Who's interested in a living campaign?
- Thread starter AndreaV
- Start date
There are at least two different meanings for the term...
version 1: a system of adventures and organized play where characters are portable from one GM to another, with rewards and experience earned intact. This is the old TSR and Wizards model.
version 2: a system of adventures where feedback is provided to a central source, and later adventures are developed based upon the feedback from a variety of groups. This is the Torg model.
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see a version of a living campaign where all evolutions of Traveller were supported. So a universal Traveller living campaign. Regardless of what version you play, you can get involved. Perhaps even work out a method of character cross-system portability.
EDIT: Or even a method where the different Traveller versions play out separate parts of the overall story arc, at times converging and influencing each other.
EDIT: Or even a method where the different Traveller versions play out separate parts of the overall story arc, at times converging and influencing each other.
Last edited:
Given that even the physics differ in the different editions... not bloody likely.
But you could use a single set of rules for gaming in the eras associated with each edition. It means getting rid of HePLaR and fusion drives and J2 drives that only use 15% of tonnage fuel and Book2 designs, etc., but I'm fine with that.
Hans
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
I'd go for version two. What I would envision is more of a player submission driven model where the "universe" grows in coherent detail. Planets, systems, ships, equipment, grow in detail along with 'smart' systems that support play (now that we have networked computers available). This would eliminate much of the administrative burden of running a game leaving more time for players to interact and for the moderator / referee to mold the scenario without having to do massive, and tedious, background work.
It would also mean over time that players could begin to incorporate their characters and their history into an overall Traveller world that would become more 'realistic' in terms of its history.
V2 is only possible really with the support of either Mongoose, SJG or FFE. You need a licencee to follow the campaign
V2 is only possible really with the support of either Mongoose, SJG or FFE. You need a licencee to follow the campaign
Enoki's vision of version 2 would help if supported by a publisher, but it's not required. The community is not breaching any licenses if it creates adventures and such for a living campaign. It's just not going to be a canonising story arc.
A way I could see it working in the universal Traveller format is like this:
1) Work out the overall theme/story arc and the part each Traveller version will play out. MgT/CT may have the PC's on the Free Trader Beowulf, T20 the PC's are in the service of the IISS, GT the PC's are mercenaries, etc.
2) Write the introductory adventure for each Traveller version and define a set of end states.
eg.
State A: The PC's met all the adventure outcomes.
State B: The PC's only managed to do ???.
State C: The PC's saved ??? but failed to do ???.
State D: The PC's failed miserably or all died.
3) The GM of the adventure registers the sessions end state on a website which records and tally's all participating games.
4) Write the subsequent adventures for each Traveller version. Each adventure has a different hook or lead in depending on the previous adventures end state. Again at the end of the session the GM registers the games end state.
5) Rinse and repeat step 4 and move the respective Traveller's story arcs along. The organisers and writers will use the tallied end states to govern exactly how the stories move along and converge. Over time it could put the MgT PC's as adversaries to the GT crowd who are now working together with the T20 crowd.
eg. The IISS(T20) have contracted the Merc's(GT) to help deal with the Free Trader Beowulf (MgT) who is smuggling to an Interdicted system.
6) Wrap up the story which has evolved based on the participants actions.
To do something like this would be a big community undertaking and I don't know if enough people play Traveller to make it work or worthwhile, but it would be interesting.
Is it a breach of license to have a registration fee that would go to the organisers/writers to pay them for their time? Much like a convention will have a registration fee to play some games.
Living Campaigns
I vote Yes because I would like to see the publication of new Traveller material no matter what the setting. Mongoose produced a decent system including a couple of adventures and fan based submissions to suplement the adventures as well.
Anything that keeps new material coming out is good in my book.
Lou
I vote Yes because I would like to see the publication of new Traveller material no matter what the setting. Mongoose produced a decent system including a couple of adventures and fan based submissions to suplement the adventures as well.
Anything that keeps new material coming out is good in my book.
