Traveller OTU - Loves and Hates

[PrinceYyrkoon]

'Most will hold offices of nobility or military status.'

Yep, but their job is to govern, not to fight.

Still...Id call that an emphasis.

 

[rust]

Still...Id call that an emphasis.

Well, since any plausible fictional state will have military forces, and
since the leaders of these forces will always be important personalities,
this degree of emphasis is unavoidable. Even Switzerland has military
leaders among its highest ranking personalities, although their forces
did not fight any war for centuries.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Still...Id call that an emphasis.

Well, since any plausible fictional state will have military forces, and
since the leaders of these forces will always be important personalities,
this degree of emphasis is unavoidable. Even Switzerland has military
leaders among its highest ranking personalities, although their forces
did not fight any war for centuries.

Exactly, thats what Im saying. Unavoidable.

 

[rust]

Exactly, thats what Im saying. Unavoidable.

This kind of emphasis, yes. However, the emphasis on combat, weaponry
and martial arms you mentioned is definitely not a part of the system.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I guess the initial statement was naming a system which doesnt have an emphasis on military matters. A game whereby the majority of players have characters which are connected to the military in some way, I would say, has an emphasis on the military, probably as much as Traveller does.

Conflict, whether philosophical or physical is always the device used for great storytelling, and, therefore, games, from chess to rpgs. Philosophical conflict in rpgs, is less satisfying, in a way, less visceral, less immediate, and maybe doesnt translate well into games playing. At least consistently. A game has to have danger and excitment to be worthwhile and that, usually, means a simulation of physical combat, either abstractly or in detail.

 

[rust]

Conflict, whether philosophical or physical is always the device used for great storytelling, and, therefore, games, from chess to rpgs. Philosophical conflict in rpgs, is less satisfying, in a way, less visceral, less immediate, and maybe doesnt translate well into games playing. At least consistently. A game has to have danger and excitment to be worthwhile and that, usually, means a simulation of physical combat, either abstractly or in detail.

I see your point, but I do only partially agree.

There are lots of other motives for roleplaying games that do not require
any conflict in a physical sense, for example exploration and the sense of
wonder or the development of characters and their interactions or - to re-
turn to Traveller - speculative trade.

In our campaigns any kind of combat and other uses of weapons are ex-
tremely rare, it happens perhaps once per game time year at most (and
this includes hunting or defense against animals and thelike), and our lon-
gest campaign has covered about 120 years of game time.
True, combat is the easiest and fastest way to create excitement, but it
is really not the only or best one - at least not in my view.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Conflict, whether philosophical or physical is always the device used for great storytelling, and, therefore, games, from chess to rpgs. Philosophical conflict in rpgs, is less satisfying, in a way, less visceral, less immediate, and maybe doesnt translate well into games playing. At least consistently. A game has to have danger and excitment to be worthwhile and that, usually, means a simulation of physical combat, either abstractly or in detail.

Solving mysteries, for me, is the biggest 'buzz' I get from gaming, but YVMD.

I would note that the new Dr. Who game deliberately sets out non-violent action as a core theme in the game.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Solving mysteries where everyone has been helpful and showing you exactly where the ancient abandoned structure is? Being a merchant, selling your wares throughout the galaxy when theres no threat of losing your profits to space pirates?

I dont think anyone plays rpgs as pure wargame, but, without the vicarious threat to your characters life, its not an adventure.

Violence is an inherent part of existence. We may prefer other ways of dealing with problems in our lives, but most, if not all, rpgs offer the simple martial solution to obstacles. Even a fringe game such as My Life With Master contains these elements of violence and aggression.

 

[rust]

I dont think anyone plays rpgs as pure wargame, but, without the vicarious threat to your characters life, its not an adventure.

Think of real world people like Marco Polo, James Cook or Jacques-Ives
Cousteau. They certainly had adventurous lives, although violence and
combat were extremely rare events during those lives.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I dont think anyone plays rpgs as pure wargame, but, without the vicarious threat to your characters life, its not an adventure.

Think of real world people like Marco Polo, James Cook or Jacques-Ives
Cousteau. They certainly had adventurous lives, although violence and
combat were extremely rare events during those lives.

