Refereeing - Keeping It Human?

[alex_greene]

This one is for Referees, including people in the sort of gaming groups where players take it in turns to be the Ref du jour.

(If you're all on here as members of such a group, you're all entitled to speak here).

Do you keep your stories human at all? And by that, I mean "do you address the needs of sophont characters?" rather than "do you restrict your game to only Humaniti, and leave out the option of playing aliens?"

Some of my favourite stories have come down to the scale of the individual; if they were Firefly episodes, they'd be something like "Our Mrs Reynolds" and "The Message" rather than the grandeur of the space battle scene at the end of Serenity.

I have friends who cite the closing scene at the end of the episode "Safe," where the characters all get together around the supper table, as the single warmest and most meaningful episode of the whole big damn series. And I can't blame them, because not long after that, the cracks begin to show among the crew.

While it's really cool to have the characters switch from dodging bullets in the war zone in one episode to enacting "24" the next, or to pulling off the Italian Job in the next story or, indeed, facing a planetary scale horror like Miranda in the movie Serenity, does it make the game feel more of a draw if you have the occasional story where the characters explore their own lives once in a while?

Even James T Kirk had his old flames, family and the occasional enemy for whom it was personal.

So. Keeping it human. Yes or no? If so, why? And if not, why not?

 

[alex_greene]

Okay, players, you can talk too.

 

[IanBruntlett]

Do you keep your stories human at all? And by that, I mean "do you address the needs of sophont characters?" rather than "do you restrict your game to only Humaniti, and leave out the option of playing aliens?"

(snip)

So. Keeping it human. Yes or no? If so, why? And if not, why not?

At the moment I've been refereeing since January this year. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have 50% regular players and 50% transient players who'll play for the duration of a scenario.

Because of that, I've got to keep it simple, even down to having me look after game mechanics for new players to keep things running smoothly. I haven't had alien players but have had a fair amount of alien NPCs.

 

[Paladin]

None of our current players are alien, though a few NPCs have been. I think much of that is due to a lack of familiarity with the game system at the time of their character creation (all but 2 are still using their first character for Traveller). I probably need to work a few more "meaningful" aliens in as NPCs rather than short term contacts. The two players that expressed interest in an alien character of some sort weren't thrilled with the limited options in the core rule book. They were invited to develop their own minor species or find one online or pick any species in any sci-fi and I'd help them convert them to Traveller, but that hasn't happened yet.

"family" / human side - Like Ian, my group has had some issues with inconsistent attendance. We've ranged from 3-12 players; avg 6-7. Everyone has enjoyed the game and wants to come, we are all just busy adults with chaotic schedules. It's made gelling as a collective group a bit difficult. They are still largely in the coexistence phase. We also have 4 miniature game players that have just been introduced to role-playing as a whole through this campaign. Some of them are still feeling out the concepts and are just beginning to take "ownership" of their character and trying to play the role.

There are also a couple of players that when in attendance are fairly underhanded and will skim money on deals/contracts and short change other players without a second thought. It fits their character types (pirate/warmonger), but doesn't fit the noble, heart of gold hero image. It's been minor so far, but there is potential for a fight or issues eventually. I'm planning to have it "blow up" soon to get it out of the way and hopefully curb it in the future. :twisted:

 

[Pascalahad]

When players create their characters one of my questions is inevitably: does he/she have relatives I should be aware of as a gamemaster ? There’s games where that doesn’t matter most of the time, like in “missions” rpg. When your chief says “go here and investigate” you don’t find a relative each time on your path. But then you have games with a fixed base of operation, and a supporting cast is then very important to implement a sense of familiarity and warmth.

I created a “cyberpunk” character with a full background, and he had a sister. Each time she appeared in the adventure it was immensely fulfilling for me as a player. It was not moments like “she has been kidnapped and I must save her”, it was little touches the gamemaster added, like a simple phone call to say “hi”. Seems like nothing, but it was rewarding as a roleplaying experience. The proof being I vividly remember it, and not the adventure itself ! The trick is to give some moments like these to every player, if possible.

Siblings and friends are easy enough to implement, but I discovered romance is really tough to handle. You can simulate friendship or familiarity in a game, but love is difficult. Primarily because, well, you are not in love with the person you speak to, you are at best friend with him/her, or at least friendly. And we’re players, not actors. When a player begins to try some “acting”, I personally find it pretty embarrassing. “Romance” works best to me when there’s firm rules to simulate it, like in the old James Bond rpg. I’m more comfortable in these cases to let the dice do the talking !

