I'm in the process of putting together a free-form Star Trek game set in the TNG-era, post Dominion War and post Nemesis. I've got a few good ideas for missions and plot arcs but I was wondering if anyone who's been in/is in or has run similar Star Trek games could give me some input on the actual mechanics of how I intend to run it.

Chief issue is whether to have an NPC or Player captain. I'm worried that an NPC captain could be seen as handholding or too linear in terms of story, but having a player as captain puts a lot on the shoulders of one player.

One game I was in had players acting as junior officers and all major officer roles (Captain, First Officer, Chief Engineer etc.) done by NPCs that were gradually replaced by players as time went on, but I'm worried that that isn't engaging enough and I'm leaning away from that sort of system.

Interested in any and all opinions.

In reply to BewareofCrisps (msg # 1):

To me, the best way to do it is have the captain be an NPC...but have them be a simple mouth-piece for the group's decisions. The group leader could be the first officer. The whole group decides on a course of action, aka the meeting with the department heads and the captain, and then the captain agrees to the plan and play continues.

Having a PC captain is just asking for trouble.

If you use the FATE system would have a large influence on general actions due to the special game mechanics. So an NPC captain would be not a problem afaic.

I don't see an issue with an NPC captain. You'd just focus on situations in which the crew matters more and the captain defers to them. He might give the final orders, but the specifics of those orders will stem from player suggestions. If the group is comfortable with out-of-character collaboration, the captain can just "agree" with whatever course of action the players all thing will be the most fun.

I advise against an npc captain.  If you need that much control, have a commodore or other official with higher authority than the captain either give orders or visit the ship.

In reply to Tuopleeze (msg # 5):

The captain being an NPC doesn't need to mean that the GM has "that much" control. It can still be a very player-driven game. Even if it's not all that player driven, consider how much control most Star Trek characters take on a regular basis. They're always stretching their orders, or outright disobeying them, or acting on their own initiative.

I'd also support the choice of playing the Captain yourself. Especially since you're running a freeform game. From the perspective of a GM, you can escape of lot of issues by taking a lead authority in the story-flow. Also nudging gently through in-game interaction tends to sting less than calling out players on slight mistakes. Leaving it in the hands of a player risks problems in terms of activity, and in flow. From a player perspective, I'm always more at ease when the GM plays an important character, as opposed to leaving the character open. I guess, it's like... insurance? Like I know the GM is dedicated because they are playing a big gun. I never consider it spotlight hogging or odd, I find it more odd in freeform when GMs don't take setting tied characters to help anchor the game.

Remember, there are two kinds of captains: the one that gets involved in everything, and one that acts more like a director. The first type would need to be a PC, while the latter should be an NPC. It mostly has to do with the amount of posting needed.

An NPC captain lets you use him as a source of hints and suggestions and inspiration... if and when the PCs get stalled for some reason.

You could always have the NPC captain go on the first away team, get captured and have to be rescued. That teaches him to stay behind and let the away team do their jobs.

Technically, everyone sees their character as captain material, but the reality is that not everyone is good at playing that kind of role, particularly in an on-line RPG where all the players should have equal status, regardless of the rank their character has.

Keep in mind, too, that there is a difference between the rank of captain and the role of captain. A captain's rank = responsibility. A captain's role = giving equal time and consideration to all other PCs. It's been my experience that most gamers realize this, and play accordingly.

If you want to have a PC captain, you'd have to seriously select the player who is going to play the captain, not just let the first one who offers be the captain. Few players actually realize/admit that are poor role-players (not that many are). In other words, it takes a special kind of player to accurately, adequately and effectively play the captain. Otherwise you'd wind up babysitting the captain.

I also favour the captain being an NPC. Unless the captain is a Kirk-like cowboy in a TOS-era game, the captain should be staying aboard the ship, especially in a post-TNG era. PC captains I've seen tend to be stuck on the ship, managing the more active PCs who actually go on missions. That might be good for a sedentary player, one who's content to sit back and only post occasionally, but it must quickly get boring for most others.

An NPC captain can take a quest-giver role, where they give missions and tasks to the PCs, or be a GM PC who manages the PCs without taking over. They take PCs' suggestions, ideas, advice (what the PCs have decided), give the make-it-so on plans, and the GM moves the story on. No one wants a GM captain who railroads them.

More generally, one of the problems I've had several times in Trek games is rank (which must be a factor in any military game). PCs should always be equal as players, but sometimes you get a higher-ranked player who wants to pull rank on another, to restrict them doing something, force through their own action, or just trick or embarrass them. So I prefer PCs be more-or-less equal in rank, or not have any kind of in-game power over another.

