General New Ref, with very trigger happy players.

[Leitz]

On Character Progression.

This is another area that it took me a long time to adjust to and I back-slide now and again. I want higher stats, more skills, etc...etc...etc... The whole "limit skills by Int + Edu" isn't there for me and I don't really buy "game balance". The game just isn't balanced.

However, I really like to determine an in game objective then make a plan, execute the plan, and reap the rewards. For example, in a Mongoose game some years back I played a merchant who cut deals. He brokered a deal for short term lease of some ships weapons and then spent his own money on the promotional video of the space battle where those weapons helped him capture a pirate ship. To get money for overhauling the now mildly shot up pirate ship he bought cargo space on another PC's ship and did speculation while keeping a good cash reserve.

The character progression was bigger and better deals and a string of "relationships" with businesses where his word got attention. He had a wide range of skills but nothing overwhelming except Broker. That's what he did.

He later semi-retired and wrote a business text under the pseudonym "Zonervan".

In atpollard's game my character is able to get some reasonable 0 level skills. It has taken me a bit to see the joy in this but I'm liking it. My character is repeatedly in over his head and still making progress by getting smarter people engaged in the solution. The game is an absolute blast for me.

 

[robject]

I've run into this type of thing in the past, with a different game. What I did was set up a simple fight among NPCs (in this case, the PCs were betting on the outcome in a gladiatorial ring, but you can set up all sorts of scenarios--maybe they see a bank heist or something). Then, I let the players play the NPCs.

It was a good way to let the players get a feel for the combat system, and it showed them that the game system was deadly and not what they've been used to in the past.

It doesn't matter if the NPCs win the fight or not. In fact, it's probably better if they lose--to give the players more of a respect for the system.

I love that idea.

 

[jbennet]

Part 2 - The Solution

I just want to jump in on this, because a lot of people seem to have loved this idea. But as a player, I would have quit the game. Roleplaying is meant to be a cooperative experience. And dumping the players into a 10 year long mercenary campaign from which there is no escape and which gets steadily darker and darker is basically the exact opposite of cooperative.

I get that you're talking about using this with players who are being too trigger happy. But you should talk to them first. You do this AFTER you talk to them and they have continued to ignore what you told them. Then you tell them if it happens again, this is the consequence. Doing this first is basically a passive-aggressive F*** You to your players and I'd stand up and walk out the moment you presented us with two options, neither of which was the campaign we'd agreed upon during character creation.

 

[Tiikeri]

I just want to jump in on this, because a lot of people seem to have loved this idea. But as a player, I would have quit the game. Roleplaying is meant to be a cooperative experience. And dumping the players into a 10 year long mercenary campaign from which there is no escape and which gets steadily darker and darker is basically the exact opposite of cooperative.

I get that you're talking about using this with players who are being too trigger happy. But you should talk to them first. You do this AFTER you talk to them and they have continued to ignore what you told them. Then you tell them if it happens again, this is the consequence. Doing this first is basically a passive-aggressive F*** You to your players and I'd stand up and walk out the moment you presented us with two options, neither of which was the campaign we'd agreed upon during character creation.

Yes, that's exactly what my suggested solution was for, to deal with people the ref has tried to talk it over with, but who just keep being destructive. It's an extreme solution for people who won't listen and don't care. In such a case, the opening salvo of passive-aggressive f-you-ery was fired by the players, who were repeatedly inconsiderate of the work the ref put in to set up adventures for them.

Even then, I stated that if the players really don't like it, and they agree to change their shoot-em-up ways, the ref can say that their contract gets bought out. Then they do a couple normal missions and they're back on track.

I really doubt that the players shooting everything they see, like the OP mentioned, was the type of campaign agreed to during character creation!

Of course the solution I suggested would be odious to considerate cooperative players, but those players don't cause these problems and are usually happy to compromise so that everyone, including the ref, has a good time.

