"Hosting Weird War II / Historical Pulp Games" Topic

I just got turned down to host a Weird War II game for the second time this summer. It's weird because they are hosting everything from WWI to a Starship Troopers game. Are there rules that are black balled or something? Do gaming cons look down on certain types of games? Are there any cons around the Texas area that would embrace a Weird War II
game that you know of. Let me know because I want to expose others to our house rules and the Battleground WWII system. Weird War II is still as strategic and exciting as any other historical heavy game could ever be. I haven't been to a game con in 20+ years so I don't know the attitudes or nuances of them now a days. Let me know cause I'm really interested in hosting some very exciting and weird games for newcomers and help spark interest in the whole genre.

Brian

Battleground Weird War II

link

Did they tell you why they turned you down? I can't believe any con would turn down a game (other than rules specific cons such as a DBA only con). Our local con in February certainly wouldn't turn down an offered game.

Could it be your Yahoo Group? Maybe if you were a little more "Family Oriented"?

Not to be too politically correct, but a lot of the current Weird War II figures out these days seem to push the envelope when it comes to ghoulishness and Nazi uniform and other kinds of fetishism. There's a weird underlying vibe to a lot of the figures that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. We might be able to fit it within the context "it's just a game" and the stuff is so over the top it's campy, but a lot of people see it as disrespectful at best and creepy and perverse at worst. If I were running an event open to the general public, particularly if kids might attend, I'd be a little nervous too unless I knew and trusted the specific people running the Weird War II game. (I say this as someone who loved the Hellboy movie and has been sculpting several generations of figures for SuperSystem Invaders games over the past few months, including my own version of Master Man.) I've witnessed a couple of ugly incidents in straight WWII games in which some of the "German" players got a little too enthusiastic about their role playing and said some truly offensive and disgusting things, including telling Holocaust jokes. A number of years ago, I stopped attending games with or inviting an aquaintance who began to drift into Holocaust revisionism, stimulated in part by his gaming obsession with fielding elite SS units. I can see where a lot of people might have concerns. Of course a preconvention demo in which they could see your approach and maturity level firsthand might persuade them their initial judgment was too hasty. Good luck!

Mulligan

You really think that squeamishness stops cons from hosting games. I think you're projecting your own feelings a little bit here. If I remember correctly the biggest convention in the UK had an SS reenactor unit including Hitler Youth all over their convention floor recently. Of course people did--in fact--complain about it, but it certainly didn't stop them from doing it initially. The point is that I highly doubt the ludeness of the figures is at issue here in comparison to that blunder. These figs are no worse than GW 40K and Fantasy Chaos figures in that regard. My guess is that they are reserving slots for more mainstream games that will attract more people. Why not simply ask them why it was rejected? If they are at all professional they will provide some sort of explanation.

AX

Hi Brian,

I simply think that Weird WWII and that genre is still growing in popularity and has yet to pick up a really large body of fans yet. It will come… the general Pulp genre is really up and coming.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
6mm-minis.blogspot.com

>I simply think that Weird WWII and that genre is still growing in popularity and has yet to pick up a really large body of fans yet. It will come… the general Pulp genre is really up and coming.<

WW II has absolutely nothing to do with the pulp magazine era between the two World Wars. Nothing of that sort ever appeared in a pulp magazine, serial, comic strip, or movie from that era. Flesh eating Zombies, women in open bloused Nazi fetish uniforms and vampire SS storm troopers are a product of "grindhouse" movies and 1960's "exploitation" era mens magazines.

We had no issues about running our game at Gen Con.

Axabrax:

I'm not sure what you mean by "prjecting your feelings here." I have nothing against really outrageous and envelope-pushing games given the proper venue. You just have to be careful of your intended or likely (even if accidental) audience. (After all, my favorite really sick, twisted, funny-as-H-ll, and inspiredly gory game is Zombies!) It's just that I've witnessed several cases in which games or figures really offended people and have heard about plenty of others. A lot of historical gamers are quite conservative and either have no interest in or actively dislike fantasy elements in gaming, particularly dark fantasy and horror. I was in a shop a couple of years ago picking up an order, when a regular customer and gamer was asked by the shop's owner to swap out a highly customized fantasy vehicle for another one of equal points value because it was offending and disturbing the customers and some of his fellow gamers. I think the game was a Warhammer spinoff (Necromundia, maybe: I've never played any of the Warhammer stuff, although a lot of people swear by it). The vehicle in question was some kind of big battle wagon covered in spikes festooned with blood-dripping heads. It was trailing a pool of blood through which were being dragged naked chained and harnessed slave girls being whipped by some kind of vampire things. All masterfully modeled. And all way too inappropriate for a casual public game display. If you're running a gamecon in a borrowed church basement, you can see that kind of thing might raise some eyebrows--and lose you the use of the space. A lot of the current generation of fantasy figures out there are much edgier and graphically gory than anything that was available even just 5 years ago.

