On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Onno Meyer wrote:
I usually can come up easier with adventures that follow
the pattern "Go somewhere with the vehicle, and do stuff on foot there",
then adventures that center around the operation of the vehicle. Getting
the pcs out of the vehicle also means it is easier to create situations,
where pcs other then the commander do make actual decissions.
But are the PCs the exceptional crew which leaves their vehicle
behind more often than not, or are they the dismount team of a
NPC-crewed vehicle? I'd rather have a PC in the command seat.
If the pcs have a vehicle, where logical SOP would not suggest that the
crew leaves it, you can run into suspension of disbelieve problems, or
narrative logic vs efficient behaviour discepancies.
If the mission parameters suggest that infantry action will required, why
will command send a vehicle, that does not contain an away team?
If such a vehicles crew encounters a situation that requires an away team,
should their first action be to dismount and handle it themselfs or to
call in infantry?
So either the SG project is so shorthanded, that the pcs are most of the
time, the only team that can be sent on the mission, or the command is too
unprofessional to send in teams, where the equipment matches the mission.
If i would GM such a campain i would at least at first go for one of
theese mission patterns:
a) PCs are the away team, the overall command of the mission has the
commander of the away team. Thus the pcs can order the vehicle to be where
they want it, within the bounds, of what the vehicle actually can do, and
where military subordinates might disobey. Vehicle crew can sometimes be
potential redshirts as well, if there is a plausible reason, why a death
should occur in the vehicle, or why they should leave it.
b) SOP is, that the vehicle is parked and the vehicle operators are part
of the away team. Like if you send 4 infantry you might send them in a
Jeep and one of them has to drive. Some not neccessarily all pcs have
vehicle skills as additional qualifications. If the vehicle is somewhat
expensive or well equipped to be used that way, it is because SG is such
an important project, that they have an overabundance in some types of
equipment.
Version b would be compatible with a vehicle that was not planned as troop
transporter at all, but i guess using an APC as replacement for a jeep is
a smaller and thus more believeable step, then doing so with a tank.
Still there is also the issue, that in my experience it is easier to GM
campains, where the pcs aren't really qualified for what they do most in
adventures, but if the adventures are supposed to be missions on behalf of
an organisation, that is run with a minimum or competence and efficiency,
you can't get that anyway.
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
