Starship Role Pet Peeve


General Discussion


Other game systems that use starship combat have used roles that include a Captain position. That has always bugged me.

Sure, combat has assumed roles (tank, healer, dps), but usually there can be some overlap and none are the defacto leader.

I'm used to parties that are democratic, or an oligarchy if we have hirelings or other minions.

Instead of giving a title of authority to our party's bard analog, I'll propose my party uses a different title to describe the actions performed:

Communications Officer
Radio Biatch
Face
Morale Monkey

Am I the only one bugged by this? Anyone have other ideas for synonyms the Captian role that doesn't imply higher rank?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope.

Said the Captain. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Normal combat has always bugged me that it didn't have a chain of command with a designated leader.

I really like that the starship actually has a captain.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From a combat perspective:

When everyone is on one ship (wither space or water based) there kinda needs to be just one person in charge. If the pilot did what he wanted, that could throw the gunners way off track. If the engineer did what he wanted, he could do something 100% useless (Like reinforce weapons, when the crew was just going to be running away anyways).

In any case, having a leader (in this case, a captain) means that everyone is following his lead (or at least should, but that opens up RP possibilities if they disobey orders). The captain may not always have the best plan, but an OK plan executed at it's max potential is far better than a lot of different great plans executed at the same time resulting in chaos, and none of them working like they should have.

In combat, there is no time for a vote. Someone must take command.

Also, from a non-combat perspective:

Going together in a single ship is way different than traveling on land in a typical Pathfinder party setting. On land, if there is a difference of opinion, the party can split, and go its different ways. In a ship, it is all or nothing. The entire party goes one way or the other. There could be a democratic voting method, but the fact is, more often than not, there will be a split vote. Even in an odd numbered party, there will be one half voting one way, one half voting another, and the tiebreaker guy will be sitting there undecided because he doesn't want to go either way. Having a "Captain" is just a practical way of keeping this from happening. After all, you can't just sit in space for a long time if the democratic process can't figure out where the ship should fly.

As for other ideas:

Captain doesn't have to be rank, necessarily. It could be just the guy that has the most common sense (or wisdom :) ) that everyone listens to. It could be the one with the most charisma that everyone likes enough to take orders from. Really for someone to fill that kind of role, they just the respect of the crew, and the willingness to take on the responsibility. No rank required.


Not really bothered..
In game there is often a defacto leader in any actual organization. They can consult their group of course and any real leader should consult when time.

THe actual players themselves should work together and talk out of game about goals and such. then RP that to suit the game.
If the player who is the "captain commander" is just overriding the other group (without some sorta story reason) then that isn't really a facite of the game that is a player issue. Just like the player who wants to be center of attention, or the player who steals all the loot.


The Captain is just basically a glorified trash talker spouting "your momma" jokes during space combat.


If you saw the JJ Abrams star trek movies, you would see that the Captain does not need to be a good talker or even competent at leading.


Tactical Coordinator

Scarab Sages

Mechanically, the captain is the cheerleader, and could easily be reflavored as such. Instead of the captain, maybe he's the communications officer, helping to make sure all parts of the party work together. This especially makes sense if you are on a smaller ship like a shuttle.

So there is no difference (in game terms) between ordering Mr. Merriweather to do two things at once (order action) and saying "Here, let me help you with that sensor data" and making the same check. Or using demand. You can shout "Mr. Stibbons, fire at their port shields NOW" (Intimidate), or "Steve, if we don't take down those port shields now, WE ARE ALL DEAD!" (Intimidate)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a huge problem with it because, from a character perspective, I look at it as 'This character is in charge of the ship because they have knowledge of starship combat and tactics'. Once we go to ground, unless a person offers sound tactical advice in character... Imma do what I want.

That being said - I can see some players in pick-up games or Society play who might call dibs on Captain just to be self-aggrandizing. But, that's as much of an issue as that same type of person always trying to be the center of attention in a Society game for Pathfinder too... so, c'est la vie.

But in home games, especially the ones I'm planning on DMing, the Captain is still going to be called the Captain - but knowing my players I see it less as being the bluff, hardened veteran and more like a panicked Mal from Firefly shouting over comms to 'Shoot 'em!'


The "Captain", while capable of being the de-facto party leader (as I will be running Skull and Shackles this will be true in my game) does not necessarily have to be the de-facto leader. More often I would guess they're more the coordinator, the tactician, basically the guy that makes sure everyone is working together rather than inadvertently screwing each other. Pilot's making a hard turn to avoid a barrage, Captain tells the gunners "Yo, enemy's on this side, use those guns." Engineer reports one side's thrusters are offline, they inform the pilot that trying to rely on that side's thrusters probably won't be a great idea, try turning the other way to better utilize the remaining thrusters. Basically he's the guy that listens to the intra-ship chatter and filters it so the individual positions don't have to.

