Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Should the PCs try and capture the NPC starship?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7314312" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here is what the Traveller rules say about the role of the referee; I am quoting from the original rulebooks (with a 1977 copyright date, but probably printed in 1978):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>Book 1 (pp 1, 3)</u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The use of a separate, independent referee allows a lage degree of flexibility and continuity . . . In addition, the referee inserts some measure of uncertainty in the minds of the players . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Crucial to the continuing campaign is the referee; he actually creates a universe, and then catalogs the creatures and societies which populate it. . . . Initially, however, only clues (sometimes misleading or false) as to the nature of the universe will be available to the players.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The referee may also indicate possible quests for the characters, using rumor, barroom conversation, or so-called general knowledge . . . In any case, the referee can make or break a campaign, as it is his imagination which the other players use as a spingboard to adventure.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>Book 2 (p 36)</u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When a ship enters a star system there is a chance that any one of a variety of ships will be encountered. The ship encounter table is used to determine the specific type of vessel which is met. This result may, and should, be superceded by the referee in specific situations, especially if a newly entered system is in militay or civil turmoil, or involves other circumstances.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>Book 3 (pp 1, 8, 19-20)</u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The referee has the responsibility for mapping the univese before actual game play begins. The entire universe is not necessay immediately, however, as only a small portion can be used at any one time. In unsupervised play, one of the players can generate wolds and perform mapping on a turn by turn or adventure by adventure basis. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">This procedure for world creation is intended to provide a wide variety of features for worlds to which adventurers will travel. . . At time, the referee (or the players) will find combinations of features which may seem contradictory or unreasonable. Common sense should rule in such cases; either the players or the referee will generate a rationale which explains the situation, or an alternative description should be made. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he referee should always feel free to impose worlds which have been deliberately (rather than randomly) generated. Often such planets will be devised specifically to reward or torment players. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The referee is always free to impose encounters to furthe the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so. . . . Six entries in the person encounter table are left blank . . . [T]hey may be filled in by the referee for specific situations, as necessary. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Once [a] patron and the adventurers have met, the responsibility falls on the referee to determine the nature of the task the paton desires, the details of the situation (perhaps a map or some amount of information), and to establish the limits of the patron's resources in pursuit of the task.</p><p></p><p>These rules (guidelines?) aren't entirely consistent - or, at least, they leave a range of options open. For instance, if players in an unsupervised game are permitted to roll up worlds on an as-needed basis, then presumably so is the referee. This seems consistent with (because in some sense one method of) imposing specifcally-devised worlds. Likewise, while there are relatively intricate random encounter procedures, some of them (eg the patron encounter system) <em>require</em> the referee to flesh out details, and others allows for it, and note that the referee may "impose" encounters as required by the ingame situation.</p><p></p><p>Nothing is specified about <em>when</em> the referee has to make all these decisions, nor <em>how</em> the referee is to do that.</p><p></p><p>Take the actual subject matter of this thread: when the PCs re-boarded their vessel in orbit about Enlil, and set off to make the jump to Olyx, I had one of them roll the ship encounter dice (for some reason, I have ship encounters noted as taking place both when entering and leaving a system; I don't know why). This turned up a Type T pirate. I told them that they saw a Type T patrol cruiser, and - given that one of the PCs is a recently serving naval officer with EDU 10 - gave them a quick run down on its stats. I didn't tell them that the ship was a pirate, though (this is an instance of that element of uncertainty that Book 1 refers to).</p><p></p><p>But I had to make a decision about <em>what sort of pirate</em>. And I had to decide fairly quickly (as the players are looking to me to provide relevant exposition to keep the game going). So I decided that the vessel was a "pirate" (ie certainly not a regular Scout or Naval vessel) that had made the jump from Olyx. I see this as falling with the general parameters of the referee having a "responsibility" to "impose" encounters that will "further the cause of the adventure being played".