the game

[Hyphen]

he mentions that he worked for steve jackson games. I stare at him - you worked for steve jackson games?

"yes, I even have my name in the credits for one of the books, first in I think. I really liked the game and the company."

Playtester?
William Barnett-Lewis, Anthony Jackson.
Jonathan Lang, Robert Prior. Hans Rancke-Madsen,
Thomas Schoene. Robert Stefko. David Summers,
Christopher Thrash, Philip Weiss. and Paul Whiteley

Out of these guys, is he Jonathan, Thomas, Robert, David, or Paul? ;-)

 

[Hyphen]

they're interested in trade. ok. uh, then you'll want to stop at alell first. I glance over my ash-thin preps for alell. law level C, ouch, but the players are not interested they just want to get in and out. trade negotiations commence, I'm looking up the cargo tables in lbb2. they all have some personal money and they get into fairly involved discussions about what to do and how to pack it. I sit watching fascinated at their interest in it, I did not anticipate this.

on to knorbes...

HOW DID THEY GET OUT OF ALELL???

It took us an entire gaming session to obtain our Exit Visa!!! ;-)

 

[flykiller]

"I had the sense that they got tired of the Referee ... essentially saying 'No,' to everything they tried to do."

"stalling"

"fondness for dealing in bureaucratic red tape"

"overly logical"

"wanted to do what they wanted to do"

"not have a coherent (entity) imposing its will on them"

"acting on impulses and desires"

"far away from any enforcement mechanisms"

"for most other groups, something, anything, has to happen now"

"too much 'authority' in the setting ... seems odd to me"

"me. sword. cave. monsters. dice. go."

"it's all about the fun"



in literature one observes the acronym "m.i.c.e." - milieu, idea, character, event - describing the structure of any story. the story consists of characters living in a milieu engaging in various actions in pursuit of one or more ideas relevant to them and that milieu. typically these structural features are balanced in some manner - too much milieu is a travelogue while too little is void, too much idea is preachy while too little is meaningless, too much character is solipsistic while too little is abstract, too many events is overwhelming while too few is inert.

role-playing game adventures (stories) are similar in structure, except that while in literature one must take the story as it stands, in rpg's the player character, defined in terms of the milieu and its ideation, is the primary driver of events. action is the realm of the player.

action that has a reward comes to be seen as the player's goal. the reward may include mere action itself - an addictive thrill.

initially the player functions within the definitions of the milieu and its ideas and its characters. "this is the game." some players remain within the milieu framework, but most eventually see the game in terms of their actions and the excitement this brings - the rush - and begin to see the game structure as restrictive of those actions and denying of that rush. the goal of the game becomes the rush, irrespective of milieu structure. the rpg itself fades.

the player ceases to wish to be a character with reasons adventuring within the setting, rather he wishes action, just action, any action. the setting and character become an excuse, the setting and character are stripped to the bare bones necessary to give some minimal human comprehension and minimal human credence to the action, and anything more is "enforcement mechanisms" and "bureaucratic red tape". the rpg itself - its milieu, inhabitants, ideation - disappears. "wanted to do what they wanted to do" becomes "the fun".

"me. tool. arena. adversaries. dice. go."

like a video game. point and shoot. anywhere, with anything, at anything, for no particular reason.

while d&d and star wars and all their variants and clones cater well to this rpg-lite action-heavy approach (and have from the beginning), the milieu of traveller does not appear to have much of a future in such an environment. a swordsman facing twenty goblins or junior dark side apprentices is one thing, but an ordinary man with a shotgun facing twenty ordinary opponents with shotguns is quite another matter altogether. traveller (as most semi-realistic versions stand) simply is not well-suited to heroic high-velocity high-thrill events with high success rates, and a player character that dies or fails or merely must follow the rules of his milieu rather than operate freely as an outsider independently of it and above it and in spite of it simply does not provide what most players look for. and as for a series of one-offs attracting players to the game and enabling the forming of groups that will then participate in campaigns, it's clear that this won't happen - most players seek, or come to seek, not an rpg, but rather action for its own sake, and as soon as the action slows then most players will move on to an activity that provides more action.

