Should characters be in command?

[Polanski]

Great thread ... great points to which I agree.
But in themselves they create some problems.

* Are players competent enough to be in command.

A RPG group is a set of players from different walks of life. Males and Females with different interests and different lives, but when the time comes they all choose to enjoy the game together.

As a GM you have to set the standard, the level playing field that players holding a particular rank and position have to live up to.
What happens if the difference between the players is so vast that one should indeed play ensign while other gets bored if he is not XO (because he is that good in the game). It would be unrealistic to expect those players to have the same rank.

* Trust

Well covering the first point, the second extends on it. For what if the player capable of playing XO is a new player, or someone who may not have the full support of others (for whatever reason that may be). By giving him a command and letting others report to him you are creating a rift in the group.

Characters may expect the senior officer to make the call or the difficult decision and they may end up 'slacking' as it is 'not their job'. Better yet them may wish to see the senior officer fail at his post and in that case they will do what is required of them and nothing more.

Of course as a GM you have to go down and hard on them for a behaviour like that, but you must be carefull for RPGs should not be ran with Iron Fist.

* Earn it

My experiences are simple, I like to see players earn their position and earn the respect of their comrades and they like that too. It makes those 3 or even 4 pips so much more worthy.

In my campaigns everyone starts equal (usually lieutenant and head of departments) and from there on, the sky is the limit. But the promotion does not come from the captain herself alone, for when the time comes the promotion has to be approved by players (not their characters) as they have to feel comfortable with someone being in-game senior to them (this of course is subject to change and rulling by the GM)

* The absolute command

The absolute command will always rest with an NPC. Perhaps an NPC is an understatement for in my scenario I see either the captain or the admiral as being the absolute command and as a GM I control such character.

This I do to provide a fairness in game (and not outside of it), to resolve the issues and keep the characters on certain level during the game (and not via the discussions outside of it).

If one of my players proves to me that they do indeed deserve the ship and the command then they shall receive it. And then I will introduce a flag officer NPC (controlled by me) who will be there to help and guide if needed. But generally the higher the player will get in the ranking structure the less babysitting will they receive from the senior officer introduced for absolute command.

* Decision making

When players are planning their away mision and push comes to punch I tell them the following. You have two options, one is that I as a captain can tell you what to do, what to take and how to go about it. The other option is that we will hold a staff meeting during which you are free to plan the mission and exchange an intelligent, subject related ideas on the mission and once you have completed your plan and listed the requirements the captain will smile and approve the appropriate plans made by you. But the captain as always is present during the staff meetings, putting in the suggestions and watching the development of her senior staff. The decisions were made by players but the feeling of the situation conveys a mutual agreement between the senior staff and the CO.

Guess which one my players choose every single time?
Of course, when the situation requires it, the captain will not hesitate to give an order and expect it to be followed.

* My dream

My dream as a GM is to have my players earn their ranks of XOs and COs and then conver the single ship campaign into a task force campaign. Swap one ship for many ... as the possibilities are endless. I am looking forward to such day.

* Disclaimer

It is quite obvieous that we all are quite passionate about the games we play, you, me, the other guy and girl. As such we tend to stick to what we believe is right and what we hold as an image of the perfect game. The above statements were not made to challenge your point of view but to simply discribe mine. As such I found it working quite well and so did my players. I wish you the same luck with your group ...

Kind Regards
Daniel

[RaconteurX]

Yes, if the players are willing and able to weather the rigors of it. As narrator, I always select the player with the best mix of sense of proportion and roleplaying skill (I tend to be that player myself, in most groups with which I participate).

[Dan Stack]

On one point I agree with Don, characters should be in "command", but I think I disagree with the definition of command in relation to Star Trek.

The characters run by the players should be the ones who make the big decisions. It is the "prime directive" of the narrator to make certain that happens. But what exactly does that mean?

In my opinion, it does not mean that the players must run the captain and/or deprartment heads. Rather it means the characters must be the ones who make the big decisions and adventures must be structured accordingly.

Is it "Star Trek"? Yes, it is Dan's Star Trek. It may not be Don's Star Trek. Does that matter? Only under one condition - if Don is in Dan's game. Since he ain't the (possible) disagreement is fine.

