Military Experience

[Raellus]

This is a bit of a rehash of a rehash but the issue has come up again in my PbP campaign and I'd like to revisit it here. I also think it's worth making the distinction between being a veteran of the military and being a combat veteran of the military.

I have never served in the military. I come from a military family. My grandfather was a USN captain in WWII. My father served as an FO during the Korean War. My brother is currently a Lt. Commander in the USN. I have a bachelors in history and I have read well over a hundred books about combat by historians, journalists, and veterans. I feel like this gives me a better foundation that the average Joe but I know full well that no amount of book learning or Call of Duty or paintball or whatever can ever come even remotely close to helping me understand what it is really like to serve under fire in real combat.

Veterans bring valuable RW knowledge and experience to a game like T2K. This can really add to the level of realism upheld by a game and a veteran's knowledge can really benefit those of us who don't have that RW experience.

On the other hand, veterans can really kill the enjoyment factor of a game like T2K if they deliver that RW knowledge in a heavy-handed or patronizing way.

I'm really interested in what your experience has been, both playing and/or reffing T2K, in groups containing veterans. Has it been a blessing or a curse Can veterans and non-veterans play T2K together in harmony or is this like trying to mix oil and water (or nitroglycerin)

[jester]

I have found a game full of guys who lived the life tend to make it fun, and they force a GM to bring his A game.

I find that enthusiasts tend to kill more games, in the case of several of my games going south that is what killed them. Enthusiasts who got munchkin on us. Or in my Arctic Raiders game, a know it all active duty kid who had all of 6 months time in service and came on waaaay to strong with alot of bookishness but no real knowledge, and a general disreguard for the other players.

I think you should change the criteria as well between combat arms and non combat arms as well as services, because the mindsets are different between all of the above. Navy and AF are more these days a support role, Army and Marines tend to be the direct combat guys <with only a handfgul from the other organizations> and then the Army and Marines also get divided between the combat arms and the supporting side of the house, and again the mindset is radicaly different with a whole new intensity level.

Think about this Rae, you are a teacher right Imagine someone who has no clue about your job telling you how you should do it And they tell you all kinds of things you know are contrary to doing that job and insist it must be done that way even when you know better. It is like fingernails on a blackboard after a while.

[simonmark6]

"Think about this Rae, you are a teacher right Imagine someone who has no clue about your job telling you how you should do it And they tell you all kinds of things you know are contrary to doing that job and insist it must be done that way even when you know better. It is like fingernails on a blackboard after a while."

I'm a teacher too, this happens several times every day of my life...
Does it get my goat, no, life's too short to worry about that sort of thing. The issue I think is that people want differnet things out of the game. I play TK2 for fun and I've seen games fall down for these issues before. The problem isn't just Military veteran vs enthusiast, it's about expectations of the game and player interaction.

In real life or a novel, the bitching and criticisms that happen all day every day don't really matter because the object of the bitching either: A) Never gets to hear it or B) Doesn't exist because the author created them as a figure of disdain.

In a roleplaying game such as the ones under discussion, the bitching can be seen by everyone and the character that you've cast as a bumbling incompetent that deserves to be fragged is another player who probably feels really shitty that they're recieving all of this negativity.

The problem is that the classic war novel trope doesn't work in a game unless it's very well done and worked out between the players in advance. I see the game as getting together to tell an interesting story rather than an exact military simulation (that's probably because of my background, but there it goes), and in a piece of interactive fiction, nobody wants their character to be cast as a fool deserving of death.

Not me anyway, I've got real life for that....

[pmulcahy11b]

Veterans bring valuable RW knowledge and experience to a game like T2K. This can really add to the level of realism upheld by a game and a veteran's knowledge can really benefit those of us who don't have that RW experience.

I have screwed things up for a group without meaning to, particularly before I went on active duty, because I knew the limitations of a weapons system of suchlike and I blurted it out without thinking. This annoys a civilian player, especially when they know the GM didn't know that either.

In a way, a game can really get bad like that when everyone , players and GM, are soldiers. The rules tend to get picked apart left and right in such a game, but they usually tended to lead to a lot of improvised rules to fix things.

[Fusilier]

Granted I haven't seen many problems, but of the ones I've witnessed, most have originated with people who have a military background... so it's been more of a curse in some ways I guess.

On the other hand, veterans can really kill the enjoyment factor of a game like T2K if they deliver that RW knowledge in a heavy-handed or patronizing way.