"that game where you can die in chargen" becomes "boring".

during a break the marine colonel player described a recent ... "game system" ... so totally free-form that the players make up their powers as they go along. the referee appeared to be little more than a bystander, or perhaps a therapist guide. "how do you feel?" this appears to be the future of gaming.

perhaps it always was.

 

[Whipsnade]

like a video game. point and shoot. anywhere, with anything, at anything, for no particular reason.

That's your competition, Fly. If you choose to ignore that fact, you do so at your own peril.

Yeah, a lot of video games are little more than mindless FPS action scenarios linked in only the most cursory fashion. There are many video games, however, which have immersive play with intricate, long lasting, plot lines.

Want to guess which of those two most people play first? Want to guess why they play them first?

You weren't just introducing people to a new rules set and a game they'd never played, you were introducing them to a different way of playing. The learning curve was too steep and the perceived rewards weren't worth the effort.

Once they were settled, once they bought into the idea, once they were a cohesive group, that's when you could begin introducing nuanced and/or "delayed gratification" play. Having them roll every 3 game days only to announce "You don't find anything..." doesn't get the job done and it doesn't matter that you explained the problem to them.

You had to sell them on Traveller first. Selling them on Traveller-style play needed to come much much later.

Once they expressed interest in salvaging equipment from battlefields you should have started that immediately. Instead of "Okay, find a cargo so you can fly from A to B to C to D to wherever and then begin to begin to begin looking..." it should have been "I'm Patron X. I salvage equipment from battlefields. I have a job one parsec from here. I have a ship. I need a crew"

After that events should occur bing-bam-boom...

"Let's go meet a contact of mine who has some coordinates we need..." (Where they bump into Bad Guys and shouting, fisticuffs, or shooting occurs.)

"Let's get some spec cargo, freight, and pax aboard to defray some of the travel costs..." (Where the economic system gets used.)

"Once we unload, we need to get out to Gas Giant X soonest 'cause an independent scout I hired it waiting there with some sensor surveys we can use..." (Where, of course, they bump into More Bad Guys and fight a space battle.)

"Excellent! With the co-ordinates and surveys we know now exactly where to jump!" (Where the players get to start poking around the wrecks.)

No "This week in jump space...". No "You've searched for 3 days so you can roll now..." None of that. Nothing but bing, bang, and boom.

Simple? You betcha. Mindless? You betcha. Little more than "Me. Tool. Arena. Adversaries. Dice. Go"? You betcha.

Will it keep their attention and keep them playing long enough to learn how to play differently?

You betcha.

I can run all of Chamax Plague in under two hours with an experienced group of players. All of it. Intercepting the pinnace, negotiating with InStarSpec, taking the NPCs to Chamax, landing, searching, fighting, all of it in two hours with an experienced group of players.

When I run Plague at a FLGS game night, I've got more than two hours but I'd never run the entire adventure. Never. I've got the keep their attention. I've got to sell them on the game.

Accordingly, I start with the Mudshark already landed on Chamax with the PCs ready to open the airlock and step out.

Bing. Bang. Boom.

 

[creativehum]

As someone who was quoted several times in flykiller's last post, I feel compelled to point out his summation is utterly alien to me. He's free to draw whatever line from A to B he wants... but the B he reaches is not one I recognize.

All of this...

the player ceases to wish to be a character with reasons adventuring within the setting, rather he wishes action, just action, any action. the setting and character become an excuse, the setting and character are stripped to the bare bones necessary to give some minimal human comprehension and minimal human credence to the action, and anything more is "enforcement mechanisms" and "bureaucratic red tape". the rpg itself - its milieu, inhabitants, ideation - disappears. "wanted to do what they wanted to do" becomes "the fun".

"me. tool. arena. adversaries. dice. go."

like a video game. point and shoot. anywhere, with anything, at anything, for no particular reason.

while d&d and star wars and all their variants and clones cater well to this rpg-lite action-heavy approach (and have from the beginning), the milieu of traveller does not appear to have much of a future in such an environment. a swordsman facing twenty goblins or junior dark side apprentices is one thing, but an ordinary man with a shotgun facing twenty ordinary opponents with shotguns is quite another matter altogether. traveller (as most semi-realistic versions stand) simply is not well-suited to heroic high-velocity high-thrill events with high success rates, and a player character that dies or fails or merely must follow the rules of his milieu rather than operate freely as an outsider independently of it and above it and in spite of it simply does not provide what most players look for. and as for a series of one-offs attracting players to the game and enabling the forming of groups that will then participate in campaigns, it's clear that this won't happen - most players seek, or come to seek, not an rpg, but rather action for its own sake, and as soon as the action slows then most players will move on to an activity that provides more action.

