BardicHeart
SOC-12
I meant, "Who cares that's what the published adventures focused on."
Obviously.
Obviously.
Archdukes and emperors are beyond the normal scope of play
- Thread starter Shonner
- Start date
BardicHeart
SOC-12
One way of looking at it I guess. You seem to also be implying that if the players want exactly that they must be stupid. I would argue that a free-trader game is not bad by default, and a ref running one is not automatically weak/unimaginative. I think it is your individual experiences colouring your pov, try to use a smaller brush
Would you pity the poor ref who has to rehash the same old junk trader adventures because that's what the players want, when what the ref wanted to run was something else entirely? And would you then be aiming your barbs at the players?
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a weak mind necessarily. If a group really enjoys the whole tramp freighter thing, then go for it. After all, games are supposed to be about fun (though sometimes sitting in a hobby shop I wonder if some think the point of a game is to have something to argue about
o: ).On the other hand, it can be annoying when you have a Ref or a group that never does anything else because they can't imagine anything else; or even worse, because they think because published material focused on one thing that that is the only "one true way" to play the game. That gets stiffling.
I wish there had been as well, kind of surprised there wasn't given how prevalent wargamers were among RPG gamers at the time. But now that I think about it... the "free trader" type campaign was the new idea of its day. Thinking back, almost everyone I knew back in the 80s who played RPGs were also wargamers... so imagining a military style campaign was not something most needed much help with. As I recall the trend was moving away from the wargames that RPGs had grown out of, focusing more and more on the individual. Maybe that was it, they were trying to "tap" what then was the untapped market (free traders, swashbuckling individuals, etc). Never really thought about it back then... but looking back, Fantasy Wargaming was as much a wargame as an RPG and in many ways so was Mechanoid Invasion. Most games had miniatures rules for large scale fights and battles. Now days miniatures rules and mass combat rules are much rarer and it seems most new RPGs focus solely on "storytelling" style play (where even the rules don't matter, which to a wargamer was virtually blasphemy; just different styles really).
True, least not roleplaying by current popular trends. "Heroic wargaming" was a term I used to hear, these days it seems to be a lost concept. Times change.
Guess that makes me an antique. LOL
I happen to think that the adventures people buy and the adventures fans self-publish give a clue or two to the kind of adventure a lot of Traveller fans play. In other words, the "normal" adventure. So I think it's quite relevant to the discussion. I guess you can say that makes me care.
Hans
So is the OP's question.
He wasn't asking about knights acting as triggermen for their baron, barons acting as triggermen managers for their count, or counts acting as the managers of other managers.
He asked about archdukes and emperors. Pocket Empires has the players managing an entire polity and that type of play is more like a wargame than a RPG.
Those are all good examples of upper SOC level RPG play. They aren't what the OP was asking about however.
What you did in those examples was lift the PCs and their patron up the SOC ladder and make the problems the PCs are handling for their patron more suit the level of society the participants move in. From a play standpoint, there is no real difference between knights rooting out a spy for their baron and thugs rooting out an informant for their gang boss. All that changes is costumes. It's all normal RPG play.
When you get to point where the PC rules a world or worlds, the style of play becomes different. Different meaning not normal. Not different meaning bad, but different meaning unlike normal RPG play and more like normal wargame play.
One way of looking at it I guess. You seem to also be implying that if the players want exactly that they must be stupid. I would argue that a free-trader game is not bad by default, and a ref running one is not automatically weak/unimaginative. I think it is your individual experiences colouring your pov, try to use a smaller brush
Speaking for myself, I am criticizing the veteran Traveller ref who can't seem to run anything else, no matter what his players might be interested in, whether or not they get a chance to express that interest at all.
Generally, yes, though probably less critical of the players on a relative scale. I find that it is refs/GMs who are more often guilty of habitually limiting the scope of a game by limiting the level of influence, resources, etc. that the player characters have, as if scarcity is the only way they know how to challenge player characters - by primarily targeting player character weakness rather than player character strengths, as opposed to a healthy mix of both types of challenges, both at the campaign-strategic level and session/adventure-tactical level.
Um... there's a *lot* of fiction, both genre and literature, that shows persons of high social status and office involved in adventurous events. There are differences in what those adventurous events look like from that perspective, as well as how those events are handled, but those differences tend strongly away from personal violence (except for the code duello, where it exists) and more toward social interaction (roleplaying) and the conflicting use of influence.
It's definitely a different kind of gaming, but one that is well within scope of the RPG hobby. Now, whether a given set of RPG rules supports that kind of play is a different matter entirely...