Mulligan

Here's a thought no one has mentioned yet- Maybe they don't want house rules.

Do house rules and published rules really mater? Isn't the idea of a gaming con to play games or is it to only push certain ones? I see both sides but how do gaming rules get published without play testing and I can't think of any better way then someone who is completely new to the game. Oh well, I guess its up to the organizers of the con anyway who they want or don't want. But doesn't that make for the same old thing time and time again if something new or original isn't able to even be exposed to those who may enjoy it. Couldn't these cons be a platform for game companies to buy new gaming systems or ideas from the hoster's house rules being presented. Maybe instead of just playing the systems with the flashy codex books or huge ad campaigns maybe we could just play someones fun and exciting game. Just a thought.

Brian

Battleground Weird War II
link

Thats weird. I've never stumbled onto anything objectionable at Brian's Yahoo group (if I'm missing nudity or something, please tell me where to find them their :) ) and the game is top quality. I haven't even gamed Wierd War, never mixed historical with fantasy gaming, but enjoy that site a lot. You should get an explaination, though, as its mostly conjecture as to why they denied you.

Brian, having viewed your thread on 'adult themes'

TMP link

I wonder whether-

a) you put something in your convention application that concerned the organizers?

or b) that you have acquired a reputation as 'game master most likely to stage tabletop atrocities in front of passing families'?

I'm not suggesting that this was your deliberate choice. But if you have an image problem, you might try to improve it.

I say this as the designer of 'Eat Hitler, the Nazi taste Treat', a game which nobody has protested (what with the Aryan protein angle and all). Because they knew it would be participation comedy and nothing else.

I may have opened a can of worms here that I really didn't want to open. Probably too keyed up about the impending arrival of Historicon and overthinking things again. The most likely explanation for not being allowed to run a game (any game) at a con is usually perfectly logistical and innocent: not enough table space to run everything or try new things, so run with the games and periods you already know. Asking the con hosts why they couldn't fit your game into their con should clear everything up. However, if there is a concern over a game's theme or handling, I suspect it's because of some of the situations I described earlier. World War II historiography in general is evolving, and a lot of people seem to be a lot more sensitive to the horrors, controversies, and contradictions of WWII than the glories. The term "The Good War" sounds increasingly ironic these days. Cons are public events. Even in a straight historical wargame, people can get caught up in the role they're playing and say some things that are truly offensive or disturbing to outsiders who aren't caught up in the game or don't understand the context. Adding a fantasy or Hollywood element to a history-themed game tends to boost the role-playing aspect.
I also want to make it clear that I'm not referencing anything specific to Kampfgroupecottrell. I've really enjoyed the pictures and game descriptions he's forwarded from his Invaders games; that's the type of thing that I'm looking forward to doing with the SuperSystem rules and the Invaders figures I'm sculpting. It's just that I tend to game with a fairly conservative group of guys, and the things that tend to elicit negative comments from both them and from my wife (who got a big kick out of the Bruce Campbell Evil Dead movies and who often beats me at Zombies!) are the gruesome ads (a tribute to the technical virtuosity of the painters) for really gory and often fetishistic Weird War, Gothic Sci Fi, and Horror figures in some of the British gaming magazines. In my experience, those kinds of figures and themes just touch a nerve in some conservative gamers that other kinds of things (safe, clean, not particularly edgy fantasies like Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, basic Dungeons and Dragons, etc.) don't. I can understand and appreciate the merits of both edgy esthetics and safe esthetics in gaming, but a lot of gamers I really respect just don't like the dark pallet of Weird War gaming.
Kampfgroupecottrell, I hope you find a con that appreciates what you're trying to do. You've got a lot of cool stuff that deserves to be seen and played with. Or even better, maybe even set up a Weird War II Con. That might be worth a plane ticket to Texas.

