Rules Only: Rails vs. Sandbox/Freeform

[Keklas Rekobah]

In my opinion, it's dangerous to make pronouncements about what players want. Even statements that seem universal, like "players want choices" actually are not.

True . . . to a point. Note that none of the four "Wants" were declared as valid for ALL players (never infer more than what was explicitly stated). Nor is an entire group of gamers interested solely in just one of these "Wants". Players are neither monolithic nor homogeneous; and, if you've cast your group as a director casts a play, you will have players with a variety of "Wants" in varying degrees and priorities.

There's an entire class of passive player who is happy to be along for the ride, and not only isn't interested in choices, but would actively prefer to make as few as necessary.

Slackers, eh? Not exactly my first choice of player. Passive players, in my experience, are more interested in being entertained by the group than in participating in group entertainment - their characters may as well be NPCs (a.k.a., "Cannon Fodder"). I encourage involvement. Those who will not make choices for themselves will have choices made for them, and usually by consensus of the other players . . .

"Hey, Bob! You haven't done much tonight. Why don't you have your character follow that trail of corrosive organic fluid while the rest of us wait over here?"

For me, understanding expectations about the kind of game people want is the first step. At the same time, I believe it is almost axiomatic that GMs run the kinds of games they would have most liked to play, and there may be a tension between those two elements.

Understanding expectations goes both ways. If players want a story read to them, then they've come to the wrong house. If, instead, they want to share in the creative process, then my game is the one to choose.

For instance, there may be players who are new to the setting, or who perhaps are indifferent to the setting. But the GM may love the universe and want to explore it in detail.

Newbie players are one thing; indifferent house-guests are another. If you want to play, then play; but if you want to watch, then step away from the table and let someone else play - someone who gets involved, and not just watches.

Personally, I feel the more the players and the GM are in tune with the sort of game it should be, the better experience for everyone

Agreed. The better experience is had by all when everyone is involved to a more-or-less equal degree. Few things kill the buzz more than the one person who let's other people make all of the decisions.

 

[flykiller]

The better experience is had by all when everyone is involved to a more-or-less equal degree. Few things kill the buzz more than the one person who let's other people make all of the decisions.

do player character engineers have a role in your games?

 

[LeperColony]

Agreed. The better experience is had by all when everyone is involved to a more-or-less equal degree. Few things kill the buzz more than the one person who let's other people make all of the decisions.

Again, this sort of universal pronouncement is painfully inaccurate. Many people do enjoy agency and activity and focus. There's nothing wrong with wanting players who fill that mold. I personally would prefer players with that intention as well.

But the fact remains, despite your describing them as "slackers," that there are players who are perfectly happy to assume a secondary role, who aren't looking for the limelight, and who are, out of preference, more passive. These aren't bad players. They're just different players. If they wouldn't be welcome at your table, that's your prerogative. But I know of no objective standard that can prove they are somehow inherently inferior.

I run a lot of games in environments where I can't pick my players. For instance, at convention events. I've gotten used to a range of players who are more active or more passive, and who are more assertive or more deferential (which is not the same thing as active/passive, though it can work out that way in some circumstances), and who have stronger or weaker convictions regarding their preferences.

What's more, even if I weren't "forced" into a certain roster (such as at a convention), I wouldn't evict someone from a home game just because they were more comfortable in the "supporting cast."

I get that you have a particular player you're looking for, and I think that's great. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't really see much justification in maligning an entire playstyle that doesn't jive with the sort of game you want.

 

[Ulsyus]

do player character engineers have a role in your games?

Absolutely. My last campaign, in which the players had their own ship, had one of them play as the engineer. He was pretty essential when things went south a few times.

The role could be done by an NPC, but why do that when one of the players wants the job?

 

[creativehum]

do player character engineers have a role in your games?

The question has been answered. But I have to admit I didn't understand the context of the question. Could you tell me a bit about why you asked it?

 

[flykiller]

Absolutely. My last campaign, in which the players had their own ship, had one of them play as the engineer. He was pretty essential when things went south a few times.

The role could be done by an NPC, but why do that when one of the players wants the job?

well I was asking Keklas Rekobah, in response to his view that active players are more enjoyable, since engineer characters seem to have reduced scope as game action leaders.

the question may be taken generally. in games, are certain characters preferred for action, and are certain characters preferred for tag-alongs?

 

[creativehum]

well I was asking Keklas Rekobah, in response to his view that active players are more enjoyable, since engineer characters seem to have reduced scope as game action leaders.

Are they?

I'm asking honestly. And this might come down to an issue of rules set, Refereeing style, or the assumptions or setup of setting or play.

I ask because any PC that has Engineering (and thus can serve as an engineer on a ship) will most likely have a weapon expertise some sort. (At the least, per the Classic Traveller rules, they will have an expertise of 0, making them much more capable than most people with firearms in combat situations.)

Moreover, they might well have other skills. They might also be quite bright or educated, and thus be able to sort out problems as needed.

