Have any of you ever taken part in one? Helped to develop one?
How much information is generally needed by the GM's in order for it to be successful?

I'm considering starting one of these up and I'm just trying to figure out if I give a GM a dossier for the group with some basic intel, as well as some GM specific information on opposition (troop numbers, equipment, stat blocks, etc) if you think as a GM that you could make it work.
The less I have to do per group, the more groups can be accommodated.
Further, the more involved you are in the developing phases, the easier it may be for you to run.

Thanks for the help, and hopefully potential interest.

Sounds cool, immediately I think of AoR, small teams working in a sector to achieve a common goal of gathering resources, turning local opinions, disrupting the Imps, capturing bases and capital ships. Long term goal of the Rebellion controlling the sector.

You would need to track the total number of imperial forces in the sector, rebellion assets and victorys. Create the main NPC's. Give each group a specific task to achieve, and probably a set time to achieve it in?

Sounds cool, immediately I think of AoR, small teams working in a sector to achieve a common goal of gathering resources, turning local opinions, disrupting the Imps, capturing bases and capital ships. Long term goal of the Rebellion controlling the sector.

You would need to track the total number of imperial forces in the sector, rebellion assets and victorys. Create the main NPC's. Give each group a specific task to achieve, and probably a set time to achieve it in?

That's what I had in mind, actually. I'd likely take a leaf out of the AoR Beginner Game, establish a base of operations that the Alliance can dispatch support to. Some missions could be to gain supplies from Empire controlled sectors, others could be assassination missions.

I'd play the part of Sector Command, with the GMs acting as the player groups commanding officers.

As group contribution ranks increase, the players are given access to higher end parts of our expanding armory. Transportation would be handled by the Alliance, until the strike teams eventually gain access to their own transport, which can be upgraded with equipment that will help them with their missions.

Basically create some broad mission statements (aka party themes), even base them on the duty mechanics, each group picks a theme and gets missions based loosely on them.

GMs are responsible for filling out the actual adventures based on a short list of objectives

The HQ could be a small fleet as well, perhaps a neb-b and some escorts

Basically create some broad mission statements (aka party themes), even base them on the duty mechanics, each group picks a theme and gets missions based loosely on them.

GMs are responsible for filling out the actual adventures based on a short list of objectives

The HQ could be a small fleet as well, perhaps a neb-b and some escorts

I like the idea of a physical base a bit too much. The fleets are powerful, yes, but even the Empire maintains several bases of operations in various sectors. Cannon and EU support the Alliance having a multitude of bases themselves.

We'd be supported by a small fleet if bantha crap hit the turbines, but otherwise we'd need to support ourselves. Figuring on putting us well within Empire control. Kind of hard to hide a ship around there. Less focus on planet surfaces (and what might be under them) if less attention is drawn.

Cool, it's a great idea.

It would be good to make sure groups could be basically whatever they wanted too. If they want to be a squadron of y-wings, ok. If they want to be commandos, ok. If they want to be agitators and spies, sure thing. If they want to be a diplomatic entourage that's fine too.

Even a group of smugglers etc from edge, employed to restock the base regularly would work.

So long as group or task is not too important

Cool, it's a great idea.

It would be good to make sure groups could be basically whatever they wanted too. If they want to be a squadron of y-wings, ok. If they want to be commandos, ok. If they want to be agitators and spies, sure thing. If they want to be a diplomatic entourage that's fine too.

Even a group of smugglers etc from edge, employed to restock the base regularly would work.

So long as group or task is too important

Agreed.

First point of the matter would be an application. A GM should have a table to bring to the group. Once they have agreed to play by the rules and have provided an outline for their party, the GM would be invited to the command table to help build missions for their party.

For the most part, everyone is going to get to play missions they want. It'll be up to the GM's to help ensure that their parties Duty's are being met.

Yep, perfect.

To get the feeling of interaction there would need to be a sort of log that shows what happened each week, fortnight or month.

"You come back to the base and all this has changed"

Yep, perfect.

To get the feeling of interaction there would need to be a sort of log that shows what happened each week, fortnight or month.