... is nonsensical to my experience with any RPG sessions that I referee and the desires of most of the people I have ever played with.

 

[mike wightman]

Consider this:
the proto-Traveller Spinward Marches is a frontier sector far away from the decadent, declining 3I proper.
It is rife with rebels, greedy megacorps exploiting locals, corrupt local Imperial officials, hostile aliens, inter-planetary disputes, alien ruins, pirates.
It is planet of the week adventure where a group of PCs can carve out their own future.
It is dangerous and you need your wits about you.

This is the setting that got me interested in the OTU.

The 3I later became - a Spinward Marches that has been settled for 800 years and there are Imperial ships all over the place to such an extent it is preposterous to try anything 'ethically challenged'.
My point - as people developed the setting it became boring because they got it 'wrong' for players.

They wanted the 3I and so turned the SM from a frontier rife with adventure into a microcosm of the core 3I worlds.

What should have been done was to detail the Imperial core sectors (and later writers missed some important key facts about the 3I core worlds) and leave the frontier alone.

TL;DR version, the golden age 3I became boring as a setting.

 

[rhialto]

While Traveller is definitely closer to the side of the scale of "normal folks in extraordinary situations" rather than the "extraordinary folks in extraordinary situations" it can still be "heroic", and not "boring". My players have always engaged with the milieu to the point of carrying the game after a certain point. But that may simply be an artifact of a well-established group, but one which had next to zero experience with Traveller before I offered to run. I don't think it's as gloomy as you've spelled out, but more upfront work would be needed to establish the shared understanding of what "the game" will be like, hopefully resulting in a better experience for all.

 

[Barsanuphius]

Guys, you're overlooking the obvious here.

Traveller players are just much more intelligent and imaginative than D&D players

Ever so very true!

 

[Barsanuphius]

As for me Fly, I was hooked on every bit of your summary. I can see some issues but it seems like some were player and some referee. The players were all younger and used to DM control rules and Video game style play. Even the Lesbian Dragon. I do think that there may not have been enough offered by the Ref. Such as suggestion as how to proceed. T trial/practice combat runs, they enjoyed as much as we made a killing in cash/trades. Even Pilot, was like " I guess I roll up another Character, You should have given him that and kept the trial combat as a part of the adventure. His new character could have been somewhere trapped in the derelict. :coffeesip: He seemed eager to make a character for his-self, instead of one you gave him. You wanted creativity yet limited that in this regards. Just my thought.

 

[robject]

"It's Traveller, the classic version, so more role-ing than rolling. I'll have pre-gens. Any PC you bring must be okayed by me. The game will about A, B, & C, so any character you bring should be able to do X, Y, & Z."

I'll pitch the Traveller rules as a whole during the tightly focused session. They'll be busily killing Chamax on Raschev, driving an ATV across the Brightside, or boarding the Kinunir while I'll be answering questions about psionics, trade, mercs, aliens, and whatnot. I'll even have copies of the books for people to thumb through. The game on the table, however, is exactly what I previously told everyone it was going to be.

During the breaks or after the session, if someone says "I'd like more of X..." I'll point out that more of X is completely possible in Traveller - just not in this particular session.

This is how I run games at NTRPG-Con. It works because it's focused and the players have at least a passing familiarity with Traveller. But yeah, campaigns require a group of friends.

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

Ever so very true!

Nothing has changed in 40 years. Flykiller could've been talking about one of the games I tried to run for D&D players. The only difference is, back then, they would've at least heard of Traveller.

 

[Spenser TR]

... experience with any RPG sessions that I referee and the desires of most of the people I have ever played with.

I'll echo CH's sentiment above; my own experience with Traveller players ( whether I knew them before or not ) is that they are open to more nuanced, less-action-packed gaming that explores roles, situation, and setting. Maybe part of that is my influence as a Ref - the part that matters most when I'm doing a sort of pick-up game or working to get a campaign together and draw players - and partly the kind of person drawn to Traveller to begin with.

