PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Excuse why their commander isn't helping the party



Dornith
2016-06-29, 11:32 PM
Hey, so I'm going to be starting off a new, shorter role play with some fiends in a custom setting with a few custom races. It's mostly to get a feel for how balanced the abilities are and get every acquainted with the setting so that we can hopefully do some more with it.

Basically, the story takes place in a confederacy of five countries. Each of them are more-or-less independent with with own governments, economies, and culture. What binds them together is a weak collective governing body, some free trade agreements, and (most relevant to this story) a shared military. I decided to have each of the players make a character who would get involved with the army for one reason or another so I could have them preform short, one-shot missions and as an explanation as to why they are all together.

My only problem is, why do I do with their commanding officer? I don't want them to be too active in the campaign, and really more of just a side character. I need a believable reason why he can't be involved in the mission directly.

For their first mission, I was planning on something basic, such as, "Bandits are raiding the eastern farming village. Protect them and drive off the pillagers."

Slipperychicken
2016-06-29, 11:53 PM
Got a few:

-The questgiver has to do paperwork and help organize strategy, so he usually has to stick around base all day. He wishes he could follow the party into battle, but his place is back there with the pencil-pushers, entitled noble kids, and armchair-generals.

-The questgiver is injured, lame, or otherwise unfit to fight. He's still good for giving orders though, so that's what he's doing.

-The questgiver's bosses don't want him getting captured because he knows too much about their plans to be risked in the field. The PCs however know next to nothing, so it is acceptable in their eyes to risk them.

Vitruviansquid
2016-06-30, 02:05 AM
Why would the party need help? They *are* the help.

Douglas
2016-06-30, 02:12 AM
Why would the party need help? They *are* the help.
Yeah, this. An army commander above a certain rank isn't going to get personally involved in driving off some bandits in a remote village - that's what his subordinates (namely, the PCs) are for! His role is to give the party a mission, tell them all the information he thinks they'll need to know about it, tell them to get to it, and then turn to the next group of soldiers and start on the same thing for their mission.

Harmelyo
2016-06-30, 03:02 AM
Depending on the way you plan on taking the game afterward, you could also paint the officer as a coward too scared to take any risk or a noble kid utterly useless or so full of himself to the extent that it is the players that desire not to have him coming

Dornith
2016-06-30, 08:31 AM
Yeah, this. An army commander above a certain rank isn't going to get personally involved in driving off some bandits in a remote village - that's what his subordinates (namely, the PCs) are for! His role is to give the party a mission, tell them all the information he thinks they'll need to know about it, tell them to get to it, and then turn to the next group of soldiers and start on the same thing for their mission.

Yeah, but they'd still have a Second Lieutenant or something equivalent, just to drive the mission. And at that low rank, you'd probably not be so invaluable that you couldn't be on the group.


I like the injured idea. As I was writing the OP, I was thinking he could get sick or something, but that seemed too much like a plot convenience solution. I think I might have their boat get ambushed on the way to the location and he get's injured in the battle. Thanks.

Blue Lantern
2016-06-30, 08:55 AM
The question mostly becomes what is the role of the party in the army, because assuming a regular party size of 4-6 they would be probably be some auxiliary unit, like a scouting party or a special force unit, not part of regular companies, in those cases their commanding officer would be the one they report to, but not otherwise be involved in their missions.
If that does not suit with you, you can always make one of the player the "on field" officer.

Thinker
2016-06-30, 09:05 AM
Yeah, but they'd still have a Second Lieutenant or something equivalent, just to drive the mission. And at that low rank, you'd probably not be so invaluable that you couldn't be on the group.


They don't need a second lieutenant. Just hand-wave it that they were promoted upon completion of their training. The CO will be directing a bunch of small groups. They might have an intermediary between them and the CO, but likewise, that person also needs to worry about multiple groups. If you really want some authority figure, just promote one of the PCs.

Temperjoke
2016-06-30, 09:20 AM
Politics. Its a shared military, right? Perhaps the policy, to assist with maintaining the fragile peace, is to keep officers above a certain rank from operating outside main cities, aside from recognized emergencies. This assures the various populations that an "outsider" isn't moving into a region to take permanent control, since the chain of command is extended so far away. If this sort of thing is going to be the case though, then one of the PCs needs an official rank, probably whichever character is going to be the face of the party.

Bohandas
2016-06-30, 09:24 AM
Possibly the commander has other underlings that also require his attention

and/or maybe he's just a desk jockey

hymer
2016-06-30, 09:32 AM
Yeah, but they'd still have a Second Lieutenant or something equivalent, just to drive the mission.

How big is this party? Since you're using modern ranks, I suppose a second lieutenant would be commanding at least 20-30 troops, right? Half that is probably a sergeant. Less than that a corporal. And it's not until now we're down to usual PC party size, right?
So promote the one with the highest leadership score to corporal, and have them be in charge, at least nominally.

Geddy2112
2016-06-30, 09:38 AM
There is always the possibility that the commander is grossly incompetent, maybe in a lot of aspects or maybe just at combat (a modern major general). They may have gotten a pass on combat due to tactical brilliance, or got a position in management due to nepotism or other connections, taking credit for the success of others, or maybe they just got really lucky.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-30, 11:32 AM
There is always the possibility that the commander is grossly incompetent, maybe in a lot of aspects or maybe just at combat (a modern major general). They may have gotten a pass on combat due to tactical brilliance, or got a position in management due to nepotism or other connections, taking credit for the success of others, or maybe they just got really lucky.

I like this. Having a dumb (or simply incompetent at battle, he could be really good at gardening) villain while everyone is getting used to things is I think a good idea. Easy to remember, easy to recap and people won't feel as if their skills don't matter because the intricate plot was hard to keep track of while everyone is getting used to things. Also works as a bit of comedic relief, and with optional dark humor! It also provides a bit of mystery of just who he is related to and why this matters to explain how he got his position. When the party gets this guy killed, you can introduce a more serious and competent villain looking for revenge.

CharonsHelper
2016-06-30, 01:33 PM
I don't understand the issue.

The PCs are awesome PCs. He isn't.

They're special forces and he's a standard lieutenant. Commanders don't go along with navy seals when they aren't one.

GrayDeath
2016-06-30, 02:06 PM
Well, they are Fiends :sabine:, as by your Opening Post, so the "FDo it or face my Wrath" line should work well enough. ^^


:belkar:




Less snarky: The Military usually works like this:

General to Commodore: I want to try out this new plan of mine, its dangerous but may prove valuable find some idiots to do it.

Commodore to Captain: General X wants his new Strategy proven right, send men to do X"

Captain to Lt.: Send some good men to X, patrolling and doing A. Prepare them for danger.

Lt to PC`s: Go ther, do A B and V. Come back safe if possible.

So no reason for any of their superiors to help them in any way, or even be THERE.

Mr Blobby
2016-07-03, 05:27 AM
A simple idea - the officer in question is competent, but nobody else seems to be.

The 'troops' he's been given are drafted peasants who had roughly two days of training before being sent to him. The fortifications are so full of holes that it doesn't stop wild animals, let alone the enemy. The supplies he gets are underweight [stolen by corrupt supply services] and frequently spoiled. His command staff are idiots, corrupt or inexperienced. All the while, HQ is under the impression he's got a full, experienced garrison ready for active service - they're not listening to the officers letters.

They can't go on missions - they're not sure if they'd have a base to get back to if he left with the party. As long as the party gets the job done and doesn't cause too much grief [like say burning down a village], they won't ask questions on how it's done.

Calen
2016-07-03, 08:03 AM
Ever watch Band of Brothers? You can see a couple flavors of leaders there that either wont or cant go out into combat. They send their subordinates to do it. Declare that one of your PC's is the sergeant or equivalent rank.
If you know which players is least likely to have that become an issue, then make them do it. Or choose the PC that has the highest leadership score. (Any mental stat would be good choices depending on how the military works.)

Keltest
2016-07-03, 08:59 AM
A simple idea - the officer in question is competent, but nobody else seems to be.

The 'troops' he's been given are drafted peasants who had roughly two days of training before being sent to him. The fortifications are so full of holes that it doesn't stop wild animals, let alone the enemy. The supplies he gets are underweight [stolen by corrupt supply services] and frequently spoiled. His command staff are idiots, corrupt or inexperienced. All the while, HQ is under the impression he's got a full, experienced garrison ready for active service - they're not listening to the officers letters.

They can't go on missions - they're not sure if they'd have a base to get back to if he left with the party. As long as the party gets the job done and doesn't cause too much grief [like say burning down a village], they won't ask questions on how it's done.

I like this explanation the best. It explains why your CO isn't with you, why the PCs specifically have to put out every fire that gets lit, ever, and why you don't ever work with other units to get something done. Plus, it can serve as a plot arc where you have to deal with the corruption and incompetence plaguing the outpost or whatever at some point.

Zalphon
2016-07-03, 03:03 PM
Officers are rare to see getting their hands dirty in the real world military. Some do, but I've known a lot more who don't.

That's what NCOs (Sergeants/Petty Officers) are for. Promote the leader of the party to Staff Sergeant and say that you're giving him the ops, but he's in charge of executing them.

erikun
2016-07-03, 05:57 PM
The whole reason they are a commanding officer is because their job is... commanding. Not in going out and doing. If they were going out and doing, then they would be a squad leader or something.

The commander is probably in charge of gathering information, organizing information, prepping information, organizing groups, and putting it all together so they can go out on missions. There job most likely does not involve going out and doing stuff themselves - that's the reason they hire groups of people. Most likely, the commander stays behind because they are the ones who can put together stuff best, to keep everything moving along smoothly. Sure, if they were high level then they might be able to take care of one problem themselves, but this way they are taking care of a dozen problems at once and ensuring that other problems don't end up lost or forgotten. That seems far more important than babysitting some new group of PCs.

Erth16
2016-07-03, 10:12 PM
The CO is elderly and their experience with leading units is far more valuable than their decreased fighting ability.

Pugwampy
2016-07-05, 10:14 AM
Well my usual cop out for that kind of thing is....... So and so had to go take a potty in the bushes at this most crucial of times . It works for absent players too .

Mr Blobby
2016-07-05, 10:21 AM
The good thing is that my 'only competent officer' line can make a whole sub-story in itself. If the PC's help the officer enough, they'll be pleased enough to put them in contact with a few 'people who feel the same as I do' in the big city / fortress / whatever. There they can learn that the 'traditional enemy X / demons / take your pick' have been weakening the city / country / whatever by allowing the stupid, corrupt or lazy to spread into positions of power, and thus weakening the whole place.