It's late and I'm listening to what I call my 'Nam mix through winamp (lots of mid-60s stuff), and it's giving me an idea for a Vietnam war themed game, inspired by TV show Tour of Duty.
Problem is, how do I handle rank in games? It's unlikely the group will all be the same rank even in an elite spec-ops team.
The last military game I played, most of the players were privates, the squad sargeant was an NPC and two of us players were corporals. I limited my orders to general "Stating the obvious" commands and during an ambush, defining arcs of fire. Players complained they werent getting a chance to RP if I was telling them which direction to shoot in - which I thought was kind of my characters job. :confused:
So how do you actually deal with rank in Roleplaying, when if played realisticly, the guys RPing the lowest ranks are obliged to do what they're told by the guys RPing the NCOs and officers?
Your best bet is a special operations team, maybe even the old LRRPs teams.
From my limited understanding, it doesn't really matter about the rank, more about the job, and whose the best at it.
You can make the PC's all ranks, and still let them RP.
Or make them a fairly automonous group within their unit. Advance Party, maybe the Quick Reaction Force, which has to use it's own resoures to counter an enemy attack.
But, if the players aren't willing to put up with even radio'd orders, than the aren' going to have any fun in a military campaign.
I do all my military gaming troupe style now.
-clash
Quote from: T-WillardBut, if the players aren't willing to put up with even radio'd orders, than the aren' going to have any fun in a military campaign.
I've mentioned this before, but even a basic grunt's Rules of Engagement and Standing Orders are even more restrictive than the Paladin's Code. If you deviate too far from them you don't just have your spellcasting abilities yanked, but lose basic privilages like breathing
If you're going to run a military campaign, it's best to show the players the RoE and Standing Orders as part of the initial discussion (
the HAAC series includes examples of these based on the US Armed Forces RoE and examples of how they apply in practice (including how to ask permission to break them)) and see how they go down with the group
Our you could let the group reach a consensus on what their orders are, and role play following them, possibly awarding extra XP or some benefit to occassionally following ass backward orders or suicide missions (which they intiate).
That way even if one player is in charge, the whole group still has a say in what the squad is doing, also relieves the problem of the missing commander (which I suffered through in a Star Wars Troopers game, when our lieutent was sick and couldn't play for like three weeks).
Troupe-style gaming would be a very smart solution to this issue (as clash has demonstrated with IHW.) You'd involve the PCs in every level of the drama/operation, from the war council to the desperate defense of the parapets.
I really wanted to do a BSG game like that; each player controlling a bridge officer, a fighter pilot and a Marine.
Quote from: O'BorgSo how do you actually deal with rank in Roleplaying, when if played realisticly, the guys RPing the lowest ranks are obliged to do what they're told by the guys RPing the NCOs and officers?
I don't get the question. When I've run military games, the players did what the highest rank character said they should do (for the most part). I'm not sure why it would be an issue -- if you're willing to play in that sort of game, it's a no-brainer.
Well, about the only advice I can give is to not give the highest rank in the party to someone with a power trip.
I always used the "all ensigns" approach until party dynamics work themselves out. Then the player who is the group's tactical leader gets a rank promotion, so the increase in status is justified by player activities in game.
Of course, maybe running campaigns full of fighter pilots has something to do with it. The leader can usually only really give vague orders like "let's wait and see what happens", "you go scout ahead", or "kill those guys over there while we nuke this motherfucker." In short, they have about the same commands at their disposal as the leader of a group of D&D characters would. The scale is just different.
The thing is, that if you have a party full of people who refuse to cooperate, there's nothing you can do to make the rank thing work. It's pretty reliant on the group not consisting of a bunch of Belkars or El Disgustos.
Quote from: RezendevousI don't get the question. When I've run military games, the players did what the highest rank character said they should do (for the most part). I'm not sure why it would be an issue -- if you're willing to play in that sort of game, it's a no-brainer.
I think you've pretty much nailed it, or at least highlighted what I feel was the problem.
It's me. Or more precisely, the frustrated author in me :(
In the aformentioned military situation, I would expect the players to roleplay out their situation, carrying out orders given and using their ingenuity to expand their own scene, all of which would create a nice story.
(Don't tell Pundit, but I can feel an Oink coming on here).:pundit:
I guess a straight military game is doable, with players who are prepared to be 'actors' in a scene rather than gamers with a bit more control over what they're doing.
Oink...
Go for it and see what happens. You may end up with some tension, and if so you can smooth it out through NPC interaction. For instance, if the leader hasn't been tapping his subordinates for planning advice the Colonel (who's over everyone's head) can tell the Major in charge of the team that Private Benjamin is a master in stealth, and would be a valuable asset when planning an ambush. Also, he can advise that objectives are better than plans when giving orders. This will give some flexibility to the players but still let the leader do his thing.
They may also develop a comraderie where people do their jobs and it works. Vietnam was full of people that weren't strictly Gung Ho G.i.s so it wouldn't even be too harsh of an anachronism to have an elite squad that ignored rank. If you look at entertainment instead of history, it goes from rarity to S.O.P.
Basically I'm saying drop it in their laps and see what comes up.
Finally, if you think a lot of people would jockey for the leader position, use point buy and let them bid for it. This should ensure that whoever does snag the spot is going to rely on his troops more because he'll be deficient in more areas than they are.
Quote from: flyingmiceI do all my military gaming troupe style now.
That's super-smart. I've often thought that's the only good way to do Star Trek style big ship adventuring.