Some, sure, but a lot? And they mostly seem to involve those persons losing their office and having to gad about in low circles in order to regain their office (Prince & Pauper, etc.). Can you give a few examples of people of high social status and office having adventures while retaining the trapping of their position?
Hans
My literary background is sadly insufficient to the challenge, so I am unfortunately left with more contemporary genre fiction as my literary claims fall away unsupported.
Given the definition of "adventure" that I used, what immediately comes to mind is Jack Ryan in the later Tom Clancy novels. In high offices within the U.S. Government (ultimately including the Presidency), he certainly had a number of adventurous experiences, and handled them in much the same way I outlined, through social interaction and the exercise of influence. (The absence of the code duello precluding more direct action - mostly.)
I now recall candidates from older genre fiction - Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel. While neither gentleman adventurer occupied a social or political tier comparable to a Traveller Archduke or Emperor, they nonetheless were of landed nobility, possessing substantial wealth for their social setting. While their unique circumstances definitely allowed them to engage in more "traditional" adventuring activities, they nonetheless had multiple occasions to utilize social interaction as a means of achieving a particular adventurous end. And the Pimpernel had his League of like-minded men through whom he exercised indirect influence, as well as utilizing them as adventuring associates.
Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Britt Reid, Victor Von Doom, and Adrian Veidt, etc have had their share of rise and fall and rise... But their storylines would not be a part of a typical campaign that involve a player belonging to a group or party of Traveller characters. Such characters tend to experience and deal with such problems on their own without the help of others.
Unless one player character is fought by all the other player characters (he's a bad guy, or the others think he's a bad guy?). Not sure how often those kind of Traveller storylines are played out.
Unless one player character is fought by all the other player characters (he's a bad guy, or the others think he's a bad guy?). Not sure how often those kind of Traveller storylines are played out.
On the one hand, it's a case of fiction not translating well into RPG gaming. On the other hand, it is the predominance of "troupe play" RPG gaming, which is not the way RPG gaming has always been; the original Gygaxian campaigns had PCs in competition with one another.
That said, creative collaboration among the players and the ref could translate those kids of situations to troupe play. A key requirement would be to determine some kind of connection that would bring the PCs together to address the adventurous situations. What wont work is the ref unilaterally creating the campaign set up; nor will independent chargen by players.
Contemporary fiction is fine. After all, ultra-tech societies have more in common with high-tech societies than with mid-tech and low-tech societies.
Jack Ryan is an excellent example of what I mean. As he advanced in the ranks, his freedom of movement became more and more circumscribed. Clancy had to bring in Clark and Chavez to sub for Ryan. When he became President of the US, he had no chance of evading his security detail and go adventuring[*]. Even his wife had problems keeping up her normal routine.
[*] Not saying that his story became more boring -- Executive Orders is my favorite of the books.
And a president of a population 8 country on a balkanized pre-stellar world is hardly in the same league as an Imperial archduke. Mere Imperial marquesses would consider themselves to be his equals or betters.
But that difference is crucial to the whole argument. Minor noblemen, with or without resources, who have Traveller-appropriate adventures are too numerous to list. But they are minor. Don Diego de la Vega is said to be a noble, but personally I'd count him a member of the gentry. Sir Percy Blakeney is an English baronet, socially, if not formally, a hereditary knight. What sort of chance would he have had to be the Scarlet Pimpernel if he had been the Crown Prince? D'Artagnan was a nobleman. Comte de Rochefort was a full count (which is not as impressive for continental nobles as English earls, but still not to be sneezed at. They can have adventures. But what about Cardinal Richelieu, not to mention Louis XIII? And that's before the age of papparazzi. Can you imagine Prince William or Prince Harry as a member of a PC party?
When Duke Norris, already mentioned as an exception to the rule, goes adventuring, he has to pretend to be in seclusion (recovering from an illness) and go about incognito.
The Emperor or one of the archdukes could be a patron, sure. But a player character? I don't see it myself.
Hans
I've always let the chargen determine a campaign for me. "Send me photocopies of your 3x5s and I'll show up next week with another adventure and cool NPCs that will interact with them." The players are not forced into necessarily a clan group of some kind that don't leave eachother's side. They can be their own thing if they wanted.
Now if the 3x5s submitted are just descriptions of themsleves, FAIL. They have to role-play that character and they have to be chargen'd. They can chargen the whole week before until they get a character they like. I don't like to see players trying to be a character they didn't much care about generating.
