Tighten Command's ability to exclude crew from Odysseys

[hazelmouse]

I'll keep this brief, but I think there's a serious cultural issue with how command players are approaching the new game mode that I think needs to be addressed. 

Odyssey is meant to involve service, operations, and research, in addition to the usual roster of security, medical, and engineering that already gets the overwhelming majority of gameplay in Secret. That is why we have been putting so much effort into the game mode, practically the entire crew should be able to volunteer to participate on a consistent basis. There will inevitably be gimmicks that are too high-intensity for full participation, but the standards for exclusion should be extremely high.

However, right now, I'm seeing a lot of command rosters denying participation to entire departments on a whim. Often, departments like service, operations, and research aren't even notified or given an opportunity to volunteer, and it's also becoming distressingly frequent for command members to outright refuse to allow their participation at the slightest hint of danger in the Odyssey gimmick. Not just ignoring them, but refusing them to their faces after they've communicated they want to engage.

These departments are then left on a virtually empty ship, completely excluded from the round. This is even worse than the exclusion these departments see in antagonist rounds, since the action isn't even accessible to them on the Horizon. It's frustrating, it goes completely against the ethos of what Odyssey is meant to achieve, and I don't think it's acceptable or healthy for the server.

I have two thoughts:

1. Unjustifiably barring participation in Odyssey rounds should be a command whitelist issue. It should be ahelpable, and it should get your whitelist stripped on repeated offences. From what I can tell, this is already enforced by moderation, which leads me onto my second point.
2. Command staff should not be barring departments unless it is for extremely good reasons. If it is at all possible for you to involve service, operations, or research, you should try to do it. If they volunteer, you should try your hardest to allow their participation unless it is absolutely infeasible to do so. Service, operations, and research staff should be understood as accepting the potential danger of the expedition by volunteering, and they should not be excluded from doing so except for absolutely remarkable circumstances. If you do bar participation short of those circumstances, you should be in rights to be ahelped and have your whitelist stripped. Right now, I'm seeing a trend of departments being excluded for reasons so petty that they're practically excluded from non-canon odysseys period, since almost all non-canon odysseys have a degree of danger.

Roleplay is a long process of finding a way to say 'yes, and', not 'no, because'. I have plans lined up for how to better encourage more departmental involvement in Odyssey, but all of that is going to fall flat on its face if command staff keeps actively going out of their way to exclude large portions of the crew from participation. I'm making a public thread out of this rather than keeping it private because this isn't really a moderation issue, this is an issue with server culture and how we're approaching this new game mode as a community.

Edited Wednesday at 06:03 by hazelmouse

[Fyni]

I truly believe in the vision of Odyssey as a way to involve the whole crew instead of having antagonists hogged by security like is often the case with merc or raiders etc. I know this because I've chatted with multiple people involved in it's creation about it.

I think there are two solutions to this:

1. It comes down to the STs in charge as much as command. There needs to be a level of escalation and an effort to allow everyone to get involved in a gimmick up front - rounds can end in big shoot outs, or Spur changing actions, but they must at least start with an open door to as many people as possible. The command WL application should be ammended a little now it involves ST but also commanding Ody missions to include Ody, and a loud annoucement for current command WL players to know that some effort must be made to include the whole crew. It's a special unique game mode and people might not entirely understand.

2. An established, IC SoP for away missions. This gives characters something to point to IC to justify some odd ones ("why is the chef been sent to distress signal? Well the SoP says they should be on hand to serve survivors if possible" etc.) I wouldn't see this SoP as hard and fast "must do / follow rules!" but as a way to justify the intended openess of Ody rounds IC.

[ASmallCuteCat]

+1, wholeheartedly agreed.

I think there should also be some responsibility on the Storyteller and Actor side of things - for example, the Storyteller shouldn't go "okay, this odyssey is MILSIM LARP OORAH HORIZON BEAM DOWN YOUR BEST SOLDIERS YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT INTO HIVEBOT HELL" because then, it would be hard to justify (from an in-character perspective) sending anyone other than Security and Medical... and boom, that's 4/6 departments shut out of participation.

fyni beat me to it

31 minutes ago, hazelmouse said:

 Right now, I'm seeing a trend of departments being excluded for reasons so petty that they're practically excluded from non-canon odysseys period, since almost all non-canon odysseys have a degree of danger.

This is probably a big reason why my hype for odyssey has died out as sharply as it had. Sometimes, volunteering to be the person who sits out the initial scouting mission means you wind up in exclusion jail with the rest of Service - even if you're in Security or Medical.

Edited Tuesday at 23:51 by ASmallCuteCat

[NG+7 Gael]

I'd like to second basically all of the OP. Being someone that plays a BC character, I frequently witness odyssey rounds during which Command will do their best to keep people outside of the "main 3" departments (security, medical, engineering) from participating in the round's gimmick. Odyssey, as it currently stands, is often simply treated as "Secret 2.0, featuring away missions" rather than what Odyssey was supposed to be, which is a way to get more people involved in the round gimmicks.

