Spinward Marches - Regina - Hefry
- Thread starter CosmicGamer
- Start date
I agree with this view but from a different angle. As far as I am concerned canon has only one worthwhile purpose and that is to provide (reasonably) coherent and fixed parameters when writing official material for publication and as a baseline when introducing players to the game.
Personally I have always been a very democratic referee/GM. With any group I'll give them the baseline information then ask them "What do you want to see? What do you want to add? What do you want to see removed?"
What comes out of that discussion may not, on many occasions, be "canon" Traveller but it is inclusive and most importantly fun.
What?! Devalue your copy of an OOP supplement?
My players have always been by invitation only, so only once was this a real issue. My version: :lol:MJD said:
- Player: "The Lunar Army don't look like that. They look like Romans"
Me: "Nope, though some regiments do."
P: "They look like Romans. One early supplement said they do"
Me: That's nice. I say they don't.
P: "The Lunar Army looks like the Roman Army."
Me: The door looks like that - just over there. Let it hit you on the way out if you want...
serene_muse
Mongoose
I think there's a RICE paper (TNE era writing) for Hefry somewhere. BARD archives if they're still online? Maybe some HIWG stuff too or at Zhodani Base. Nothing official but if you're wanting more than UWP info they may come in handy for your own take on things.
When I design a new setting for any system, I usually end up with a des-Somebody said:
cription of at least 20 pages, and from this I extract a shorter setting info
of a few pages for the players that gives them all of the important infor-
mations their characters have about the setting.
This is a little additional effort, but in my view it is well worth the trouble,
because the players do not have to ask that many questions about the
background during the first sessions, which makes the game run much
more smoothly, and they all have the same knowledge.
A potential player asks the referee to describe his setting so he can decideJoebeast said:
whether he wants to play in it - and you consider that arrogant ? :shock:
Well, I very much prefer players who ask questions about my setting and
campaign. A player who does not ask is a player who does not care, and
this is a player I do not want. And if my setting and campaign are not to
the player's taste, I am very glad if he decides to stay away, because a
player who dislikes my game is most likely to ruin it for himself, for the
other players and for me.
Or was this just a silly little attempt to "bait" Somebody ?
The statement:
A player who is only willing to play if the referee agrees with his 'points of view' about a fictional setting?
Such an attitude may indicate, if I decide as a referee say, that a PC can safely use a vacc suit in my version of Jump Space, that such a Player may insist the rules don't allow this - and therefore he will quit if I do not change MY setting.
Yes, from the that point of view, that would be quite the definition of arrogant. Certainly, not somebody I would want (nor allow) in my games either.
Done upfront and in reference to broad definitions, this is quite reasonable - especially in the context of signup games at conventions and such. Obviously agreeing to a game of 3I Traveller and then, after rolling PCs and such, finding the referee's idea of such is using the Judge Dredd setting might not be good for Players nor Referee.
Comes across as one from a Player that would insist the setting matches HIS views. Forget the referee and HIS views.
A player who is only willing to play if the referee agrees with his 'points of view' about a fictional setting?
Such an attitude may indicate, if I decide as a referee say, that a PC can safely use a vacc suit in my version of Jump Space, that such a Player may insist the rules don't allow this - and therefore he will quit if I do not change MY setting.
Yes, from the that point of view, that would be quite the definition of arrogant. Certainly, not somebody I would want (nor allow) in my games either.
Done upfront and in reference to broad definitions, this is quite reasonable - especially in the context of signup games at conventions and such. Obviously agreeing to a game of 3I Traveller and then, after rolling PCs and such, finding the referee's idea of such is using the Judge Dredd setting might not be good for Players nor Referee.
Yes, indeed. For example, if I want to play a Jedi in a Star Wars setting,BP said:
and the referee tells me that there are no Jedi in his setting, I will not
play in this setting. I do not expect him to change his setting, but I will
also not change my view and play a setting I do not find interesting.
:lol:
Well, that illustrated what I was trying to say quite well - the different meanings behind how things are stated and how they are interpreted.
A Referee who considers Jedi not part of his Star Wars setting and not feeling compelled to state such up front?
Doubt anyone here would think that was a good idea...
A Player who thinks a Referee should not have his own view on 'how' light sabers work within the context of what can be seen on the big screen?
Again, doubt most Referees would desire this Player in their games...
I don't always agree with a Referee's views, but I agreed to play in his setting, so I do - without debate, though not without questions as neccessary. Likewise, I wouldn't expect the Referee to make drastic changes to a published setting without informing his players upfront.
Personnally, I am quite willing and flexible in allowing my Players to help define the 'setting' during play - even the mechanics. Likewise, I expect similiar flexibility from them in accepting the setting and mechanics I set forth.
(P.S. - slightly off subject - Einstein used a somewhat relevant German word I'm trying to remember - not sure if it is part of the language or he made it up... something like Welderbilt?)
Well, that illustrated what I was trying to say quite well - the different meanings behind how things are stated and how they are interpreted.
A Referee who considers Jedi not part of his Star Wars setting and not feeling compelled to state such up front?
Doubt anyone here would think that was a good idea...
A Player who thinks a Referee should not have his own view on 'how' light sabers work within the context of what can be seen on the big screen?
Again, doubt most Referees would desire this Player in their games...
I don't always agree with a Referee's views, but I agreed to play in his setting, so I do - without debate, though not without questions as neccessary. Likewise, I wouldn't expect the Referee to make drastic changes to a published setting without informing his players upfront.
Personnally, I am quite willing and flexible in allowing my Players to help define the 'setting' during play - even the mechanics. Likewise, I expect similiar flexibility from them in accepting the setting and mechanics I set forth.
(P.S. - slightly off subject - Einstein used a somewhat relevant German word I'm trying to remember - not sure if it is part of the language or he made it up... something like Welderbilt?)
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Um... reality check here...Joebeast said:
Players can't force you to let them into your game.
You (GM) can't force players to join your game.
Each needs the other, or there is no 'game'.
And, I've actually had both happen, as a player and a GM.
Back in March, I actually had to make the decision and tell my 'best friend' that his behavior was (again) unacceptable... was about to cause everyone else to leave and since his described perception of what happened during the game was very very wrong, he had to go (this isn't the first time for this guy but after a hiatus of several years he seemed to have changed).
I've also had players bitch at me about how I ran a particular game... bitching about something I'd been doing since we started eight months prior. It went something like this:
ME: "Was I not clear about the style of game I was running?"
PLAYER: uh Yeah
ME: Is that the game I'm running now or am I doing things differently?
PLAYER: It's the same, but I've never liked how you do (name something)
ME: Listen, you had a choice back then to not play, you have the choice to not play now so what is it going to be?
PLAYER: (shuts up and goes back to playing).
AndrewW
Emperor Mongoose
Just to relate a case where I was a player in a game. Going by what the rules said the one running the game was mostly correct, but that was more poor wording in the rule that didn't take into account something, and didn't actually make sense. We discussed it a bit but ended up just agreeing to disagree. As it was his game I accepted his version of it. (I even asked one of the ones that wrote the rules for that version of the game system and he agreed with me).
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
I agree too.rust said:
At the end of March I was at Gamestorm in Portland, OR and one of the panels they asked me to be on was "Old School vs New School Gaming".
They pretty much said the same things but used terms like "Social Contract" etc. with a bit of trying to say that Old School means "kill em' when you can".
I like that Somebody's entire presentation leaves out all this modern sociological complicating need-to-label everything.
As I define Old School vs New School: Old School doesn't feel the need to sound all intellectual with fancy sociological terminology. 8)