The argument can be made that it is against in the "spirit" of Trek having the characters not run someone like the commanding officer. Deep Space Nine was a clear example of how one could run an adventure or even an entire campaign, with the commanding officer being a narrator character - there were entire episodes where Sisko barely appeared. Jadzia going to complete Curzon's mission against "the Albino". O'Brien facing a the memories of a lifetime of imprisonment. Bashir confronting the Quickening, a Dominion virus being used to punish the descendents of rebels against the Dominion. Nog confronting the fact that he lost his leg in battle against the Dominion.

What do all those have in common? Despite the captain not being a "player character" in those stories, the characters were the ones who made the decisions. The structure of Star Trek, in my opinion, certainly allows for that.

I will also interject my opinion that there are cetain things that are "Star Trek" that don't translate particularly well into a game. For example, Star Trek on television has the advantage of being able to totally ignore certain characters. Quark need not appear in every episode of Deep Space Nine. A TNG story can have Geordi just make a cameo appearance. But a RPG has different requirements. If Quark or Geordi's player is at a game, they will be rightly annoyed if their characters are pushed into cameo roles.

Also, others have touched on the difficulty of being a commanding officer or of being in a group with a commanding officer PC. I argue it can be a very difficult proposition - my group has tried it both ways and it has worked both ways. But it ain't for everyone. (It should be noted that the player who ran the CO in our previous campaign specifically requested that she not do so in our current one). A group of novice players may find it too difficult to perform the role of delegation. A group of veteran players may just not want to have one of their own play the CO.

A game's got to do what works. In the end, it doesn't matter if it matches anyone else's version of Star Trek. The narrator is accountable only to his or her players, no one else. If a group of players has fun without the CO being a player, then the narrator has done the right thing. If a group of players really wants to have the CO run by a player and the narrator disallows it, then the narrator has done the wrong thing. Even if it is the same narrator in both occasions.

The only true universal truth I will attest is the players' characters have to matter and have to be the one's who make the decisions. I argue that that is possible whether they play admirals, department heads, cadets, or enlisted personnel. And the group will decide for themselves if it is Star Trek or not.

[Publius]

Both Don and Dan make good points, and both speak to what the see as Command being a 'Trekism'. By Trekism I mean that this 'fact'/practice/whatever is an accepted convention of Trek, taken with the same level of tolerance we provide Warp Speed ("But that aint possible..." is seldom heard because it is one of those things we 'let go' and accept for the purpose of enjoying the show).

Here the Trekism is that Commanding officers are seen as the central characters on screen, and because of this fact cannot always act like commanding officers do in 'real life': we see this especially in TOS, ENT and VOY (in that order), less so in TNG and DS9 (more or less evenly, although both do slip into TOS style stories as well). One side argues that this Trekism should register in the Game: PCs should occupy these commanding roles, be the ones to make the decisions and give the impassioned speeches, and yet still have satisfying Kirkesque shirt-ripping adventures. Hey, this isn't even supposed to be 'fiction', its adventure gaming. On the other hand we like fiction, and some of us like to make certain things seem more 'realistic' in order to accept other Trekisms (prosthetic forehead aliens, Treknology, Warp Speeds etc.) and still maintain a 'suspension of disbelief'.

The other side is willing to let this Trekism slip in their games, to effectively insert more realistic leaders to encourage verisimilitude and concentrate on lower decks for the driving force of the game. Here "realistic leaders" are those who tend to be paper-pushers/desk jockeys that operate with long periods of boredom puncuated by short intense situations where they are called on to make the hard choices. "Realistic leaders" don't really get involved in the more physical aspects that make for satisfying roleplay either because of rules banning madcap action or because there simply isn't much justification. "Hold on there Cap'n, you need to run the ship rather than chase around on the planet after a single criminal"; or worse yet, the appropriate course of action takes them out of the physical side of the adventure: "While you lower deck fellows take care of the grunt work of chasing him down in the red light district, I'll see if I can stall the diplomats and give you some time to conduct your investigation". The problem is that it doesn't let you make those speeches, and while tools like I use (Captain-by-Proxy for instance) allow them to make the decisions it can be seen as being distant or disconnected, and that can translate into the gaming table as 'unsatisfying' (depending on the group).