I will also push harder on the idea that Command shouldn't be barring people unless there are extremely good reasons as Hazel mentioned above; this is not a matter of 'realism' or needing for it to 'make sense', we are roleplaying, and that means that- as a Command member- you should be doing your best to include everyone that wants to participate, even if you need to bend things a little. This is extremely simple to do in practice, all you need to do is ask for volunteers for the odyssey mission and let anyone who wants to participate, participate. There's no need to send a team down first to "confirm" anything, and upon hearing of danger, prevent anyone except first-responder and engineering characters from participating. There is no need to try and think too hard about it 'making sense' or 'being realistic', these rounds are non-canon. All you need to do is let people participate if they want to do so.

[hazelmouse]

57 minutes ago, Fyni said:

I truly believe in the vision of Odyssey as a way to involve the whole crew instead of having antagonists hogged by security like is often the case with merc or raiders etc. I know this because I've chatted with multiple people involved in it's creation about it.

I think there are two solutions to this:

1. It comes down to the STs in charge as much as command. There needs to be a level of escalation and an effort to allow everyone to get involved in a gimmick up front - rounds can end in big shoot outs, or Spur changing actions, but they must at least start with an open door to as many people as possible. The command WL application should be ammended a little now it involves ST but also commanding Ody missions to include Ody, and a loud annoucement for current command WL players to know that some effort must be made to include the whole crew. It's a special unique game mode and people might not entirely understand.

2. An established, IC SoP for away missions. This gives characters something to point to IC to justify some odd ones ("why is the chef been sent to distress signal? Well the SoP says they should be on hand to serve survivors if possible" etc.) I wouldn't see this SoP as hard and fast "must do / follow rules!" but as a way to justify the intended openess of Ody rounds IC.

I actually really like the idea of an SoP for away missions, I think it would move things in a good direction. I agree it would need to be soft recommendations, not hard rules - something you can point to for a reliable reason to involve people that are volunteering.

[Jaeger Brothers]

17 hours ago, ASmallCuteCat said:

okay, this odyssey is MILSIM LARP OORAH HORIZON BEAM DOWN YOUR BEST SOLDIERS YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT INTO HIVEBOT HELL

I think even when the Storyteller decides it is going to be like this I'd like for the Horizon crew to go down and Build an entire FOB, that I saw on the first test with all Six Departments since even if it is a full on combat mission we return to the FOB every now and then anyway and that's some great time for some roleplay while you rest, sort yourself, refill your ammo and head back out. 

(It'd be pretty funny if the FOB gets overrun and we have to hold the service area like a waffle house too) ((Hell make them pull out a limited Menu))

An SOP Supporting every department going down would be great, just so we don't have any discussion around it and everything gets done quicker.

[Lilly Evans]

I have only been command on one odyssey round and here is the issue I faced: Being told no.

 

We were to set up shop for construction workers for a NT wildlife site and I tried to involve the scientist and xenobotanist. Xenobot I offered on the basis of making sure we don't destroy any endangered flora, they decided no. Scientist was asked as a backup, they didn't understand how it pertained to them but did go for a bit.

 

I admit my failing was involving service more. 

 

I will point out that, from an ic perspective, the entire ship should not be going down. We should maintain a token work force on the horizon because that's what makes sense.

[Comet Blaze]

IC can and should be put aside in favour of maximising OOC fun for as many people as possible. Command already does this with regular antags, giving them a lot more leeway than what would otherwise be sensible so they may develop their gimmick instead of instantly shutting them down, which would be what makes sense.

 

I see no reason why Odyssey should be any different. Yes, IC wise, it would be silly to bring the entire crew down and leave the ship unattended, but would people staying onboard enjoy being left behind while everyone else participates in the round? Probably not, so IC needs to take a backseat in favour of making people's experience better.

[Lilly Evans]

That is a fair point and one I will be considering in the future. While I, as command, am willing to stay for faxes and such, I should be more ready to let anyone and everyone go

[Bear]

A few points that need to be considered here.

The start of an Odessey round should indeed be open to anyone who wants to go. However. A lot of this is dependent on the story teller and the theme that is being set for the round. If we are going to blank check away teams then we need to check the Story teller's escalation at round start to ensure those who have no real business going aren't barred by things like logic, or check the storyteller's ability to have existential threats in general and reduce their impact. The latter is worse, in my opinion as dramatic risks and so on can make for good rounds. So the former is likely the best route to have people start off "slow" so anyone who wants to get involved can get down there before things pop off.

For instance with reasonability as you said, I agree. However, that's a hard thing to interpret as everyone has different thresholds. It makes little sense to send a cook down to a site with crazy characters in possession of a WMD threatening to detonate it on site. Or a janitor volunteering to go down to the black kois outbreak and help clean up? If anything that borderlines LRP for the characters wanting to go down anyways. But can you blame them for wanting to be involved with the round instead of being force to sit on the ship with no engagement in a semi-extended round? But if its an 1:30 in, then it's the consequence of late joining and there realistically isn't that long until the potential crew transfer comes along.

Once these finer lines are considered by the relevant head staff, the guidelines to allow players to get down there should likely be added into the round description. As CCIA, we could make some sort of rotating announcement, but it's an announcement that would be required to only cycle on the odessy and I do not know how doable that is. Therefor it would likely be easier to make it as something that populates with the round start. I'd advise whatever round announcement starts out, icly asks the horizon to set up an outpost on site asking for any and all volunteers,giving all departments a reason to go down before the round really starts off. As this would be the easiest fix in my opinion.

