v2.0 Military Careers

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

How about something like this for Navy:

Rank0: Spacehand
Rank1: Petty Officer
Rank2: Ensign
Rank3: Lieutenant
Rank4: Commander
Rank5: Captain
Rank6: Admiral

Army/Marine could be:

Rank0: Private
Rank1: Sargeant
Rank2: Lieutenant
Rank3: Captain
Rank4: Major
Rank5: Colonel
Rank6: General

Basically, your first 2 ranks (Rank0 and Rank1) are enlisted ranks with the higher levels being officer ranks.

This goes to something like a Starship Troopers setting where officers must serve as enlisted first but it works and keeps things pretty simple.

 

[AKAramis]

I'd much rather just see officer ranks, myself, and a mention that "Rank 0 encompases a wide range of enlisted ranks within the military, which vary widely from setting to setting and even over the years. Referees are encouraged to assign enlisted titles as fits their campaign and the character's skills and history."

 

[Tychus]

Rank US(ish) military rank: size of command
R0 = grunt & senior grunt : himself, binom,fireteam*
R1 = E2,3 squad, section**
R2= E4,5,6 section, platoon, troop, gunboat**
R3 E7-8 more platoons, company, escort***
R4=E-9,O1,O2,O3 company ,small warship****
R5=O4,O5,06 battalion, regiment, warship
(independent unit level) *****
R6=O7+ stars or braid. commands multiple major units.

I like this. Let the player and GM decide whether the rank 3 marine that was rolled up is a grizzled gunnery sergeant, or a new captain.

My beef with the v1 ranks was that no matter how high you climbed on through the ranks, ostensibly leading larger and larger troop formations, you were still rolling on the same skill table, usually without even the chance of acquiring more leadership oriented skills. That's already been addressed.

 

[hdrider67]

It seems some of the NCO Included or not argument is based on the additional rolls it adds to the chargen, right?

Why not let a player choose his career path and leave off the commission roll? s/he could then choose whether the advancement took place as an officer or enlistee.

Also, enlistees tend to be more specialized in their Rating or MOS while officers are supposed to specialize in tactics and leadership as they progress.

An enlistee track might include gunnery, Vacc Suit, mechanic, or Pilot (equiv to helmsman) and the officer might end up with leadership, SOC and tactics.

This cuts off the commission roll and the blurb about advancement can be stated a single time before the career details that the left choice is an enlistee track and the right is an officer track.

 

[SableWyvern]

How about something like this for Navy:

Rank0: Spacehand
Rank1: Petty Officer
Rank2: Ensign
Rank3: Lieutenant
Rank4: Commander
Rank5: Captain
Rank6: Admiral

Army/Marine could be:

Rank0: Private
Rank1: Sargeant
Rank2: Lieutenant
Rank3: Captain
Rank4: Major
Rank5: Colonel
Rank6: General

Basically, your first 2 ranks (Rank0 and Rank1) are enlisted ranks with the higher levels being officer ranks.

This goes to something like a Starship Troopers setting where officers must serve as enlisted first but it works and keeps things pretty simple.

That's exactly what I meant by "hideously compressed". :wink:

If we are to consider those the actual, literal and complete rank structures of their respective arms, then you either have a structure that is almost impossibly efficient given the size of the forces involved, or you have so many sub-positions within each rank that you're not going to have any clear idea as to what each one means.

The senior NCOs that are missing from your tables fill important positions in higher echelons of the command structure, and we have no indication who takes their place.

If a combined rank structure is the goal, things either need to be kept somewhat vague, as per Captainjacks's suggestions, or someone with a good understanding of military heirarchies is going to need to build a complete, working structure from scratch -- a structure which will of necessity be more complex than just seven discrete ranks.

 

[AKAramis]

Or one sticks with what has worked for 30 years:

Define the officer ranks, and leave the enlisted ranks presumed.

 

[Exwrestler]

Not sure why it's absolutely necessary to have a ship purchasing system that almost requires an accounting degree but adding NCO ranks is unnecessary complication.

Traveller, as it has "worked" for 30 years hasn't been played around here for at least 10 of those years.

The Mongoose version, due to the quality of the new RQ and additions like NCO ranks, has groups forming at both of our stores.

 

[SableWyvern]

Or one sticks with what has worked for 30 years:

Define the officer ranks, and leave the enlisted ranks presumed.

I really, really don't get this.