Mulligan

>It's just that I tend to game with a fairly conservative group of guys, and the things that tend to elicit negative comments from both them and from my wife (who got a big kick out of the Bruce Campbell Evil Dead movies and who often beats me at Zombies!) are the gruesome ads (a tribute to the technical virtuosity of the painters) for really gory and often fetishistic Weird War, Gothic Sci Fi, and Horror figures in some of the British gaming magazines. In my experience, those kinds of figures and themes just touch a nerve in some conservative gamers that other kinds of things (safe, clean, not particularly edgy fantasies like Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, basic Dungeons and Dragons, etc.) don't.<

Mulligan

We've conversed at Historicon and you don't strike me as a person who wouldn't see the difference between conservatism and simple "good taste". It's really pretty easy. Consider what the typical crowd at a large convention would consist of and tailor the scenario to be enjoyable to that crowd. My guess, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that Brian want's to do what *he* wants to do and that's just too bad for any of the con goers that might find his game offensive.

Thanks, Shadow. Me and Missus Mulligan are planning on playing in Bob Murch's game at Historicon. Hope to see you there.

Mulligan

I would never host a questionable game in front of kids or inject something grossly inappropriate but those two fact have been ignored in the topic in the other posts. Yet again I am asking a straight forward question about the mentality and movement of the gaming con and gamer.

Brian

Let me guess they would not let you host your Nazi Zombie Raping Game correct?

yeah you got me beowulf. No Nazi rpgs there.

OHHHHHH this Nazi thing is getting entirely out of hand. I have been getting nothing but grief about my Voss Albatros (yup it sports that swastika on both sides) and my German SS troops.

I am a HISTORICAL gamer. I play with and against Mongols, Crusaders, Turks, Old West Cavalry, Nazi Germans, Russians, and a lot of other undesirables. Like it or not, historical wars were often fought against or instigated by the "bad dudes".

Just because we play the game does not mean we are glorifying or endorsing the philosophy of the "bad dudes".

Still I can understand some being offended by these historical portrayals -- especially if too graphic.

HOWEVER -- parody of historical stuff just cannot be taken too literally. You see, that's the whole point of parody.

BUT parody can be clever or droll. Maybe that's where this matter stands right now. You see, a game that vividly describes the decapitation and torture of each casualty (as opposed to that's three hits -- remove three figures) goes way beyond what is necessary to recreate history. Indeed, one has to ask what such a set of rules is really trying to accomplish.

AND that is my question to you. What is it you are really trying to do with your game? Could this or perhaps should this be done in another way?

mjc

>would never host a questionable game in front of kids or inject something grossly inappropriate but those two fact have been ignored in the topic in the other posts. Yet again I am asking a straight forward question about the mentality and movement of the gaming con and gamer.<

OK. Fair is fair. I asked and you told me that you wouldn't include something "grossly inappropriate" or "questionable". Great! The question of course is, what exactly, did the convention promoters find wrong with your scenario(s)? It can't be that just that you used Nazis. Right? What sort of convention was it? It doesn't sound strictly "historical". Which convention was it? I'm sure that you can tell us that.

The organizers were afraid that their could be an adult theme within a game hosted. I gave two scenarios of an escape from a zombie infested town or a WWII-era super hero game. I do have some rules within my newsgroup (incubus & succubus rules) that are adult oriented but they would not have been used. I thanked the organizers for their consideration and posed this question after their e-mail back to me. Thats way I asked about hosting a pulp game at cons. Saber6 made me ask the adult post when he said if I made my sight more "family oriented". That is the root to this and the other thread.

What I want in a game is enjoyment and a degree of realism that could effect an individuals tactics as the battlefield develops. Just as if you move a squad in an open field and a King Tiger crests the hill in front of you, you will change your tactics. If your squad witnessed a massacre of friendlies that would more than likely alter their tactics. Those are my intentions. Over the top in terms of game play, not to me but that is my opinion. I play both SS and US Airborne and both have a distinct attitude and feel to them as they would in a real world environment. The examples of the horrors of war have been all that is talked about not what I was asking by what do you think of adult situations in gaming.

>The examples of the horrors of war have been all that is talked about not what I was asking by what do you think of adult situations in gaming.<

Well, that's because you haven't given examples of "adult situations" that are somehow *different* than the "horrors of war". I think we have all assumed that your "adult situations" would include massacres, genocide, rape, and torture. Descriptions of *these* situations are unnecessary to a tactical game. It isn't even necessary that they be *mentioned*. For instance, you might have a scenario where a unit of US Infantry is in a combat situation around Dachau. Is there any reason at *all* to be descriptive about what went on in that camp? Not in a *tactical* situation. On the other hand, if your game has role playing elements and you include rape and torture, then one of the group is role playing a rapist or torturer
and that would be innapropriate, unless that player digs that sort of thing, in which case I don't want to play with him. In fact, I don't want to be in the same *room* with him.