Lastly I'd make a small bit about let's ease off on language of "whitelist strip" ect. These are very serious topics, and policy suggestions really aren't the means in which they operate. Save that for the relevant WL team. If you notice a trend, document it, and take it to them. If you are seeing unreasonable behaviour in round that goes against the spirit of the round, ahelp it. Just because it makes sense 100% ic doesn't negate the obligation for reasonable deniability/detachment from the most logical course. We will guide unreasonable command if we're made aware of situations, even if it's not necessarily "rule breaking".

[Fluffy]

I'd like to point out none of this would be an issue if this was a paramilitary ship, as it would make sense to send as many people as possible on ground to not only do their things (build FOB, provide service etc.) but also to have them ready on standby to help in case situations arise

On the contrary, trying to push the narrative of the civilian ship, outcrying the "militarization of the Horizon" and the likes cause issues like this where it would make little sense for cooks, janitors and whatnot to be sent to the ground without first making absolutely sure that it's safe (by sending security and maybe medical to pull them out in case it isn't)

Only exceptions to this would be scenarios where it's expectable to be boredom MKUltra (a biesel office, some known friendly palace to visit, a known friendly village [...]) or where shit are so fucked the Horizon needs to intervene on it right now else disastrous things would happen (liidra reappeared and needs to be contained, Sol is about to fire some rediscovered superWMDs on Biesel or similar scenario where you have to deal with it right now and you're the only one around that can do it)

A cook, a janitor and whoever else on a civilian ship would have little to no reason to go on a possibly unsafe place, possibly to get mauled by the xenofauna, possibly walking into pirates, possibly walking into danger in general, unless he is specifically needed; if anything, this would seem disregarding self-preservation to do so, for a civilian

[N8-Toe]

Honestly, I'm not sure we need an SoP for away missions. By their nature the missions are different round to round. Anything beyond 

* You need to send a team

*Dont send the bare minimum

Will become a barrier to RP imo. We dont need moments of bickering over SoP minuta or worse "We can't go/can't go yet as we haven't ticked this box"

 

and on why is the cook going down? well we gotta eat don't we? just let people come up with their justification, flimsy as it may be, to be down there

[Shimmer]

 

12 hours ago, Bear said:

Lastly I'd make a small bit about let's ease off on language of "whitelist strip" ect. These are very serious topics, and policy suggestions really aren't the means in which they operate.

This is a very serious topic, which is exactly why easing off on the language isn't something we should do.

 

This is a significant issue, and it should be treated as a whitelist one because command has all the tools and means to involve overlooked departments. They don't either because they do the bare possible minimum, harken back to 'realism' as a guiding principle, or are in some other way anemic in their leadership.

The same way we treat stonewalling antags harshly and as an administrative concern (afterall, it is disrupting the flow of the round, ruining it for not just the antag but those engaged with them), we should be treating this issue with a greater degree of concern because stonewalling departments is far, far, far worse.

When someone stonewalls an antag with confirmation faxes, or 'realism's them to a stand-still where they question their every motive and reason and demand proof and any other number of actionable behaviour, they are sapping away fun from the antag, and those directly around them. Not cool.

When someone stonewalls an entire department, they don't just sap enjoyment from it, they choke the entire department. No one wants to be cucked to an empty ship with at most 3-5 characters some of whom are too busy commanding the off-team to engage with you. Why would you play service, or operations, if it's possible for some anemic command member incapable or unwilling to figure out how to include you to simply say 'It's too dangerous! ;)'

This is how you kill the drive of players to play departments. This is really, REALLY bad.

And much like how we treat stonewalling antags as a whitelist issue, so should we this. As a command member, people look up to you for guidance, leadership... Command. What possible excuse could there be for someone who chose to play that role to act anemic, and do the bare-minimum? You should be expected to show initiative, to involve as many people as possible, that's the whole point of fucking command to begin with.

[Fluffy]

9 hours ago, N8-Toe said:

and on why is the cook going down? well we gotta eat don't we? just let people come up with their justification, flimsy as it may be, to be down there

Sorry, but no, people are warned/noted when they disregard self-preservation even if they have a good reason to do so, going to a possible ambush, to be swarmed by xenofauna or in the hands of pirates because apparently the crew is bulimic and can't wait the additional 10 minutes it would take to get back on the ship (not to mention you can just send the food down from it) isn't gonna cut it. People wanted, outcried, the civilian feeling/setting up to the moment it became inconvenient to having fun (as if it wasn't already before) and now are trying to circumvent the logical consequence of that, wanting to have the cake and eat it too

[Sneakyranger]

5 hours ago, Shimmer said:

 

This is a very serious topic, which is exactly why easing off on the language isn't something we should do.

 

This is a significant issue, and it should be treated as a whitelist one because command has all the tools and means to involve overlooked departments. They don't either because they do the bare possible minimum, harken back to 'realism' as a guiding principle, or are in some other way anemic in their leadership.

...

And much like how we treat stonewalling antags as a whitelist issue, so should we this. As a command member, people look up to you for guidance, leadership... Command. What possible excuse could there be for someone who chose to play that role to act anemic, and do the bare-minimum? You should be expected to show initiative, to involve as many people as possible, that's the whole point of fucking command to begin with.

