Military life for civilian gamers

[svensson]

In many games with modern-ish settings a great many players choose to generate characters with military backgrounds, especially ground military backgrounds that give access to high-end weaponry skills. This can sometimes be a problem when there's a veteran or 'gun nut' at the table [and depending on personalities it can orders of magnitudes worse those are combined in the same person]. The constant litany of "Grunts don't think /act /do that way!" gets pretty annoying after the 731st rendering and derailing the game for the sake of gun or military minutiae is boring as all get out for everybody else at the table.

As a lifelong gamer and US Army veteran, I thought I would address this problem by writing an article that gives a civilian some tips on How To Think Grunt. I had input from Commonwealth and German veterans and am very well aware of how much service life has changed between now and when I got out of the military, so I have done my level best to make this article generic, short, and as anecdote-free as possible.

I sincerely hope that you folks enjoy the article and it will prove to be of some use at your table.

 

Military Life In Games Final.pdf

Edited April 18, 2021 by svensson

[Lloyd Dupont]

I am not sure how relevant it is to my games, but it was both an entertaining and educational read! 🙂

[svensson]

12 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am not sure how relevant it is to my games, but it was both an entertaining and educational read! 🙂

I'm glad you liked it. The jokes I put in it were intended to amuse the civilian audience [a good joke often helps information stick] and give veterans a chuckle too.

I personally live in an area with a large veteran population, so most of my groups have included at least another vet than myself. Obviously mileage will vary with the reader, but if it helps then my purpose was met.

[Darius West]

14 hours ago, svensson said:

In many games with modern-ish settings a great many players choose to generate characters with military backgrounds, especially ground military backgrounds that give access to high-end weaponry skills. This can sometimes be a problem when there's a veteran or 'gun nut' at the table [and depending on personalities it can orders of magnitudes worse those are combined in the same person]. The constant litany of "Grunts don't think /act /do that way!" gets pretty annoying after the 731st rendering and derailing the game for the sake of gun or military minutiae is boring as all get out for everybody else at the table.

As a lifelong gamer and US Army veteran, I thought I would address this problem by writing an article that gives a civilian some tips on How To Think Grunt. I had input from Commonwealth and German veterans and am very well aware of how much service life has changed between now and when I got out of the military, so I have done my level best to make this article generic, short, and as anecdote-free as possible.

I sincerely hope that you folks enjoy the article and it will prove to be of some use at your table.

 

Military Life In Games Final.pdf 124.11 kB · 17 downloads

Much appreciated Svensson.  A very useful article.  Thanks for the contribution.

[JLBrown7289]

Thanks so much for the thoughtful, helpful, and humorous essay. As an Army Brat I know about life on bases (well, life on Army bases more than 40 years ago!) but not about life 'in the field'. 

Best,

Joseph

[klecser]

I hope it was cathartic for you to write the article! Yet, I don't think it is necessary for a civilian to alter their actions at a table because a veteran can't reign themselves in. The person that you are describing is potentially toxic to that gaming table. And we do not have to tolerate toxic people at tables. We do not have to alter our behavior to defer to other people's insecurities. Toxicity is not an inherent veteran trait. It is a personal trait. There are many a veteran that isn't sensitive to inaccurate military role-playing, and are capable of taking civilian takes in stride. I'm a teacher. Can you imagine how many times a day people I talk to get teaching totally wrong? A lot. But, as a professional, I recognize that people don't have a frame of reference, and that there is no point in being insecure about people not having the same training as me. It also isn't worth creating drama over something that can be addressed by recognizing frame of reference. Saying "annoying" things like "Grunts don't act that way" is insecurity.

My main game group is three veterans and two civilians. And the civilians play "military-style" characters, and not ONCE have the veterans complained about a portrayal. And it certainly isn't because the civilians weren't getting things wrong. It is because the veterans at the table have empathy and social skills, and see the forest for the trees. I think you do yourself a disservice by characterizing this in the context of being a veteran. You may be unintentionally saying "Veterans can't regulate themselves in social situations, so this is what YOU need to do to solve their problem for them." You may not intend that. But that is what you risk saying.

I have many veteran friends, and they are all caring, empathetic, socially-capable individuals. And one of the things that bothers them most is treating service as a monolith. The idea that all veterans have the same thoughts, feelings, capabilities, politics, etc.