"You come back to the base and all this has changed"

That's the plan. We'd have an ever changing front. As things happen, both within the living campaign and outside of it, the next weeks missions would change as well. If an assassination mission fails, there will be consequences. If it succeeds, as well, and not always will the results be clear.

I generally see them be one of two sorts - either a framework of adventures provided by the coordinators (a la Living Forgotten Realms) or the gradually advancing campaign of a sector (the DarkStryder campaign for SW). I think either could be very interesting, but you might run into issues with the advancement re: campaign pace. For instance, if one group is doing it via PbP, and another does it three times a week in Google Hangouts, one is going to have significantly more done.

I generally see them be one of two sorts - either a framework of adventures provided by the coordinators (a la Living Forgotten Realms) or the gradually advancing campaign of a sector (the DarkStryder campaign for SW). I think either could be very interesting, but you might run into issues with the advancement re: campaign pace. For instance, if one group is doing it via PbP, and another does it three times a week in Google Hangouts, one is going to have significantly more done.

And part of the application would be to outline frequency of play. Tables that meet less frequently would be accommodated for, I felt that went without saying. And PbP takes far too long to get anything done....

Besides, if a group is consistently not even trying to accomplish the mission, why would they continue to receive dossiers?

Okay, so this would involve 'table' registration and progress reporting. (I've not been significantly part of one so a lot of what might go without saying, I don't hear, my apologies.)

It sounds like a ton of work, tbh, especially for you. While I like the idea of an advancing overarching storyline, you are essentially going to be writing at least an adventure seed for every single table in the campaign, if not a more fleshed out adventure synopsis, every period (weekly, biweekly, monthly, etc). Then collaborating their adventure reports, tallying the overall progress, and dealing with significant events.

What if one table, the superweapon they were supposed to destroy wasn't and instead got used? Do we now have another lifeless planet? What if one of the main NPCs (Skywalker, Solo etc) are there as a cameo and wind up getting killed? Is that going to be handwaved as 'didn't happen' or will tables need to agree to ground rules to participate?

I never got to take part in the Living Force campaign, but wasn't it basically a selection of premade adventures that got run periodically? They'd take a report from everyone playing, and the most common outcome became the 'canon' of the arc? The LFR that I did partake in (at the very, very end of 4e when everything was already done) seemed to just assume that every player adventure was successful, but I don't know what granularity of 'success' you'd be planning on.

Without having a whole team of people coordinating something like this, I don't know how well it'd wind up. I'm somewhat interested, and have an in-person weekly game that might suffice, but I'd want to know more details before I dove in.

Okay, so this would involve 'table' registration and progress reporting. (I've not been significantly part of one so a lot of what might go without saying, I don't hear, my apologies.)

It sounds like a ton of work, tbh, especially for you. While I like the idea of an advancing overarching storyline, you are essentially going to be writing at least an adventure seed for every single table in the campaign, if not a more fleshed out adventure synopsis, every period (weekly, biweekly, monthly, etc). Then collaborating their adventure reports, tallying the overall progress, and dealing with significant events.

What if one table, the superweapon they were supposed to destroy wasn't and instead got used? Do we now have another lifeless planet? What if one of the main NPCs (Skywalker, Solo etc) are there as a cameo and wind up getting killed? Is that going to be handwaved as 'didn't happen' or will tables need to agree to ground rules to participate?

I never got to take part in the Living Force campaign, but wasn't it basically a selection of premade adventures that got run periodically? They'd take a report from everyone playing, and the most common outcome became the 'canon' of the arc? The LFR that I did partake in (at the very, very end of 4e when everything was already done) seemed to just assume that every player adventure was successful, but I don't know what granularity of 'success' you'd be planning on.

Without having a whole team of people coordinating something like this, I don't know how well it'd wind up. I'm somewhat interested, and have an in-person weekly game that might suffice, but I'd want to know more details before I dove in.

My intent would be for a collaborative project with the individual GM's. This would require an amount of work on their part, though that should be expected by the GM anyways. Some amount of planning is always needed for a table to function properly.

What this means is that, while I would need to set up the bulk of the dossier, the GM that would be assigned that mission would be communicating with me while it happens. The end result would be sent to them, outlining basic mission information.

Let's take an assassination mission, for instance.