 

[jbennet]

Yes, that's exactly what my suggested solution was for, to deal with people the ref has tried to talk it over with, but who just keep being destructive. It's an extreme solution for people who won't listen and don't care. In such a case, the opening salvo of passive-aggressive f-you-ery was fired by the players, who were repeatedly inconsiderate of the work the ref put in to set up adventures for them.

Even then, I stated that if the players really don't like it, and they agree to change their shoot-em-up ways, the ref can say that their contract gets bought out. Then they do a couple normal missions and they're back on track.

I really doubt that the players shooting everything they see, like the OP mentioned, was the type of campaign agreed to during character creation!

Of course the solution I suggested would be odious to considerate cooperative players, but those players don't cause these problems and are usually happy to compromise so that everyone, including the ref, has a good time.

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to make sure that caveat was in there. Also, if you have players who are trying to cooperate, you might talk to them individually first. "Hey, look. I know this next adventure arc isn't what you signed up for. It's not what I signed up for either. But I'm hoping by the end of it, we'll be able to focus much more on the {trading|negotiating|diplomatic|interpersonal} side of things that both of us wanted when we started a game that isn't D&D."

If the GM said that to me first, I would be 100% on board and play it to hilt because then there's no social contract that has been broken.

 

[Blue Ghost]

So, I'm a fairly new Ref, I've run a few games in a few different systems, but Traveller seems to be the one which has stuck (Much to my enjoyment). I've got a fairly good group of players, but they're still stuck in the D&D/Pathfinder "I see it I shoot it" mentality. I've tried to tell them that getting shot in Traveller is considered a Very Bad Thing, but I'm looking for advice on how to demonstrate this to them, so that they don't get the entire crew killed 3 sessions in. On a somewhat tangential note, they're also struggling with Travellers lack of character progression ala D&D. I've houseruled that instead of simply not learning anything after 8 weeks if they fail their check, they just have to try again next week. Does this sound reasonable? For reference we are playing Mongoose Second Edition.

If you look in any of the old D&D adventure modules, those things are written and laid out with an extremely high degree of not only professionalism, but flavor for the world presented to both DM and players. That is there's the flavor text in the "Read to Players" bubble, and then the more straightforward "DM Only" stuff underneath the event and description.

In terms of experience, to me, the D&D experience system was meant to be a meta-mechanic to entice players to continue adventuring, but that it became a defacto in-game reward, so much to the point that it didn't matter how much treasure you accumulated, nor how many goals you achieved, players (again, my opinion) seemed to want EXP points above everything else.

When I first played D&D I was happy just to be part of the game and story experience that the game offered. EXP seemed a real hassle, even though I understood what it was for.

So, again all my opinion, I think the Traveller Referee's job is to paint that picture and offer that entertaining interactive story experience to the point where the story and the monetary reward are the in game prizes, as I think the game was designed and intended.

 

[Leitz]

So, again all my opinion, I think the Traveller Referee's job is to paint that picture and offer that entertaining interactive story experience to the point where the story and the monetary reward are the in game prizes, as I think the game was designed and intended.

I'm very much in line with the "story" bit but don't feel it and money are the only goals. In atpollard's game my character has built teams, matured a skill or two, risen in Social Status, and become a player in the global scene. His role will soon grow into the interstellar arena. Should be a fun time since he's going to be challenged quite often.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I guess what I meant as that money is to the Traveller PC as EXP is to the D&D PC. I think with Traveller, as you progress, you get more money to buy more equipment, pay off the ship mortgage and what not. D&D exp. gives you the inherit ability of what Traveller gear would do via higher paying jobs. Anyway, that's just my thinking on the matter.

But yeah, for me the story is the reward regardless of credits and equipment.

 

[Adam Dray]

I've got a fairly good group of players, but they're still stuck in the D&D/Pathfinder "I see it I shoot it" mentality.
. . .
On a somewhat tangential note, they're also struggling with Travellers lack of character progression ala D&D.

These things are not tangential. They are part of the same problem.

