Motivations?

[jester]

What is the PCs motivations in the Twilight World?

This is something that was discussed in my group. But, really, what is the PCs motivation to continue on? To continue to abide by the rank structure? <I must admit alot of players who do not like playing leadership roles do get tired of a new character comming in who is a zero calling the shots. Especialy since alot of times those who do play officers tend to be of the munchkin type> So really what are some of the reasons your PCs have to continue?

Of course survival is one. But what else? Otherwise you will realise that you fought for this village today. Tommorrow you will fight the bad guys and the village over the hill tommorrow....damn, thats kinda senseless. I'm just gonna stay here and live.


So, what are some of your characters motivations?

[pmulcahy11b]

I hate to say it, Jester, but yours is one of those questions upon which a sourcebook could based!

[Targan]

During the European phase of my last campaign the main motivation of most of the American characters was to get back to the US. It just seemed natural for the players and for me playing the major NPCs that they would want desperately to get home, especially as by the second half of 2000 it was clear that America's war in Europe was pretty much over.

Once the party got back to the CONUS the motivations of the PCs and major NPCs in the party became more complicated. Some of the characters had a pretty good idea of just how ruined the USA was before they arrived home but some of the more naive characters were shocked at the situation in the US once they arrived home and became quite depressed.

Many soldiers were allowed to leave the military once they got back to the States but the characters in Major Po's group were never given that option. Po was a master manipulator and suggested (or allowed some to believe) that those under his command would not only eventually be allowed to try to find their loved ones but also would be assisted in doing so. He never made any explicit guarantees of course.

Fear kept many of Po's troops from trying to leave, especially the disgruntled ones. I have no doubt that he would have had them killed had they tried to desert (basically because they knew too much). Those in Po's inner circle didn't seem interested in leaving, I believe for one or all of three reasons: 1- power and Po's amazing ability to gather and project it; 2 - duty and the fact that one way or another Po was able to get things done; and 3 - the fact that Po owned and controlled The Blanket (a bizarre, possibly alien manufactured, artifact) which apparently could heal injuries, impairments and afflictions of any kind and may have even provided the user with effective immortality.

Had Po ever gone completely rogue (say, trying to make off with a large portion of the NYC gold reserves) I think some of his troops more loyal to MilGov would have at least turned him in or even tried to stage an assassination or a coup.

Obviously my campaign was unlike many "standard" T2K campaigns but I think the character motivations during the European phase would hold true in many if not most campaigns. The "grass is greener" mentality would motivate many soldiers to go to great lengths to get back "home", at least if only to see whether "home" still existed or had been turned into a glowing glass depression in the ground.

[Caradhras]

In my campaign, I wrote brief char backgrounds - nothing too clever or in-depth but enough of a skeleton for the players to then flesh out themselves with the help of events.

one player was an ex-con and was wholly self-motivated, another had a deep hatred of the Russians, there was a genial philosphical Canadian, an undercover Israeli, a Brit SBS with a sense of inadequacy. Basically, they all had very different motivations and had lots of trouble trying to work out what the hell they 'wanted'. Eventually they got bliss when they set up a base in Grenada where they presently are relaxing awaiting their next mission



One thing I have just thought of is one player was Black/Afro-caribbean origins and this caused all sorts of problems for the group whenever trying to be undercover or generally be un-noticed in the original camapaign zones. I am no expert but I was pretty sure that in Poland beyond NATO lines, 99% of the locals and WP forces would be white (maybe some Soviet troops of Asian origins).

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Caradhras

One thing I have just thought of is one player was Black/Afro-caribbean origins and this caused all sorts of problems for the group whenever trying to be undercover or generally be un-noticed in the original camapaign zones. I am no expert but I was pretty sure that in Poland beyond NATO lines, 99% of the locals and WP forces would be white (maybe some Soviet troops of Asian origins).

Might have been some Cubans who had been on exchange postings to Warsaw Pacts unit at the start of the War?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Might have been some Cubans who had been on exchange postings to Warsaw Pacts unit at the start of the War?

