[GALACTIC] Berlin Playtest 2007

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Session 1 - Character and setting creation

These are a few of my impressions of our first Galactic session on Monday. All in all it took us a little more than 2,5 hours to finish characters, factions, worlds and one quest (seed?) per Captain. All four of them. 

Preparation was fairly fast and easy. I gave the players a very quick and condensed history of the background first, although I have to admit I'm not much of a fan of either reading a lot of setting information or relaying it to players. Having covered the basics: humans on Caliban, the Scrouge and so on, we tackled Factions first. It seemed the easiest thing to do, as one player was coming in late.

I gave the players a quick rundown of the things they needed to flesh out about each faction and they set down to scribble away furiously. Interestingly enough, there was little to no interaction among the players as they did so. Also I think that it might be nice to have the aspects for Faction or World printed on a ready-made form. I'm not sure if that's because it'd be helpful, or because I've spent so much time among Germans. ;-)

We then moved on to creating Captains in much the same way. We worked our way through each step/aspect of the character, with me just announcing what they have to do next and them writing their ideas down on their notes. The only part that was a bit confusing at first, was the distinction between Concept and Personality. But we basically just threw the two together and carried on.

Next was coming up with different Worlds for the game, which we handled in pretty much the same way. With the occasional bit of interaction among the players to make sure they didn't double up on planet names or planet concepts. Water planets seemed to have been very popular with this group, but then again it was freaking hot that day.

We then came up with crewmembers, which was the first time there was some proper interaction among the players. They described their Captain's personality and the other players tried to come up with crewmembers who could easily provide some conflict for the Captain. Thinking back, I'm a little fuzzy about whether the Crew Agenda in a scene should be about the Captain butting heads with the crew or not.

Another thing I noticed was that the factions we came up with, veered a little into the unusual. We had a religious order (Holy Church of Isabel), a mining company (Universal Mining Garbage & Shiprescuing Corp.), a fast food chain (McDonalds Drive-In Corp., seriously) and "Space Pirates" (Free Traders). The atmosphere was overall closer to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy than to Battlestar Galactica. I'm not sure if you, Matt, have a specific style in mind with the game or if it's supposed to be wide-open. Either way, I expect some slight adjustments to happen during play eventually. Mostly because the players instinctively equated "loss of crewmember" as that crewmember dying and from a first read-through the game seems to nudge the Captain towards having to occasionally sacrifice a crewmember. So the first crewmember biting it might lead to the players re-evaluating their view of the game's atmosphere. But maybe I'm just overestimating the difficulty of it all.

Starting quests were done fairly quickly as well. Although I had to explain "cliffhangers" a little more thoroughly. Mostly because putting them at the start of a story seemed a little unusual. After character creation I went through a sample conflict with the players, so they could get a feel for it and especially recognize the importance of winning the crew agenda. Which reminds me, does the GM start the game with any Hazard at all or does he accumulate it after losing dice in the first conflict? Also, I read in one of the threads that you wanted to make "1 Fortune spent = 1 Hazard for the GM" a rule of the game. Does that still hold? I don't remember reading anything about it in the playtest files. And one last thing, I noticed that a playsheet for the GM might be a good idea as well. Especially when it comes to tracking doubt dice of each crewmember, as well as having the two tables on hand for quick reference.

Overall, the players are cautiously optimistic I think, and not quite sure what to make of the game so far. There will probably be some more solid comments after Monday's session.

One bit that caught me off-guard was how excited I am about the game and taking everything the players came up with and turning it into our game's setting and adventures. That's fairly unusual, as I've never much cared for developing setting as a GM.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Joh, thanks for the feedback!

So yeah, I guess when I leave stuff out of the playtest doc, I leave out the big stuff. You're right. Every time players spend Fortune, for any reason, the GM gets it as Hazard. And yes, the GM starts with 5 Hazard per captain. That worked great for me with 3 captains. Let me know if 20 feels like too much with 4 captains.

It makes me laugh, shamefully, that I left both those things out. Sorry.

