It sounds like you want someone who is captain in name only. On a real ship, the captains orders should be absolute during combat. I can understand general disobedience, but when someone ignores orders during combat, people can die.
This. So much this.
1. "Captain" is a openly-disputed rank, does not make one a leader of the group unless the party agrees to listen and to obey him without question. Power tripping captains often suffer mutiny if the power goes to their heads.
2. Captain needs to realize people do not listen because he has not shown enough to have his men respect his authority and judgment.
Respect comes from how he treats them and how he is open to listen to them as well.
There's no point in a title or a "leadership" role if no one listens to orders and does their own thing. Or follows orders "on their own time". A leader, who isn't followed, is a leader of nothing.
Kirk may have discussed things with his crew and that's great. Once an order was given they fell in immediately whether they agreed or not. (Well, not always cuz, Star Trek. But you get the idea.)
Is this real or another hypothetical, RD?
This one's very real. Is it really so difficult to tell my real posts apart from the hypothetical ones? The language used in each of them are nothing alike.
Is this real or another hypothetical, RD?This one's very real. Is it really so difficult to tell my real posts apart from the hypothetical ones? The language used in each of them are nothing alike.
How about stating “This is a hypothetical” in the hypothetical ones, and not being coy about it? Many do take them seriously. Yes, this didn’t seem to be one, I agree.
Is this real or another hypothetical, RD?This one's very real. Is it really so difficult to tell my real posts apart from the hypothetical ones? The language used in each of them are nothing alike.How about stating “This is a hypothetical” in the hypothetical ones, and not being coy about it? Many do take them seriously. Yes, this didn’t seem to be one, I agree.
Though real or hypothetical, it shouldn't change the advice given.
Is there a medic (i.e. cleric) that could deem the captain unable to lead due to being nuts?
Is there a medic (i.e. cleric) that could deem the captain unable to lead due to being nuts?
Just the NPC cleric, Sandara. ...And we're not really there yet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing this game a long time. Most of the people I play with are married, have kids, a mortgage, jobs, relationships, etc. Most are "mature" by any reasonable definition of "mature."
Playing in a scenario where one player is the "boss" and the rest are "employees" or one player is the "leader" and the rest are "followers" is one of the hardest things to do in this game.
I've played both as the "captain" and the "sailor" in situations like this and I can honestly tell you, neither situation hits my highlight reel of role playing greatest hits.
It's tough.
when we play, we always have a leader/party "caller", he have done this for like....ever.
How is being 'captain' different than being the party leader?
First, I'm going to agree with some of the others, if UP is feeling hassled in RL, and its a similiar "hassle" in game, that lead to the breakdown (in command) more than anything. Making him stay Captain isn't the best idea, see if one of the other players is willing to do it (for awhile) and maybe UP will get back the "nerve" (I can't think of a better word here) and want to reclaim it at some point. If not, it wasn't really meant to be.
As for just the Ship Stuff side, the Campaign we finished up on was a Pirate Campaign, where our group recovered our own ship and outfitted it, the group sat down and discussed what was going to happen. Basically the Captain would be the Captain in front of the crew, and his orders to the crew were meant to be ordered. The Party however didn't have to follow the Captain's orders 100%, and any major decisions would be made behind closed doors (out of the crew's hearing) so when we told them what was going on, we had a consensus and bickering wasn't done (in front of the crew). As the Campaign progressed, the Captain took the reigns a bit more, but when the group was on land adventuring, it was back to the "Party" method.
It worked well for us. (YMMV, and this wasn't the AP)
Im with rechristening the ship the 'Democracy.'
Who says all pirate ships need 'captains' eh?
usher in an era where the layout of the power structure on pirate ships is less pyramid and more 'collaborative!'
Its a brave new world!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Set sail for one piece!
I'd say kill it with fire...
Im with rechristening the ship the 'Democracy.'
Who says all pirate ships need 'captains' eh?
usher in an era where the layout of the power structure on pirate ships is less pyramid and more 'collaborative!'
Its a brave new world!
Is this real or another hypothetical, RD?This one's very real. Is it really so difficult to tell my real posts apart from the hypothetical ones? The language used in each of them are nothing alike.