Objections to NCOs have so far included the following:

1. It's too complicated.
As presented in version 2 of the playtest, it's a commission roll and an alternate column on the rank tables. That doesn't meet any reasonable definition of complicated that I'm aware of.

2. It's a waste of space.
See 1. Depending on table layouts, the extra space will be somewhere between virtually non-existant and very, very little.

3. I don't want NCO PCs in my game.
Then don't use them. Just ignoring the NCO rules as currently presented is easy as hell, and nothing else breaks. Clearly, there are plenty of people who do want them. You're not disadvantaged by their existance, people who do want them will be disadvantaged by their absence.

4. CT didn't have NCOs
Well, it did, just not rules for them in the core book. In any case, NCOs do clearly exist in the Traveller universe and, more importantly "The CT core rules didn't cover X" is a completely disingenous argument", which, if taken to it's logical conclusion, is an argument for Mongoose Traveller to be nothing more than a new reprint of CT.

Seriously, what is the drawback for NCOs as they exist in V2?

 

[hdrider67]

As much as I would like to have NCOs represented, the issue isn't worth (IMHO) MonTrav not getting enough support to survive. I can always rework the chargen for anyone interested in being an NCO and It'd be easily done.


I'd be much more interested in simplifying ship shares figured out in a way that we aren't restricted to a half dozen official ships. Making SSs worth a cool 1Mcr each (or 100Kcr ARV) would go a long way towards simple ship ownership at mustering out.

I'd also like to see combat revisited. I like dangerous combat as much as the next guy but one shot kills (or unconscious which may as well be the same thing) is not at all hard with anything bigger than a body pistol.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'd also like to see combat revisited. I like dangerous combat as much as the next guy but one shot kills (or unconscious which may as well be the same thing) is not at all hard with anything bigger than a body pistol.

I do agree that the first shot unconscious rule is a bad thing. Low END, or simply unlucky, characters that go down with the first shot every fight is a serious problem.

If all shots were equally likely to drop someone, I wouldn't have the same issue, but as the rule stands, the system is weighted such that if you're going to go down, it's most likely to be straight up, which means potentially a lot of sitting around while the rest of the group finishes up the combat.

Even just allowing an End check to avoid instant unconsciousness would go some way to reducing this effect. ATM, I would probably houserule the system to allow for an End check with a +2DM to stay up, not because it's necessarily more realistic (I think the rule as it stands makes sense), but because it makes low End PCs much more viable.

As much as I would like to have NCOs represented, the issue isn't worth (IMHO) MonTrav not getting enough support to survive. I can always rework the chargen for anyone interested in being an NCO and It'd be easily done.

NCOs seem to be a selling point for as many as those who consider them a negative. Given the NCO rules are easier to ignore if present, than they are to invent if missing, I don't think dropping them is likely to provide a net benefit. Personally, I don't think someone who is going to pass on the game because an easily ignored NCO system is present is really a potential customer in the first place.

 

[Exwrestler]

Heck if it works like D&D the fact that the old hats don't like it would be a selling point (speaking as an old hat that hates 3.0-3.5).

There was similar fist waving before the release of MRQ and I've sold more of them since then than PHBs.

 

[hdrider67]

I don't think someone who is going to pass on the game because an easily ignored NCO system is present is really a potential customer in the first place.

Yeah, there are probably some folks who will pan the system no matter what Mongoose does simply because it's not a straight reprint of the LBBs. I want a classic *feel* as much as the next guy but I won't buy it if it *is* just a CT reprint. After all, I still have the CT stuff in pdf.

I personally love the armor reduction to damage idea. I also like the advancement in skills more than CT. There are things I think need some reworking but so far nothing that would be a show stopper for me.

 

[hdrider67]

Heck if it works like D&D the fact that the old hats don't like it would be a selling point (speaking as an old hat that hates 3.0-3.5).

There was similar fist waving before the release of MRQ and I've sold more of them since then than PHBs.

Seriously? I like MRQ as well (I've always preferred d100 though) but I never thought it would outsell D20.

I'd like to see it happen, though.

 

[Exwrestler]

It outsells D20 at both of our locations (don't know if it's okay for me to list them here or not).

Not too long ago there were four MRQ games running in our gaming space and 0 D&D games (the announcement of 4.0 pretty much choked out the last vestiges of the local D&D community).

/highjacking off

NCO's rule Occifers drool!

