Quote from: flyingmiceSo, 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

Well, I think that Staff characters might simply be played better as more a "soap opera" game--that is a subcampaign type you should talk about. I'm not a fan of multiple character games (unless someone dies and is replaced.)

In general multiple characters dilutes the "I am this person" feel, which is one of the reasons I play RPG's, for a brief excursion into someone elses state of mind.

Although you do have similar aspects used in  your first In Harm's Way, I think you may have moved a bit too far over that line of "we live here", and into than "we play here" style play. (Nothing wrong with either, but I prefer playing in the live here field.)

Quote from: SilverlionWell, I think that Staff characters might simply be played better as more a "soap opera" game--that is a subcampaign type you should talk about. I'm not a fan of multiple character games (unless someone dies and is replaced.)

That is a very interesting idea, and directly akin to what Dwight said. Very cool! :O

QuoteIn general multiple characters dilutes the "I am this person" feel, which is one of the reasons I play RPG's, for a brief excursion into someone elses state of mind.

I don't know about that, Tim. It's not like the players are hopping back and forth from one character to another. That would actually sometimes happen in the other IHW games, where the division is more vertical. In Wild Blue, the division is horizontal, and the groups of PCs don't really mix. A bunch of fighter pilots just don't adventure with SpecOps guys, who don't congregate with Helo pilots. In Wild Blue, you stay with one character at a time.

QuoteAlthough you do have similar aspects used in  your first In Harm's Way, I think you may have moved a bit too far over that line of "we live here", and into than "we play here" style play. (Nothing wrong with either, but I prefer playing in the live here field.)

I was hoping to avoid that by doing everything in character. That's what the Staff Characters are for, because I didn't like the meta game aspect of the players doing it directly. I have found meta game stuff to really interfere with immersion in some people, including me, though other people can handle it fine.

-clash

Another alternative is to have each member of the troupe affect the other. Staff characters not only negotiate the contracts and do the paper shuffling, but what they do has some kind of concrete effect on the grunts and vice verce.

Your staff character has a dislikable reputation? That rubs off on the grunts, leaving them at a disadvantage in field negotiations. He's a dab hand at sourcing equipment? The grunts get an equipment bonus.

The grunts cock up a job? That makes the staff characters' job harder in sourcing the next one. They like to blow things up? He is stronger placed in negotiating contracts with rather more shady characters.

I haven't seen the game, so don't know if there is any interplay between the troupe characters. However, if you code something in that means what one does has a game effect on the other, then that might create less of a disconnect. They are then facets of the same thing. That could cut down on interesting charactisations, however, depending how you implement it. Maybe it's too 'rules rigid'. Dunno. You're best placed to answer that one!

Quote from: One Horse TownAnother alternative is to have each member of the troupe affect the other. Staff characters not only negotiate the contracts and do the paper shuffling, but what they do has some kind of concrete effect on the grunts and vice verce.

Your staff character has a dislikable reputation? That rubs off on the grunts, leaving them at a disadvantage in field negotiations. He's a dab hand at sourcing equipment? The grunts get an equipment bonus.

The grunts cock up a job? That makes the staff characters' job harder in sourcing the next one. They like to blow things up? He is stronger placed in negotiating contracts with rather more shady characters.

I haven't seen the game, so don't know if there is any interplay between the troupe characters. However, if you code something in that means what one does has a game effect on the other, then that might create less of a disconnect. They are then facets of the same thing. That could cut down on interesting charactisations, however, depending how you implement it. Maybe it's too 'rules rigid'. Dunno. You're best placed to answer that one!

The Staff Characters are each in charge of one or two Company Departments, which correspond to either a service, like Logistics, or a functional unit, like Infantry. They don't command on the ground, but they plan and coordinate. There is a reciprocal effect, but it's not quantified in-game.

What I expected to happen was that each Staff Character would argue over his own "slice of pie" - trying to get the most funding for his own departments. Running my own game, that didn't happen. A couple of the Staff Officers argued over funding and the rest participated by throwing votes one way or another - like a representative democracy. It worked out fine, it was just unexpected. Very interesting.

-clash

I think that giving the players control over the game world, either directly through shared GMing, or indirectly through controlling additional characters who drive the direction of the game for the primary characters -- all of that will produce a game where the players are less connected with their character and feel like they're "in" the game world themselves.

