Some background:

In my In Harm's Way:Wild Blue game, each player has a troupe of characters, each one part of one of the military departments the Mercenary Company fields - as in Fighter Pilot, Helicopter Pilot, SpecOps, Infantry, etc. Each player also has a special character called a Staff Character - a senior officer who plans and apportions resources to the various departments, each one chief over one or more departments.

The regular characters go "in harm's way," but the Staff Characters remain at the base. They create the company, negotiate contracts, and get resources for their departments.

End background

Over on tBP, there's a thread about PTA. In it, several people are talking about a disconnect they felt while playing it. It seems they felt their discussions on a scriptwriting level made the 'reality' of their series seem too labile or flexible for them to enjoy immersion in their series character.

How does this relate to the background?

It seems a couple of the people in my group who playtested Wild Blue had the same problems with regards to their Staff Characters. They felt having that much control over their situation had a negative impact on their game. They generally held that the GM should take care of such matters, that they didn't care about the contract.

Since most of the group loved being given license to do what they wanted with the company, I went ahead anyway, and no further problems along that line turning up in beta test, I released the game with that portion intact. OTOH, one of the beta test groups ignored the Staff Characters altogether and went with a GM-devised scenario.

So, did I put a toe over the trad game line into story-game territory? I have pushed the line before - with Luck in the Cold Space and In Harm's Way lines - but by tying it into the character rather than the player, it was immediately accepted with no problem. Did I go too far this time? I don't know. I hardly ever get feedback from customers unless they have a problem, and usually not even then.

Any response?

-clash

What's PTA?

Quote from: KrakaJakWhat's PTA?

Prime Time Adventures. An Indie-ish game. Balbinus has played it, but I haven't.

-clash

PTA= Primetime Adventures. Your characters are the cast of a TV show.


Anyway, I think you are in a bind Clash. You are trying to give this sense of something bigger than just a few characters but RPGs are about characters. So you've got a chain of command or lots people working together. A few people just aren't comfortable with more than one character, period. They feel a disconnect if they aren't that one character all the time. That's probably contributing heavily. Though maybe the difference, the reason you "got away with it" last time, is that chain of command instead of more like a lateral move? Or maybe it's more a papershuffle vibe this time? That doesn't turn their crank? Hrmm.

Can't please everyone so you might as well please yourself? Or at least enough people to keep the lights on and put food on the table.

Quote from: DwightAnyway, I think you are in a bind Clash. You are trying to give this sense of something bigger than just a few characters but RPGs are about characters. So you've got a chain of command or lots people working together. A few people just aren't comfortable with more than one character, period. They feel a disconnect if they aren't that one character all the time. That's probably contributing heavily. Though maybe the difference, the reason you "got away with it" last time, is that chain of command instead of more like a lateral move? Or maybe it's more a papershuffle vibe this time? That doesn't turn their crank? Hrmm.

Can't please everyone so you might as well please yourself? Or at least enough people to keep the lights on and put food on the table.

The troupe thing itself is not a problem with my players, though a couple of players in the beta had trouble with the concept. They had no problem playing both a polot and a SpecOps guy, for example. It was specifically the Staff Characters, and because they decided everything. They had a blast playing administrative types in Aces And Angels and Aces In Spades - bizarre Milo Minderbinder corruption schemes, colorless paper shufflers the other characters loved to hate, etc. - all greatly loved and fondly remembered. So it's not the admin aspect.  

I'm hoping someone can figure this one out before I do something similar in my next game. Is it the idea itself, or my implementation that's the problem?

-clash

Maybe I'm being a bit simple minded here, but could you make it Optional by adding to the rules "Optional:  Staff Officer can be played by Players or GM depending on preference."  ...?

In Confederation Space Playtests, we used the Troupe style play. PC's primary characters were The Officers/ Leads/ People who were important on the ship (Like O'Brian who was not an officer on Enterprise). They would then play the orbit characters in other departments. Orbit characters were minor characters/ lab minion/ spanner jockies that did much of the work the Offiicers took credit for, they also served as foils, npcs to interact with, and people to kill to show us how dangerous the monster/alien/space effect, was.  So when the Engineer was in engineering and there was a "scene" down there... another player, who was not inovled, could run the background character. (There is a rule that you can only make Orbit characters that would not interact with any of your previously made orbit characters or your officer... so no mutual interests, no similar odd races, and so on).

This is very similar to the Troupe play in Ars Magica.

Now I had the different emphasis of the Command People still "doing things". Everyone else was just there to "give you something to do in another scene" and to generate xp for your primary character (and take an extra 250 xp for Brath in Engineering's epic performance tonight).

Perhaps if your command officers were the series emphasis?

Or perhaps those players are those not interested in "being in charge"?

You are going to have a disconnect no matter what you do. Some people do not like being in charge. Some people do not like more than one character. The questions we ask, is there a) enough people who can deal with it? and b) Are you doing a great job for those that can?