As far as creating factions and then captains, I prefer it that you create the captains you want, then come up with factions and worlds that suit them. I'd say the McDonald's thing is a little less edgy than I intend the setting to be. Your guesses about crew sacrifice are in line with what I'm imagining (it's also sad to think that if civilization rebooted on a distant world, we'd invent fast food again).

One bit that caught me off-guard was how excited I am about the game and taking everything the players came up with and turning it into our game's setting and adventures.

Excellent. I've always been a kind of writer's block GM, so I wanted the players to provide a near sensory overload of ideas. I'm glad that's working.

Thanks again for posting. I'm really looking forward to seeing how play goes. Also, I wonder what else is missing from the text.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

As far as creating factions and then captains, I prefer it that you create the captains you want, then come up with factions and worlds that suit them.

I can see how creating captains first and factions and worlds second could work really well. But with my group and in fact with many gamers I know, this is very unusual and can cause problems. I've met a lot of players who want or need a setting to work with, when coming up with a character. It has to do with buying into the setting, I think, which is harder when it is explicitly designed for the characters.

[Emily Care]

Mostly because the players instinctively equated "loss of crewmember" as that crewmember dying and from a first read-through the game seems to nudge the Captain towards having to occasionally sacrifice a crewmember. So the first crewmember biting it might lead to the players re-evaluating their view of the game's atmosphere. But maybe I'm just overestimating the difficulty of it all.

There's a lot of life lost in Hitchhiker's as I recall--though mostly not the main named characters. Did this aspect get your players to engage by raising the stakes? It's very genre to my mind, very old trek and more currently a la BSG.

Nice write up by the way. What were some of the adventures the crew went through?

best,
Emily

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Sadly, two players had to cancel at the last minute so Galactic has been postponed to next Monday. But I've a couple of questions instead.

Am I reading this right, that losing a quest means that many people suffer or die, but that the objective is reached eventually?

What happens to Trust/Doubt dice when a crewmember is removed or to Hazard when a Captain is switched? I'm thinking they'd be reset to zero, is that right?

Emily, so far we've only finished character creation. We won't start any actual adventuring until next week. But I'll keep an eye on how the players deal with stakes when they look at crewmembers dieing instead of merely being removed from the story.

[Matt Wilson]

Am I reading this right, that losing a quest means that many people suffer or die, but that the objective is reached eventually?

Technically there's no way to lose a quest. There's ways for the captain to die, and a point where the consequences may seem too great for the player. But game mechanics only ensure that a quest is completed: win three conflicts.

What happens to Trust/Doubt dice when a crewmember is removed or to Hazard when a Captain is switched? I'm thinking they'd be reset to zero, is that right?

Trust and doubt stick with their respective crewmembers. If you have two Doubt with Zelda, then those are for when Zelda is in the scene. Hazard is constant. If you finish a scene with Modo and you're up to 10 Hazard, and now it's Mette's turn, then you have 10 Hazard available for Mette's conflict. Based on the game's economy, you have to think about how you want to spend your Hazard each time. It rises and falls much more fluidly than Budget in Primetime Adventures. If you dump Hazard on Mette and have none left for Klaus, then Klaus gets an easier conflict.

There's more freedom in Galactic for the GM to really give the characters grief. You can push them to see what they're willing to do, but it involves just a bit of care that you don't spend all your Hazard only to lose it when the player concedes.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Thanks for the quick reply.

I've phrased my question badly though, I was interested in what happens to the Hazard and Doubt/Trust score, when characters die / are removed from the quest. That is, when a crewmember ends up with 5 or more Trauma or when 2 archetypes are reduced to zero.

From what you said, I'd assume that Hazard remains the same, but Doubt/Trust is set to zero, when the new crewmember enters the game at the next quest. Actually now that I think about it... is it at all possible to have a "traumatised" crewmember return somehow? Or are they gone for good once they've hit their trauma limit?

[Matt Wilson]

Guten Tag, Joe, or Guten Abend, whichever it is:

Traumatized characters are gone for good when they max out their trauma, and their attached scores go with them.

Hazard stays the same because it's the GM's resource and has nothing to do with individual captains.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

We had our first proper Galactic session on Monday. Overall it was a lot of fun, despite us still trying to get settled with the game and figuring out how we want to play it.

