The Barracks Emperors

[robject]

I've been thinking of doing a "Barracks Emperors" type setting, that could be both an RP adventure and a wargame.

The setting would be the year 606, toward the trailing edge of the Corridor sector. Plankwell has assassinated Empress Jaqueline and claimed the throne. Different from 1116, admirals begin recruiting support, and people start lining up with their hands out. Shenanigans ranging from espionage and tradewar to outright treachery and bloodshed abound, as the political landscape shifts.

As a wargame, the goal would be to defuse, depose, or dispose of one's opponents and gain an overwhelming share of support -- enough to march a war fleet to Capital.

As an RPG, the patrons would be various factions needing various jobs. An opportunity for fast personal enrichment, or perhaps a quick death. What's at stake? Potentially, the players will end up on a winning or losing side. The players' actions may affect their homeworlds' status when the dust clears. Nobility may be in the making. Riches. Glory and honor. Huge tracts of land.

The whole purpose of a Civil War era adventure is to provide an MT-like setting that's less bleak, and perhaps a bit more swashbuckling.

 

[Maladominus]

A very plausible setting.

But it's interesting if whether you will (or will not) choose to "rig" history to be the same exact predictable canon outcome: Arbellatra Alkhalikoi will triumph no matter what.

Or will you allow for an alternative historical outcome? Example: Arbellatra Alkhalikoi is killed in fleet combat as a result of what your Players did. Thus, the Alkhalikoi dynasty never happens.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Please keep me posted as to the disposition of this. I would be very interested. What are you thinking for rules? Would diplomat be a good pick for a career, ala, Supplement 4?

 

[alanb]

I've mucked about with this period a little. It's very cool.

The historical outcome question is easy enough to deal with: be non-committal. Neither confirm nor deny.

If the PCs side with Arbellatra, that's fine, but she isn't necessarily going to be anyone special in the big picture until late in the wars anyway, and there are plenty of opportunities for the PCs to get into trouble in the meantime. And she may or may not win...

You could, of course, report her assassination early in the campaign, just to throw a curve ball at any "clever" players. The report may even turn out to be true!

All of this depends on your players being familiar with the future history anyway, of course.

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by alanb:
If the PCs side with Arbellatra, that's fine, but

You could, of course, report her assassination early in the campaign, just to throw a curve ball at any "clever" players. The report may even turn out to be true!

Yes, I could the possibilities for role playing here, as one of the characters has to assume the mantle of Arabella, as no one really outside of the Marches fleet knows what she really looked like. Have the player character go through a biomod or just play the role of Admiral by being a damn good lookalike.

 

[parmasson]

As an RPG, the patrons would be various factions needing various jobs. An opportunity for fast personal enrichment, or perhaps a quick death. What's at stake? Potentially, the players will end up on a winning or losing side. The players' actions may affect their homeworlds' status when the dust clears. Nobility may be in the making. Riches. Glory and honor. Huge tracts of land.

One possible idea is to write the adventure like a murder mystery. Each character or major player has a motivation, a goal and a dirty secret. The PCs are minor squadron commanders or nobles suddenly thrust into center stage as a dozen of the most important leaders are killed when a bomb goes off in their meeting room. Now what to do?

Emperors come and go, murder, double agents, triple agents. Lots of work for the ref to set up to do it right.

 

[robject]

Murder mysteries are hard to do well, but if it's done well it would be a big hit.

Having to play Arbellatra's double might be an interesting adventure... or any Fleet Admiral's double, for that matter.

Being noncommittal about the eventual outcome is the best way to go. Also, with wargames, part of the fun is trying to upset history, so it should be possible for the timeline to change.

Diplomats and Agents could have a lot of fun challenges in this milieu. Military and Megacorporate espionage and assasinations abound; a set of trustworthy players would be an invaluable asset (or just a convenient shield) to any aspiring Navy personnel.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Any suggestions as to homeworlds, or period UWP data for such?

Waht about split classing of sorts, say a Few terms as Diplomat and a few as Noble? What are limits of that?

 

[robject]

Here's the rules I follow for split classing.