</p><p></p><p>Reaction rolls I see working the same way. The rules say (Book 3, p 22-23) that</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When non-player characters are encountered, their reactions will dictate their activity in terms of business deals, violence, assistance, charity, cooperation and a number of other actions. When an encounter occurs, throw two dice and consult the reaction table. . . . Reaction throws are made once, upon initial encounter. . . . Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals.</p><p></p><p>Like other sub-systems for random determination of content (one of the distinctive features of Traveller, and one that I am really enjoying), this is not an <em>alternative</em> to the "living world". It is a way of creating that world. DMs apply (Book 3, p 23: "The following general DMs apply to the reaction table; other DMs can and should be created to deal with specific situations"), but there is no encouragement for the GM to substitute fiat (whether on the basis of whim, or the sort of pre-authorship that you seem to prefer).</p><p></p><p><em>Players coming up with a good plan</em> can mean multiple things. It <em>can</em> mean (i) the players working out what the GM has in mind, and then (ii) the players coming up with some solution that satisfies the GM. This is what you seem to mean by it. This also seems to be why you put such emphasis on "gathering infomation", which means <em>learning more about what the GM has in mind</em>.</p><p></p><p>But equally, it can mean the players thinking about the established fiction and the situation as the GM has presented it to them (in this case, a Type T ship that they may want to capture), thinking of a way in which that could happen (in this case, [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has suggested a fake distress call to gain entry onto the vessel) and then declaring the appropriate actions for their PCs. Like chaochou, this is the sort of "good planning" I prefer, as it puts <em>gameplay </em>(ie established situation and player action declarations) to the fore, rather than making the GM's pre-authored backstory the pincipal focus of attention.</p><p></p><p>I think this is a bit confused.</p><p></p><p>No one is talking about <em>the gameworld reshaping itself</em>. The question as issue is, how does the fiction that defines the gameworld get "shaped" (or "authored", to use a more conventional term)? Traveller defaults to dice for this a lot of the time. There is random world generation; random animal generation; and random encounter generation. How do we (ie the players at my table, and - derivatively - the participants in this thread) know that there is a Type T vessel with a shady backstory entering orbit about Enlil? Because a roll on the ship encounter table told us so.</p><p></p><p>In your preferred approach, there will almost certainly never be a ship captain who has a sentiment-driven response to a distress call from another vessel (as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] points out, more forcefully, in his post a couple upthread from this one). The players can only succeed if they discern the backstory that you have pre-authored and shape their action declarations around that. This is why chaochou calls it railroading: "Railroading isn't the players doing what you say. Railroading is the outcomes being the ones you've chosen."</p><p></p><p>In the approach that chaochou is advocating for, and that I am actually using to run the game that is the topic of this thread, it is eminently possible for such a NPC to exist. The reaction dice will tell us how the captain responds to a distress call; and then the referee will decide the actual reason for it (Traveller doesn't really have robust mechanics for direct player authorship of NPC motivations) - but informally drawing upon the input and expectations of the players. I see this as consistent with the reference to the role of the players in the passage about world generation in Book 3, p 8. (In our first session, after I had generated the starting world following the players' generation of their PCs, it was one of the players who looked at the stats and said "It's a gas giant moon" - and so that was what we went with.)</p><p></p><p>I have no idea why you think that this alternative approach does not involve consequences for the PCs (and thus the players). I will give two examples from our most recent session:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">(1) In a conversation with a bishop on Enlil, one of the players (via one of the PCs) pushed hard on a particularly delicate topic of conversation (psionics) and so I called for another reaction roll (cf Book 3, p 23: "Generally, [NPCs] would re-roll reactions in the face of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks"). The reaction roll was not very good, even with a +1 DM because the PC and bishop had been getting along well, and so the bishop drew the interview to a close.