In one game I played, a fellow player was able to have his PC bluff his way several often into having Soviet and Polish NPCs believe he was Cuban. The GM ruled that the NPCs wouldn't know what a Cuban accent in Russian or Polish would sound like anyway.

[copeab]

Well, let's see:

1) Go home
2) Do your duty
3) Survive
4) Protect the weak
5) Rebuild society
6) Gain power
7) Go feral (neo-luddite)
8) Finish the extinction of the human race

[Adm.Lee]

This is one of the biggest reasons I want to run/play again. When I ran T2k before, we were all in high school or college, and the game was usually played without much reference to motivation or character development. Now, I want to try again "with grownups."

Having said that, in one of my college groups, a player had a strong reaction to my GMPC-- the NPC I included to let me inject information they should consider. I made up a German NCO, with a family in Bremen. That one player reacted pretty strongly to that, and really wanted to get that guy home.

That player was also the same guy who once dreamed of the game in real life. He saw his PC volunteering to stay behind with a widow and her child in a cabin in the woods.

[HorseSoldier]

Survival is an obvious short term, and a good fall back for any given scenario or gaming session.

For bigger motivations I think it works best to have the players (semi-in character) sort it out among themselves and the GM pretty early on in things. In as wide open a game setting as T2K there's potential for mismatch.

[Mahatatain]

Personally I would say that the onus is on the GM and the players to create characters with believable motivations and that part of this comes from the briefing the GM gives the players as part of character generation.

If you let players have a completely unguided free hand during character generation in any RPG you are likely to end up with characters with conflicting motivations. Possibly the worst game for this is White Wolf's Vampire game where very frequently you ended up with PCs with opposing motivations and this often resulted in significant conflict within the "party".

I therefore think that the GM needs to be very clear in explaining to the players the theme of the game before character generation. For example I am currently setting up a T2k game starting in the Ukraine where the PCs are NATO soldiers who have been captured by Soviet forces, served time in a POW camp and then freed on condition that they join an "Independent Ukraine" anti Soviet military unit.

My briefing to the players will explain all of that and will also outline that the theme of the game is that the PCs want to get out of the Ukraine and go home and that the adventures they will participate in will be the story of that journey. Getting home will therefore be an important motivation for the PCs and while it restricts certain character options (Ukrainian soldiers might not want to leave their homeland) it should hopefully ensure that all PCs have a reasonably common motivation and that the group makes sense together.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that the PCs should be restricted to a particular course of action - I'm just saying that if (as a GM) you have a particular direction you would like your campaign to take then you need to ensure that the motivations of the PCs are roughly in line with that. That doesn't stop players having control of their character's decisions but it does mean that you will end up with a campaign that makes sense.

It does mean however that the GM may need to reject certain character concepts during character generation and that can often be a problematic issue.

[Raellus]

In the v1.0 Rulebook- and probably the v2.2 as well- the designers suggested giving the players short and long term goals. This idea goes along with PC motivation. In my mind though, there's a difference. Are we talking about intrinsic motivation (from within) or extrinsic motivation (from outside)? I think the line between the two can get a little blurry. I'm going to address intrinsic motivation first.

From all of the my studies into the human experience of warfare, it seems that soldiers throughout time and space have shared the same primary motivation to keep fighting, even in the most effed-up of situations (pretty much all of WWI, for example): for their immediate comrades in arms.

In my gaming experience, this is sometimes true. Unfortunately, when players don't really get along personality-wise, their PCs usually don't either. IMO, there's far to much Sgt. Barnes vs. Sgt. Elias (see Platoon) drama in most PbPs. This tends to undermine the band of brothers mentality that has been the primary motivator for soldiers throughout history.

So, since PCs often don't have that natural comradery that real soldiers in combat usually do, other things need to act as motivators. As a result, many games seem to really on extrinsic motivation (complete such-and-such a mission, earn such-and-such a reward). Warfare is rarely like that IRL.

[jester]

Rae;

In alot of units they do have clicks. People who actively hate each other. And on occassion fists fly. Or even subtle things which are also common like slapping a hand away if someone who is hatted asked for a hand over a wall or up a cliff or whatever. I have seen folks fall and land atop the SOB they hated and ride them down a hillside like a sleigh. Its been done on purpose too, then the reply is simply, "Slipped, ooops."