Agents and Diplomats may take every other term as an "assignment" within any other career. For the Agent, this is an "undercover assignment" with a false identity. The term is resolved under the target career, and skills are taken from that career also. The rank of the character is related to the character's age, but the character may be officer or enlisted. Automatic or enlistment skills aren't awarded. Also, all retirement benefits are taken from the Agent's mustering out tables. False identities gained through this process may be used by the player during the campaign.

Scientists or scholars may take one "sabbatical" any time following their first term. The sabbatical may be for any length of time, and the character may attempt to resolve a separate career during that time. When the sabbatical ends, the character musters out from that career, and then must complete at least one more term in the original career track. When the character retires from the scientist or scholar career, he/she only counts terms served as a scientist or scholar towards the mustering-out rolls.

After their first term, Rogues may start a Masquerade, where they assume a false identity in any other career. They may resolve up to five terms in that career. When they finish a Masquerade, they muster out from it as if it were their primary career. The character must then serve a term as a Rogue, then may muster out or begin another Masquerade. No matter what, the character's final term must be as a Rogue. The character then musters out from the Rogues, but only counts terms served as a Rogue toward the retirement tables. False identities gained through this process may be used by the player during the campaign.

 

[robject]

For homeworld, I was thinking about a world in the Corridor sector. After a little looking I think Kaasu (1209 Corridor) is a candidate. Here's a regional map:

http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/campaigns/Barracks/Kaasu.Corridor.jpg

The blue lines represent an Imperial jump-3 route linking Corridor with Vland and Deneb. There is no X-boat route at this time.

For UWP data, I was thinking of using Corridor sector, regressed for the year 600:

http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/campaigns/Barracks/Corridor.600.sec

It's not hugely different, since Corridor was colonized millenia ago, but it is a bit more primitive than 1100. It probably reflects the same amount of regression as 100 years or so in the Marches.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

So all characters should be from Kaasu? Where do you get these wonderful maps?

 

[robject]

Thanks for the compliment! My maps aren't as good as others'. Search in the "Software Solutions" topic for better tools than mine*.

I don't think characters have to be from Kaasu, just like characters in Marches campaigns don't have to be from Regina. I was thinking Kaasu might make an interesting "centerpiece" for the adventure, just as Regina is the centerpiece of the Marches.


* But, I like my color scheme better than others'. Purple = Ri. Green = Ag. Center dot = In. Blue = Wa. Orange = Fl. Gold = Ri Ag. Red text = Cp.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

So you mean Kaasu is our Start point? I am working on a female character now, that is from Kasear in the Vland Sector, is something like that doable?

http://www.rossmack.com/ab/RPG/traveller/ChartedSpace/VL/VL_K.asp

http://www.rossmack.com/ab/RPG/traveller/ChartedSpace/VL/VL1822.asp

Could you correct UWP data for me if this is an acceptable world?

 

[robject]

Kasear is a bit far away for local characters.

And anyway, I don't have an adventure to run. I've been kicking the idea around and wanted to see what others had done.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by robject:
And anyway, I don't have an adventure to run.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? It's why I haven't progressed beyond tinkering with the setting myself.

What I think you need to do is to:
1. Get a solid feel for what the campaign is about. That is, what, exactly, are the PCs supposed to be doing.

2. Design a "subsetting", which supports 1. The problem with a particular historical period like the Civil Wars is that events occur over a massive area and an extended period of time. The PCs aren't going to be able to be everywhere at once, and, in fact, are likely to end up having to be satisfied with a worm's eye view of things.

That means that if you want to establish a particular distinct feel for the period, you will probably need to establish an area that functions as a microcosm of the whole Imperium, which features power struggles similar to what is going on elsewhere. (A hint: read the material on the history of the 4518 Lift Infantry that first appeared in JTAS #9.)

This probably will involve local factions whose struggles with each other intersect with the bigger picture. Their fortunes may end up rising and falling with their allies elsewhere, while at the same time influencing those larger struggles.

3. Once you have your subsetting, and a theme for what the PCs are supposed to be doing to influence it, your scenario design can begin in earnest.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I not sure I see the problem... how is not having an adventure cut into the fun of making a new Character?

 

[robject]

Thanks -- a little direction is a good thing. I'd better put on my thinking cap.

Although, adventures tend to not need over-thinking. They just need to be consistent. Tied together. String of pearls.

Great idea about the background history a la Spinward Marches Campaign.

