A possible problem with the rules for Military Rank

Michael Thayne · 11-27-2018, 08:57 PM

I've never served in the military, so I may be misunderstanding this, but: GURPS rank appears to mostly be about how many subordinates you have. In real-world militaries, officers or NCOs of a certain rank might typically command a unit of a certain size, but this isn't true 100% of the time. Command and rank are distinct. Rank determines your position in a hierarchy correlated with, but distinct from, command.

GURPS tries to capture this with Courtesy Rank, but also uses courtesy rank for veterans. This seems like a problem. A retired colonel might be called "colonel", but he can't give anyone orders. A lieutenant colonel serving as a staff officer, on the other hand, might not have a battalion to command but can still give orders if necessary, particularly in an emergency. From the point of view of running an RPG adventure, this seems potentially less useful than commanding a battalion, but also significantly more useful than merely being called "colonel".

All of this is complicated by the fact that Action and Social Engineering seem to think rank is about how seriously your superiors take your requests for assistance. In a campaign where nobody seems to do much commanding regardless of official duties, being a staff officer might be just as useful as allegedly commanding a battalion.

Ignoring campaigns that emulate action movies, you could argue that "Military Rank (Staff Officer) should cost 4/points per level, because the "Variant Cost of Rank" rules in Social Engineering only value a chain of command at 1 point/level. My gut says that's too high, just as valuing "Staff Officer" and "Veteran" equally seems to be valuing things too low. What do people think?

~~evileeyore~~ · 11-27-2018, 11:59 PM

Sometimes when you gaze too long into the rules, you realize the rules really don't reflect reality very much.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate the abstraction of the rules into an accurately playable emulation of reality.

thrash · 11-28-2018, 06:23 AM

I have served in the military (retired officer). For most service members, at least in the US military, the difference between staff and command Rank is minimal and fluid, subject to change on short time frames. Example: as a squadron executive officer, I assumed command of the squadron whenever the assigned commander was going to be absent for more than a day or so -- leave, conferences, etc. It's just not worth the bookkeeping to add and subtract that one point per level every time something changes.

Where it might make sense is for Limited Duty Officers and staff NCOs who are not eligible for command. If a character's Rank comes with that restriction -- if a line Ensign would assume command before an LDO Commander -- it would be reasonable to charge less for it.

Otherwise, don't bother. If your character isn't in command in their current position, sooner or later they will be.

Michael Thayne · 11-28-2018, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrash

I have served in the military (retired officer). For most service members, at least in the US military, the difference between staff and command Rank is minimal and fluid, subject to change on short time frames. Example: as a squadron executive officer, I assumed command of the squadron whenever the assigned commander was going to be absent for more than a day or so -- leave, conferences, etc. It's just not worth the bookkeeping to add and subtract that one point per level every time something changes.

Where it might make sense is for Limited Duty Officers and staff NCOs who are not eligible for command. If a character's Rank comes with that restriction -- if a line Ensign would assume command before an LDO Commander -- it would be reasonable to charge less for it.

Otherwise, don't bother. If your character isn't in command in their current position, sooner or later they will be.

I googled LDOs and I'm not sure I understand the concept. I known an Ensign outranks the most senior NCOs, but it sounds like LDOs are fully commissioned officers, so does the normal rank higherarchy apply? Also, outside LDOs, are there any situations where you think Courtesy Rank is appropriate for fully commissioned, active duty officers?

ericthered · 11-28-2018, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I googled LDOs and I'm not sure I understand the concept. I known an Ensign outranks the most senior NCOs, but it sounds like LDOs are fully commissioned officers, so does the normal rank higherarchy apply? Also, outside LDOs, are there any situations where you think Courtesy Rank is appropriate for fully commissioned, active duty officers?