The whole lovely dovey band of brothers crap is a myth.


Now, in a unit it is weird as well. You can phuc with someone you utterly dispise. You may want to mess with them and even inflict light injury on them whenever the chance arises. But he is part of your unit. And thus like the younger sibling who is a total pain and source of constant irrigation whom you mess with, woe to any outsider who does anything to him. Its a strange world for sure.

After all, think about it. People of all kinds or personalities are working together under extremely stressful conditions. People are going to become irritated with one another. And basic issues will arise. Also, have you ever been stuck with the same people forever? To the point you can't stand any of them anymore? One little habit which was no problem before is now a source of great irritation? That also happens.

Just things of human nature to think about.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by jester

Rae;

In alot of units they do have clicks. People who actively hate each other. And on occassion fists fly. Or even subtle things which are also common like slapping a hand away if someone who is hatted asked for a hand over a wall or up a cliff or whatever. I have seen folks fall and land atop the SOB they hated and ride them down a hillside like a sleigh. Its been done on purpose too, then the reply is simply, "Slipped, ooops."

The whole lovely dovey band of brothers crap is a myth.


Now, in a unit it is weird as well. You can phuc with someone you utterly dispise. You may want to mess with them and even inflict light injury on them whenever the chance arises. But he is part of your unit. And thus like the younger sibling who is a total pain and source of constant irrigation whom you mess with, woe to any outsider who does anything to him. Its a strange world for sure.

After all, think about it. People of all kinds or personalities are working together under extremely stressful conditions. People are going to become irritated with one another. And basic issues will arise. Also, have you ever been stuck with the same people forever? To the point you can't stand any of them anymore? One little habit which was no problem before is now a source of great irritation? That also happens.

Just things of human nature to think about.

There are also people in units who are universally despised by the troops, but do well enough and/or kiss the right asses to not get kicked out. She's people might be given shit jobs or constantly put on point in T2K. These are the guys you send to check reports of a minefield. These are the guys you tell to look over a wall to see if the enemy is still there.

You also have troops like I was in the Army -- you thought I was damned good, to the point of recommending me to superiors and early promotion, or you hated me and wished I would die or at least screw up enough to get kicked out. This was primarily because rank did not awe me, I refused to kiss ass, because I would tell you the truth sometimes to the detriment of myself, and if you asked my opinion, you got it, unvarnished (though perhaps politely). I took pains to make sure I did things right, even if the right thing wasn't popular, and that my troops did too. I could be your best friend or soldier or your worst enemy. Not sure where that would get me in T2K. It got me both respect and hatred.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by jester

In alot of units they do have clicks. People who actively hate each other. And on occassion fists fly. Or even subtle things which are also common like slapping a hand away if someone who is hatted asked for a hand over a wall or up a cliff or whatever. I have seen folks fall and land atop the SOB they hated and ride them down a hillside like a sleigh. Its been done on purpose too, then the reply is simply, "Slipped, ooops."

The whole lovely dovey band of brothers crap is a myth.


Now, in a unit it is weird as well. You can phuc with someone you utterly dispise. You may want to mess with them and even inflict light injury on them whenever the chance arises. But he is part of your unit. And thus like the younger sibling who is a total pain and source of constant irrigation whom you mess with, woe to any outsider who does anything to him. Its a strange world for sure.

After all, think about it. People of all kinds or personalities are working together under extremely stressful conditions. People are going to become irritated with one another. And basic issues will arise. Also, have you ever been stuck with the same people forever? To the point you can't stand any of them anymore? One little habit which was no problem before is now a source of great irritation? That also happens.

Just things of human nature to think about.

That's an interesting, first-hand impression. Were the incidents you described during wartime/in a combat zone?

In a lot of my reading, there are indeed conflicting personalities, rivalries, and that sort of thing but they seem to be suppressed or surpassed by the bonds formed during combat. I really can't recall reading portions of any memoirs or small unit histories where comrades actively fought and/or undermined one another. I have read of tension between enlisted men, NCOs, and officers, though.

[jester]

YES!!!!