Our group features four captains, with a fifth one possibly joining us next week. Here's a quick rundown of them and their crew.

Tim Hammit (Jannis) is the Captain of the Flying Dutchman. He's basically Sean Connery from Hunt for Red October. Capt. Hammit is on the run from the Caliban government for deserting his post. During what he deemed a suicide mission, he disobeyed orders and brought his crew to safety instead. His crew consists of Gasparo, a chronicler, who idolises him; Zoltan, his ambitious security officer, and John Porter, his XO with a knack for scrounging. In his first quest Capt. Hammit would have to rescue his daughter Dalia from the hands of Caliban's Internal Security.

Gerechter Michel (Niklas) - which roughly translates to Michel, the Just - is a politically motivated idealist and pirate, who's committed his life to fighting slave labour. He commands the Bonzenschreck (very loosely translated as Filthy Rich Guys' Bane) and also Jean-Pierre, the original politically correct advisor and idealogue; Esso his personal bodyguard bound to Michel by oath and skilled in espionage and finally Barton, the chief engineer. His first quest deals with trying to buy back a slave ship and crew from a merchant when he discovers that they are in fact completely broke.

Connor O'Hara (Simon) is the captain of the Silencer, and part of Caliban's starship fleet. He's a bit of a bigot in that he considers his purpose to be to serve and protect humankind first and foremost. His crew includes Sergei, the Cook; Dr. McNeal who's something of a conscience to O'Hara and Varona the four-armed alien engineer who has served the longest under O'Hara's command. The Silencer stumbles upon the wreck of a spaceship that seems to serve as the first taste of an entire armada preparing a huge attack.

Capt. René Rømø (Erik) has the Emily Morena, a spaceship under the employ of the Kierkegaard University and on a scientific research mission. He served in the Fleet before being dishonourably discharged for a diplomatic faux pas. His current crew includes Cameron Carter, weapon expert and admirer of the Captain; Vonk the ship's translator and the captain's blood brother and Moonshine who is not as much of a flower child as his parents and who has his eyes on Rømø's wife. Their first quest would lead him through the Danadorian Labyrinths and to the mysterious inscriptions there.

It may or may not be apparent in the description, but there was a certain tongue-in-cheek feel to all the characters. Not in the sense of being caricatures to be laughed at and ridiculed, but more of everybody enjoying, what we considered, the outlandish and over-the-top elements of the characters.

GM prep was a bit more difficult than I expected, as I wasn't sure how close I should stick to what the players had given me. While their notes presumably made perfect sense to them, I was often left scratching my head wondering how to come up with situations that would tie in together on an at least remotely sensible level. That was mostly due to some very detailed descriptions which lacked any kind of context to make sense of them. Details and descriptions that sounded ominous and very colorful, but which didn't actually carry a lot of content to work with. 

I wondered if I was supposed to construct elaborate explanations and backstory to each quest to tie in every info the players had come up with for their planets? Or should I pick and choose whatever I liked and fill in the blanks with whatever made sense to me? I decided to trust the players to have provided me with enough content to produce quests they could buy into and be engaged by, and that I wouldn't worry about what seemed like gaping plot and logic flaws to me. Namely getting from the cliffhanger to the quest objective usually required copious amounts of backstory. This would be a bit of a problem during the game, when each Cliffhanger-scene required an expository monologue by me first.

I'll post the quests later as well as our groups' first impressions with the game.   

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Galactic Session #1 (June 4)

The game lasted about 3 hours and we wrapped up the evening talking about the game, our impressions and so on. We all agreed that we had to adjust the tone and expectations a little, as the rules seem fairly unforgiving (or maybe that was just me as the GM).