D&D and Pathfinder rules are built with a very specific (and powerful) reward cycle: explore, fight, gain XP, level up. Leveling up opens doors to explore new, more dangerous places and fight bigger, more dangerous monsters. Sure, people do a lot of other things with D&D/PF, but the reward cycle is still there, and anything you do differently has to take that into consideration.

Players who LIKE that reward cycle, or are trained to salivate and the ring of the XP bell, will have to adjust to Traveller, which has an entirely different reward cycle.

Traveller is built more like this: Travel, survive, profit, learn. The galaxy is dangerous and trouble should be avoided or skirted. Traveling to new systems opens up opportunities for profit and knowledge. You'll meet new patrons, build relationships with potential allies, make enemies, and gain leads that you can exploit for fun and profit.

You "level up" by changing your situation for the better, not by improving your character. If you own a ship, you keep it running and pay the mortgage, and you don't even really "level up" the ship by making it much better, either. Maybe you add a laser turret, sure, but you're not turning your 200-dT trader ship into a 5000-dT destroyer, ya know?

There are a lot of great suggestions in the thread.

I'd say you might also want to stop and talk to the group about what their group goals are in the universe, in a sort of "Session 0"-after-the-start. Traveller is very self-directed, too. If players are used to "DM has a module and we go and kill every monster and level up" situation, they will be lost here. It's best not to railroad the story in Traveller. Don't have a story in mind. Have factions and worlds and motivated NPCs in mind, and let the goals of the PCs drive the story.

If the PCs don't have a goal, the story will wander. Bored players are also more likely to just start shooting, because what else is there to do?

 

[Leitz]

These things are not tangential. They are part of the same problem.

Agree with your evaluation; Traveller can have a very different progression system.

You "level up" by changing your situation for the better, not by improving your character. If you own a ship, you keep it running and pay the mortgage, and you don't even really "level up" the ship by making it much better, either. Maybe you add a laser turret, sure, but you're not turning your 200-dT trader ship into a 5000-dT destroyer, ya know?

This is where I see differently. Up front, your statement holds true for many games and gamers and they can be happy in that. However, I think there are lots of story arcs where the characters, and even ships, do "level up" to face larger and more diverse challenges. Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker come to mind. That 200 dT Free Trader can add some serious firepower if you want, and you can later trade her in for a 600 dT exploration ship if you like. Characters can learn skills, raise stats and Soc, and do all kinds of things in some games.

Traveller is a tool box, not a prison. Do whatever it takes to tell a great story you and your players love.

 

[Adam Dray]

Out of the box, in MgT2, the skill advancement system doesn't support that kind of play. IIRC, the rules offer the same slow advancement that CT does, right? Maybe earn 1 skill point over a year's time (usually during downtime that precludes "adventuring").

Sure, you can run Traveller any way you want. This is true of any game. However, rules-as-written, Traveller doesn't really support the "level up" type of play.

Making Traveller support the kind of play that sulu244's players seem to want (lots of action, not a lot of character permanent injury/death, skill advancement) is very hard to bolt onto the rules.

 

[Leitz]

An interesting quote from LBB-04, Mercenary: "Since the greatest asset an individual has their pool of skills..." (typographical errors fixed) (Page 14, under "Instruction")

It goes on to say the DM should limit what characters can learn. I have yet to see a functional reason for that. The DM can throw any size of challenge at the player characters without a lot of effort. In the game I'm running Ben Webb is learning to be a starship captain and a merchant. He's not fantastic at either, yet, but is working hard to grow into the roles. I see no reason to tell him he can't. I see lots of opportunities to challenge him as he grows, which will likely fuel his growth.

As noted, there are lots of ways to play Traveller. I'm not finding a lot of difficulty using the game mechanics to add high adventure or skill advancement. atpollard might say character death would have been preferable to meeting Angelo...

 

[Blue Ghost]

These things are not tangential. They are part of the same problem.