I recall one instance where after a patrol in hostile territory one not well liked person was trying to scam out of his task and was playing kiss up. <He often stole credit for actions done by others.> It ended up with a freind of mine grabbing my SAW, and ended up in a tense situation between my freind and this dude in our hootch. One with a SAW, the other with a 203.

Another instance, a character was taking more than his share of water. It was a regular thing. A time when we had 1 liter of water resupply a day. No one cared when he showed up with a busted lip. Other than a few comments such as, "too bad" or "tough sh!t" or "serves ya right."

Another time, a constant whiner who had a very light pack and always cried about everything. As a result, he ended up being a pack mule for the squad because we said so.

It is usualy the problem children whom get this sort of treatment. Your shirkers, kiss ups, slackers, theives and such.

But, other times, it is just a personality clash, which is on going and has caried over from months, years or in many cases the entire enlistment where things build.

And as I said, in close confines for months on end with the same faces, tempers get short. Or you just want to get away from them for a period.

And of course those bucking for rank by virtue of acting like they are some kind of boss when they aren't and never take initiative unless someone is around to see. Then they get blown off, which in turn they become pissy which often resulting in going nose to nose with words or further.

However, does this degrade from the mission? Nope, that is put aside when it is time to do the job. You have to work together. But, you do not have to like each other.

I seem to recall reading somewhere, I forget where maybe American Civil War, or WWI, where a units history did not match its members diaries, or interviewed accounts and courtsmartial records. The units diaries had sections litteraly torn out. I think this occured with the French Mutiny of WWI and with some UK units in WWI as well.

One must remember. Commands tend to try and hide such things, promotion to the higher ranks is often political and if such occurances are reported, well that shows the unit and commanders in a bad light, as well as the whole morale thing for other units and the folks backhome.

I mean history is littered with things that were burried. Like, the black troops who were loading ammo on the docks of the West Coast of WWI at I want to say Lemore, there was an explosion and many of the troops were charged with mutiny because they refused to move the munitions for fear of it exploding. Or the LSTs that exploded in Pear Harbor in the preperation for the invasion of Siapan or Okinawa. Or, the loss of the ships when they were attacked by the German attack boats as they prepped for D-Day, the fratricide of the Airborne troops durring the invasion of Sicily. Generals hate bad press.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In a lot of my reading, there are indeed conflicting personalities, rivalries, and that sort of thing but they seem to be suppressed or surpassed by the bonds formed during combat. I really can't recall reading portions of any memoirs or small unit histories where comrades actively fought and/or undermined one another. I have read of tension between enlisted men, NCOs, and officers, though.

Like most situations, I think each unit is different and unique. I think what you are originally referring to is common enough.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In a lot of my reading, there are indeed conflicting personalities, rivalries, and that sort of thing but they seem to be suppressed or surpassed by the bonds formed during combat. I really can't recall reading portions of any memoirs or small unit histories where comrades actively fought and/or undermined one another. I have read of tension between enlisted men, NCOs, and officers, though.

Just as one example, read through (from several sources, just to be sure you get the complete story) about the American commanding generals of the Revolution. These guys were undercutting each other left and right -- it's surprising we even won the Revolution, with their behavior.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Just as one example, read through (from several sources, just to be sure you get the complete story) about the American commanding generals of the Revolution. These guys were undercutting each other left and right -- it's surprising we even won the Revolution, with their behavior.

Shoot, you can read that in just about any army's command, nearly any level. The Confederate generals in the Civil War were notorious for feuding. It fades in effect a lot the more recent you get, though.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Just as one example, read through (from several sources, just to be sure you get the complete story) about the American commanding generals of the Revolution. These guys were undercutting each other left and right -- it's surprising we even won the Revolution, with their behavior.

You're right. I was referring more to the grunts actually "in the sh*t", so to speak.

[jester]

Let me put it in these terms.

Have you ever had a roommate that was a total pig? Or had an anoying habit? After a while, it gets on your nerves. Now, compound that, over and over and over. Eventualy you will blow up at them. They will respond back and it can end up in blows.

Hell, I remember one fight over someone borrowing a section of cleaning rod without asking.

