General Encouraging your players to stand and fight

[Timerover51]

The following comes from an U.S. Army Infantry School Analysis of Lessons of the Korean War.

In the average infantry company that fought in Korea, between 12 and 20 percent of the total number of men engaged in a fight not only participated actively in the firing, but also exercised varying degrees of initiative in "on the spot leading." In addition to these, 25 to 35 percent of the men took some part in the fire action, with varying degrees of consistency, but without otherwise giving marked impulse to the course of events.

This is a marked increase over World War II fire participation. At that time, usually only 15 percent of the riflemen in a unit took an active (firing) part in an attack or a defense. The statistics from Korea, while encouraging, can be improved. Our training program should sell the rifle to the trainee. This can be done only by a vigorous and thorough indoctrination in his weapons and the principles of marksmanship.

The 15 per cent figure is considerably lower than the one given by Marshall in his book.

 

[flykiller]

played d&d for quite a while. in all that time I saw only one player character die.

actually, have to amend that. played d&d for quite a while and some amount of traveller. in all that time I lost only one character. everybody else seemed to lose their character at least once, and in some cases several times.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Kenny Rogers has some RPG advice for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

What are you trying to say.

 

[Blue Ghost]

The following comes from an U.S. Army Infantry School Analysis of Lessons of the Korean War.



The 15 per cent figure is considerably lower than the one given by Marshall in his book.

We're talking a game here though, not an actual combat scenario. Are you saying the same self-preservation psychology exists? Why would that be? And as a Ref/GM/DM how can you encourage your players to "mix it up" ?

 

[flykiller]

as a Ref/GM/DM how can you encourage your players to "mix it up" ?

I don't. I prefer a realistic approach. I play the npc's as if they were pc's, and the players need to decide what they do.

this puts off many players. they don't like helpless or pushover targets (unlike real-world looters), and they don't like difficult and dangrous targets, and when they face tough targets that might be a good match and challenge they wonder if the npc's ( ... me ... ) might be hiding something in the background that would make the encounter less fun. what they want is a transparent target that exercises their player-character abilities but that they definitely can take - like a cat attacking a rat - and a referee that will help them make progress in the game. "me. sword. cave. monsters. dice. go. win."

to answer your question directly, you can encourage the players to "mix it up" with - good offensive capability on their part, mediocre defensive capability on the targets' part, means of recon vs the target (scrying, spying, etc), means of escape available (invisibility, flight, etc), and means of rapid recovery available (healing, resurrection, etc). oh, and treasure. lots and lots of treasure, a high reward/risk ratio.

 

[Blue Ghost]

It's interesting, at the back of the Traveller Book there's a caveat warning not to give lavish rewards, ships and equipment at the start, because that detracts or takes away motivation to keep playing. Well, okay, great, and where I don't want nor like level game mechanics, it did seem to me that a lack of a guide to good adventuring, plus the fact that the only task roll was combat, seemed to put the Ref and players at sea.

Well, okay, you move onto other games, forget about this one, and have fun playing whatever else.

I guess I'm just over thinking it. The point is to have fun in an adventure, and if your fellow players don't feel like mixing it up, well, either there's an agenda behind it, or they're just not the fighting types.

Whatever.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[aramis]

It's interesting, at the back of the Traveller Book there's a caveat warning not to give lavish rewards, ships and equipment at the start, because that detracts or takes away motivation to keep playing. Well, okay, great, and where I don't want nor like level game mechanics, it did seem to me that a lack of a guide to good adventuring, plus the fact that the only task roll was combat, seemed to put the Ref and players at sea.

Well, okay, you move onto other games, forget about this one, and have fun playing whatever else.

I guess I'm just over thinking it. The point is to have fun in an adventure, and if your fellow players don't feel like mixing it up, well, either there's an agenda behind it, or they're just not the fighting types.

Whatever.

Thanks for the replies.

That lack of a task system was noted by some players even then... Traveller's Digest shipped with the Task system later used for MT and T2300 in every pre-MT issue.

Others adopted a standardized 8+ approach to everything - if a roll is needed, roll 2d+skill, hit 8+.

Others still used (1-5)d6 for ≤(attribute)... Which Marc used a lot.

Keep in mind also: Most games had 2-3 resolution mechanics in that era. (I'm speaking specifically of the 1975-1981 era)

D&D & AD&D: 1d20 roll high for attacks and saves, table derived TNs. D100 for skill or less for thief skills. vague guideline about rolling 1d20 < Attribute for other things. Alternate combat mechanics were 2d6 for TN+ to hit; other alternate was 1d6 for TN+.

T&T: Combat roll dice to damage; higher side inflicts difference. Non Combat, 2d6 doubles open end + stat for TN of 15+(5*Difficulty Level).

RuneQuest: D100 ≤ skill with 4 possible outcomes for combat; D100≤skill with 2 possible outcomes for non-combat.

Palladium: 1d20 for combat, vs 2 TN's (5 and AR, respectively) with 5 possible outcomes (Critical hit, hit past armor, hit armor, missed, fumbled), D100 for ≤Skill for non-combat.

Starships and Spacemen was the first game with fully integrated single-mechanic I've seen... unless you count ship combat. Personal combat and non-combat was 1d20 ≤ modified attribute. Ship combat was different. To hit by range. It dates to 1978.

Several games had no non-combat mechanics presented at all: Star Patrol/Space Patrol; a couple less well known heartbreakers, Car Wars.

Well, actually, Car Wars had Mechanic skill...

Post-2000 expectations from a pre-1982 game will disappoint every time.

 

[kilemall]

What are you trying to say.

Tis a joke.

