I did not mean that there is no chain of command, just that the pc are not in the second squad, platoon 1 of A Company.
I've run almost exactly that game and the chain of command was not a problem. It's about providing the players and their characters situations in which they can still make effective decisions within the chain of command.
In my experience the squad is ideal: it provides interplay between player and non-player characters and a level of granularity at which the decisions of the individual soldier are meaningful.
Honestly, trying to run a hard SF campaign is about as much fun as trying to run a game in which you play daring lawyers and trying to work out all the realistic legal angles of the cases.
I teach marine biology and oceanography for a living, so for me playing a hard science game isn't a chore. Creating or exploring settings and adventures based on speculative science is a big part of the fun for me.
Higher levels of technology are harder and harder to handwave away, and many, if not most, traditional adventure storylines, would fall apart if one of the protagonists had a cellphone or whatever, let alone supertech stuff like transporters (which end up having to oh-so-conveniently fail due to an 'ion storm' or whatever whenever they are needed...). "Oh, we're trapped in an exotic hostile location!" "Get out your cellphone and call for help." "Oh, there's a killer in the house!" "Call 911 and hide until the cops show up." "We have to figure out this puzzle, quick everyone rack your brains..." "Right, I just Googled it. It's the Voynich manuscript." "I can't get the door open, we're trapped!" "According to the online help menu, there's a manual release under the jamb, in case of power failures. Also, I called a locksmith."
I see the same problem in fantasy games: Referees can't handle the level of magic that the adventurers can employ, so they nerf spells like teleportation or scrying or divination.
Most of the time it's because referees are falling back on overused gauntlets, to force the adventurers through a series of linear encounters for which they have no opportunity to prepare or to bypass altogether. In other words, they want high-level characters to keep facing the same challenges as low-level characters, but with more dice.
I like the fact that modern adventurers have access to lots of tools, to get away from exactly those same trite, overworked scanarios: "Here is a satellite photo of the rebel camp. Based on observed activity the missing scientist is most likely located in one of these two structures, here or here. The complex is surrounded by jungle in all directions - the rebels patrol on an irregular schedule, and they have good relations with the local villagers, but not with the tribesmen in the forest. Intel suggests they have a couple of machine guns and shoulder-fired SAMS." Now we get to the action: infiltrating the camp and escaping with the scientist. How will the players manage the challenges of the environment, the rebels, and the villagers? Will they try to contact the tribesmen for assistance? What other information will they need? What equipment? What other hazards could they face? Is any of the information wrong?
I guess I'm not seeing the problem of having enough for the players and their characters to do here despite more access to information. No matter what they learn, they still have to get into the camp, free the scientist, and get away alive.
That's the adventure.
Set said:
Even when I play sci-fi settings (which I do love, especially Trinity), I tend to end up playing 'magical' characters like psychics or alien shapeshifters or whatever, rather than 'dude with gun #1428.' Dudes with guns bore me, and that's, unfortunately, what every single viper pilot or away team member turns into in the end, just another dude with a gun.
As opposed to playing another dude with power
x that deals damage
y, whether that power is a magic sword or a sneak attack or a spell that goes *
ZAMPF!*
Ultimately the mechanics are the same regardless of the chrome - that said, I understand that for gamers (myself included) the chrome matters a lot, so it appears that swinging a big-ass sword or pointing a wand tickles the imagination more than firing a burst from an Uzi or spraying nuclear fire from a shoulder-carried fusion gun for the majority of gamers.
Let me be clear here: I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Taste in games is a strictly personal thing. I'm well aware that my tastes run counter to the "mainstream" among gamers.
That said, I would urge all gamers to branch out a bit. Try playing a sci fi or modern or historical roleplaying game with a referee who really has a feel for games other than fantasy, one who isn't just trying to recreate
D&D in different genres. In my experience that's the problem that many gamers face when they try playing other games: they're still trying to run the same adventures the same way, rather than treating these other genres as different and distinctive, and the experience ends up lacking. Square pegs, round holes, and all that.