And finally, and most importantly, they might have a lot of drive. If they really want that haul of Imperial credits left behind when some local officials bugged out of a capital under siege, he can really push things forward.

My own assumption is that the PCs are a group of adventurers working together, pooling resources and expertise. The hierarchy is somewhat equitable, with any engineer pulling his way in many situations, not simply handling problems in the engineering room.

Further (again, working from the Classic Traveller rules) the skills one has do not define or limit or provide the sum total of what a man or woman is capable of. Player Characters can still try to bluff their way into a building or steal a cargo van with the proper insignia order to drive back to the city or track down they man they need for the combination to the vault.

In other words, I don't see possessing Engineering expertise, or serving as Engineer, as any sort of limit on other things the character might be able to do. Nor is being the engineer on a ship that presumes the crew is essentially a free company of adventures any sort of detriment to having a say in what the crew is going to do.

But I might be misreading what you are going after? What are the limits you see?

 

[flykiller]

they might have a lot of drive.

"Engineers have Drive."

 

[creativehum]

"Engineers have Drive."

Precisely!
:rofl:

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

An engineer is more than just some guy with an Edinburgh accent coaxing a few more joules out of the power plant. He is also likely to have other skills. Sure, when you're trying to outrun a revenue cutter, and you need those few extra joules to make the jump point, the engineer is essential. But when in jump or in port, the engineer's job becomes simpler, and mostly involves preventive maintenance checks (PMC) on life support, power distribution, air-tight fittings, and so forth - all of which can be handled by junior engineers or even people with level-1 skills in Computers, Electronics, or Mechanics. Just follow the instructions on the PMC card and report any discrepancies.

On one ship, the Cheng was the master of the pit during space operations, the Cargomaster in port, and the person who literally rode shotgun in the field. On another, by virtue of terms served and Piloting skills, the Cheng was the Captain. Every character had some skill in at least one other character's assigned duties, and could fill in or assist when necessary.

This reflects Real Life, by the way - on Navy ships and on the Space Shuttles, skill redundancy was rarely coincidental, it was mandatory. I carried much of my own Naval experience over into refereeing Traveller.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

I would say that there is a range from the hard railroad and the infinite sandbox.

Hard Rails:
Linear, rigid and inflexible but simple to create . . .

Rarely ever used IMTU, unless there was a patron that they just HAD to meet in order to continue the scenario. Some standards, however, were of this sort: Nothing supernatural - no ghosts, zombies, vampires, demons, angels, et cetera. Of course, there were holograms, robots, leeches, sociopaths, "Florence Nightingales", and a host of other reality-based creatures to encounter.

Concealed Rails:
In this case the GM makes an effort to 'hide' the rails. The plot is still very linear but instead of driving the PC's down a linear corridor they are driven through a series of rooms

It depends. Certainly, there are situations that require undeviating passage from the bridge, to the corridor, to the ladderwell, to another corridor, and then to the engine room. But when exploring a seemingly abandoned settlement to find clues as to the disappearance of its inhabitants, the "decision tree" has many more branches - buildings to explore, journals to read, bloodstains to analyze, et cetera.

Checkpoints/Nodes:
. . . To advance the plot the PC's need to go through 'Nodes' but how they get to the nodes is entirely up to them.

This is how I usually ran things. In a mystery setting, all of the clues were presented, and it was up to the players to piece them together. In an adventure setting, the players could fight, flee, hide, negotiate, or surrender - each choice led to other opportunities, and it sometimes happened that I would have to call a quick time-out to make adjustments after the players had "fallen off the map".

Open World:
No limits for the PC's and a prematurely grey GM. Depending on how long their 'legs' are the PC's could go anywhere . . .

This is the impression that I kept trying to inspire. "Sure, you can go anywhere you want; but you'll need a ship of your own, and to get that, you need at least the down-payment. How many credits can you scrape up? Aw, too bad . . . well, maybe the local equivalent of 'Want Ads' might interest you at this time."

Of course bit can be mixed and matched - a sub plot may be 'concealed rails' placed inside a 'Node based game', and where the line is drawn between each 'stage' is very grey. But the extremes I would call no-go areas - Hard Rails annoy the PC's while Open world annoys the GM.

And that's the crux of the matter. Game balance involves more than just making sure that the players don't ignore the encumbrance rules and that they don't acquire infinite credit. It also involves a nudging the players through your pre-determined adventure while simultaneously giving them the illusion of free will.

 

[creativehum]

It also involves a nudging the players through your pre-determined adventure while simultaneously giving them the illusion of free will.

Unless one does not have a pre-determined adventure.
I don't use pre-determined adventures.

This is a preference on my part. But I really do prefer it!

 

[flykiller]

skill redundancy

ah. so multiple skill-sets, enabling characters to fully interface with most aspects of most situations.

could you post such a character as an example?

I carried much of my own Naval experience over into refereeing Traveller.

what was your naval experience?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

One can wing it, which has its own charms not the least of which is determining by play action what the player entertainment biome is, quite independent of the referee's prior conceptions.

