Ex-military 'Runners, How do they REALLY fit in the shadows? Options

[Critias]

All of my players have been from the North American continent, or at furthest the United Kingdom;

I guess it's just strange for me to imagine a whole ton of people playing only from the CAS/UCAS nations. That feels like throwing tons of sourcebook material away, to me, by ignoring ten of North America's twelve potential background nations. Much of the fun of Shadowrun specifically comes from exploring backgrounds that come from each of the uniquely "Shadowrun" countries that are available, and trying to get a character that feels like a Sioux or Tir citizen, a Salish Shidhe tribesman, someone brought up in the CalFree Saito regime, or whatever...the CAS and UCAS normally feel boring to me, when I'm making a character.

I brought up the Rangers as an example of how out-of-wack the SR skill rating "examples" are (and as such how goofy it feels to me to take the chart too seriously, and demand my fellow players adhere to it in any meaningful fashion). When they say an Army grunt is a 3, a Marine is a 4, and a Ranger is a 5...so what? How do you then justify an Army soldier that scores Expert compared to a Marine that barely qualifies? And there are plenty of young Rangers out there (an organization with an average age of just 24) who've never seen combat, so how does that stack up to the Ranger tab allowing them a 5, when that's a higher default level than a "combat vet?" It just seems silly to me to demand additional explanations from your fellow players, based on some abitrary cut-off point when the skill rank chart is so wacky. If someone says "I went into the Army, nothing exciting happened, and got out after my four year hitch," and flashes an Automatics skill of 5 at you, you're that's not good enough. But, by the defining levels of that chart, if they say "I went into the Army, got Ranger qualified, nothing else exciting happened, and got out after my four year hitch," that...would be?

I mean, the same chart says your average go-ganger has a 3 in Pilot Ground Vehicle, your average go-gang leader a 4, and your average Ancient -- just any old Ancient -- has a 5. So every gang out there is composed of guys of the "competent professional" level of rider (guys who live and die on their bikes), but if a character just happens to go "You know what? I like green better than red, so I'll just change my backstory and say my Elf was in the Ancients, not the Princes," suddenly he can have another two points in his primary driving skill.

...isn't that kind of silly? Doesn't that feel like putting a little too much weight on that skill level scale of theirs? I prefer to just worry -- especially if I'm just another player, and no the GM -- that the folks I'm playing with are happy with their own characters, that they're not breaking the rules of the game (since the feel/intent is so often difficult to rationalize)...and then worry about slinging dice and having fun. Life's too short, and the NPC stats versus Skill Ranking Chart is too silly, to kill myself worrying about the small stuff.

[MaxwellHouse]

And to the point that was made about 19-year-olds in the US Army Rangers, if they made it that quickly, it's because they were that naturally good to have been able to hack it.


I have to disagree. There are plenty of 17 let alone 19 year olds that have made it through to Regiment. It doesn't take a "naturally good" cantidate to pass through Jump School or RIP, they just didn't quite when it got hard. I've seen some non-shootin, bullheaded mugs pass through and get their tan berrets but good soldiers they were not then, but those skills they needed were honed at their unit without doubt. But as far as a wide range of rating 3 skills just because of an ex-military history... no sir. As a paratrooper I never delved mutch into mechinized warfare, we used up-armored HMMMVs but heavy tanks and APCs. not at all. I couldn't cook to serve a company sized element... I'll be honest I can barely cook to serve myself. So it would depend on their job. There a reason why there's so many MOSs in the military. There's really no "Army of One". An S1 finance SGT usually isnt going to be as good a marksmen with as wide a variety of weapons as your standard 11Banger and your standard 11Banger isn't going to be as proficient in most of the support roles that it takes to keep him on the ground, even 18series (SF) sodliers have specalizations... there's just to mutch to know.

[Kerenshara]

I personally have served with some darn fine marksmen and ground tactitions during my time in service, some who retained in the service for 20+ years and some that ETSed at 3 to 4 years.

Emphasis mine.

This seriously isn't a shot at you MaxwellHouse, I am borrowing what you said to demonstrate a point I have been trying to make: 3-4 years in a primary combat MOS is fine for Firearms Skill 4, which truthfully is a "damn fine marksman". I'd be curious to know how many US Army Scout Snipers (I would say that their minimum entry requirement would be Longarms 4 closing in on 5 and the training course pushes them to a minimum graduation skill of 5 with a specialization in Sniper Rifles) who were accepted to the program with less than at least 4 years in service.