 

[AKAramis]

Or one sticks with what has worked for 30 years:

Define the officer ranks, and leave the enlisted ranks presumed.

I really, really don't get this.

Objections to NCOs have so far included the following:

1. It's too complicated.
2. It's a waste of space.
3. I don't want NCO PCs in my game.
4. CT didn't have NCOs
Seriously, what is the drawback for NCOs as they exist in V2?

You missed a HUGE one in your "list":

They are far too setting specific for a core book.
Specifically, giving specific ranks and titles (and skills) for NCO's for a core book to cover multiple settings, when while there are essentially 3 officer rank systems in use on earth, there are well over 10 basic systems in use for enlisted ranks, each with multiple variants.

Further, your item 3 "refutation" is false; players have a reasonable right to expect to be able to use anything not clearly marked optional that is in a core ruleset.

 

[SableWyvern]

You missed a HUGE one in your "list":

They are far too setting specific for a core book.
Specifically, giving specific ranks and titles (and skills) for NCO's for a core book to cover multiple settings, when while there are essentially 3 officer rank systems in use on earth, there are well over 10 basic systems in use for enlisted ranks, each with multiple variants.

If this is true for NCOs, it is equally true of officers. In any case, if it is a valid argument, then the solution is to replace the titles of all ranks, officer or NCO, with simple numbers.

Further, your item 3 "refutation" is false; players have a reasonable right to expect to be able to use anything not clearly marked optional that is in a core ruleset.

If your players are demanding the right to make NCOs, then either they have a reasonable point and the rules for them should be present, or -- if you, as GM, feel that NCOs are inappropriate and they just don't give a damn -- you need to find a group of players that aren't going to cause you grief out of some sense of false entitlement.

But, whatever. I find your position absurd, you find mine equally so, and we're about to start arguing in pointless circles, so I think I'll withdraw from this particular discussion.

 

[AKAramis]

You missed a HUGE one in your "list":

They are far too setting specific for a core book.
Specifically, giving specific ranks and titles (and skills) for NCO's for a core book to cover multiple settings, when while there are essentially 3 officer rank systems in use on earth, there are well over 10 basic systems in use for enlisted ranks, each with multiple variants.

If this is true for NCOs, it is equally true of officers. In any case, if it is a valid argument, then the solution is to replace the titles of all ranks, officer or NCO, with simple numbers.

Further, your item 3 "refutation" is false; players have a reasonable right to expect to be able to use anything not clearly marked optional that is in a core ruleset.

If your players are demanding the right to make NCOs, then either they have a reasonable point and the rules for them should be present, or -- if you, as GM, feel that NCOs are inappropriate and they just don't give a damn -- you need to find a group of players that aren't going to cause you grief out of some sense of false entitlement.

But, whatever. I find your position absurd, you find mine equally so, and we're about to start arguing in pointless circles, so I think I'll withdraw from this particular discussion.

It is FAR LESS true of Officers than of enlisted.

The US military alone has 4 enlisted rank systems, and 2 officer.
The Commonwealth nations have the same two officer systems, plus a third, and 4 more enlisted systems.
The French officer system is fairly close to the US/UK system; the enlisted are totally differen.
The Soviets/Russians have two officer systems which are nearly identical to the US/UK , and 3 more enlisted ones. These systems are used throughout much of the former Soviet Block, with near identical officers, but some variation in enlisted titles.
Most of south america uses the same 2 systems of officer ranks, but many different enlisted systems, averaging 2 each...
The Japanese use a much older system of titles, but adapted them to fit the current US/UK/Commonwealth officer models... and have 3 different systems of enlisted ranks.

 

[Andrew Whincup]

I find myself torn on this issue.

On the one hand I feel that military careers a little without flavour if they don't have names. Is any player going to be able to hang a character off being "Rank 3"?

On the other hand, not only are rank names (and the progressions therein) irrevocably tied to a single setting, but they already make my teeth nash a little in places. For example the Marine ranks are an odd mishmash of RM & USMC ranks with a couple of things chucked in from the 19th Century.

One possible solution would be to list ranks as being in command of a unit of specified size, named or otherwise.

I'm still unsure where I stand on NCOs.

I think you're never going to win, Gar

Andy

 

[Mongoose Gar]

I think you're never going to win, Gar

This I have known from the start. With the last round of playtest feedback emails, I think every single bit of the system has been both praised and condemned...

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Gar, welcome to Traveller! :wink: