• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

You have got to be kidding!!!!

I don't know Hans; it sounds like the beginning of a lot of adventure novels to me.

The protagonist finds himself down on his luck and in need of cash quickly. An opportunity that prior to this would have seemed to carry too much risk suddenly becomes a promising means to break even or maybe come out ahead. And with the risk comes an new understanding of the protagonist's own potential.

I can't say I haven't maneuvered my own players into worse situations without their consent but they always got out of them.
 
Ran Targas said:
I don't know Hans; it sounds like the beginning of a lot of adventure novels to me.

The protagonist finds himself down on his luck and in need of cash quickly. An opportunity that prior to this would have seemed to carry too much risk suddenly becomes a promising means to break even or maybe come out ahead. And with the risk comes an new understanding of the protagonist's own potential.

I can't say I haven't maneuvered my own players into worse situations without their consent but they always got out of them.
Click to expand...

I'm with Hans. That kind of plot railroading is a GM getting off on nastiness and control. Sorry, ain't happening that way.

Now, if it happened mid-campaign, after I'd gone into hybernation, maybe.

But it is one of those "start in media res" tropes of novels that doesn't make the jump to RPGs well.
 
Come on Wil, it's just a game. You gotta trust the GM to take the story somewhere fun and challenging; that doesn't always fall in line with some player's preconceived notion for the evening. Heck, some of the best games I've ever been involved with started with a situation no one was really prepared for and had to some how survive.

I wouldn't get too upset if someone pulled this scenario on me; I see it as just another puzzle to figure out. If it didn't pay off, I might be a little annoyed but I'm not walking away from the table in a huff before the game even starts.
 
Last edited:
Ran Targas said:
Come on Wil, it's just a game.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But an opeling like that, I'm walking.

Ran Targas said:
You gotta trust the GM to take the story somewhere fun and challenging; that doesn't always fall in line with some player's preconceived notion for the evening.
Click to expand...
Trust is earned. And without prior agreement, such an opening is a BLATANT violation of player control.

I don't need to trust the GM. I need the GM to be honest ahead of time.

If forced to play such a situation, I'd immediately attack the NPC, with intent to simply kill him. And THEN walk out. And NEVER, EVER consider playing in that GM's game again.

It's a non-negotiable. When the GM starts living out rape &/or kidnap fantasies, I'm gone.

And that opening, when not a result of ongoing events in-campaign, is a kidnap fantasy.

I'd accept it in a videogame, but NEVER in a traditional Pencil & paper RPG.
 
Ran Targas said:
I don't know Hans; it sounds like the beginning of a lot of adventure novels to me.

The protagonist finds himself down on his luck and in need of cash quickly. An opportunity that prior to this would have seemed to carry too much risk suddenly becomes a promising means to break even or maybe come out ahead. And with the risk comes an new understanding of the protagonist's own potential.
Click to expand...
Sure, there's a lot of potential in such a scenario. And I can quite understand any referee who'd prefer that the PCs don't have access to a starship or own millions or be high nobles. But then he shouldn't allow the players to generate characters with starships or millions or high social level. What was described was a so-called 'bait and switch'; letting the player think he was going to play one kind of game and than shouting "April Fool!" and running an altogether different game.


Hans
 
I don't think this situation is quite as dramatic as you guys are portraying it but that's your opinion. I wouldn't make such a big deal out of it. I certainly don't think there's anything unsavory, deviant, or diabolical about this.

As for the PC's millions of credits or starship; those things still belong to the PC, they are just inaccessible or denied him. Given the opportunity, he can reclaim them. Justice is on his side, he only needs to take action. This is Traveller, an adventure game, not Accountants, Baristers, and Dental Hygienists. He is a victim only if the player wants him to be.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the plot, provided it has been agreed with the player and my objection wasn't to the potential story, the running of a revenge adventure, etc.

My objection was to the unfairness of a player rolling really well in chargen, maybe looking forward to playing a character who's not on the breadline for a change, and then having the Ref take it all away. Yeah, I'd walk.

If it's all been agreed in advance and the player is happy to wake up penniless and play a revenge theme, there's no problem.

Agreeing what game to play is fundamental to playing any game.
 
Icosahedron said:
My objection was to the unfairness of a player rolling really well in chargen, maybe looking forward to playing a character who's not on the breadline for a change, and then having the Ref take it all away. Yeah, I'd walk.

If it's all been agreed in advance and the player is happy to wake up penniless and play a revenge theme, there's no problem.

Agreeing what game to play is fundamental to playing any game.
Click to expand...
Hear hear!


Hans
 
Icosahedron said:
Agreeing what game to play is fundamental to playing any game.
Click to expand...