We had some difficulty at first figuring out just what to draw from to come up with crew agendas for a conflict. There was some confusion among the players about whether the crew agenda is something that is against the interests of the Captain but in the interests of the crew or whether it can or should be in opposition to the plot agenda. In our post-game discussion we agreed, that  it  makes sense that the crew agenda is something that the Captain's player should want as well. But on the other hand, the mechanical rewards for winning the crew agenda (or rather not losing it) might be the only required incentive for the player to want to win the crew agenda. Re-reading the text, it seems to me that the crew agenda is about what a crewmember wants from the Captain or possibly about putting the relationship between Captain and crewmember at risk. That the crew agenda isn't derived from the situation at hand (that would be the plot agenda) but is essentially a relationship conflict. Is that right?

One thing that I was unsure about as a GM was how much backstory I should provide with each scene. On the one hand I think that just throwing the players into a colourless situation makes for a very dry scene ("You're in front of a door. You hear screams of help on the other side, what do you do?"); on the other hand I don't like holding exposition speeches unless I absolutely have to. My players are fond of throwing in lots of details and backstory as they play their characters, I'm not sure how well this actually works in Galactic. And how much the GM should be the only authority on background, setting and situation. What I missed (or overlooked?) in the text was some kind of guideline on what kind of  "authority division" (for lack of a better term) Galactic requires to work right, and what is up to the group. We also overlooked the "highest die gets to narrate" rule which made for very GM-centric story development.

One thing I wasn't sure about was whether I could spend Hazard in-between rolls, much like players can spend Fortune. It's not stated anywhere explicitly but I assumed it was possible, although it did make every conflict very difficult for the Captains. One player went so far as to say that even winning a conflict felt more like bleeding to victory. Additionally, does it ever make sense for the GM to concede a conflict? Even removed doubt dice can potentially inflict harm on crewmembers. Or is the GM supposed to concede conflicts for pacing reasons?

Surprisingly enough the switch from quest to quest was far less distracting than I feared, although it does take some book-keeping to stay on top of it all. At least more than I usually do. I'm also not quite sure how long a scene should last, or rather if attempting to finish 4 quests in a three-hour game is a reasonable goal. We wrapped up the game with only one successful quest and three Captains about half-way through their quest.

The quests were:
Capt. Rømø's cliffhanger: "Finding a way out of the Danadorian Labyrinths"
Objective: "exploration of the labyrinths"
He lost both agendas in both of his scenes, leaving one un-named crewmember dead and the others heavily injured in the Labyrinths.

Capt. O'hara's cliffhanger: "a shipwreck adrift in space"
Objective: "Defeat a group of mysterious bandits attacking a trade route with unknown technology"
Won two plot agendas, yet lost both crew agendas. He has now the support of a planetary fleet and gears up for the bandits' coming attack, but has the crew uncertain about the future. 

Capt. Hammit's cliffhanger: "written communication of the government demanding Hammit's immediate surrender"
Objective: "free his daughter from the government's clutches"
Finished his quest and rescued his daughter from a robot-run planet, but I'm unsure about the crew agendas. I think he failed most of them (although they did all consist of the crew trying to make some quick money while on the planet).

Capt. Michel's cliffhanger: "during negotiations with a merchant the Captain discovers that they have no money left"
Objective: "find money to buy off the enslaved ship and crew"
Won a crew agenda and plot agenda each in his two scenes, leading to the merchant's crew joining him and Michel finding a suitable ship to rob in order to pay off the merchant.

Funnily enough, I think Hammit's quest probably was closest to how Galactic is supposed to work in regards to the crew/plot agenda distinction. Looking back I think we often simply tried to double up the plot agendas in each conflict, as opposed to looking at what the crewmembers want. I expect next week to run much smoother. I haven't decided yet, whether I will start the second quest with Capt. Hammit already or wrap up the other quests first and start the second quest for each Captain the following week.

[Erik_P]

As one of Georgios' players I'd like to add a few points.

My (Rene Romo) first scene started in a labyrinth. We enabled a secret mechanism that caused the entrance to close. Not until the end of our session I realized that it wasn't Joe's write up inspired by Hyperion but that it was me who framed the cliffhanger two weeks ago. Thus Joe took me a little bit by surprise when he expected me to act based upon my writings.

