What are some interesting mechanics/solid advice you have seen to handle PCs within a military hierarchy? Specifically, when one PC outranks another. I had a bad experience once as a GM and now I’m hesitant to allow it at my table.
What are some interesting mechanics/solid advice you have seen to handle PCs within a military hierarchy?
What are some interesting mechanics/solid advice you have seen to handle PCs within a military hierarchy?
What was your bad experience?
A hierarchy among the PCs can be tricky to handle, but I’m curious what specifically happened that you had issues with.
What was your bad experience?
A hierarchy among the PCs can be tricky to handle, but I’m curious what specifically happened that you had issues with.
🐼
🐼
I think the best advice I’ve heard on this (and I can’t remember the source, unfortunately), is to treat it like Star Trek. There’s a clear hierarchy with a captain and subordinate specialists, but Picard (or whoever) tends not to pull rank or give tons of direct orders. Mostly, Picard delegates tasks (to experts who would probably be working on those things anyway) and gets his crew’s advice on tough decisions. So in practice, you get a high-rank character whose real role is basically representing the ship when dealing with outsiders, and breaking ties. The key thing here is respecting the crew’s expertise (and actually listening!), and not getting in their way.
To set it up at the table, you’d need to establish a lot of mutual respect– that even though there is “technically” an imbalance of rank, the characters are essentially equals who just have different types of expertise (one of which just happens to be “leadership”.) You need to take any kind of PVP conflict off the table, I’d suggest, so that leadership skills are used to organize and guide the rest of the PCs, rather than barking orders, etc.
How you’d actually accomplish this, I’m not sure. A really trusting group might be able to just keep that goal in mind and do it. I think personally I’d at least try to figure out a mechanical solution, probably by really precisely delineating what the high-rank character can do with their rank. In a PbtA system, it seems natural that you could write “Commander” as its own playbook, with really specific moves for how rank can be used (or perhaps, a move like “When you give a really harsh order…” that has some serious negative repercussions. That way, it’s at least spelled out what happens when you pull rank, and that it’s a bad idea.) But in general, *World games seem to deliberately omit rules for PCs compelling other PCs to do anything, and although that initially struck me as a weird choice I am now extremely into it.
I think the best advice I’ve heard on this (and I can’t remember the source, unfortunately), is to treat it like Star Trek. There’s a clear hierarchy with a captain and subordinate specialists, but Picard (or whoever) tends not to pull rank or give tons of direct orders. Mostly, Picard delegates tasks (to experts who would probably be working on those things anyway) and gets his crew’s advice on tough decisions. So in practice, you get a high-rank character whose real role is basically representing the ship when dealing with outsiders, and breaking ties. The key thing here is respecting the crew’s expertise (and actually listening!), and not getting in their way.
To set it up at the table, you’d need to establish a lot of mutual respect– that even though there is “technically” an imbalance of rank, the characters are essentially equals who just have different types of expertise (one of which just happens to be “leadership”.) You need to take any kind of PVP conflict off the table, I’d suggest, so that leadership skills are used to organize and guide the rest of the PCs, rather than barking orders, etc.
How you’d actually accomplish this, I’m not sure. A really trusting group might be able to just keep that goal in mind and do it. I think personally I’d at least try to figure out a mechanical solution, probably by really precisely delineating what the high-rank character can do with their rank. In a PbtA system, it seems natural that you could write “Commander” as its own playbook, with really specific moves for how rank can be used (or perhaps, a move like “When you give a really harsh order…” that has some serious negative repercussions. That way, it’s at least spelled out what happens when you pull rank, and that it’s a bad idea.) But in general, *World games seem to deliberately omit rules for PCs compelling other PCs to do anything, and although that initially struck me as a weird choice I am now extremely into it.
Also, if they are not both currently enlisted and/or part of the same army, no one is going to care about rank. Or no more than a paladin might care about being “more nobel” than a thief or druid.
Also, if they are not both currently enlisted and/or part of the same army, no one is going to care about rank. Or no more than a paladin might care about being “more nobel” than a thief or druid.
I would talk about it with the players before the game starts or during character creation. Differing ranks can be a fun dynamic between characters, but it’s a relationship and should be treated as such. In other words, if the characters were lovers or friends or mother and daughter, you’d want to flesh that out before play as well, right?
I would talk about it with the players before the game starts or during character creation. Differing ranks can be a fun dynamic between characters, but it’s a relationship and should be treated as such. In other words, if the characters were lovers or friends or mother and daughter, you’d want to flesh that out before play as well, right?
Angela Murray Players disagreed about what to do and the “commander” pulled rank.
