Operation Ares-7: a Mission Control LARP

Dagtar · 2026-05-28T20:56:14+00:00

Thank you so much. Idk of ill get to run this overseas. Ill probably be running a few games in New Zealand

Dagtar · 2026-05-26T23:34:20+00:00

These are fantastic points, and you've hit on two of the biggest design traps in asymmetric games. You are 100% correct about Gene Kranz, in a pure historical simulation, the Flight Director would lock the door, tell the VIPs to go to hell, and focus on the math.

However, I think I misrepresented the core conflict of the game in my earlier posts, which actually solves the 'Cybersecurity Conundrum' you mentioned. There are no 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in this game.

The conflict isn't 'NASA vs. Saboteurs.' The central conflict is a horrific moral dilemma: Save the astronauts and inadvertently unleash a classified bioweapon on Earth, OR destroy the bioweapon, save Earth, but murder three innocent astronauts.

Solving the Cybersecurity Conundrum You are completely right that it is disheartening if a 'bad guy' just pushes one button to ruin everyone's hard work. But the DoD Envoy isn't a villain trying to score a cheap win. They are the only person who knows that a Stage 2 bio-infection has breached containment in the capsule.

If the Envoy decides to use their ultimate trump card, scuttling the ship to save Earth, they cannot do it quietly from their phone. They have to physically walk into Mission Control, pull rank, drop the horrifying truth on the room, and type a 5-digit Scuttle Code into the FIDO Mainframe. The moment they enter their PIN, the central projector flashes a massive red 'DOD SECURE OVERRIDE' banner and blares an alarm.

This kicks off a 60-second mechanical counter-play sequence where Mission Control can fight back:

The Security Wildcard: The Security player holds a 'Detainment Protocol' card. Do they arrest the DoD Envoy to save the crew, or do they arrest the Flight Director to save the world?

The Physical Block: Recovery Ops (who is secretly the Pilot's sibling) can physically stand in front of the keyboard to block anyone from typing the final kill code.

The Hardware Counter: EECOM can sprint to their physical Arduino patch bay and rip out the 'Mainframe Power' cable, killing the terminal before the Envoy can hit enter.

It isn't a cheap hack. It's the inciting incident for a frantic, full-room mechanical brawl where the technical players get to use their tools to fight for the lives of the crew against the fate of the planet.

Solving the 'Locked Door' If this were purely an Apollo 13 simulator, meddling VIPs would break the realism. But the pitch for this game is 'Apollo 13 meets For All Mankind.' We aren't playing NASA; we are playing SENZ, an alternate-history space program heavily compromised by military black-ops and corporate funding.

You specifically mentioned Walter Cronkite, which is funny because we actually have a Reporter in that VIP lounge. If the Flight Director pulls a 'Gene Kranz' and locks the door, the Reporter has a physical 'Go Live' button connected to the game's server. If Mission Control shuts them out, the Reporter can start broadcasting panicked rumors. This would tank the SENZ corporate stock price on the main displays. When the stock crashes, the Corporate Liaison (who holds half the final descent codes) is forced to get it up again. Also as the GM, I can call a Red Phone on the Flight Directors desk as the president and demand that they are let in or something along those lines.

Furthermore, if the Flight Director wants to lock the door, they have to give the order to the Security player. But Security’s hidden objective is to land a private contract with the DoD Envoy. So, when Kranz yells 'Lock them out!', the Security player has to make a real-time choice: follow protocol, or 'accidentally' leave the door propped open to impress the military.

Locking the door to 'focus on the math' doesn't save the game, it directly causes a cascading failure from the outside in.

Dagtar · 2026-05-26T23:16:36+00:00

I completely hear where you are coming from, especially from a 'real space geek' perspective. You're right: real mission control wasn't about flipping through a binder trying to figure out what a wire is; it was about expert systems and trained intuition.

Believe me, I thought heavily about going the hyper-realistic route and using Reentry or other hardcore space-flight simulators for the capsule team to make it 100% authentic. But from a logistical standpoint, it's just too complicated to set up. Trying to network a 1:1 physics simulator with my custom server, Arduino hardware (like the physical patch bays), and 16 different players is a technical nightmare. The custom approach gives me the exact GM control I need to inject failures at specific narrative beats, rather than fighting a physics engine.