Lou
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
V2 is only possible really with the support of either Mongoose, SJG or FFE. You need a licencee to follow the campaign
It would be to the benefit of those publishers to allow an "open architechure" game that could be taken as official. What could be done is something where the player's submissions and storylines are reviewed and approved. The result would be an ongoing growth of an "official" storyline / universe side-by-side with an unoffical one that to a great degree still follows the official one.
Having players develop an official version of many things that will never see publication without them is potentially beneficial to all. I could see players contributing details of systems not already described elsewhere or adding to canon details of systems. The same goes for equipment, languages, characters, animals, etc.
For each to become "official" some review process is put in place and a central on-line resource is available for players to use.
Much of that is as much a problem as a solution.
I've seen a lot of complaining about GT excessive detail; I've done some of it myself. Not everyone likes that level of detail.
Further, a living campaign really does NOT generate that kind of detail, anyway.
The way the Torg model works:
The Cycle:
- Company writer writes an adventure for a specific event
- Company sends adventure to playtest groups
- Company takes playtest feedback, adjusts slightly based upon playtest feedback.
- Company sends out adventure to subscribers
- Company gets feedback from players, and adjusts history based upon that adventure's outcome. Usually the average
You'll note: it's not fast.
The TSR/WOTC model:
The Cycle:
it's all about character portability. It's not at all about player input.- Company writer writes an adventure
- Company sends adventure to playtest groups
- Company takes playtest feedback, adjusts slightly based upon playtest feedback. .
- Company sends out adventure to subscribers, noting what the result items are, and the character rewards.
Note that, so long as one avoids the OTU, either model is doable without FFE, Mongoose, or SJG.
There is a third model, tried by a small press game years ago, but not called a "living campaign"
The Cycle:
AEG has used this model for their card game... winners of the major tournaments get to determine key trends in the history of the game world as it advances, from a list compiled by AEG via means unspecified. - Company presents situation
- Company solicits adventures in response
- Company picks best several, and fleshes them out into a full module or two
- Company puts out module
- Company solicits feedback from players & creates the new situation
It can generate those details, but as often as not, the workload is majorly problematic, and by the time a new event is done, it's too late for most groups.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
What I had more in mind isn't the model you describe but rather simply a consistant background for things to happen in.
System Xyz consists of this and is described in detail. What an group or individual player does there is only limited (if following the "living" version) by the characteristics of the system.
Ship Abc is accepted as a standard model for the game.
Item of equipment Qrs becomes a standard item within the game.
Think of it more like a MMOG would be run. The "universe" is fixed but the players vary. Here the players get to input what the "universe" will be to some degree. Basically, what the "official" version becomes is to make 'bots,' hacks, and cheats, if you will, official if they are reasonable to the game.
Being a manual game you can add or subtract the amount of detail from the "living" version as you want.
There wouldn't be a 'standard' adventure offered at all. That is the difference here. The game manufacturers are not producing a scenario this time but rather a detailed coherent universe based in large part on player input.
Think of it as an open architecture model versus a propritary architecture model. Remember, IBM created a revolution in microcomputers by doing just that.....
System Xyz consists of this and is described in detail. What an group or individual player does there is only limited (if following the "living" version) by the characteristics of the system.
Ship Abc is accepted as a standard model for the game.
Item of equipment Qrs becomes a standard item within the game.
Think of it more like a MMOG would be run. The "universe" is fixed but the players vary. Here the players get to input what the "universe" will be to some degree. Basically, what the "official" version becomes is to make 'bots,' hacks, and cheats, if you will, official if they are reasonable to the game.
Being a manual game you can add or subtract the amount of detail from the "living" version as you want.
There wouldn't be a 'standard' adventure offered at all. That is the difference here. The game manufacturers are not producing a scenario this time but rather a detailed coherent universe based in large part on player input.
Think of it as an open architecture model versus a propritary architecture model. Remember, IBM created a revolution in microcomputers by doing just that.....