Well, didn't he say that he told the players to bring "average joes" as characters? If the GM said that, and someone showed up with a multi-millionaire, I'd say the player was in the wrong. If he didn't want to play an "average joe" he shouldn't have shown up...
 
Okay, so what if it was announced at the start that the noble PC's fief or inheritance was being contested by a rival or that poor management of the family estate has left him with only what he has in his pockets? Is this player abuse? What if the very existence of this PC distrupted the game or party so much due to his wealth and station that he would destroy the delicate situation crafted by the GM? Is this scenario justified then?

Taking a character out of the world they knew (IN, IISS, etc.) and exposing them to something different is what Traveller is all about. Now this may be an extreme case, but I'm sure this noble PC has more than just station and mega-credits making him a viable character; otherwise, he's just a really expensive purse to the other players. If he had no real worth to the group to speak of except his wealth, then he needed to opportunity to gain some skills (perhaps this scenario would have garnered him some).

Don't be so quick to judge the motives of another GM; he may have been trying to make a point or fix an injustice or maybe try to come up with something different and interesting for his players. When you're under pressure to make the game better, you sometimes blunder into a treasure trove and sometimes into a manure pile.
 
Last edited:
Ran Targas said:
Okay, so what if it was announced at the start that the noble PC's fief or inheritance was being contested by a rival or that poor management of the family estate has left him with only what he has in his pockets? Is this player abuse? What if the very existence of this PC distrupted the game or party so much due to his wealth and station that he would destroy the delicate situation crafted by the GM? Is this scenario justified then?
Click to expand...
This question has already been answered. If a referee doesn't want any of his players to be rich or own a starship or whatever, he shouldn't let them roll up riches or ships during the mustering out procedure. It's really quite simple. Don't let the player expect one kind of gaming experience and then provide another.

That goes the other way too, BTW. A player shouldn't sign up for one kind of campaign and then be unwilling to play a character that works within the framework of the campaign. Don't sign up to be a team player and then design a homicidal maniac lone wolf.


Hans
 
rancke said:
If a referee doesn't want any of his players to be rich or own a starship or whatever, he shouldn't let them roll up riches or ships during the mustering out procedure. It's really quite simple. Don't let the player expect one kind of gaming experience and then provide another.

That goes the other way too, BTW. A player shouldn't sign up for one kind of campaign and then be unwilling to play a character that works within the framework of the campaign. Don't sign up to be a team player and then design a homicidal maniac lone wolf.


Hans
Click to expand...

Hear Hear! ;)
 
mmbutter said:
Well, didn't he say that he told the players to bring "average joes" as characters? If the GM said that, and someone showed up with a multi-millionaire, I'd say the player was in the wrong. If he didn't want to play an "average joe" he shouldn't have shown up...
Click to expand...

Average joes have gear, and in traveller, often in amounts approaching KCr200, sometimes far more, up to a peak of MCr1.5 and a ship.

Further, they have one thing the GM strips them of besides gear in the LB revival scenario... useful consciousness. (in more narrative terms, the ability to affect the plot...)

If you want to run a Low Berth Surprise, tell players that up front. I'd refuse the offer at that point. (I don't like it as a setup.)

Springing such as session 1, I'm outta there. better I leave up front that get pissed at the railroad that is sure to follow.
 
I've never had the privilege of choosing between a number of gaming groups; finding just one iwas always hard enough. And most of the time, the group consisted of my friends and friends of friends. So walking away from a group because I felt like my character was slighted by the GM meant not gaming at all, losing trusted friends, and trying to find another group of equally close friends who like to play RPGs (read: a long time).

So a disagreement of this sort was something that required a cool head and a healthy share of diplomatic pride swallowing. Personally, I wouldn't like the initial feeling that I was set up but I'd deal with it and hope for the pay off was worth it. After all, this is supposed to be a game between friends and if you don't always have a great game, you're still hanging out with your buds. Better than a game of solitaire any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
Until recently, not having the option to walk has never been a consideration for me. Heck, still isn't. 4 people looking for GM's in Anchorage right now that I know of, and 3 groups looking for players (Those are ot matching up due to dissimilar taste in games...).
 
You're a lucky man, my friend! Even when I lived near a game store that seemed to do good business, I could hardly scrap together a group of three or four for Traveller.

I'm thinking I need to take a gaming vacation to Anchorage :)
 
Heck, a new Alaskan statewide BBS (six mo. old) has 114 gamers registered...
 
Chirp Fu

I tried running GURPS Traveller for a few games, and one of my players insisted on martial arts skill for his droyne character.

Chirp Fu. Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top