APOLOGY AND DISCLAIMER. Please excuse any offensive material in the
following post. These are matters I feel very strongly about, and I
tend to talk from the hip in such cases. My apologies, Cynthia, for
catching you in the crossfire; you were handy, and you (probably)
deserve kinder treatment.
- ----
> From: [email removed] (Cynthia Higginbotham)
>
> Mike Metlay writes:
>
> >Furthermore, Refs must be careful as to how much TL advancement they want
> >to allow in the development of these systems, before game balance goes
> >straight out the window.
>
> What's TL advancement got to do with game balance? Just remember,
> Rule #1: the bad guys have it too.
If this is, seriously, your Rule #1, Cynthia, then regardless of your
impressive achievements here on the TML I have just lost any and all
respect for you as a member of the Traveller community. You are preaching
the worst kind of ear-rot there is, and it makes my stomach turn.
What is your sin? Making rules to deal, within the context of the
game, with players whose actions may prove disruptive or
counterproductive. This is not, as you might benightedly think, a
necessary and constructive sign of a good, conscientious Referee: it
is the eternal stamp of the muddled, muddling amateur, and one that I
shed myself only a few short years ago, after over a decade of making
myself miserable doing what I was SUPPOSED to be enjoying, i.e.
running Traveller games.
Note that this is NOT about technology, it is a much larger issue.
You can, and do, argue that from a game technology standpoint giving
people access to hellish weapons of instant destruction is reasonable,
viz.:
> Seriously, I do *NOT* understand this prejudice against realistic
> cybertechnology -- yes, *realistic*. The cyber/computer technology
> depicted in "cyberpunk" and other near-future science fiction is the most
> likely and realistic technology I've seen yet in Traveller -- so you
> dislike that and prefer jump drives/gravitics instead? Or computers
> obsolete by 1990's standards? I are confused...
On the face of it, this statement is totally reasonable. I live and
play my SF RPGs by it, and so do many others. In concert with your
Rule #1, though, it is the stroke of Doom for a worthwhile game.
My suggestion that technology be limited was, in essence, a timid
attempt to avoid this posting by skirting the reasonable point you
make about the availability of technology. It failed, because what you
just said above was inarguable. Now, though, I'm forced to say
something much more difficult, because of that FIRST piece of your
hraka I quoted.
(At this point, you're all scratching your heads and wondering if
The Man has finally gone off the deep end. Perhaps; doctoral theses
can do that to you. But there is a point to all this. Bear with me.)
(It is also possible, even highly PROBABLE, that the initial statement
made by Cynthia WAS in fact made in jest (at least partially), which
makes my initial disclaimer twice as important, lest I lose a good
friend. However, I shall press on, for my point is the most important
one I have ever made on the TML, or WILL ever make, and there are
those who MUST hear it. Bear with me.)
> >[...] Common sense should rule all such things, and
> >weenies who insist on the latest cybertoys should be politely directed
> >to the Cyberpunk game going on in the next county.
>
> But Mike, the weenies don't want to be in the Cyberpunk game where
> all their enemies are just as heavily armed... that would be dangerous.
> See Rule #1 above.
(This tends to reinforce my feeling that Cynthia was kidding. Well and
good; I was worried there for a second. It also, however, demonstrates
that she remains ignorant of the true problem. Onward!)
What you have failed utterly to consider, in your mad rush toward
technic Nirvana, is the metagaming aspect of the availability of such
technology. Not just what the characters become capable of, but what
the PLAYERS realize the characters become capable of. The bridge
between real live person, with limitations of various sorts, and
paper-and-dice construct, with DIFFERENT limitations, of various
sorts. And how all of this fits in with the vision of the game, from a
standpoint of both knowledge and intent.
Forget the rules. Forget the UNIVERSE! THIS is what is important;
all else is expensive, slick window dressing that doesn't mean spit:
What are we doing here? We are playing Traveller.
What is Traveller? Traveller is a role-playing game.
