[The War for Eridani] The Big Three and some questions.

[ElliottBelser MKII]

What's the game's about?  The War for Eridani is a roleplaying wargame that asks: Can you win the War for Eridani and remain a decent human being?

What do the characters do?  Your characters are special operatives, I want to say "special psychic operatives," from the Solar Confederation Armed Forces.  You are also field leaders.  Your mission: retake the colonies of Epsilon Eridani from the alien threat of the Draconians, while winning the support of the Eridani colonists.  If you simply take the colonies back, then you'll be harried by attacks from your own for years to come:  If you simply curry favor with the colonists, you will lose the planet.  Destroy the enemy base to win.  The enemy can destroy your base to make you lose.

What do the players (and GM, if there is one) do?  Players direct the fate of the planet by choosing colonies to take and either sending in troops, playing out missions in them, or both.  They also purchase troops, starfleets, technology, and colonial leaders (ha ha).  Players portray a single feild leader, and determine the effect that thier actions have on thier own views and morality.  That leader must manage a stable of NPC characters (or perhaps, secondary characters for other players?). 

MEANwhile, the GM makes a physical map and a relationship map to inspire the campaign.  She purchases much the same things, moves troops, plays the Cast of Thousands and the Villians, and provides adversity and hard choices between what is militarily effective and what is politically inspiring.  The GM, note, does not provide a choice between the effective thing, the inspiring thing, and the "right thing."  No judgement, except by the players for thier own characters.

Some of my questions include:

1) Should the operatives in the leaders stable be NPC's, or other PC's secondary characters?

2) I think there should be one relationship map for an entire campaign, not one for each adventure.  Is this a viable way of inspiring adventures?  Or should there be R-maps for each colony, made by the GM or even, egads, the players?

3) And, of course, is the idea solid?  Where do I need to make it less gelatinous?

[Jason Morningstar]

1) Should the operatives in the leaders stable be NPC's, or other PC's secondary characters?

2) I think there should be one relationship map for an entire campaign, not one for each adventure.  Is this a viable way of inspiring adventures?  Or should there be R-maps for each colony, made by the GM or even, egads, the players?

3) And, of course, is the idea solid?  Where do I need to make it less gelatinous?

You might look at the way Galactic (still in playtest) handles "crew", which fill the role of your stable of NPCs here.  I'm definitely in favor of interleaving secondary characters to create involvement in the stories across the table. 

As far as making a single R-map, I think that's cool.  It's what you want to do, so go for it - I can imagine it leading to a universe full or serendipity and strange coincidence, much like a television program.  It will encourage a focus on your central theme - keeping your humanity intact while making difficult military decisions. 

It sounds like there will be a board-game-esque component to this, so again, I'd really encourage you to check out Galactic and read some actual play reports about that game.  I'm not clear on how those elements come into play to address your premise from your write-up.