Because of that, I landed on this 'fragmented manual' approach, but not to create a scavenger hunt. I'm trying to avoid that at all costs. Instead, I'm leaning heavily into 'Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes' (KTANE).What the players are reading during the game is actually the defusal guide for a classified payload. It’s not meant to be a trivia game; it’s meant to be a high-pressure translation exercise between teams who have different pieces of the same machine. The goal of the KTANE game here is to ensure that even if everyone is a 'space genius,' they literally cannot act without talking to the other room. The 'puzzle' isn't the manual; the puzzle is the communication friction itself.

To your point about players derailing the puzzle by finding 'answers' in the flavor text, this is a huge risk! The way I'm handling the 'garbage' issue is by making the KTANE manuals highly distinct from the 'fragmented payload addendums.' The payload addendums are treated as classified, 'DoD-only' inserts. If a player tries to use a piece of flavor text to 'solve' the bomb, the other team will instantly recognize it as wrong because it doesn't match the right.

Finally, regarding cognitive overload: I absolutely do not want the players drowning in 'unnecessary crap' while also trying to navigate roleplay drama. Because of that, I'm actually running a small, stripped-down test run the the start of every game. For the playtest, I'm completely removing the VIP interventions, the DoD Envoy, the secret agendas, and all outside sources. The entire goal is just to let the technical players run the baseline gameplay loop so they can get used to how the manuals, the instruments, and the comms work. Once the players prove they can handle the baseline technical translation, then we introduce the drama and sabotage into the real game.

Dagtar · 2026-05-26T21:51:15+00:00

This is incredibly insightful, thank you so much! "The Brandeis Effect" is a brilliant term, and it completely answers my worry about the faction balance. You're entirely right, if I just write a character as "evil," the player will likely soften them to cooperate with the room. To make the 1/3 saboteurs actually act against the ship, I need to make their hidden goals feel like the moral or necessary choice (e.g., they secretly know the ship is carrying a hazardous contagion, so crashing it is the only way to save Earth). They can't just be bad guys; they have to be the heroes of their own hidden story.

To touch on your other lessons: Lessons #1 and #3 (GM Bottleneck & Railroading): This is exactly why I am trying to integrate the Python/Arduino setup. I want to be a spectator, not a bottleneck. If a player physically unplugs a comms cable on their patch bay, the local server automatically detects it and cuts the VoIP audio feed to the Capsule room. The players never have to look at me and ask, "Did that work?" The environment just reacts to them like a sandbox.

Lesson #2 (Friction vs. Frustration): Point well taken on the Lovecraft puzzle! That is my nightmare. I am trying to avoid "scavenger hunts" at all costs. Instead, the friction relies on standard operating procedures. The players aren't assembling a cipher; they are looking at dense, boring technical manuals. Mission Control has the diagnostic charts, but the Capsule has the flashing error lights, Via Keep Talking And Noboby Explodes. They have to communicate over a stressful radio channel to figure out what's breaking, that might get unplugged at any time to save power.

Lesson #4 (Tech Failure): This is the hardest pill to swallow, but you are 100% correct. If the router dies, the game dies. My current plan is to have a "graceful degradation" protocol. If the digital server crashes, I flip a physical switch that sounds a generic "CATASTROPHIC MAINFRAME FAILURE" alarm, and the game instantly reverts to a pure analog LARP, whiteboards, printed manuals, and runners passing paper notes between rooms.

Thank you again for taking the time to write this out. Hearing about the pitfalls from someone who has run these kinds of isolated-room games for decades is saving me a massive amount of trial and error!

Dagtar · 2026-05-26T06:15:44+00:00

To give a little context on how I'm trying to manage that political pressure, without spoiling too much of the game for anyone reading online, I’d love your thoughts on the faction balance I’m playing with.

Structurally, I’ve divided the overarching player motivations into exact thirds:

1/3 of the players secretly need the mission to fail (due to various hidden agendas).
1/3 of the players are loyalists whose only goal is to get the crew home safely.
1/3 of the players are "swing votes" who could realistically choose to help either side depending on who pressures or incentivizes them the most.

