As long as, as you say, these are in the form of quests and your party is not directly involved in the day-to-day maintenance and management, I'm fine with it. I oppose playing house (resource management minigame). You can visit and find out if something has changed. Once that happens, they are no longer your concern. Maybe you can disband a player created character to set up there. In some places it's a recruit you disband. More often than not this is either a ranger from Ranger Center. But the person staying behind is someone you no longer control. Whatever happens to your characters due to your choices, is the story. Managing a station isn't necessarily about managing "resources" but may be about contacting a character from time to time, or quests that involve defending the station or rescuing your troops who were kidnapped from a poorly defended station. Leaving specific people behind to watch over somewhere involves important decisions about who will stay in your group at any one time. Matters might never be settled and have an ongoing effect on the current situation. If we are are doing things in the world then we might leave people or other things behind. That seems quite narrow and doesn't seem to allow for our party to make lasting changes on the game world. Once you settle a matter you leave the rest to ranger station chiefs and bureaucrats. Whatever is done, I want the game to focus on the ranger squad's prime directive. It is there for my squad to retreat to, perhaps to rest. It can be a cause and effect that alters a location. This is not your squad's primary mission so Ranger Center handles it. You secure a town and a Ranger station is established. The Rangers are descended from Army Engineers, and as such represent a sort of frontier police force, but that does not deny that they are also human beings, unless we are going to imagine them being pumped out by the Ranger Center like peons in Warcraft.Įstablishing a base, sure. Party dynamics might or might not be something that fits into most games, but it's something that fits into real parties and its something the military spends a lot of time developing in their soldiers too. How you want to or don't want to represent that in the game is another matter. A party that builds together and eats together and fights together has got social relationships. I disagree that building bases doesn't imply human relationships. That's also not really related to this thread, since this thread is about bases, which don't require or imply relationships. While it's assumed that the characters in your party have some level of personal lives, that doesn't need o come up with regards to the player much or really at all. I realize that's probably a difficult concept for a lot of modern gamers, but this sort of thing used to be pretty common. In Wasteland, there is no "your character". Your list rasies a major issue when it comes to contact between groups with differing levels of advancement.Cruxador think you're sort of missing the point of the people with whom you disagree.
![prime directive rpg forums prime directive rpg forums](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/agileinnovationandthinkinglikeastartup-160701034559/95/agile-innovation-and-thinking-like-a-startup-42-638.jpg)
Anything now goes with a colony being required. Some pre the First Lunar landing went with that being enough.
![prime directive rpg forums prime directive rpg forums](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51KGPUmXdaL._SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_FMwebp_.jpg)
It is just plain stupid.Ī classic of Science fiction (and one thign that could explain the mixed bag of UFO claims) is that there is a sort of Prime Directive and the dividing line is some degree of space exploration. It is isolationism and 'Don't get involved'. The Prime Directive of The Next Generation is somethgi far differen. The damage of contact that may result in destruction of their society is less than sure extinction. If their planet is doomed that changes things.
![prime directive rpg forums prime directive rpg forums](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/ew2DJLMyAN9kJ3skevl_Jw__opengraph/img/bQZeqMzOgH2q6-zHbhWAwcREh3c=/fit-in/1200x630/filters:strip_icc()/pic550258.jpg)
I personally sum up the original as 'Leave the Abbos alone (until they develop enough for contact). I find the original Star Trek Prime directive Ok, save for its inflexability. The less advanced group has little to offer to more advanced group. The less advanced culture often simply gives up as they do not see any way to compete with 'gods'. My impression is that if the gap is large enough then little good comes to either group. Click to expand.Your list rasies a major issue when it comes to contact between groups with differing levels of advancement.