Playtest feedback sycophant

[Kaelic]

I was excited to get involved in some playtesting and feedback, but already after hours of gameplay sessions testing new rules and wanting to raise discussions, I'm being jumped on by people perfectly happy with the way things are, and apparently I'm doing things wrong.

Is this a feedback forum for the playtest? Or an echo chamber of sycophants? Talk about a downer.

 

[alex_greene]

Believe me, your comments are being heard.

 

[AndrewW]

As long as its kept civil people are free to express their opinion. Yes, some are going to like things just as they are, others are going to be wanting changes. This is for discussion, that includes both positives and negatives and differing opinions.

 

[Kaelic]

Good to hear. I'm guessing you're involved in development but I see nothing on your name to make it clear. Would help to know who is replying

In general though it's not just being heard, but rather I'd like to see discussion from the other players on their thoughts around issues, how impactful they are etc.

 

[AndrewW]

Good to hear. I'm guessing you're involved in development but I see nothing on your name to make it clear. Would help to know who is replying

Yes, I've been involved in the new edition since the early days (there's been some discussions and such going on for awhile) and just to add alex_greene has also been involved in some of the pre beta release discussions/testing.

In general though it's not just being heard, but rather I'd like to see discussion from the other players on their thoughts around issues, how impactful they are etc.

Agreed, it's up to the individuals what (if anything) they wish to contribute to the discussions.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Kaelic,
By Monday there will be all kinds of thoughts about the game posted here. Don't stop what you are doing. Keep posting things you have issues with. Others need to chime in still with what you have posted already.

 

[vladthemad]

Really? Maybe it's because they are still in the "Ooh shiny!" phase of browsing the book, and haven't yet made it to the "Wait a minute, what's this here all about?!" phase of giving it a thorough read.

I've been picking the rules apart piece by piece, and bringing up the issues and questions I have. I haven't yet read every section of the book or every related thread on the forum, but I'm more than happy to come see what you have to say, and back you up if I feel the same way. Send me a PM with links to the questions you're raising, and I'll give them a look!

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Don't worry about sychophants... I have 4 pages of notes of things that I don't like, and I am barely half-way through the book.

 

[-Daniel-]

Don't worry about sychophants... I have 4 pages of notes of things that I don't like, and I am barely half-way through the book.

LOL, should be interesting to see the final list.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Kaelic

With reference to this thread and your smuggling thread, I wonder it might be me (amongst others) you're referring to.

Hope not!

I'm interested in debate, I'm sorry if the post didn't read as it was intended.

With regard to the smuggling, you're asking for rules that apply rigidity where I would prefer flexibility.

The hows and whys of how PCs might be caught for smuggling could vary hugely. Are they selling boxes of cigarettes on the street corner or are they making regular shipments of cargo holds full of high tech weaponry? The first I see a copper swinging his truncheon the second I see multiple SWAT teams in a carefully coordinated raid.

Many rules should be purposefully vague to allow interpretation for individual situations, make a rule too focused and it's harder to apply.

And then there are rules where I want rigidity such as equipment, design sequences (ships, vehicles, weapons anything), system creation and to some extent, chargen.

Consistency is a good thing, I do not want as a GM or player to be on the wrong end of that stick. Decisions made by players and GM in game should follow a predictable outcome when the circumstances are mirrored.

The consistency can come from more than just the rules, the GM and the players can all contribute.

 

[Kaelic]

Hey Kaelic

With reference to this thread and your smuggling thread, I wonder it might be me (amongst others) you're referring to.

Hope not!

I'm interested in debate, I'm sorry if the post didn't read as it was intended.

With regard to the smuggling, you're asking for rules that apply rigidity where I would prefer flexibility.

Actually rules are always optional. There is no rigidity by giving the referee a good basis to work from.

The hows and whys of how PCs might be caught for smuggling could vary hugely. Are they selling boxes of cigarettes on the street corner or are they making regular shipments of cargo holds full of high tech weaponry? The first I see a copper swinging his truncheon the second I see multiple SWAT teams in a carefully coordinated raid.

The trade system says to give the player the rules and let them handle it all. If you do this, you need fixed rules. If you don't do this, you have two types of players:

- Players who try to smuggle occasionally and you can build a narrative around it
- Players who see the $$$ from trading and will try to do it over and over if the referee isn't harsh

Many rules should be purposefully vague to allow interpretation for individual situations, make a rule too focused and it's harder to apply.

The entire trade section is extremely rule driven. This would bring it in line with that.

If players want systematic trading, there needs to be systematic smuggling/legality rules to match it. If your players want narrative, give them narrative.

Right now, only one situation is covered. What is SO bad about asking for the VERY SPECIFIC trade rules to also be more specific about smuggling? If you have players that want to do trading non-narrative, right now they can just smuggle every time because there are no good rule consequences. If you suddenly punish them, its out of touch with the fact the trading is being played hands-off.

I don't know how many different ways I can explain the same thing.

I wish people would stop putting down additions THEY DO NOT HAVE TO USE because they don't need them. It's like saying nobody should eat, because you're not hungry.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, I see your point.

One last attempt at discussing the issue.