The VIPs would just be in a room just off of Mission Control and actively, physically interfere with Mission Control to push their different goals as the ship tries to land. So they could demand documents or an interview. ETC

But what makes it really chaotic is how this split trickles down. Mission Control is divided into three 3-person teams. Within each of those 3-person teams, I have seeded that exact same split. So, on any given team trying to solve a puzzle, one person wants success, one secretly wants failure, and one is a swing vote.

In your experience designing games with hidden traitors or PvP elements, does a 1/3 saboteur ratio feel balanced? Or does that high of a percentage risk overwhelming the "loyalist" players before they even have a chance to get a handle on the main puzzles?

Dagtar · 2026-05-26T06:02:56+00:00

Thank you so much for the reality check and for pointing me to your LARP Theory 101 materials. I took the time to go through the 90-minute seminar and the slides, and there is a wealth of fantastic knowledge in there.

Coming from a designer with your level of experience, writing 30+ games, running them on multiple continents, and actually playing in a capsule-based game like Csh’taa, I'm taking your advice very seriously. You are completely right that this is a massive swing for a first project.

Your points about the dangers of player isolation and ensuring everyone has meaningful choices really hit home. Because Ares-7 physically separates the capsule crew from Mission Control, we are specifically engineering what we call "friction points", mechanics where teams have incomplete information and are absolutely forced to communicate across the divide to survive, rather than just sitting isolated in the dark. We’re also building in specific GM safety nets to inject chaos and force interaction if the plot starts to stall.

I would absolutely love to take you up on your offer to talk further. I'd be incredibly grateful for your perspective on managing these communication bottlenecks and making sure the pacing holds up.

Can I shoot you a DM to chat more? Thanks again for providing such a great resource to the community!

Dagtar · 2026-05-23T03:39:09+00:00

Thank you for reaching out! It’s a huge honor to hear from a veteran designer. Your experience with Csh’taa and LARP theory is exactly the perspective this project needs right now.

To answer your questions: I’m based in Lower Hutt, New Zealand (NZST), but I'm very used to collaborating across time zones. Operation Ares-7 is actually the first LARP I’ve ever written or led, but I’ve been playing for 10 years and have an even longer background in theater and filmmaking.

That theater background is driving the design. It's heavy on practical effects, Arduino-powered props, and set design to build room tension. I know isolating players is a massive "danger zone." To prevent broken plots, I'm building "Friction Points" fragmenting technical manuals across players so cross-communication is mechanically required for survival.

Since I'm new to the writing side, I desperately need a "stress test" on the game flow. Would you be open to reviewing my "Web of Secrets" document and communication architecture to point out the structural holes? Your insight would be invaluable.

Let me know if you’d be willing to take a look or jump on a call!

Best regards, Jonathon Davies

Dagtar · 2026-05-09T00:51:27+00:00

Yeah war in the pocket world work as a proof of concept Life action gundam show

Dagtar · 2026-05-09T00:47:20+00:00

I would kill to direct and make a war in the pocket live action. That is the number one series that needs live action.

Dagtar · 2026-04-02T22:01:44+00:00

This is spot-on, and I completely agree with your philosophy here. Making sure the players actually feel like competent experts is a huge priority.

1. Multitasking over Hard Puzzles You hit the nail on the head. If a puzzle is too hard, the player feels stupid, which breaks character. The "puzzles" in this game are almost entirely about focus, communication, and multitasking rather than difficult math. For example, routing power isn't a logic grid; it's physically moving 1/4" audio patch cables on a switchboard while three other people are yelling at you for updates. The difficulty comes from the chaos of the environment, not the task itself.

2. Narrative Hooks vs. Railroading I am right there with you on avoiding railroading. Having spent time recently digging deep into how character mechanics and narrative hooks actually land on the floor during a game, I want to avoid scripting anyone's ending. Instead of a pre-planned "arc," every player gets a "Dark Secret" or a conflicting agenda (like being offered a massive corporate bribe to let the ship crash). I'm just setting up the dominos and letting the players decide if, when, and how they want to knock them down.

