Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[S'mon]

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.

I haven't seen any Dramatist or Narrativist elements at all in Traveller design. The
Patrons-mission thing is arguably more Gamey than Simulationist, but overall Traveller looks like hardcore Sim design to me. GDW was always big on Simulation, you see it in Twilight: 2000 and their other games. In The New Era it overwhelmed the game play, as written the players are expected to be calculating Bingo Fuel points and stuff which I can't imagine is fun for most players - and since players had to do this stuff on pocket calculators not advanced computers, not really 'realistic' - though a good emulation of 1960s 'imperial' sf!

 

[Parmandur]

I haven't seen any Dramatist or Narrativist elements at all in Traveller design. The

Patrons-mission thing is arguably more Gamey than Simulationist, but overall Traveller looks like hardcore Sim design to me. GDW was always big on Simulation, you see it in Twilight: 2000 and their other games. In The New Era it overwhelmed the game play, as written the players are expected to be calculating Bingo Fuel points and stuff which I can't imagine is fun for most players - and since players had to do this stuff on pocket calculators not advanced computers, not really 'realistic' - though a good emulation of 1960s 'imperial' sf!

Speaking as someone who studied English literature, the math is not hard (can't speak to the New Era fiasco). As the quotes [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] surfaced show, the narrative was a big focus, the primary one. The theory nonsense is too...dividing in approach.

 

[S'mon]

Speaking as someone who studied English literature, the math is not hard (can't speak to the New Era fiasco).

Oh, Classic Traveller math was ok - they didn't worry about sublight fuel consumption.

 

[pemerton]

Iplayers had to do this stuff on pocket calculators not advanced computers, not really 'realistic'

Classic Traveller math was ok - they didn't worry about sublight fuel consumption.

Although the use of vector addition for starship combat manoeuvring has some of the same features. The players have to do all this by visual simulation rather than the sophisticated computing that their PCs presumably have access to (even allowing for the relative primitiveness of Traveller's computer technology).

 

[Balesir]

As I said, playing yourself is a subset of the agenda and requirement to play your character. If you are playing yourself, then injecting yourself into the character is entirely appropriate because that is who your character is.

What I am trying to explain is something that is difficult to put into words since it deals with mental agendas, intent and the ways in which we may seek a "buzz" or mental stimulation from roleplaying. If you are merely going to pick at the semantics in order to "prove" any view but your own wrong, then nothing I can say will change the situation, so I'll stop.

I'll simply state that I believe that Edwards did a good job in identifying three agendas that are clearly, once understood, quite distinct and self-contained (although they can be blended in the same person, and even in the same game, as Edwards said). I would be very open to anyone coming up with a fourth, but I have yet to see it.

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 think the lack of gamist reward cycles is what makes Traveller one of two truly pure Sim games, actually, and I like them both. The other is HârnMaster.

Play with both systems is interesting to me, because finding a good focus for Sim play can be tricky, as you seem to be saying here. I have generally found that it helps to go back to the source - exploration.

Pick an aspect or a specific to explore - in general terms this can be setting, situation, character or even system - and make it interesting, with some complexity and/or secrets to be found. Then let the players play and use the system to facilitate the exploration. I don't mean set up incipient conflict, necessarily (as you would to encourage Nar or Gam play), but just agree an interesting area to play with. Examples I have used:

- Traveller had an intriguing supplement called "Pocket Empires" containing Simmy rules on running a planet or a small empire. I set the players up as the noble "family" with wealth and resources in the "Milieu 0" setting, unpopular with the new Emperor and with every incentive to leave and form a private empire in the (randomly generated) space beyond.

- In HârnMaster, a small group of friends are all Shek-Pvar (mages) of some experience living in a wilderness "cottage"/chantry. One night one of them gets a spectacular blowback with some very "interesting" effects. The players play the characters who did not get the blowback, exploring their situation... (This was a one-off for a Con)

- The players play members of a military unit. The character generation system is used to generate missions that they are sent on, each one a situation to explore.

The focus is on the exploration itself, so it helps if there is something interesting to explore.

 

[S'mon]

I think the lack of gamist reward cycles is what makes Traveller one of two truly pure Sim games, actually, and I like them both. The other is HârnMaster.

Play with both systems is interesting to me, because finding a good focus for Sim play can be tricky, as you seem to be saying here. I have generally found that it helps to go back to the source - exploration.

Pick an aspect or a specific to explore - in general terms this can be setting, situation, character or even system - and make it interesting, with some complexity and/or secrets to be found. Then let the players play and use the system to facilitate the exploration. I don't mean set up incipient conflict, necessarily (as you would to encourage Nar or Gam play), but just agree an interesting area to play with...
...The focus is on the exploration itself, so it helps if there is something interesting to explore.

That seems like excellent advice, yes. My Traveller Starter Set says "Take a Science Fiction Odyssey to the Distant Worlds of the Galaxy" - and Traveller's procedural content generators seem ideally set up for exploration, much more than for the 'mercenary strike team mission' which I think is typical of Patron play.

 

[Balesir]

That seems like excellent advice, yes. My Traveller Starter Set says "Take a Science Fiction Odyssey to the Distant Worlds of the Galaxy" - and Traveller's procedural content generators seem ideally set up for exploration, much more than for the 'mercenary strike team mission' which I think is typical of Patron play.

This makes me think that the "patron" style play was a sort of pandering to gamist sensibilities, and as such I would see it as a mistake, for Traveller as written. Add some sort of "experience" system, though, and you could have a gritty gamist vehicle. Some of the calls for "character advancement" systems, and some of the houserules I saw to provide such a thing, suggest that there may well have been folk enjoying just such a game. This would fit nicely into what Edwards calls "drift".

The exploration of Setting (the "Odyssey to the Distant Worlds of the Galaxy") is clearly a leading possibility, but I mentioned a couple of Situation explorations above, rigorously applying the random determination for encounters and worlds leads to an exploration of System (which, frankly, sounds like what [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] is proposing, leavened with a dose of gamism in the individual encounters) and I think explorations of Character cover most immersionist play. I had originally discounted Colour, the last of Edwards' RPG elements, as a focus of exploration, but on reflection I'm not sure I was right to. I can see an exploration of the game world where adding description and details of the character experience - either given to the player(s) by the GM in immersive play or created collaboratively - could make for an enjoyable excercise, from a certain perspective.

So, my suggestion would be modified to: focus on exploration of anything you like. Classifications under which to find inspiration about an exploratory focus might usefully be the elements of an RPG given by Edwards: Setting, Situation, Character, System and Colour. Any of the classifications could yield a suitable focus for exploration.