Roleplaying in a serious simulation?

[voltigeur]

While working on some optional rules I started working on leader attributes. I have devised a system very similar to Squad Leader. As I go through the intellectual exercise of how the rules will turn out I noticed that units can develop a “personalityâ€￾ if this option is played in a campaign. It also could be used as a basic system for role playing. (i.e. have a figure that represents you and you try to keep them alive during a campaign.)

The only leaders under this rule that will be noted are those that are really good or really bad. The average NCO or Officer would not be represented.

I want to have a way to look at a unit that maybe has good troops and NCO’s but lousy officers, or can good officers make up for mediocre troops.

My question for this group is: Where do you as a gamer draw the line of too much. All answers are correct I just want to know how people feel about this aspect of gaming.

[hauptgrate]

My small gaming group has used what we call 'player characters' for well over a decade now. As with you, the idea came from the original Squad Leader -- which two of us played back in the 1980s. Players choose a commander on their side to be them, and gain or lose 'generalship' points depending what level of officer they have chosen, on the outcome of the scenario. Being a low level commander -- a Lt. or Capt. -- gives more generaliship points if one survives, while a higher level officer has a better chance of survival but fewer point rewards. Generalship points can be accrued through many scenarios irrevelant of the nationality one is playing. We give benifits such as extra unit purchase points, victory condition modifications, etc. to players with higher generalship. During a battle, player characters have a number of 'personal reroll chits' -- depending on their level of points -- which are used to reroll results associated with thier PC. There are many more minor aspects we have added to the system over the years.

The overall purpose and result is to add an extra dimension to the battle. Players are encouraged to take risks with their PCs because they have rerolls, but sometimes a poor choice results in the death of a PC and having to start back at the bottom again. All of my group have gone through several PCs over the years. Quite fun.

[piersyf]

Tried it, it can be fun, but not particularly realistic for a few reasons...
1) check the number of senior officers killed or wounded checking lines of approach before a battle and you'll see that 'staying alive' is not a priority for them.
2) If you die, the second in command takes over, who is usually still you.
3) We found there was no need to put 'character' restrictions on a gamer... they do that themselves. In one particular game that comes to mind I put a small but very aggressive blocking force on a river crossing that took my opponent 5 turns to break. After that he lost interest in the game and withdrew. He was known to be prone to losing interest if you gave him a hard smack somewhere unexpected.
4) Having characteristics (like in Squad Leader) are good for subordinate units (like all of your command stands) so that things don't go exactly as planned/expected, much more like the real thing.

[groundlber]

I mostly concur with Piersyf: the players tend to have predispositions that effect their actions on the table. When we played a lot of American Civil War battles, we often got 'historical' results, because the players/generals all knew each other. One player's definition of advance was "a full out charge with every available unit', some were methodical, others better on defense than attack, or vice versa.
As an aside, one of my best friends and I thought so much alike(except for real politics) that we would cancel each other out if on oppsite sides in a game.
Where it can be interesting is to give slightly different victory conditions to every player in multi player games. In one of Will's Balkan scenarios, the overall commander for one of the forces would receive extra victory points if his second in command died in battle. Back story was number two was a little (a lot) too bloodthirsty and becoming a political liablity.
Groundlber

[Gompel]

I always like the idea of troops gaining experience. A campaign is a great way to do that.
But if you are talking about a few troops (=leaders) only, it wouldn't add much for me. But I think that is because I don't see myself as a character on the battlefield. We never play wargames where you are an actual gaming piece on the table.
A lot of games focus on leaders. Although I understand why, it's not my taste. I prefer to focus on tactics and gameplay.
Though, it's an interesting idea and I think that many players would like the role of a hero.

Patrick

[voltigeur]

Thanks for the input! Please keep your thoughts coming.

As I said above this will be only an optional rule.

My system is similar to Squad Leader. The difference is that NCO's and Officers would affect different roles and not be able to help outside thier MOS. (Armor Officer could not help in infantry functions & vice versa)

So as I said part to study the differnet effects of leadership and maybe make people more invested in specific units.

Again thanks for the feedback.

[Gompel]

Not sure if it helps and fits with your ideas, but here are some thoughts.

What is leadership based on? Breakdown in past - the now - future:

Past
What kind of training and past experience did the leader have? Was he trained at school (doctrine) to get his rank, or did he get his rank during combat? How many battles has he seen (which reflects also to future predictions). How well did he study the terrain before he went into battle?

The now
What is happening at the present moment and how does the leader handle this? Is the situation stressfull, scary, complex and hard to oversee? Does the leader have a good idea of the situation of the enemy? Does he have the feeling he is over or underpowered? How well does he have view of the terrain and contact with his soldiers / higher ranked officers?

The future:
Is the leader one step ahead of the enemy? Has he fought against the same opponent before, so he knows to predict his behaviour? Is he particularly afraid of certain situations (like getting surrounded) and does he try to avoid it whereas an other leader would stay calm? Does he have a clear objective and knows what he has to do?


Not sure how deep you want to go into roleplaying but above are just some questions that came to my mind. I never played Squad Leader so I have no idea how leaders are handled in that game. Though, I think that one or a few modifiers wouldn't really do the trick to get a personality. If you want to use more characteristics, I think some sort of breakdown into categories might be helpfull.
Campaign-wise: a leader is able to learn and improve quite a few skills over time during combat, but not all (or not up to the same level of other leaders). You can study how to move your troops over the battlefield, but gaining the trust of your soldiers is quite a different thing.

Not sure how you'd implement all those characteristics. Are you thinking about throwing a die against a modified chance that a leader will do/overcome a certain thing? Or a simple system where it tweaks certain points of the leader already present in the game?
Are players playing with the same leader during every scenario till this leader dies?
I would make the leader characteristics double blind. That way it is more interesting for the other player to discover his personality and make use of it. Even some bad leadership in certain situations, might not immediately reveal whether this is due to leader skill or player skill. You might get a different game in which players try to avoid certain situations of which they know that their leader is likely to perform badly (like a stressfull close combat).

Patrick

[jb]

This might give you some ideas for some added "realism"...


http://www.commandoperationscenter.com/serv0111.htm