What's happening is that we're poking around in the dark trying to understand what's actually going on. I keep getting the feeling that you're holding something back. If the squad you described as having "witnessed a massacre of friendlies" is represented on the board with a pit full of dead bodies that would be inappropriate, but what I *still* don't understand is how the player maneuvering the squad is going to play any differently no matter *what* the circumstances are if it's a tactical game and not an RPG. So why include the "adult" descriptions.

Now, getting into the role playing element. You can play a scenario where the police are searching for "Jack the Ripper", but there's really no reason to describe what "The Ripper" did to women in detail. We *all* know what he did, so why be desciptive? Unless you dig that sort of thing.

OK, now. Getting to your two scenarios. They didn't sound very "adult" to me. Just the typical "grindhouse" Zombie stuff and super heroes. Why are you describing them as "adult"? They sound pretty adolescent to me, and are common scenario types at the cons that I've been to. If I were the promoter I wouldn't stop you. Not if you're telling us everything. Are you?

To the Shadow:
The squad in question has orders to infiltrate and plant demo charges on a bridge or something of that nature. As your team sneaks through the streets they actually, on the battlefield witness a mass execution, savage beating of a civilian or any other kind over horrendous act. This is either performed by the GM or told to perform by the opposing player by the GM. Now how do you react? Do you ignore it and continue on with your mission? Due you light up the murders and give up any chance of accomplishing your mission? That situation ie the witnessing of a mass execution is the adult situation. That is what I am talking about, not gaming out the act for fun or whatever but actually witnessing it on the battlefield causing a reaction to those who are playing it and making them decide what to do next.

And as for the promoter then that is what they said, because of the adult themes within the newsgroup. Look at it and make your own decision thats fine by me.

I know we are just going around and round on this topic but I am being vilified here and I am trying to explain to those offended as to what I am mean behind my question.

I'm not changing it, I not trying to convince anyone I'm trying to explain the question is do you do such things to either motivate or alter the players mission goals, tactics or strategy within your games.

Face to face combat is I kill you and you kill me but when specific missions, scenarios, campaigns hinge on the human aspect of warfare then I was wondering if realistic tones where used to drive and manipulate a reaction or act that wouldn't other wise be common to the units playing. In essence a level of Role Play.

You are asking me so I am informing you of what I am attempting to find out from the question. I appreciate the unemotional questions posed by you on what I mean and not the bomb throwers who just say I'm an ass, jerk, sick or whatever and move on.

I knew this was going to be controversial but as my best responder Beowulf says maybe such topics are not meant to be discussed and that I should just stop so you guys wont make fun of me. Nice response by the way.

Brian

Well it seems that everyone has something to say about a Weird WW2 game but it also seems that everyone has forgoten how hard it is to run a game. Keep player interested in the game is hard, if you follow normal ways. You become predictable and the game becomes dull. Player want challenges to hold them in the game, lose that and you lose the players.
Man has been cruel to man through out history, why not reflex that in a game . Challenge the player, make them think.
Real war is not a game but a horror. I know I been there and I still have nightmares about it.
Brian wants to run a game, add some situations that makes player think that is all. I see nothing wrong with that but some of you out there want a PC game in a PC world.

This is a quote from Brian's last message.

"The squad in question has orders to infiltrate and plant demo charges on a bridge or something of that nature. As your team sneaks through the streets they actually, on the battlefield witness a mass execution, savage beating of a civilian or any other kind over horrendous act. This is either performed by the GM or told to perform by the opposing player by the GM. Now how do you react? Do you ignore it and continue on with your mission? Due you light up the murders and give up any chance of accomplishing your mission? That situation ie the witnessing of a mass execution is the adult situation. That is what I am talking about, not gaming out the act for fun or whatever but actually witnessing it on the battlefield causing a reaction to those who are playing it and making them decide what to do next."

The situation that you described sounds very melodramatic, but the infiltration squad has their orders and they won't deviate from them because they've witnessed an execution. They are there on a *tactical* mission not a humanitarian mission and are trained to carry out their orders in a particular fashion. There is no deciding "what to do next". The GM can include 27 different atrocities and the team will behave in the same way, making tactical choices based on enemy deployment, terrain, and the objective. If the leader of the team is any good, and we can only assume that he *is*, he will carry out his orders. He has to turn a blind eye to everything that he sees that doesn't pertain directly to his goals.