Angela Murray Players disagreed about what to do and the “commander” pulled rank.
Basically, you have to have players capable of handling it. Whoever gets the leadership position needs to understand that they can’t just order around the other players. Sure, it may work like that in game, but it’s not going to fly among a bunch of players. The other players also need to understand that there needs to be a certain respect or at least show of respect for the person in charge.
As a GM, you can help reinforce certain aspects of the rank system by pointing out the consequences the PCs would KNOW they face if they buck the command too much. Or what consequences the leader PC will face if all of his group mutinies on him. You can talk down the command PC when that player starts getting frustrated (or abusing the power), or help point out different aspects of the culture they’re in.
“Hey, you can do that, but remember you’ll probably face a court martial if you get out of this alive.”
It’s a tough balance to walk. If you’re playing with people you know, you probably have a good idea of who can handle a leadership role and who can’t. Try and give the command position to the players that you trust to not abuse it and be able to work with the others.
When it comes to a one-shot or a con game, it’s a much trickier prospect. I have friends who love military games, so they see this type of thing all the time. Unfortunately, the player that often jumps most enthusiastically at the leader PC is usually the worst suited for it. As a GM, you need to figure out how to deal with that, either by not letting that player have the leader or knowing how to curb them when problems start happening.
Basically, you have to have players capable of handling it. Whoever gets the leadership position needs to understand that they can’t just order around the other players. Sure, it may work like that in game, but it’s not going to fly among a bunch of players. The other players also need to understand that there needs to be a certain respect or at least show of respect for the person in charge.
As a GM, you can help reinforce certain aspects of the rank system by pointing out the consequences the PCs would KNOW they face if they buck the command too much. Or what consequences the leader PC will face if all of his group mutinies on him. You can talk down the command PC when that player starts getting frustrated (or abusing the power), or help point out different aspects of the culture they’re in.
“Hey, you can do that, but remember you’ll probably face a court martial if you get out of this alive.”
It’s a tough balance to walk. If you’re playing with people you know, you probably have a good idea of who can handle a leadership role and who can’t. Try and give the command position to the players that you trust to not abuse it and be able to work with the others.
When it comes to a one-shot or a con game, it’s a much trickier prospect. I have friends who love military games, so they see this type of thing all the time. Unfortunately, the player that often jumps most enthusiastically at the leader PC is usually the worst suited for it. As a GM, you need to figure out how to deal with that, either by not letting that player have the leader or knowing how to curb them when problems start happening.
Will P
“Players disagreed about what to do and the “commander” pulled rank.”
This doesn’t sound bad.
It sounds exactly as expected from a hierarchy structure.
Could you elaborate on what, exactly, felt bad about it?
Was the conflict between Players or between Characters?
Was the Leader appointed by the rest of the group, or was it arbitrarily assigned by the GM, or something else?
What effect did the “rank pulling” have?
And most importantly… which game system was being used to play?
Will P
“Players disagreed about what to do and the “commander” pulled rank.”
This doesn’t sound bad.
It sounds exactly as expected from a hierarchy structure.
Could you elaborate on what, exactly, felt bad about it?
Was the conflict between Players or between Characters?
Was the Leader appointed by the rest of the group, or was it arbitrarily assigned by the GM, or something else?
What effect did the “rank pulling” have?
And most importantly… which game system was being used to play?
This is super-interesting to me. In the games I run, we often have characters who are either officially or unofficially “in charge” but we manage to avoid the “pulling rank” issue by keeping a pretty clear separation between the characters’ desires and the players’ desires. The characters may desire X, Y, and Z, but the players’ desires should only be to tell a good story. That’s why the impulse to “slip behind the eyes of your character” is really damn unhelpful sometimes, because the players who do that are often less invested in the group goal of telling a good story in a collaborative manner.
When you structure the conversations around the table in that manner – with a clear separation between characters and players – you’re going to create a play culture that naturally avoids stuff like this.
This is super-interesting to me. In the games I run, we often have characters who are either officially or unofficially “in charge” but we manage to avoid the “pulling rank” issue by keeping a pretty clear separation between the characters’ desires and the players’ desires. The characters may desire X, Y, and Z, but the players’ desires should only be to tell a good story. That’s why the impulse to “slip behind the eyes of your character” is really damn unhelpful sometimes, because the players who do that are often less invested in the group goal of telling a good story in a collaborative manner.
When you structure the conversations around the table in that manner – with a clear separation between characters and players – you’re going to create a play culture that naturally avoids stuff like this.