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by klecser

[svensson]

On 4/19/2021 at 5:39 AM, klecser said:

I hope it was cathartic for you to write the article! Yet, I don't think it is necessary for a civilian to alter their actions at a table because a veteran can't reign themselves in. The person that you are describing is potentially toxic to that gaming table. And we do not have to tolerate toxic people at tables. We do not have to alter our behavior to defer to other people's insecurities. Toxicity is not an inherent veteran trait. It is a personal trait. There are many a veteran that isn't sensitive to inaccurate military role-playing, and are capable of taking civilian takes in stride. I'm a teacher. Can you imagine how many times a day people I talk to get teaching totally wrong? A lot. But, as a professional, I recognize that people don't have a frame of reference, and that there is no point in being insecure about people not having the same training as me. It also isn't worth creating drama over something that can be addressed by recognizing frame of reference. Saying "annoying" things like "Grunts don't act that way" is insecurity.

My main game group is three veterans and two civilians. And the civilians play "military-style" characters, and not ONCE have the veterans complained about a portrayal. And it certainly isn't because the civilians weren't getting things wrong. It is because the veterans at the table have empathy and social skills, and see the forest for the trees. I think you do yourself a disservice by characterizing this in the context of being a veteran. You may be unintentionally saying "Veterans can't regulate themselves in social situations, so this is what YOU need to do to solve their problem for them." You may not intend that. But that is what you risk saying.

I have many veteran friends, and they are all caring, empathetic, socially-capable individuals. And one of the things that bothers them most is treating service as a monolith. The idea that all veterans have the same thoughts, feelings, capabilities, politics, etc.

 

Cathartic? Hmmm.... No, I don't think 'cathartic' is the word, but neither is 'No shit, there I was' stories either 😁 But yes, I do have some emotions about the article.

You are right that The Military [tm] is often portrayed as a monolithic entity, and I can see where you might infer from my article that I see it that way. However, I'm well aware of how different different services and different nationalities are insofar as service life goes. In my gaming experience, most civilians who wish to play military characters want them to be hardened combat veteran types, so that's what I focused my article on. And I admit that I took some of the 'zero-fucks-given' attitudes I've encountered at my local VA hospital into account. But I certainly agree with you that each service member's time will be different. If you're in a good unit with good leadership, even a lousy tour can be endured.

I also focused my article on the attitudes of someone in the combat arms [primarily Infantry, Armor/Tank Corps, Artillery, and Engineers] and those troops who might be directly deployed in said units [signalmen and medics, for example] where a lot of these negative issues are prevalent.

Lastly, and I think this is important in a Call of Cthulhu context, if one is running a 1920's campaign it is almost guaranteed that a male character in reasonable health will have served in the military during the Great War. Great Britain and France were so depleted of eligible recruits by 1917 that even only sons were being drafted to serve. And the VAST majority of draftees were fed into the maw of the trenches in some manner.

Edited April 27, 2021 by svensson

[Sir_Godspeed]

Jesus, reading this PDF gave me some severe flashbacks to my national service days I had hoped were forgotten. It's eerie how spot-on everything was. 

 

I don't know if you're taking suggestions, but I have a couple that I think(?) might be near-universal:

- Because troops always are tired, they will take any and all opportunities to sleep or nap. Opportunities to sleep include riding in a bumpy, uncomfortable vehicle, lying in a foxhole or trench (while being certain that someone else is keeping watch) or literally just standing or sitting somewhere when you're (rarely) not currently being expected to do anything. Doesn't matter if it's 5 or 20 minutes. You're probably not getting any later, so might try to catch some now.

- In-group and out-group dynamics produce weird, inconsequential rivalries that do not actually mean anything, but are a distraction from misery, so why not. Are you an infantryman? Then you know that cavalry/recon are lazy, incompetent ninnies. Even more locally, your sister unit is obviously not as skilled as yours, and everyone in it is an idiot (except that one dude you know, he's all right). Or maybe they are better than yours, but only because they are the COs pets. Their particular set-up in gear is utterly alien and absurd. Yours is the right way to do things. Shit like that. 

- Gossip and drama are common topics of discussion, partly because troops are often drawn from highly different backgrounds, so have little in common besides their current predicament. During deployment, the ability to get info from the outside is also highly limited, further increasing the need to draw on very immediate topics of conversation. Additionally, troops are in a constant deficit of information (information trickles downwards, and only when necessary), which fuels the rumour mill. The ability to fact-check is minimal.

-----------

I'm also pondering what an academic version of this would be like, for "civilians" without a background in higher education playing professors, doctors, etc.

[svensson]

51 minutes ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Jesus, reading this PDF gave me some severe flashbacks to my national service days I had hoped were forgotten. It's eerie how spot-on everything was. 

