Should characters be in command?

[Dan Stack]

btw Don, good luck getting an agreement on "what is Star Trek?". I suggest posting a question like that at trekbbs.com.

betcha it beomes a flame war within two dozen posts!

[Greg Davis]

Well, I've been following along on this thread, and I really don't feel that I can contribute much in terms of original thought, especially since I primarily agree with Don and Owen.

Whenever I run a Trek game, or when I play in a Trek game, I expect the PC's (though not necessarily my character) to be in command. As my group only has 3 people, including myself, we often have a Captain PC, at least 1 department head character, and sometimes an XO PC. I've found that, depending on who runs the game, having the XO as an NPC can be beneficial to the group, as it leaves a competent NPC in charge if the PC's opt to make up an away team (or vice versa, in terms of away team action), while having an XO PC can make for interesting dual-plot adventures.

But it all boils down to the notion of whether PC's should be in command. In a word, I'd have to say, "Yes!". This doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be in command of a large starship or starbase, but perhaps they're in charge of department sections, or departments, or shifts, or a whole slew of options.

Personally, I've never understood the desire to play a character who basically spends his days waiting for his commanding officer to tell him what to do. I mean, that basically boils down to the Narrator telling a story, with the PC's just ad libbing a bit here and there. If I want to do that (as a Narrator), I'd rather just write a story and cut out the middle-men (or women, as the case may be). Even if one PC is the Captain and the other PC's are department heads, that doesn't mean that the PC Captain is going to spend all of his time bossing around the other PC's (something that a lot of groups fret over, I think).

A prime example of this would be, as previously noted, series like TOS, TNG and ENT, with TOS being the primary example here, I think. In all examples though, no Captain believed himself to be perfect, or infallible, and thus sought input from his friends (in the case of Kirk and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Archer, though in Archer's case, as time passes, I'm certain that friendships will grow) and his trusted and valued select cadre of officers (Picard, in that case).

With those primary roles filled by players, it seems, in my opinion, to make things go far more smoothly, since, in general, players trust one another (if they don't, then why are they playing together in the first place). With an NPC, in my experience, that level of trust is rarely found (usually for a variety of factors).

And, as has been pointed out, the PC's are, in effect, the stars of the series. Who would have been really excited to tune in to watch the adventures of the Executive Officer, the Chief Engineer and the Helmsman every week? I think that there's a reason that the winning formula seems to involve starring characters who are in command, and I think that this thread has pretty effectively hit on them.

In the end, I see Star Trek as a vehicle for exploration, not just of what is beyond us, but what is within us. As my horribly boring Economics professor is fond of saying, "People make choices." Well, the most responsible people (those in command) have to make the toughest choices, which, to my mind, allows for the greatest depth of inner-exploration. That, to me, is maximizing the Trek effect, and that primarily why I feel that characters should be in command.

Cripes, that was long winded, and involved a lot of rambling...sorry about that.



Greg

[Evan van Eyk]

I think it is of nor real matter if a PC is the CO or not.
At one step or another in your 'career', you will be in charge of somebody. The Ensign of the Administration is in charge of those NCO in his subdepartment and the like.
So having the characters be Department Heads or the CO only rises the level. There is still pretyy much above them. There are Admirals, the Federation Council, etc.
So it makes just a simple change in tone if you are the CO or the Ensign. It may be even more benficial if you start at the bottom, because it is more easy for an ensign to impress his CO or to be heroic. To rescue a freighter from four pirates may be sufficient to be entered into your record. But something like this is 'standard' for a Captain. He is expected to be able of dealing with a bunch of thugs, although certainly not neccesarrily by physical power.

So the rank actually changes only the challenges' levels. The situation essentially remains the same. No matter your rank you are in focus of the series, but not the 'most powerful'. If you were Q, the game would make no fun, because it is to face the challenges the GM throws at you, which make the game interesting. The question is, do you like more to trick some four pirates, or do you prefer to command a ship on a rescue mission of somebody, something, whatever.

[Phantom]

My group never really had a problem in this area. We played alot of Military Sci-Fi (Trek included) and we had it both ways. In the last Trek game we ran as a group the Captain was an NPC, but in other games the players were in charge. To use our long running Draconis Combine game, as an example out side trek, my character was the commander, except for a short time in the very beginning, and always had to report to a superior even once he made General and he always had a lot to do, not all of it exciting either.

To tell the truth I wouldn't like to play the Captian in Trek, I just have more fun playing a jr officer, as was said in a previous post even they get commands every once and while. The character I am playing on-line, a lieutenant at Ops, has been in charge of 2 Away Missions and a frieghter, used as bait to bring some pirates to Justice, technically an acting Captain.

It has a lot to do with the group you are running and how you want the game to come out. If you think you can keep the Captain (PC) challenged then go for it. However, you have to make sure the Player knows what it is to play a SF Captain and do it well other wise you will have a shambles on your hands.

[Polanski]

Originally posted by 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.

That really depends on how well you can design a scenario ...

I use Captain NPC and have had a number of scenarios in which the players were making a very important decisions and knew that a lot depended on them. More of that is to come in my ST RPG and both I and Captain hope that the crew will pull through (for me and her), for the Federation faces dark times.