What is a role-playing game? A game in which people create artificial
personae to interact in a fictional universe in an attempt to gain
various goals (that's the "role-playing" part) and enjoy themselves
in the process (that's the "game" part).
Role-playing. Game. This and nothing else is the core of the matter.
When we do this, we are engaging in a constructive, cooperative effort
to solve a problem of some sort. We encourage one another; we face setbacks
together, we suffer together, sometimes we die, sometimes we triumph.
It is not the Satanist hogwash the media paint it as; it is perhaps the
most healthy and uplifting form of recreation ever invented by Man. It
HEALS! Psychologists know this, and have for years or decades. It is,
ultimately, GOOD for us.
Unless we do things YOUR way. With Rules like #1. Observe and learn:
When a group of people get together to game, players and ref,
regardless of the rules system or the circumstances, they do so to
enjoy each other's company and to explore a world of fantasy and
wonder, TOGETHER. We have all experienced times when the entire
group, even when the CHARACTERS were in conflict, moved and thought
in a wondrous harmony, and the game "clicked." It WORKED.
We have also, alas, experienced times when it didn't. Sometimes only
on occasion, and sometimes chronically. And when the problem becomes
chronic, we have often, in our inexperience and ignorance, attempted
to band-aid the problem with Rules.
Bad move.
There is only one Rule that counts in a role-playing game: THOU SHALT
GET ALONG WITH THY REF AND FELLOW PLAYERS. No exceptions, no fixes to
the rules to prevent abuses, no nothing. You go with the program or
you LEAVE.
The Rule you suggest is designed to prevent abuses by players of the
tremendous technology that futuristic games offer, or for that matter
the magic and nifty weapons that float around most fantasy games. It
implies one of two possibilities: either there is a player or two who
is always looking for a crowbar to wedge open a bit more of an
advantage over the NPCs (and often, tacitly, the other players), orr a
situation in which the players have one vision and the Ref another.
This should not be confused with what arises from IGNORANCE of the
game framework, it is a matter of INTENT. The Rules are stapled into
place to prevent things from getting out of hand; the Ref throws up
obstacles, technicalities, threats, to hold down the players, and they
respond with ever more clever and devious means of escalation. Their
fun is malicious; the Ref, often, stops having fun at all. The game
goes on, but people wonder why it doesn't zing any more.
The reason is lack of shared vision.
> >In a recent game I ran, one character had an
> >integral smartgun link wired to a cybernetic enhancement of his own brain;
>
> . I rather like the idea presented
> above; gives me some notions I hadn't thought of of what truly advanced
> weapon technology might be able to do.
(What a positively revolting thought.)
"But wait," you say, "You provided the technology for this massacre."
True. In my game, in this circumstance, the technology was there at
the start, and the player and his character knew it. It was understood
that gunplay was damned dangerous, and the sooner and cleaner it was
over, the better. This character was set up with the stated intent of
finishing violent situations before any PCs could get hurt. He did so
with alacrity but with no sadism or joy, and he runs his character in
such a way as to assure that such situations are AVOIDED whenever
possible. In short, he is incredibly dangerous, but his character
WORKS because he shares the vision of a nonviolent, brain-intensive
game with his Referee (moi) and the other players (none of whom have,
or wanted to have, dangerous fighters).
I am going to save you all the years of agony I went through, trying
to jump through hoops to please everyone in a game at once when certain
players were being uniform pains in the butt, so listen carefully:
Just say NO.
You're not stupid; you can tell the difference between a character
who's a pain because it's the player's PLACE in the GAME to be a pain
(what's a party without conflict?) and a character who's a pain
because the player is a pain, period. You can tell the difference
between a player who's having a bad night and one who's just plain
impossible. This is not generalizable! A fellow who is a total BLAST
in a high-level Runequest game may be a total BUMMER in a Traveller
campaign; people who are uniformly impossible are, thankfully, a
minority.
> >whereupon he described "Smith" and "Wesson" from BUCK GODOT, ZAP GUN
> >FOR HIRE (not what I'd call Traveller-grade hard SF).
>
> Hey! I liked Buck Godot!
So did I, but it WASN'T Traveller. It was Bureau 13, which is FINE, or
maybe Star Wars, but it wasn't Traveller. The mindset is different.
This is a vital subpoint to the one about shared vision: Different
games, and different universes, require different mindsets. You don't
play Traveller the way you play AD&D, or Bureau 13, or Paranoia, or
Runequest. They all have different "feels" to them, and must be
treated accordingly. The vision changes, and the people must change
with it. It all ties together that way in the end.
(Ultimately, this is the core of my disclaimer: I cannot force the
mindset of my Traveller universe on others, and unlike games like
Paranoia or Teenagers from Outer Space or Toon, the mindset in
Traveller is open to interpretation. There are people out there who
revel in the kind of mindless garbage that I avoid with all haste, and
enjoy themselves in doing so. To them, then, this entire diatribe may
seem pointless and out of place, but it is equally important to them
as to me, because THEY must retain THEIR vision as I retain mine.)
So, we have defined the problem: lack of shared vision. What's the fix?
Just say NO. In the most forceful, inarguable way you can: throw the
offenders OUT. You're NOT doing yourself or them a favor by keeping
them in a game and messing with rules and caveats to keep them in
line; you're tacitly encouraging their behavior and ruining things for
the other players....and for yourself, oftentimes. If they're really
friends, they'll understand and show up for a different campaign in a
different game with a different Ref, if that's what it takes. If they
are so mortally offended by the fact that you can't deal with them
that they refuse to have anything to do with you thereafter, guess
what? You just WON, BIGTIME, because they're out of your HAIR! You
can go back to enjoying the game again! No need for Rules-- you've
eliminated why they were there in the first place!
And if it's the whole party against the Ref? Well, two possibilities:
one is that they're all jerks, the other is that their shared vision
clashes with yours. The solution to both problems is the same: STOP
THE GAME IMMEDIATELY. Then you either start a new game in keeping with
their vision, if it's one you COULD share if you knew of it from the
start... or go find a new game group. And don't give me that whining
about how tough it is to find groups these days! That's horseshit.
There are bazillions of people looking for Refs; you just have to find
a set that click with your needs. Playing with people who DON'T is
worse than not playing at all. Believe me, I know.
If you love Traveller as a world-conquering shoot-em-up game, and
your players do as well, GO FORTH AND SHED BLOOD! Don't let an old
fart like me spoil your fun-- IF IT *IS* FUN TO YOU. I like running
games of this sort myself every once in a while (once per four years
seems to be about right), but I DON'T use Traveller for it. It's
not right for me. But if it IS right for you, AND for your players,
then go to it.
BUT.....
If you are the referee of a game, and you establish a certain mindset,
then it behooves you to insure that your players understand and agree
with that mindset, AT THE START. If they do not, you must either learn
what they want and change accordingly, if you can do so without
compromising your own vision, or change games, or eject them. Some or
all. If your vision is clouded, you CANNOT run a good game.
In closing, I quote Cynthia one last time:
> Yep. An idiot with the power of a god is still an idiot [...]
And a referee who makes rules to circumvent player conflict rather than
cutting it away like the cancer it is, IS the prime example of an idiot
with the power of a god. I have no sympathy for these people; they
deserve none. They have created their own private Hells.
Here endeth the lesson. Go, and tolerate fools no more.
(And before anyone asks: yes, I *DO* practice what I preach. Ask any
of the thirty or forty people with whom I had long-standing gaming
associations whom I'll no longer run in Traveller games because they
were good D&D players and ONLY good as D&D players....)
(And before anyone asks: No, I do not apply this ruling to the PBEM,
although I'd dearly love to sometimes. Why not? That's not for
public discussion.)
Thanks for your tolerance of my howling. I hope I was able to teach
SOMEONE something useful with it; it'd be a drag if Cynthia stopped
talking to me for nothing. |-\
- --
Mike Metlay
[email removed]
[address removed]