Further to that, you're also making the assumption that this unit doesn't *already* hate the enemy. If this is WW II that we're discussing I can *guarantee* you that they already hate the enemy. Pearl Harbor and the constant and steady loss of lives from that day forward was *plenty* of reason to hate the Axis.

Now, from the "Kong" pix that you posted it looks like what you've created is a tactical game, not an RPG. The difference between the two is that in a tactical game it's already assumed that the two sides hate each other's guts and don't mind killing lots of the enemy while achieving their tactical objective using typical military units. While in an RPG you would be allowing each player to play a character (not the commander of one or more manuever elements) who can make decisions and achieve goals that will reflect the player's character and will allow him (or her) to "role play" a type of person that they would want to be. By attempting to combine the two and make a hybrid tactical/RPG you only confuse the goals of each.

So at this point I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to accomplish. And as I said before, there's no need to include a bunch of figures standing up against a wall and being shot down to make the game somehow better or more compelling. That display *Shouldn't* change the way the infiltrators play in any way, shape or form. I'm well aware of Nazi atrocities and will always play a wargame to my best tactical ability regardless of this knowledge.

Now, if the Con promoters have already type cast you as a guy who likes to show brutality to civilians on a wargame table it should be an easy fix to simply stop showing that brutality in graphic detail. If you want to add some flavor (if we can call it that) to the game, you can add the fact that the unit has witnessed an execution in the opening set-up for the game. It's completely unnecessary to actually show it.

Brian also said:

"I knew this was going to be controversial but as my best responder Beowulf says maybe such topics are not meant to be discussed and that I should just stop so you guys wont make fun of me".

Disussing the topic is really no big deal. I think that it's worth having. After all, what are we here for but to discuss things regarding playing games with figures representing the era between the wars, which may occasionally involve situations that are duplicated from pulp magazines, which were very violent and had covers that depicted some pretty horrible stuff. How we play these games and what figure poses we ask for from our favorite sculpters and vendors can be very controversial. What better place to hash it out than right here in this forum.

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

Sigh.

This is getting depressing. I'm kind of sorry I responded the initial post. I thought I made a few reasonable points in measured tones with specific examples in answer to an interesting question by a fellow gamer, who has done some work I've seen and admired. (I'm only directly familiar with the Invaders game WWII comic book game stuff Kampfgroupecottrell has posted, so a lot of these outside references to other things in subsequent posts are news to me.) Here is a summation of the simple points I was trying to make in my initial and follow-up posts. I wasn't trying to start a war only contribute to an interesting discussion. I'm sorry if anyone got offended, felt attacked by me, or was inadvertently opened up to attack by others who may not have understood exactly what I was trying to say.
(i) I see "Weird War" as a broad category encompassing a wide range of games from serious and plausible "What if the war had continued into 1946" simulations, to Hogan's Heroes and even Kelly's Heroes camp, to Four-Color Gee Whiz "Take that Baron Blitz!" comic book and pulp games (my style), to Gothic horror with WWII symbolism.Unfortunately, justified or not, a lot of other gamers see Weird War only as Nazi dominatrixes, disemboweled zombies, rotting reanimated corpses, and blood-spattered tables covered with oversize Nazi flags and swastikas. If you want to run a game in a public venue, you're going to have to convince people otherwise, especially if they don't know you. Provide education by demonstration.
(ii) It's all in how you handle the specifics of the game, what you choose to emphasize, and what you chose not to emphasize. The first thing people see when they approach your table may be the only thing they see. First impressions do matter. It's just human nature.
(iii) WWII and postwar gaming in general are just inherently more controversial and have more baggage than older periods. WWII is getting more controversial than it used to be. I've seen people steer their kids toward the Revolutionary War table displays and away from the WWII table displays. Modern stuff has a visceral emotional resonance that older periods simply lack. Hypocrisy? Maybe. I prefer to think of it as normal human inconsistency. Is there much difference to the actual guy being massacred whether he's being bayonetted at the Alamo or chopped down by machine guns at Malmedy? No. Could you represent both in miniature with equal safety at your average con? I doubt it. Context is everything.
(iv) Some people think all wargaming is "sick." It's all relative. Don't let yourself be cowed by the PC ninnies or people with ulterior agendas. You can't please all the people all the time. If you've got any brains at all, you wouldn't want to.
(v) Being polite and patient, sensitive to other people's feelings, and socially aware isn't "PC." It's just good manners, psychologically healthy, and leads to a better game.
(vi) We're intelligent, overeducated geeks pushing pieces of lead covered in paint with various degrees of skill while waiting for the pizza to arrive. It's just a game, after all! Play it well and enjoy the hell out of it.
(vii) I've a hankering to put on my white hat and ride on back to the clean, simple nostalgia of pulpland: i.e., Mulligan will finally shut up now.

