Small Unit Tactics, An Active or Knowledge Skill Options

[The Question Man]

Hoi Chummers, I was skimming various web sights and game books and noticed that the skill "SMALL UNIT TACTICS" is listed as BOTH an Active Skill or a Knowledge Skill.

So which is it???

QM

[Misfit Toy]

Man & Machine and Cannon Companion both changed it to an Active Skill since it now grants tangible benefits in combat. If you're not using those rules, it should remain a flavorful Knowledge Skill as per the SR3 rules.

[Diesel]

Books aside, I'd make it active. Knowing how to execute a play in football is very different from being able to, the difference between KNO: Sports / Football and BOD: Athletics / Football.

[Siege]

You could easily make it Knowledge for the simple fact that military theory, strategy and tactical assessment is very much a knowledge skill.

Now granted, I'd never allow the silly cheese bonus SMUT currently offers as a Knowledge skill (or at all), but that's just me.

-Siege

Edit: For typos

[Cursedsoul]

You could treat it as a complimentary skill. Active skill will allow you actually get the bonuses, but the knowledge skill can help you do it better because you'd have a better pool of knowledge from which to draw from.

[Siege]

Ya know, I just can't accept that.

It sets a dangerous precedent for things like: Handgun (Active) + Combat Shooting (Knowledge).

-Siege

[Zephania]

Didn't earlier editions have it as an active skill as part of leadership or somthing similar?

[Misfit Toy]

I have no idea if it did or not, but I've eliminated the Active Skill version of it in my games and replaced it with the actual Leadership skill. SUT (as a Knowledge Skill) then acts as a Complimentary Skill for that, or for Knowledge Skill tests to try and figure out strategies employed by enemy forces and the like.

At least it gives players a reason to take Leadership beyond the "because it fits the character even though its a waste of Active Skill points" aspect.

[Zephania]

Yeah, I've a problem with most players only taking ettiqette out of the social skill lists and then pretending to be a drek hot ex millitary whatever.

Any one who's ex millitary should have leadership.

[Siege]

[Zephania]

Yeah but any army worth its salt puts a lot of emphasis on leadership training for all its soldiers.

That way the guys who actually get into the firefights don't fall apart, they use their initiative and close with and kill the enemy.

Non commisioned officers run Armies and fight the war on the ground (small unit tactics). Officers say take that village, Grunts do the work.

[Siege]

Sargeants, Lts, even Corporals. But the rank and file enlisted, while they may understand tactics and battle strategy, may not have the skills necessary to motivate and lead.

I'll grant that every soldier who ever issues a command _should_ have Leadership, but in the great character sheet of life, not every rank-and-file enlisted is capable of leading (whether for lack of training or personal ability).

However, every rank and file infantryman can and will pass a test to determine his (or her) skill with more easily measured abilities, like marksmanship and driving.

-Siege

[grendel]

As others have suggested, Small Unit Tactics is both an active and a knowledge skill. If a player expects to reap the combat benefits from utilizing the skill, though, then the character needs to have the active skill.

I would say that most armed forces do not place a premium on formalized leadership training. Most of the focus is placed on an individual soldier's/sailor's MOS skills, followed by general military training, and lastly by leadership training. Most of the military is very skeptical about the value of any leadership training done in a classroom, and view the skill as something which must be learned hands-on. This is a result of the high visibility failures of several leadership models implemented by the U.S. military in an attempt to improve the perceived skill level of its officers.

[Arethusa]

It's an active skill if you play by the (completely ridiculous) rules for it in the CC. Otherwise, it's a knowledge skill, as it can and should really only provide information, at which point it is up to the player to analyze and make use of it. But, as it has been noted in other debates, knowledge skills have nothing to do with knowledge per se; they would be far more accurately termed secondary or character skills, as their core intent is to flesh out a character. In similar sense, Leadership would far more sensibly be a knowledge or secondary skill, as it's poitively useless as an active skill.

[Clank]

Considering that it's listed as both, just so people don't get confused, I would refer to the Knowledge skill as a Background skill.

[Zephania]

The ability to lead is precisley what sets corporals and sergeants apart from other soldiers. To lead you must have the respect of the men you command, constant training unearths these natural leaders who instinctivly understand how to motivate people. Classroom training comes later after motivation and inspiration amongst their peers have been proved often in adverse conditions.

Oh and by the way, leadership training for soldiers starts day one week one of basic training.

I think that small unit tactics should be a knowledge skill as it is an awful lot of theory wwhereas leadership is definatley an active skill as no amount of book learning can prepare you for an unmotivated individual with an attitude problem.