He said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it rightYou've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done
Every gambler knows
That the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away
And knowin' what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner
And every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for is to die
in your sleep

Point being, know when to hold them and know when to fold them, when to walk away and when to run, is about reacting appropriately to the situation and getting the hell outta Dodge when it's time.

And now my joke/point is dead on the autopsy table.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, Car Wars is an interesting case, because it had (and still does) all the allusions and inferences of RPing with CW, but there was little in the way of rules for it. It was more or less "Gee, if you live, you get money to upgrade your car, and then hit the road ... who knows? If you get wealthy enough, then you can buy Gold Cross." And when my friend and I read through the CW rules it was like a whole new world, like the Marches in Traveller, waiting to be explored ... but it's like, you had to wing it

I remember some guy in my drafting class mentioning the resolution mechanic in JTAS. For us it was either using the 8+ 2d6 +skill and other mods, or make something up on the spot; i.e. "roll less than your dex, and add or subtract any pertinent skill as neccesary".

So, yeah, I remember those days. And I remember getting PO'd at being forced to make up a mechanic for a game setting and other rules that I really liked about Traveller, and also having to keep other game systems in my pre-teen to post-teen head.

I guess one of the reasons I started this thread was because my inner director/screen-writer (as per the well founded critique further up the thread) got the best of me, and tried to create situations and scenes that I thought would be really cool for the guys.

And then it's like on game night ... like all good battle plans, the whole thing would fall apart, and I'd wonder why the players wouldn't take on that platoon of Zho-troopers or risk tossing a single grenade at a corsair raiding party. But they were willing to go mano-a-mano with really exotic and powerful animals ... it was just strange, and I can't figure out why some people are all gung-ho one minute, and then pure wimps the next.

I'm just repeating the same thing over and over again ... I guess I like to read my own posts ... it makes me feel important or something. I don't know.

Seriously though, I'm a dog person. And it's like most of the players I've Reffed or gamed with are "cat people". And I guess that's the best gosh darn explanation I can come up with.

 

[flykiller]

And now my joke/point is dead on the autopsy table.

gotta know when to walk away man.

 

[aramis]

Well, Car Wars is an interesting case, because it had (and still does) all the allusions and inferences of RPing with CW, but there was little in the way of rules for it. It was more or less "Gee, if you live, you get money to upgrade your car, and then hit the road ... who knows? If you get wealthy enough, then you can buy Gold Cross." And when my friend and I read through the CW rules it was like a whole new world, like the Marches in Traveller, waiting to be explored ... but it's like, you had to wing it

Go read the Deluxe Car Wars or Car Wars Compendium. Both have fairly reasonable sets of skills for Roleplaying use. Area Knowledge and Medic amongst them. And Electronics.

There's enough to RP with if one can RP with Space Patrol or LBB/LWB D&D ... it's got a variety of goods, a variety of character decisions to make...

And if you got ADQ, and had Hero System, you got a disad system that worked on CW characters, and the ability to trade starting points for more cash to buy a vehicle with...

For the era, it was a full on RPG from DCW on...

 

[Blue Ghost]

I actually have the latest compendium, but haven't read through the RP rules.

 

[Flattened Sphere]

I guess some people really get attached to their characters so much that they don't want to risk them.

Or to put it another way, they role-play a character who is not the "hero type" ... and that is perfectly acceptable, is it not?

IRL, I think that if a ships laser turret were to start traversing in my direction, I'd probably see the light and try to come to terms rather than slugging it out, too.

Of course, if I were a ref. and WANTED them to fight it out, I think that as the character threw his arms in the air, I might just have the turret traverse mechanism go *phut*, and possibly even start filling the scout ship with acrid smoke so the gunner came coughing and spluttering out onto the tarmac. That might just encourage the PC to reach for his arms again ....

 

[Enoki]

I would think you'd (as referee) look at two things right off the bat in such a scenario-- well really any scenario.

1. The actual abilities and backgrounds of the players

2. The characters they are playing.

For example, if you have some military types or even just some that are immersed in military history and wargaming, they should have the ability to think the scenario through and give a good firefight, probably winning it.

If the character mix includes ex-military types, particularly marines or army, and the character(s) have previous combat experience and rolled up combat skills, they aren't likely to fold at the first sign of serious firepower even if the player using that character is.

I'd likely tell the player in the second case they're not playing in character. "Your character has medals for heroism. He's been in combat. And your move is to run away...?"

I'd also expect the players with some level of military knowledge to help those that have characters that are supposed to have military knowledge make decisions.

If they still decide to panic and run I'd likely turn it into a Custer's Last Stand in space.

 

[mike wightman]

"Your character has medals for heroism. He's been in combat. And your move is to run away...?"

'Yup, nine of the ten guys I did basic with are dead, I only got the medals because I was lucky. Real combat isn't like you see in the movies.'

'It's a tactical retreat until I can break contact with the enemy, I can then organise an attack from an ambush position.'

 

[Timerover51]

If the players decide to beat it, they beat it. A lot of Medals of Honor are posthumous. Besides that, my combat system tends to be a bit deadly.

The players are supposed to enjoy the game, not be puppets for the Game Master.

 

[Condottiere]

There's a reason candidates for the Starburst for Extreme Heroism can get awarded posthumously, because without extreme risk of physical harm, it isn't heroism.

Game mechanics wise, personal morale boost, social status boost, and unit morale boost.

 

[Enoki]

Part of the game IMHO is that you generated a character and are acting out as that character. If that doesn't matter to you or them, then so be it. I'd rather have them at least act as if the character they rolled up mattered beyond a few numbers and their skill set.