Should characters be in command?

[Publius]

Observation: I have been reading Orson Scott Card's How to write Science Fiction & Fantasy which incidentally is very good, but also has a few interesting points I would like to share. He makes a couple of references to Trek (some less-than-kind), one of them is an observation about the central characters in on-screen Trek:

• Really neat adventures in Starfleet should be had not by the Captain and Command Staff, but by the rank-and-file types who should comprise the landing parties and whatnot. These would be experts in the fields they cover and moderately expendable (i.e. the ship can function moderately normally if they are lost during their adventures).
• Having chosen the Captain as the central character of TOS, the writers simply allowed Kirk to do things that any good captain would have been drummed out of the service for doing. All in the interests of maintaining story, which he argues is what is truly important. The idea here being that most of what leader-types do is actually pretty boring stuff, but once you center in on those leader-types as your main characters they have to act less like 'real' leaders and more like expendable crewmembers.

Please note this is how I read the comments, maybe someone else got a different perspective from them, so YMMV. For Card, this is a cautionary note on picking the right main character, for us this has different dimensions because of the differences bewteen writing and gaming.
Questions brought to my mind by these comments:

• Is this simply a Trek-ism we must accept? In other words, is this simply an artifact of Trek storytelling? Card after all is not talking about Trek adventures but generally about writing good Sci Fi. Some of the best Sci Fi stories would make the worst gaming. However, this does not mean that his comments are useless. Just because it is the way that Trek authors do things doesn't mean we have to repeat their patterns.
• Is it economical that we focus in on characters whose role combines both the strategic-perspective (should we go to this planet? should we endanger the ship? what will happen if I have to cross the neutral zone in order to save the Kobiyoshi Maru?) and the adventure possibilities of the landing party group (action, adventure and romance on-planet rather than paper-shuffling and report-filing)?

I have some things that I use to provide solutions, but I wanted to see what other members think (comments are cut and paste ready, so it might mirror what some of you have to say).

[Ramage]

I've played in two FASA campaigns and was setting up a CODA campaign. In none of these was a pc ever the captain.

We left the paperwork for the npcs

[toadkiller]

I've generally found it to be very limiting for the other players if one is the PC Captain. The story seems to flow better with a hands off style of leadership that allows for consensus play.

As for Card's view on trek--- I think that trek just followed in the naval tradition of H. Hornblower, etc. by having the CO be the main character. For better or for worse that is a pretty standard formula. Some "military" style shows have done otherwise (MASH leaps to my mind) but for the most part they are told from the point of view of the "Old Man".

Not to say that what he proposes wouldn't make a good show - just that the formula was not started on Star Trek.

[pathstrider]

This is something that I've had a lot of experience with, both good and bad.

Firstly, being the Captain is actually a lot of hard work on the player in question. He has to make decisions that suite the rest of the character party ooc, while keeping in with the fact a cO shouldn't just let his people run riot. It is very hard on a player to be the one to disicpline another player- that should be the Gm's job.

On the other hand, players sometimes look a little too much to a NPC CO and it is kinda hard to justify why the players are always making the choices.

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.

Later Days!

Mark

[FDor]

In the campaing I run players are fresh Ensigns.

Straight out of the Academy, no advancements yet (we have managed to play only once).

Does that work? We only have a one episode to back us up but yes.
The ship has limited crew (Intrepid, less than optimum crew (current total crew 122) due to lack of personnel after Dominion war) and hopefully the characters will get to know their comrades.


Vesku

[Publius]

First, I think toadkiller might be right, also if the series was supposed to be "Wagon Train to the Stars" or whatever the Captain-position would have to be a larger role. Again, Card is making these comments as someone advising new writers, which has important differences with gaming strategy/style. Note also that even if you do not have a PC Captain, some of the same issues of leadership can be made about a larger vessels command staff ("Gee, we need to do some things in the Engine Room, where's the Chief? Down on the planet again! His jobs up here.")