Yes, since you often refuse to answer whether or not it is a hypothetical. I suggest you just say so, rather than being coy about it. It's not very mature.
DrDeth: I'll not "speak simply" just because peoples' reading comprehension is worse than it was ten years ago. That's a step in the wrong direction and will only lead to an even less literate generation in coming years.
Stargypsyd: The First Mate is a blood-thirsty psychotic with an appreciation for horrific "pranks." He would sooner attack the other PCs than anyone else in the party. One other player is little better. The only player after those two just joined the crew (AFTER the incident) and has no respect from or history with the ship.
|
From the transcript I would say the biggest issue is forcing a player to do something he doesn't want to do. If he doesn't just leave the game he'll do something that gets his character killed and get around your insistances. Let him chill then approach them all to discuss how they want to play. Maybe at the next game just start with a discussion of the last game. Figure out what will work better for everyone because LE is going to cause issues for other players. And after the discussion he still wants to step down then let him. that should solve the issues and let everyone get back to having fun. If he really wants to make a new character i would let him because at the end of the day you can't force him to play what you want.
What to do about the captain if UP changes character. If you have a few sessions to run then let them all take turns running his old character. Hell he might take a turn after and realize he wants to take him back over again. Problem solved. And if it gets out of hand have the crew mutiny and toss him overboard. lol.
No matter what give it time then set up a way for all the players, and you, to talk and settle the situation. Then go with the solution everyone likes. If no one wants to step up then role play the situation of the crazy guy taking over and the drama of shipboard life before getting back to your Adventure Path.
To be bruttaly honest. Many groups just can't handle many campaign set-ups.
I am GM part of the time for my group. Many of them have expressed interest in Skulls & Shackles, Kingmaker, or an evil campaign. I gently steered them away from it to other modules. But if they insist, I won't do it. I will politely tell them they will have to find another person to be the GM, because I don't think I can do an adequate job of it for them. Let me know when the campaign is over and I will join you for the next.
I know I am not the greatest of GM's, so that is not a lie. I would have a very difficult time with that open sandbox type of campaign. But personally, I don't think the greatest GM ever could do it for this group. I really think the group would implode.
As far as the language used, it bothers me. However, I know other people who will use similar language in private as a method of letting off steam. They don't really normally think that way and would never use it directly to the other person because they wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
The way I was raised talking like that about someone when they are not around to defend themself is even worse.
But some people were not. Saying it where they can't hear it and it can't hurt them is ok. It deals with some of the frustration and then you can be more polite in person later. I don't know if that is the case here, but it could be.
RD, I think you were wrong to keep pushing him to be captain when he clearly doesn't want to, for whatever reason. When someone has dug in their heels and made a mulish stand. Pushing again and again sounds patronizing and is just going to make it worse. Now even if he willing to try captain again he probably won't since it will be 'because he gave in to your pressure.'
However, I agree that there needs to be some sort of in-person conversation on what is expected behavior for both player of the capatain and players of the crew. I don't believe either side was completely in the right or completely in the wrong.
Apparently the other players agreed he would be captain. That carries with it an agreement that they would follow orders.
It is entirely playing in-character to give an order during combat and expect it to be obeyed. It is consistent in-character for a LE captain to use intimidate when he is not obeyed in combat. It makes sense to not take the time for explanations in combat. Especially if explanations would make the plan not work when the opposition hears it.
However, it is also in-character for chaotic-mad crewmen to ignore orders and damn the consequences. Chaotic personalities (like psychotic pirates) could easily mess up other peoples plans and not care.
But then it sounds like both sides got petulant about what happened. (If I remember the first page correctly while typing this, the other players complained about his behavior for a long time.)
The conversation does need to happen, otherwise the same or similar situations will just happen again even if not as extreme.
But going back to being brutally honest. I would be surprised if the situation hasn't already progressed beyond salavageable for this group, to play this AP, at this time. You might be better off switching to a different AP and coming back to this next year.
I never said he couldn't remove himself as captain, just that I wanted us all to discuss the PvP stuff as a group before he does so. It's clear we weren't on the same page and I want to fix that before we proceed with ANY other part of the campaign.