 

I don't know if you're taking suggestions, but I have a couple that I think(?) might be near-universal:

- Because troops always are tired, they will take any and all opportunities to sleep or nap. Opportunities to sleep include riding in a bumpy, uncomfortable vehicle, lying in a foxhole or trench (while being certain that someone else is keeping watch) or literally just standing or sitting somewhere when you're (rarely) not currently being expected to do anything. Doesn't matter if it's 5 or 20 minutes. You're probably not getting any later, so might try to catch some now.

- In-group and out-group dynamics produce weird, inconsequential rivalries that do not actually mean anything, but are a distraction from misery, so why not. Are you an infantryman? Then you know that cavalry/recon are lazy, incompetent ninnies. Even more locally, your sister unit is obviously not as skilled as yours, and everyone in it is an idiot (except that one dude you know, he's all right). Or maybe they are better than yours, but only because they are the COs pets. Their particular set-up in gear is utterly alien and absurd. Yours is the right way to do things. Shit like that. 

- Gossip and drama are common topics of discussion, partly because troops are often drawn from highly different backgrounds, so have little in common besides their current predicament. During deployment, the ability to get info from the outside is also highly limited, further increasing the need to draw on very immediate topics of conversation. Additionally, troops are in a constant deficit of information (information trickles downwards, and only when necessary), which fuels the rumour mill. The ability to fact-check is minimal.

-----------

I'm also pondering what an academic version of this would be like, for "civilians" without a background in higher education playing professors, doctors, etc.

All good suggestions, but I was worried about page count and not descending into 'no shit there I was'. Because old war mutts NEVER do that, right 😁

My first couple of attempts were nearly double the page count and an editor friend pointed out that if I wanted the article to be useful I needed to limit it to useful information. My first attempts also had a certain arrogant tone to them, a certain 'let me tell you how it really was' flavor that took a couple of rewrites to purge. The end product isn't perfect, but it wasn't meant to be. It was meant to be helpful, and I think I hit that button pretty well. What I have discovered is that there's a lot more to this writing thing than just jotting memories down.

Your suggestions are all good ones. I've 'pinned' them in case I ever decide to do a follow up. And thank you for the input.

[svensson]

2 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

- Because troops always are tired, they will take any and all opportunities to sleep or nap. Opportunities to sleep include riding in a bumpy, uncomfortable vehicle, lying in a foxhole or trench (while being certain that someone else is keeping watch) or literally just standing or sitting somewhere when you're (rarely) not currently being expected to do anything. Doesn't matter if it's 5 or 20 minutes. You're probably not getting any later, so might try to catch some now.

If you ever have a chance to run the book down, try to find 'Team Yankee' by Harold Coyle. It's the company level experience in the Third World War as imagined by Sir John Hackett back in the 80's. In the book, Coyle vividly describes what it takes to sleep and the ugly process of waking up inside an armored vehicle. 😁 Yeah, that one brought back backaches I thought I'd forgotten about!

Edited April 27, 2021 by svensson

[Bill the barbarian]

Hmm, I remember Sir John Hackett’s book The Third World War: August 1985. Did not know there was a book based on the work. 

[svensson]

2 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Hmm, I remember Sir John Hackett’s book The Third World War: August 1985. Did not know there was a book based on the work. 

That's the one. [Goodreads link at the bottom]

It's rather like 'Red Storm Rising' or 'Red Army', but told strictly from at the company level of an Armor/Infantry Team.

US doctrine at the time had an armor battalion and an infantry battalion trade one company apiece. These 'visiting' companies would be broken down by platoons to reinforce the 'home' companies. For example, Team Yankee was a tank company that had been reinforced by an extra infantry platoon.

Anyway it's a great read and pretty much required reading if you're running a Twilight: 2000 game.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34570.Team_Yankee

Edited April 27, 2021 by svensson

[Bill the barbarian]

Hackett’s book takes it from the other direction, Politicos, Media, Generals... With forays down to the grunt’s/journalist/civilian's. eye view. Neat to know someone took the ball and ran with it.  Hackett’s book caused quite the stir in the 80s with his prediction of instant news coverage from very small broadcast capable cameras with satellite uplinks and other items, including the war being sparked in former Yugoslavia.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Bill the barbarian

[Lloyd Dupont]

Speaking about World War 3 and other true stories.... 😄

I can only recommend the "Murderbot Diaries" (by Martha Wells), reading it right now, it's quite rad! 🙂

 

[svensson]

45 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Speaking about World War 3 and other true stories.... 😄

I can only recommend the "Murderbot Diaries" (by Martha Wells), reading it right now, it's quite rad! 🙂

 

Huh. I might look them up.

Even though I am  FIRMLY a member of the 'Life is biological, no mechanical. No matter how many 'feelings' you program into your sex-bot, a robot is not a people it's just a tool.... you use it till it breaks and then send down to Supply for a new one' school of sentience.... 🤣😁

[Lloyd Dupont]

12 minutes ago, svensson said:

Huh. I might look them up.

Even though I am  FIRMLY a member of the 'Life is biological, no mechanical. No matter how many 'feelings' you program into your sex-bot, a robot is not a people it's just a tool.... you use it till it breaks and then send down to Supply for a new one' school of sentience.... 🤣😁

Hope you like it....

I think you might be confusing 2 issues. Whether we can create human level (or even higher?) machine intelligence or not (and also look & feel, for the case of sexbot, for example). And what do we do or care about it.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[svensson]

30 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Hope you like it....

I think you might be confusing 2 issues. Whether we can create human level (or even higher?) machine intelligence or not (and also look & feel, for the case of sexbot, for example). And what do we do or care about it.

Well, my time in the military has given me an automatic distrust of 'technology for technology's sake'. I really do think that Western society is devaluing humanity for the sake of technology that may or may not be needed. At some point I think the question, 'It's possible, but is it good for society if we build it?' needs to be asked more often.

As for the sex-bot comment, do I think that an awful lot of the interest in animatronic robots and AI comes from that segment of society that would much prefer a fuck-buddy than a real human being? Yes, yes I certainly do.

Am I uncomfortable with the idea of turning over large portions of the nuts and bolts of society to an AI that can't be shut down? Yes, I am.

And mind you, I felt this way ever since reading 'I, Robot' at 12 years old back in the mid-70's.

As for emotional attachments to machines, well, I'm not a 'car guy'. I hate working on them and they're really just mobility to me, nothing wonderful in and of themselves. That's a major reason why I've never pursued my dream car... something that rare ought to be owned by someone who'll appreciate it more than I ever will. So the whole idea of 'falling in love' with a machine is just ridiculous to me. As far as I'm concerned 'being in love with' and 'having an attachment to' something are two entirely different things, and I think that a lot of this fascination with anthromorphic robots comes from people who don't understand the difference between the two.

PS: the 'dream car' I mentioned is a 1967 Pontiac GTO convertible. Like I said, something that rare and that pretty ought to be owned by someone who will 'love it and pet it and call it George' more than me.

Edited April 27, 2021 by svensson

[Lloyd Dupont]

It's an interesting topic, and I got plenty of ideas and reply... But I fear, I can't express myself with clarity, nor is my ultimate vision clear itself, not that I care much about the direction our society will ultimately take either... And also, with almost every single sentence you raised many different topics! 😮
But since it is all an interesting topic

here are various arguments or ideas that are to be considered, I think....

- all life is not so different than machine. in some ways we are superior, we can reproduce with just a bit of dirt and water, auto repair, are much smarter (for now), but we are weak.... and perhaps one day machine will be smarter and replicating... 

- in a way why would have a machine less or more right than a chair? a cow? a pet cat? another human? it's really a matter of global social consensus (and also how much they can argue / defend their case)
I think the most likely proponent of robots rights will be isolated rich eccentric (not to worry) and corporations (they will own and produce the robots, robots rights benefits them, that could be  a worry)

- machine intelligence might be one day far ahead of all organic, and we might be lulled into anthropomorphism ("hey, alexa"), but it is the most alien of all intelligence. and even more alien that real alien since it has none of the evolutionary imperatives and drives of all organic lifeforms... and it can also be overturned at the flick of a button...

- are we going toward a more desirable future? I fear whether we agree on what is desirable or not, the future is decided by forces largely oblivious to ethics and moral concerns... sometimes for the better.. sometimes for the worse...

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[g33k]

On 4/19/2021 at 5:39 AM, klecser said:

I hope it was cathartic for you to write the article! Yet, I don't think it is necessary for a civilian to alter their actions at a table because a veteran can't reign themselves in. The person that you are describing is potentially toxic to that gaming table. And we do not have to tolerate toxic people at tables. We do not have to alter our behavior to defer to other people's insecurities. Toxicity is not an inherent veteran trait. It is a personal trait. There are many a veteran that isn't sensitive to inaccurate military role-playing, and are capable of taking civilian takes in stride. I'm a teacher. Can you imagine how many times a day people I talk to get teaching totally wrong? A lot. But, as a professional, I recognize that people don't have a frame of reference, and that there is no point in being insecure about people not having the same training as me. It also isn't worth creating drama over something that can be addressed by recognizing frame of reference. Saying "annoying" things like "Grunts don't act that way" is insecurity.

