Am I the Only One That Have Players That Want To Play a Section 31 character?

[Tobian]

It's not that we are judging the need, quality or ethics of or for Section 31, it's what they represent in a gaming environment that is the problem, and the types of play that is associated with them...

As a plotline, Section 31 is a great thing, all of the above ideas are superb. I quite like the idea that Sloan was operating all on his own.. there could well be another 3 or 4 Section 31's operating out there: Pulling strings, gathering information, and getting ready to act on whatever THEIR agenda is. I even like the idea of a single character becoming entangled in Section 31, much as Bashir did: But there's a difference to becoming entangled, burned and stinging, than wholeheartedly avowing to the cause from the beginning. There is a difference between a player working with the GM on a 'cool' story line in which he gets hoodwinked by a Section 31 agent (alleged!), than a player who is constantly stabbing all his peers in the back, and dragging round the story in a direction he wants to go in!

In my old PBEM, one of the first rules of the game was "You cannot create a character who outranks the captain, without his permission" I.e. you can't overrule the GM. Especially in PBEM's in which players are given a lot of freedom to do as they wish, and time to think of clever ways of doing things, that single tennet has to exist, because the 'Captain' is responsible for keeping the game moving, and making sure the story works and makes sense. Introducing Section 31 is basically a way of subverting this, not only in play but in intent: It is a statement of intent deliniating: "I want to be able to set my own agenda and not have anyone tell me what to do." This would not be acceptable in a paper and pencil game any more than it would on a PBEM!

[Nene_Richards]

Regardless, what we know about Section 31 is this: It is not part of Starfleet. Period. It is not a secret branch in Starfleet Intelligence.

Unless you are running a game that style of game as was previously said, playing a Section 31 character is pointless.

Section 31 is like any covert secret group that exists in spy thrillers and in movies. The point also made is we do not know much of Section 31 at all. It is such a clouded group there is not much on them. So why would a player want to play something that we do not know anything about?

So they can create what they want and say they do not have to do 'X'. Every one that has ever said they wanted to play a Section 31 character, at least where I live: Loves GURPS. The player that dropped out and everyone who was a trouble player, loves GURPS. No I am not attacking the game, just a weird councidence after 16 years of game mastering I am almost tempted to ask that question. Regardless, with GURPS alot of GMs, where I live, just build whatever around what players make for them. They let the players do what the hell they want and when these players think of characters they think the game should be completely around them regardless. I blame this on how people RUN GURPS and not the players, who are molded in this way of thinking. GMs teach to their players it seems GURPS where I live does this.

Many bad abits so the appeal of Section 31 it in many of their minds is this: not much is written about it so I just can make stuff up then; it allows me to do whatever I want; I am the ultimate hero/antihero over everyone else; I am not what people think, so I have something over the group; I can go lone wolf/Logan and do not have to follow teamwork; I do not have to follow the Prime Directive like everyone else; I should get access to things the others do not; and I am the most unique character, because no one else is in Section 31 etc.

It just goes against most games. Am I hard ass no, read how I run my games with my group. We all worked out the ship a New Orleans Class starship, etc. We worked this out as a GROUP and not the INDIVIDUAL. A Section 31 character is about the INDIVIDUAL and not the GROUP. There are other players out there and a good GM would want to work with them as well and not spend most of the game solo storying the Section 31 character.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

For instance . . . what if due to that Section 31 induced act, the PCs are saved . . . or their loved ones are saved.

Ahem...

"Interesting, isn't it? The Federation claims to abhor Section 31's tactics, but when you need someone to do the dirty work, you look the other way. Tidy little arrangement, wouldn't you say?" - Odo. ("The Dogs of War")

I'd point out that Praxis was an awfully convenient accident for the Federation, wouldn't you say? That whole Founder Disease was a lucky break, too.

And I wonder who was watching Kirk's back at Starfleet Headquarters when he tried another 'unorthodox solution...'

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Many bad abits so the appeal of Section 31 it in many of their minds is this: not much is written about it so I just can make stuff up then; it allows me to do whatever I want; I am the ultimate hero/antihero over everyone else; I am not what people think, so I have something over the group; I can go lone wolf/Logan and do not have to follow teamwork; I do not have to follow the Prime Directive like everyone else; I should get access to things the others do not; and I am the most unique character, because no one else is in Section 31 etc.

And if you wish to indulge in some passive-aggressive expectation-baiting, like I do... then this is the perfect opportunity to give them situations where they realize they cannot trust Section 31, that s31 doesn't have its assets' best interests at heart. Hopefully, this will push them back toward the Crew while providing Drama! and Tough Decisions!

[JALU3]

T, NR . . . although this maybe a waste of bandwidth . . . I have to say . . . I already agree with you that no character should be PART of Section 31 from the get go. It does create an environment of superiority and GM-usurping that would not be indusive to building a cohesive PC team. However, what I have been trying to say is . . . one shouldn't disallow the possible previous contact of a PC with section 31 . . . for that is a completely different animal . . . then say . . . an Ally . . . or actually being part of said organization.

[LUGTrekGM]

Jalu3 Wrote:

and who in their act does so in a way that would be seen as unethical/imoral/unlawful . . . does something that ultimatly benifits the crew and/or the federation . . . in a way that could not be achieved otherwise. For instance . . . what if due to that Section 31 induced act, the PCs are saved . . . or their loved ones are saved.

At what cost? This is the crux of the matter here, and why Sec 31 says it exists, and why members of the Federation would join it...."In a way that could not be achieved otherwise."

The above is easy to answer, that a PC would be conflicted of his or her Duty or Strarfleet Code, vs. Family/ Personal Survival.