I'm a wing-it person. I find out from players what kind of situation they would like to role-play in with a character that they already have in mind. I figure a way to put the situations together into a setting, and have my computer generate those characters for them. And we do a one-shot of it.

It's all character-driven. So there isn't much prep I have to do. And there is no pre-made adventure we follow.

 

[The Pakkrat]

The mark of a good Referee in Traveller is the ability to keep your players from being able to discern an adventure you have developed from the freedom from going sandbox. If you can wing-it, run the numbers behind the screen without giving away that you are winging it, your players will believe that you meant for their choices to take them down the path.

This is about flexibility. Free will of the characters to suddenly dump a mission, quest or other task is something your players will value in your role as a Referee. Delegate the Ship Operations to the players and watch as they become more committed to the task. Who wants the Captain to suddenly go off the rails after they've loaded the cargo hold with 80 tons of fertilizer for that needy Ag world?

So, the ship discovers a rogue comet. Mark it on the astrogation charts for exploration later. A sandbox can take any shape around an agreed-upon mission. Hold your players to the causality of their decisions to stay on-mission or to dump the Patron's contract.

Being flexible enough as the Referee to hide your frustration that an adventure, published or your development, is suddenly abandoned. Mark the causality of their choices in the backstage, backdrop, behind the screen and move on.

Example: I once laid a Zhodani Villain at the footstep of the players, one who was trying to change the Government of Zamine (Spinward Marches 0421) from Balkanized to Religious Dictator through the 'miracles' propagated through the use of psionics. The players didn't bite, despite the fact that the Bad Guy was only two Jump-3, six parsecs away and calling the shots on Zamine. The characters decided that they had had enough of curbing change on a Darrian Confederation world. I shrugged and let them move on to something else more to their liking, without letting them know my original intentions. 30 Darrian Aslan later, inserted onto Cunnonic (Spinward Marches 0822) and the players were none the wiser and fully happy to meet and chat with Darrian cultured Aslan warriors.

Stay sharp, be flexible, have a plan but ready for the other fork in the path of your players. Never let them see you sweat. Hope this helps.

From the Writer's Desk in orbit above Roethoeegaeaegz, this is the Pakkrat for Net-7 News.

Tomorrows news today! Net-7 News!

 

[Ulsyus]

This is about flexibility. Free will of the characters to suddenly dump a mission, quest or other task is something your players will value in your role as a Referee. Delegate the Ship Operations to the players and watch as they become more committed to the task. Who wants the Captain to suddenly go off the rails after they've loaded the cargo hold with 80 tons of fertilizer for that needy Ag world?

So, the ship discovers a rogue comet. Mark it on the astrogation charts for exploration later. A sandbox can take any shape around an agreed-upon mission. Hold your players to the causality of their decisions to stay on-mission or to dump the Patron's contract.

Flexibility: absolutely. The players should have the ability to make whatever decision they want, but just as in the mundane world they are subject to the consequences of their actions. Breaking a contract? If they want to. Then they can head off to wherever has taken their fancy, but sooner or later things are going to catch up with them, and they'll have to take their lumps.

 

[Lycanorukke]

Breaking a contract? If they want to. Then they can head off to wherever has taken their fancy, but sooner or later things are going to catch up with them, and they'll have to take their lumps.

As long as it is a 'natural' consequence of their action/inaction, and not just the GM having a snit that the PC's didn't do what he expected/wanted them to do.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

On this very website, buried deep in the past (well, July 7th, 2009 08:46 PM, to be exact), is a document titled "The Seven Adventure Components" by Flykiller. It is a very useful document for wrapping one's head around the meta-concepts of playing and refereeing Traveller.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/printthread.php?t=19934

I've kept a copy in my Ref's Folder, and review it occasionally to make sure that what I'm doing is more right than wrong.

I mean, pobody's nerfect, right?

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

ah. So multiple skill-sets, enabling characters to fully interface with most aspects of most situations. Could you post such a character as an example?

Any old character with background skills will do -- even Level-0 skills have ~72% chance of success under "Routine" circumstances (CT: Roll 2D for 8+ to succeed).

what was your naval experience?

6 years as an electronics technician, specializing in radio communications (including LOS, MARS and SATCOM), with training in internal comms, radar, security/surveillance systems and coffee-makers.

 

[flykiller]

Any old character with background skills will do

oh. for a "drive the action" character I was envisioning "drive the action" skills, rather than "along for the ride" skills. the reason I mentioned engineers is because the characters seldom are in any position to drive any game decisions, and often are run by players who pick that character for precisely that reason. ditto for medic and navigator (though miya could be quite an exception).

I found there are players who can be nothing but the leader, and there are players who can be nothing but followers, and there are players who will follow leaders but who blossom amazingly when alone and free to make decisions on their own.

6 years as an electronics technician

six years a nuke electrician's mate. dealt mostly in rust and soldering. once repaired a meter by soldering the movement back onto its wire mounts, got .80 accuracy out of it. the mechanics smashed it again, real hard to make sure it stayed down that time ....