Mulligan

(By the way, Kampfgroupecottrell, the "Kong vs Nazis" game pictures are wicked cool! Must get around to finishing Sculpey Kong after Historicon!)

>Is there much difference to the actual guy being massacred whether he's being bayonetted at the Alamo or chopped down by machine guns at Malmedy? No.<

Yes.

Malmedy was a massacre and depicting the murder of American P.O.Ws. on a wargame table is pointless. It's The Battle of the Bulge that we're interested in simulating, not MG target practice. The Alamo can be simulated as a tactical situation. The choices would be limited, but the situation can raise tactical questions nevertheless. What's more, including The Alamo in a larger campaign of Texicans against Mexicans is interesting, do-able and has been done many times before. So there's a *big* difference between the two.

My only discussion with Brian is whether it is necessary, or even the least bit desirable, to *show* atrocities in a *tactical* game, as including them won't change the *tactical* situation one bit. So a Con promoter, if he's an experienced wargamer, is going to put the same question to himself. "What's the reasoning for depicting this atrocity or atrocities in detail?", and when there's no good answer, and IMO there really isn't any good answer, he's going to assume that there's some depraved interest on the part of the GM and say "no" to the game, even if the GM is innocently, if misguidedly, attempting to add some element of realism to the simulation.

Shadow:

Please reread what I actually said in what you just requoted: "Is there much difference to the actual guy being massacred…." To the actual guy who's being massacred, the only thing that matters is his impending demise. In this case, the historical wargame retells the narrative (i.e., the backstory) of how Jim Bowie came to meet his end being bayonetted in his sickbed after the Alamo has been overrun on say turn 12 of the game. The whole point of playing the game is retelling the backstory and perhaps rewriting it (or at least revising it a little) with a few lucky dice rolls. An Alamo game that was just two hours of Bowie getting bayonetted in Peckinpah-style slow motion in bed would be a pointless and sickening equivalent to a wargame that did nothing but replay the slow motion machine gunning of PFC Joe Kowalsky in the snow at Malmedy. And yet, an Alamo game without the end of Bowie would seem narratively incomplete, which would not be the case with a Battle of the Bulge game that ends with an American position being overrun and the curtain being pulled down mercifully before the Malmedy aftermath. Joe's squad gets captured. Game over. Fade to black. A Battle of the Bulge skirmish game premised, however, on lost jeep driver Joe Kowalsky and a ragtag squad of stragglers desperately wheeling down back roads and trying to evade Nazi patrols and Panzers until he can exit off the table (and thus avoid his fate at Malmedy) could be a legitimate game in itself or a small part of a larger campaign game. Again, it all depends on what you as the gamemaster or player focus on and where you place the larger narrative frame of the game.
Does that make sense? I see us making the same point here.

Mulligan

>I see us making the same point here.<

Sorry Mully. My bad. I wasn't paying as close attention to the *entire* post as I should have. You're right. We're certainly on the same page.

"They are there on a *tactical* mission not a humanitarian mission and are trained to carry out their orders in a particular fashion. There is no deciding "what to do next"."

Why??? Why wouldn't some folks in the unit be so outraged that they react in a way that compromises the mission?? INHO, EVERY small scale skirmish game is only a hairsbreadth away from being an RPG. Most tactical level skirmish rules have figure stats, wound states, and many have rules for special abilities or skills. It seems to me that this sort of situation could be easily modeled by some sort of morale check roll. For example, in the BGWWII rules there's an "I'm Hit!" rule -- when a figure takes a heavy wound, friendly figures within 5" have to make a morale check or move to help the wounded figure (the rolls stop after someone misses, and the presence of a medic negates the need for a roll). This makes no "tactical" sense, and ends up leading to your careful plans being messed up a bit as your radio man dashes out from cover to help his buddy…gets shot himself and you lose your arty support. But isn't that the kind of stuff you read about and see in movies?? So why not model some of that human element in a game?