Too much appeal to authority and credentialism (if I'm using the correct term) pushed on others. "It's just a game" doesn't seem sink in deep enough.

...but on the other hand I've also gamed with many fellow veterans who are cool so I'm not labeling everyone as being the same.

[HorseSoldier]

I've never seen any real friction between military and non-military people in gaming groups.

I have gamed with the occasional person along the way with zero military experience and a kind of know-it-all wannabe attitude (the sorts of people known in the law enforcement world as "hoslter sniffers") that kind of annoyed me and rubbed me the wrong way, but to be fair people with that sort of personality would annoy me just as much in a game that had zero to do with anything military.

But, those guys are few and far between. Mostly I don't see any sort of issue.

[Grimace]

I'm a non-veteran, but I've got a lot of friends who are veterans, some that are combat veterans. We played Twilight together, with me..the non-veteran, as the GM. Never had any problems with them trying to push an agenda. Though I tend to gather a whole lot of information from my military friends as well as from books, so I'm not quite as skewed as a GM who might only be periferally aware of stuff in the military.

My best friend used to play Twilight while in the Marines. Some other Marine ran the game. They used their real world military knowledge and altered things to fit what they knew to be true of the weapons and tactics rather than what was listed in the game. Thankfully when he played under me he didn't run roughshod over me and try to dictate how things "should" be. Then again, none of the other guys who had military experience or even combat experience really did that too much. A little, yes, but not too bad and not in an overbearing way. Maybe I lucked out.

I think the types of people who can cause problems are a veteran who may not have been in combat but has grandios ideas how awesome he would have been in combat gets into a game where the GM doesn't have very much knowledge about things and is just running the game as listed. I've seen those type of guys who think they're all badass but you eventually find out they never saw combat and don't really have a clue about how they would really handle it. I *know* I don't have any real, concrete feeling about what it's like in combat, but I've heard enough about it from people who actually HAVE seen combat to know that the blowhards who think they're all knowledgable and hot stuff in combat don't have any better idea than I do, but want to pretend they do. Put those people up against someone that might not be quite a military enthusiast and who might not have some basic knowledge gained by talking to combat vets, and you can have a military veteran run roughshod over the GM.

At the same time, though, I've seen military enthusiasts that want to think they know everything about combat as well. They can talk your ear off about the statistics of a weapon and the foot pounds of force of particular bullets, and the awesomeness of certain gear, but they don't know what it's like when a bullet whizzes by their ear and they realize the guy downrange wants to kill them. These guys think combat is clean and easy, just like the video/computer games and the "bestest" equipment will save them from anything. They just don't understand fear and hardship of combat and the randomness of being in the field with equipment. So these guys can equally run roughshod over a GM who doesn't understand things enough. If the GM is a combat veteran, he can put them in their place, but if it's just a typical GM who never went in the military and maybe only read about some stuff in a book, then the GM can get overwhelmed by these types of players just as easily as if it were "wanna-be" combat vets, cocky military vets, or overconfident military enthusiasts (basically, "gun nuts" or "gadget hounds").

[Raellus]

Think about this Rae, you are a teacher right Imagine someone who has no clue about your job telling you how you should do it And they tell you all kinds of things you know are contrary to doing that job and insist it must be done that way even when you know better. It is like fingernails on a blackboard after a while.

Yeah, that's a good point. I hope I would be undertanding and try to correct them gently but it probably would get on my nerves.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why a real teacher would want to RP being a teacher. I play T2K to escape reality.

I'm curious as to why T2K appeals to vets- especially combat vets- when it can only ever beel a pale approximation of the real military experience.

SimonMark6: That's a really good point. The Sgt. Ellias/Sgt. Barnes (Platoon) intra-party drama is all fine and dandy when the players are cool with it and have discussed it ahead of time. I've only ever seen this kind of thing develop on the fly and get personal fast, though, and that kind of ruins it for everyone involved.

Maybe it's just something about my game that makes players despise each other.

[jester]

Yeah, that's a good point. I hope I would be undertanding and try to correct them gently but it probably would get on my nerves.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why a real teacher would want to RP being a teacher. I play T2K to escape reality.

I'm curious as to why T2K appeals to vets- especially combat vets- when it can only ever beel a pale approximation of the real military experience.