If you used those game elements during downtime in play, it might not be so bad. Maybe before the session starts you have to do all your management of the additional characters -- do that in a non-1st-person resource-management style.  It's not about roleplaying at that point, it's more abstract.

Take a pause.  Washroom break.  Etc.

Then the actual game gets started and the players "get into character" and play the game as influenced by what you as the GM present to them, and what they've added to the mix through the first phase of the game.

Once the players are controlling their primary character, I don't think they should jump out of that and control the world or other characters (which would normally be NPCs) that their characters interact with.

(All of this assumes the goal is to have a high level of "character connection".  If your goal is to collaboratively tell a story, or it's a tactical miniatures games, then that's something different.

Ooh, thanks for the present Clash!

On a first flip through, there's very little guidance on campaign and adventure design and what to do with all that stuff. I hope you continue with your plan to do some supplements for this game, so that some more detail can be added - although the qualifier is that i've power scanned, so have likely missed a lot!

Quote from: StuartI think that giving the players control over the game world, either directly through shared GMing, or indirectly through controlling additional characters who drive the direction of the game for the primary characters -- all of that will produce a game where the players are less connected with their character and feel like they're "in" the game world themselves.

They don't fell less connected to their action-oriented characters, Stuart. Some of them feel less connected to their Staff Character.

QuoteIf you used those game elements during downtime in play, it might not be so bad. Maybe before the session starts you have to do all your management of the additional characters -- do that in a non-1st-person resource-management style.  It's not about roleplaying at that point, it's more abstract.

That would solve the problem by dropping the Staff Character concept and introducing meta-gaming. That's the LAST thing I want.

QuoteTake a pause.  Washroom break.  Etc.

Then the actual game gets started and the players "get into character" and play the game as influenced by what you as the GM present to them, and what they've added to the mix through the first phase of the game.

Once the players are controlling their primary character, I don't think they should jump out of that and control the world or other characters (which would normally be NPCs) that their characters interact with.

Nor do I. It's not like they are jumping from Staff Characters to their normal characters and back during a session - that's just not the case. Staff Characters set up the company, negotiate contracts, and allocate resources. They don't do this during a regular session. It's far more likely that the players will jump between their other characters - first a SpecOps, then a pilot, then an Armored character for example - which they have no trouble doing.

This game is the fourth in a series sharing common mechanics. All of them use troupe play, and none of the others have this effect. My players are used to troupe play. It's not troupe play itself which is the problem. I think the problem lies somewhere in the planning/execution separation of Staff Characters. Players are used to executing orders from NPCs. They are also used to planning and executing their own plans in character. This game separates the planning and execution phases into two different characters, which seems to be where the problem lies for some minority of players.

Quote(All of this assumes the goal is to have a high level of "character connection".  If your goal is to collaboratively tell a story, or it's a tactical miniatures games, then that's something different.

Mffp! Story is a by-product of gaming, not a goal for me. I could care less about telling stories. If I wanted to do that I'd write fiction. Similarly, if I wanted tactical minis, I'd write a tactical mini game. I've designed counter and hex wargames before, just never for publication.

-clash

Quote from: One Horse TownOoh, thanks for the present Clash!

You're very welcome, Dan!

QuoteOn a first flip through, there's very little guidance on campaign and adventure design and what to do with all that stuff. I hope you continue with your plan to do some supplements for this game, so that some more detail can be added - although the qualifier is that i've power scanned, so have likely missed a lot!

Campaigns are entirely dependent on the Contract, generation of which is covered in some detail, and planned out by the Staff Characters.

Scenario design is not covered. Perhaps I should, but I'm very leery of foisting my unconventional GMing style off as the way to play. I'm well aware that most GMs prefer running railroads, but I hate them with a depth of passion that urges me to strangle GMs who attempt even the slightest whiff of choo-choo smoke on me, which is the major reason I'm a terrible player.

What I can do is make more tools like the Contract Generator, geared for scenario/tactical level play rather than campaign/strategic level. Tools are something I love.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceYou're very welcome, Dan!



Campaigns are entirely dependent on the Contract, generation of which is covered in some detail, and planned out by the Staff Characters.

Sure, i was thinking more along the lines of some advice on making it all hang together. Contract 1 > results > possible future ramifications > Contract 2: any effects from contract 1? > results, etc, etc...

