Should the PCs try and capture the NPC starship?

[pemerton]

Cite me the rule that says 'When the players propose something fun, tell them it fails.'

<snip>

The boat missed its last three maintenance checks - one of the hazards of a tight schedule running illegal operations and a bureacratic mix-up the last time they docked. Currently grounded except as a last-ditch lifepod. See, I can make up fiction too.

The problem with mine, clearly, is that it's actually interesting.

<snip>

Now you've packaged up the motivations, ideas and personality of an entire crew and used it as yet more tragic rationalisation for pre-judging outcomes. cf railroading

Actually the Captain was once in an emergency situation himself as a young boy and vividly remembers his own rescue. He may be researching bio-weapons, but he'll take a distress call seriously. There's no honour amongst thieves though, and three or four of the other senior crew lost patience the last time they went out to a distress beacon. This one could easily push them over the edge.

<snip>

I made that up as I typed it, but it required some basic imagination and personality and opens the possibility for dramatic, unexpected play. We don't want that. We want to pacify the players into doing nothing more than 'collecting information' - your lame euphimism for asking to be railroaded.

You might only be able to run games with mustache twirling villains who are so stupid that everything the players attempt succeed, but in any other game there are better and worse choices for any situation.
The players can of course attempt your simple trick, but that is risky as it depends on the crew of the other ship to be stupid (without any evidence to support this) or on thr boat to be damaged, again without any evidence that this is the case.

<snip>

the enemy captain might have exactly the flaw you describe. But do the PCs know that? Thats why information gathering is so important. You find out who you can bribe, blackmail or turn and then act on that knowledge. You do not make plans hoping that people you have no information of have the exact flaw that you need.

Following up on this line of discussion (which is slightly tangential to the ostensible topic of the thread, but relevant generally to RPGing involving conspiracies, wacky plans etc):

I think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s point (at least in part) is that, in the context of a RPG - where everything is fiction - there is no evidence in the sense that [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] refers to, except by dint of GM authorship. Which means that if the players have their PCs to take steps to gather such "evidence", this means - in effect - that the players are waiting around for the GM to feed them more plot and backstory. Hence chaochou's characterisation of it as railroading.

Conversely, if the game is to have content othe than that authored/pre-judged by the GM, then either (i) the players get to write it (this is what happens under "say 'yes' or roll the dice" GMing when the GM says 'yes'), or (ii) we have some other process for generating it (this is the "roll the dice" side of the aforementioned slogan).

Traveller doesn't expressly call out "say 'yes' or roll the dice", but can be played in more-or-less that way, I think, as there are dice rolls for nearly every aspect of content generation and resolution! In the paticular context we're discussing here, the basic dice roll would be a reaction roll (perhaps with a negative DM if it is established in the fiction that the NPCs are, or have reason to be, suspicious; perhaps with a countervailing positive DM if the established fiction suggests the NPCs have a reason to be sympathetic or generous to the PCs - the Moldvay Basic rulebook gives an example of this in the context of D&D's reaction roll table; and I used this approach in our last session when the PCs had an interview with a bishop on Enlil).

If that reaction roll is positive, then the sort of backstory that chaochou has suggested could be one explanation for that, ie for why the NPCs react more favourably to a distress call than one would expect given standard protocols etc.

 

[chaochou]

You might only be able to run games with mustache twirling villains who are so stupid that everything the players attempt succeed,

Your evidence for that is what? Nothing. My villains would blow your tiny mind.

but in any other game there are better and worse choices for any situation.

Nothing I've said indicates otherwise.

The players..

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] asked for input from players. You, desperate for control, decided you're the GM. Thank God you're not.

...can of course attempt your simple trick

Nothing I said was simple. You just want your tedious railroad rubbish to go elsewhere and you view your version of the situation as more important than anyone else's.

...but that is risky as it depends on the crew of the other ship to be stupid (without any evidence to support this) or on the boat to be damaged, again without any evidence that this is the case.

No. Again, you're just disparaging someone else's contribution to try and get your way. This is about your desperate need for control of the fiction.