SimonMark6: That's a really good point. The Sgt. Ellias/Sgt. Barnes (Platoon) intra-party drama is all fine and dandy when the players are cool with it and have discussed it ahead of time. I've only ever seen this kind of thing develop on the fly and get personal fast, though, and that kind of ruins it for everyone involved.

Maybe it's just something about my game that makes players despise each other.

I have noticed it is certain types who tend to gang up on other types. Alas, I saw this in another couple games back in 01 and 02 with the same suspects. As well as piecing it together with someone who left the game a while ago

[Adm.Lee]

I was fortunate() in that I've only run with non-veterans, and having been the most military-enthused member of a group. My own level of military enthusiasm is to study at the level above RPGs. That is, I read a lot about the generals' level of the war, not usually the grunts'-eye view. I stopped caring a lot about the minutia of weapons systems a long time ago.

I did run with some fellow ROTC cadets once (see sig), but they didn't really like RPGs so it didn't last long. The non-ROTC guys were the ones that later broke the game up over intra-party conflict (executing prisoners, as I've said before).

I made a point of including an NPC NCO sometimes, so that I could insert a "voice of wisdom" sometimes: "Uh, sir, charging that would be a bad idea. Let's take cover instead."

[Snake Eyes]

Cake-eating civilian here. I dabbled in a law enforcement career back in the mid-90's but aside from a few scuffles and bruises wouldn't say I ever saw anything that approached actual combat. I would have rated myself on the high side of enthusiast ten years ago, but these days I barely have the time and energy to keep up with the state of the art in my day job. I'm perfectly happy leaving the tactics, doctrine and number crunching to those who either have the inclination or have been there and done that.

I developed a real anti-vet gaming bias in college during the early 90's mostly because I played RPGs as a form of amusement and distraction from real life and not for re-enactor level simulationism. I found that the ROTC cadets and Spec-4s that my game attracted locally were almost uniformly incapable of suspending disbelief or processing such abstract concepts as the need to roll dice to see if your PC could hit a target.

There were some shining exceptions to this, but there did seem to be a sense that one wasn't qualified to play Twilight unless you'd been to the infantry school and shouldn't be allowed to run it unless you had personally been checked out on all the equipment found in an OpFor weapons platoon. And it was very Twilight-specific; this notion that one must have a mastery of the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks in order to play or run a game had no corresponding analog in the world of D&D, Champions, Cyberpunk or Shadowrun.

Now, those guys were only just as irritating to me as the pencil-necks who would cart the entire Jane's library around in their daypacks, but at the end of the day I got far more enjoyment both playing and running with folks who had no military affiliation. But that is all ancient history. The group I play with FTF now is me, two cops and two Army vets and we all get along just fine. I chalk it up to the maturity of everyone involved.

We also play 2013, which does a far better job of modeling modern small arms combat than any of the previous versions, so we don't get bogged down debating results or plausibility of a lot of crappy rule mechanics. We maintain a healthy respect of each other's backgrounds and are able to fully distinguish between the actions of a player and those of his character. We also all mutually agree that the decisions of the GM stand whether they make any sense or not. We have fun and that's kind of the point.

[pmulcahy11b]

I made a point of including an NPC NCO sometimes, so that I could insert a "voice of wisdom" sometimes: "Uh, sir, charging that would be a bad idea. Let's take cover instead."

That's a good thing to do, in a lot of RPGs -- I used to do it sometimes even in D&D, Top Secret, and Traveller games. You have to be careful not to get too heavy-handed with it, though, or it turns into one of those things that make players feel they are being led around by the nose.

Excuse me -- Sam needs some Phazyme...

[jester]

I've found its a good tool, to include a NCO lower, or a runner, or driver who can act as a voice to at times guide the players. Sometimes, the PCs will just stop and pause wondering what to do. Then poof, the radioman, or Cpl can make a suggestion to get things rolling.

[headquarters]

hehe

I've found its a good tool, to include a NCO lower, or a runner, or driver who can act as a voice to at times guide the players. Sometimes, the PCs will just stop and pause wondering what to do. Then poof, the radioman, or Cpl can make a suggestion to get things rolling.

He is also useful as a victim of a gorey fate to hammer home a point or emphasize something to the party

[pmulcahy11b]

He is also useful as a victim of a gorey fate to hammer home a point or emphasize something to the party

Yes, just put a red shirt on him...

Sorry, I'm a little goofy tonight.