In contrast, your term "Communications Officer" doesn't really fit. Typically a Communications Officer is more the guy talking to other ships. If you wanted to hail an unknown vessel, arrange a docking site, or negotiate a surrender, that is where you'd probably want a Communications Officer. Not that the Captain probably won't do both in Starfinder, because they're probably the face and there's only so many PCs on a crew, but still.


Zombie Lord wrote:

Other game systems that use starship combat have used roles that include a Captain position. That has always bugged me.

Sure, combat has assumed roles (tank, healer, dps), but usually there can be some overlap and none are the defacto leader.

I'm used to parties that are democratic, or an oligarchy if we have hirelings or other minions.

Instead of giving a title of authority to our party's bard analog, I'll propose my party uses a different title to describe the actions performed:

Communications Officer
Radio Biatch
Face
Morale Monkey

Am I the only one bugged by this? Anyone have other ideas for synonyms the Captian role that doesn't imply higher rank?

In a non-hierarchical group, the role is probably more one of coordination/communication rather than command. The gunner decides what to shoot at, the pilot decides on the best tactical position, the engineer is making choices as to where to devote power - someone has to be responsible for letting everyone know "the plan" and for ensuring everyone is acting together when timing between departments is crucial.

If I were to reflavor the role, I think I'd go for communications officer or coordinator.


What I wonder...
I have a smaller party, 3 people with one irregular
can the pilot be the captain at the same time?
I mean there are several examples in media
and the rulebook says things about some roles can only be taken by one
but can a single person take multiple roles?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Seisho wrote:

What I wonder...

I have a smaller party, 3 people with one irregular
can the pilot be the captain at the same time?
I mean there are several examples in media
and the rulebook says things about some roles can only be taken by one
but can a single person take multiple roles?

A person can only be one role at a time, but there are two "Minor Actions" that someone in another role can do in addition to their regular action: "Snap Shot" lets someone fire an unoccupied weapon (at a penalty) and "Glide" lets someone pilot the ship (badly).


I don't think one person can have multiple roles, instead you have minor actions to account for any position that goes unfilled. It's also what allows Fighters to function (sort of).


There is no ship anywhere that has been successfully run by democracy. It just doesn't work.

This in no way prevents the players from running it by group consensus.

Silver Crusade

JDavis91 wrote:
I don't have a huge problem with it because, from a character perspective, I look at it as 'This character is in charge of the ship because they have knowledge of starship combat and tactics'.

My problem is that, mechanically, this just isn't the case. The optimal captain is a character with social skills who can fairly reliably get a 10 on a variety of tasks.

Its pretty obvious that the captain is there so the Envoy has something to do in ship to ship combat :-)


Every ship is a dictatorship. It's the nature of everyone trying to operate a single machine together.


In sci-fi the only exceptions I can think of are like the Borg, but they have a hivemind complex. Otherwise you need one mind to keep track of everything.


I have no problem with the ship having a captain. In the context of a role-playing game its just a title. I never been in a gaming group that would simply follow the orders of one player. Titles aside most RPGs are team oriented.

However, I would like it if there were options for Wisdom- or Intelligence-based captains. I feel it would do a better job of representing the veteran or tactical-minded captains, in contrast to the current case of captaining simply being a matter of needing a strong personality. Maybe we'll see "Ultimate Starships" next year.

Liberty's Edge

I GMed the Quests at GenCon in August. If the group of players ended up doing a space combat, I explained to them that there was a captain role and what it did. I also told them that at the beginning of the Engineering Phase, I would allow the Captain to give "orders". General stuff like, "need more shields, get to the ship to their aft shield, bring me some coffee!". I also told the other players that they were under no obligation to do what the captain said.

Basically the Captain role is just that. It gives a character who may not be well suited for other roles the ability to be involved in the combat.


Captain is also just an in Game title not a rank, as had been stated.

I plan to have a loud drunken ysoki take the captain roll while he washers useless around the bridge either flirting wth or yelling at the crew (inspire or demand) and will randomly bring up the com and shout insults at the other ship (taunt).

No military title needed. He'll the crew doesn't even have to vote me in, idgaf *drinks More *

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Starship Role Pet Peeve All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Starfinder General Discussion