Saving the universe is good, but at the end of the session, it’s more often than not the tiny “character” bits that stay in your mind for a long time, the “human” stuff.

I think that’s a huge part of the appeal I still have towards the original Star Wars trilogy, that I didn’t find in the prequels, a genuine warmth between the characters. Apparently that’s also the appeal of “Firefly”, I must see this show…

 

[Jon Brazer Enterprises]

So. Keeping it human. Yes or no? If so, why? And if not, why not?

Absolutely. Its easy to shoot the bad guy. Its hard to shoot your own childhood buddy while he's handing poor people food he stole from a commercial liner (and you've been hired to bring the guy to justice). Its easy to shoot a bomb maker. Its hard to shoot a bomb maker when he's doing it for a cause you believe in. Its easy to shoot a mean dictator. Its hard to shoot a mean dictator that is protecting his people from those that would be worse than he is.

IMO, the real adventure is not the smuggling and the trading. Its not finding bad guys and "taking them down". The real adventure is making the hard decision. Its about putting away your gun or magic wand or cthulu-in-a-box and choosing to work with your "enemy" to get them to change their ways to something better. Its harder, alot harder. But it is worth it in the end.

 

[Travellingdave]

My campaign's been a mix of both character development and epic storytelling. Lately, however, I've found the character stuff the most satisfying.

Our last game had the crew (a mix of three PCs and three NPCs) checking out an orbital habitat for information and leads. The balance of the night was spent at a zero-gee dance club, mingling with free fallers and trying their hand at whip-dancing and something the locals called "Bounce!" They had a blast and I got a great chance to flesh out my NPCs, each of whom got a moment in the spotlight. Afterwards, one of my players told me that he felt like there were six players at the table, not three.

It reminded me why I do all this.

 

[FreeTrav]

So. Keeping it human. Yes or no? If so, why? And if not, why not?

I've both played and reffed, and there is absolutely no question in my mind about the "correct" answer to this question: Keep it 'human'. Keeping it human applies to both PCs and NPCs, friend, foe, and rival alike. If you don't, all you end up with is a dungeon crawl, of the type associated with dweebs that haven't learned the basics of personal hygiene. I - and my players and referees - are quite familiar with the concept of bathing and laundering of clothes, thank you, and our style of play reflects that.

Seriously, though, keeping it 'human' gives the players and the ref(s) more of a stake in the characters - they become three-dimensional, not just stereotyped cardboard cutouts, and they have motivations beyond "we need the money to make the next payment on this beat-up old crate".

In a way, keeping it 'human', even if your 'humans' are Aslan or Vargr, represents the key difference between 'playing a game' and 'telling a story'. To me, games... No. Recreations like Traveller haven't been about 'playing a game', they've been about 'telling a story'. That the development of the story is interactive and collaborative in an unusual way is irrelevant; it is still about telling it. Elsewhere on this forum, and two or three times on the TML, I posted a ... rant? sermon? homily? ... about the issue of Canon and its purpose, and I made the point about Telling the Story there, as well - so this isn't a new attitude on my part, nor a new way of expressing it. And I have yet to come up with a better way of doing so.

 

[Sturn]

The last campaign I ran was a Star Wars d20 one, haven't gotten to run a Traveller campaign lately but hope to do so again soon.

There were many "human" episodes mixed between combat for my last Star Wars campaign. This may sound funny when the two PCs were alien bounty hunters played by my two nephews. Even so, they faced ethical delimmas, family situations, an uncle that betrayed them, etc. I purposely put several of these situations in to force the RP-newbies to become invested in the personality of their characters and the NPCs they befriended. They responded quite well. Without "humanity" in your role-playing sessions, it becomes just a shoot-em-up re-enactment that a computer program on XBox can simulate better. Us few gravitate towards pencil and paper for a reason.

 

[Bygoneyrs]

Over the years I have kept my players only playing Human stock, and it has worked well. Even my players have liked it as well too.

Penn

 

[Mawdrigen]

See I'm planning to put more of this in to my Traveller campaign, my last campaigns were DH when family connections and other human interactions were kept down to: "Crap! Grandad is trying to assasinate us again!"

Traveller though is intended to be a long running campaign if I can manage it. So I will try and build in more Human stuff!

