Military roleplaying: line troops or special operations?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by 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.

As a GM, for the sort of campaigns I run, this would not be an acceptable character. This not only a starting plausible grunt, this is not a plausible human being. Of course, I do run skill heavy games.

But if I were presented with this character these are the questions I'd start asking the player:

GM: I assume your character is 18 and fresh out of high school, is that correct?
Player: Yeah.
GM: And I assume that you're fresh out of basic and have no experience?
Player: Yeah.
GM: Let's start at the beginning. Where is your character from?
Player: From Boston, Mass.
GM: Alright, you should have Area Knowledge (Boston). What did your character do growing up? Looking at your IQ, you probably weren't a braniac. Did you play sports? Did you have any hobbies? Did you have to work after school? Or were your parents well off enough that you didn't have to do anything? Does your character know how to drive a car? Tell me more about who you were before you joined the service?

Throughout this conversation we explore this person, and perhaps the player says...

Player: My character is Donnie O'Leary. A strong brawler street kid from Southie. He was always getting in trouble growing up. He ran with a bad crowd. He didn't pay attention to his classes, rather ran with his gang.

GM: Okay, from what you described, you should probably have the Brawling skill and the Streetwise skill. What did your gang actually do? Did you get into real fights with other gangs? Did you use knives or other sorts of weapons? What did you spend your time doing in the gang?

Player: Yeah, we got into real fights..Donnie had been in numerous fights already. He's used knives and brass knuckles. And the gangs would hang out on street corners gambling and threatening other people...hotrodding, partying.

GM: Well, you should add the Knife skill, probably Intimidation as well...and Gambling and Carousing might be a possibility as well. Since you've been in fights regularly, you might want to think about Combat Reflexes. Since you imagine yourself as a big bruiser, you might want to think about High Pain Threshold and upping your ST and HT by 1. Also Driving (Automobile).

Player: Okay, that sounds good.

GM: Now...let's talk about your soldier self...you only have Savoir-Faire, Hiking, and Rifle. You should add, Soldier no doubt...Well, hold on, let me show you the basic list of skills for a Rifleman from WW2. You have to have all of the ones listed under Primary Skills, those are the ones you learned in Basic. The secondary or optional are a but up to you...depending on how dedicated you think your character is.

Player: I think my PC isn't a very good soldier...so may not have picked up some of the secondary or optional skills.

GM: Alright, let's see what we've got.

Donnie O'Leary--Nair-do-Well ex Southie Gang Member, now not very good soldier.
Attributes [24]
ST 12 (lifting ST +3) [29]
DX 10 [0]
IQ 9 [-20]
HT 11 [10]
Fit [5]

Advantages: [25]
Combat Reflexes [15]
High Pain Threshold [10]
Rank 0 [0]

Disadvantages: [-35]
Wealth: Struggling [-10]
Duty (15 or less, Extremely Hazardous) [-20]
A bit of a hothead/impulsive [-1]
Dismissive of authority [-1]
Loyal to his comrades and easily swayed by them [-1]
Underachiever [-1]
Mildly Racist [-1]

Skills: [36]
Area Knowledge (Boston)-9 [1]
Brawling-10 [1]
Camouflage-9 [1]
Carousing-11 [1]
Climbing-9 [1]
Driving (Automobile)-9 [1]
First Aid-9 [1]
Gambling-10 [4]
Gunner (Machine Gun)-10 [1]
Guns (Light Auto)-10 [1]
Guns(Rifle)-12[4]
Hiking-9 [1]
Intimidation-10 [4]
Jumping-10 [1]
Knife-11 [2]
Savoir-Faire(Military)-9 [1]
Soldier-8 [1]
Spear-9 [1]
Stealth-9 [1]
Streetwise-10 [4]
Throwing-10 [2]
Traps-8 [1]

Total [50]

Now, I look over the character sheet and note that Donnie is pretty incompetent. So I say...

GM: You have a lot of 8s and 9s in skills that are sort of important. So...you really aren't very good at your job.

Player: Yeah, he's an underachiever...did you see my Quirk?

GM: I did. So perhaps you might want to think about adding Luck...perhaps that could explain how you survive while still being a bit...not good at your job and not that bright.

Player: Sounds good!

Add: Luck [15]
And now the point total is at [65].

We have a PC that works better as a person but is underskilled as per the guidelines of G:WW2. So this is a person who isn't that good at what their supposed to be doing. They will be one of the worst soldiers in the PC crew...but it is an interesting character, and hopefully the character will get better over the course of the adventures.

I'd prefer the character spend at least another 10pts to up some of those skills from 8's and 9's to 9s and 10s. Then you have a 75cp character and seems about right. But honestly, quite a few of those skills should be 11's...which will necessitate more skill points spent, or upping the DX to 11. And it is not inconceivable that the soldier ends up somewhere between 75 and 100. That is a far cry from 0cp.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by trooper6

As a GM, for the sort of campaigns I run, this would not be an acceptable character. This not only a starting plausible grunt, this is not a plausible human being. Of course, I do run skill heavy games.