When trapped in the cave I decided to send out Moonshine to find a way out and asked Vonk to take care of Cameron Carter. I hoped that Joe would provide me with some information to work with and to get rid of my rival. Well, as Joe said he isn't the greatest fan of colorful descriptions. So we players enjoyed ourselves with some aimless in-character chatting until we found old Danadorian inscriptions. Joe pressed forward to frame the conflicts as described above.

First scene: I lost all my dice at the first role. I lost two points of my explorer edge(?). IIRC two of my crew were harmed. One red shirt dead. I gained one doubt.
Second scene: I lost all my dice at the first role. I lost two points of my explorer edge(?). IIRC one crew member was harmed.

Overall I liked playing the game. Most of the time all players were actively participating in every scene. Nevertheless conflict framing posed some problems. In my eyes our/the play before the first dice role needs improvement. For me the pacing felt not right. We were either to slow or to fast. How much time do you guys invest to frame a scene? How much role-playing is involved? I think for us the fun started with re-rolling the dices. The situation offers more tactical opportunities, inaccessible in the first round because now the number of dices is reduced significantly, and more space for in-character play (old habits die hard). Unfortunately I never reached this stadium.

So that's for now.

Erik

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Joe:

I'm just about to get in a truck and drive 700 km. Tonight when I have my feet up and a beer in my hand I'll make sure to respond. Thanks for posting again.

[Matt Wilson]

Okay, I've successfully moved halfway across the country, at least to a temporary stop. Let me try and tackle a few of these questions...

Re-reading the text, it seems to me that the crew agenda is about what a crewmember wants from the Captain or possibly about putting the relationship between Captain and crewmember at risk. That the crew agenda isn't derived from the situation at hand (that would be the plot agenda) but is essentially a relationship conflict. Is that right?

Yes, that's a good way to think about it. I imagine it as a part of the overall conflict that addresses the quality of the relationship between captain and a crewmember. You may not need to know what the conflict is about going into it, just that their relationship isn't perfect to begin with and the high stakes of a galaxy-spanning quest will crank up tension between them.

If you could provide some captain and crew information, I can suggest how the crew agendas might manifest during a conflict.

One thing that I was unsure about as a GM was how much backstory I should provide with each scene. On the one hand I think that just throwing the players into a colourless situation makes for a very dry scene ("You're in front of a door. You hear screams of help on the other side, what do you do?"); on the other hand I don't like holding exposition speeches unless I absolutely have to. My players are fond of throwing in lots of details and backstory as they play their characters, I'm not sure how well this actually works in Galactic. And how much the GM should be the only authority on background, setting and situation. What I missed (or overlooked?) in the text was some kind of guideline on what kind of  "authority division" (for lack of a better term) Galactic requires to work right, and what is up to the group. We also overlooked the "highest die gets to narrate" rule which made for very GM-centric story development.

One drawback of playtest docs is that they usually aren't presented in their final, desired format. I suspect that it's easy for playtesters to miss something that would probably be bold and big in the for-sale version. There are some authority guidelines, somewhere in the very beginning of the "playing the game" section. I don't have a printed copy near me, but I know they're in there. Based on your feedback, I'll definitely consider talking more about scenes, how much to say, etc.

One thing I wasn't sure about was whether I could spend Hazard in-between rolls, much like players can spend Fortune. It's not stated anywhere explicitly but I assumed it was possible, although it did make every conflict very difficult for the Captains. One player went so far as to say that even winning a conflict felt more like bleeding to victory. Additionally, does it ever make sense for the GM to concede a conflict? Even removed doubt dice can potentially inflict harm on crewmembers. Or is the GM supposed to concede conflicts for pacing reasons?

You can spend Hazard between rolls, either to keep from losing dice or to add more dice. I must have forgotten to put that table in. Oops. The cost is 1 point more than it would to buy that die at the beginning of the conflict. If the GM spends too much on a conflict, the player has the option to just concede right away, and the GM loses all the hazard spent. The GM shouldn't have quite enough Hazard available to make every conflict near impossible.

I had a big long talk with the players at Forge Midwest about conceding vs. losing outright, and I came up with some incentives and clarifications for both player and GM. Except now I can't remember what they are. I'm still a little verucht from all the packing and driving. I'll try to find my notes when I unpack the truck today. The short version is yes, it can be good to concede.