D&D and Pathfinder rules are built with a very specific (and powerful) reward cycle: explore, fight, gain XP, level up. Leveling up opens doors to explore new, more dangerous places and fight bigger, more dangerous monsters. Sure, people do a lot of other things with D&D/PF, but the reward cycle is still there, and anything you do differently has to take that into consideration.

Players who LIKE that reward cycle, or are trained to salivate and the ring of the XP bell, will have to adjust to Traveller, which has an entirely different reward cycle.

Traveller is built more like this: Travel, survive, profit, learn. The galaxy is dangerous and trouble should be avoided or skirted. Traveling to new systems opens up opportunities for profit and knowledge. You'll meet new patrons, build relationships with potential allies, make enemies, and gain leads that you can exploit for fun and profit.

You "level up" by changing your situation for the better, not by improving your character. If you own a ship, you keep it running and pay the mortgage, and you don't even really "level up" the ship by making it much better, either. Maybe you add a laser turret, sure, but you're not turning your 200-dT trader ship into a 5000-dT destroyer, ya know?

There are a lot of great suggestions in the thread.

I'd say you might also want to stop and talk to the group about what their group goals are in the universe, in a sort of "Session 0"-after-the-start. Traveller is very self-directed, too. If players are used to "DM has a module and we go and kill every monster and level up" situation, they will be lost here. It's best not to railroad the story in Traveller. Don't have a story in mind. Have factions and worlds and motivated NPCs in mind, and let the goals of the PCs drive the story.

If the PCs don't have a goal, the story will wander. Bored players are also more likely to just start shooting, because what else is there to do?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at, and I think it's a short coming of the game. Originally it was pretty dry in visuals and prose, but had a very rich combat mechanic and tangible starship design and operation mechanic. I think those have kept interest in the system--I know it has for me. But I'm not sure the objectives of paying off the starship and buying new and "better" equipment has been fully nor properly been stated for both Referees and players.

p.s. *edit here* I think the inference from the rules is that you buy gear from whatever world you're on with appropriate price adjustments, and that said equipment works on things at that TL and lower (depending on your interpretation of the rules), but that in order to get high TL equipment that's more expensive, you need to accomplish the adventure. This post script is hindsight on my part, and I could be totally wrong on this, but it seems like the impetus to keep adventuring was that you wanted better stuff so that you could keep adventuring. Ergo, you take on jobs or move goods, mail and people from place to place.

 

[kilemall]

It is very clear that the CT ship game had a progression built in- use jump tapes, make money, buy Generate program, make more money, buy weapon, do mail contracts and start speculating, buy better and better weapon/ship programs, lose in battles and pay for repair, buy better starship weapons, etc.

The economics were definitely setup for high risk/high rewards and levelling up the ship and gear.

 

[flykiller]

The economics were definitely setup for high risk/high rewards and levelling up the ship and gear.

did anyone ever play it that way?

 

[Leitz]

did anyone ever play it that way?

Nothing but. Scraping for MicroCredits is a drag.

 

[flykiller]

Nothing but.

really. I'm just remembering that recent poll that asked how often ship-to-ship combat figured in a game, and only one person said frequently, with most answers heavily tilted towards "almost never".

 

[Leitz]

really. I'm just remembering that recent poll that asked how often ship-to-ship combat figured in a game, and only one person said frequently, with most answers heavily tilted towards "almost never".

That's why you build the ship's weaponry; to avoid the fights or make them so fast it's an afterthought. Most pirates won't take on a heavily armed merchant unless the odds are well in the pirates favor.

 

[gchuck]

As far as 'level' progression, I award DM's periodically. Which can be cached, or used immediately. All at once or piecemeal.

 

[Ulsyus]

It is very clear that the CT ship game had a progression built in- use jump tapes, make money, buy Generate program, make more money, buy weapon, do mail contracts and start speculating, buy better and better weapon/ship programs, lose in battles and pay for repair, buy better starship weapons, etc.

The economics were definitely setup for high risk/high rewards and levelling up the ship and gear.

Did you ever run/play a game this way, as Leitz indicated he did?