We've set up shop in this sector and have been ordered to begin making things difficult for the Empire. Our own counsel is pretty much all we have in regards to executing this, as regular communications with the main Rebel fleet are very difficult and very dangerous, as they can be intercepted too easily this deep in Empire controlled space.

Sector Command has decided that the Moff of a nearby planet whose strong stance against species other than humans can no longer be tolerated. Recent reports and holovids have actually shown the execution of several families of the native species.

Your team is being dispatched to put an end to this.

On this date, he is going to be broadcasting live to the planet, with a holonet signal being sent to Coruscant. We suspect that the Emperor may have a personal interest in this Moff, at least at this time.

For that reason, his execution must be public.

His troop numbers are scattered, with his main focus on slum camps being set up outside of major cities. He has a single platoon of Imperial Army troops at his home. His compound is being used as one of these camps, meaning that his overall security is severely diminished.

Stealth is key. Too many bodies will be noticed, so aim to kill the Moff only.

As soon as he is dead, go to ground. Find a way off planet once flight restrictions are lifted.

With that information, can you tell me that you cannot design a mission based off of that? I've given you a pretty solid outline, leaving you free to tailor the mission in a way that adds that extra level of excitement and difficulty for your players.

If it fails, it will likely be traceable back to us. That means increased activity in our sector and an increase in difficulty for future missions. If it succeeds, honestly, probably the same thing, though it shows a Rebel presence in the area and can offer open doors in new areas.

As for Canon characters, tbh, there is no way I would be okay with a cameo appearance in a table mission. Especially if there is a chance of death. We'd be operating as a shadow cell; we're not going to be reinforced by the main fleet unless things are going horribly terribly wrong and it is an exfil mission.

There will be some basic ground rules that need to be agreed upon. The first, and most important, is honesty. If something went wrong in session, don't be afraid to bring it up. If the mission fails, don't be afraid to say so. That's the point of a living campaign. It doesn't always go perfectly, but that just adds to the fun.

Reports would be expected. Best results would likely be for each member of the table to write a brief synopsis of how things went down. That way, when I hand down the next mission, I can also hand down experience awards, and Duty points depending on how everyone performed in regards to fulfilling their Duty requirements.

I certainly could build a mission frame around that dossier. Not sure how well my players would deal with that particular scenario, but that's part of the developing the campaign, I suppose. I'm not taking issue with that side of it; I'm more concerned about, say you have a dozen tables who buy into this, you'd have a dozen dossiers like that roughly every 2 weeks (at least in my head, that reads about a two session adventure seed). Then you'd get to retreive and read the reports (say 5 players per group, figure ~45 reports each period), compile them, establish the campaign chronology, then communicate the benefits/ setbacks and resource changes to everyone involved. I think it would be a crapton of work, and I wouldn't envy you the coordinating side of things.

I certainly could build a mission frame around that dossier. Not sure how well my players would deal with that particular scenario, but that's part of the developing the campaign, I suppose. I'm not taking issue with that side of it; I'm more concerned about, say you have a dozen tables who buy into this, you'd have a dozen dossiers like that roughly every 2 weeks (at least in my head, that reads about a two session adventure seed). Then you'd get to retreive and read the reports (say 5 players per group, figure ~45 reports each period), compile them, establish the campaign chronology, then communicate the benefits/ setbacks and resource changes to everyone involved. I think it would be a crapton of work, and I wouldn't envy you the coordinating side of things.

A table would likely get a new mission once every two weeks, provided they submitted their information on time. This gives me optimistically a week to sort everything out with the GMs for the next set of missions.

A lot of the mission results will be pretty binary, unless things go horribly terribly wrong.

Kill a Moff, tensions are high but operating in the area is a little easier. Everyone is panicked, but isn't receiving direction so it is mostly chaos. Free a forced labor camp, bounty hunters will abound, but we picked up some new recruits for the base. Sabotage a weapons manufacturer that caters to the Empire in that sector, they have to spread thin to defend the new supply line.

Then there is the equipment runs. The ability to take care of injuries at base would allow the groups to focus more on their games. An amazing mechanic at our disposal means that upgrading weapons and equipment isn't so difficult.

A looted armory means new toys for all.

Like I said, I'd intend to make it as little work for everyone involved, but work will still be required to make it run right.