My main game group is three veterans and two civilians. And the civilians play "military-style" characters, and not ONCE have the veterans complained about a portrayal. And it certainly isn't because the civilians weren't getting things wrong. It is because the veterans at the table have empathy and social skills, and see the forest for the trees. I think you do yourself a disservice by characterizing this in the context of being a veteran. You may be unintentionally saying "Veterans can't regulate themselves in social situations, so this is what YOU need to do to solve their problem for them." You may not intend that. But that is what you risk saying.

I have many veteran friends, and they are all caring, empathetic, socially-capable individuals. And one of the things that bothers them most is treating service as a monolith. The idea that all veterans have the same thoughts, feelings, capabilities, politics, etc.

I think you bring up a valid point.

If I may broaden it, the idea is that "grognards" (of various stripe) may have a stifling/inhibiting effect on newbies and/or more-diffident players.  Extroverts, too, can dominate & overwhelm others with their style of play.  It can be "gaming grognards" trying to manage other players' characters, or "troops" (as in the essay linked) doing it, or other sorts of intensive in-group-ish professions.

I've seen it happen at tables where I've played and GM'ed.

***

At the same time, the OP has evidently had a different experience at HIS tables, and seen a different aspect of the problem...  And accusing him of fostering "toxic" players / play-styles seems like swinging the pendulum a bit too far the other way.

In particular, I have *also* seen (at my tables) some pretty toxic "anti-military" attitudes portrayed by some players, where any soldier-character (PC or NPC) is presumptively a murderer, a war-criminal, a sociopath.

It's certainly not incumbent on players with military backgrounds (or just friends/family in service) to sit still for that kind of abuse... they SHOULD speak up, and/or leave the table/group that fosters those attitudes.

(The question then is: where is the line of an unrealistic portrayal of a "troop" (or other profession) becoming an offensive portrayal, validly criticized... vs. where is a "merely" unrealistic portrayal actually OK, and the criticism itself become unreasonable and offensive?)

On the gripping hand, I have seen a middle-ground, where a player -- whose character has expertise the player does not, but the expertise exists at the table -- actually welcomes getting this kind of input from the expert and/or from the table at large.

It depends on whether the table values that kind of "veracity" -- hewing closer to source material -- as highly as they do the "freedom" and "agency" of playing a character uninformed by that sort of input.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

With such wisdom, one wonder why you are not Rune Lord yet?! 😮 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[svensson]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

I think you bring up a valid point.

If I may broaden it, the idea is that "grognards" (of various stripe) may have a stifling/inhibiting effect on newbies and/or more-diffident players.  Extroverts, too, can dominate & overwhelm others with their style of play.  It can be "gaming grognards" trying to manage other players' characters, or "troops" (as in the essay linked) doing it, or other sorts of intensive in-group-ish professions.

I've seen it happen at tables where I've played and GM'ed.

***

At the same time, the OP has evidently had a different experience at HIS tables, and seen a different aspect of the problem...  And accusing him of fostering "toxic" players / play-styles seems like swinging the pendulum a bit too far the other way.

In particular, I have *also* seen (at my tables) some pretty toxic "anti-military" attitudes portrayed by some players, where any soldier-character (PC or NPC) is presumptively a murderer, a war-criminal, a sociopath.

It's certainly not incumbent on players with military backgrounds (or just friends/family in service) to sit still for that kind of abuse... they SHOULD speak up, and/or leave the table/group that fosters those attitudes.

(The question then is: where is the line of an unrealistic portrayal of a "troop" (or other profession) becoming an offensive portrayal, validly criticized... vs. where is a "merely" unrealistic portrayal actually OK, and the criticism itself become unreasonable and offensive?)

On the gripping hand, I have seen a middle-ground, where a player -- whose character has expertise the player does not, but the expertise exists at the table -- actually welcomes getting this kind of input from the expert and/or from the table at large.

It depends on whether the table values that kind of "veracity" -- hewing closer to source material -- as highly as they do the "freedom" and "agency" of playing a character uninformed by that sort of input.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

First off, thanks for bringing the topic back to the subject.