QuoteWhat I can do is make more tools like the Contract Generator, geared for scenario/tactical level play rather than campaign/strategic level. Tools are something I love.

-clash

Groovy.

Honestly, I only think you've crossed the line into indie territory if you regard Ars Magica as being a non-trad game; the default assumption there is that wizard PCs are the leaders of their covenant, and the other PCs are their subordinates.

Out of interest, how much time is spent focusing on the Staff Characters compared with the guys who go out on the missions?

Quote from: StuartI think that giving the players control over the game world, either directly through shared GMing, or indirectly through controlling additional characters who drive the direction of the game for the primary characters -- all of that will produce a game where the players are less connected with their character and feel like they're "in" the game world themselves.

If you used those game elements during downtime in play, it might not be so bad. Maybe before the session starts you have to do all your management of the additional characters -- do that in a non-1st-person resource-management style.  It's not about roleplaying at that point, it's more abstract.

Take a pause.  Washroom break.  Etc.

Then the actual game gets started and the players "get into character" and play the game as influenced by what you as the GM present to them, and what they've added to the mix through the first phase of the game.

Once the players are controlling their primary character, I don't think they should jump out of that and control the world or other characters (which would normally be NPCs) that their characters interact with.

(All of this assumes the goal is to have a high level of "character connection".  If your goal is to collaboratively tell a story, or it's a tactical miniatures games, then that's something different.

In my experience these things do not matter quite as much as what I think is the most crucial element to immersion - the World.   Much like reading Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' I could pick the book up and be immersed within two seconds... then be in a zone-of-mind which was very difficult to distract me from ... or I could put down the book, carry the Otherworldly feeling with me for hours... and then after school jump back into the book and ... be Totally Immersed again, no problem.

I think, really, the issue is the quality of Gamesmastering.   I know that when we used to play in David Kahn's world I was as immersed as could be and none of the pizza and spilled cokes and table talk could budge me from the firm conviction that in some strange way my alter ego was wandering through another dimension at great risk to both of us (in some strange way).   This, to me, is the essence of immersion.   It had little to do with how many character's I played (I got to play several at once and it made no difference except that I now felt that I had several alter egos wandering at risk in another dimension - which was extra strange, but highly enjoyable since they could help one another).  Nor did the casual interruptions break my sense of it.   The only thing I can say about it is that when David Gamesmastered it brought me squarely into Another World.   His power of description, and the ominous sense of danger in combination with his fascinating historical perspective and lively non-player character depictions all worked together to make Immersion happen for me.

So that's what I think it takes, really.  Great Gamesmastering.  Of course, I can't speak for others in our group as I couldn't get into their minds, but my impression was that it was the same for most of us (if not all).

PS - that's your most frightening avatar yet.  Thanks.  *shiver*

Quote from: WarthurHonestly, I only think you've crossed the line into indie territory if you regard Ars Magica as being a non-trad game; the default assumption there is that wizard PCs are the leaders of their covenant, and the other PCs are their subordinates.

I certainly don't regard AM as non-trad. It's a bit different, but within the trad spectrum, IMO.

QuoteOut of interest, how much time is spent focusing on the Staff Characters compared with the guys who go out on the missions?

That would vary by the GM and group. Two of the playtest groups dropped Staff Characters entirely. I personally spent maybe a tenth the time on Staff Characters compared to the regular characters, all concentrated before and after the main characters' action.

-clash

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."  ...?

In a similar vein, the players as a whole would have to decide on the actions of the staff officer.  Kind of like, roleplaying by committee, to add the flavour of 'the middle manager'.  Also, you wouldn't necessarily have to have an even number of staff people to give all the players an even number of characters.  They would all participate in playing the one staff member, so you can have three, seven, or seventeen if you want without having to balance it.

Quote from: StormBringerIn a similar vein, the players as a whole would have to decide on the actions of the staff officer.  Kind of like, roleplaying by committee, to add the flavour of 'the middle manager'.  Also, you wouldn't necessarily have to have an even number of staff people to give all the players an even number of characters.  They would all participate in playing the one staff member, so you can have three, seven, or seventeen if you want without having to balance it.

That could work too. The Staff Characters aren't essential to play. I just wanted to give the players a voice in the strategic level decisions usually made by the GM alone.

-clash