I was reflecting on the games of Traveller that I played and ran at TravCon and realised that across the four games, not a single shot was fired, and violence was never used, yet everyone had a really good time. I wonder if I'd have felt the same last century* when I first played the game. It's the difference between playing Star Wars vs Star Trek, conflict vs exploration. I'd like to think that I'd have enjoyed it as much, and some of the SF that I loved even back then was all about exploration ('Rendezvous with Rama', for example).
*(lol, in the early-mid eighties, just couldn't resist that)
In Search of Angels initial scenario was all about finding a lost ship then salvaging it without getting in trouble with the authorities.
Deepnight Legacy was effectively survival horror, and combat was never going to help.
Second Sons was conspiracy and the running of a heist, but in the end the best way to complete the heist was not to do it.
The Hunt for Sabre IV was a classic investigation, with violence avoided and a short police action off-screen. Oh, and a realisation that perhaps the group had helped 'the man' against 'the people'. But they got paid for it.
In every game, the players went without using violence as a solution; they considered it in two of the scenarios, but never went for it.
Traveller is a dangerous game when it comes to combat (and also character generation, by reputation). Stats will average out a bit above 7, so usually a character or NPC will take maybe 15 points of damage to become badly hurt, and another 8 points to be killed. When pistols are doing 2d6 to 3d6 damage, and rifles 3d6-4d6 damage plus effect, there's a reasonable chance that you won't survive more than a two solid hits.
Armour helps, but the Calli's Heroes game at Furnace reminded me that smart team work will easily get past combat armour. Both sides of the fire fight we had were equipped with combat armour, ACRs and better, and combat lasted two rounds. We ambushed two Zhodani Marines and focused fire, and they went down hard. Auto-fire, burst fire and energy weapons change the lethality even with top end armour. It's brutal.
Long term Traveller players know the game is lethal, and tend to account for it. Calli's Heroes was an out-and-out military game, so violence was always on the table, but we were still careful, and completely avoided it in one part of the adventure with a combination of negotiation and intimidation. I guess that merchant and exploration based games have more reason to avoid conflict.
I think there's plenty of space to have a great game without the need for violence in it. But my thirteen year-old self who loved Star Wars may have been a bit disappointed if they didn't get to use their Gauss rifle or Laser sometimes. That same self who loved Foundation and Rendezvous with Rama may have felt a bit differently though.
Where are you on this? Do games need violence or are puzzles, social conflict and scheming enough? Is this just a reflection of the underlying vulnerability of Traveller characters due to the system design?
24 October 2025
As a player, I want lots of _action_ ... and a GM who understands that "action" and "violence" are not the same concept.
ReplyDeleteAs a player, I want games that are richly tactical ... and a GM who understands that "tactical" and "violent" are not the same concept.
And above all, as a player I want these things for my character and my party, not for me-as-me. I show up to roleplay, not to self-insert.
And while I've evolved a _lot_ as a GM, I'm the same player I was at 17, really. As a GM I've gotten good at providing the design and support for players like me.
So, in practice, at a table with priorities similar to mine, violence, when it does happen, feels more like an exclamation mark than the comma it can be at other tables. 😅