Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[Parmandur]

Traveller seems to be a pretty dfair example of got how inadequate the Forge theory labels are, and how bizarre the claim about "games are only code breaking, period" really is.

 

[innerdude]

... snip a major chunk of interesting and relevant text ...

The idea of a shared fiction is pretty clearly there in the 1982 text, and of RPG play having some fairly intimate connection to creating or participating in a story.

Yeah, this pretty much wholly debunks [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION]'s ongoing theories.

The only real defense against this would be to say, "The creator of Traveller was wrong, and didn't know what he was doing, and anyone who listens to him or gives any credence to what he says is just as wrong."

 

[pemerton]

Traveller seems to be a pretty dfair example of got how inadequate the Forge theory labels are

What have you got in mind?

From the point of view who has found the Forge categories useful, I think of Traveller as pretty hardcore sim, with a very strong purist-for-system component. But I'm interested to hear what you think is being missed or misdescribed here.

In his Sim essay, Edwards says this about Traveller:

I just realized that the original Traveller, or at least one way to play it, represents an example of this approach. Star system and planet creation are written right into the process of play, such that adventures and missions become not only a means of enjoying and improving characters, but also a means of enjoying and basically mapping the game-space. This is very distinct from later versions of Traveller ["specifically in its mid-80s through mid-90s form"], which were emphatically High Concept with a Setting emphasis. (Oh, and just for credit where it's due, I should also mention that Traveller pioneered the mechanics of overt character-creation-as-play.)​

Like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I've tended to find Traveller a challenging game to play and run. (Though very easy to build PCs for!)

 

[S'mon]

Like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I've tended to find Traveller a challenging game to play and run. (Though very easy to build PCs for!)

I guess now that I understand sandboxing a bit better these days I might be able to make Classic Traveller work. The big issue I found was that it seemed to be two different games:

(a) What these days we'd call a hexcrawl sandbox across the galaxy, wonderfully reproduced in the 1980s computer game 'Elite'

(b) A mission-of-the-week game where Patrons sit in Starports and hire you to do pre-detailed adventures.

I guess I'd always thought of Traveller as being 'really' about (b), the missions, which then wastes all the procedural content generation. And as an adventure-of-the-week game it looks a bit bland. But maybe if I created a Traveller sandbox the way I do for D&D it'd be a good game.
One problem I see with Traveller sandboxing is that it seems to be "all Sim, no Gamism" - no XP to advance your PCs; not even a clear link between money and power since there isn't really gear or magic items that unlocks at particular wealth levels. You're expected to pretty much stick with the merchant ship you began with and your income goes to paying off the mortgage, ie you adventure just to maintain the status quo!

 

[pemerton]

I guess now that I understand sandboxing a bit better these days I might be able to make Classic Traveller work. The big issue I found was that it seemed to be two different games:

(a) What these days we'd call a hexcrawl sandbox across the galaxy, wonderfully reproduced in the 1980s computer game 'Elite'

(b) A mission-of-the-week game where Patrons sit in Starports and hire you to do pre-detailed adventures.

I think that (a) and (b) may have been expected to interact to a high degree - ie the patron missions weren't pre-generated, and would send you off on something of a hex-crawl.

The 1982 book certainly draws (what it seems to think is) an important distinction between ordinary patron encounters and pre-written scenarios.

as an adventure-of-the-week game it looks a bit bland.

<snip>

One problem I see with Traveller sandboxing is that it seems to be "all Sim, no Gamism" - no XP to advance your PCs; not even a clear link between money and power since there isn't really gear or magic items that unlocks at particular wealth levels. You're expected to pretty much stick with the merchant ship you began with and your income goes to paying off the mortgage, ie you adventure just to maintain the status quo!

I agree with this diagnosis. It's a bit bland. The stakes never really seem to reach even Star Trek weekly TV levels, let alone Star Wars levels.

I think that some of the ways that Burning Wheel approaches this sort of ultra-gritty, adventure-just-to-keep-heads-above-water style of game might be applicable to Traveller. In lieu of XP, you'd want some sort of character trait/relationship driven meta-game currency.

 

[S'mon]

I think that some of the ways that Burning Wheel approaches this sort of ultra-gritty, adventure-just-to-keep-heads-above-water style of game might be applicable to Traveller. In lieu of XP, you'd want some sort of character trait/relationship driven meta-game currency.

I think I would avoid metagame resources, but I would want a sim-dramatist tone with a lot of emphasis on NPC relationships and interactions. I did run a Traveller: The New Era PBEM many years ago, Sector Antaris (PCs on a diplomatic mission for a private survey corporation, establishing links with isolated world Nuevos Akaeros) that was quite successful because it emphasised character interactions - it stalled a bit due to me not grokking the starship combat rules, always a bete noir of mine. The good stuff was pretty much freeform.

 

[Parmandur]

In that Traveller has elements that you can label "Simulationist" (pretty hardcore, true), bit is also deeply invested in "Narrativist" elements (also pretty hardcore), but the game play itself is highly abstract, fast-paced and fun; one might say Gamey.

The tripartite division is too generalized, actual RPGs designed outside of that paradigm do not for categorization as easily as those folks thought.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, this pretty much wholly debunks [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION]'s ongoing theories.

The only real defense against this would be to say, "The creator of Traveller was wrong, and didn't know what he was doing, and anyone who listens to him or gives any credence to what he says is just as wrong."

I am not sure where [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] got his basic definition of words, since it contradicts both dictionaries and the definitions provides by all of the founders of the hobby?



Unless he wants to argue that Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and Marc Miller were Marxist theorists working to undermine the norms of "gamer culture."

 

[howandwhy99]

I am not sure where [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] got his basic definition of words, since it contradicts both dictionaries and the definitions provides by all of the founders of the hobby?



Unless he wants to argue that Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and Marc Miller were Marxist theorists working to undermine the norms of "gamer culture."

FYI, D&D is designed based upon wargaming theory from the 60s and early 70s. All of which has clearly been expunged from the hobby and none of which you could ever find in the Big Model. That model isn't even about games, but collaborative storytelling.

 

[Neonchameleon]

FYI, D&D is designed based upon wargaming theory from the 60s and early 70s. All of which has clearly been expunged from the hobby and none of which you could ever find in the Big Model. That model isn't even about games, but collaborative storytelling.

FYI D&D is based on a subversion of wargaming from the 60s and early 70s - one in which Arneson in particular rejected the official victory conditions, routes to victory, and roles imposed by the game. If your definitions have anything at all to do with wargaming theory from back then, D&D stands as a stark rejection of them.

And the Big Model is a theory of RPGs not wargames anyway. And is so broad a theory that it can cover anything from wargames to cooking brunch - which is why it is useless as a practical theory.