And then we have the whole aspect of general prankery which also is quite common. Spiking cigarette filters with tobasco, or someones snuff was always worth a laugh. However, at times this could result in a general @$$ beating if the person was in a generaly bad mood. And often it was your only enterainment, so it is an ongoing thing. Guys with thin skins, or who were PO'ed for some other reason would often take it personaly and it would get physical.

Keep this in mind tempers tend to be short to begin with in a general high stress situation. Usualy weather extremes, short rations, short food, officers and senior NCOs who are playing politics, or who want everything done but fail to remember troop welfare or the capalities of what their men can do. After all, there are only so many hours in a day and your people can only do so much. So the stress gets ratchetted up higher and then poof they play more games which in turn pisses everyone off even more. And then the whole regular operations as well.

I have seen platoons and companies play Phuc Phuc games well into the middle of the night because a four round section of machinegun ammo was found adrift, or the lense caps to the binoculars were not where the Platoon Sgt thought he left them...thus someone was messing with them as a prank, so everyone gets to dig trenches until midnight.

Or, the word doesn't get passed so the entire platoon gets into full kit including back breaking packs and gets to run though a Waddi, lovely thing. A nice baked crust of sant about an inch deep, then your weight breaks through into the stinking mud beneath halfway to your knees. Games are the last thing to be doing when such resources as limited food, water and clean clothing or sleep are available, sadly, alot of the leadership fails to get out of the garison mode where that is the norm of conduct. It makes no sense to exhaust your troops playing games and doing PT in addition to digging positions and conducting patrols and assorted working parties involving pretty heavy labor.

Hell, I remember after a death run in blackflag weather the platoon wasn't sounding off to the cadence enough so add another six miles for penance.

I think the T-shirt is very true, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." A sick joke based on reality, often by leadership that can give a damn about the troops, Lord have I seen those types.

[copeab]

I would tend to think that most soldiers in 2000 are not career professionals, who I think would have mostly killed by then, but drafted civilians after the start of the war. Most people in 2000 are in the military because they were forced to be, not because they wanted to be, and I expect that to color their motivations a great deal.

[jester]

Cob;

EXACTLY! And thus the friction between the regulars and the draftees. An example, the History Channel had a program on WWI last week. In it, they looked into the senseless battles of the very last day, issued the morning of 11 Nov. The troops were set to go home, a end time was set. But, the careerists, wanting the last hurrah! Had their men attack anyways. As the program explained,

"Attack to take ground they could have simply walked into at 1101."

Thus, you would have the draftees/conscripts who just want to survive and go home. They would be less enthusiastic to go on the offensive and as they are not part of the military regime, they may even voice their disagreement more so than a regular. A regular well that is his home and his proffession. A civilian, well, he is there for a temporary time, then he is going back to his home and proffession and well, the military just doesn't matter to his long term career plans. So, he can care less. Further, he wouldn't be upset at sitting in a nice comfy stockade rather than being on the recieving end of an enemy attack.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by copeab

I would tend to think that most soldiers in 2000 are not career professionals, who I think would have mostly killed by then, but drafted civilians after the start of the war. Most people in 2000 are in the military because they were forced to be, not because they wanted to be, and I expect that to color their motivations a great deal.

While I agree with your logic I don't think that this is how the character generation rules tend to work. Most players seem to generate PCs who are one of the few remaining career soldiers.

One of the criticisms of the character generation system (in my opinion) is that you tend to end up with a group of career military PCs and that the majority of them are NCOs with possibly a Captain or a Major in charge. While that will often work as a group I've always felt that it is slightly "unrealistic" (if you can use that word to describe a RPG) as there should be some recent draftee Privates/PFC/L.Cpl etc (depending on the nationality of the characters).

Essentially the way the character generation system works the resulting PCs seem to be the command element of a larger unit, though that unit is often missing (unless the GM wants to run 20ish NPCs).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by jester

Cob;
Thus, you would have the draftees/conscripts who just want to survive and go home. They would be less enthusiastic to go on the offensive and as they are not part of the military regime, they may even voice their disagreement more so than a regular. A regular well that is his home and his proffession. A civilian, well, he is there for a temporary time, then he is going back to his home and proffession and well, the military just doesn't matter to his long term career plans. So, he can care less. Further, he wouldn't be upset at sitting in a nice comfy stockade rather than being on the recieving end of an enemy attack.