Second, what about the PC Captain/Command Staff centered storyline being a 'Trekism'? Is it such a predominant viewpoint we get in the show that it shapes us as players and narrators?

Third, as promised, some of my own way to handle this issue.

• Designated Away Teams: There are specific Away Teams on my ships: a group of individuals who are beamed down to perform investigations on-planet, they have specialists in the major fields and if all killed will not severely reduce the ship's ability to function. I guess the analogy would be the Stargate bunch, although I was using this system in the old FASA days too well before that (although I called these groups Survey Teams at the time). There are generally more than one Away Team per ship btw, so every 'adventure' isn't always the same as everything interesting that happens to the ship. Sometimes, the adventures begin in media res when the other team gets hosed or a spillover effect affects things back on the ship ("Gee, the members of Away Team Beta are acting kind of strange since they came back from Gheta II").
  Add to this the following: Away Team School is a Starfleet-mandated program for those who are used in the Teams, it provides some minimal First-Aid, Stealth, Athletic and Observe/Investigate training. The players might be relatively green compared to other people on the ship, Ensigns or whatever, but if they are the only ones who have gone through 'the program', they are the ones who will be going down. This way the PCs do not have to be the most experienced people on the ship, so FDor's green crewmembers could still be the centerpeice of the series.
• Troupe Play: Allow characters to have more than one character. One is a member of the command staff, the other is an Away Team member (see above). Problems: my group plays once-every two weeks when we are lucky; establishing one character is hard enough in that setting, much less two.
• Captain-by-Proxy: In one of my games I used a Vulcan captain, she was very by-the-book, including that part where the Captain doesn’t beam down in hazardous situations. This kept her nicely away from the action. When she needed to make decisions, the players would together decide how the Captain should act, if need be voting on the eventual outcome. Most of them kept in mind the cultural bias towards logic that would have to shape the Captain's decisions very well. Essentially, she became a kind of 'group player'. The problem: It does not give the Captain as much depth as they might otherwise have, but tis can often be chalked up to the distance between

[Don Mappin]

Should characters be in command?

In my opinion yes, without a doubt or reservation. Different groups and Narrators play different styles, but ultimately I think the story suffers and is not true to the parent property by not having the players in charge/helping dictate the flow of the story. What happens in "Star Trek" if Kirk is relegated to an NPC? Who makes the impassioned pleas on the bridge to save the crew? Who sets the norm by which the other officers are measured? Who talks of conviction and holding up the Prime Directive in the face of destroying the Caretaker Array? These are "real" problems and the linchpins of good stories. Do you read off a text box as an NPC?

Bah, I say.

Mind you, I think "lower decks" and troupe-style play have their place and can be great fun. But, if you sit down to play Star Trek and emulate the adventures seen onscreen then I believe an expectation has been placed to be in those same positions. To be forced with those same tough decisions. To have to rise to a higher standard and be held accountable for your actions and those of your crew. You're in the center seat--you're the "star." Who wouldn't want that role of a lifetime?

Does that mean everyone else is regulated to being secondary characters? No, not at all. I view the job of the CO to make these tough decisions but to also be a delegator. One who looks at what's going on at the table and works to involve the other players. Someone who provides the vision and the motivation to the other characters, but leaves it in their hands to solve the problems pressed to them. Sometimes the CO may be put in a situation to save the ship single-handedly, other times they'll rely on their crew and fellow players to make the right decisions. Starship captains aren't managers, they're leaders. I don't think you lead from behind the Narrator's screen as an NPC.

Certainly there are clever ways to get around these things and I have no doubt that people can run very successful campaigns, altering circumstances to where the CO need not be played by anyone or is "conveniently" (again) unavailable to make any big decisions. That's all fine-and-well and more power to you.

My point is, getting back to the original question, is "should the characters be in command?" Yes. They are the 'stars' of the show and the formula for what makes Star Trek what it is revolves around this concept. This is one of the common threads that everyone thinks of when they sit down to play and participate in a Star Trek story. While you can alter that formula (and the question) to one of "do the character's have to be in command?" and have an equally successful game, I would submit that, at that point, you might not be playing Star Trek after all…

(Intentionally left controversial.)

