[Spaceships] Crews for exploration

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by jmurrell

True but:

(1) Partly depends on FTL travel times, if it takes a long time to go out and back and out again it may be worth having the might-needs along.

(2) Not much scope for a RP group there.

Isn't much fun.

<shrug> Go up to SM+8 and add one expert for each category. Encourage cross-disciplinary studies.

If you sent the full team of 30+ you still have to choose which one of them to make PCs. If you let the PCs choose they're quite likely to choose somebody who won't be needed. possibly for multiple planets in a row. Large crews of npcs don't really help roleplaying either.

[Pragmatic]

Drone probes? Send out hundreds, and have them go into various star systems. Then they report back, and you decide from there.

At that point, who cares if it takes a couple years for it to respond? You've sent out hundreds, and you'll be getting a dozen reports every year.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jmurrell

(2) Not much scope for a RP group there.

Isn't much fun.

'Good idea' and 'fun for an RP group' are often opposed concepts. However, in this case I disagree: big ships are bad for RPGs.

The fact is, regardless of ship size, 95% of systems are going to be boring, so it's the job of the GM to have the PCs coincidentally arrive at the interesting ones. Most of the interesting ones are also systems where sitting and doing nothing isn't an very good option.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The fact is, regardless of ship size, 95% of systems are going to be boring, so it's the job of the GM to have the PCs coincidentally arrive at the interesting ones. Most of the interesting ones are also systems where sitting and doing nothing isn't an very good option.

I have to agree with this. When I looked at it initially (and responded!) I was thinking entirely like a systems engineer and not like a storyteller. The mission as described (which is a bit contrived, but not unrealistic as the decision of business/political body!) calls for a moderately large ship and crew... and in gaming that leads to the "Star Trek* effect".

In that iconic franchise, the realism that they worked into some areas was absolutely destroyed by the need to focus every problem, every episode, on a small and fixed cast of stars. Gaming with large ships provides the same problem. If you only have six people on the ship it makes perfect sense that those six people will need to solve every problem, but if there are a hundred then the fact that you are using your command crew like marines gets stupid fast.

The only way this works is if you have the kind of players who like having several characters each, so that they can switch between them and use them only where appropriate. Otherwise, I would recommend narrowing the mission so that you can have a small crew.

*: As a note, Roddenberry's original concept was for a NASA-like crew of just a few highly trained officers. The decision to expand the scope was a result of negotiations with the network, and like all committee decisions was a bit messed up as a result.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I suggest the age-old tradition of scouting: send something small, fast, and expendable. Ideally, send two so one can come back if the other one gets blown up or spots something that needs someone to sit and watch. If it doesn't return, you've found an enemy (how exactly this works depends on the specifics of the FTL drive). Don't bother with humanitarian aid, that's for the followup mission. Don't bother with any extensive first contact, though you can say "hi". Don't bother with military force, that's for the followup mission.

The purpose of this mission is to figure out what follow-up mission is needed. The Empire has records from when the systems were scouted by robot probes from Earth several hundred years ago. It also has records of who migrated there and what they took with them and even in most cases their public statements of what they were off to do. In many cases it even has the initial colonists' early reports of what they found and did on arrival. System mapping and basic planetary analysis would be redundant. In almost all cases "discovering" a habitable planet and a human colony would likewise be redundant.

Are these people in dire straits because they lack suitable crop plants? If so, the follow-up mission had better include agronomists and genetic engineers specialising in crop plants. Or would their food shortage due to a pestilence? They'll need ecological engineers. Or would some irrigation project help them best? In that case they need engineers, economists, and diplomats. Are they dying of a plague? Or a trace-element shortage? Do they need a vaccination program, a targeted eradication program against a disease vector, sewers and clean drinking water, or lessons in basic hygiene? In one case the follow-up program needs immunologists and pharma engineers, in another it needs entomologists and genetic engineers, in another economists and diplomats and civil engineers, in another satellite TV receivers and public education experts. Is this a promising trade opportunity, and if so for what? What samples should the Universal Imports bloke bring when he comes? You can't tell from orbit, and a naval officer probably can't even work out what data to collect.

A mission that flits in, takes some photos, and flits out without talking to anybody can tell whether there are still people in the system, whether they have radio, whether they have TV, whether they have spaceflight, and whether they have a honking great orbital laser to defend themselves against pirates. And when that mission reports in you still have to send a mission to investigate circumstances on the planet so that head office can decide what response to make and what resources that needs.

[cosmicfish]

Some options:

1) Go covert. If the team can keep their ship and ideally their identities hidden, they may be able to avoid the bulk of combat. This would inevitably refocus the campaign on the "contact team", largely ignoring actions involving the rest of the crew.

2) Automation. Replacing people with computers and robots means the crew will get smaller and more versatile.

3) FTL communication. With good sensors and the ability to communicate with the home office, many of the rather vulnerable experts can be safe, consulted only once the combat phase is over.

You have to decide where you think you balance realism vs playability. Your scenario is plausible, but assigning a job that reasonably requires a crew of 70+ people is all but unplayable. Can your players handle that?

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The fact is, regardless of ship size, 95% of systems are going to be boring, so it's the job of the GM to have the PCs coincidentally arrive at the interesting ones. Most of the interesting ones are also systems where sitting and doing nothing isn't an very good option.

