• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

What is your prefered style of play?

What is your prefered style of play?

  • Total voters
Originally posted by hunter:
What types of campaigns do you prefer to run and/or play in?
I selected, "A mix of the above with an emphasis on non-combat related aspects," although I must admit that the players I game with usually start leaning towards more combat-related gameplay. They like the roleplaying well enough(well, most of them), but they've still got a fairly large streak of Old School Hack-n-Slash Gamer in them. The look on their faces when they finally got their hands on a plasma rifle (a beaten-up, poorly maintained plasma rifle, but a plasma rifle nonetheless) after a full six months of gaming and almost two full years gametime is a joy I'll remember until the next time one of them P!$$@$ me off again. :D They only got to keep it for a few sessions before they raided a Corsair base and used it on overload to blow up the corsair's jump drive, preventing the raiders from escaping before the Imperial Navy could arrive. So much fun (and reward) was had, I don't think they truly minded losing the weapon too much.

In-between game sessions, I do like to gearhead a bit, just for my own enjoyment.

Simon Jester
As third poster, I prefer the mix with emphasis on military/combat. But then, I know my current gamer's. In the TNE-era, I dinnae have much non confrontational stuff. I have had things where they didn't have to shoot their way to get what they wanted-IF , *if* they used their collective noggins! The choice remained theirs. Thanks Hunter.
How's the e-mail?
I very much prefer the non-combat related campeign.

Havinbg said that, I gearhead for fun - I'm still working out my ship construction variant for an Elizabeth moon type result.

Once that is complete I've got a whole sheaf of ships to build to have trundling arround the spaceways -

Then Char gen to do

All good clean fun.

(It may never be ready to host actual players-ready - The journey IS the destination.)
I voted for a mix with emphasis on non-combat. I really like the rogue/espionage, traveller/odd jobs and nobles/intrigue type adventuring. A little combat is inevitable, and I enjoy that. But I prefer stealth to shoot-em-up. I like using my brains and my guns to accomplish a mission.
I mostly run a mixed "Nobless Oblige" and Merchantile game, with some "Alien Awe" elements thrown in.

By Noblesse Oblige, I refer to Nobles as troubleshooters...
I haven't played Traveller--just picked up T20, and have read some TNE and CT materials in the past--but something straddling a line between Scouts and Merchants sounds like a good place to start. I suppose that's pretty much the "mixed, non-combat emphasis" category.
I think the modules I remember most fondly (Shadows/Annic Nova, the Traveller Adventure, Twilight's Peak) reveal my bias for "Sense of Wonder". Whilst one can get that from Espionage/Intrigue, and Trade and Combat frequently play supporting roles, and politics can be a good obstacle, in the end the modules I like to play or run are classic sense of wonder hard SF
I too prefer the non-combat related aspects of the game, only because I love thinking up sticky situations for characters to extricate themselves from. Currently, it is a multilayered plot involving megacorps, drug running, a mysterious plague and some Hiver skulduggery. I just love having plot devices come together.
Also, my gamers contribute to the setting by sending me material that gets worked in to the campaign plot in interesting ways.
Being one of those "Exploration" people, I'll answer as follows:

In most of the current milieus (excluding Milieu Zero), you are correct, Thrash. There's no real area left open in the OTU for exploration games to occur (aside from the Core Expeditions). I really wish that DGP had come out with their Grand Explorations book before dropping off the face of the earth, to open some of that up for consideration.

So, rather than roll back to a time period in the OTU where such campaigns would work, I've created my own ATU, using various elements of the OTU as fits my needs, and mixing in a lot of ideas from other sources along the way.

Harkens back to the old days, doesn't it?

hi all,
new to the bb as i am to traveller in whole. just got classic traveller through ebay and have just made characters so far. ordered t20 and will do the same when it arrives. so, truthfully, i've voted "... i just build stuff", but that will change as i recruit players (namely my girlfriend, and other willing victims). hopefully as time progresses i will be able to say "a mix of the above with an emphasis on non-combat".

good to be here,
Well, of course the two "mixed" categories came out on top. That was predictable.