"Damned Fine" isn't quite the same as "World Class" or "World Champion" or "Legendary" (5, 6 and 7 respectively). I would say that "Qualified Expert", if backed up with a little live action experience, could EASILY be called "Damned Fine" and be Skill 4.

I think the fundamental diference between myself and many others is that many others believe that Skill 4 is easily and routinely available. From a pure Crunchy Bits perspective, that may be true, but I don't see it that way subjectively or from a story perspective. Reaching the skill level in ANY skill to be considered a "Veteran Professional" is a notable achivement by ANYBODY.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I guess it's just strange for me to imagine a whole ton of people playing only from the CAS/UCAS nations. That feels like throwing tons of sourcebook material away, to me, by ignoring ten of North America's twelve potential background nations. Much of the fun of Shadowrun specifically comes from exploring backgrounds that come from each of the uniquely "Shadowrun" countries that are available, and trying to get a character that feels like a Sioux or Tir citizen, a Salish Shidhe tribesman, someone brought up in the CalFree Saito regime, or whatever...the CAS and UCAS normally feel boring to me, when I'm making a character.

I brought up the Rangers as an example of how out-of-wack the SR skill rating "examples" are (and as such how goofy it feels to me to take the chart too seriously, and demand my fellow players adhere to it in any meaningful fashion). When they say an Army grunt is a 3, a Marine is a 4, and a Ranger is a 5...so what? How do you then justify an Army soldier that scores Expert compared to a Marine that barely qualifies? And there are plenty of young Rangers out there (an organization with an average age of just 24) who've never seen combat, so how does that stack up to the Ranger tab allowing them a 5, when that's a higher default level than a "combat vet?" It just seems silly to me to demand additional explanations from your fellow players, based on some abitrary cut-off point when the skill rank chart is so wacky. If someone says "I went into the Army, nothing exciting happened, and got out after my four year hitch," and flashes an Automatics skill of 5 at you, you're that's not good enough. But, by the defining levels of that chart, if they say "I went into the Army, got Ranger qualified, nothing else exciting happened, and got out after my four year hitch," that...would be?

I mean, the same chart says your average go-ganger has a 3 in Pilot Ground Vehicle, your average go-gang leader a 4, and your average Ancient -- just any old Ancient -- has a 5. So every gang out there is composed of guys of the "competent professional" level of rider (guys who live and die on their bikes), but if a character just happens to go "You know what? I like green better than red, so I'll just change my backstory and say my Elf was in the Ancients, not the Princes," suddenly he can have another two points in his primary driving skill.

...isn't that kind of silly? Doesn't that feel like putting a little too much weight on that skill level scale of theirs? I prefer to just worry -- especially if I'm just another player, and no the GM -- that the folks I'm playing with are happy with their own characters, that they're not breaking the rules of the game (since the feel/intent is so often difficult to rationalize)...and then worry about slinging dice and having fun. Life's too short, and the NPC stats versus Skill Ranking Chart is too silly, to kill myself worrying about the small stuff.

For what it is worth, I just use the Terminology of the Scale...

Unaware
Untrained
Beginner
Novice
Professional
Veteran
Expert
Elite
Legendary

The examples are just that, examples and have no other real meaning... I could be a professional that has performed the same skills for 35 Years (Professional Electrician for example) and have just a Rating 3 skill level (professional), but still be a master Electrician... or I could be a Prodigy Mathematician with a skill of 6 in Mathematics and still be only 10 years old... again, examples are just that, Examples...

For the record, I do not consider Bill Clinton to be a good example of a Legendary Socialite... Sorry, I just don't... You can be legendary and still not have a a high ranked skill... it is all relative

Just my 2 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

[MaxwellHouse]

Most definatly Keren, I'd go as far as to say that many that have been to Benning and taken the long and trying... two week course, successfully graduate to a skill lvl 3 with said specialazation, not 4. I've seen some good hunters out there that could stomp an Army, Marine, or Navy marksmen lol. Sorry I missed a post didn't mean to get all butt hurt. My apple-polu-loggies (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . My point in all is that military training is flawed and rushed. Unless a character has a good backstory of practical aplication I don't see a military background as reson for a whole slew of high active skill ratings. If anything good soldiers know what to do but until tempered under the real stress of combat don't really possess the actual ability to act... maybe higher knowledge skills? Anyways no slight taken and I hope I haven't crossed anyone this evening... considering it's my first day...

[kzt]

I guess it's just strange for me to imagine a whole ton of people playing only from the CAS/UCAS nations. That feels like throwing tons of sourcebook material away, to me, by ignoring ten of North America's twelve potential background nations.