Others have remarked that their players do things or like things one way or the other, which I think is appropriate too. For some it is about the ability of the CO character, for others it is about trust and earning their pips; all of which I respect. They are imminently practical, and seem to take into accounts the wishes of their particular groups. This is a game, and that means we are sharing a setting with one another: problem solving, risk and characterization are all parts to the gaming equation, but it has to be engaging too, or we would not be doing it.

Next Question: What if you as Narrator want to do things one way (say, insert more verisimilitude) but your players want to keep the onscreen Trekisms alive and well?

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Kronok]

I would like to preface this by stating that this thread is amazing and the responses are awesome. However, there are way to many ideas to address!!! Damn you Time!!!

Originally posted by pathstrider

Personally, I prefer having a NPC CO who listens to the players in meetings (A bit like Picard always did - unlike Sisko )and a PC XO.

My thoughts exactly! The GM may need to “Reel/Real in his players” on certain occasions. For example, let’s say that the players are way off in the way they are trying solve the adventure. The GM can use the NPC captain to bring the players back to the situation that needs to be addressed. I find this to be a necessary evil now and again. I remember a game were our security officer was convinced that some psionically enhanced, archeological-artifact-wielding goofball was the whole reason for our adventure. I could see the GM cringe and he used the “Captain notes your suggestion now get back on the planet and do this” card and everything worked out in the end.

Originally posted by Publius

Third, as promised, some of my own way to handle this issue.
· Designated Away Teams:
· Troupe Play:
· Captain-by-Proxy:

Great suggestions!!! I like all of them and think that you could combine all these elements for some great gameplay. I have never officially played troup style, but our group does this without defining it as such. Our away teams usually contain various “redshirts.” If the situation calls for the PC engineer to head back to the ship to fix the warp core, that player can still be on the away team by playing Ensign Redshirtvok (He’s a Vulcan).

Should characters be in command?

Not trying to evade the original question, but I would have to say it depends. Some groups are just more adult than others in that they accept the fact that orders are orders regardless of their point of origin: PC vs. NPC. I have seen some big problems when it comes to this. My old Trek group had some problems in this area. No one wanted to take orders and took everything way too personally (One of us was Ex-Military due to the fact that he had this Anti-Authority side. Go figure). Also, the pecking order of the group was such that everyone was rank crazy- New EXPs? I increase my rank. In my latest group, I found my character making suggestions only to have the command character become upset because he outranked me and should be making such suggestions. Free will and creativity are the main driving forces behind RPGs and the idea of players with command power can cause problems if given to the wrong player.

As to your comments eluding to suspension of belief? This is not Star Trek, this is roleplaying. Although our campaigns are based upon the philosophies of an idealist, the game itself is not usually as optimistic or would it be practical to fool ourselves that our games should be so utopian.

Star Trek is a TV show:

Main Characters do all the stuff(Except when a cameo appearance takes place because “Insert Star Here” wants to be in an episode). (Side note- The VOY episode addressed this once. I can’t remember the name of it, but a member of the group Rage Against the Machine was in it. Fantastic episode by the way)

Main Characters never die(Unless they want to pursue movie careers or make other professional choices).

The ending is almost exclusively always happy and successful because Good will always triumph over Evil(Unless you are in the Mirror Universe or a Holodeck gone awry).

Roleplaying involves more realistic variables. The players are the main characters, regardless of rank or area of expertise. They can live or die, as life so often teaches us. They can experience real failure and no writer is there to save them. They are the protagonists in a wondrous story in a setting that, although set up by the GM, is always changed and has no predetermined destination.

I will address the "Next Question" later.