Already been tried with Traveller, Enoki.
HIWG, the TML Land Grab...
And it's been tried by other game companies, too: BTRC (Epiphany), TSR/WOTC (Dark Sun for 3E, Birthright for 3E, Star Frontiers, MSH/AMSH, Mystara). None of these generated decent expansions; the DS and BR for D&D 3 produced playable alpha-quality drafts. Mystara produced lots of digital renderings of TSR's maps.
HIWG, the TML Land Grab...
And it's been tried by other game companies, too: BTRC (Epiphany), TSR/WOTC (Dark Sun for 3E, Birthright for 3E, Star Frontiers, MSH/AMSH, Mystara). None of these generated decent expansions; the DS and BR for D&D 3 produced playable alpha-quality drafts. Mystara produced lots of digital renderings of TSR's maps.
O
Omnivore
Guest
Define a new type of living campaign. One that operates as a virtual persistent MMORPG (world persistence - player activity modifies the world).
A central authority (GM council, originating group, whatever) defines the base setting derived (perhaps directly) from OTU and sets out the guidelines. Anyone can submit adventures, submitted and approved adventures are then made available to registered GMs. A registered GM may 'check out' an approved adventure - accepting the responsibility for the resolution of said adventure. After the GM's player group runs through the adventure, the resolution is submitted and once reviewed (and perhaps suitably edited) the adventure and its resolution becomes part of the living campaign setting.
Copyright/publishing/possible OTU inclusion would be covered by declaring all materials in the living campaign must be under a suitable 'copyleft' license which would contain a clause allowing any Traveller copyright holder to use, free of charge, the living campaign materials, perhaps with only the requirement of a simple 'credits' line.
A central authority (GM council, originating group, whatever) defines the base setting derived (perhaps directly) from OTU and sets out the guidelines. Anyone can submit adventures, submitted and approved adventures are then made available to registered GMs. A registered GM may 'check out' an approved adventure - accepting the responsibility for the resolution of said adventure. After the GM's player group runs through the adventure, the resolution is submitted and once reviewed (and perhaps suitably edited) the adventure and its resolution becomes part of the living campaign setting.
Copyright/publishing/possible OTU inclusion would be covered by declaring all materials in the living campaign must be under a suitable 'copyleft' license which would contain a clause allowing any Traveller copyright holder to use, free of charge, the living campaign materials, perhaps with only the requirement of a simple 'credits' line.
I'm not sure how "living" this is. All of it sounds interesting, but not sure how that's living...
The one thought that came to me while reading the posts would be for a group of DMs to take an area, build up a metaplot, and then run their different groups in it and report back to the DM league. That way there are several teams working towards actions in the metaplot and they get news bytes and such here and there. The groups might not meet directly but perhaps one PC here is an employer in another game and sends messages.
Much of that is just expanding how you look at the game. When I ran stuff I had the course of near term history laid out and the players could affect the metaplot if they so chose. I had taken the old "Village of Hommlet" module, added a desert on one side and some politics in the capitol city, and that pretty much did me for a decade of DM'ing in 8-10 totally different game systems. Much of the setting in later games was influenced by what had been done by other groups before. Some of it wasn't positive change, either! :rofl:
Leitz
The one thought that came to me while reading the posts would be for a group of DMs to take an area, build up a metaplot, and then run their different groups in it and report back to the DM league. That way there are several teams working towards actions in the metaplot and they get news bytes and such here and there. The groups might not meet directly but perhaps one PC here is an employer in another game and sends messages.
Much of that is just expanding how you look at the game. When I ran stuff I had the course of near term history laid out and the players could affect the metaplot if they so chose. I had taken the old "Village of Hommlet" module, added a desert on one side and some politics in the capitol city, and that pretty much did me for a decade of DM'ing in 8-10 totally different game systems. Much of the setting in later games was influenced by what had been done by other groups before. Some of it wasn't positive change, either! :rofl:
Leitz