>Why??? Why wouldn't some folks in the unit be so outraged that they react in a way that compromises the mission??<

Because Brian's example is about "infiltrators" which suggests special training. "Infiltrators" are *not* going to stop and assess the morale issues of every situation they come across. They are going to complete their mission as best they can…without question. If the squad is in danger they'll want to finish the job and get the hell outta Dodge. The squad leader's responsibility is to his men and to his mission. That's what will be uppermost in his mind. Small unit decisions are *not* made by commitee and are *not* open to discussion. The squad leader leads and the squad members follow orders. In the rare cases where the squad leader asks for opinions (yeah right) the plan is in danger of failure. I was in the Air Force for four years and I don't recall *any* leader asking my opinion about *anything*.

>EVERY small scale skirmish game is only a hairsbreadth away from being an RPG.<

Only if you *want* it to be. The fact that you give the squad members names doesn't mean that they need to be "role played". The soldiers have stats just like a tank or an entire Division. Play it as a tactical game and it's a tactical game. Give it role playing type rules and you'll have an RPG type game.

>So why not model some of that human element in a game?<

Sure. Why not? Go ahead. I didn't say that you shouldn't. I said that in a tactical game the squad wouldn't react in such a melodramatic way. In an RPG the situation *could* be entirely different. You can invent an RPG called "Soldiers That Behave In An Unproffessional And Unrealistic Manner". *I* wouldn't play it. I prefer games that involve tactical decisions, not "role playing".

"*I* wouldn't play it. I prefer games that involve tactical decisions, not "role playing"."

Then why have morale rules?? I mean, what's the point? Wouldn't your trained infiltrators be so well trained that they'd never break under fire? Why have skill rolls or skill status? Wouldn't your infiltrators be so well trained as to make this moot? I think you have an image of a gaming as a chess like match -- that's not how I approach my games, but enjoy.

>Then why have morale rules?? I mean, what's the point? Wouldn't your trained infiltrators be so well trained that they'd never break under fire?<

Morale rules are used to simulate all sorts of things in wargames. Most of the wargames that I've played have some kind of morale rules. They usually attempt to simulate a unit's reaction to a severe reduction of it's manpower. How that reaction is modeled, whether an inability to move, a reduction in firepower, a forced move away from the enemy, an inability to move *toward* the enemy, or something similar is dependent on the game author's point of view and what he wants to emphasize.

I don't own a single wargame that models moral issues and I believe that there's a very good reason for that. Soldiers are not trained to act or react in a philosophical way. They do what they have to do to accomplish their mission. I explained all that in a previous post, but it's worth adding the fact that soldiers are not rewarded for their moral stance. They are rewarded for being brave and competent. A soldier that doesn't follow orders because he believes that his reasoning is better than his superior's is vilified, not congratulated. If a sergeant is told to attack a hill and he refuses because he believes that taking that hill is useless he will probably find himself a private very soon. He might also be considered a coward as well. On the other hand, if the sergeant is wounded taking the useless hill he will receive a Purple Heart and possibly even a Bronze Star. We went through Basic Training for months being reconditioned to follow orders without question. Believe it or not, that's a good thing because nobody in his right mind would run directly into enemy fire without being conditioned to do exactly that.

>Why have skill rolls or skill status? Wouldn't your infiltrators be so well trained as to make this moot?<

I don't know what you mean by "skill roles or skill status".

What I can tell you is this. If the "infiltrators" from Brian's example were performing their mission in "real life" they would *not* stop to witness a massacre and then discuss it. In fact, like it or not, the squad leader would probably welcome anything that would divert the enemy's attention from his men and his mission. A "diversion" is a classic tactic that can frequently cost the lives of men in your unit. For example: Let's say 1st platoon of Able Company is trying to get into position to blow up a bridge, but they'll never make it because the enemy is ready to concentrate all of their fire on them. The company commander might send 2nd platoon to flank the enemy as a diversion. This is going to cost the lives of many men in 2nd platoon, *but* 1st platoon will be able to get into position to blow the bridge and prevent even *more* of the enemy from coming to wipe out the entire company. It's a sacrifice for the good of the mission and ultimately to save *more* lives.

Now, can you see the position that the leader of the "infiltrator" squad is in? There's no moral question to be dealt with. As I explained before, the leader might *welcome* a diversion that doesn't cost the lives of the men in his company. In short, you and Brian are thinking like civilians, not like soldiers.

>I think you have an image of a gaming as a chess like match<

And that's exactly how the upper echelon of any military unit will view it. These leaders can't suffer over the lives of every single man in their unit or any peripheral civilian deaths that might occur nearby. Especially not civilian deaths that they aren't the cause of. The time to worry about that sort of thing is when you retire or are discharged from the service and can make a million bucks writing a book or directing a movie exposing the army.