And as for evidence... there's no such thing as evidence. The boat being damaged is authored. What you're saying is that you want to author it, and you resent me authoring it, so now you want to have done it in advance and then give the players 'clues' so they can exploit it in the way you intended. Anything else and you lose control, and you can't handle it.

..but that is a very long shot and would require Hiver level intrigue to set up

There are three problems with this:
i) It's false
ii) It's really, really, really, really boring
iii) It's the statement of a control freak attempting to browbeat players into doing what they're told

Sure, the enemy captain might have exactly the flaw you describe.

Which in your game never happens. But the million to one shot is that you thought of it instead of me and then wrote it down and then created a breadcrumb trail of tedious 'clues' and then docile players were shunted towards asking questions about it and got to talk to your one-dimensional npc informants.. and only then do they have your tedious permission to get on board the ship via the method you've created for them. cf railroading

But do the PCs know that? Thats why information gathering is so important.

No, it's not. It's code for finding out what the GM is going to give you permission to do. It keeps the GM in control.

I also missed the note where the players have to do what I say.

Railroading isn't the players doing what you say. Railroading is the outcomes being the ones you've chosen. And you've done nothing but try to dictate outcomes and then pretend your words are more authoritative than anyone elses, including mine and the person actually running the game. Lame doesn't even begin to describe your approach.

 

[Derren]

Your evidence for that is what? Nothing. My villains would blow your tiny mind.

As you are only capable of insults instead of rational thought or logical thinking and seem to rely on the players to do the work for you as you are unable to craft a living world (using "railroading" as an excuse to hide behind) I doubt that.

If you run a game where the GM does not prepare anything in advance, including major NPCs, and the game world reshapes itself on the spot based on a die roll and also only concerns itself with the moment so the PCs do not have to face any consequences for their actions (or the consequences are too not based on logical reasoning but instead only on a die roll) then information gathering is indeed useless as it doesnt matter.
In any other case finding out more information about the NPCs and judging the consequences of their actions is just common sense.

And despite what you apparently think preparing such information is not railroading, it is creating a living, consistent world, the main job of a GM. It also means that you take your players seriously as they are now responsible for coming up with a good plan and having to live with any consequences. You seem to prefer to ignore the players input though as no matter what they want to do the die decides what happens which means there is no reason for them to spend much thought on what they do (like with your distress call idea).

 

[pemerton]

seem to rely on the players to do the work for you as you are unable to craft a living world (using "railroading" as an excuse to hide behind)

<snip>

preparing such information is not railroading, it is creating a living, consistent world, the main job of a GM. It also means that you take your players seriously as they are now responsible for coming up with a good plan and having to live with any consequences.

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):

Book 1 (pp 1, 3)
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.

Book 2 (p 36)
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.

Book 3 (pp 1, 8, 19-20)
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.​

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) require 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 when the referee has to make all these decisions, nor how 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 what sort of pirate. 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

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.​

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 alternative 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).

Players coming up with a good plan can mean multiple things. It can 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 learning more about what the GM has in mind.

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 gameplay (ie established situation and player action declarations) to the fore, rather than making the GM's pre-authored backstory the pincipal focus of attention.

If you run a game where the GM does not prepare anything in advance, including major NPCs, and the game world reshapes itself on the spot based on a die roll and also only concerns itself with the moment so the PCs do not have to face any consequences for their actions (or the consequences are too not based on logical reasoning but instead only on a die roll) then information gathering is indeed useless as it doesnt matter.

I think this is a bit confused.

No one is talking about the gameworld reshaping itself. 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:

(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).​

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 change 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.

You seem to prefer to ignore the players input though as no matter what they want to do the die decides what happens which means there is no reason for them to spend much thought on what they do (like with your distress call idea).

This is a funny use of ignore. 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.

finding out more information about the NPCs and judging the consequences of their actions is just common sense.

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 authored" - emphasis added by me), is that in the context of a RPG finding out more information just means getting the GM to tell you more stuff that s/he made up. 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!