Military roleplaying: line troops or special operations?

[Anthony]

Another side note: you can have line troops who happen to be exceptional. If someone notices, they may get promoted into some unit that will take greater advantage, but that can be part of a campaign.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Another side note: you can have line troops who happen to be exceptional. If someone notices, they may get promoted into some unit that will take greater advantage, but that can be part of a campaign.

Or they happen to have washed out of Ranger school because they wore the wrong boots, or out of SAR training because of a ruptured ear drum, or out of SEAL training because they didn't get a waver for colorblindness, etc.

But those people are still going to be normal adventurer level characters with 200+ point sheets, not the 25-50 point characters the people who love low level games go for.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Or they happen to have washed out of Ranger school because they wore the wrong boots, or out of SAR training because of a ruptured ear drum, or out of SEAL training because they didn't get a waver for colorblindness, etc.

But those people are still going to be normal adventurer level characters with 200+ point sheets, not the 25-50 point characters the people who love low level games go for.

Note: You can do an "Average Joe" campaign with way more than 25-50 points.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Note: You can do an "Average Joe" campaign with way more than 25-50 points.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to make an "ordinary" Paratrooper or Marine for that little.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Note: You can do an "Average Joe" campaign with way more than 25-50 points.

You'll find that a lot of the crowd who go into the low level stuff are really saying they're playing around that point, or not much higher.

I have no taste for it, I'll go as low as playing a 150 point character, but I won't touch a campaign below that.

Especially since those games tend to be things like 40 points base with a 20 point disad max, welcome to the shallow end of the gene pool...

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

You'll find that a lot of the crowd who go into the low level stuff are really saying they're playing around that point, or not much higher.

I have no taste for it, I'll go as low as playing a 150 point character, but I won't touch a campaign below that.

Especially since those games tend to be things like 40 points base with a 20 point disad max, welcome to the shallow end of the gene pool...

Well I suppose I'm a funny bird then. Because I've never played in a high starting point game. I've never played a 400+cp game, for example. The highest starting point level I've ever played was 250cp. Generally, I'm at 150cp. Though I've also done 75cp. But 25-50cp? Not in 4th Ed for me.

Maybe I'm an "average starting point" sort of person.

Oh...and B10 describes 25points as "small children" -- just don't figure it is a useful full time starting level for soldiers for me.

I could see starting my players off with 25pts if they actually were 8 year old kids...and then quickly giving them more points as they grow...but it basically goes against my suspension of disbelief for competent, realistic people with the breadth of skills I like PCs to have (to include Area Knowledges, Hobby Skills, and things many see as "wasted points") to have only 50cps.

But then, I'm not a member of the cult stat normalization and tend to have very skill heavy games.

[ak_aramis]

While I've had 25 point PC's in games I've run, that was under 1E, and the value of points really started to change in the era of 3rd ed, and upped again notably with 4th...

A 1E to Early 3E, 50 point base, 4/40 disads game is VERY playable, especially with the 2xAge in skills limit. A buddy of mine ran that baseline for an active duty vietnam game... rules 3E (pre revised 3E). Average age was 18. Average disad set was a duty, a sense of duty, an addition (tobacco, weed, or booze), and one psychological one. Age range of starting PC's was 18-24... Worked fine. Especially since the ugly stat creep of G:SO was not yet seen. GM also required at least Age in points be spent on skills. This also applied to NPCs, so his typical VC 15 yo 25pt had 10+disads for stats... You wind up with 50pt PC's having stats in the 10-12 range, an advantage, and lots of skills in the 10-14 range.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

While I've had 25 point PC's in games I've run, that was under 1E, and the value of points really started to change in the era of 3rd ed, and upped again notably with 4th...

A 1E to Early 3E, 50 point base, 4/40 disads game is VERY playable, especially with the 2xAge in skills limit. A buddy of mine ran that baseline for an active duty vietnam game... rules 3E (pre revised 3E). Average age was 18. Average disad set was a duty, a sense of duty, an addition (tobacco, weed, or booze), and one psychological one. Age range of starting PC's was 18-24... Worked fine. Especially since the ugly stat creep of G:SO was not yet seen. GM also required at least Age in points be spent on skills. This also applied to NPCs, so his typical VC 15 yo 25pt had 10+disads for stats... You wind up with 50pt PC's having stats in the 10-12 range, an advantage, and lots of skills in the 10-14 range.

Yeah, though the switches from 3e to 4e has really changed point values....especially for attributes. With 50 base, 40/5 disads and the 2xAge skill limit, and the existence of 1/2 points in skills. You could have a 11 ST, 11 IQ, 12 DX, 11 HT [50], Spend 36pts on Skills will the option have having quite a few 1/2 points on Background skills...and still have 9cps left over.

That same character in 4e...the attributes are going to cost 80cp...leaving only 15cp for skills...and all the 1/2 pt background skills are going to have to be dropped or up to 1 full point...that 50cp just doesn't go as far in 4e as it does in 3e.

Sometimes I think people who have really internalized Xcp limits in 3e--and have moral or identity attachments to those cp levels (i.e. I only play low level games because I am x or I only play high level games because low level games are for people who are like y), sometimes have a hard time adjusting to the new cp level paradigm.

[Anthony]

A lot of the expectation of needing high points is inflation of expected stats and skills. You can have a plausible enough grunt with:
ST 11 (lifting ST +3) [19]
DX 10 [0]
IQ 9 [-20]
HT 10 [0]
Fit [5]
Guns(Rifle)-12[4]
Hiking-9 [1]
Savoir-Faire(Military)-10[1]
Wealth: Struggling [-10]

Total 0 points. Sure, it's not a particularly heroic character, but it's plenty to count as a 'regular' by 3e mass combat standards, or as 'average' troops by 4e mass combat.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Total 0 points. Sure, it's not a particularly heroic character, but it's plenty to count as a 'regular' by 3e mass combat standards, or as 'average' troops by 4e mass combat.

It's missing Soldier, the Guns skill doesn't match Tactical Shooting's levels for trained infantry, and nobody becomes an infantryman in a 20th-21st century military without some kind of background skills or at least Dabbler perks.

OTOH, I'm not sure why you think that infantry needs lifting ST 14, some might have it, but it's definitely unusual.