Marco Polo was a commander in the Venetian navy. Cook was a captain in the British navy. Cousteau was also in the navy. Im not sure what your point is. Cook was killed in a scuffle with a native tribe. Polo was a prisoner in a Genoese jail.

If you wanted to recreate them as characters in Traveller, you would probably use High Guard, right?

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I would note that the new Dr. Who game deliberately sets out non-violent action as a core theme in the game.

Theres no Daleks? No Davros? No Cybermen then?

 

[rust]

If you wanted to recreate them as characters in Traveller, you would probably use High Guard, right?

The core rules would do to create them. My point is that after "character
creation" with a military career each of them (and many others) lived
very adventurous lives with almost no combat in them - in the case of
Cousteau, not even the risk of combat.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I guess we need to draw this part of the discussion to a close.

 

[Vargr]

I would note that the new Dr. Who game deliberately sets out non-violent action as a core theme in the game.

Surely you jest! :?

Please tell me you are making a joke; who in their right mind would design a Dr. Who RPG that "deliberately sets out non-violent action"?

Dr. Who is one of the most violent shows on TV! Hardly an episode goes by without some poor bastard perishing, usually in an exotic manner...involving acid, electricity, a disease, molecular desintegration or a combination of the above.

I saw an interview once where a former Doctor Who actor stated he believed one (if not the) of the major reasons for the continued success of the Dr. was the omnipresence of indiscriminate Death in the series.

Well, yes. The good doctor doesn't usually use guns. He has no need to, he can re-route the main alien computer to blow up the ship (killing thousands of sophonts) while he escapes in TARDIS.

Spouting non-violent ideals in a Dr. Who game is like having the Aliens without the acid, or vegetarian Predators.

What's this world coming too?

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Yup, Batman doesnt use guns but the premise is problems are solved with a slight amount of detective work, then masses of violence.

 

[Jame Rowe]

I think that my greatest peeve about Traveller is the way the tech scale works. The low end isn't specific enough, while the high end is too specific, and items don't advance very quickly or very realistically.

Though the GURPS 3E tech scale works well for me (not the 4E version; I find that even more outre' than the Traveller scale - it's simply too fast!).

 

[GamerDude]

Getting back to the military emphasis...

Im not sure which rpg doesnt have a military emphasis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "military emphasis"? Do you mean that 'any game in which there is combat is emphasizing some form of military structure/organization"?

If you do then you are saying any country is based on military/has a military structure/emphasis... people are beating the crap out of each other, shooting or stabbing each other all the time day and night... That's combat but nothing military.

Now saying "which RPG doesn't require a combat mechanic" is a different story, and I'll agree.. probably every RPG does.

All I know is, every game system I've run there hasn't been a really big enphasis on "a military"... the players are typically free agents who, in a particular campaign, might join some military organization, but that's not the focus of the rules themselves.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

GamerDude

I guess I was talking about a 'martial' emphasis really.

Traveller, (and other GDW originals), does have a fairly strong military presence, though. Ive heard criticism for this from the storytellers amongst us. I would argue that what separates an rpg from pure storytelling is conflict and PC jeopardy. I think most, if not all, major rpgs unduly emphasise this facet. I dont have an issue with this, its what makes an rpg an rpg as far as Im concerned.

Thats not to say there cant be a synthesis of story and action. And I think thats how most of us play it. Story without action is a marginal interest for most of us, I think. I would even prefer action without story (OD&D!), if I had to choose.

 

[Guardnacho]

"Spouting non-violent ideals in a Dr. Who game is like having the Aliens without the acid, or vegetarian Predators."

If I may other a slight editorial correction:
Spouting non-violent ideals in a Dr. Who game, without the Doctor having his finger on the kill button and then listening to his tortured speech about regretting having to commit genocide,again; is like having the Aliens without the acid, or vegetarian Predators.

 

[GamerDude]

GamerDude

I guess I was talking about a 'martial' emphasis really.

That's cool. I mean it's why I pose the question and explain my POV.

I think we're pretty much in agreement... I say "combat" you say "martial", let's call the whole thing offfff!