[Evan van Eyk]

I would say it depends on the Command style of the PC.
First of all I would no one be the Captain right from the beginning - it has to be earned by long playing the character.
But eventually every Command Character has to get its own command - after all its what they are trained for ( unless you jsut play the average guy, who ends up behind some desks, to file the weekly kill rate of redshirts ).
However if the character eventually becomse a Captain and the other players follow him to his command position I would assume due to length of the play, this character would stick to his old comrades and probably work with them instead of just ordering them. After all being Captain does not mean you are allowed to do everything but to lead the team and a team it has to be, in order to be successful. Misusing authority just means that you team does not work and thus your mission are done poorly and thus you eventuall being removed from office.

[toadkiller]

I'd have to disagree with Don (if for no other reason than to keep the thread alive).

I suspect that my real reason for doing so is that I've not had the luck to really have a "Captain" style player - or at least not a long term one. If you have someone is able to play a decent RPG CO (which neither Kirk nor Picard are IMHO, but Johnnie is probally the better) then certainly that would add a huge dimension to the game.

But - Star Trek CO's as they are shown are basically extremely "high level characters" and are also pretty much developmentally dead - they really don't progress much as the story goes along. Kirk season 1 is Kirk Season 3. Picard had all these life-changing experiences but they didn't seem to really change his "Captain skills".

I think for the progress of the game to mean something to the player their character needs to be allowed to grow. Unless you're going to go on to play Star Fleet: Admiral's Call the Captain doesn't seem to have the growth potential of a more junior character. Also, unless the player is a good leader than they aren't going to be able to facilitate the other characters involvement.

My first ship (in our on-going game universe) was CO'ed by CAPT Dexter and the players were junior officers. Barb Dextor's "thing" in life was the care, feeding and development of her junior officers (as well it should have been). She developed them by giving them opportunities to go off and do things. They didn't start out saving the universe but when that time came they (and the players) had developed the skills needed to do that too. She was basically Gandalf - she never actually *did* anything all that impressive, but none the less everyone was just sure she could...and was just about to.

Maybe I'm just micro-managing but knowing what the CAPT is going to do makes the story flow better for me - while allowing the players plenty of room to run around in it.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
In my opinion, it does not mean that the players must run the captain and/or deprartment heads. Rather it means the characters must be the ones who make the big decisions and adventures must be structured accordingly.

I don't think it's any accident that the most popular Trek series to date are TOS, TNG, and ENT -- all shows that revolve around the "typical command structure." I would submit that if you aren't following this tried-and-true tested formula then you aren't playing Star Trek; you're playing simply within the Star Trek milieu, taking those trappings that you find most appealing. Look no further than the other poll thread on what positions people like to play. Currently, CO/XO have a "commanding" lead! No accident! People want to emulate what they see on the television screen.

Is it "Star Trek"? Yes, it is Dan's Star Trek. It may not be Don's Star Trek. Does that matter? Only under one condition - if Don is in Dan's game. Since he ain't the (possible) disagreement is fine.

I was waiting for someone to bring up the painfully obvious. Again, you're twisting away from the original thesis statement/question of "should characters be in command?" Clearly if you're having fun, knock yourself out, but none of this really has any bearing to the question at hand. This whole thread is pointless and academic if we don't at least back up and have some degree of consensus on what makes playing Star Trek "Star Trek."

The only true universal truth I will attest is the players' characters have to matter and have to be the one's who make the decisions. I argue that that is possible whether they play admirals, department heads, cadets, or enlisted personnel. And the group will decide for themselves if it is Star Trek or not.

In the end, you're agreeing with me.

As for your other points, I don't disagree with them, I don't consider many them relevant. I will say that your counter argument of the DS9 example supports my position--those characters, save Nog (who appeared much later) and Jake, were the "command" characters. Thus, again, players should be playing those positions.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by toadkiller
Maybe I'm just micro-managing but knowing what the CAPT is going to do makes the story flow better for me - while allowing the players plenty of room to run around in it.

Then the players are not in charge and they're not making the decisions--you are. Your "captain" might as well be a life-sized cardboard poster that sits in the chair waving at the screen.

But - Star Trek CO's as they are shown are basically extremely "high level characters" and are also pretty much developmentally dead - they really don't progress much as the story goes along. Kirk season 1 is Kirk Season 3. Picard had all these life-changing experiences but they didn't seem to really change his "Captain skills".