'nuff rant.
Now if the 3x5s submitted are just descriptions of themsleves, FAIL. They have to role-play that character and they have to be chargen'd. They can chargen the whole week before until they get a character they like. I don't like to see players trying to be a character they didn't much care about generating.
'nuff rant.
Then there is the ruler of the galaxy which is a SOC Level 16 to think about.
The Emperor is SL 17[*]. The ruler of Charted Space might be SL 19. I think you'd need a few more intermediate steps before you reached the ruler of the galaxy.
[*] Canonically. IMTU he's SL 33.
Hans
Garyius2003
SOC-13
A Duke, much less an Archduke, is most likely shadowed everywhere by 50 versions of Hollywood Tonight every minute (s)he pokes his or her head outside their private residence in their manor.
20 or 30 gossip sites most likely exist to cover what clothes they wear or which show they go to see. "ZOMG! Duke Jamsiiisi slightly sneered when Professor Riikiesii presented his twenty verse ode to the Rim War!" "Only on Manor! Tonight!, the Duke's sneer was towards the latest hot drink, Terran Hot Whiskey and Rams Piss!"
An Imperial Duke is not boarding an A2 for any reason other than to tour it for the 20,000th copy made at the shipyard.
20 or 30 gossip sites most likely exist to cover what clothes they wear or which show they go to see. "ZOMG! Duke Jamsiiisi slightly sneered when Professor Riikiesii presented his twenty verse ode to the Rim War!" "Only on Manor! Tonight!, the Duke's sneer was towards the latest hot drink, Terran Hot Whiskey and Rams Piss!"
An Imperial Duke is not boarding an A2 for any reason other than to tour it for the 20,000th copy made at the shipyard.
We have a definitional issue here. I am not talking about "going adventuring", I am talking about "dealing with adventurous situations" - as freedom of movement and activity becomes restricted, the situations happen within the scope of that movement and activity, and/or tend to move more firmly into the social and "influential" arenas - such as sending your own "Clark and Chavez" to deal with matters that you cannot address directly anymore.
You answered it yourself, below.
Or members of a military unit in a combat zone?
And there is your answer, or one answer. Rather than saying "it cannot be done", the question is asked "how can it be done so that it can be done", creativity can provide sufficiently plausible answers.
Now, if the restriction is to "Archduke and Emperor", then greater creativity is required. But if the discussion is "at archducal and imperial levels of society", then creativity explodes.
The Emperor or one of the archdukes could be a patron, sure. But a player character? I don't see it myself.
Hans[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about sitting down around a table with five of my friends. Each of them has a character sheet in front of him. One of the sheets detail Archduke Kieran Adair of Sol. Now tell me, what characters do the other four play, and what adventures do I run them through that gives them all more or less the same amount of "screen time"?
And what sort of adventures would you run him and the other PCs through?Or members of a military unit in a combat zone?
"Obviously it can be done if only you're creative enough" is not an answer that proves anything. Showing me how it can be done would be. Then us uncreative referees can copy you and we'll all be happy.
"Obviously it can be done if only you're creative enough" is not an answer that proves anything.
Hans
It seems quite obvious to me that the naysayers can't conceive of playing such constrained situations as, for example, the later Jack Ryan stories. And that the proponents of the high level campaigns aren't explaining the difference.
There are several games which wind up with such high-political-level games. In Sci Fi, there is Burning Empires... wherein the PC's are the major players in the defending side of an invasion of body snatchers... and Mars 2100 (just started playtest), where the PC's are the spokesmen or movers and shakers of various factions of their martian colony's populace. In Fantasy, there are several as well: Reign, Houses of the Blooded, and Pendragon all are intended for dynastic and landholding play, D&D's Birthright Setting where PC's are all heads of some unit of society by birth (and magic supports that paradigm)... And the Space Fantasy Dune and Jihad, dealing with different aspects of Herbert's CHOAM Imperium, from a top-down point of view.
And then, there's T4's Pocket Empires... which puts Planetary and Sector Dukes right in the scope of play.
Most people won't play the higher echelons of Imperial Society. But there is nothing wrong with those who do play them. And, unlike Jack Ryan, there is a lot more room to maneuver. Reasons to go a-jaunting out of earshot of the press. Yes, the security detail does go too, but that's not going to prevent the adventure... just prevent it being directly martial in nature.
The Duke going visiting the neighbors for some leveraged intimidation is an adventure... but it's one where the combat is best handled as a fast-play wargame, and social skills can be deadly.