If I have to work hard to make the game seem fun just because there's no XP payoff, combat is so deadly, and everything's not a stand-up fight... those people were never really my players to begin with. I was just borrowing them for a while while we all came to understand that. I don't feel for a moment all DnD players are hack-and-slash attention-problem peeps, or that DnD players can't enjoy Traveller.

 

[Welf]

Finding a nice group with random people is quite hard. Everyone has their own ideas of how the game has to work and what fun is.
Playing mostly online via roll20 showed exactly that: A lot of players are interested, but everyone has their own, very different expectations. Most games of a certain type on roll20 I experienced had exactly the same problem as flykiller and disintegrated because of those different player expectations. One wanted to kill and shoot every NPC that moves, the next one expected intrigues behind every corner or wanted to be the one that started those and another one just wanted something totally different.

The type of game I am speaking of are those, where the group never talked about the way they wanted to play and just started off - combat heavy? role-play heavy? Just to name two possibilites (which are not mutually exclusive).

In comparison when I am doing the gm job, there are three points that are quite important when forming a group:
Firstly: I will talk to the group about how things should be going and tell them to give feedback. A nice talk before character creation about the way the game is meant to work resulted either in functional groups or the group not even starting, because everyone realised, they didn't even want to play the same type of game. If the group on the other hand found a mutual understanding I rarely saw groups falling apart afterwards. Especially if feedback is given after sessions if someone had a problem with something or was impressed.
Secondly: When starting a campaign you can just talk to the people you are looking for from the start. "Hey, i want to start a Traveller campaign, rules light, big focus on role-playing, thinking about some kind of smuggler-campaign in a nice sandbox where you can do what you want and decide for your own." Those few infos alone give most of the players some idea if your campaign is really the thing they want to play or if it isn't. If they are unsure they will start to ask questions and both of you will see, if it's the same type of game you want to play.
Thirdly: Don't assume new players know what Traveller or any other game you want to play with them is about. Because firstly: Every game can be played extremly differently. For some D&D might be the Hack & Slay type of game, others might be just roleplaying, almost never taking the d20 into their hand. And secondly: They don't know what's special about Traveller mechanics.
Ask them what they know about role playing games and what they associate with it. What do they associate with traveller? Nothing because it's totally new? Explain them the differences to things they know!
There is no looting and leveling like in D&D? Tell them! It's important, because otherwise they might be disappointed when jumping into the game. Nothing is worse than destroying someones expectations - because most won't like it. But if you tell them "Hey, this is a different kind of game than you know" they are more likely to get into it. Or realise that it's not their thing and won't even start instead of disappearing into nowhere after a few sessions.

In one sentence:
Just don't expect random people to have the same vision of the game like you do.

But having a different vision of the game at the beginning doesn't mean you can't change that.

 

[Welf]

A simple thing can help to establish working groups: Don't expect other players to have the same vision of a game as you do. It's very important to talk to the players before. What is your vision of Traveller? What is the difference when you compare it to other games? And most imporantly: Are all players good with this idea or want to at least try this idea out?

Groups that worked out a long time were either with friends where everyone knew they had comparable ideas what the game should be about (in comparison some of my friends don't have the same idea as me and playing together results in total disaster for at least one side ) or groups, where this consent was established at the beginning.
Talk to people what you expect and want to play and see if they can, at least, think that your way will be fun for them too. If that is not the case they won't even join and you don't get a new player, that will leave without a trace after a few sessions. Or all of you can agree on a way that fits everyone. If not: Maybe it's not worth starting.

In most cases it's easy to adjust everyones expectations if you have a group-talk before the first actual game and discuss, what it is you are going to play.
In comparison people get disappointed if they realise during the first few sessions that their expectations are not met. They will just sit there and ask themselves "What the heck of a game am I playing here? That's not how this should work."

A lot of frustration can be avoided by talking before starting a group. And from my experience even those people, that have a very different vision of the game at first, can be motivated to play your vision. But to get that going they have to understand that this vision exists.

 

[Barsanuphius]

Nothing has changed in 40 years. Flykiller could've been talking about one of the games I tried to run for D&D players. The only difference is, back then, they would've at least heard of Traveller.