If this were generally true, wouldn't far more American units be going rogue/marauder c. 2000?

I think your point is valid but a bit overstated. What about all of the draftees who generally fought well for nearly all armies involved in WWII?

Also, many of the conscripts/draftees c.2000 would have some idea that there wasn't really any home to return to. The army would, for all intents and purposes, become their new "home".

I think the German army of late WWII is an interesting case study for soldiers' motivations. Their home cities being bombed to rubble, weapons, ammo, fuel and food supplies increasingly scarce, and enemies pressing in on all sides, most German units- even ones made up mostly of late-war conscripts and "surplus" Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personnel- fought on, some until the bitter end.

Some historians argue that this was because of the Prussian military tradition and the totalitarian police state that many young Germans had grown up in. This may be the case. But, once again, study after study have shown that the fighting man's primary motivation is their comrades.

[HorseSoldier]

Unit cohesion ultimately reminds me of the Arab proverb that says something about "me against my brother, but my brother and I against the world." You'll always have various internal conflicts based on personalities, objectives (the self-promoters who put themselves ahead of the mission that various people have talked about, for instance), competency, and a million other factors like regulars vs draftees, racial/ethnic divisions, etc. How effectively leadership deals with those internal divisions is often the difference between a good unit and a bad one.

Now in terms of military membership in 2000, I suspect that most guys have come to regard themselves as professional combatants whatever path brought them into military service. By 2000, being in a military unit may mean danger on one hand, but on the other it also means knowing where your next meal comes from (or at least having a better idea where its coming from), not being prey for marauders and bandits, etc. Some soldiers in ex-pat units may have fantasies about how things aren't as bad in the US or UK or wherever they came from compared to continental Europe, Iran, etc., and may want nothing more than to get home, but even the most ardent dreamers probably realize on an intellectual level that reality won't measure up to the dream.

This is one of the flaws in the later stages of the T2K timeline, in my opinion, with Going Home/Howling Wilderness positing the idea that MilGov is going to demobilize tens of thousands of troops in Virginia. First of all, I suspect that most of those troops would be willing to remain in service when they grasp how trashed the US is. Second, MilGov needs troops. Third, dumping tens of thousands of troops with personal weapons and no plans for resettlement, relocation, etc., is like an ideal plan to destroy the Virginia/Carolinas/Maryland area, as if someone sat down and tried to dream up a plan for unleashing hungry marauders on that part of the country. I suppose that's on par with some other high level dumb moves made by the US .gov and .mil, but it's still pretty mind boggling.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

I would tend to think that most soldiers in 2000 are not career professionals, who I think would have mostly killed by then, but drafted civilians after the start of the war.

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

While I agree with your logic I don't think that this is how the character generation rules tend to work. Most players seem to generate PCs who are one of the few remaining career soldiers.

I see what both of you are saying and I agree that using the standard T2K rules most PCs seem to be career soldiers. At the start of my last campaign most PCs were career soldiers including SF types but as the campaign progressed several players chose to generate draftees (mainly to give themselves a challenge and also to create poignant back stories). I also deliberately inserted a number of prominent major NPCs who were draftees and who were valued members of the party.

The char gen rules we were using were able to create extremely rich and detailed character backstories (year by year char gen after high school, family backgrounds, siblings, even major friends and enemies and other interesting tid bits). Because of this it wasn't necessarily a disadvantage to play a draftee/start of the war civilian who volunteered.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

Essentially the way the character generation system works the resulting PCs seem to be the command element of a larger unit, though that unit is often missing (unless the GM wants to run 20ish NPCs).

That is what I was doing. Actually it fluctuated (depending on the location and fortunes of the party) between just a couple and more than 50 pretty much permanent NPC members of the party. In the darkest days of the European phase of my campaign there were only three PCs and a handful of important NPCs left (after a really poorly planned attempt to run a heavily fortified road block a hundred kicks or so west of Warsaw). The party size really ballooned once the party got back to the States and the CO of the party was given virtual carte blanche to recruit surviving high speed, low drag types by the senior SF brass at Norfolk.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Targan

I see what both of you are saying and I agree that using the standard T2K rules most PCs seem to be career soldiers.