Anyone who voted anything else probably mixes in bits of at least one other style, and anyone who voted "mixed" has a predominating style.

Had the two "mixed" categories not been included, this would have been a more interesting survey. As it is, there's no real way of knowing which style really predominates.
It was a very limited type of a poll, allowing only one answer... a more valid poll would have consisted of a scale of 1 to 5 (or similar oddly number choices) where you put down the relative significance of the categories... such as :
Rate the importance/ frequency with which you use

Military/combat mission?
Commerce/Merentile missions?
Noble/Diplomatic Missions?
Espionage/Spy Missions?
Exploration/Scout Missions?
Non-combat Interactive Sessions?
Role-playing as part of the Game
Games that work more as wargames


This would have given a much more interesting feel for how people play. I answered the non-combat stuff, but that is because most of our sessions tend to focus around planning, liason, social interaction etc. The campaign itself, however, focuses around the lives of players on active duty within the Imperial Navy, Scouts and Marines. As a result, it is all focussed around combat... just that most of the sessions do not actually use combat.. if you see what I mean
Out of the available choices, I prefer a mix of each, depending on the setting and the preferences of the moment. Mostly it depends on the setting/adventure/campaign, for me anyway.
I cheerfully disagree with those of you who think this poll invalid. Why?

Every adventure has the X-factor (as I like to call it) for a certain amount of violence/gunplay/starship combat/planetary legal entanglements gone awry...not too mention natives who decide you must be sacrificed to appease a local deity/ volcanoe from time to time.

SO the mixed type of campaigns are valid choices-because a few bad rolls on reaction die, and yer in hot water-roleplay it! Not everyone with a gun (or weapons of lower than TL-3) pointed at you will listen to reason. I have even seen a few military campaigns execute a flawless operation bloodlessly ( a certain Navy payroll for a 4yr mobilization exercise heisted)..only it dissolved in a bloodbath between the players trying to enrich their shares on the ship's boat back their starship. Things the GM has no control over(this was spontaneous PC combustion, btw). 12 PCs were aboard, 6 walked off (two sealed the blast door in the cockpit-true, and stayed out of it).

In our On Line Ursula campaign right now, Haela only knows we'd like to avoid shooting all the time, but we are in an amber zoned system that has terrorists/ freedom fighters, Zhodani agitators, and pirates & privateers- the DMZ(Vilis/Querion subsectors) is a dangerous place in 1105...

one of the reasons why we chose that area in the first place, matter of fact! YMMV, but I dislike having the violence option completely out of the picture-the real world isn't all that cut and dried, and to maintain believability, this RPG setting reflects just that.

A lot of my gamers are veterans RL-RW. Not all are, of course, and that provides variety (one of em, is playing the civilian Doctor, matter of fact-and he's awfully Pissed at the amount of work that comes his way via gun violence- we had a mutiny, and he and the combat medic were a bit taxed).

Lastly, variety IS the spice of life, and should be in gaming, hence the mixed categories.

Straight up cookie cutter adventures were okay to learn the ropes, but a steady diet of them gets boring, in a word gentlemen, ladies.

(hops of soap box)
heretically yours,
mix it all up...then pour it all out on the game table a see what happens....let things go with the flow.let the newest players also have a say....then you will now what style everyone wants to play...
i should also like to add that i like a "rough and tumble" type of game with a Purpous, or trying
to accomplish something.
Originally posted by trader jim:
i should also like to add that i like a "rough and tumble" type of game with a Purpous, or trying
to accomplish something.
Is that a Flipper reference? ;)

The latest campaign for me had the PCs lost and trying to get home, even though home for them now is millenia in the past and about two years travel distance if they want to see what happened to the "old stomping grounds". Besides the usual problems of transportation and finances, they had to deal with interstellar politics, mistaken identity, and Ancient feuds (notice the capitalization). That's just in the first two subsectors they travelled! :eek:
It seems to me that combat-oriented campaigns would have a high level of PC turnover (given the deadliness of the combat system). So far in 3 mos. we've only had two combats and the PCs nearly bought the farm both times. How are others dealing with this?