Ah so it's an issue then of Marketing. :coffeesip:

During the 1980's and 1990's the Video Console Gaming Systems were beginning to pick up speed. The main competitors were Atari, Colico Vision, Sega and Nintendo, later Sony entered. Colico Vision died first. Atari struggled to produce anything really different. They had like four systems and not much improvement. Died. Sega lost to Nintendo. Perhaps the best graphics and games. Nintendo sold more. Like became the household name. Until Sony Play Station, and now XBox by Microsft.

D and D is a household name. Traveller once was also. What happened? The devil was not interested in Traveller. As Traveller was never accused of having been associated with Satanism like d&d was in the late 1980's due to teen death during "live" role playing. Negative attention is still attention.

Two things to keep in mind. One, D&D has had perhaps better marketing in general. This game also grew into a more simplified versions as it progressed into each generation of the game. Two, I'm not attempting to say anything negative about the marketing of either product. I am just stating what I understand of marketing concepts and what becomes a household name.

Let ask this, how many know the name MacDonald's? Now, who knows the name, Carl's jr.? or even Jack-in-the-Box? All three are burger franchise chains. MacDonald's is known worldwide. It even has a negative attention associated to it. I've never heard anything negative with Carl's jr. or Jack-in-the-box. I also have never seen one of those or have eaten there. Carl's jr. is from the South East US, and Jack--Box is a West Coast US. I live in the North East. I only know of them from small sources. Like the one or two people who ask, "Isn't that the game that you could die in Char-Gen?"

I could go on to more examples of Branding and Marketing successes, but I doubt I have too. Marc Miller has a wonderful and excellent game universe and a great game engine product. D & D, good universe and not a great game engine, but a simpler one. However as I find Traveller to be superior to D&D in many, many ways, I was 18 when I first encounter Traveller I was 12 for D & D (AD & D). Even though they been around basically same time, D & D is available at every game store. What system is promoted/marketed better? ...need I say more.?

 

[creativehum]

Ah so it's an issue then of Marketing.

I have no idea how marketing fits into this discussion. What is the "issue" at hand? How is marketing the issue?

 

[Barsanuphius]

I have no idea how marketing fits into this discussion. What is the "issue" at hand? How is marketing the issue?

Originally Posted by LiNeNoiSe View Post
Nothing has changed in 40 years...The only difference is, back then, they would've at least heard of Traveller.

So, It was just the point...TSR/Wizards of the Cost/Hasbro, were simply better at Marketing...When nearly no one has heard of you and you have been around for forty years, just as long as a competitor, whom everyone has heard of, it is a case of Marketing and promotion. One Marketing plan worked, one did not. just how it is.

The unfortunate part is Traveller seems more like a hobby than a business. Were D & D is a business. If every 3 to 6 months you release another useless book for $45. (WOC). In my opinion, Traveller has become a hobby business more than a cold product run, sell the books get the cash, change the system, sell the books get the money, change the system, sell the rights to another company, who'll do the same thing. We can now live in Palm Springs and not write books for geeks anymore.

 

[Condottiere]

You have to identify the primary cash cow in your business.

 

[Spenser TR]

A lot of frustration can be avoided by talking before starting a group. And from my experience even those people, that have a very different vision of the game at first, can be motivated to play your vision. But to get that going they have to understand that this vision exists.

This is key, for me. I'm at this very stage now with the new group.

And as to "marketing," I think there can absolutely be a micro-marketing component to what you do as a Referee looking to get a game together. Tell a story, excite your potential "consumers" with choice narrative and exciting questions they'll want to answer through play and contribution. Those early flyers, posts, or conversations can be instrumental at getting a group to the table to discuss the campaign, as above.

 

[Thanos]

I have no idea how marketing fits into this discussion. What is the "issue" at hand? How is marketing the issue?

I can see it. It would be a very minor part of the issue. Here’s my take. Because there is relatively little to no marketing for Traveller the general population isn’t aware of it and its take on character creation etc. Traveller’s take on RPGs is very different than that of D&D and Pathfinder. If those are the only two RPGs you’ve played or are even aware of, Traveller’s take is probably gonna take a little getting used to.

Also I blame video games. Don’t get me wrong I love video games but if that’s all you’re used to or if it’s your base line anything that doesn’t let you mow down hundreds of mooks at a time is going to be considered restrictive.