Surprisingly enough the switch from quest to quest was far less distracting than I feared, although it does take some book-keeping to stay on top of it all. At least more than I usually do. I'm also not quite sure how long a scene should last, or rather if attempting to finish 4 quests in a three-hour game is a reasonable goal. We wrapped up the game with only one successful quest and three Captains about half-way through their quest.

It's going to be slower when you're learning the rules from a playtest doc with minimal formatting. One hour per captain per quest would be a nice goal for the finished game.

As far as what to say, how to get scenes rolling, the rules about authority explain who has final say, not who gets to say anything at all. Let the players shout out some ideas, then choose the bits you want and put it all together.

Capt. Rømø's cliffhanger: "Finding a way out of the Danadorian Labyrinths"
Objective: "exploration of the labyrinths"
He lost both agendas in both of his scenes, leaving one un-named crewmember dead and the others heavily injured in the Labyrinths.

Do you mean actual crewmembers played by the other players? Two scenes wouldn't create enough trauma to kill a crewmember. Or do you mean generic "redshirt" crew?

Funnily enough, I think Hammit's quest probably was closest to how Galactic is supposed to work in regards to the crew/plot agenda distinction. Looking back I think we often simply tried to double up the plot agendas in each conflict, as opposed to looking at what the crewmembers want. I expect next week to run much smoother. I haven't decided yet, whether I will start the second quest with Capt. Hammit already or wrap up the other quests first and start the second quest for each Captain the following week.

The quests all sound pretty cool, at least from the brief summaries. Next time you play, I'd really appreciate a closer look at one of the conflicts, where you started, who decided what, how each dice roll went, what the agendas were, etc.

For examples of crew agenda and plot agenda, maybe when I have a moment, I'll post some more examples from a playtest I did earlier.

Vielen Dank!

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Sorry it took so long. It's been a hectic couple of weeks dealing with uni deadlines. We managed to play two sessions in the meantime. The first one wrapped up the first quest for each captain. We lost four crewmen in total (two under Capt. O'Hara's command, one of Michel's men and one of Capt. Rømø's crew). My Hazard scorewas almost down to zero by the end. The second session involved only 1 captain and 2 crewmen and was a rousing success, with Capt. O'Hara gaining 4 points of trust in total.

We are still struggling a bit with crew agendas, although in our post-game discussion we realised that this might have something to do with how we play through a scene. We're all very used to games like Shadowrun, Warhammer or D&D, where the GM adds most of the details and descriptions and each player expands the scene through small additions when the character does something. Those additions pile up over time and there's no rush to add some nice little detail right now, because you can easily do it one or two scenes later. After a while of playing like this you end up with a fairly dense setting and situation which seems to have developed "organically" because you got there in baby steps.

After yesterday's game it became apparent to me that we cannot play Galactic this way. That there is a strictly defined window of opportunity each turn where everybody at the table expands the scene, adds little details and descriptions and throws in new ideas. But most importantly, that making the most of this window of opportunity is necessary for the conflicts to really kick in.

What happened in our games was that the Captain and I quickly hashed out details to lead us to the quest agenda of the scene, while the crewmembers looked on. Once we were done, the crewmembers would use the quest agenda as a jumping off point to find the crew agenda. Which often led to some serious twisting and turning in order to tie the crewmember's relationship into the scene somehow (as we didn't want to re-phrase the established scene since we already had a working quest agenda).

This is something that might already be part of the text, but the importance and necessity of really sitting down and adding to the scene together in order for the agendas to emerge and have some weight, didn't register with me (us?) until now.

Unfortunately we (again) overlooked that the player is supposed to request a scene before the GM frames it. This lead to me as the GM having a far bigger influence in shaping the captain's character and journey than I expected. The players didn't seem to mind much and I can imagine this happening fairly often with experienced gaming groups. Another thing we stumbled on by accident (the captains sent me all their quests by e-mail) was keeping the nature of the quest hidden from the crewmembers. It seemed like a really neat idea to encourage players to play towards their crewmembers' interests and not really worry about how it all fit into the big scheme. But it might have also added to them not getting involved in the development of the scene before the conflict. Maybe Erik can add his impressions later.