Perhaps taking an aggressive stance against the people you expect to be guiding the round and showing initiative, as you say, is as unhelpful and inflammatory as when it is is directed at antag players who fail to meet the bar. It's certainly easy for a post like this to be taken as hostile to the reader, and I certainly took it that way being a command main despite not considering myself to have any of the flaws you describe; a step back was required on my part for a more level-headed reply.

I personally think that service signs a contract when signing up for the round that there's a good chance you won't interact with whatever the antag gimmick is beyond feeling its aftershocks, and that's something you know going in if you play a low responsibility role like service. Sure, there are traitors sometimes or events that manage to get everyone involved directly - but these aren't a quality that can be expected all the time not because no one can be bothered to try that hard all the time but because not every scenario that should occur can occur in an environment where every department is notably involved.

Division of role responsibility doesn't just go with what you have to do, it's also what you get to do - security is heavily scrutinized because they generally get to do the most. Command in this environment is acting responsibly when faced with these Odyssey problems; ICly, they not only have to worry about what is a sensible response for the situation logically but further whether their corporate masters (who are very, very real in the context of CCIA) will approve of their decisionmaking should it come to it.  OOCly, they're not only in a role quite visible to staff and other players who may not always have nice words, they're also sometimes fending off people neglecting their characterization for the desire to get involved in whatever's happening in the round at the expense of everyone else's sense of disbelief. Honestly, I get it. It's a videogame, you want to play the exciting part - I literally do not blame you for that specific instinct at all. At the same time, I don't play engineering expecting to have to shoot the mercs and I wouldn't play security hoping to sit around and do fuck all while someone else shoots the mercs.

All of that long-winded paragraph to say that Command's actions are on aggregate a product of their situation and blaming them (with harsh punishment threats no less) is less useful as they were placed in a situation with limited ability to make good decisions. For the command who are genuinely good but doing the sort of thing mentioned in the post, perhaps suggestions should be directed to the storyteller to make events that can more reasonably involve service and even give them carveouts (e.g "set up a field kitchen for follow on responders!"). For the command who are bad and rejecting your attempts to go even when you would be justified IC, I am very confident that that would already be seen as a valid complaint by staff without any further adjustments to policy.

On 17/12/2024 at 17:57, NG+7 Gael said:

I will also push harder on the idea that Command shouldn't be barring people unless there are extremely good reasons as Hazel mentioned above; this is not a matter of 'realism' or needing for it to 'make sense', we are roleplaying, and that means that- as a Command member- you should be doing your best to include everyone that wants to participate, even if you need to bend things a little. This is extremely simple to do in practice, all you need to do is ask for volunteers for the odyssey mission and let anyone who wants to participate, participate. There's no need to send a team down first to "confirm" anything, and upon hearing of danger, prevent anyone except first-responder and engineering characters from participating. There is no need to try and think too hard about it 'making sense' or 'being realistic', these rounds are non-canon.

Using this post as a proxy for the rest of the thread's point since it expresses overall sentiment: yes, sometimes it is easy to bend softly and get a lot more people involved. I've done it. On the other hand, there are scenarios where the suspension of disbelief - something essential to an RP environment mind you - is completely shattered by sending the janitor to the Klendathu Drop. It's really not as simple as it is made out to be when you conflate the two situations; sometimes you have well-meaning people who can reasonably be sent by a superior who doesn't care that much or simply needs bodies, sometimes the people who want to come are completely disregarding their own characterization to volunteer in the first place and would negatively affect everyone else. If people want evidence of this point, I point to Orchard Moon's boarding volunteers going on a boarding mission to a shuttle they were told was depressurized in capri shorts. Realism seems to be a boogeyman point for some reason, perhaps because of its association with hard-scifi and poking holes in the setting's lore - but you do need to have some realism in the setting, and when you phrase that as "internal consistency" or "maintaining the suspension of disbelief", I think far fewer people would argue.

 

5 hours ago, Fluffy said:

People wanted, outcried, the civilian feeling/setting up to the moment it became inconvenient to having fun (as if it wasn't already before) and now are trying to circumvent the logical consequence of that, wanting to have the cake and eat it too

As an aside, while I don't quote this in an attempt to direct it at anyone I have replied to or even levy it as an accusation at anyone in the thread specifically, I do find this a very salient point and it puts in to words a vague sentiment I have had difficulty expressing previously.

[Butterrobber202]

Threatening Command Players with harsh punishments, especially WL strips, is very reminiscent of how people talked about Antagonists not so long ago.

"You need to involve everyone in your gimmick, not just a few people" was something that was bashed into the community's head regarding antagonists for ages. Alongside the fact that any time an Antagonist laid a hand on anyone, they'd always get a "Hey, got a minute?" from a staff member and would be interrogated for their rational in killing them. It was after this period that Antagonist player counts cratered to what they are today.

Secondly, just as it was when antagonists were our main shake ups, it was expected that if you wanted to have reliable and consistent interactions with Antagonists, you should join up as Command, Security, or Medical. Engineering, Service, Science, and Operations were your choices if you wanted better odds of not being dragged into antagonist actions. I'd argue that the same principle will still apply to Odysseys. If an Odyssey is a war zone (and let's be honest, most Odyssey's will be because violence is engaging and easy to set up) then Command have very little reason to send non-combat or non-combat support staff down to the Odyssey Area. I think saying "putting IC aside for OOC fun" is nonsense, since we're a HRP server. A HRP server whose community has been adamantly against the militarization of the Horizon. Now that we've arrived at this point and the calmer, civilian nature of the Horizon has been reinforced, it seems that the same people who argued against militarization are now going, "Nope, roles don't matter. Anyone should be sent into danger so long as they ask."