As I understand it, LDO's are commissioned officers that fill a non-commissioned role. A typical lieutenant is a young man who recently went to officer school, where he was taught tactics, leadership, and command. An LDO is a grizzled veteran who spent most of his career as a NCO. In most branches of the military you'd stick increasingly impressive adjectives in front of "Sargent", and remind the lieutenants that while they out rank him, he's old friends with their commander's commander. In the navy, you promote him to be an officer and remind the generals that he hasn't been trained for classical command.

For commissioned, active duty officers with courtesy rank, I'd take a good long hard look at special forces and pilots. They get a lot of respect, and they can only be commanded by high ranking officers, but they don't usually command large numbers of people: they are elite soldiers, not commanders. This will vary from situation to situation, but you may want at least consider whether Captain "Ace" Armstrong actually commands 100 men or whether he's just paid like he does (and possibly is just as effective and/or expensive to deploy).

johndallman · 11-28-2018, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericthered

As I understand it, LDO's are commissioned officers that fill a non-commissioned role.

Not to be confused with Restricted Line Officers, who are technical specialist officers, not eligible to command ships.

johndallman · 11-28-2018, 07:45 AM

As best I understand it, military rank is about what the service thinks you're capable of doing, rather than what you happen to be doing at the present. Organisations that fight wars have to be capable of mending their command structures rapidly and automatically when people are killed or otherwise unable to do their jobs, and military rank provides a way of handling that.

GURPS Rank maps directly onto military rank, and in military games, it's worth the cost, even if you don't have lots of troops to command. You get taken seriously, you can operate independently, you're eligible to take Patrons, Allies and Contacts that would be implausible for privates, and you can fill in when the people who should be in command aren't available.

That last has been important a few times in the WWII campaign I play in. The party are a bunch of oddly-behaved specialists, but they do have real Rank, which has allowed them to salvage situations when the assigned officers were dead or wounded.

Stormcrow · 11-28-2018, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evileeyore

What we have here, is a failure to communicate the abstraction of the rules into an accurately playable emulation of reality.

The rules are not supposed to be an emulation of reality. They're supposed to be a way to let game masters work out a reasonable answer to the question, "What happens next?" and to let players fairly choose abilities commensurate with each other.

The purpose of the Rank advantages is not to reflect the realities of holding rank in an organization. The purpose is spelled out in the text of the advantage: "if an organization... has significant social influence, or access to useful resources, then its members must pay points for their rank within the organization" and "Each Rank has authority over those of lower Rank..."

Having Military Rank means having reaction modifiers when dealing with other members of the military or people who respect the military. It means access to greater and greater resources according to the level of the advantage. It means being able to order other members of the military about.

What Military Rank is not is an accurate reflection of the rank system of any particular military organization. It does not consider commissioned versus non-commissioned ranks or field assignments versus desk jobs.

If your character possesses the social influence, resources, or authority of someone in the military at a certain level, then take the appropriate level of Military Rank. Don't consider anything else, because that's all the advantage is about.

Courtesy Rank: You have the social influence of the rank, but not the resources or authority.

The only reason any of this could be a "problem" is that you're conflating what GURPS Ranks reflect about a character and how real-world ranks in organizations actually work. Keep these separate.

Michael Thayne · 11-28-2018, 08:26 AM

Here's where I'm not sure I understand what an LDO is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrash

If a character's Rank comes with that restriction -- if a line Ensign would assume command before an LDO Commander -- it would be reasonable to charge less for it.

Even if an LDO wouldn't normally command the unit, as johndallman, the purpose of rank is to let you mend your command structure quickly when people die. So even if it wouldn't normally happen, couldn't an LDO who's O-2 or above end up giving orders to O-1s in a crisis, even if it's not the LDO's normal job? And isn't the same true of, say, a medical doctor who's been given a commission?

Michael Thayne · 11-28-2018, 08:30 AM

@Stormcrow: the thing in the rules I'm questioning is mostly the use of Courtesy Rank for active-duty personnel. I agree GURPS can't quite be blamed for not fully capturing all the details of specific real-world rank systems (it's trying to be generic, after all), but the Courtesy Rank thing seems like a possible mistake.