Because of our various schedules we decided to focus only one captain, which will hopefully allow us to wrap up the second quest for the other captains next time we play. This time the conflicts played out very differently. While Simon (Capt. O'Hara) still had to struggle a little to win, it didn't feel quite as hopeless as the first quest. Mostly because I was down to 3 Hazard throughout most of the quest. After a fairly harrowing first quest (which left two of O'Hara's crewmembers dead) this second quest was far more successful. Unfortunately I can't tell, whether that is because the numbers work out so well or because playing with only one Captain doesn't really allow Hazard to build up.

Which reminds me of another question: when players spend Fortune during a conflict I get Hazard. Can they spend Fortune outside of a conflict (at the beginning of a scene or afterwards) as well, thus not increasing my Hazard score?

If you could provide some captain and crew information, I can suggest how the crew agendas might manifest during a conflict.

To be honest not a whole lot (other than what I posted earlier) has been established about them during the game yet. At least not much that comes to mind. I think this has to do with how we dealt with scenes.

We're slowly getting a hold of what the Relationship is, how it affects the game and how we're supposed to use it. The Relationship is not as straightforward as a Devil in Dust Devils (which is how Niklas approached it) and it's not as far in the background as Careers in Warhammer (which is what Jannis first used them as). I think part of our difficulty stems from the fact, that these relationships haven't emerged as we played the game but were set up beforehand. I think we will find the new crewmembers that will show up in the next quest to be much easier to "figure out", because there's some (implicit) history to them already. Right now I think this might just be a particular hang-up of our group.

Do you mean actual crewmembers played by the other players? Two scenes wouldn't create enough trauma to kill a crewmember. Or do you mean generic "redshirt" crew?

They were generic redshirt crew. Nameless and added only for dramatic effect. The first quest did eventually end with one "named" crewmember dead, when he racked up 5 points of trauma after a spectacularly bad series of rolls.

The quests all sound pretty cool, at least from the brief summaries. Next time you play, I'd really appreciate a closer look at one of the conflicts, where you started, who decided what, how each dice roll went, what the agendas were, etc.

One of my favourite scenes so far, involved Michel capturing and taking over another ship while Jean-Pierre (Erik) led the crew agenda, which questioned the motives of the Captain. The scene was put together very quickly. First I established that they had entered the ship they had meant to steal from. Michel announced he wasn't just going to steal the cargo but also the entire ship, which was basically what we used as the quest agenda. When we looked for the crew agenda, Erik suggested that Jean-Pierre would want an ideological justification for it. I don't quite remember the dice used, but we ended up with Michel successfully taking over the ship, but losing the crew agenda. As he did so, Jean-Pierre also ended up with his fifth point of trauma. I'm not sure who suggested it, but we settled on Jean-Pierre going for his Little Red Book in his breast pocket to prove how Michel was becoming a capitalist exploiter. Michel mistook his gesture as him going for a gun, so Michel shot him first.

As Erik mentioned tieing dice use and results to specific narration nicely pulls the group into the game. It's just that since we're not as secure with how to narrate outside of dice rolls, the game seems a little lopsided so far. I also just noticed that nobody has filled in the Quest Descriptions or the Quest Rewards on their sheet, which suggests to me that we focus on the dice a lot and not enough on what's going on around the conflicts.

[Matt Wilson]

Thanks again Georgios (do you go by Joe? or is that just a LJ fluke?). Don't worry about taking long. I'm actually in between homes right now. 90 percent of everything I own is in boxes, so I'm up to my neck in stress and chaos.

Your interpretations are giving me some good ideas for how to present certain parts of the text. I think your realization of "we cannot play Galactic this way" is fairly accurate. Depending on future playtest reports, I'll consider addressing that topic loud and clear.

It's always a challenge figuring out what the audience does or does not already know or assume. Even with a target audience I'm going to run into some bumps. Thanks for continuing to plow through it.

Regarding crew and agendas, did you apply any of the sample relationships listed on p. 32?