Sure that's a good scenario, leaving a lot for discussion. This is why Sec 31 as NPCs is a great hook. An NPC doing something underhanded leaves the door open to discussion of "what will we allow ourselves to become, in our quest for success?"

A PC doing it should not get off easy. Sisko got away with lying. Did it change him? Was it worth it? To all of us, he's an NPC, so we can talk about it, or game it out, to exactly DISCOVER what we are willing to tolerate, both as individuals, and as a Society of Humanity, here on planet Earth.

It's that whole concept of "To fight Monsters, you must become one."

I suggest askimg also, what if said "thing done" saves someone's relative, for everyone it kills? Thus the crew is divided, and splits loyalties between the needs of the many vs the few.

"Don't mind our methods, we work for the good of the Federation."

Although the "good" could be replaced with "expediency."

Every Freedom fighter is another's Terrorist. How many things happen daily, that are for "The Good" of some foreign organization. To those affected, it's not so good.

Because you are able to do something, doesn't always mean that you should.

Conversely, sneaking into a country and assassinating someone to start or stop a war that will benefit your own country is one of the tools of real-world commando groups, or spies. Thus it depends on which side you are on, and to what levels, with what goals. Every commando is another man's dark assassin.

There's a lot of dark grey out there. Is torture a tool? Sure, but it's not reliable.

Should it be used? In the real world, to find the implanted nuclear weapon in the large city, I mean, that's a good question.

But what if the weapon doesn't really exist? The goal might have been to corrupt the morals of the country, with false rumors, and now they overtly or covertly use torture as a method.

I don't want my Trek PCs to be that hard core, that they can torture an NPC (or pick something similar) and get away with it, with no consequences, other than bad memories.

Sure it happens in the real world, and sometimes in a dark-setting game, especially those set in the real world.

From where I am at, I don't want Star Trek to be that dark.

Cyberpunk? Sure, it's part of the setup, part of the illustration of the overall Moral Decay.

I am not saying darkness doesn't exist, just that I don't want to go there in my own Star Trek campaign.

Someone else might run a DS9 game that has all kindds of that happening. I might play a staunch Good Guy in it. But I have limits on what I will allow my Characters to do.

As a GM, it's also a whole new question, since I protray both the good and evil and nutrality in the world, as a judge of the mechanistic aspects fo the universe.

I like to tell tales and present scenarios that are dramatic, but I don't have to allow a SEC 31 PC in the crew to achieve that Drama.

As an NPC, sure, if it fits the situation, and the campaign. But it's going to end up being divisive, and instill paranoia in most crews, not always to the benefit of the game, which to me, is about the group, the tribe, the team effort, alone in the darkness of space, not one person, who wants it to be all about them, with no controls.

[LUGTrekGM]

Nene wrote...

a lot of GMs, where I live, just build whatever around what players make for them. They let the players do what the hell they want and when these players think of characters they think the game should be completely around them regardless.

This is common to all games. I think it stems from D&D, and the whole roll up a pc, and use combat encounters as story setup, as the root of dramatic life and death conflict, with a story of sorts very loosely wrapped around it.

The gaming technology has since advanced to skills, and Ads & Disads, but the player mentality has not changed from "I want to be larger than life / Special / Unique / My own race / Psionic / Superpowerful."

In a lot of games, characters are created, and presented to the GM, which don't fit into the story, even though the GM doesn't realize it, because they have not pre-defined what the story is, or prefer a "winging-it-as-we-go style."

Either that or it is a question of which side of the Player's individual fun vs. GM's story you fall on.

I like the idea that LUG/Decipher borrows from GURPS, which borrowed from HERO, because I think Ads & Disads / Flaws / Edges, whatever you want to call it, works for me as a tool.

I liked Top Secret, S.I. much better, for that specific aspect, much better than the first edition of the game, because you can have three-dimensional PCS, not just a list of stats, and combat data.

I also feel that a GM should pre-define what sort of characters that they need if they are going to run a Dramtist / Cinematic / Theme style game, and NOT leave it up to the players.

Running something that is going to be lots of combat / action, without much character development is an option, and it doesn't need a lot of depth.

And games like this are fun, too, for many, myself included. But it is a different experience, than something where a PC has flaws to overcome, and all kinds of backstory that ties into the present situation. Some games blend both.

I write the story, and ask that the characters fit the stories I plan to tell, with some leeway, of cource, since the whole thing might go in directions I do not expect.

That being said, "different direction", is a far cry from "totally off course."

I've stated elsewhere, I am a supporter of the West End Games' Star Wars Plot-style, which for me, revolutionized gaming when it was introduced, breaking a scenario down into scenes and acts like a film script does. It requires characters that will fit.

I love movies, and this allows me to run my games as a movie or TV Show, to the point of Directing, Casting, Sets, the whole bit. I think that way, along those lines when I am setting up a new campaign.

And I am glad as hell that LUG and Decipher both used that model. FASA did too, somewhat, but was still breaking away from it's D&D roots, because a lot of the old FASA Trek scenarios, while having a good story, also have lots of "This is a dungeon in space" style maps.

The LUG books, and the Narrator's Guide for Decipher are great, great tools, and I learned a lot from all of them, refinig the technique I first learned with SW:d6 about how to tell stories in that dramatic format.

But to me, the story comes first, since I am the one taking all that time to write it.

I want characters that will fit, and my players are willing to work with me. We work together on concepts, as we plan it, and sometimes my story concept changes to fit a good character concept, as the group works to get the game off the ground.

I've been lucky to have the same key players in multiple campaigns for over a decade, and we worked all of that out early on.