On 17/12/2024 at 17:57, NG+7 Gael said:

I will also push harder on the idea that Command shouldn't be barring people unless there are extremely good reasons as Hazel mentioned above; this is not a matter of 'realism' or needing for it to 'make sense', we are roleplaying, and that means that- as a Command member- you should be doing your best to include everyone that wants to participate, even if you need to bend things a little. [...] There is no need to try and think too hard about it 'making sense' or 'being realistic', these rounds are non-canon. All you need to do is let people participate if they want to do so.

No. Of all the arguments in the thread, I think this one is the most egregious. For years, it has been community policy to treat non-canon rounds as if they were canon up until the round ended. You could not act irrationally or out of character just because you knew it was a non-canon round. You couldn't charge a traitor with a butcher knife as a chef, you couldn't send unarmed doctors to bullet shield for you, you couldn't do any number of things that would be considered insane or dramatically out of character just because it was a non-canon round. Sending Bartenders, Janitors and Cooks into potentially dangerous situations for 0 reason would count in this category.

We are Roleplaying, yes, but this isn't a little D&D group with 6 players max. Aurora regularly hits 30 and 40 active players on highpop. While remaining within the bounds of policies that have existed for years Command players are obligated to make reasonable, rational, and informed decisions. Be it when they are negotiating with terrorist mercs, insane traitors, or deciding how to deal with Odyssey missions. Within those binds, Command can't feasibly be expected to send every person on the Horizon on the Intrepid. I understand it is the purpose of the thread to accomplish this very thing, but until we get a red name to come in here and put their foot down on expectations, acting so harshly against Command Players is unfair.

I think it is fundamentally ridiculous to threaten Command Players who are trying to act rationally in the setting of a High-Roleplay Server. If this sort of policy became common place with Odysseys, what happened to our Antagonist Player Population is going to happen to our Command Player Population as well.

[Mr.Popper]

17 hours ago, Fluffy said:

On the contrary, trying to push the narrative of the civilian ship, outcrying the "militarization of the Horizon" and the likes cause issues like this where it would make little sense for cooks, janitors and whatnot to be sent to the ground without first making absolutely sure that it's safe (by sending security and maybe medical to pull them out in case it isn't)

...

A cook, a janitor and whoever else on a civilian ship would have little to no reason to go on a possibly unsafe place, possibly to get mauled by the xenofauna, possibly walking into pirates, possibly walking into danger in general, unless he is specifically needed; if anything, this would seem disregarding self-preservation to do so, for a civilian

If Odyssey is going to be a successful gamemode then this false dichotomy between "civilians" that sit around being helpless and elite jobs that hog all the fun needs to go because, while you still have a round if you're uninvolved in a secret gimmick, there is usually no one to roleplay with in Odyssey when you're segregated from most of the crew. Roleplay-wise, what makes a Security Officer, Engineer, or Paramedic that much more important than a line cook or Hangar Technician? They aren't superheroes trained for the high stakes situations that occur in non-canon rounds, they're normal people normally tasked with serving the crew of a normal ship; a Zeng-Hu research outpost infested with GMO abominations is just as much a fish out of water situation for a security guard as a line cook. Paramedics are EMT, not combat medics. Engineers keep the ship running, they're not combat engineers. Security Officers aren't badass commandos, they're goons that bwoink troublemakers and protect the crew. So bring crew for them to protect! Only bringing the people who are mechanically useful when there's room for Cooks or Hangar Technicians because "we have MREs" or "I can move all the crates" disregards roleplay in favor of getting to the shooty action as fast as possible. I don't even consider good involvement as non-sec to be picking up a gun and mowing people down, I just want to be able to visit the map everyone is at and roleplay with the given scenario.

In defense of Command, there are definitely Odysseys which escalate to where it's fair to evacuate non-combatants. It's also excessive to talk about admin action when Odyssey is so experimental and there are no hard rules for it yet. Ideally, Storytellers should be discouraged from starting with the intensity cranked up to 100 or giving an opening announcement where non-sec aren't welcome. Not to disrespect the regular Storytellers because you guys do a great job and I can't even recall this happening, but if an Odyssey is so high intensity that it opens with "WAR: IT'S WAR DOWN HERE, ONLY SEND SEC AND MED" then that's just bad escalation. The Odyssey that provoked this suggestion didn't seem to be this; to my knowledge Command was using reports of a nuclear device to justify excluding the "civilians" even though the action was only occurring deep within the map. Engineering even made an extravagant FOB for Service to staff right beside the landing zone, so it's not like they would be in excessive danger. Most Odyssey maps are like this where there's a large safe zone around the Intrepid. Also bear in mind: the nuke is prebuilt into that map. Should non-sec and non-med just be barred from ever seeing that Odyssey because there's a nuke? That's ridiculous.