Jason Cordova Exactly! Players looking to tell good stories welcome drama between the characters. It can be romance or disdain but it should be something more than the same friendship the players have. I think there are people who come to this hobby from an imaginative/theatrical perspective and there are some who come to it from a board-game/competitive perspective. If you look at your character as a representative of yourself and your abilities, it can be frustrating to “lose” or find your character unable to control situations. If you see your character as a contribution to a shared story, it can be delightful to see how much trouble they can get into.
I agree with Jesse Coombs. It’s best to talk about the relationships before the game. One of my favorite games was one that only had two player characters and we agreed they would be a knight and squire. The players really got into the roles.
(Does anyone know how to tag other members in a post?)
Jason Cordova Exactly! Players looking to tell good stories welcome drama between the characters. It can be romance or disdain but it should be something more than the same friendship the players have. I think there are people who come to this hobby from an imaginative/theatrical perspective and there are some who come to it from a board-game/competitive perspective. If you look at your character as a representative of yourself and your abilities, it can be frustrating to “lose” or find your character unable to control situations. If you see your character as a contribution to a shared story, it can be delightful to see how much trouble they can get into.
I agree with Jesse Coombs. It’s best to talk about the relationships before the game. One of my favorite games was one that only had two player characters and we agreed they would be a knight and squire. The players really got into the roles.
(Does anyone know how to tag other members in a post?)
Logan Howard I’d tag you with +.Logan (without the period) and a window would pop up helping me narrow it down to the correct Logan.
Logan Howard I’d tag you with +.Logan (without the period) and a window would pop up helping me narrow it down to the correct Logan.
Logan Howard type the “@” symbol, and without adding a space, start to type the person’s name out. 👍
Logan Howard type the “@” symbol, and without adding a space, start to type the person’s name out. 👍
Alessandro Piroddi It was definitely the players disagreeing, not just the characters and it was everyone at the table vs the commander.
This was long ago so my memory may not serve too well. It was a group of people I had never run for and that didn’t know each other very well. If I remember correctly, the leader was based on backstory/class the player created before he came to the table. Basically, a litany of newbie GM mistakes in this paragraph.
Alessandro Piroddi It was definitely the players disagreeing, not just the characters and it was everyone at the table vs the commander.
This was long ago so my memory may not serve too well. It was a group of people I had never run for and that didn’t know each other very well. If I remember correctly, the leader was based on backstory/class the player created before he came to the table. Basically, a litany of newbie GM mistakes in this paragraph.
Unless the lower ranking player is happy to go with it, don’t do it. It’s a massive pain in the arse.
Unless the lower ranking player is happy to go with it, don’t do it. It’s a massive pain in the arse.
I think the other thing is that most PCs don’t like their actions constrained. It sometimes is hard enough for players to deal with the fact that NPCs don’t like them/block them.
And everyone hates the Chaotic Evil Rouge PC would steals from everyone. So have to follow a fictitious rank can be just as frustrating.
I’d just avoid it all together.
I think the other thing is that most PCs don’t like their actions constrained. It sometimes is hard enough for players to deal with the fact that NPCs don’t like them/block them.
And everyone hates the Chaotic Evil Rouge PC would steals from everyone. So have to follow a fictitious rank can be just as frustrating.
I’d just avoid it all together.
Have you looked at 3:16 by Greggor Hutton? There is a formal military command structure where one PC outranks the others. Mechanically, this is balanced by the lowest ranking character having a special move that gets their superior officers in trouble. Also, characters advance in rank quickly (and die easily), so the hierarchy will likely change even within a game session. This works for 3:16 because the game is very competitive, almost board-gamey, but even there I have had some players feel bad about it.
What I like about a command hierarchy in games is the same thing that makes it valuable in real life, because it helps to make decisions faster and move things along. One other way to do this would be to make different characters in charge of different types of decisions. When we’re in town, we all follow the bard’s lead. When we’re in the dungeon, the rogue calls the shots. When we’re in battle, the fighter gives the orders. Etc.
Have you looked at 3:16 by Greggor Hutton? There is a formal military command structure where one PC outranks the others. Mechanically, this is balanced by the lowest ranking character having a special move that gets their superior officers in trouble. Also, characters advance in rank quickly (and die easily), so the hierarchy will likely change even within a game session. This works for 3:16 because the game is very competitive, almost board-gamey, but even there I have had some players feel bad about it.
What I like about a command hierarchy in games is the same thing that makes it valuable in real life, because it helps to make decisions faster and move things along. One other way to do this would be to make different characters in charge of different types of decisions. When we’re in town, we all follow the bard’s lead. When we’re in the dungeon, the rogue calls the shots. When we’re in battle, the fighter gives the orders. Etc.
.
.