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(2) Later, when the PCs returned to their ship's boat that they had landed outside the town, they encountered a group of bandits trying to ambush them. (This encounter was the result of random generation.) The players chose to have their PCs attack the bandits (rather than eg negotiate with them, or report them to local authorities). The PCs were victorious, but a couple were knocked unconscious, which triggered a morale check (PCs in Traveller have to check morale: Book 1, p 33). The PCs failed their check, which meant that the situation collapsed into one of general disarray and confusion, and the upshot was that one of the NPC bandits escaped to safety. That bandit is almost certainly going to tell tales of how the PCs attacked with a hand grenade and laser rifle, which is unlawful on Enlil (law level 13), which will make it hard for the PCs to return to Enlil (at least in a friendly fashion).</p><p></p><p>Those are consequences that follow from decisions taken by the players. They don't depend in any fashion on the referee having pre-scripted anything, other than having a most basic sense of things like "psionics is controversial" and "breaking the law will get you in trouble".</p><p></p><p>I also don't know why you say that information gathering is useless. In that same session the players gathered information about the religion on Enlil (because they are trying to learn about the alien heritage of the Enlilians, as well as the nature of the endemic disease); and they gathered the information about the patrol cruiser (by intercepting its signals) that led to this thread being created in the first place.</p><p></p><p>But none of that depended on GM pre-authorship either. And with that information gathered, the situation is now sufficiently established for the players to start declaring actions for their PCs that will <em>change</em> the situation (eg sending out a distress call; trying to board the ship by invoking their (alleged) status as PRSI agents). This is what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is contrasting with a "breacrumb trail" - in which the players never actually engage the ingame situation, but just trigger more and more exposition from the GM as to the nature of the situation until the correct solution appears.</p><p></p><p>This is a funny use of <em>ignore</em>. If the players make a distress call, that "input" will directly feed into the ingame situation, and resolution will be focused around the results/consequences of that gambit.</p><p></p><p>I also don't know why you think the idea of faking a distress call is so terrible. If the players want to take the ship, it seems about as viable as the only other idea currently kicking around, which is using their (fake) credentials as PRSI agents.</p><p></p><p>A point that I made in a post upthread, and that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] also made ("there's no such thing as evidence. The boat being damaged is <em>authored</em>" - emphasis added by me), is that in the context of a RPG <em>finding out more information</em> just means <em>getting the GM to tell you more stuff that s/he made up</em>. Because (unlike the real world) an imaginary world has no existence independent of the authorial decisions taken by particular human authors.</p><p></p><p>Personally I prefer RPGing which involves more player proactivity (in declaring actions that will engage and perhaps change the ingame situation) rather than just more and more calls for the GM to recite pre-authored fiction. The most exciting way to learn out whether the patrol cruiser captain is surprisingly sympathetic to victims of space accidents is by finding out how s/he responds to a distress call!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7314312, member: 42582"] Here is what the Traveller rules say about the role of the referee; I am quoting from the original rulebooks (with a 1977 copyright date, but probably printed in 1978): [indent][U]Book 1 (pp 1, 3)[/U] The use of a separate, independent referee allows a lage degree of flexibility and continuity . . . In addition, the referee inserts some measure of uncertainty in the minds of the players . . . Crucial to the continuing campaign is the referee; he actually creates a universe, and then catalogs the creatures and societies which populate it. . . . Initially, however, only clues (sometimes misleading or false) as to the nature of the universe will be available to the players. The referee may also indicate possible quests for the characters, using rumor, barroom conversation, or so-called general knowledge . . . In any case, the referee can make or break a campaign, as it is his imagination which the other players use as a spingboard to adventure. [U]Book 2 (p 36)[/U] When a ship enters a star system there is a chance that any one of a variety of ships will be encountered. The ship encounter table is used to determine the specific type of vessel which is met. This result may, and should, be superceded by the referee in specific situations, especially if a newly entered system is in militay or civil turmoil, or involves other circumstances. [U]Book 3 (pp 1, 8, 19-20)[/U] The referee has the responsibility for mapping the univese before actual game play begins. The entire universe is not necessay immediately, however, as only a small portion can be used at any one time. In unsupervised play, one of the players can generate wolds and perform mapping on a turn by turn or adventure by adventure basis. . . . This procedure for world creation is intended to provide a wide variety of features for worlds to which adventurers will travel. . . At time, the referee (or the players) will find combinations of features which may seem contradictory or unreasonable. Common sense should rule in such cases; either the players or the referee will generate a rationale which explains the situation, or an alternative description should be made. . . [T]he referee should always feel free to impose worlds which have been deliberately (rather than randomly) generated. Often such planets will be devised specifically to reward or torment players. . . . The referee is always free to impose encounters to furthe the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so. . . . Six entries in the person encounter table are left blank . . . [T]hey may be filled in by the referee for specific situations, as necessary. . . . Once [a] patron and the adventurers have met, the responsibility falls on the referee to determine the nature of the task the paton desires, the details of the situation (perhaps a map or some amount of information), and to establish the limits of the patron's resources in pursuit of the task.