[el queso]

Should we let the players have command roles?
Yes. But the game won't be the same as you'd expect.
I would suggest that you run some lower decks games first, if your players/you are unexperienced.
A higher decks campaign requires a lot more roleplaying, a lot more improvisational skills and no hack n' slash impulses that will need to be taken out.
I run a game where we have two campaigns going on at the same time, Upper and Lower decks. This is a good way to run episodes as you have the players giving commands, ordering things and roleplaying in one episode and then going through the same experience through the eyes of the newest ensigns who have the toughest time in my game's colony.

Charlie E/N

[tmutant]

Shucky-darn. Don said everything I wanted to, only better.

OK. What he said.

[Dan Stack]

To keep the controversy going in response to Don's comments, let me join in.

Don, a very passionate and well-put argument. But it seems to me, if one were to follow your argument a little bit further, it would "royally suck" to be any character other than the captain. "Ho-hum, I'm the chief engineer. I never get to give the impassioned speech about the prime directive. I never get to decide between peace and war. I don't matter."

Yes, the CO delegates to other characters. But it seems those other characters just get the "droppings" the CO chooses to give them.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Don, a very passionate and well-put argument. But it seems to me, if one were to follow your argument a little bit further, it would "royally suck" to be any character other than the captain. "Ho-hum, I'm the chief engineer. I never get to give the impassioned speech about the prime directive. I never get to decide between peace and war. I don't matter."

Yes, the CO delegates to other characters. But it seems those other characters just get the "droppings" the CO chooses to give them.

Sorry, you're not taking my argument further--you're changing it. The PCs are in command. All of them. This includes the engineer. How many times have we seen Scotty get to stand on his own, sitting in the center seat and mouthing off in his own special way to the inhabitants on the planet below holding Kirk and crew hostage?

A CO delegates, he does not dictate. If you think along those lines, if you confine yourself to "no one can exercise any free will without my say so" then yes, you are doomed for failure. That isn't Star Trek. That's not what we see on screen. We see competent and valuable officers, clearly the best that Starfleet has to offer, exercising their creativity and individuality. A Star Trek game at your dinner table should have those same elements.

Playing in RPGs involve a level of trust--trust between the players and the GM. In Trek you're merely placing in a middle level of the CO. The CO works with the players and the GM to keep everyone involved. He helps guide the course of the story. He sees RP opportunities and encourages the other crew to follow them. He delegates responsibility, allowing the other characters a chance to shine. A self-absorbed player who doesn't do these things is not representative of a failure in the system, merely a failure of the player. That person shouldn't be the CO. Conversely, a Narrator who focuses solely on a single character, regardless if they are the captain or not, is the problem--not the situation. The situation you described wouldn't be acceptable irregardless of if anyone is playing the CO or not, thusly, has no bearing.

One of my favorite ploys when I run Star Trek is to put the characters out of their element. I'll have a story where an Away Team beams down leaving the navigator on the bridge in command. The player, one of the more sheltered RPers that doesn't gravitate towards a lot of attention, suddenly finds himself in charge. Suddenly the navigator is thrust outside of his comfort zone. He gets his chance to play Scotty on the bridge. He gets his opportunity to be in charge. He gets to feel what the center seat is like. He gets to feel the pressure. Meanwhile the CO is getting the crap kicked out of herself by natives and undercover Romulans, neither of which give a whit about what her rank is or how many people answer to her command.

"Should characters be in command?" I'd extend that even further to say they need to be in command.


Controversially yours,

[Kronok]

Don is extra saucy today!!!

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I agree with Don. Exactly what I would have written, though not so well.

[tmutant]

I have to agree with Don. Again.

[qerlin]

Yup.

We've had players be the captain and other superior officers. Works fine if you've got a good group.

Had 'em play lower level characters, but they inevitably have trouble getting 'screen time', since they're less important.

Personal opinion.