 

[alanb]

A useful quote from the Library Data entry for the Civil War:
---
The fighting in the Civil War was of two varieties: fringe battles for power bases, and central battles for power in the Core. The fringe battles were fought throughout the Imperium as rival factions recruited forces. Once any power block built up enough strength to make victory seem possible, the forces were moved to the Core and used to either seize power or to wrest it away from someone else.
---

This could help provide a bit of a framework for a campaign. It would start as a "fringe" conflict - part military, part espionage, part diplomacy - and if the PC's faction are successful, move onto a struggle for the actual throne. And if that succeeds, a struggle to retain it...

Again, the 4518 article gives a glimpse at one aspect of such a "fringe battle".

The Rebellion Sourcebook would be handy too, particularly in its discussion of how to win over Hi-Pop worlds (and their resources).

 

[robject]

What is the character of a "Fringe Battle"? What are the stages it goes through?

</font>

• a leader with something to offer</font>
• recruitment to establish a power base</font>
• 'actions' to make the foundation firm</font>
• expand power base</font>
• solidify</font>
• etc</font>

'Actions' are the espionage, diplomacy, and military activities you've mentioned. All three can be used to strengthen one's power base, or weaken someone else's.

Diplomacy: making a deal, or making a threat.
Espionage: rescuing information, or taking it captive.
Military: showing the flag, or capturing someone else's.

Setbacks erode the power base, essentially representing a step backwards. Either by weakening the existing base, or by removing the weak bits from the game.

 

[alanb]

Some thoughts on factions:

(Obviously these are my ideas, which you are entirely entitled and encouraged to replace with your own).

Factions can exist at both local and Imperial levels. "Imperial" factions probably are, in reality, coalitions of local factions.

Local factions may, under certain circumstances, defect between "Imperial" factions.

All factions are vulnerable to splitting, and some may fuse with others. Some will be relatively stable, while others may be rather fluid.

Generally speaking, in any area of the Imperium there will be at least two factions: the "Ins" and the "Outs". The "Ins" are, of course, those who are currently in power and favour, while the "Outs" are those who aren't, and would like to be. Of course, each are likely to have their sub-groups.

"Fringe battles", then, are power struggles between regional/local factions that are either allied to what I have called "Imperial" factions, or which are seeking to become "Imperial" factions themselves. (Actually, in the latter case, it would probably be more correct to say 'become the centre of "Imperial" factions', since they would have to ally with other local factions to do so).

So... is there anything more to these factions than naked self-interest? Well, yes and no.

Some definitely will have ideologies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the early stages of the war consisted of a struggle for control of the Imperium between two more or less ideologically defined groups.

There is evidence to justify this arbitrary choice in the Emperors List. Early on in the Civil War there was something of a pattern of alternation between Emperors that were approved by the Moot, and those who weren't. It would be quite plausible to suggest that the conflict began as a power struggle between broad "Moot" and "Fleet" factions, that is, the supporters of "legitimacy" versus the supporters of Plankwell and his successors.

This, incidentally, makes Plankwell's overthrow particularly amusing. The Legitimists resorted to bribery to get rid of him! Presumably the Fleet was originally overwhelmingly on his side, and the Legitimists couldn't reassert themselves until it split...

Of course, once power changed hands a few times, it is hardly surprising that the original factions became less cohesive, resulting in the pattern that seems to have appeared later in the war, where the whole Moot thing became less relevant, and the Emperors seem to have been more or less straightforward warlords.

All of this seems vaguely compatible both with the evidence we have (the Emperors List), and with historical situations where nations broke down into warlordism. (I'm particularly thinking of post-Imperial China, where the Republic collapsed after a few years, and of the successors of Alexander the Great).

In concrete terms, then, a particular campaign will involved at least two local factions (and, quite likely, their sub-factions), which will probably form along the lines of existing rivalries, but which will theoretically define themselves by their relationships to the 'central' "Imperial" factions.

Over the course of the campaign, the local factions may well redefine themselves (and same may be wiped out!), but there will always be rivalries between the "Ins" and the "Outs".

So: when designing a campaign, an early step, after choosing a physical location for the game, will designing the local factions, their leaders, their resources, and what resources and alliances they will be competing for.