[/indent] These rules (guidelines?) aren't entirely consistent - or, at least, they leave a range of options open. For instance, if players in an unsupervised game are permitted to roll up worlds on an as-needed basis, then presumably so is the referee. This seems consistent with (because in some sense one method of) imposing specifcally-devised worlds. Likewise, while there are relatively intricate random encounter procedures, some of them (eg the patron encounter system) [I]require[/I] the referee to flesh out details, and others allows for it, and note that the referee may "impose" encounters as required by the ingame situation. Nothing is specified about [I]when[/I] the referee has to make all these decisions, nor [I]how[/I] the referee is to do that. Take the actual subject matter of this thread: when the PCs re-boarded their vessel in orbit about Enlil, and set off to make the jump to Olyx, I had one of them roll the ship encounter dice (for some reason, I have ship encounters noted as taking place both when entering and leaving a system; I don't know why). This turned up a Type T pirate. I told them that they saw a Type T patrol cruiser, and - given that one of the PCs is a recently serving naval officer with EDU 10 - gave them a quick run down on its stats. I didn't tell them that the ship was a pirate, though (this is an instance of that element of uncertainty that Book 1 refers to). But I had to make a decision about [I]what sort of pirate[/I]. And I had to decide fairly quickly (as the players are looking to me to provide relevant exposition to keep the game going). So I decided that the vessel was a "pirate" (ie certainly not a regular Scout or Naval vessel) that had made the jump from Olyx. I see this as falling with the general parameters of the referee having a "responsibility" to "impose" encounters that will "further the cause of the adventure being played". Reaction rolls I see working the same way. The rules say (Book 3, p 22-23) that [indent]When non-player characters are encountered, their reactions will dictate their activity in terms of business deals, violence, assistance, charity, cooperation and a number of other actions. When an encounter occurs, throw two dice and consult the reaction table. . . . Reaction throws are made once, upon initial encounter. . . . Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals.[/indent] Like other sub-systems for random determination of content (one of the distinctive features of Traveller, and one that I am really enjoying), this is not an [I]alternative[/I] to the "living world". It is a way of creating that world. DMs apply (Book 3, p 23: "The following general DMs apply to the reaction table; other DMs can and should be created to deal with specific situations"), but there is no encouragement for the GM to substitute fiat (whether on the basis of whim, or the sort of pre-authorship that you seem to prefer). [I]Players coming up with a good plan[/I] can mean multiple things. It [I]can[/I] mean (i) the players working out what the GM has in mind, and then (ii) the players coming up with some solution that satisfies the GM. This is what you seem to mean by it. This also seems to be why you put such emphasis on "gathering infomation", which means [I]learning more about what the GM has in mind[/I]. But equally, it can mean the players thinking about the established fiction and the situation as the GM has presented it to them (in this case, a Type T ship that they may want to capture), thinking of a way in which that could happen (in this case, [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has suggested a fake distress call to gain entry onto the vessel) and then declaring the appropriate actions for their PCs. Like chaochou, this is the sort of "good planning" I prefer, as it puts [I]gameplay [/I](ie established situation and player action declarations) to the fore, rather than making the GM's pre-authored backstory the pincipal focus of attention. I think this is a bit confused. No one is talking about [I]the gameworld reshaping itself[/i]. The question as issue is, how does the fiction that defines the gameworld get "shaped" (or "authored", to use a more conventional term)? Traveller defaults to dice for this a lot of the time. There is random world generation; random animal generation; and random encounter generation. How do we (ie the players at my table, and - derivatively - the participants in this thread) know that there is a Type T vessel with a shady backstory entering orbit about Enlil? Because a roll on the ship encounter table told us so. In your preferred approach, there will almost certainly never be a ship captain who has a sentiment-driven response to a distress call from another vessel (as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] points out, more forcefully, in his post