TL;DR: sec, med, and eng's mechanical utility shouldn't be mistaken for them being the main characters; they're realistically just as unprepared for high intensity rounds as everyone else. There are points of escalation where it's reasonable to evac non-essential crew or stop sending them down as others have said, but an Odyssey shouldn't start and end that way. Maybe that could be a new escalation rule idk. Also cut Command and storytellers some slack it's a new gamemode 💋💋

[ASmallCuteCat]

It's not a black-and-white situation - I don't think anyone in this thread is saying, "Everyone on the ship MUST be sent down, no questions asked, no matter how dangerous the situation is!"

I think it's more along the lines of, "Any player who wishes to participate should be given the chance to go on the mission."

There will of course be instances where things get too dangerous for this to make sense, but to quote Mr. Popper...

55 minutes ago, Mr.Popper said:

if an Odyssey is so high intensity that it opens with "WAR: IT'S WAR DOWN HERE, ONLY SEND SEC AND MED" then that's just bad escalation

All in all, I can't speak for other people, but I'd rather chill by the Intrepid chatting with a few other crew members while we do some unimportant busywork, than to get barred completely from going on the away mission and left to AFK on an empty Horizon.

[Boggle08]

It is intrinsically hard to involve departments or roles such as Hangar Technician, Service, and Science roles, as these are severely lacking from a mechanical standpoint with what they're able to contribute, compared to the usual suspects. We can resolve any server culture problems with the game-mode easily, but those are informed by incentives presented through gameplay.

The ship generally doesn't need dedicated logisticians. Most departments have everything they need and can throw and drag whatever crap they want brought down in a single crate. Science is science. A lot of us in science say no to expeditions simply because we're just going to stand around bored for most of it, unable to contribute in a way that other departments can't do themselves. I think it isn't a bad idea to bring a chef down for catering, especially since people are running about a lot more, but it's harder to justify something like a bartender, or, librarian. Not to say that it's impossible to involve service, but not every Odyssey round can be about inviting VIP's aboard and catering for them.

We've been asking for ways to involve these departments for in-round narratives ever since I started playing five years ago. It's probably been this way long before that. What we're seeing now is just a continuation of long-standing issues that have been set aside for other projects, because of a lack of interest or direction.

 

That being said, I think we can mitigate some of these problems through the structure of Odyssey rounds themselves. Right now, there's only one plot, an A plot, which involves everyone packing into the intrepid and leaving the ship barren. I think, especially for lower intensity canon rounds, storytellers should attempt to craft a B plot for those who remain shipside. I'm not sure how many actors story-tellers get, but they could probably feed directives to third party ships to interact with the Horizon. Or to have the Horizon and the Third party ships interact with other elements of the overmap while the Odyssey mission is underway.

Edited Friday at 21:30 by Boggle08

[hazelmouse]

3 hours ago, ASmallCuteCat said:

All in all, I can't speak for other people, but I'd rather chill by the Intrepid chatting with a few other crew members while we do some unimportant busywork, than to get barred completely from going on the away mission and left to AFK on an empty Horizon.

I share this sentiment. Security in expeditions is tasked with keeping the crew safe, and the non-emergency crew in a hostile situation would presumably be staying on or adjacent to the Intrepid. If security has the situation under control and the Intrepid is secure, I don't see a reason for non-emergency crew to not be allowed to stick on the Intrepid occupying themselves with assorted busywork. If security doesn't have the situation under control and the Intrepid isn't secure, I assume the entire crew would be in the process of evacuation anyways?

The priority is to allow participation. I don't expect all of the crew to be at the very forefront of the scenario and I certainly don't want to put pressure on storytellers and command to find a bespoke spot for absolutely everyone - just being able to reliably be permitted to leave on the expedition at all and find something to do independently is plenty for me.

4 hours ago, Mr.Popper said:

If Odyssey is going to be a successful gamemode then this false dichotomy between "civilians" that sit around being helpless and elite jobs that hog all the fun needs to go because, while you still have a round if you're uninvolved in a secret gimmick, there is usually no one to roleplay with in Odyssey when you're segregated from most of the crew. Roleplay-wise, what makes a Security Officer, Engineer, or Paramedic that much more important than a line cook or Hangar Technician? They aren't superheroes trained for the high stakes situations that occur in non-canon rounds, they're normal people normally tasked with serving the crew of a normal ship; a Zeng-Hu research outpost infested with GMO abominations is just as much a fish out of water situation for a security guard as a line cook. Paramedics are EMT, not combat medics. Engineers keep the ship running, they're not combat engineers. Security Officers aren't badass commandos, they're goons that bwoink troublemakers and protect the crew. So bring crew for them to protect! Only bringing the people who are mechanically useful when there's room for Cooks or Hangar Technicians because "we have MREs" or "I can move all the crates" disregards roleplay in favor of getting to the shooty action as fast as possible. I don't even consider good involvement as non-sec to be picking up a gun and mowing people down, I just want to be able to visit the map everyone is at and roleplay with the given scenario.

In defense of Command, there are definitely Odysseys which escalate to where it's fair to evacuate non-combatants. It's also excessive to talk about admin action when Odyssey is so experimental and there are no hard rules for it yet. Ideally, Storytellers should be discouraged from starting with the intensity cranked up to 100 or giving an opening announcement where non-sec aren't welcome. Not to disrespect the regular Storytellers because you guys do a great job and I can't even recall this happening, but if an Odyssey is so high intensity that it opens with "WAR: IT'S WAR DOWN HERE, ONLY SEND SEC AND MED" then that's just bad escalation. The Odyssey that provoked this suggestion didn't seem to be this; to my knowledge Command was using reports of a nuclear device to justify excluding the "civilians" even though the action was only occurring deep within the map. Engineering even made an extravagant FOB for Service to staff right beside the landing zone, so it's not like they would be in excessive danger. Most Odyssey maps are like this where there's a large safe zone around the Intrepid. Also bear in mind: the nuke is prebuilt into that map. Should non-sec and non-med just be barred from ever seeing that Odyssey because there's a nuke? That's ridiculous.

