Coolness survey: Corps or Regimental traditions

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Brett

So the possibilities include

• a construction based on self-conscious contrast with the previous spontaneous coining of "mink"
• a spontaneous coining suggesting having been harvested from the wilds, perhaps with a suggestion that they were unexpected or out-of-place there
• something suggesting exile, forsakenness, or being cut off from one's roots
• Something (probably with double-layered irony) suggesting disappointment of ambition, the step down from middle-school seniority to high-school freshmanship, slogging at base-grade tasks, or being overlooked and unappreciated.

Poor little lambs?

Or perhaps, more aptly, Black Sheep?

Baa, baa, baa.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Poor little lambs?

Or perhaps, more aptly, Black Sheep?

Baa, baa, baa.

Yes, that's certain better than "[gentlemen] rankers", which is what I have been thinking of along that line.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Regimental insignia and histories of some elements of the US 1st Marine Division.

http://www.i-mef.usmc.mil/div/1mar/default.asp

Odd. The Southern Cross. That's usually a symbol of countries in the south of the southern hemisphere: Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Papua Nugini.

[Langy]

Plus your players get more use out of their points in Savoire Faire (Military) and related knowledge skills ("Never wear a hat in the 93rd's mess bar and remember to salute the stuffed goat as you enter - even though you're not wearing a hat")

On the other hand, it means people will have some serious familiarity penalties to Savoire Faire (Military) in any regiment but the one they've been trained in.

While, yes, weird customs might allow for cheap and easy characterization, it's silly characterization - not the kind I usually want associated with my campaign settings. The understated stuff that the US Marine Corps regiments would be fine - but completely different uniforms and rank titles will just make it seem like every regiment is in a completely different organization from every other and will likely confuse people rather more than make them go 'oh, that's cool'.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Do you really need to describe it any great detail for all the regiments? I think just mentioning that regiments have nonsense, and then describing one or two should be fine.

Nonsense isn't the right word. Such things are outside the framework of rationality. Regiments do not have traditions because it will help the emperors interests. They have traditions because they have traditions and THAT, by chance likely helps the emperors interests.

[jason taylor]

I did an interesting compromise. On parade every unit is clad in a rather spartan uniform, except for the front company who has "bling of war" according to that units customs.

[Anaraxes]

Odd. The Southern Cross...

Part of the Guadalcanal (and New Britain) connection? The Solomon Islands are Southern Hemisphere.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Nonsense isn't the right word. Such things are outside the framework of rationality. Regiments do not have traditions because it will help the emperors interests. They have traditions because they have traditions and THAT, by chance likely helps the emperors interests.

The presence or absence of a policy of standardisation is involved too. Scottish regiments, hussars, dragoons, lancers, horse guards, and infantry originally had different sorts of hats because of practical reasons or cultural traditions. But on the other hand, when the Foot Guards were granted bearskin caps as a distinction of their achievement at Waterloo, the different coloured plumes for the different regiments had no traditional basis: they were added as a deliberate mark of distinction. Likewise with the arrangement of buttons on the tunics of Guards regiments. The Grenadiers, Coldstreams, Scots, Irish, and Welsh have their buttons groups in ones, twos, threes, fours, and fives in order of their seniority in the Army List. That must have been a deliberate innovation at some time involving systematic adoption of distinctions that were not at that time traditional.

Uniforms in all countries that have a military history longer than about sixty years have changed at least once. Traditional uniforms have been replaced with new uniforms, and the reason that this has not led to uniformity is that there has been an official policy of granting and allowing distinctions. For example, the Coldstream Guards were formed in 1650, and originally buff coats and helmets or slouch hats. Their "traditional" scarlet tunics date to the 18th century, the bearskin caps to 1815.... I don't know when the red plumes and paired buttons came in, but those were obviously deliberate distinctions. For other-than ceremonial duties the khaki uniforms came in in the 1880, the style changed to remove the skirts of the tunic about WWII, DPM came in in the '60s, etc. And if it had been policy to do so, each of those waves of innovation could have obscured traditional distinctions. But the British Army chose to keep cap badges, glengarries, and tam-o-shanters even while it was replacing shakos with caps, caps with berets, etc.

I think I made a mistake in emphasising the bewildering character of British regimental tradition, and the very heterogenous appearance of full dress uniform. Most soldiers don't even get full dress any more. I was not thinking of making Imperial Marines that colourful: for a start they don't have the background of being variously dragoons, hussars, lancers, horse guards, foot guards, infantry of the line, rifles, fusiliers and all those different things. British Number 1 though Number 15 uniforms are much more uniform than full dress uniforms, and the main differences are in beret colours (or occasionally a glengarry, highland bonnet, or tam-o-shanter instead of a beret), cap badges, belt buckles, and tactical recognition flashes. It's not all that different (I think) from the US Army's coloured berets, divisional patches, etc.

As for nicknames, traditional toasts, and other such distinctions in non-regulated behaviour I think it's inevitable that they will form, and given the slow turnover of personnel and attentuated contact between units that they will become traditional. To me that seems so obvious as to not need mentioning.

[Adina]

Originally Posted by Icelander

To me, at least, Regimental traditions are quaint, interesting and make for excellent characterisation hooks.

Hence, good gaming material.

Originally Posted by martinl

I personally find the weird set of individual customs cooler, from a gaming perspective. Cruft like that allows for cheap and easy characterization. Noting a vast quantity of undefined cultural peculiarities is also just asking for wacky player creativity, which is a good thing IMO.

I agree with Icelander* and Martinl on this.

Originally Posted by Brett

O Lord! I wouldn't dream of trying to make up all 264!

Save that for the IM splatbook.

Originally Posted by Langy

While, yes, weird customs might allow for cheap and easy characterization, it's silly characterization

No it is not.

And I am speaking as a player with a character with IM background. Regimental customs are not characterization, they do not define the character. They add colour, a point of difference from other characters. It's basically a Quirk.

Originally Posted by Brett

As for nicknames, traditional toasts, and other such distinctions in non-regulated behaviour I think it's inevitable that they will form, and given the slow turnover of personnel and attentuated contact between units that they will become traditional.

Let me second this. And given that some traditions are likely to accumulate, I would expect the Imperial psychologists would choose to direct it.

Jeff

*Wonders never cease.

[Langy]

And I am speaking as a player with a character with IM background. Regimental customs are not characterization, they do not define the character. They add colour, a point of difference from other characters. It's basically a Quirk.

Yes, but that color* is silly. Unless Brett really was completely overdoing it in his examples, of course - if what he really meant was 'like the US army's system' rather than 'like the British system', then it's completely acceptable. It's the whole 'different titles for different ranks and different uniforms for different regiments' deal (along with the examples like 'salute the stuffed goat' or 'cut off the ring finger of your glove' or 'eat one chicken wing on every Tuesday') that make it silly. If all he meant was 'different hats, badges, nicknames, and mottos for different regiments' then yes, that'd be fine.

*I agree that this is color, not characterization, but I was deliberately using martinl's words there.