a couple upthread from this one). The players can only succeed if they discern the backstory that you have pre-authored and shape their action declarations around that. This is why chaochou calls it railroading: "Railroading isn't the players doing what you say. Railroading is the outcomes being the ones you've chosen." In the approach that chaochou is advocating for, and that I am actually using to run the game that is the topic of this thread, it is eminently possible for such a NPC to exist. The reaction dice will tell us how the captain responds to a distress call; and then the referee will decide the actual reason for it (Traveller doesn't really have robust mechanics for direct player authorship of NPC motivations) - but informally drawing upon the input and expectations of the players. I see this as consistent with the reference to the role of the players in the passage about world generation in Book 3, p 8. (In our first session, after I had generated the starting world following the players' generation of their PCs, it was one of the players who looked at the stats and said "It's a gas giant moon" - and so that was what we went with.) I have no idea why you think that this alternative approach does not involve consequences for the PCs (and thus the players). I will give two examples from our most recent session: [indent](1) In a conversation with a bishop on Enlil, one of the players (via one of the PCs) pushed hard on a particularly delicate topic of conversation (psionics) and so I called for another reaction roll (cf Book 3, p 23: "Generally, [NPCs] would re-roll reactions in the face of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks"). The reaction roll was not very good, even with a +1 DM because the PC and bishop had been getting along well, and so the bishop drew the interview to a close. (2) Later, when the PCs returned to their ship's boat that they had landed outside the town, they encountered a group of bandits trying to ambush them. (This encounter was the result of random generation.) The players chose to have their PCs attack the bandits (rather than eg negotiate with them, or report them to local authorities). The PCs were victorious, but a couple were knocked unconscious, which triggered a morale check (PCs in Traveller have to check morale: Book 1, p 33). The PCs failed their check, which meant that the situation collapsed into one of general disarray and confusion, and the upshot was that one of the NPC bandits escaped to safety. That bandit is almost certainly going to tell tales of how the PCs attacked with a hand grenade and laser rifle, which is unlawful on Enlil (law level 13), which will make it hard for the PCs to return to Enlil (at least in a friendly fashion).[/indent] Those are consequences that follow from decisions taken by the players. They don't depend in any fashion on the referee having pre-scripted anything, other than having a most basic sense of things like "psionics is controversial" and "breaking the law will get you in trouble". I also don't know why you say that information gathering is useless. In that same session the players gathered information about the religion on Enlil (because they are trying to learn about the alien heritage of the Enlilians, as well as the nature of the endemic disease); and they gathered the information about the patrol cruiser (by intercepting its signals) that led to this thread being created in the first place. But none of that depended on GM pre-authorship either. And with that information gathered, the situation is now sufficiently established for the players to start declaring actions for their PCs that will [I]change[/I] the situation (eg sending out a distress call; trying to board the ship by invoking their (alleged) status as PRSI agents). This is what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is contrasting with a "breacrumb trail" - in which the players never actually engage the ingame situation, but just trigger more and more exposition from the GM as to the nature of the situation until the correct solution appears. This is a funny use of [I]ignore[/I]. If the players make a distress call, that "input" will directly feed into the ingame situation, and resolution will be focused around the results/consequences of that gambit. I also don't know why you think the idea of faking a distress call is so terrible. If the players want to take the ship, it seems about as viable as the only other idea currently kicking around, which is using their (fake) credentials as PRSI agents. A point that I made in a post upthread, and that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] also made ("there's no such thing as evidence. The boat being damaged is [I]authored[/I]" - emphasis added by me), is that in the context of a RPG [I]finding out more information[/I] just means [I]getting the GM to tell you more stuff that s/he made up[/I]. Because (unlike the real world) an imaginary world has no existence independent of the authorial decisions taken by particular human authors. Personally I prefer RPGing which involves more player proactivity (in declaring actions that will engage and perhaps change the ingame situation) rather than just more and more calls for the GM to recite pre-authored fiction. The most exciting way to learn out whether the patrol cruiser captain is surprisingly sympathetic to victims of space accidents is by finding out how s/he responds to a distress call! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Should the PCs try and capture the NPC starship?
Top