Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 7922497" data-attributes="member: 75787">Regarding the OP's premise, based on examination of the differences between 1977 and 1981 traveler:This passage has no equivalent in the 1977 version of Classic Traveller. The fact that it appears in this early-80s version of the rules is one instance of a more general trend: the 80s saw the beginning of the idea that this sort of approach is what it means to play a RPG (especially to roleplay rather than "rollplay"); this idea was largely consolidated in the 90s. White Wolf/Storyteller system's "Golden Rule" is the most famous statement of it.I have quite a few older systems, and the main trend I see is actually saying anything at all about the GM's job! In the 1977 Traveller book 1, there is less said about the GM than about adapting the rules for antique weapons. It doesn't even require a GM to play the game (p2 suggest using random tables to replace the referee). So it can be hard to disambiguate the difference in quality of advice with quantity of advice.Traveller though, is a good example for  change -- the original system is clearly all about simulation. The minimal description of the GM's role is to adjudicate rules. The statement is madethat a mechanical generator could replace them. Their role is clearly to adjudicate rules and create setting. So I do strongly agree that there became a change. But I don't think the change is one of introducing railroading as a concept. Rather the concept of story and narrative came into play, and the 1981 quote demonstrates that. The GM's role has broadened from creation and running a simulation to creating and running a story. One of the tools of that transition is railroading, as the quote displays, but rather than casting railroading as the primary change, I would say that's something that came along with the change to view the GM as having a role in creating story.Here's another quote from 1981 on how to run the game, this time from Call of Cthulhu:Charts for random encounters, wandering monsters and/or similar things are the bane of Call of Cthulhu. In this game, each adventure should be carefully crafted to give players the maximum amount of thrills and chills ... The Keeper should have firm control over what is happening, though he should remain flexible and capable of adapting to the circumstances of his players' plans and abilities. A good Keeper will always modify his original plan to accommodate his players" (emphasis in the original). This advice from Sandy is still excellent and is the way I like to play: Prepare scenarios to maximize the fun; be in charge, but always adapt to the player's actions. It stands as a  contrast to the Traveller 1977 advice ("run the simulation") and as far less heavy-handed than the 1981 Traveller advice ("move the players to the fore-ordained goal"). Call of Cthulhu was revolutionary because it got this shift right. Traveller clearly didn't -- it was trying to evolve to become narrative, but it chose a poor tool. Notice that the focus of the Traveller advice is on the GM -- the GM's plans, goals, etc. In Sandy Petersen's advice the focus is on the players -- design scenarios to maximize their fun and adapt to the player's plans.I don't think Sandy would change his mind on this advice now. He's GM'd for me a few times in the last couple of years and this is still his approach's and it still works. For me, this is what changed in the 80s, and I'd credit CoC with being a major force: The GM's role was expanded beyond setting creator and rule adjudicator to also include the responsibility of helping the story be fun.Railroading can help the story be fun, but it very often has the opposite effect. The Traveller 1981 advice is straight-up bad advice. It will rarely help. Fortunately other companies were able to articulate what makes a good GM much better, and our hobby evolved. I still have occasional fun playing the full "old school simulation" approach, but it's very much a retro-throwback thing. I'm happy with our evolution and glad that Sany's approach won out over Traveller's</blockquote>

Verification