindsiding them with something totally new and unexpected.
In any case, they now face a choice: Abandon the task and fail or accept their fate and push on into heroism.
Always throw obstacles in their path but reward them for managing to overcome them. That keeps interest going. The group knows it will gain if it manages to overcome the adversity facing it.
Sometimes I also mix things up by not having a "unified" party. That is, I give the players motives that are at odds with one and other. Most players are used to the party being of like mind. It's a real shock that one or more of them might have motives that aren't in the other's interests. That too actually adds to things once they get used to it. The players have to interact more because now they are playing potentially against one and other not just the referee / game.
This won't work if you have players that are used to having the story laid out for them and they're sort of along for the ride. The analogy might be these are "television" players, passive participants watching the game unfold, versus "novel" players who are active participants thinking their way through the game.
Give them a task, on that is reasonable and rather mundane. Get them started on that.
As they go, the task becomes something they didn't foresee. They are drawn into an intrigue, something that makes them have to get involved in stuff they'd rather not be. You can do anything from simply change the direction things are going, to widening the task, to blindsiding them with something totally new and unexpected.
In any case, they now face a choice: Abandon the task and fail or accept their fate and push on into heroism.
Always throw obstacles in their path but reward them for managing to overcome them. That keeps interest going. The group knows it will gain if it manages to overcome the adversity facing it.
Sometimes I also mix things up by not having a "unified" party. That is, I give the players motives that are at odds with one and other. Most players are used to the party being of like mind. It's a real shock that one or more of them might have motives that aren't in the other's interests. That too actually adds to things once they get used to it. The players have to interact more because now they are playing potentially against one and other not just the referee / game.
This won't work if you have players that are used to having the story laid out for them and they're sort of along for the ride. The analogy might be these are "television" players, passive participants watching the game unfold, versus "novel" players who are active participants thinking their way through the game.
...and are you sorry you shot him in the head?
In this case it didn't end quite that way. Instead, he ran out into the starship with a live grenade, gibbering away, and blew himself up. I found it entertaining, and I liked his willingness to drive headlong into the game purely for the sake of enjoyment. It ruffled the henhouse a bit, though, which is too bad. Maybe I could have channeled his loose energy better. Maybe HE could have channeled his energy better. No matter. We were all young.
You're soooo right. This is an important plank that's going into the game early. Establish that there is Lost Property and, if possible, Family In Trouble.
Wheels Within Wheels, that's what Chad Russell always told me to do, and that's good advice.
I will give you some bare details without giving things away.
I've determined that this will be a semi-bootstrap campaign: the players start at the bottom and fight their way up. The other half of the campaign is that these guys end up blowing up the Death Star, in a metaphorical sense -- that's the part that's been determined for me metaphorically. In other words, they are Big Damn Heroes but they start from modest means.
Since this is a written adventure, I don't know the players, and this isn't necessarily a 'con game.
I've determined that this will be a semi-bootstrap campaign: the players start at the bottom and fight their way up. The other half of the campaign is that these guys end up blowing up the Death Star, in a metaphorical sense -- that's the part that's been determined for me metaphorically. In other words, they are Big Damn Heroes but they start from modest means.
Since this is a written adventure, I don't know the players, and this isn't necessarily a 'con game.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I also reserve the right to get up and leave, and not go back with that Game Master again.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
Some other things you can do:
Make one or another player the "employee" of an NPC. "You get hired as a bodyguard..." is an example. Now, the player is in a position where you can have the NPC do or order something to put the player in the position you want.
NPC's should be important motivators for the players. They can be, and should often be more than one dimensional characters that have limited interaction with the players. They are in effect, the referee's characters to play.
Make one or another player the "employee" of an NPC. "You get hired as a bodyguard..." is an example. Now, the player is in a position where you can have the NPC do or order something to put the player in the position you want.
NPC's should be important motivators for the players. They can be, and should often be more than one dimensional characters that have limited interaction with the players. They are in effect, the referee's characters to play.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Thanks for that.
And I've got... nothing.
I wrote several articles years ago in White Wolf's Inphobia Magazine talking about how published RPG adventures were kind of a sand trap. Since the author did not know what interested the Players, there was no way to properly construct something that would, in fact, lead to any particular climax.
The best that could happen would be the Referee, either through strong clues or implied threat (or direct threat, I guess), egging the Players along the the proper path to follow.
All of this was never that fun for me -- as a Player or as a Referee.
I used to write RPG stuff for game companies back in the day, so I had a lot of time to think about the how best to write these things. I reached a point where I just didn't trust them, and ended up writing those articles. (The Interactive Toolkit, they were called. I stand by the first three. The last one got wobbly.)
These days I offer situations to the Players, full of opportunity and risk, and toe them decide what they'll do, what they're interested in, and the course of the adventure. There is no plot to speak of, and certainly no climax to head for.
Of note: Many early Classic Traveller adventures were very much in this tradition. The Referee was given a situation to Referee, and the Players decided what to do with it. Even rolling for Patrons suggests that the Players could have their Characters take jobs -- or not. And that, pretty much on the fly, the Referee would be building the scenario as he went.
For example, if one strips out the hex crawl element of Across the Bright Face, and goes straight up "Here's the situation, go..." it could provide several sessions worth of play that the PCs can make decisions about. (They might choose to back the miners, for all I know.) And then that spins off into an entire campaign as the PCs were in the middle of a conflict that has subsector wide implications. NPCs on either side might want to recruit them, or reward them, or hire them for further work, and more. That one conflict might spill into a subsector wide trade war and then hot war, for all I know.
The deepening and investment for the Players comes over time, as I watch what they are interested in and build those elements, themes, and NCPs up. This doubles down their investment, and that's when the stakes get really high... because now they know what they want their characters to care about, about I know too.
This isn't to say what you want to do can't be done. Certainly RPG publishers made material like this starting in the 80s. I just don't know how one can force it... without, you know, forcing it. As others have noted on this thread, that can get awkward.
The only thing I can think of is this:
Foretold the loyalties. Be really clear that everyone will have an NPCs or homeland or something that they care about. Assign them like stats. Make a list for the Players to choose from, making it clear this is a core part of what their PCs CARE about. (It can't just be a job, because if a job becomes too dangerous or preposterous, quitting is always a reasonable option.)
If it is a list with enough options, that means the Players get to invest in what they are going to have their PCs care about. And this point is, I think, where a lot of these kinds of scenarios fall apart: they expect the Players should just go along for the ride without having a voice in what matters to them.
A list at the beginning to choose from at least make them actual participants in the beginning of the situation, and can draw them in and keep them invested as the adventure builds to a climax if those elements are crafted into the climax as well.
But that's the best I got. Because honestly, think this is really difficult stuff.