Again it comes down to the style with which you like to GM, the old Narrator's screen and new CODA books describe different styles of running the game and I would assume that each of those styles may warrant different approch to the questions asked in this thread...

Kind Regards

[toadkiller]

I agree that it is very scenario driven. I've had good luck with lower decks based games because my players are most interested in lower decks stories.

I was talking to one of my players about this thread and she pointed out that they (the players) keep wanting to move to lower ranking characters. For whatever reason the consensus for us is to move towards more and more small scale issues in the Trek universe. We're currently scattered (in real life) over 4000 miles so "concept" games play better than "action" ones.

The key to me does seem to be the the individual PC's need to be able to control the destiny of the scenario - whatever that is. In our case the CO basically just drives the ship to the scenario and then is available to act as a "plot nudger" if they get stuck on the wrong tack.

Back to the basic question though. I'd agree that if you want to model the TV shows you need to focus on the command crew, and someone's going to have to step up to the big chair. However, if the crew (players) are happy with smaller chairs then it is a big galaxy and there's things they can do.

We're all right?

This is a pretty lame flame war.

I'll spice it up a bit ---- Don - this font is just lame - we need microcappa bold and we need it now!

[Karg]

I've found that it usually works best ot have a player as the Captain.

Fortunatly the people who have taken up this position in the 2 games i run have been willing to take suggestions about actions and not command strictly on thier right to do so.

It also works well because the have nobody to blame but themselves when thier tactics don't work out the way they think it will.

Karg

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by toadkiller
This is a pretty lame flame war.

Apologies to the topic starter, but it was a pretty lame thread. These game "meta" threads usually go nowhere and solve nothing. In the end it really comes down to "there's no right answer and as long as you're having fun, you're doing it right."

That's why I took great amusement in being controversial.

I'll spice it up a bit ---- Don - this font is just lame - we need microcappa bold and we need it now!

"Scotty, we need Microcappa Bold in 5 minutes or we're all dead!"

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Apologies to the topic starter, but it was a pretty lame thread. These game "meta" threads usually go nowhere and solve nothing. In the end it really comes down to "there's no right answer and as long as you're having fun, you're doing it right."

I disagree!!!

While there is no right answer, if one is undecided about what to do, such a thread allows a narrator to better understand the consequences of following one path or another, perhaps revealing issues that were previously not considered. If you hope for a definitive answer from such a thread, you'd be out of luck, but if in search of brain food, it may be the right thing.

[pathstrider]

While there is no right answer, if one is undecided about what to do, such a thread allows a narrator to better understand the consequences of following one path or another, perhaps revealing issues that were previously not considered. If you hope for a definitive answer from such a thread, you'd be out of luck, but if in search of brain food, it may be the right thing.

And, in addition it brings the issue up - something a new (or old even) GM may not have thought of.

This thread may have saved many a GM nightmare. So, it's not necessarily a waste of time or a flame war.

Personally, I think this thread has helped a lot - it's made me realise that my conclusions are based on my player group and my unconcious Star Trek style - something I might seek to change now I am conciously aware of it.

Later days!

Mark

[Don Mappin]

My point was more one of does anyone really give a care what Orson Scott Card thinks makes good Sci-Fi or Star Trek? Do you design adventures and wonder if they pass "The OSC Test?" I sure as hell don't.

Should characters be in command? Clearly we've established the (painfully) obvious that no one here runs a Trek game the same way, so the answer to this question becomes rather moot. "Should characters be in command in your game?"

That's what I meant. I can easily argue the other side of the argument. Might be fun just to watch Dan change colors.

[Greg Smith]

I'm with Don on this, characters should be making the decisions and the easiest way to do this is to put them in command.

I am going to try it differently in a game I have planned, but whether the players and I like it will dictate whether we continue.

But to add to the discusion, if replicating Trek as seen on the screen is the intent of the game, why do both LUG and Coda Trek provide character generation rules (and ready-to play example characters) that give you junior officers?

In my mind FASA got it right by providing a concrete system for creating command-level PCs. There was never any doubt that the PCs were going to be the senior officers.

[Dan Stack]

OK, I'll take the pro-player-captain stance, and I'll do it in RED!!!

Seriously, while I'm familiar with OSC's argument, he's far from the first to make it - that was one of David Gerrold's comments in his World of Star Trek book, if I recall the title correctly. Those thoughts were eventually to be incorporated into Star Trek: Phase II (the aborted 70's series), with Commander Decker leading Away Missions. It was done in TNG, with the intent that Riker be the "action hero" of the Enterprise.

[Dan Stack]

Hey, I'm talking to myself. To answer Don's question, no, I don't really care if my adventures pass the OSC test. But from a narrating perspective, I find the question itself interesting - not out of "realism", which I don't worry too much about, but more as to its game-related implications (which I think have been covered pretty darn thoroughly! )

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Greg Smith
But to add to the discusion, if replicating Trek as seen on the screen is the intent of the game, why do both LUG and Coda Trek provide character generation rules (and ready-to play example characters) that give you junior officers?

While I obviously can't speak for Icon, I'm going to disagree with you on Coda--there exists everything you need in the PG to make command characters. The "Command" profession and the professional abilities makes it rather plain (for me) that "here are the tools to make command-rank characters." In the NG this goes even a little bit further by showing you what several command characters look like, stat-wise.