Secondly, there are as many experiences at a gaming table as there are gamers, and there are as many experiences of or about the military as there are citizens of the nations in question.

My motive for writing the article was to provide a short, generic, and basic description of the some of the training, experience and attitudes of combat arms soldiers who have seen combat. In my gaming experience, players who want their characters to have access to high-end military weaponry also want their characters to be hardened 'Rambo'-types. This is the description I provided.

I tried to avoid making it too American, taking experiences from Canadian, British, Australian, and German veterans.

I wanted it to be short. I wished to avoid the Wall of Text and I wished to avoid the 'no shit there I was' story. And I specifically wished to avoid any implication that veterans are better or superior to civilians. I'd seen all these attitudes in other attempts at articles like this, and I wanted mine to me more universally applicable and more entertaining.

I didn't want the article to be tied to one specific era or timeline. There's a lot of games out there that are 'post-medieval' in technological base and I wanted my article to apply to them all equally.

And certainly, I included some of my opinions and attitudes in it. Hard not to in an article like this. But I really did try to keep it down to dull 'rahr'.

[klecser]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

(The question then is: where is the line of an unrealistic portrayal of a "troop" (or other profession) becoming an offensive portrayal, validly criticized... vs. where is a "merely" unrealistic portrayal actually OK, and the criticism itself become unreasonable and offensive?)

This is the real crux of the argument. I agree. My take was imagining a player making mild, innocuous military assumptions and being dog-piled for it. But it is important to note that the continuum is wide and I thank you bringing that up. It is also not appropriate for non-military types to bully people with stripes. I play with a group of really assertive people, and I don't have much experience with that possibility, because we hold everyone at the table to a high standard of fellowship. So, as always, thanks for bringing up more dimensions of the issue @g33k!

[Bill the barbarian]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:51 PM, g33k said:

It's certainly not incumbent on players with military backgrounds (or just friends/family in service) to sit still for that kind of abuse... they SHOULD speak up, and/or leave the table/group that fosters those attitudes.

Always bring X-cards and utilize windows and shades at will. Should anyone at a table feel badly about a play let them have space! A table should be a friendly and welcoming place to share our hobby!!

 

On 4/28/2021 at 11:51 PM, g33k said:

(The question then is: where is the line of an unrealistic portrayal of a "troop" (or other profession) becoming an offensive portrayal, validly criticized... vs. where is a "merely" unrealistic portrayal actually OK, and the criticism itself become unreasonable and offensive?)

Good call.

 

On 4/28/2021 at 11:51 PM, g33k said:

On the gripping hand, I have seen a middle-ground, where a player -- whose character has expertise the player does not, but the expertise exists at the table -- actually welcomes getting this kind of input from the expert and/or from the table at large.

Seize the middle ground...soon!

 

On 4/28/2021 at 11:58 PM, Lloyd Dupont said:

With such wisdom, one wonder why you are not Rune Lord yet?! 😮 

Ah, padawan, that is a mystery.

 

On 4/29/2021 at 2:13 AM, svensson said:

First off, thanks for bringing the topic back to the subject.

 

yep!

 

On 4/29/2021 at 2:13 AM, svensson said:

Secondly, there are as many experiences at a gaming table as there are gamers, and there are as many experiences of or about the military as there are citizens of the nations in question.

 

Tables are like a box of chocola...no wait, that’s not it...

 

On 4/29/2021 at 5:16 AM, klecser said:

This is the real crux of the argument. I agree. My take was imagining a player making mild, innocuous military assumptions and being dog-piled for it. But it is important to note that the continuum is wide and I thank you bringing that up

Yep, tolerance is the ticket.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Bill the barbarian

[svensson]

There is always a danger of any player being too over the top in any portrayal of a character that might ring true to life for someone else at the table. Just like with EVERY aspect of a gaming table, this is a matter of continual informal negotiation. At my tables the Big Three Rules of Etiquette are these:

1] Be respectful of others and don't be offensive.

2] Leave your causes at the door; this is a game not a debate society. You have your saws, opinions and social issues, everybody else has theirs.

3] Participation in the game is voluntary. You don't have to be here and we don't have to put up with you. You don't have to put up with us either.

Edited May 8, 2021 by svensson

[Bill the barbarian]

8 minutes ago, svensson said:

3] Participation in the game is voluntary. You don't have to be here and we don't have to put up with you. You don't have to put up with us either.

Well this is a bit meaner than this ol peacekeeper would like but, the point is there. So long as there is effort is to make our square peg feel at home in your round hole. And I am sure there is.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Bill the barbarian