First stop I think will be running the one shot I'm planning then between that and the start of the campaign proper arrange to meet with each player seperately to flesh out their background further!

Any other ideas?

 

[kafka]

I have yet to meet a newbie that can do a good Traveller alien and many a veteran stumbles...keeping it human is easy but in no way is the whole game.

I would advise against newbies going alien but experienced players, why not?

 

[FreeTrav]

Over the years I have kept my players only playing Human stock, and it has worked well. Even my players have liked it as well too.

Penn

I have yet to meet a newbie that can do a good Traveller alien and many a veteran stumbles...keeping it human is easy but in no way is the whole game.

I would advise against newbies going alien but experienced players, why not?

Just for clarification: This isn't, as I understand it, the question that the OP asked. It's a valid point of view, but somewhat to one side of the point of the question that OP was asking, which focussed on whether the game/story itself is 'about the characters' rather than 'about the adventure'.

Adventure stories are 'ordinary people in extraordinary situations' rising to the occasion - and not always succeeding. This is, IMO, what good Traveller play should strive for, and what I believe the OP was asking about - as constrasted with A Series Of Events That The PC Is Merely A Token Being Moved On The Board through. It's hard to turn a game of Chess, Go, Snakes-and-Ladders, or Monopoly into a Story, and the best attempt I've seenwas mediocre at best.

On the other hand, look at such series as the Honor Harringtonor Republic of Cinnabar Navyseries, where, even though there are multiple characters, and the universe is Big, the stories are still about the characters, rather than the events. These are the kinds of stories that people read, time and again, and say that they 'feel like Traveller', and I think that it's because, in large part, they make the stories 'human', in the sense that the original poster meant it. Babylon 5, by reputation, did it as well, and not all of their characters were genetic-human - but they were all 'human', in the sense I meant in my previous posting when I spoke about 'human' characters being Aslan or Vargr.

 

[alex_greene]

No, this is fine. If you want to discuss alien characters, that's cool. But alien characters really stand out when there are differences, yet similarities, between the way they see things and the way humans see things.

For instance humans have family - mother, father, grandparents, siblings, offspring. They also have their friends, allies, contacts, companions, partners and lovers, not to mention friendly and not so friendly rivals, downright enemies, psychotic ex - lovers and so on.

Stories which bring those extraneous characters in are exciting; for instance a respected and liked ex-business partner from an agent's old, defunct cover story turns up, whose recognition of the agent could jeopardise his new cover and threaten both his own life and that of the ex partner. Or a Traveller may discover that an elaborate underground railroadf to smuggle psions from a world where they are considered slaves and chattels, to a world where they are free citizens, has been set up by the Traveller's mother - who comes out as a psion herself.

Now doing this with aliens can be very challenging unless you're familiar with the creatures' mindset. With Aslan, the clan and tribe are important, so the politics of Aslan prides are defined enough that a player can make a good stab at it. Zhodani, likewise, are sufficiently human to have the same kinds of outlooks as other humans, as stated above - family, friends and so on. But there's that whole Prole / Outer Party / Inner Party / Big Brother thing going for them, where the Intendants are the Outer Party.

Nonetheless, it just seems more natural and inclusive to me, and adds a degree of verisimilitude to a scenario, if the characters have regular contact with significant others. Not all of the time, of course - space is vast, and there's a lot of people to go through - but it makes things more interesting if a significant number of of the people the characters are people they knew from their pre-chargen lives and from during their chargen. Particularly if their motivations are a bit more varied than a simple desire to bilk the characters out of their cash, rope them into serving on a pirivateer or subject them to a withering salvo of ACR fire.

 

[Rex]

In an Imperium Game, I tend to keep it Human, OR, if there is a good amount of folks interested in, and have shown that they can do it, All Alien.

Right now I've got three Traveller games going. A monthly Jack Chalkers Well World game, an all Aslan Game, and a Third Imperium game where everyone is Human.

So, one Mix, one ALL alien, and one Human. It boils down to what your players can relate to. In the Well World game, everyone has read the series so when i say Hakazit, no one says gesundheit. In the Aslan game, those players are very good, at portraying Aslan. Not people in a lion suit (though they seem to lack HUMAN skills), and the Humaniti players, are all HUGE Firefly fans (as anyone should be, heh) and relate better to that aspect of the game.

So unfortunately. No Good Answer. Going to come down to, what's generating the most fun for all involved in the end.

~Rex