John Wilson hit me with a zinger yesterday. I see a lot of games these days that where you "group create" your Captain equivalent, or the GM plays him, say like the Inquisitor in Dark Heresy. John said, and this is the zinger, "why don't they just play My Life With Master"? Ouch, and true!

So, I think you should allow someone to play the Captain if they want to. Is it so bad that someone gets flogged for being out of line? Sure, you have to watch that it's not player thrashing another player. Poison'd makes sure it's character vs character well, I think. But your not looking for the Poison'd kind of take on it.

The Captain has greater responsibility, though. Some people might prefer to be the be-flogged cabin boy, with his lower responsibility, right? It's status play, I think and I thnk more games should allow us to play characters of differing status and "power". After all, if we get equal fun out, or spotlight, then job achieved.

This is exactly the frame of mind that I entered into when I was formulating D&H. I was sick to the back teeth of hearing people say 'Oh, I could never play a game where my character takes orders from another player.' Its a feckin' RPG - you play a role. Gargh! The difference between D&H and HoO is that to reflect the fiction, you have to accept that, yes, the game would potentially, much nearer to MLWM, if you have a twat as a player.

The default D&H set-up still works, but there are other options that I want to employ. The PC Captain is one possibility but I can see it requiring a really strong social contract around the table. Then again, the Mission system and the Personal Missions might just allow this 'asshole captain' to be codified into the story. Hmmmm....

Feed the brain! Storm it!

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I say embrace the problems it might cause! Maybe hard-code authority into the game, giving the higher ranking players a resource they can spend so they don't take the piss, or spin off a mechanic from the mission system (a discipline mission maybe?).

I like the idea of using the mission system to build a bastard of a captain into the rules. That way the GM is freed to be as nasty as he likes in the confines of the system, without worrying about *being unfair*

I ran a game once where most of the players were ordinary fantasy folks who were taken prisoner by the Drow in session one and carted off as slaves. Rather than be the all-powerful and nasty Drow myself I gave that off to some co-GM/players and they did a far better job that me, because they didn't have all the power I did, so they could be *more* abusive without player anger (e.g. when a character ran off and was re-captured they broke his legs as a punishment, I could never have done that!)

Of course that game may only have worked because it involved a turnaround. The Drow got home to find their house had been crushed and they were fugitives. When they had to flee to the surface they were the ones dependant on the others.

Take from that what you will

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/

That is, at the point where it's possible/likely that they'll be horribly punished, have an option where they can automatically escape it but something happens around that - have to describe how, e.g. witty repartee, maybe gain a point of Trouble that will eventually blow...

(Ooh, if I were making such a thing from scratch I'd call it Powder!)

Or they could accept the (non-terminal) punishment and some other stuff happens.

One might have some sort of corresponding fork where the ranking characters can choose to enforce strict discipline or be pally with their men, each with consequences. (That could also increase trouble/Powder.)

Tim Gray
Silver Branch Games
www.silverbranch.co.uk

Neil, what is this game about? I think you should decide that, then decide the rules you need.

Here's a real danger I'm seeing in this thread. We're developing an argument which goes:

Q: Could a player play the Captain?
A: Sure, why not? That could work! Let's not be afraid of a high-status player role!

The second part is true, but it's not a reason for having the Captain rule.

You're in danger of adding a rule because it's interesting and it could work. It's particularly seductive because it's historically accurate.

I think you should go back. What's the game about? What themes do you want to play with? And what rules do you need to reinforce those themes?

Sure, have it in the back of your mind that a Captain role might be nice. But work out what sort of game you want, first. That will tell you whether you want a Captain role and, if so, how to do it.

Graham

(I can do this bit now, having had this conversation about D&H with my playtesters!)

Whats the game about? It's a game about adventure on the high seas in the time of Nelson and Cochrane. It is inspired by the works of Forester, O'Brien etc.

Actually, that small sentence actually solves the situation for me. Once again it is about, in my mind, bridging the gap between historical and fictional. So the game is Option 3 in my original post.

(The thing was, in D&H 'The Captain' is actually, effectively, your commanding officer - who is quite a remote figure. In HoO, that figure is more intimate and therefore more 'powerful'. However, he can be handled in just the same way and indeed, in certain circumstances in both games, a player can assume that mantle too. I just needed to get my head around it again.)

Excellent. Thanks guys.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

A friend of mine played some terrific games of FGU's "Privateers and Gentlemen" and was especially enthusiastic about an unexpected balance in the group. The Captain was not the man with the highest social standing - there was a more junior officer on board who was a member of the nobility and had enormous (and growing) influence through his family connections. This meant that the Captain was wholly in command of the ship, but on shore (social engagements and the like) there was a shift in power as well as some tension that the Captain's career could be hurt if he got on the wrong side of his officer. It's not something I would necessarily build into the game mechanically, but it's the sort of thing that might sweeten the pill for players who are unsure about such a rigid command structure.

Speaking of "Privateers and Gentlemen," you're probably aware that the combat booklet for it is called "Heart of Oak" and I believe that FGU maintain the trademark. Hopefully not a problem for your game.

Or it may be

I've played a game of D&H recently with that exact same set up - and it was excellent fun. The complications it adds to the social side were beautiful when they hit the table.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/