SFOD-D ("Delta Force") template (critique?)

[Dragondog]

Social Engineering says that the US President doesn't have military rank. It says he has Political Rank 7 and gives orders to generals and admirals with Military Rank 8 (p. 13).

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

Social Engineering says that the US President doesn't have military rank. It says he has Political Rank 7 and gives orders to generals and admirals with Military Rank 8 (p. 13).

Aha! I mis-read it. Fixed. (It actually makes it easier.)

[cosmicfish]

I didn't line by line to see what was or was not included, but here were a few things that caught my eye:

I would up the Security Clearance a level. These guys are really only restricted by need to know, and that (to me) is SC 2.

Guns (Pistol) should be a mandatory skill. For the work these guys do, they all spend a LOT of time with pistols. And (as others noted) I would consider raising the levels - you would be hard pressed to find better tactical shooters in the world than these guys.

Your CQB technique needs to be designated for a skill, and really, they should have a lot of points in Gun techniques like CQB, Immediate Action, and Fast-Firing.

You included all these SF MOS packages at the bottom, but in reality SF is not a unique pipeline to Delta. Some will take that route, but others will come from the Ranger Regiment or other units, despite the "SF" in "SFOD-D". Including the SF MOS packages makes no sense unless you also include a general SF template to go along with them.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by Eukie

Not really, but I am on the outlook for a Perk, Advantage or Technique that represents extensive training in assaulting airframes.

One trick wonder? With whichever skill covers aircraft layout, but only for purposes of hostage rescue related skill rolls.
Or and I look at this as being able to reroll because of extensive training,
Luck (limitation only in hostage rescue situations that mirror youre training)

[Eukie]

Originally Posted by acrosome

7.00 General of the Army (an unusual and uncommon rank- look it up)
7.50 Chief of Staff of the Army
8.00 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (by law the highest ranking military officer in the United States)

I'm aware of General of the Army - comes with having a military interest in WWII. Though, under this system, what rank does a General of Armies hold? :P

(7.25, I'd guess...)

Originally Posted by acrosome

Under this system your template needs minimum Rank 1.5, I'd say.

That makes sense. Though I'm tempted to make the fractions be fifths, so a fraction of rank is worth exactly one point...

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I would up the Security Clearance a level. These guys are really only restricted by need to know, and that (to me) is SC 2.

I'll have to check what various supplements give for Security Clearance. I probably need to touch up the template anyway, since Tactical Shooting has a lot of options and Techniques that weren't in 3E or used in SEALs in Vietnam, so I forgot about them. For example, all SFOD-D operators have sniper training, Tactical Shooting introduces various Techniques that snipers should/must have.

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Guns (Pistol) should be a mandatory skill. For the work these guys do, they all spend a LOT of time with pistols. And (as others noted) I would consider raising the levels - you would be hard pressed to find better tactical shooters in the world than these guys.

Hmm, probably. I based it on the 'nam-SEAL template, but I could probably make one of the choose-a-Guns-specialties into one for Pistol to better reflect their narrower focus. I ended up doing that for my UK Special Air Service template I'm working on, and since SFOD-D was closely based on SAS, they're probably not too dissimilar. As for the Guns levels... Tactical Shooting gives Guns 15 to special forces, but also has an example of a Guns (Rifle) 18 SFOD-D sniper. 3E Special Ops 3E gave them Guns 17. I guess I could go with 17.

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Your CQB technique needs to be designated for a skill, and really, they should have a lot of points in Gun techniques like CQB, Immediate Action, and Fast-Firing.

Oh, drat, I missed that. It looks like I'll need to do a lot of updates on this package to cover proper use of Techniques from Tactical Shooting. (Though it seems that, with the "best at everything"-approach of special forces, every single one of them will have all the points in everything, which is a bit dull from a gamist perspective, though perhaps somewhat accurate from a simulation perspective...)

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

You included all these SF MOS packages at the bottom, but in reality SF is not a unique pipeline to Delta. Some will take that route, but others will come from the Ranger Regiment or other units, despite the "SF" in "SFOD-D". Including the SF MOS packages makes no sense unless you also include a general SF template to go along with them.

I included them because I read, variously, that part of SFOD-D operator qualification and training is going through the Special Forces Qualification Course, which includes being selected for and trained in an SF MOS. Hence it seemed that Delta Force operators would have one of those MOSes.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Note this isn't true according to my copy of Tactical Shooting (p. 43).

There's no "dagger" to indicate the required specialization. I checked, and other techniques either call out a particular specialty (say, Guns (Pistol)) or include a required specialization in the Prerequisite column: Riding (dagger).

I take this to mean that CQB covers any use of high-bulk weapons. I'll PM Kromm and Hans to ensure that's not errata, but they are usually very good about being deliberate there.

It's a generic assumption of all Guns-based techniques. At the top of p.43 of Tactical Shooting:

Note that each Guns specialty requires its own technique; improving Quick-Shot (Pistol) gives you no advantage when using a shotgun.

And you'll note, Quick-Shot doesn't have a "dagger" either.

