I’m not sure how I feel about including an armed security expert in your emergency relief crew. That’s not how Médecins Sans Frontières or Team Rubicon roll. I would know, I’m a Greyshirt. It’s specifically disallowed to bring firearms or other weapons to ops, and it can get you permanently banned from the program.
I think your RPG would be more accurate, unique, and challenging to completely strip out all combat mechanics. It’s not needed in genuine emergency or disaster relief. Only during security (military/police) missions, which is not what this game is about. Honestly, I think that’s a big trip-up that is preventing me from appreciating something I otherwise probably would.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, and the work you’ve done with Team Rubicon. I can understand what you mean, and it was something I wrestled with. Based on some research, I think some of the scenarios I had in mind are more extreme than real-world missions, and could warrant security (ex. deployed in the midst of a civil war). Those scenarios are the exception, however. I also made an effort to downplay combat. The security role is the only one that overtly mentions a weapon, and compared to the other roles I think it’s the most basic, so I think there is less incentive to pick it. Finally, I hoped that the incentive to focus on constructive community relationship building would push players to less aggressive solutions.
Those are roughly the considerations I made when developing the game. That being said, I’d love to hear your thoughts on a role that could replace the security role without stepping on another. Maybe you have more insight from your experience? Obviously there is always the choice to not use that role when running the game, but if there is a change I can make to better represent the inspiring groups, I’d certainly consider it.
Thank you for taking my criticism so well :) sorry if I was too harsh.
I do see that you tried to downplay combat. My thoughts are that combat is so pervasive and automatic in roleplaying games, I don’t want to see your game slip into that mode, whether it be a single Security character who always turns situations hot or a party who thinks Team Rubicon’s go-to approach is to send a team of two medical personal with a four-man security detachment.
Of course, people can play games how they want to play; and any party playing an indie disaster relief game is probably going to be more thoughtful, anyway. I guess it just rubs me the wrong way to see strictly humanitarian missions represented as having security/violence as part of their mandate. That’s why I reacted kind of strongly.
As far as a character to fill the same role - thinking about a similar real-world project, the Chinko Reserve, a big part of their anti-poaching mandate, which also includes armed park rangers, is negotiations between different shepherds over trail and water rights. So those negotiations are a security element. However, it is covered by your Diplomacy role.
Another big aspect of both security operations and relief operations is of course building or repairing shelter, both for survivors and responders. However, that is covered by your Engineer role.
Likewise security forces will have medical teams and logistics teams, that you already have covered. So, I’m not really sure what role security forces play could be added that you don’t already have.
For my part I often think of society’s functions as being agriculture, housing, security, transportation, healthcare, and communication. Four of those you already have, but a Communications role could definitely be added and is very relevant to all kinds of humanitarian responses. Certain ad-hoc response groups like Mutual Aid Disaster Relief also identify food autonomy as a part of healthy responses to disasters, so an Agriculturalist role is conceivable. However, that is very far from the mandate of traditional NGO responders that you are trying to model.
Again thanks for taking my criticism so well! And thanks for putting out this game, even if it’s flawed, it’s awesome and an honor to see the thought put in!
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
I’m not sure how I feel about including an armed security expert in your emergency relief crew. That’s not how Médecins Sans Frontières or Team Rubicon roll. I would know, I’m a Greyshirt. It’s specifically disallowed to bring firearms or other weapons to ops, and it can get you permanently banned from the program.
I think your RPG would be more accurate, unique, and challenging to completely strip out all combat mechanics. It’s not needed in genuine emergency or disaster relief. Only during security (military/police) missions, which is not what this game is about. Honestly, I think that’s a big trip-up that is preventing me from appreciating something I otherwise probably would.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, and the work you’ve done with Team Rubicon. I can understand what you mean, and it was something I wrestled with. Based on some research, I think some of the scenarios I had in mind are more extreme than real-world missions, and could warrant security (ex. deployed in the midst of a civil war). Those scenarios are the exception, however. I also made an effort to downplay combat. The security role is the only one that overtly mentions a weapon, and compared to the other roles I think it’s the most basic, so I think there is less incentive to pick it. Finally, I hoped that the incentive to focus on constructive community relationship building would push players to less aggressive solutions.
Those are roughly the considerations I made when developing the game. That being said, I’d love to hear your thoughts on a role that could replace the security role without stepping on another. Maybe you have more insight from your experience? Obviously there is always the choice to not use that role when running the game, but if there is a change I can make to better represent the inspiring groups, I’d certainly consider it.
Thanks again for your feedback!
Thank you for taking my criticism so well :) sorry if I was too harsh.
I do see that you tried to downplay combat. My thoughts are that combat is so pervasive and automatic in roleplaying games, I don’t want to see your game slip into that mode, whether it be a single Security character who always turns situations hot or a party who thinks Team Rubicon’s go-to approach is to send a team of two medical personal with a four-man security detachment.
Of course, people can play games how they want to play; and any party playing an indie disaster relief game is probably going to be more thoughtful, anyway. I guess it just rubs me the wrong way to see strictly humanitarian missions represented as having security/violence as part of their mandate. That’s why I reacted kind of strongly.
As far as a character to fill the same role - thinking about a similar real-world project, the Chinko Reserve, a big part of their anti-poaching mandate, which also includes armed park rangers, is negotiations between different shepherds over trail and water rights. So those negotiations are a security element. However, it is covered by your Diplomacy role.
Another big aspect of both security operations and relief operations is of course building or repairing shelter, both for survivors and responders. However, that is covered by your Engineer role.
Likewise security forces will have medical teams and logistics teams, that you already have covered. So, I’m not really sure what role security forces play could be added that you don’t already have.
For my part I often think of society’s functions as being agriculture, housing, security, transportation, healthcare, and communication. Four of those you already have, but a Communications role could definitely be added and is very relevant to all kinds of humanitarian responses. Certain ad-hoc response groups like Mutual Aid Disaster Relief also identify food autonomy as a part of healthy responses to disasters, so an Agriculturalist role is conceivable. However, that is very far from the mandate of traditional NGO responders that you are trying to model.
Again thanks for taking my criticism so well! And thanks for putting out this game, even if it’s flawed, it’s awesome and an honor to see the thought put in!
Amazing concept. Bravo.
Thanks!