I think for the progress of the game to mean something to the player their character needs to be allowed to grow. Unless you're going to go on to play Star Fleet: Admiral's Call the Captain doesn't seem to have the growth potential of a more junior character.

Growth is not solely measured in rank or how big of a vessel you command. While a few of you might see this as an opportunity to say "look, Don said rank is unimportant and thus is countering his own position," I'm not. Irregardless what the rank of the characters are, they need to be in command, making the tough decisions. On a runabout that could be a Lt, or on a certain Cardassian station in orbit, a Commander.

If players are solely fixated on the need to have "rank growth" opportunities then I fear you have larger problems.

[Captain Amado]

I gave a good IRL friend of mine command. This was partially because he helped me design the ship we're flying on, but in most parts it was because I know the he knows trek well enough to be a competent captain.

Keep in mind that just because your sitting center chair, doesn't mean that its ALL you do. Captains have, will, and continue to go on away missions, with varying levels of protest from various first officers.


Just because yoru captain doesn't make you a bland character.

[Owen E Oulton]

I'm also in favour of the characters being in command at whatever level play takes place. If they're on board a ship, the Captain should usually be a PC. I've run games where the Captain is an NPC and when you get into, say, a starship battle or a high-level negotiation (both being quite frequent in Trek), not only is it a lot of extra work to play both sides, but you really wind up performing the scene while the PCs sit there with their thumbs up their butts. Players are always more likely to jump in when the Captain is a PC.

On a ship, the Captain is the dramatic focus of such encounters. In an RPG, the PCs are the dramatic focus. Lets do the math.

[KillerWhale]

This thread is just so great

If I was a player, I would like to be in command, most certainly.

But I'm the GM and the older players my group do not want ever to be in command. They want to be on the front line, take the away teams, man their consoles and so on. "I couldn't stand to sit in the middle and order tactics I could perform better than the ensign at the console", told me Cdr. Loryk.

That do not prevent them from owning the show and setting examples - they are dpt. heads, and have teams to manage. Of course, the CO and XO were often put in the background kind of "artificially" to allow the PCs to shine. That didn't prevent them from being full-fleshed characters, because I emphasized the RP sessions with them.

Now, things have changed in our campaign. The Ascendant, the ship used in our campaign, has no CO nor XO - because the players wanted to have their own ship without losing the possibility to man their consoles and "do their jobs"... The few experiences they had in Command, they felt disastrous - the guys were bored.

Two last things: I believe most of the people on these boards are GMs, don't you think? As such, we know the trekverse by heart and of course, we are persuaded we could take good decisions in Command.

And I have narrated something like 12 different people over the course of the years. Only ONE player wanted to play in the Command branch...

So I don't feel they necessarily have to command things. I'd even say it's a minority.

Just my two cents

[Dan Stack]

I'll preface this by saying I too am enjoying this thread.

In my group, I find a situation similar to KillerWhale's - no one really wants to be the commanding officer - it is something they'd prefer not to do. As narrator, my own personal preference is to have a player run the commanding officer - I agree with Don in that the players must be the stars - I still made some damn good adventures with the players not running the CO, but it does make my work more difficult. As our campaign progresses, I will be introducing troupe play to allow one or players to run the captain part-time, to handle those situations which Owen described (we may even try the rotating captain bit, but I'm not too crazy about that idea).

If the reason for avoiding a player CO is to keep more control over the games, I would encourage trying to change that as an experiment - perhaps put the characters in command of a small vessel temporarily to see how it goes. Why? I'm a big believer in the narrator being able to think on his or her feet. The players go into a game having no real idea what is going to happen and they need to adapt to what the narrator does. I feel it is only fair that the narrator have the same responsibility. It's an odd feeling, not knowing how an adventure will end.

This doesn't mean giving up complete control of your games - if the players, for example, decide a secret Klingon base is on a world that it originally wasn't, nothing prevents you from retroactively adapting your adventure if you like the players thought process. LUG's TOS Narrator's Toolkit had an excellent dicsussion on this, something I feel is well worth reading.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
On a ship, the Captain is the dramatic focus of such encounters. In an RPG, the PCs are the dramatic focus. Lets do the math.

Damn I love you, Owen.