The nature of smuggling is very grey. I would rather role play it than simply let players roll dice to see the outcome. Their role play choices will have outcomes that a GM should decide rather than be rolled from a table. Be that the profit they do or don't make, their chance of arrest, the chance of being double crossed somewhere in the transaction or whatever seems appropriate - dealing with a mob of angry smack heads after half their friends died on a bad batch of heroin you just smuggled in and the dealer passed your name and number onto them to get away himself. The better the GM the fairer the outcomes.

OK, I get that that's not what you want.

For context, I avoid trade based games for exactly this reason: the rules are there in black and white and for players whose primary goal in game is to get rich the rules are very easy to manipulate to that end. For me it makes for a very very boring game. Accountants in Space as some call it.

And, in agreement in general with your point (tho you may see it as my playing devil's advocate) yes I would remove the trade rules and let GMs ad lib them. This will never happen, Traveller's principle meme and sacred cow is the free trader crew and it's attempts at getting rich.

Coming full circle I see your point and agree that to be fair it would be good to have structured rules for all kinds of outcomes and player strategies, be that trade or smuggling or any other but I would rather precious pages in the core rule book be used for other things.

This is my take, that's all. It is worth what you paid for it.

 

[Kaelic]

The nature of smuggling is very grey. I would rather role play it than simply let players roll dice to see the outcome. Their role play choices will have outcomes that a GM should decide rather than be rolled from a table. Be that the profit they do or don't make, their chance of arrest, the chance of being double crossed somewhere in the transaction or whatever seems appropriate - dealing with a mob of angry smack heads after half their friends died on a bad batch of heroin you just smuggled in and the dealer passed your name and number onto them to get away himself. The better the GM the fairer the outcomes.

So here's the thing. I totally agree with you when you're running that kind of game. I've played a lot of variety of MgT games. As player and referee, with wildly different groups. There are plenty of groups who will attempt to smuggle over and over, forcing the Referee to craft good narrative around that.

When the narrative is actually around a war, or some political drama, or whatever and trading is this thing on the side, this is where some structured rules would come in handy. I suspect that is why the trading rules are structured the way they are in the first place. Do your trade between planets, then get back to the story.

You don't always want to get the plot bogged down with trade and if the players are prone to smuggling, that's worse. You could prohibit them of course but this is about rule support and not a solution to a specific session's problem.

For context, I avoid trade based games for exactly this reason: the rules are there in black and white and for players whose primary goal in game is to get rich the rules are very easy to manipulate to that end. For me it makes for a very very boring game. Accountants in Space as some call it.

As I mentioned above, sometimes it's nice for players off to save a space princess, to also buy and sell some cargo during the trip if thats what they want to do. And the system encourages this behaviour!

It is worth what you paid for it.

I paid my time! But I like a real discussion, and my original post was never aimed at you. It's the drive-by linkers or one liners not discussing the topic that is annoying.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, agreed, that is a good reason to have fixed rules to allow you to tack it onto a worthier plot.

And yes, time is very very expensive, agreed there too.

I'm running a game at the moment that started as two likely lads trying their hand at bounty hunting. I read and absorbed the rules in Agent, we're 6 sessions in and I haven't used them once to resolve a bounty.

Maybe as their attention wanders we might but I doubt it. Funnily enough and this is what is leaving me having to agree with you, one of the players is using the investment rules from Dilettante to make money from a huge bribe they just took, I've no intention of role playing that, he can bloody well roll the dice! In a game I played alongside this player, the GM pretty much let him run the trade, he's good at it and knows the rules well. The GM checked everything but I guess that took him less time than if he'd had to do the math/die rolling himself.

Mr Sprange, I'll post this in the right thread, for the sake of honesty I'll also post it here:

Kindly include rules for resolving smuggling in the same vein as those for trade and bounties.

 

[vladthemad]

Many rules should be purposefully vague to allow interpretation for individual situations, make a rule too focused and it's harder to apply.

I disagree. Rules should never be vague. Broad or generalized is fine, but vague leads to unanswered questions. I'd rather see no rule at all than a poorly written one.

 

[Anonymous]

pedantic semantics

:mrgreen:

 

[vladthemad]

pedantic semantics

:mrgreen:

"Actually...."

 

[CosmicGamer]

Many rules should be purposefully vague to allow interpretation for individual situations, make a rule too focused and it's harder to apply.

I disagree. Rules should never be vague. Broad or generalized is fine, but vague leads to unanswered questions. I'd rather see no rule at all than a poorly written one.

I do agree that there are probably times where the authors have rules that are open to interpretation so that play groups can do things in a way that suits their style of play. However I also agree that there is a difference between the rule being vague and everybody scratching their heads and debating to the end of time what is the best interpretation vs the rule wording indicating somehow that the intention was to not be explicit.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I do agree that there are probably times where the authors have rules that are open to interpretation so that play groups can do things in a way that suits their style of play.

This is absolutely true - there have been occasions where we can see ambiguity in the text, but it really makes no difference (mechanics-wise) which way players go - it really is up to them. So, sometimes, it gets left in.

However, this is a playtest, so any such ambiguity should at least be raised, even if we later leave it in (!).