Understand: 1 point in a skill is a lot. It's 200 hours of dedicated study, or more likely 800 hours of incidental experience while doing it. Most skills should be at default, not even 1 point, and very few skills should have more than 1 point. This is what I meant by skill escalation. This is not to say that an average character should be 0 points, or even that an average person should be 0 points, but 25 points is plenty.

Originally Posted by trooper6

We have a PC that works better as a person but is underskilled as per the guidelines of G:WW2.

Yeah, well, that's 4e point escalation for you.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Yeah, well, that's 4e point escalation for you.

G:WW2 is a 3e book so you can't blame 4e point escalation on that.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Understand: 1 point in a skill is a lot. It's 200 hours of dedicated study, or more likely 800 hours of incidental experience while doing it. Most skills should be at default, not even 1 point, and very few skills should have more than 1 point. This is what I meant by skill escalation. This is not to say that an average character should be 0 points, or even that an average person should be 0 points, but 25 points is plenty.

Here is where we disagree.
So an average school year is 180s days.

http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/chart8.pdf shows us the average, non-employed high school student spends
8.8hrs/day Sleeping
6.2hrs/day on Education
3.8hrs/day Socializing, Leisure, Relaxing
.8hrs/day Sports, Exercise
.2hrs/day Religious/Volunteer

This does not take into account what high school students do over the summer, which might be Sports camps, music camp, etc. and it doesn't take into account any of the education and time spent practicing sports and hobbies before high school.

So this person has, after 4 years of high school:
4,464 hours for education related things.
2,736 hours for Socializing, Leisure, Relaxing
576 hours for Sports, Exercise
144 hours for Religion/Volunteering.

And if your kid has practiced piano every day for an hour since they were 5 years old? Or started playing soccer at age five? Or if your average starting character is not a high school grad but a college grad? Or joined the military after high school and spent four years there? What if your average person is 30 years old and had lived a life with the accompanying accumulations of hours of experience?

The idea that most skills are at 0 and only one or two skills even have 1pt in them...and very few have more than 1...that doesn't reflect what you'd get if you built your average person just using time usage sheets. It doesn't reflect the 1cp = 200/400/800hours. If you follow that, you are going to get more than 25cps.

Oh and also ETA: If you also remember that professional skills need to be 12...and you are a cult of stat normalization wanting everybody to be at 10/10/10/10...then you are going to have to have a couple of skills at Attribute+2 which is going to run between 4-16 points per skill.

Note: B172 under Ordinary Folks--"For an “average” person, it is reasonable to assume attributes between 9 and 11, and from 20 to 40 points in “life skills” (varying with education and dedication). Most people spread these points fairly evenly over roughly a dozen skills. This will result in skill levels between 8 and 13. Skills used to earn a living tend toward the upper end of this range (12 or 13), while little-used skills and those originating from long-forgotten college courses are at the lower end (8 or 9)." This dictages that average folks should be spending between 20-40cp in life skills. Even if you think 4e is crazy and cut that in half, you end up with 10-20 points in skills...way more than your idea of most skills being ad default with only one or two skills with 1cp in them.

I'm not a cinematic character...I live in the real world. In order to do my job, I need Teaching, Writing, History (Music), Research all at 12+ (probably more since I have a PhD in this subject, so let's say 13 since you seem to be a stat normalizer type). If you give me an IQ of 10, History (Music)-13 [16], Research-13 [12], Teaching-13 [12], Writing-13 [12]. That's 52pts in skills...and doesn't reflect the secondary skills related to my job I'd have picked up (Computer Ops, Administration), my time in the military, my Performance skills, etc. And I am an actual, regular person.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Here is where we disagree.
So an average school year is 180s days.

Yes, but pre-collegiate courses are generally not very challenging (i.e. they don't really require you to pay full attention), and a significant amount of schooling is actually spent on (a) raising your stats from child values to normal, and (b) acquiring all your defaults, which aren't given a point value in GURPS but do require experience.

Originally Posted by trooper6

The idea that most skills are at 0 and only one or two skills even have 1pt in them...and very few have more than 1...that doesn't reflect what you'd get if you built your average person just using time usage sheets. It doesn't reflect the 1cp = 200/400/800hours. If you follow that, you are going to get more than 25cps.

The key thing is that many activities don't actually generate any experience.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Understand: 1 point in a skill is a lot. It's 200 hours of dedicated study, or more likely 800 hours of incidental experience while doing it.

Or a few hours under pressure or a single lethal fight. Don't forget that. Kromm has repeatedly said that skills can be learned far faster than in classroom situation when they have a direct application to stressful circumstances and can be learnt by doing. The game rules bear that out.

Also, a lot of the first few points of combat skills are less complex knowledge than they are simple willingness to strike to hurt. Someone with Brawling at DX+2 probably doesn't need a long time to learn to strike at DX with entrenching tools, knives, rifle butt, bayonet, etc.