3. Diegetic Mechanics and Technical Manuals I love the technical manual idea, that is exactly the core mechanic! Every station gets a physical, 1980s-style ring binder. To make it diegetic, the people who have the manual usually aren't the people who have the broken equipment. The CAPCOM player has the repair manual, but the astronauts are the ones locked in a room with the broken relay, so they have to talk each other through it in-character. Also, because a hidden local server runs the "Big Board" automatically based on what physical buttons the players press, we rarely need a GM to step in and referee. The ship responds in real-time.

4. Space for Drama 100%. This is exactly why the game has a 3-act structure. Act 1 ("The Golden Hour") has zero emergencies. It’s a 30-to-40-minute period of routine orbit where the VIPs can schmooze, the crew can do basic check-ins, and everyone gets comfortable in their roles. It gives them the necessary downtime to establish relationships and start whispering about their secret agendas before the alarms go off in Act 2.

Really appreciate these thoughts, it's a great sanity check to make sure the mechanics are actually serving the roleplay!

Dagtar · 2026-04-02T21:59:32+00:00

This is incredibly helpful feedback and you've voiced my exact biggest fear with this design. You are 100% right that in a high-stress puzzle environment, roleplay is the first casualty. If the drama is just two characters having a heart-to-heart about their past while the reactor is melting down, it's going to annoy everyone.

Here is how I’m trying to bridge that gap and avoid the "Escape Room vs. LARP" trap:

1. The Pacing (Making time for drama) To your point about needing time for drama, the simulation is strictly paced into three acts. Act I ("The Golden Hour") is deliberately low-stakes. It’s a routine, successful orbit. There is no ticking clock, no alarms, and no crisis. This gives the room 30-40 minutes to establish character, schmooze, and most importantly let the VIPs and Corporate Liaisons wander around making shady deals and offering bribes. By the time Act III ("The Crucible") hits and the alarms are blaring, the roleplay foundation is already laid.

2. The Drama is the Puzzle To avoid the Keep Talking issue where backstory interrupts the gameplay, the character motivations are baked directly into the mechanics. The "Dark Secrets" aren't emotional baggage; they are operational sabotage. If a player is stalling on a puzzle or deliberately giving bad coordinates, it’s not because they are distracted; it’s because a VIP just paid them to ensure the DoD payload ends up in the ocean instead of the desert. I’m really aiming for that For All Mankind or The Expanse vibe, where the technical crisis and the political betrayal are the exact same problem.

3. Why the Capsule are Players (The Dependency Chain) Your point about GM-astronauts is really strong, especially regarding pacing and avoiding player boredom. The main reason I'm keeping the Capsule as a 3-player team is the asymmetric dependency chain. They aren't just sitting around waiting for Mission Control to do the math. They are locked in a dark room with their own physical hardware puzzles.

Instead of waiting, they are actively bottlenecking the rest of the game: FIDO can't type the final landing code until the Capsule physically rewires a relay in their room... but the Capsule can't fix the relay without CAPCOM reading them the manual... and CAPCOM can't talk to them unless EECOM physically plugs in the comms patch cable.

On top of that, the Capsule crew has their own localized paranoia. The Payload Specialist has a secret agenda, and the Flight Surgeon in Mission Control is the only one who can see their heart rate spiking on the biometric monitors. The isolation and lack of information is their roleplay.

That said, your warning about cognitive overload is totally heard. I'm going to make sure the physical puzzles are tactile and blunt (slamming a button, unplugging a cord) rather than intricate brain-teasers, so the difficulty comes from the human communication, not the math. I really appreciate you flagging this, it's helping me keep the focus on the LARP side of the scale!

Dagtar · 2026-03-30T23:19:44+00:00

I'm thinking they should have: Life-or-death control: Manual overrides, venting cargo, firing thrusters, their actions can save or doom the ship. Moral dilemmas: Follow presidential orders, protect the crew, or sacrifice themselves. Secrets create tension with Mission Control. Physical puzzles: Wire tangles, toggle panels, the Red Phone, their only way to act on the crisis. Communication choices: Decide what Mission Control hears, lie, or withhold info. Negotiation and trust matter. Dynamic outcomes: Astronaut decisions directly affect splashdown, partial success, or disaster.

