Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9264419" data-attributes="member: 42582">For the sake of clarity: I did not say that the Traveller referee is in an identical position to the &quot;player&quot; of Traveller. Nor did I say that they take a side in conflict, or in an encounter. What I said is that they have to take a &quot;side&quot; (the scare quotes are deliberate - I mean that they have to take a stand on a matter, form a view) as to what the unfolding fiction is about, and what will further it. They are not just impartially adjudicating the fiction.The point can be elaborated by drawing a contrast: p 19 of Book 3 of Classic Traveller states that the referee &quot; is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so.&quot;Nowhere is that proposition, of some equivalent or approximation to it, found in Moldvay Basic or in the AD&amp;D rules. When Gygax talks about &quot;imposing encounters&quot;, he refers to additional wandering monster checks that are imposed by the GM when players have their characters perform actions that - in the fiction - have an additional chance of attracting attention (eg breaking down doors) and that - at the table - are attempts to get extra advantages (such as bypassing doors) and therefore should be counter-balanced by extra risk (ie additional wandering monster checks).Even in 1977, RPG rules were being written which presented the role of the GM in different ways.EDIT:Notice that the process of GMing Moldvay Basic, as set out in the quote, is quite dissimilar to what the Classic Traveller referee is enjoined to do. The Basic D&amp;D GM does not have any obligation to impose encounters so as to further the cause of the adventure being played. Basic D&amp;D doesn't even have a notion of &quot;the adventure&quot; that is being played such that its cause might be furthered.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9264419, member: 42582"] For the sake of clarity: I did not say that the Traveller referee is in an identical position to the "player" of Traveller. Nor did I say that they take a side in conflict, or in an encounter. What I said is that they have to take a "side" (the scare quotes are deliberate - I mean that they have to take a stand on a matter, form a view) as to what the unfolding fiction is about, and what will further it. They are not just impartially adjudicating the fiction. The point can be elaborated by drawing a contrast: p 19 of Book 3 of Classic Traveller states that the referee " is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so." Nowhere is that proposition, of some equivalent or approximation to it, found in Moldvay Basic or in the AD&D rules. When Gygax talks about "imposing encounters", he refers to additional wandering monster checks that are imposed by the GM when players have their characters perform actions that - in the fiction - have an additional chance of attracting attention (eg breaking down doors) and that - at the table - are attempts to get extra advantages (such as bypassing doors) and therefore should be counter-balanced by extra risk (ie additional wandering monster checks). Even in 1977, RPG rules were being written which presented the role of the GM in different ways. EDIT: Notice that the process of GMing Moldvay Basic, as set out in the quote, is quite dissimilar to what the Classic Traveller referee is enjoined to do. The Basic D&D GM [I]does not[/I] have any obligation to impose encounters so as to further the cause of the adventure being played. Basic D&D doesn't even have a notion of "the adventure" that is being played such that its cause might be furthered. [/QUOTE]

Verification