If modelling reality, it's best to accept that the time required to develop a certain skill level will vary enormously according to what skill it is and that in general the skills that are part of basic military training are ones that can be learned extremely fast compared to many others.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The key thing is that many activities don't actually generate any experience.

Military training clearly does, though. Your "template" is lacking even in that.

At minimum I'd expect a character with the Rifleman or Assaulter style from Tactical Shooting, one or two Dabbler perks representing background, and a point in one or two actual background skills (a job, hobby, or sport, most likely). Also I'd require Luck at some level, since this is clearly intended to be one of the guys who saw the elephant more than once and lived.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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.

hump 30-40kg of kit 12-18 hours per day.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Military training clearly does, though. Your "template" is lacking even in that.

At minimum I'd expect a character with the Rifleman or Assaulter style from Tactical Shooting, one or two Dabbler perks representing background, and a point in one or two actual background skills (a job, hobby, or sport, most likely). Also I'd require Luck at some level, since this is clearly intended to be one of the guys who saw the elephant more than once and lived.

Lets see... I did basic in 1987, Ft. Dix.

Daily training schedule 1st 3 weeks:
0600 revile (sh*)^3
0630 Formation, followed by PT
0715 change to BDU, formation, march to...
0730 mess
0800 march or cattlecar to morning instruction
0815 morning instruction block
1130 march or cattlecar to...
1145 mess
1215 march or cattlecar to afternoon instruction
1230 afternoon instruction block
1545 march or cattlecar back to barracks
1600 military skills time - marching, polishing, cleaning weapons, policing the barracks & grounds
1700 break for evening formation and colors
1715 march to mess
1730 mess
1800 march to barracks
1815 DI's time by platoon
1900 personal time, on company grounds.
2100 in room or restroom (sh*)^3
2130 lights out.
Every third night, a 2 hour watch or morning KP was pulled; this resulted in 2.5 hours less sleep most times.

Instruction was 6 days per week.
Weeks 4-6 were same basic schedule, except that mess was brought to us, no PT was assigned, and week 5 had a 3 day bivouac. Week 7 was a 5 day bivouac. Training during bivouac was essentially simulated combat.

So, 9 hours a day of training, plus (typically) 1 of study and 1/2 of PT, for 10.5 hours a day, 6 days a week, and 8 weeks. 63x8=504 hours... call it, using the double rate for military level programming, 5 skill points.

So, that should be:
Soldier/TL7
Rifle
Grenade
Bayonet
Knife
Judo (Akijutsu, actually)
Savoir Faire (Military)
Communications/TL7
Orienteering
First Aid

That's pretty much what was covered, too. Using G1-3 levels, half point each, basic is 5 points...

Tech schools are typically slightly less intense; but same points should apply, since the schedules are much the same.
So 54 weeks of 64T10 classwork should be about 30 points more... but then you run into the age limit on skills.

If, instead, you use the 200 hour rule hard and fast, basic is forced to be 2.5 points
Soldier/TL7
Rifle
Judo
Savoir Faire (military)
First Aid

And Tech school would then be about 15 points... pretty reasonable.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

hump 30-40kg of kit 12-18 hours per day.

Dude, I was a light infantryman for eight years. I know what humping a pack is like. I'm saying that only a handful of guys in my experience could dead lift as much weight without feeling it as a GURPS character with ST 14.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Dude, I was a light infantryman for eight years. I know what humping a pack is like. I'm saying that only a handful of guys in my experience could dead lift as much weight without feeling it as a GURPS character with ST 14.

Basic problem is that someone with experience does rapidly become significantly stronger than an average civilian. 14 may be excessive, I was being pretty lazy in my build, but unless you reduce average guy to 9, hard to generate the difference without some elvation of strength).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Dude, I was a light infantryman for eight years. I know what humping a pack is like. I'm saying that only a handful of guys in my experience could dead lift as much weight without feeling it as a GURPS character with ST 14.

I agree that ST 14 is excessive, but 'without feeling it' is not implied at any level of ST. Due to the 'heroic average' of characters, any discomfort and difficulty that is less than something that would stop a person from functioning if the alternative is death is glossed over.

Yes, in a realistic game, being hit in the nose hurts like a ----------- and hiking 20 miles makes you wake up hurting in places you didn't even know existed. But apart from Will rolls that the GM may or may not enforce in order for PCs to do things that most people will shy away from, there is nothing preventing PCs from doing these things again and again, without impairment. An average ST 10 punch to the nose will do less than 1 HP of damage. Spending all your FP will leave you fine in a couple of hours.

This doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt or that anyone would do these things without feeling them. In fact, a starkly realistic game would probably feature a lot of Will rolls just to reach the performance that GURPS assumes as standard for average characters. Because there is a world of difference between what someone can do, if the alternative is death, and what he wants to do.