11-27-2018, 08:57 PM	#1
Michael Thayne Join Date: May 2010	A possible problem with the rules for Military Rank I've never served in the military, so I may be misunderstanding this, but: GURPS rank appears to mostly be about how many subordinates you have. In real-world militaries, officers or NCOs of a certain rank might typically command a unit of a certain size, but this isn't true 100% of the time. Command and rank are distinct. Rank determines your position in a hierarchy correlated with, but distinct from, command. GURPS tries to capture this with Courtesy Rank, but also uses courtesy rank for veterans. This seems like a problem. A retired colonel might be called "colonel", but he can't give anyone orders. A lieutenant colonel serving as a staff officer, on the other hand, might not have a battalion to command but can still give orders if necessary, particularly in an emergency. From the point of view of running an RPG adventure, this seems potentially less useful than commanding a battalion, but also significantly more useful than merely being called "colonel". All of this is complicated by the fact that *Action* and *Social Engineering* seem to think rank is about how seriously your superiors take your requests for assistance. In a campaign where nobody seems to do much commanding regardless of official duties, being a staff officer might be just as useful as allegedly commanding a battalion. Ignoring campaigns that emulate action movies, you could argue that "Military Rank (Staff Officer) should cost 4/points per level, because the "Variant Cost of Rank" rules in *Social Engineering* only value a chain of command at 1 point/level. My gut says that's too high, just as valuing "Staff Officer" and "Veteran" equally seems to be valuing things too low. What do people think?

11-27-2018, 11:59 PM	#2
~~evileeyore~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: 100 hurricane swamp	Re: A possible problem with the rules for Military Rank Sometimes when you gaze too long into the rules, you realize the rules really don't reflect reality very much. What we have here, is a failure to communicate the abstraction of the rules into an accurately playable emulation of reality.

11-28-2018, 06:23 AM	#3
thrash Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: traveller	Re: A possible problem with the rules for Military Rank I have served in the military (retired officer). For most service members, at least in the US military, the difference between staff and command Rank is minimal and fluid, subject to change on short time frames. Example: as a squadron executive officer, I assumed command of the squadron whenever the assigned commander was going to be absent for more than a day or so -- leave, conferences, etc. It's just not worth the bookkeeping to add and subtract that one point per level every time something changes. Where it might make sense is for Limited Duty Officers and staff NCOs who are not eligible for command. If a character's Rank comes with that restriction -- if a line Ensign would assume command before an LDO Commander -- it would be reasonable to charge less for it. Otherwise, don't bother. If your character isn't in command in their current position, sooner or later they will be.

11-28-2018, 07:45 AM	#7
johndallman Night Watchman Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Cambridge, UK	Re: A possible problem with the rules for Military Rank As best I understand it, military rank is about what the service thinks you're capable of doing, rather than what you happen to be doing at the present. Organisations that fight wars have to be capable of mending their command structures rapidly and automatically when people are killed or otherwise unable to do their jobs, and military rank provides a way of handling that. GURPS Rank maps directly onto military rank, and in military games, it's worth the cost, even if you don't have lots of troops to command. You get taken seriously, you can operate independently, you're eligible to take Patrons, Allies and Contacts that would be implausible for privates, and you can fill in when the people who should be in command aren't available. That last has been important a few times in the WWII campaign I play in. The party are a bunch of oddly-behaved specialists, but they do have real Rank, which has allowed them to salvage situations when the assigned officers were dead or wounded. __________________ The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques.

11-28-2018, 08:30 AM	#10
Michael Thayne Join Date: May 2010	Re: A possible problem with the rules for Military Rank @Stormcrow: the thing in the rules I'm questioning is mostly the use of Courtesy Rank for active-duty personnel. I agree GURPS can't quite be blamed for not fully capturing all the details of specific real-world rank systems (it's trying to be generic, after all), but the Courtesy Rank thing seems like a possible mistake.