An average PC isn't an average person and, by extension, an average military PC isn't an average member of the military.

It is true that T2K skimps a bit on civilian careers (unlike, say, Dark Conspiracy, which has several more) and goes into great detail in military careers (again unlike DC, which has simplified military options). However, a lot of this depends on the theme of the campaign. If it's "rebuild the world" then ex-civilians become rather important, for example. Also, some civilian careers are more useful than others, like police vs factory worker.

[HorseSoldier]

View Post
While I agree with your logic I don't think that this is how the character generation rules tend to work. Most players seem to generate PCs who are one of the few remaining career soldiers.

If you use the ver 1.0 rules this isn't the case because it's not up to the players. If you use the 2.x character generation rules are flawed in any number of ways, just one of which is it encourages your entire party to as close to military retirement age as they can get to max out their skill sets on lists of skills that are not in any way realistic for what professional officers or NCOs actually learn to do.

Realistically for professional soldiers (assuming a start point between, say, 18-22), career middle age is probably around 30, before wear and tear on the body starts to take its toll on one hand and responsibilities as an NCO or officer start to be more and more about administrative and bureaucratic skills and less and less on honing actual combat/fieldcraft/etc skills. I always liked how ver 1.0 built in trade offs during character generation, and looking back at the system from my late 30s (with a bad knee, a back that aches when in full kit, and that general lack of bounce back I had when I was 20 years younger) I think it's a system that suggests reality. For larger than life campaigns you can always just fudge the MOS rolls with ver 1.0 if you want, whereas 2.x requires more creative surgery to avoid everyone generating five term military veterans.

[headquarters]

Once upon a time in the early 1990s we discussed the limitations of our ADnD campaigns -we had dabbled in Warhammer,Top Secret,Bushido,Paranoia,CallofChutulu etc .I saw an ad for T2K 2nd ed in I believe it was Dragon Magazine.
It was promptly ordered ( I dont recall if we went dutch ,but I think I paid for it ) .
Our first session was a shocker- a PC got himself killed!!!Players were behaving badly !Machineguns were bursting left and right non stop.
The first few years of T2K-ing saw intense infighting with deadly scraps between player chars over small things - as you guys discuss-tempers grew short .PCs dropped like flies to eachothers bullets and buckshot.One time 4 out of 5 PCs wacked eachother when the mexican standoff they were in with MK19s and LAW 80s went wrong.

Those highschool years gaming was about getting an interesting PC with really good stats and the best guns possible.A session was considered a success if there was a huge gunfight.

Over the years other elements crept in -such as the need for a plot and ambience that was skillfully done .The"old us vs them over the treasure "grew old and oposing interests were added to the PCs backstories to make it interesting.The game became more orientated towards creating a rich gaming experience-gunfights and rewards didnt cut it anymore.

As we grew steadily more mature ( in the sense that grown men playing RPGs are ) a hankering for some more serious themes arised and the questions risen from the topic title -what could possibly motivate after WWIII?

Our group found our answer and wrestled with that for the last 5 years of our FtF - power.

All of them set out to build the brave new world from the ashes of the old one.Police states,religious fanatics,feudal oppression,slavery and racism became the result .As well as a fair bit of inter family crime like spouse- murders,father/son civil wars,incarcerations,violence ,threaths etc .

I would like to think the group has come almost full circle in regards to motivation.Our gaming has certainly done so-from just a few hastily scribbled maps and some dice to bigger set ups with computers,laserpointers ,maps that have taken ages to draw,cast miniatures etc .From where its all about your PC and what he carries in his backpack to where the PCs run entire factions with XL sheets and micromanaging.

Next FtF in 20 days.Cant wait to see where it takes us in game.

I think the topic has many answers - some may act as they do out of habit ,not wanting to realize that the old world is gone,some out of self interest some out of altruism.The list goes on.

Good thread !