Round Robin Command

It's been a long time since I posted anything meaningful around here. What can I say? No new series and no gaming either.

Anyway, I was chatting with a friend who loves to run Trek games about the chain-of-command and PCs problems when the idea of making command into a round-robin affair struck me. Below you'll find the guidelines I came up with. I think the system can be used to emulate as many command levels as you like. For instance, both the Captain and an away team member could be NPCs but the players would still be able to make command decisions, even if their PCs aren't. I think this could really free up a lot of groups where players usually feel like they need to be at least department heads to have some control over affairs.

Round Robin Command

- Command decisions/actions rotate around the table, starting with and including the GM.
- You can pass, in which case the GM makes the decision, and the next command decision passes to the next player in the normal rotation (the one after the player who passed).
- The GM can shoot you down, in which case you get (depending on ruleset) a Courage/Action/Hero/Style point or simple bonus that you can apply to an upcoming roll of your choice; decision passes to the next player in the rotation.
- Another player can shoot you down, in which case the GM makes the call and you get the aforementioned bonus. The next decision is made by the next player in the rotation.
- - If a player shoots down the GM the decision passes to the next player in the rotation (not including the player doing the shooting).
- The GM can auto-decide when circumstances warrant. This should be stated as an auto-decide situtation. You can't override an auto-decision, but when they happen every player gets a point/bonus they can spend as they like.
- Being shot down can be contested. Basically have a bidding war with Courage points (which are simply burned with no benefit) or penalties taken on the next roll.
- There must always be stated reason for shooting someting down.

The above list sounds very strict, but I would expect it to be more loose around the table, with some OOC discussion happening just like when it's the player's PC making a decision. A couple points that might come out of this are:
- If the other players agree you're just being stupid or jerky on purpose, you get skipped, and the next player makes the decision.
- If folks feel a decision/action is OOC for the commander, but not intentionally, give the player another shot.

There's also the problem how the COs are portrayed since it's a group creation. The thing here is to make sure it's an added roleplaying exercise.
- The GM should create a barebones picture of the character for some guidance. So the base attributes will be assigned, and any skill/trait prerequisistes for their position. Fill out a few more for guidance; create some description: physical (species, coloration), personality (gruff, quiet), mannerisms (Spock's eyebrow), phrases ("Make it so."), but allow room for additions and interpretation.
- Whenever a player is acting as the commander, they have to either use something already known about them (English accent, aggressive in negotiations) or invent something ("This reminds me of when I was assigned to Jupiter Station...).

Again, around the table, things won't be this strict. As long as folks agree the NPC is being portrayed fairly, it's all good.

Obviously, not all groups can necessarily pull this off, or even want to, but I know at least a few could have real fun, and it could really make adventure and character creation more freeing.

Any thoughts, feedback, or playtesting is welcome. Fire away!