TL;DR: sec, med, and eng's mechanical utility shouldn't be mistaken for them being the main characters; they're realistically just as unprepared for high intensity rounds as everyone else. There are points of escalation where it's reasonable to evac non-essential crew or stop sending them down as others have said, but an Odyssey shouldn't start and end that way. Maybe that could be a new escalation rule idk. Also cut Command and storytellers some slack it's a new gamemode 💋💋

Otherwise, I can parrot this.

For a note, I made mention of administrative action here rather than ahelping it in the round exactly because Odyssey is such a new gamemode and the rules really aren't written yet. It would've been wildly unfair to try to pin that on the particular players in that round because there seriously just isn't a consensus on this topic right now, a precedent needs to be set in order to be broken. 

Edited Friday at 22:43 by hazelmouse

[N8-Toe]

its time for a long post ™️

 

So let's break down the militarization.

10 hours ago, Fluffy said:

Sorry, but no, people are warned/noted when they disregard self-preservation even if they have a good reason to do so, going to a possible ambush, to be swarmed by xenofauna or in the hands of pirates because apparently the crew is bulimic and can't wait the additional 10 minutes it would take to get back on the ship (not to mention you can just send the food down from it) isn't gonna cut it. People wanted, outcried, the civilian feeling/setting up to the moment it became inconvenient to having fun (as if it wasn't already before) and now are trying to circumvent the logical consequence of that, wanting to have the cake and eat it too

I actually agree with you on the last part, I wanted to keep the crew armory, and continue to say I want more danger, I want off maps to be empowered to screw with horizon. I think our setting has been written to be dangerous, it should play like that too. We're not the military on ship! thats true! but we also dont all wanna die in deep space far from help. Your right that we're in a have your cake and eat it when it comes to direct "your going to war" kinda stuff. But going on an away mission isn't militarization. Just as the current norm is we dont' know that "today is the day" with antags. the ship getting attacked by pirates, a traitor among the crew gunning down the captain, these are wild things our characters have very likely not experienced, as from their IC perspective. every day has been mundane. This allows us to have these moments, and we should see away missions the same IC. the Horizon does these, it salvages wrecks, investigates things, and communicates and trades with other ships.. its all been mundane and safe, so why is today any different? Its not disregarding self-preservation because our characters should not be entering into the round with the belief and idea "Its rage cage time". and well.. what if it is an ambush, what if there is a hostile creature? that's what the fine folks in sec are payed to handle. 

 

Hanger techs, miners, ops supports the crew with supplies. when we're dealing with odyssey this actually becomes a thing. Let them go down

Science investigates things, documents critters, answers questions? Perfect, they should go

Service keeps the crew fed, and their facilities clean and cared for. We all gotta eat, and I'd rather not eat MRE's if I can get a meal hot and ready from a field canteen

Engineering builds bases, stabilizes wrecks, affects entry into places. they should be down there setting up a base for the crew to occupy

Security protects the crew. It is not a kill team, they're not soldiers, your right! but its their job to keep the xenofauna from munching on the supply guys leg. 

Medical keeps the above people alive if harmed

 

If I am the Captain, I dont know that THIS away mission is the one thats gonna be a blood bath, I dont know this mission is gonna have the thing among the survivors who tries to infiltrate our camp and eat people. I know I need to deploy an away team, I know I have a mission parameter. So I'm gonna send the people down there, then the needed people to support those people. Build a base, have security secure a section of a wreck, or a village, or have engineering whole sale build a compound or outpost. These challenges of "Xenofauna" or "Maybe a guy in the woods with a gun" is an obsticle the crew work together to overcome, building walls and spotlights, security securing entry ways, and having the facilities to manage an emergency. I mean what if the Xenofauna grabs a guy? we need a medical team on the ground to help him dont we? which needs engineers to build it, a supply team to equip it, and so on. And on "why would a civilian XYZ go" because its their job, they signed up for this, they get paid to do this, they're not office workers they're crewman on a deep space exploration vessel. They have implicitly signed up for that risk, and likely have had a 20-minute PowerPoint saying "don't wander off alone on an alien world" at some point in their career

 

So what if it escalates? it gets dicey, there is a monster, there are pirates, there's a bomb? Well shit maybe we need to lock down the base! maybe we need to step up patrols or act as a team, or worst comes to worst? we need to evacuate personal. All of these things are conflict and are fun. I would rather playing as a surgeon, or a hanger tech, or an engineer. Go down to the planet, be involved and stay around the base, and be evacuated when it turns to hell. I'd rather as a player risk dying if that spooky shape shifting monster escaped from the lab gets into the base, than just sit in the bar on the horizon hearing the cool stuff im missing out on. We should not Optimize our way out of fun. Is sending the gaggle of people to build a base the most "optimal" way of handling most odysseys? not at all, but its fun, and I want to have fun. 