I do like the idea of PCs being junior officers and senior enlisted, and not all department chiefs. It gives more flexibility: some PCs want to play very green officers, others want experienced veterans; some can be civilians or Klingon exchange officers. They can serve as a team of troubleshooters and investigators, be given missions by the captain or XO, go to planets as an away team, leave the ship on a runabout (and have a small ship to themselves), study a space anomaly, take bridge posts, and so on, without the responsibility of running a ship's department or the ship. They only miss out on department management and meetings, which aren't that fun anyway. It gives a more focused feeling and a tight-knit group more like most RPG campaigns.

In reply to BadCatMan (msg # 9):

You could have each PC run two characters.

They'd have say the "bridge crew" character for shipboard duties, perhaps they are the 3rd Shift guys or something.

Then they'd have their "landing party" character for landings, boardings etc :)

In reply to JRScott (msg # 10):

I definitely like that idea.

In reply to engine (msg # 11):

We follow the two-crew model in another science-fiction game I'm involved in right now.  It seems to work fairly well.

In military settings (and Trek definitely got more military in succeeding iterations), a Captain isn't God, but is qualified to stand His watches.  The idea of an NPC Commanding Officer might have its advantages.  After all, a CO's orders are to be obeyed unless patently unlawful.

Most players fall into two categories concerning military hierarchies:  either they love that kind of thing, or they absolutely detest it.  It shouldn't take you long to figure out how your players feel.

Of course, the entire dynamic changes if your players are Romulan or Klingon...  In those cases, hijinks and skullduggery within the chain of command are bound to ensue -- it's just how the bad guys roll.

All the Best in Your Game,
D

This has all been very helpful, I'll be having an NPC captain.



I've come across another issue while setting up the basics. On the previous Star Trek game I was on there were threads for individual rooms on the ship e.g. a thread for the bridge, a thread for engineering, medical, individual crew quarters etc.

It worked but things were occasionally cluttered. For example, a player had to indicate whether they were leaving or entering a thread when moving around the ship and it was a little hard to keep track. One thing that worked well to cut through the chatter was a dedicated thread for comm chatter which players were encouraged to check whenever there was a new post.

This system of one thread per area sometimes extend to other ships and locations, but usually a single mission had just one thread. This came up with difficulties of its own, with clutter inside the threads rather than outside.

I was wondering what others thought of how to structure the game?

I don't like the thread-per-area approach myself as, as you say, it gets very cluttered and hard to follow. I like to keep all of a story in one thread, and have a thread-per-chapter/episode approach.

It does work when there are lots of PCs active in the game, however. A dozen or so people posting in the one thread makes it move very quickly, and it becomes hard to find posts relevant to a scene in amongst the rest. Having different location threads allows them to spread out, so its easy for everyone to follow events and catch up.

So, for a half-dozen PCs, consider a single thread. For a dozen or more, consider multiple location threads (especially in a players-have-two-characters set up).

Instead of a structure based on ship locations, might it be useful to structure the board based on functional organization?

In my own game I set up forums for the upcoming adventure, for discussion, OOC and Meta stuff, for ideas for future adventures, etc.  I also set aside closed threads for Adventure Intros, and for basic information about how the game is to be conducted (Quick Start Rules, basic expectations, etc.)

In a Trek setting, I could see boards dedicated to different shipboard departments:

Command
Admin
Operations
Engineering
Science
Medical
Weapons
Security
Navigation
Logistics (an often unappreciated but vital field of endeavor)

That might work better than boards for different compartments/rooms aboard the ship.  Since away teams are usually multi-disciplinary in nature, a separate board for an away team might also keep all the team's correspondence organized to some extent.

Shipboard organization is usually done first at the Departmental level, with Divisions falling under the several Departments.  Just as a for-instance, under Engineering one might find Reactor Controls, Mechanical, Electrical, Auxiliary, and Damage Control Divisions.  Under Science one might find Life Sciences, Planetology, Astronomy, Data Systems and others.

There are subtle variations in command structure from ship to ship, according to what works best for the ship's intended role.  USS Defiant-class vessels, for instance, may have a much more compact organization than that of a USS Constitution-class heavy cruiser.

Whatever organizational structure you decide on, minimalism probably works better than some Byzantine system where folks are bewildered by the sheer number of boards unless you as GM are ready to do a lot of hand-holding.

I have started small, and intend to develop consensus of what works best for my players as I go.  That might be a good approach if it sits well with your GM-ing style.  (You may be more "top-down" than I am, I don't really know.)

There's a lot to consider in forming up a successful organizational approach.  Here's hoping you and your players figure out what works best for your enjoyment of the game.

Good Luck, and Good Hunting,
D
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 15:18, Fri 12 Aug 2016.