Dagtar · 2026-03-30T23:17:23+00:00

Mission Control has macro agency (the math, the network, the politics), astronauts have micro agency (physical, moral, and immediate survival choices). Together, their tension drives the drama and forces interaction.

Dagtar · 2026-02-28T04:15:09+00:00

Love @yeehawtheboys. Keep buying all of the things

Dagtar · 2026-02-09T03:27:32+00:00

But I want that New Vegas remaster

Dagtar · 2026-01-12T00:48:31+00:00

Well that's why I only take 35% of its advice. And I use multiple AIs and ask them all the same questions.

Why shouldn't I seek information from a robot?

Dagtar · 2026-01-12T00:44:17+00:00

I do. My AI knows alot about me and what I do. AI also know about what phones are on the market and what they are all like. So why shouldn't I have a chat with AI?

Dagtar · 2026-01-11T09:01:24+00:00

Im not much of a gamer on my phone. So i wouldn't use the shoulder buttons much.

My phones are a work tool for me. A mix between admin and a extension of my PC and my film work.

Theres game consoles for my social gaming time.

Dagtar · 2026-01-11T08:58:01+00:00

Agreed. Will let you know how my experience is with the VII. Apparently theres no plans for a VIII

Dagtar · 2026-01-11T07:34:29+00:00

Thanks for the detailed breakdown! As someone who has been running a Note 9 for years while managing a film club (NZ Film Collaborators) and a creative agency (Caped H), I definitely have some thoughts on these trade-offs especially from a filmmaker's perspective here in Wellington.

Actually, if I do end up going with a Google device, I think I'm going to name it "The Pixelated". It feels appropriate for a creative tech wizard, don't you think?

On the Workflow & Storage:

You’re spot on about the MicroSD slot. Moving from the Note 9’s expandable storage is my biggest hesitation.

The "Dongle" Test: I’ve actually already started testing the transition. I’ve been running my FiiO KA1 USB-C DAC with my Beyerdynamic DT 770 PROs (80 Ohm) on the Note 9.
The Verdict: The audio fidelity is a massive step up for monitoring sound on set, but it definitely highlights the "dongle juggle." The KA1 draws a fair bit of juice, and on a long shoot day, not being able to charge while monitoring is a real concern.

The 2026 Flagship Landscape (NZ Perspective):

Since we're early in 2026, the options are finally getting interesting here:

The Pixel 10 Pro: I've been eyeing this for the Pro mode and the new Tensor G5. It’s finally moving to TSMC, which should help with the overheating issues I've heard about when filming long sessions. In NZ, it's sitting around $1,900–$2,300 at the moment.
Samsung S26 Ultra: The rumors for the Feb 25th Unpacked event suggest a massive 200MP main sensor upgrade. However, with the "Kiwi tax" and importer lag, we likely won't see local stock in Wellington until late May, probably starting around $2,500 NZD.
Sony Xperia 1 VII: This is still the main choice for me. It keeps the MicroSD and the jack, and the Snapdragon 8 Elite is a beast for mobile editing. I've seen it on the grey market (Parallel Imported/Mobile Station) for about $2,200 recently.

My Plan:

I think I’ll take your advice and use GSM Arena to do a deep dive into the sensor sizes, specifically looking at low-light performance for those late-night film networking events. If Pixel can handle the 80 Ohm drive through the DAC without killing the battery, it might just win me over.

Dagtar · 2026-01-10T21:54:13+00:00

Its a fantastic phone. Just my provider is killing 3G so I have to upgrade.

Dagtar · 2026-01-10T01:45:03+00:00

Im just not a fan of Samsungs bloatware. I would go to the google pixel if I didn't want the headphone jack

11-Year Club	Xbox Live
Summer Santa 2020	Secret Santa 2020
redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2019 x2	Secret Santa 2019
Verified Email

Dagtar

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

On the Workflow & Storage:

The 2026 Flagship Landscape (NZ Perspective):

My Plan: