Traveller and gamism/ narrativism/ simulationism

[Flynn]

Would this be one of those points where people should probably agree to disagree and move on to better topics?

Just curious,
Flynn

 

[Jeffr0]

Agreed.

 

[Flynn]

Mal,

You think you can do that, too?

-Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

With Jeff? Sure.

I think discussion of the main subject of the thread should be continued though, which basically I guess is "is it high time that Traveller decided what sort of gameplay style it supported, instead of trying to support everything at once?"

 

[Flynn]

So long as the discussion doesn't devolve into the same old arguments again, I'm sure it can continue.

Right now, though, as an outsider, I think there's a lot of voices in each camp, and I don't want it to come down to a shouting match again. Nothing's gained, and we all walk away thinking everyone else that doesn't agree with us is a jerk. Not cool.

Here's my two cents worth: If you think Traveller should be a certain way, start writing stuff to make it that way. It's free to produce a fanzine or a newsletter, so long as you follow the Fair Use Policies correctly. I don't think talk will be enough: action is what's called for. Lead by example, and if others like it, they'll follow and support it.

Or as they say down here in Texas, "Put your money where your mouth is..."

More later,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Well, I'm getting The Burning Wheel RPG soon, which is a narrative system (that has deliberate, nonrandom lifepath choice too). Assuming it's as good as it sounds, I think it would be an interesting exercise to adapt that to Traveller.

As for thinking Trav should be a certain way, well, I have already written a heck of a lot of stuff about how to make the Traveller universe more physically realistic. My money is firmly in my gob

.

 

[Flynn]

Burning Wheel looks like a D6 variant of the Storyteller System, at its core concept. Nice. I'd be curious as to how Instincts, etc., are designed, but all in all, it looks simple enough. Good luck with that project!

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Well, with Storyteller you roll a stat+skill dice vs a GM-defined difficulty number, and to succeed you usually need just one dice to be above that number.

With BW, it looks like you roll a number of d6s equal to your stat vs fixed difficulty numbers (2,3 or 4), but to succeed at tasks you need to get a certain number of those dice above those numbers.

A subtle difference, but it's an important one I think.

I think it might be interesting to come up with lifepaths for Traveller though. I'm getting Monster Burner too, which lifts up the hood of the system and tells you how to design everything and exactly how all the mechanics work together (which is a very cool idea), so that should help.

 

[Flynn]

It still boils down to rolling a set of dice against a target number, and counting up successes. Same core concept.

(And in the old ST, you still counted successes to determine degree of success. In the new ST, you have a fixed difficulry (8). Either way, it doesn't change the core concept, only the mechanic behind how the number of dice are selected and what difficulty you are looking for.)

That should be a lot of fun, though.

Good luck,
Flynn

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

I think discussion of the main subject of the thread should be continued though, which basically I guess is "is it high time that Traveller decided what sort of gameplay style it supported, instead of trying to support everything at once?"

Why does Traveller have to decide to support one style of play over the others? Does D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e, AD&D 3e, and AD&D 3.5 focus it's supplements, adventures, rules on one style over the others? Isn't that up to the players and referee of a particular game to decide whether it is narrativism, gamism, or simulationism in focus? Each RPG and all RPG's have some elements of each style in them. If a gamism focus player isn't having fun in the ref's simulationism focus game he can leave and find another game more to his tastes or create it himself for others to enjoy. Traveller doesn't try to support everything at once any more or less so than D&D, AD&D, etc. or other RPG's do. Not everybody likes D&D, not everybody likes Traveller, not everybody likes Vampire: the Masquerade, not everybody likes GURPS, etc., etc., etc. If you don't like a particular rules system, pick another. If the game doesn't have enough narrativism in it for your tastes, create a setting, world, whatever, and then seek players through the RPG forum boards. There are several online to choose from. IMO, if Traveller (or any RPG rule system) was to emphasize one style, in it's supplements, adventures, etc., and exclude the others then it would loose 2/3 of it's potential player/referee pool.

I don't see the problem you purport to exist.

 

[Malenfant]

Well, I see Traveller's vagueness and inconsistency as the problem.

We've got one universe here. CT, MT, and TNE all describe the same universe in chronological order, even if they use have different systems to do it. T20 and GURPS both describe the CT universe but use different systems (and sometimes different approaches). T4 and GT:IW describe the same universe as CT, but way back in time, and with different systems too.

Some of those systems and settings involve simulationist approaches, and others involve narrativist approaches, and others involve some gamist approaches. The net result is that although we have one universe here, the difference in approaches leads to MASSIVE inconsistencies and contradictions between how different people see it.

To wit: The different approaches with trade - a realistic approach taking into account all the variables and then figuring out how that affects the PCs (GT) vs "the background is irrelevant, just do focus on what's relevant to the small-scale/PCs" (CT).

Or the different approaches to worldbuilding - a realistic approach taking into account the system's history and evolution (GT) vs an unrealistic "realism doesn't matter, so long as it pretends to be realistic and makes for an interesting setting" approach (CT).

Or character generation - a choice- and point-based system where the player has full control over the character's evolution (GT), or a random 'take whatever life throws at you and put up with it' approach where the player has little (if any) control over the character (CT), vs something that's a mix of both (T20).

Or the settings: "Eke out an existence as a trader or mercenary and do Crime for patrons" (CT/GT/T20) vs "Struggle to survive in the Civil War and Hard Times" (MT) vs "Rebuild society no matter the cost after the Collapse and make a difference to the universe" (TNE).

Or the approaches: a narrative approach concentrating on themes and morality (e.g. TNE) vs a simulationist 'go out and do stuff and deal with the universe as it is' approach (e.g. CT/GT) vs 'the cinematic option where we just care about cool stuff that the PCs do and never mind the deep stuff" (T20/CT).

A bit of a simplification in many cases here, but you get the point. There's a big range of stuff there.

I don't think this range of options is a good thing - given that this all describes the same universe, it's an incoherent, inconsistent, untidy mess - especially where system differences are involved. It just means we spend our time arguing with eachother about which interpretation of the various rules applies to the OTU - which is crazy since everyone playing in the 3I setting is supposedly playing in the same universe (small differences between individual games notwithstanding).

I just think that the various strands of Traveller need to be brought together consolidated and made consistent. Quite apart from everything else, it'd make it clearer what sort of setting the OTU actually is - a cinematic, gung-ho space opera a la Star Wars? Or a gritty, realistic universe? Narrative or Simulationist?

 

[jonathonbarton]

One one Three Ring Binder To Rule Them All?

I don't think this range of options is a good thing - given that this all describes the same universe

It doesn't.
Forgive the oversimplification, but a "Universe" describes a 4 dimensional space, and in the case of Traveller, it has 5 dimensions.
You're leaving out the dimension of *TIME*, both in terms of the development of the game's universe *and* the development of the rules' universe.

Traveller is a handful of separate games, with separate rules, played out against a common official background, which may or may not have 'internal consistency' with the other versions of the game. Naturally, YMMV. There are plenty of background elements that can be transferred from one to another, but it's unfair to expect a cohesive whole to be made from material that's been written over a period approaching 30 years, and covering hundreds of years of game-time.

I don't see how it's an unfair comparison to say that updating 'Research Station Gamma' to T20 would be any harder or easier than updating 'The Village of Hommlet' to D&D20 3.5...

I just think that the various strands of Traveller need to be brought together consolidated and made consistent. Quite apart from everything else, it'd make it clearer what sort of setting the OTU actually is - a cinematic, gung-ho space opera a la Star Wars? Or a gritty, realistic universe? Narrative or Simulationist?

Um...when?

*That* is the point I was trying to make earlier...

Traveller *IS* all of that stuff, and more...
It's Space Opera, *and* gritty and realistic.
It's "Let's fight the Klingons" *and* "Let's save the Siefert System"
...and it's up to *YOU*, the GM, to pick and choose which (of the 3 elements you're discussing) you want to emphasize.

Additionally, you keep talking about GNS this, GNS that...and reading the document you referred...well, I get the impression that GNS is 99% Rules Agnostic anyway... They are merely styles of play that players derive more or less enjoyment from participating in... Meaning that it's UP TO YOU, (not the game designers) to determine whether your campaign is G, N, or S primarily. Based on what I read, the intent is that you can run ANY of those gamestyles with ANY system, and that document is a discussion of what those styles are, so that you can run, or play in, a game that most suits your style, thus maximizing your fun on any given Friday...

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Well, I see Traveller's vagueness and inconsistency as the problem.

We've got one universe here. CT, MT, and TNE all describe the same universe in chronological order, even if they use have different systems to do it. T20 and GURPS both describe the CT universe but use different systems (and sometimes different approaches). T4 and GT:IW describe the same universe as CT, but way back in time, and with different systems too.

Some of those systems and settings involve simulationist approaches, and others involve narrativist approaches, and others involve some gamist approaches. The net result is that although we have one universe here, the difference in approaches leads to MASSIVE inconsistencies and contradictions between how different people see it.

To me this is not a problem, it is an asset. Having different "Traveller" systems, some with a narrative focus, some with a simulation focus presents to the potential player/ ref a choice of which system he is most comfortable with and more in tune to his particular style/focus to play Traveller's OTU in which every time setting (Golden Age, New Era, etc.) he chooses.

To wit: The different approaches with trade - a realistic approach taking into account all the variables and then figuring out how that affects the PCs (GT) vs "the background is irrelevant, just do focus on what's relevant to the small-scale/PCs" (CT).

Or the different approaches to worldbuilding - a realistic approach taking into account the system's history and evolution (GT) vs an unrealistic "realism doesn't matter, so long as it pretends to be realistic and makes for an interesting setting" approach (CT).

Or character generation - a choice- and point-based system where the player has full control over the character's evolution (GT), or a random 'take whatever life throws at you and put up with it' approach where the player has little (if any) control over the character (CT), vs something that's a mix of both (T20).

Or the settings: "Eke out an existence as a trader or mercenary and do Crime for patrons" (CT/GT/T20) vs "Struggle to survive in the Civil War and Hard Times" (MT) vs "Rebuild society no matter the cost after the Collapse and make a difference to the universe" (TNE).

Or the approaches: a narrative approach concentrating on themes and morality (e.g. TNE) vs a simulationist 'go out and do stuff and deal with the universe as it is' approach (e.g. CT/GT) vs 'the cinematic option where we just care about cool stuff that the PCs do and never mind the deep stuff" (T20/CT).

This is really no different than deciding if you want a high magic v. low magic, low level v. high level, gunpowder v. no gunpowder, G/N/S focused AD&D game. The ref makes a few assumptions about the type/style of game he wants to run then tries to find players that will enjoy it. And a good ref will add a few examples of style elements some of his players desire even if he originally didn't incorporate it into the game.

A bit of a simplification in many cases here, but you get the point. There's a big range of stuff there.

I don't think this range of options is a good thing - given that this all describes the same universe, it's an incoherent, inconsistent, untidy mess - especially where system differences are involved. It just means we spend our time arguing with eachother about which interpretation of the various rules applies to the OTU - which is crazy since everyone playing in the 3I setting is supposedly playing in the same universe (small differences between individual games notwithstanding).

To me every RPG has a wide range of options and possibilities only limited by imagination. Each RPG has the potential to cover a wide range of stuff, even things it's authors didn't originally envision. All RPG's present a game mechanic(s) on how to resolve conflict, usually combat. If they don't then they are not a game but interactive story-telling. I haven't seen people arguing about which Traveller rule system (CT, MT, T20, etc.) is the final, perfect, correct, proper game system to play in the OTU.

I just think that the various strands of Traveller need to be brought together consolidated and made consistent. Quite apart from everything else, it'd make it clearer what sort of setting the OTU actually is - a cinematic, gung-ho space opera a la Star Wars? Or a gritty, realistic universe? Narrative or Simulationist?

To me it is pretty clear. Overall the OTU is a cinematic space opera but not nearly as "heroic" as Star Wars. It can be that way if the players/ref desires or if they desire grit then the ref can add as much "realism" as is necessary.

You see limitations and seem to want to focus/fret on your (IMO) misperceptions. I see opportunities and try to embrace them.

Generally, I get the sense (based on this and other posts, even ones in different forums) that the various Traveller rulesets nor the OTU is not "realistic, hard science" enough for your personal tastes.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Well, with Storyteller you roll a stat+skill dice vs a GM-defined difficulty number, and to succeed you usually need just one dice to be above that number.

With BW, it looks like you roll a number of d6s equal to your stat vs fixed difficulty numbers (2,3 or 4), but to succeed at tasks you need to get a certain number of those dice above those numbers.

A subtle difference, but it's an important one I think.

Recent storyteller games are Stat+skill d10's vs (6+, 7+, or 8+, specific setting dependant), for a number of successful dice exceeding a difficulty number.

Old WOD, like 1st ed Vampire, the system screams about humanity, and the setting about angst. It's a "Classic" narrativist approach.

CT core was, by my interpretation (from the article as it appears in the Sorcerer RPG) mostly gamist, with some simulationist bits, and some good story hooks added in supplements; narratavism in games was not yet common. The Trade system is a gamist-narrativist: It provides hooks for telling stories, and provided a "winnable" minigame. The Starship combat is realistic but far from simulationist; the ships are badly un-natural.

Expanded CT (Bks 1-8, Supps, AM's, games) adds lots more gamist elements, and some more simulationist elements.

MT adds a lot of narrativism: More cascades means more control over skill receipts. A much more simulationist combat system, admittedly, but a more streamlined narrativist-gamist blend for T&C (Keep it simple, keep it quick, don't worry about realism; this was cribbed from expanded CT). The overriding thematic hammer is a grim one, but is a strong part of the texts. The idea of long term campaigns and character growth finally take hold

TNE continues the slide towards both simulationism, and to narrativism. Even more control over CG, more detailed and realistic design sequences, a much more simulationist approach to travel (CT and MT's fuel-less thrust is good for story, lame for simulation, and a bit gamist, too...). The distinction Between PC/MajorNPC vs Minor NPC's and Spearchuckers is a clear part of the system

T4 drops straight back towards the mostly CT Gamism... and then has rules which don't work well for gamists (not ballanced) and are fairly intrusive to narrative flow (Rolling lots of dice and the TOTALLING), and the simulationists didn't like it much either, cause, while you could generate the details, you couldn't use them.


Now, envision a triangular grid, with edges 7 units on a side; the hole of traveller has always been sliding around that central point, usually within 2 steps: The point that generally pleases the fewest.

MT hit a fairly good balance for me, being elegant enough to not impede the story flow... and enough simulationsim where I want it. I want combat to be simulationist and gamist, and capable of scaling up to a wargame seamlessly, since I don't muck with combats; the dice fall where they may.

That's why I liked WFRP1: I could drop back to WFB or Mordheim to resolve large fights, and have fully compatible results.

I loved MT both as a decent tactical ground wargame and a good roleplaying engine, with enough gamist elements and narrativist elements for my tastes.

Remember, useing real world formulae doesn't make it simulationist. Using real world limitations, that's simulationism.

 

[Malenfant]

I agree, MT was pretty good in that regard. The TNE setting was also excellent for exploring themes and morality and character concepts revolving around those.

I think Traveller really could do with veering toward the narrative side... a lot of people seem to play it a such anyway, but the system generally just doesn't do a damn thing to support that.

 

[robject]

Agree about TNE. David Nilsen knows how to weave good storylines with high-quality issues.

 

[aramis]

Robject, mal, and I all in agreement? (Checks out window to see if world still there.)

The gamist parts of CT were often softened in MT. Tactical pools softened the striker-derived and HG-derived combat systems. Borwnie points for advanced CG. (Some Gm's allowed it in basic CG.) Lots more cascades, more choices, and thus more control.

The problem is that none of the systems is really strongly ANY... most gamers want a blend primarily along one side or another.

 

[MetalBard]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I agree, MT was pretty good in that regard. The TNE setting was also excellent for exploring themes and morality and character concepts revolving around those.

I think Traveller really could do with veering toward the narrative side... a lot of people seem to play it a such anyway, but the system generally just doesn't do a damn thing to support that.

Well, once you get Burning Wheel and digest it all, you could always whip up some Traveller life-paths. Some people have already used Burning Wheel for sci-fi, so it may be interesting to see how it works for something that seems like it may have influenced it a bit. I'd be interested to see it.

Then again, I'm pretty happy with messing around with my T20 book and having a narrativist-minded group. Sometimes all you need is the GM supporting player initiative in a game to make something narrativist.

 

[Malenfant]

Still reading BW (there's a lot to get through!)...

The core system looks pretty darn cool (sorta like DP9's Silhouette, but on steroids). Haven't started on the Character Burner yet though, but once I've digested that I may give it a go.

Hm. Three people at least here who have heard of Burning Wheel...

 

[xdiox]

Luke Crane ran a one shot called "Under a serpent sun" which was a weird far future scenario using a BW varient that he devised. Here's a link:http://www.nerdnyc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13852.
BW also has it's own board that alot of good people are on.http://www.burningwheel.org/