Irregular Webcomic #94 explains the danger!


In setting up my campaign I have taken several steps to reduce this problem.

1. In the deep background of the setting thousands of robot probes were despatched from Earth eight hundred years ago, at lightspeed. They performed system mapping and basic planetary analysis and sent reports to Earth. Every system within 150 light-years that at all plausibly might include a habitable planets has already been robot-scouted, so the mission doesn't have to go at all to the planets that don't contain any habitable planets.
2. Records were kept at Earth of how many people set off for each star, and when, and what they took with them. Only a handful of human populations once established have died out, so almost all the worlds that are on the list have a population on them to talk to.
3. As a sort of genre convention there is no "standard human culture" that human societies tend to revert to. In this setting the societies of the different planets are madly various are all at least notionally interesting to sociologists as places to explore. Not every roleplayer enjoys sandboxy exploration adventures, but I only have to run the campaign for the players who volunteer for it.
4. As another sort of genre convention in this setting high technology and emigration to the stars have not inclined humans to be any kinder, more temperate, more magnanimous, or juster than they were on Earth, nor any better at industry policy. As a result it is rare for planets to be as prosperous, peaceful, well-administrated, and just as the USA today. In fact, the median is more like Azerbaijan or Sri Lanka. And that makes most places interesting enough to count as a Chinese curse.
5. Finally, you can tell interesting stories about people who do uninteresting jobs provided that you don't make all the stories about doing the work. The stories in M*A*S*H were about playing a practical joke on a suicidally homophobic dentist, determining the natural tint of "Hot Lips" Houlihan's hair, winning a very dirty football game, finding out who stole a silver swizzle stick, etc. The facts that the characters' work was a unendingly repetitious slog and that they did not single-handedly win the Korean War didn't mean that there weren't good stories to tell.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I have to agree with this. When I looked at it initially (and responded!) I was thinking entirely like a systems engineer and not like a storyteller. The mission as described (which is a bit contrived, but not unrealistic as the decision of business/political body!) calls for a moderately large ship and crew... and in gaming that leads to the "Star Trek* effect".

In that iconic franchise, the realism that they worked into some areas was absolutely destroyed by the need to focus every problem, every episode, on a small and fixed cast of stars. Gaming with large ships provides the same problem. If you only have six people on the ship it makes perfect sense that those six people will need to solve every problem, but if there are a hundred then the fact that you are using your command crew like marines gets stupid fast.

True enough, but only a problem if every adventure has to be about solving the problem. Give up the assumption that each planet has exactly one problem and that this will be solved by the first Imperial ship to arrive, before the final credits roll. Suppose instead that planet's problems range from insoluble tangles of conundrums to imbroglios that will take entire careers of heart-breaking effort to alleviate. It becomes an exploration campaign instead of a do-gooding campaign.

James Cook didn't mend a single one of the places he explored. That didn't stop his people from having fine tales to tell when they got home.

The only way this works is if you have the kind of players who like having several characters each, so that they can switch between them and use them only where appropriate.

You mean, make it like Law & Order in having a small set of separate but equally important functional teams, with each player having a character in each team? A problem gets discovered by the exploration team in the first act, discussed by the heads-of-departments advising the mission commander as an entr'acte, addressed by the diplomats in the second act, who have to be rescued by the marines in the third act, in time for the navy to carry everyone to safety in the fourth?

I think that that would work for, as you say, some players. You'd have to be fairly clear about the switch from mode to mode, and discourage dithering back and forth between characters. But I think that ought to work.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

James Cook didn't mend a single one of the places he explored. That didn't stop his people from having fine tales to tell when they got home.

Note that the exploration of the Americas had special bait for independent explorers: the opportunity to claim new territories for king and country, and to exploit your advantages over the natives. If your goal is 'first to exploit planet X', the ship design is different from simple exploration.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

1) Go covert. If the team can keep their ship and ideally their identities hidden, they may be able to avoid the bulk of combat. This would inevitably refocus the campaign on the "contact team", largely ignoring actions involving the rest of the crew.

Well, avoiding combat is a highly desirable goal in itself, in addition to which focus on the contact team is where I want it. I wouldn't actually mind at all if the Navy, Marines, and diplomats were all NPCs, which was the way I asked for it in my first Survey campaign.

Someone will be along presently to tell me to Hat up and rehearse my roars: the players should play the characters the adventures are about, and if they ask to play naval officers or marines instead be told that I will call them when I'm running a marines campaign.

2) Automation. Replacing people with computers and robots means the crew will get smaller and more versatile.

Indeed.

3) FTL communication. With good sensors and the ability to communicate with the home office, many of the rather vulnerable experts can be safe, consulted only once the combat phase is over.

Combat?! We can't have any firing in there!

You have to decide where you think you balance realism vs playability.

Exactly so.

Your scenario is plausible, but assigning a job that reasonably requires a crew of 70+ people is all but unplayable.

If the adventures were the job it would be, yes. But if the adventures are just the adventures that people have when their job as cog #23 in a 70-member first contact machine brings them to yet another weird and exotic foreign planet I don't think things are quite that bad. M*A*S*H turned out to be a fun movie without being "how a team of 972,214 named individuals won the Korean War".