subplotkudzu | Kirkliness and Picarditude

As we wind down Rebecca's 7 year Spelljammer PBEM I'm going through some of the notes and e-mail collections on my hard drive. In doing so I cam across this exchange on the nature of having one PC as the commanding officer of the other PCs and how a groud can deal with it. I felt it was a nice discussion on the nature of command, planning, suspension of disbelief and player vs character expectations

(For the record, Jonathan Tweet originated the term Kirkliness in A&E some years back, though I am using it in a slightly different way - JoT was referring to Kirk's ability to judge when it was time to change the nature of a contest - such as going for the enemy's gun - and have it work more often than not. I'm using it to refer to leadserhip styles.)

Brian: Hrm... we seem to be developing a disconnect amongst the crew of what sort of captain we want, and I'm not sure how much of it is player vs. character concern. In any case, an OOC chat might be good. Players first:

As a player, I think it's better if our captain has a lot of Kirkliness, since it makes sure that one of the players isn't sidelined from the action by nature of being leader. The original Trek disregard for leaving command staff on board the ship is, if not standard military, cracking good game logic. Plus, it leads to swashbuckling action, and as a player I prefer a quick clever plan that we modify on the fly to a longer planned one where we've done advanced prep. To me, time spent planning for contingencies that we didn't meet is likely time wasted, so I consider a brilliant plan to be one that gets us past the first one or two likely contingencies; if that gets us through, great, we're brilliant. If not, well, we wing it. That's a high Kirkliness attitude.

Others seem to want a higher degree of Picarditude, under the justified fear that having the whole command staff off ship will lead to trouble. Picarditude makes more logical sense, but it does lead to splitting the party. Not an overwhelming problem if the a) the split doesn't last long, b) both sides of the split have something to do or c) it's not the same set of PCs getting sidelined every time. Captains with Picarditude also plan more, weigh out the consequences of their actions in advance, consult with the crew before doing things and don't take risks that they can avoid. This can lead to a lot of meaty character interaction, which I also groove on, but as a player I think we should be weighing more on taking higher risks for higher reward because it's more exciting, albeit more dangerous.

Final player comment, I think given Val's impetuous nature Picarditude is not likely to happen. If the players decide that we'd prefer someone with more Picarditude, we might want to consider changing captains, or Jeff might want to realign his portrayal of Val. (The characters are all going through a growing stage right now, so such a realignment is not out of character. Personally, I want him to have more Kirkliness....)

Now, I might just be reading too much into this - the players could all be fine with Val's Kirkliness but to stay true to their characters they're playing a crew yearning for some Picarditude. I've seen this sort of player to character disconnect before, but it's generally a good idea for everyone in the game to know that that's what it is. Makes handling the interpersonal reactions easier - especially since it looks like some of the anti-Kirkliness sentiment might bubble to the surface sometime soon.

From my PC's perspective, Kirkliness works just fine of the captain has the wits and chutzpah to carry it off. Emmett has no problem with Val taking risks and as long as he commits to it and doesn't waffle (or that he doesn't waffle in front of the crew). He would like for Val to accept the that yes, his gambles have consequences but so far he's got way more chips on the table than he started with and he's yet to lose a hand.

Emmett will keep backing Val as long as Val keeps pulling off the miracle hands, or folding before he gets too far down, but thinks Val should have more faith in his ability to do that. Once he has that he'd likely have less trouble with the PCs looking for him to display more Picarditude since he'd be more firmly a Captain.

From Kris:

This is amusing terminology ... Anyway, there is player/character disconnect right here, at least, which I think everybody already knows. As a player, I don't care how anybody plays their character, as long as it doesn't totally mess up the game. As a character, Ibn Hassan has had less than perfect superiors before; it tends to inspire him to be even better at what he does, to prevent incompetence-caused problems. He doesn't think Val is incompetent, though, just that he's impulsive and has some weird ideas about leadership, which he (ibn Hassan) been trying to deal with (both by occasional remarks to Val, and by backing him 100% as far as the crew knows). He can put up with Kirkliness as long as it doesn't lead them into more trouble than they can handle, even though he himself tends toward Picarditude. Plus, because of his cultural background, he has very definite ideas about rank and status; that's why he's always been very careful not to seem like he's trying to take over. Status can change, of course, but he's not going to be the one rocking the boat. (Unless it seems necessary.)

Hazel The subject line made me laugh. Thanks Brian. Speaking personally I have no problem with the 'Kirkliness' as you call it. This being a rpg separating the characters can lead to problems with lack of direct involvement unless, as you said, there are multiple storylines or possible actions. I like to make things up on the fly and like the whole impulsive response to situations that the characters find themselves in. Picarditude is fine in some situations, say diplomacy, but I don't see it working well in combat.

Lynden is also fine with Kirkliness. Any issues she has with Val being impetuous are entirely personal and have nothing whatsoever to do with his actual ability as a Captain. Hell she's just been trying to convince him to believe in himself! Any upcoming criticism of Val is emotional (as Jeff knows) and not a direct slur on his leadership capabilities and will be done in private. She's just being protective. Lynden is perfectly happy with the command structure as it stands and doesn't want to undermine his authority.

From Rh- Interesting references for captaining styles, but understandable. Val is more like Kirk in the regard of not wanting to sit on the sidelines and let others take the risks he feels he should be taking for or with them. He -is- in a transition stage, but I don't think he'll change that part of himself. To me, it is all roleplaying fodder. I'm waiting to see the fallout from Yestin and Lynden over his impetuousness. <g> To be honest, I'd rather he be in the front lines doing what he does best per his character class. Standing by and letting others have all the fun would grate on his nerves and mine, so to speak.

WRT his captaining skills and the doubt that has been revealed in the roleplay with Lynden, these are actually thoughts I had as a player when Bec offered the captaincy to Val. -I- have overcome the doubts and whatnot, but Val hadn't been able to express it until recently in game; part of his developing character, just a bit late. I -do- hesitate to issue orders for fear of stepping on other players toes, as I have found that doesn't work well in a group roleplaying effort. Val will issue orders and act all captain-y, but it's not necessarily conducive to group dynamics, IMO. Please let me know if this does bother anyone (one way ort he other) and we'll work it out somehow. I'm flexible. When I'm available, that is. Now I've got to get back to work...

Christian Yeah, this is definite player-character disconnect. As a player, I have no problem with Val playing Captain Kirk. Yestin, however, would have a real problem with it I think. He comes from a culture that is formed around a rigid military structure, and so he has very distinct ideas about what a lead officer should and should not do. He doesn't have the confidence to suggest Val resign his commission, but he will give him an earful when he gets a chance. Remember that on a previous occasion, Val's impetuousness caused him to disappear for a length of time, leaving Yestin in the uncomfortable position (for him) of having to assume the role of temporary captain.

Plus, a leader not being the sort to order a crewman to do something he wouldn't be willing to do himself is one thing, a leader charging off and doing something he would specifically forbid a crewman from doing is another. Would Val have okay'd Aiyana charging off onto the grappled ship alone? Probably not, and with good reason, so from Yestin's perspective it sets a very poor example for him to have run off like that. Not to mention potentially endangering the crew, as someone would have had to be sent off to find him if something had happened to him.

And for Val to insist on coming on away missions like the current ones suggests (to Yestin, not to me) that he is unable or unwilling to delegate, which in turn suggests a lack of confidence in his junior officers.

And I wouldn't worry about the character being sidelined if you do decide to stay behind. I think our GM is flexible enough to find something to occupy your time... =)

Not a major issue, in any case. Just, as someone said, more fodder for roleplaying between the characters.