Quote from: flyingmiceIs it the idea itself, or my implementation that's the problem?

Neither. My group does not really like troupe play but it's not really a problem of getting what we want out of the system. Your design is very flexible in that regards. I do understand the player disconnect that some feel, but I think it has more to do with preference than dodgy design. In fact I would argue (even though we don't use troupe play - Staff Characters -) that the idea itself does lend itself to this type of genre.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmiceThey had a blast playing administrative types in Aces And Angels and Aces In Spades - bizarre Milo Minderbinder corruption schemes, colorless paper shufflers the other characters loved to hate[/u], etc. - all greatly loved and fondly remembered. So it's not the admin aspect.  

I'm just tossing darts in the dark here but was that the same this time? Were they at odds to the other PCs? Or was it more co-op.  If that's it maybe it wasn't something in the design but something missing, encouragement of agitation. Or the players didn't have a natural handle on how to do an agitating character?  Because those don't actually strike me as 'colourless' if you hate them.

Anyway when I get Wild Blue off the ground I'll keep an eye out and report back anything I notice or hear.

Quote from: VBWyrdeMaybe I'm being a bit simple minded here, but could you make it Optional by adding to the rules "Optional:  Staff Officer can be played by Players or GM depending on preference."  ...?

Yep - I could have. I have several pages of options in the back of the book.  Thing is, most of the players preferred having a say, but would never have thought to ask. By making it an option in the back, I'd be saying "This isn't the real rules, but you can add them if you want." I would rather have "Optional Rule: Staff NPCs - The Staff Characters can be played by the GM, or the entire formation and control of the Company can be done by the GM" in the back among the options. That would be more suitable, I think.

-clash

Quote from: MoonHunterIn Confederation Space Playtests, we used the Troupe style play. PC's primary characters were The Officers/ Leads/ People who were important on the ship (Like O'Brian who was not an officer on Enterprise). They would then play the orbit characters in other departments. Orbit characters were minor characters/ lab minion/ spanner jockies that did much of the work the Offiicers took credit for, they also served as foils, npcs to interact with, and people to kill to show us how dangerous the monster/alien/space effect, was.  So when the Engineer was in engineering and there was a "scene" down there... another player, who was not inovled, could run the background character. (There is a rule that you can only make Orbit characters that would not interact with any of your previously made orbit characters or your officer... so no mutual interests, no similar odd races, and so on).

This is very similar to the Troupe play in Ars Magica.

Now I had the different emphasis of the Command People still "doing things". Everyone else was just there to "give you something to do in another scene" and to generate xp for your primary character (and take an extra 250 xp for Brath in Engineering's epic performance tonight).

Perhaps if your command officers were the series emphasis?

That would be an entirely different game.

QuoteOr perhaps those players are those not interested in "being in charge"?

That is very likely.

QuoteYou are going to have a disconnect no matter what you do. Some people do not like being in charge. Some people do not like more than one character. The questions we ask, is there a) enough people who can deal with it? and b) Are you doing a great job for those that can?

I try!

-clash

Quote from: David RNeither. My group does not really like troupe play but it's not really a problem of getting what we want out of the system. Your design is very flexible in that regards. I do understand the player disconnect that some feel, but I think it has more to do with preference than dodgy design. In fact I would argue (even though we don't use troupe play - Staff Characters -) that the idea itself does lend itself to this type of genre.

Regards,
David R

You are probably correct, David. It looks like just a preference thing. Thanks!

-clash

Quote from: DwightI'm just tossing darts in the dark here but was that the same this time? Were they at odds to the other PCs? Or was it more co-op.  If that's it maybe it wasn't something in the design but something missing, encouragement of agitation. Or the players didn't have a natural handle on how to do an agitating character?  Because those don't actually strike me as 'colourless' if you hate them.

THis happened in the other three In Harm's Way games, Dwight. The paper shufflers in any military are always hated. The players just ran with it and enjoyed themselves hugely.

QuoteAnyway when I get Wild Blue off the ground I'll keep an eye out and report back anything I notice or hear.

That would be awesome! Thanks!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceTHis happened in the other three In Harm's Way games, Dwight. The paper shufflers in any military are always hated. The players just ran with it and enjoyed themselves hugely.

No, no I meant were the paper shufflers loathed in Wild Blue too? Because hatred is indeed good.  But I think you just answered my question with a "Yes".  Good luck figuring out the puzzle.

Quote from: DwightNo, no I meant were the paper shufflers loathed in Wild Blue too? Because hatred is indeed good.  But I think you just answered my question with a "Yes".  Good luck figuring out the puzzle.

Ah - I got you now, Dwight! No, they didn't hate the Staff Characters, and maybe they should have. It's healthy. These bozos are sending them to what may be their deaths - no matter they knew that when they signed up...

An interesting possibility! Thanks!

-clash