I agree, that's not an ideal place to indicate this...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

It's a generic assumption of all Guns-based techniques. At the top of p.43 of Tactical Shooting:



And you'll note, Quick-Shot doesn't have a "dagger" either.

I agree, that's not an ideal place to indicate this...

And confirmed by Kromm:

"The original version -- from GURPS Gun Fu -- is clearly specialized and
even comes with an example of such. It is NOT standard procedure to put
a mark on techniques to indicate the need for specialization; that's a
skills-and-perks notation that techniques don't require because they're
always specialized unless noted otherwise. For instance, you'll find no
daggers on the techniques in the GURPS Basic Set, where p. B229 spells
out how implicit technique specialties work. Ditto GURPS Martial Arts,
where p. 63 explains specialties. GURPS Tactical Shooting follows this
lead, and all the styles in Chapter 4 require specialties for the CQB
technique."

That means I have to revise my direction to my players in my GURPS Alien Menace campaign. :-)

I deleted my original post so as not to mislead anyone.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Eukie

Hmm, probably. I based it on the 'nam-SEAL template, but I could probably make one of the choose-a-Guns-specialties into one for Pistol to better reflect their narrower focus. I ended up doing that for my UK Special Air Service template I'm working on, and since SFOD-D was closely based on SAS, they're probably not too dissimilar. As for the Guns levels... Tactical Shooting gives Guns 15 to special forces, but also has an example of a Guns (Rifle) 18 SFOD-D sniper. 3E Special Ops 3E gave them Guns 17. I guess I could go with 17.

It will vary depending on what era you are talking about, but it is likely that current Deltas spend as much time or more with pistols and assault rifles than anything else - sniper qualification is important but not something that most of them will be doing every mission. In short, I would say that Rifle and Pistol should be equal, with a smattering of points in other skills.

Originally Posted by Eukie

Oh, drat, I missed that. It looks like I'll need to do a lot of updates on this package to cover proper use of Techniques from Tactical Shooting. (Though it seems that, with the "best at everything"-approach of special forces, every single one of them will have all the points in everything, which is a bit dull from a gamist perspective, though perhaps somewhat accurate from a simulation perspective...)

Agreed on all counts.

Originally Posted by Eukie

I included them because I read, variously, that part of SFOD-D operator qualification and training is going through the Special Forces Qualification Course, which includes being selected for and trained in an SF MOS. Hence it seemed that Delta Force operators would have one of those MOSes.

Nope. Completely different training programs with completely different outcomes. Delta only has "Special Forces" in its title because it was founded and operated under the auspices of that command. SFQC is longer than Delta selection, but also has lower expectations of initial ability and covers a lot of things (languages, interpersonal skills, etc) that Deltas don't need while giving comparatively short shrift to others.

I have an old friend who is currently in SF, and he said the 75th Ranger Regiment was probably a better pipeline for Delta than SF was... although there is always the possibility he was yanking my chain.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Eukie

Oh, drat, I missed that. It looks like I'll need to do a lot of updates on this package to cover proper use of Techniques from Tactical Shooting. (Though it seems that, with the "best at everything"-approach of special forces, every single one of them will have all the points in everything, which is a bit dull from a gamist perspective, though perhaps somewhat accurate from a simulation perspective...)

It also may be a bit wrong from a gamist perspective, if involves points in four mutually-exclusive techniques (such that you'd get strictly better results by raising skill). Though many gun techniques are at least potentially cumulative, so that's less of an issue than it tends to be for melee stylists.

[TheOneRonin]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I have an old friend who is currently in SF, and he said the 75th Ranger Regiment was probably a better pipeline for Delta than SF was... although there is always the possibility he was yanking my chain.

I don't think he is yanking your chain, but I also don't think it's a 100% accurate assessment either.

A lot of that perspective probably comes from unit purpose and mission set than anything else.

Army SF units are trained to be cultural experts first, trainers second (UW/FID), and trigger pullers third (outside of CIF units which are far more DA oriented). And it's not that they are subpar triggerpullers...they are very good at that...far better than the rank and file of the 75th.

But Rangers are DA focused. They shoot/kill/break ****. So I can see how the DA component gets translated into "better for Delta" by some.

However, much of what I've read about Delta (starting with the books I linked earlier) indicates that these guys do a lot more than just DA Hostage Rescue. Clandestine Services training (read "Spy") is a significant component of OTC, and I cannot imagine an SF NCO being less capable in that regard than a 20-year-old Army Ranger.

From what I gathered, the SF veterans struggle the most with unlearning/changing operational habits they've developed over their 10+ years in service, where as the Rangers are going to be more "clean slate" and easier to train.

Plus, Delta Selection is quite possibly the toughest selection program in the US Military. I think a lot of SFers that go into it and think "I've aced SFAS and the Q-course, this will be a piece of cake!" Then they fail miserably. At least with the Rangers, you have young men who know they are in for a world of suck and are probably less cocky about it. To be fair, this is speculation based off of my interactions with special operations personnel and the extensive reading I've done. I have not at any time served in Delta or any other special operations unit.