I find most of them too stupidly written to be worth considering. There are, to be generous, a total of 10,000 Ute tribal members, mostly in SE Utah and SW Colorado. There are 300,000 Navajo, mostly in AZ, NM and Utah. There are two million people in Utah, most members of the LDS. So what did SR do with this situation?

Sorry, I'd rather play a Japanese combat swimmer.

[Critias]

That's where Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief for the moment" comes into play. The sourcebooks have said -- for four editions now -- that the NAN exist, and that they recruited heavily enough, or bred like bunnies pre-Awakening, or whatever, to make it happen. So they're there, and they can make for interesting character-spawning regions, if you let 'em. Personally, I've always had a strong pro-Tir bias (I've only made three or four NANners), but it's not real, either, and I don't let that slow me down.

[Grinder]

That could very well be the case, except I have yet to see a SINGLE "uncreative" ex-military 'runner that WASN'T supposedly from an American pattern military. Everybody who's been willing to put THAT much creativity and thought into their ex-military character has gone the rest of the way and been believable. All of my players have been from the North American continent, or at furthest the United Kingdom; Coming up with something "interesting" like being a Commando from Singapore or a conscript Mortarman from Sweeden would have been more effort than it was worth to even bother to find out existed. If I had run into a "uncreative" ex-military 'runner claiming to have been from a secondary or third world army, I might have been specifically inclusive in my OP. Anybody willing to do the legwork to build a "foreign national" character (relative to their own nation of birth) is already putting enough effort and creativity into the character to satisfy me. If you happen to BE from one of those countries, and your experience tells you that my perceptions of the discharged members of the militaries of THOSE countries don't fit my general mold, then that's fine and I accept your distinction. I THOUGHT I had been clear about it being people claiming to have come from the US Style of military; Perhaps I am mistaken on that.

Please note that there are other first world armies other than the ones of UCAS and CAS - your post implies that's not the case. Don't know if you meant it, but that's the way it came across.

[PBI]

I never worried about breaking the LMG - the rounds needed to be fired (or our ops budget would be reduced), and the order to use the gun until the rounds were gone was given by a higher pay grade than mine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for skill 4 being impossible at the range, well, I've seen some infantry ranges that were pretty intense.

[Kerenshara]

Please note that there are other first world armies other than the ones of UCAS and CAS - your post implies that's not the case. Don't know if you meant it, but that's the way it came across.

Wasn't the speciffic intent, inasmuch as it related to all the people I had seen play crummy "ex-military" characters had chosen one of the two.

[Stahlseele]

THAT right there probably stems from the single fact, that most Shadowrun Characters are between 16 and 24 Years old it seems.
And they are mostly based in the US of A. So it's SLIGHTLY more believeable if the army they supposedly learned their stuff in is,
you know, at least on the same continent as both their birth town and city of current intrigue . .

[Kerenshara]

THAT right there probably stems from the single fact, that most Shadowrun Characters are between 16 and 24 Years old it seems.
And they are mostly based in the US of A. So it's SLIGHTLY more believeable if the army they supposedly learned their stuff in is,
you know, at least on the same continent as both their birth town and city of current intrigue . .

*nods*

That's the reason I observed earlier that if somebody did enough legwork to come up with a character who WASN'T from one of those militaries, but still had a "special forces" background, they were probably well on the way to coming up with an interesting and believable character that they would role play anyway.

[Wounded Ronin]

You refer to the legendary Vasil Zaitsev, who was taught to hunt dangerous prey as a boy? An actual hunter will have a higher longarm skill because they practice their craft in the field. Hunters who must use their craft to feed themselves, doubly so. And these people were able to pass on their ability to their VERY willing and highly motivated students. But notice that such individuals are practicing their craft live in the field under stress, as opposed to at a target range. Now, VR training would count for a lot, but human beings are going to respond diferently live fire than even the most realistic simulted training.

But here, everybody having this debate has put more thought into theirbackgrounds than I originally was complaning about. "I spent extra time at the range because I was friends with the range master" is great, because that's a good contact to have as well, for example. Two birds with one stone! A story for your higher-than-typical skill as well as a snap background for a contact.

I was referring to more than one person. Zaitsev wasn't the only sniper. There were others. Some women too.

But, yeah, I guess that's a seperate issue than throwaway backgrounds.

[Kerenshara]

I was referring to more than one person. Zaitsev wasn't the only sniper. There were others. Some women too.

But, yeah, I guess that's a seperate issue than throwaway backgrounds.

Zaitsev helped train a lot of their snipers IIRC. The Soviets were pretty smart about how they handled training their snipers, overall. They put time and effort into mentoring them properly. In a way, I can even see why idealogically: a single Russian woman can be armed with a weapon that is the product of Soviet production and she can kill even the most elite German with a single trigger pull; What's more egalitarian than that? Reportedly, the women racked up better numbers than the men, and a SIGNIFICANT portion of the sniper pool was female IIRC.

"Throwaway backgrounds". Yes, I think that term fits neatly into what I have been trying to describe. Thank you.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Zaitsev helped train a lot of their snipers IIRC. The Soviets were pretty smart about how they handled training their snipers, overall. They put time and effort into mentoring them properly. In a way, I can even see why idealogically: a single Russian woman can be armed with a weapon that is the product of Soviet production and she can kill even the most elite German with a single trigger pull; What's more egalitarian than that? Reportedly, the women racked up better numbers than the men, and a SIGNIFICANT portion of the sniper pool was female IIRC.

"Throwaway backgrounds". Yes, I think that term fits neatly into what I have been trying to describe. Thank you.

One thign that I have learned over the years is that when comparing a woman and a man with equal competence and training with firearms (especially longarms) is that the Woman can generally outshoot the man... only catch is that most women do not have equivalent training/experience for the most part... though there are always exceptions of course...

Just an interesting note...

[kzt]

Most women tend to listen to the instructor because they don't feel they are genetically endowed with the ability to shoot well.

[Critias]

I think there's also a biological hand/eye coordination thing at work.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

There are two million people in Utah, most members of the LDS.

As a former resident of SLC and non-Mormon, last I heard 62% of the population is LDS (about 1.3 million out of 2.1 million).

Nigel Findley got Salt Lake City wrong from word one.
First off...there are lots and lots of guns in Utah.
Two, they are not pacifists.
Three, chances of the Church giving up Provo...slim and none.
Four, they take care of their own...if you aren't one of them though...stir shit up at your own peril.

I will have to convert my SLC:2060 into a PDF and post it up on my SR website. Should give you a good idea of how I think SLC would evolve in the Sixth World.

[kzt]

That would be cool, the version published was insane. Utah is where the state sued the state university system to have them honor concealed carry permits, and won.

[Critias]

As organized religions go, they don't get much more gun-friendly than the Mormons.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

A lot of that gun love comes from the fact that they have historically been persecuted and there is a mood that the rest of the country is out of step with Utah values. The Church actually encourages its members to keep a supply of food, water, and other essentials for emergencies (which is actually a good idea considering that the city is built over a major fault line). Not everyone does (of course not all of them tithe either) but quite a few do.

[Critias]

Yup. If I was the organized religion type, I'd lean their way. As it is, I just share certain traits with 'em and I'm maybe a bit friendlier to their missionaries than most.

[Kerenshara]

Yup. If I was the organized religion type, I'd lean their way. As it is, I just share certain traits with 'em and I'm maybe a bit friendlier to their missionaries than most.

Neighbor calls, tells of Mormon Missionaries (the youngling type) coming around the neighborhood. Spy them up a ways, and dig out the Halloween gear. Greet them at the door with an apron spattered with "blood" and hands and arms coated in it. "Oh, I'd be happy to talk with you! I was just sacrificing a chicken... did you want to just wait until I'm done or would you like to help?"

*Evil grin*

"It may not be very sporting to hold a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, but it sure is fun..."

[Wounded Ronin]

One thign that I have learned over the years is that when comparing a woman and a man with equal competence and training with firearms (especially longarms) is that the Woman can generally outshoot the man... only catch is that most women do not have equivalent training/experience for the most part... though there are always exceptions of course...

Just an interesting note...

Yeah, it frustrates me that a lot of times I get the feeling that lots of women hold themselves back when deep down inside they've got a strafe-jumping headshotter just waiting to emerge.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Most women tend to listen to the instructor because they don't feel they are genetically endowed with the ability to shoot well.

In a civilian setting, my experience has been that the women were less prone to beat themselves up if they missed a shot. Personally, I had to fight a tendency to berate myself for missing something that my coach showed my on video tape. You could see my facial expression change when I missed a blue rock, where as the girls on the team remained focused and calm. And I wasn't the only guy that it was happening with. Anecdotal, so it might not mean anything but a thought.

That would be cool, the version published was insane. Utah is where the state sued the state university system to have them honor concealed carry permits, and won.

I am not going to promise that my take on Salt Lake is going to be better (or even sane) but it certainly is a different take than Nigel's. I want to add some art and maps to the document but once it is done I will give ya a shout out to let you know it is available. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)