[Fluffy]

8 hours ago, Mr.Popper said:

[...]

3 hours ago, N8-Toe said:

[...]

Again, no, the point is that if you aren't needed to do something there, there is no reason you would be sent there unless it's known to be safe, and there's no reason your character would reasonably want to go there either. Security isn't a deathsquad but they're the ones that know how to use guns, have them, have the license to use them, and deal with whatever risk could be present, that's why you send them. A cook, a bartender or the likes has no reason to go to a possibly unsafe zone possibly to his death for absolutely no reason, as he isn't needed there. If the story was "we need to throw a party down here" you would be right the cook and bartender would come down and security probably wouldn't (and this is one of those boredom MKUltra situations where the place is known to be safe), sending them in other scenarios where they aren't needed is a lack of self preservation via OOC-in-IC reasoning. You can pontify all the rationalizations you can dream of ontop of this, until you see Amazon sending their finance accountants in somali-pirates-infested waters it still won't make an iota of sense, they send the sailors needed to keep the ship running and armed personnel to shoot the pirates. I'm confident you can extrapolate to our setting.

[Rabid Animal]

You could argue security shouldn't go at all because the ship needs to be defended and protected, and in fact the bad ass gun psychos of science or the rugged salvagers of mining can and will defend themselves, just as they do for every dig site or direlect they come across.

 

But that excludes security, and it's a BIG problem if security is excluded, so I guess I'll need to suspend my disbelief for a second so that other people can have fun.

[Fluffy]

3 minutes ago, Rabid Animal said:

[...]

If the ship is at risk, yes it would make sense to not send them, but that would mean not sending anyone if your home is under threat; you'd deal with whatever is putting your ship at risk first

Aside of that it's a choice between the possibly dangerous situation you could walk into and the ship floating in space that is so far known to be safe, you could split your security half and half or you can consider the ship safe enough (also because BCs have their little armory, you can build mechs with weapons etc.) and send them to deal with whatever mission central needs dealt with

Neither Mining nor Science are trained to shoot people, mining shoot the PKA on some xenofauna in areas without atmospheric pressure, science at most tries their creations in the firing range. Security is trained to deal with pirates, terrorists, hostage situations, high stress situations, the various different environments and whatnot - think of it as a SWAT team - and have done so, canonically, often. They are your right arm to punch things with

[N8-Toe]

46 minutes ago, Fluffy said:

gain, no, the point is that if you aren't needed to do something there, there is no reason you would be sent there unless it's known to be safe, and there's no reason your character would reasonably want to go there either. Security isn't a deathsquad but they're the ones that know how to use guns, have them, have the license to use them, and deal with whatever risk could be present, that's why you send them. A cook, a bartender or the likes has no reason to go to a possibly unsafe zone possibly to his death for absolutely no reason, as he isn't needed there. If the story was "we need to throw a party down here" you would be right the cook and bartender would come down and security probably wouldn't (and this is one of those boredom MKUltra situations where the place is known to be safe), sending them in other scenarios where they aren't needed is a lack of self preservation via OOC-in-IC reasoning. You can pontify all the rationalizations you can dream of ontop of this, until you see Amazon sending their finance accountants in somali-pirates-infested waters it still won't make an iota of sense, they send the sailors needed to keep the ship running and armed personnel to shoot the pirates. I'm confident you can extrapolate to our setting.

Look I'm gonna stop the pontification as you say and basicly ask you this, and say again on the original topic. Also, the guys they send to the gulf of Aden are not elite mercenaries, or hardened badasses, they're 20 something able seamen. they're regular people. The guys who dive beneath the ocean to build things in the suffocating dark are just guys, regular people of all walks of life and training undertake dangerous jobs because they agree too, and they get paid to. Also in your example, yeah they have guards to protect them (even if thats not the most common thing). In our context of Aurora the crew has security to protect them?

 

Who is Odyssey for? The Area of Operations is not always going to be 100% safe, your right. But we play 2 hours rounds, give 40 minutes for setup. so we got 80 minutes, to tell a story, deploy, and shake it all out at MOST. I'm not saying the cook should be the first through the breach, I'm saying the crew should setup outposts, or build and entrench where they go. Because that gives a reason for others to arrive to man these outposts. Because its a game, and its fun. Your right! if we wanted minimized casualties sending just sec and a medic or two, maybe an engi to build barricades would do that, but its as I said optimizing ourselves out of gameplay. That outcome becoming the norm for odyssey would imo be a tragedy, as now not only is all of the content centered on sec, command, and friends.. its not even on the ship, its far off with no chance of me being involved if im not playing sec/command. 

 

so I'm going to ask this

Why should I as Story teller, or readied up actor try to build a big plot with any tension in it, if its just for the guys with guns to come shoot, and they can come alone. 

Should engineering, or medical aside from paramedics deploy? should science get to go gather samples or if you dont have sec with you its a no go

Should people get to deploy after the threats clear to look around?

 

What do you see as the "Average Odyssey gameplay loop". And what role, if any, do the departments play in it

 

On the original idea of SOP. I again want to stress strongly we already struggle to get teams out on time. I dont want to IC argue over strict SOP beyond what I would infer falls under OOC rules of "you need to actually play the game mode and send someone" and "dont do the bare minimum"

 

Edited Saturday at 03:32 by N8-Toe