I absolutely get that and I see the opportunities of a blank canvas (an original Traveller concept) but it seems here that the game has traded its "Firefly" for "Star Trek". The very scale means that for PCs to make meaningful decisions they have to be in executive positions: bridge crew, marine detachment, fighter wing, etc. However in that case then they surely can't be going tactical???
Therefore the GM and players have to (constantly) provide all the (almost illogical) framework for continuing PC interaction. So the scenario as written just
isn't a role playing scenario but actually a framework for a bigger strategic game/campaign that surely risks eclipsing the PC's input? I suggest this last only as per (maybe over rigourous
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
) Traveller (High Guard) logic/cannon.
However, the game might work really well (especially via PbP) in this form - where (mostly) the PCs only ever meet off duty or in the mess hall?
Of course as per Star Trek/Rogue Trader (or the way Traveller players may choose to have it!
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
) the Admiral and his (irreplaceable?!?) bridge crew always lead the away team/boarding party! Unless its better contrived and written scenario than Enemy of my Enemy (have you worked out how this irked me yet?
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
) how can all these folk logically keep being at the same critical place at the same time?
Now, I know I can do it - but if I'm paying someone for the scenario...
I suppose that in an exploration scenario making the PCs the Admiral's "retinue" fixes a lot but (if applied to Enemy of my Enemy) they then miss almost all the action...
Have I added a "Doh!" yet???
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)