[Arethusa]

Zephania, the difference between an active and knowledge skill has nothing to do with real life application. Cooking is most definitely not a pure knowledge skill, and yet it would be one in game— not because cooking is somehow easier to learn or practice or internalize to an expert degree than handling a rifle, but solely because active skills are skills which relate directly to the game while knowledge skills are secondary that primarily flesh out the character. In that vein, leadership has no tangible, mechanical benefit within SR from the player's point of view and is almost always purely a roleplaying issue. It should, therefore, be a knowledge skill, and this has nothing to do with the (undeniable) significance of leadership on or off the battlefield.

Likewise, unless you play with the flatly insane bonuses that the Cannon Companion's Small Unit Tactics skill gives, Small Unit Tactics would also be a knowledge skill.

[toturi]

Non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers should have leadership BUT in an conscript army, junior officers are usually just better educated conscripts who perhaps were chosen simply because they had better people skills (Etiquette, Negotiations, etc or even a high Cha).

[mfb]

the army, at least, incorporates leadership skills in most of its training activities. lower-ranking enlisted are called upon to take charge of everything from classes to morning PT, under the supervision and instruction of a senior enlisted NCO.

that doesn't, however, mean that everyone who comes through the army should have points in SR's Leadership skill. any teacher can tell you that, no matter how hard you try, you can't force someone to learn something--not even in the army. classes and the like are merely opportunities, that must be taken advantage of if you want to gain any benefit from them. most soldiers, honestly, give the opportunities for learning leadership skills a pass--even those who go on to be NCOs. it is my opinion that, in SR terms, most junior NCOs and officers (e-4 through e-6, and 0-1 through 0-2 or 3) are defaulting on their Leadership skills. they negotiate, they intimidate, they might even instruct, but that's not leading. (i'm not faulting them for it--in real life, learning to lead isn't a simple matter of plunking down X karma and annotating your sheet.)

[Austere Emancipa...]

[Siege]

The idea of offering a benefit during a firefight, being measured in seconds is just absurd.

On a larger scale, yes - it can offer some benefit. And offering a blanket CP bonus is perhaps the best way to reflect that.

But most shadowrunners aren't fighting as a coordinated unit - however, the sec guards do.

Should we start outfitting sec guard field commanders with dedicated chipjacks for Leadership and SMUT?

-Siege

[Madda_Gaska]

[Misfit Toy]

If they're a group of security guards who've trained to work together on a regular basis, they certainly should have Small Unit Tactics. Though few would or do except maybe at high security sites. Few runner groups have the skills, too. While available, the annoyance of the system and skill investments are usually not worth the benefit.

But if you have the concept, the skills, and the implants, you might as well take advantage of it. It's obvious the skill is supposed to represent how well small teams like SWAT and SEAL teams work together. It's not your everyday "grunt, do this and that" skill which anyone can do, but won't net you any benefit.

Gaining one or two extra Combat Pool can be nice, but its hardly a game breaker. Same goes with an equal Initiative bonus.

[Austere Emancipa...]

As loathe as I am to do it, I'm going to use computer FPS games as an example here. Especially when playing multiplayer FPS games, you can make a large number of important decisions on a nearly subconscious level in the span of a 5-second firefight. Do I dash right or left? Should I keep moving or get a better position here?

And all the time you're thinking about things like whether you should have cover on your right flank or your left flank, depending on where there's going to be more enemies. You pick the exact right moment to move or to fire, depending on where the enemy is paying attention, etc. All these add up to a tactical advantage once the shooting does begin. All those little things, the ones perhaps not significant enough to be mentioned IC by themselves, are best represented in SR by a Combat Pool bonus.

I partly agree, however, that 3 seconds might be too short a time span to make a "new set of tactical decisions" or whatever a new SUT roll should be described as. Instead, you could allow a no-action SUT roll when combat begins for everyone expecting it, but requiring some action (Simple or Complex) for everyone else or when someone wants to re-roll it. The bonus from such a roll would remain until the combat ends or there is a significant change in the action -- as determined by the GM.

[Edit]The above mostly describes the use of SUT to gain bonuses for yourself, not for your team. I feel that in this way it would be extremely useful even for someone in a team they are not used to or even when in combat alone. "Small Unit Tactics" is still an appropriate name for it, IMNSHO, because you always struggle to be aware of what the whole enemy team and your whole team is doing.

You can do this even when fighting with strangers -- using Small Unit Tactics with people you have trained/fought with extensively might confer a TN bonus. Or the other way around, forcing a TN penalty when you know nothing about the friendlies.[/Edit]

I'm not that sure about the usefulness of the Leadership skill in a basic Shadowrun combat, though. That is certainly a skill that really comes into play in longer engagements, especially in keeping up unit morale. That's rarely an issue in Shadowrun, where secguards tend to die before they get a chance to panic.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jul 1 2004, 05:17 PM

[Siege]

I find it difficult to believe that someone yammering in your ear can offer you any tangible benefit during the course of 3-5 seconds.

After a certain point, it comes down to personal skill and all the SUT won't help you move faster, shoot better or make individual assessments over the course of 3-5 seconds.

-Siege