There are several games which wind up with such high-political-level games. In Sci Fi, there is Burning Empires... wherein the PC's are the major players in the defending side of an invasion of body snatchers... and Mars 2100 (just started playtest), where the PC's are the spokesmen or movers and shakers of various factions of their martian colony's populace. In Fantasy, there are several as well: Reign, Houses of the Blooded, and Pendragon all are intended for dynastic and landholding play, D&D's Birthright Setting where PC's are all heads of some unit of society by birth (and magic supports that paradigm)... And the Space Fantasy Dune and Jihad, dealing with different aspects of Herbert's CHOAM Imperium, from a top-down point of view.
And then, there's T4's Pocket Empires... which puts Planetary and Sector Dukes right in the scope of play.
Most people won't play the higher echelons of Imperial Society. But there is nothing wrong with those who do play them. And, unlike Jack Ryan, there is a lot more room to maneuver. Reasons to go a-jaunting out of earshot of the press. Yes, the security detail does go too, but that's not going to prevent the adventure... just prevent it being directly martial in nature.
The Duke going visiting the neighbors for some leveraged intimidation is an adventure... but it's one where the combat is best handled as a fast-play wargame, and social skills can be deadly.
BardicHeart
SOC-12
The episode of Shindig from Firefly could be used as an example of role play that would focus exclusively on the higher ranks. Public functions, gala's, social intrigues, duels over insults (or as a means of removing a political rival), and so forth. Might be particularly good as a sort of "template" for a newly minted knight, formerly an adventurous freighter captain, now struggling to fit into "high society".
Generally I find that one of the biggest differences with higher level play for players is they have to get used to now being the Patron, instead of being the lackey of the Patron. It requires a more goal oriented, self motivated style of play. I've always encouraged players to consider the background of their character, how that shaped motivations, and what the long term goals of their character are. The game play is then driven very much by those long term goals rather than whatever random adventure the GM throws at them (the GM may not necessarily create an adventure at all, instead throwing out an event or opportunity and letting the players decide how their characters react; in some cases the PCs may even be the event creators).
I think it would be possible for a group to play the Emperor and Archdukes. It wouldn't necessarily be a wargame either (particularly if there is no war going on, unless they decide to start one). It wouldn't have much in the way of "dungeon crawling" adventure (that might be hard to explain, though rarely something might come up). But it would focus a lot on social and political and possibly economic intrigues. Seems like potentially fertile ground for those who enjoy the "storyteller" style play. For some story-teller games, that sort of thing is the norm.
Generally I find that one of the biggest differences with higher level play for players is they have to get used to now being the Patron, instead of being the lackey of the Patron. It requires a more goal oriented, self motivated style of play. I've always encouraged players to consider the background of their character, how that shaped motivations, and what the long term goals of their character are. The game play is then driven very much by those long term goals rather than whatever random adventure the GM throws at them (the GM may not necessarily create an adventure at all, instead throwing out an event or opportunity and letting the players decide how their characters react; in some cases the PCs may even be the event creators).
I think it would be possible for a group to play the Emperor and Archdukes. It wouldn't necessarily be a wargame either (particularly if there is no war going on, unless they decide to start one). It wouldn't have much in the way of "dungeon crawling" adventure (that might be hard to explain, though rarely something might come up). But it would focus a lot on social and political and possibly economic intrigues. Seems like potentially fertile ground for those who enjoy the "storyteller" style play. For some story-teller games, that sort of thing is the norm.
Oh, I can conceive of playing such situations. Just not as a face-to-face Traveller campaign. Boardgame, yes. Freestyle PBM, yes. FTF campaign. No.
Yep, that is the problem I'm having. A bald statement that all I need is enough creativity is rather insulting, to tell the truth, but I try not to take offense.
Any of these have the players be a group of PCs of which one is the extremely high-level muckety-muck and the rest work together with him the way a normal PC party works together?
But not as a member of a typical PC party.
Absolutely not. Whatever floats their boat is fine by me. I just wish they'd deign to share their creative genius with us creatively challenged people so we can benefit from their stupendous imagination.
And I repeat my question:
I'm sitting down around a table with five of my friends. Each of them has a character sheet in front of him. One of the sheets detail Archduke Kieran Adair of Sol. Now tell me, what characters do the other four play, and what adventures do I run them through that gives them all more or less the same amount of "screen time"?
Hans
Oops. I did my hexidecimal conversion wrong. So what is President of the Universe then?
Last edited:
Similar threads