>that's not how I approach my games,<

They're your games. Do whatever you like.

>but enjoy<

Thanks. You too.

"Morale rules are used to simulate all sorts of things in wargames. Most of the wargames that I've played have some kind of morale rules. They usually attempt to simulate a unit's reaction to a severe reduction of it's manpower. How that reaction is modeled, whether an inability to move, a reduction in firepower, a forced move away from the enemy, an inability to move *toward* the enemy, or something similar is dependent on the game author's point of view and what he wants to emphasize."

It's really, though, just a reflection of what happens when someone is put through more than they can handle -- the effects are merely how the game models the result of that, not why in the first place. If you look at standard morale checks in many rules -- coming under artillery fire, seeing a leader killed, a certain number of casualties, etc., it's all trying to model the training vs psychology effect. You may be *trained* to continue under fire, but at some point stepping over your pals' corpses or seeing the gaping maw of cannons in front of you is more than you and your fellows can handle and you freeze, run away, etc. So there's already the "human element" in most games -- and in a skirmish genre (and Pulp is certainly a heavy skirmish format) the morale effect is very important, and I think this can also be used to model other events within a game. I think for a Pulp or small action game it's appropriate to model events like in Saving Private Ryan where the Vin Diesel character is "trained" to continue on mission, but his heart says stop and help the little girl.

"Soldiers are not trained to act or react in a philosophical way. They do what they have to do to accomplish their mission. I explained all that in a previous post, but it's worth adding the fact that soldiers are not rewarded for their moral stance."

I'm saying it's rewarded -- I'm saying it happens. And at a skirmish level or Pulp level where one figure represents one person, depending on your gaming style its appropriate to model that. As a player it may be frustrating to have your Vin Diesel character expose himself to extra danger to help the little girl -- but that simulates a commander dealing with the unpredictable, doesn't it?

"Believe it or not, that's a good thing because nobody in his right mind would run directly into enemy fire without being conditioned to do exactly that."

I dunno. The only Bronze Star winner I know, a former Marine who won the Bronze Star at Saipan, said he barely remembers doing what he did. He saw some buddies of his shot, and he ran into machinegun fire to pull them back to safety. As he described it it was not a conscious decision, he was just so ed and upset at seeing his friends in danger that he just acted. He wasn't ordered to -- and that's what a good skirmish game will model, spontaneous actions, in addition to planned actions, the ability to take orders, etc.

"As I explained before, the leader might *welcome* a diversion that doesn't cost the lives of the men in his company. In short, you and Brian are thinking like civilians, not like soldiers."

Like I said -- it happens that as the Squad leader is saying to himself "How awful, but at least the Krauts are too busy to notice us," that a Vin Diesel sees that a little girl about to get shot looks like his little sister and freaks out, attacking the Germans to save the prisoners. Doh! Say you as a player -- now how the heck do I complete the mission? Crap, and now that kid from Chicago is racing off after Vin Diesel!! And he has the detonator!!! That's Pulp, that's Skirmish gaming. And that's human life for you. Soldiers are people too, and they will react in ways YOU as the CO don't want. "Stay on mission men, ignore the kids about to be killed" might be an order that's followed, it might not. So it can probably be modeled with a simple die roll based on the morale level or training level of the unit. Pulp and Skirmish is much different from a Battalion level or even Company level game where all that stuff is lost in the wash.

"I don't know what you mean by "skill roles or skill status"."

Most Skirmish level and Pulp style games try to reflect various skills and abilities being modeled on the individual scale through some system of skill checks, skill roles, etc. Stuff you don't have at bigger level games.

"And that's exactly how the upper echelon of any military unit will view it. These leaders can't suffer over the lives of every single man in their unit or any peripheral civilian deaths that might occur nearby. Especially not civilian deaths that they aren't the cause of."

Except the "upper echelon" of a typical skirmish game may be a 21 yo 2nd LT…not an aged Moltke or Petain.

Anyway, it boils down to style. A skirmish game or Pulp game is closer to simulating a dramatical rendition of events, such as an SPR movie than a grand battle scenario. I game both, and different rules are appropriate foe each style.

>Anyway, it boils down to style. A skirmish game or Pulp game is closer to simulating a dramatical rendition of events, such as an SPR movie than a grand battle scenario. I game both, and different rules are appropriate foe each style.<

OK.