All of those SF problems go away if you throw enough points at them. Especially if you use Impulse Buys.

Thing about the Commandos is that all the kinks in how to form such units had not been worked out, so they were not the hyper trained best of the best we associate with todays special forces.

Incidentally "Common Sense" and the "No Nuissance Rolls" and "Standard Operating Proceedure" perks tend to eliminate most lapses of both player lack, as well as a few random chance deaths.

Points in Luck are handy as well in sticky situations.

I'm not a SF operator nor do I play one on TV.  In a SF game one has to have a certain amount of collaboration with the GM and players to represent what the characters could do but the players would have no idea how to pull off.

I would be interested in this type of game. Yes, the British Commandoes, the 'Stirling And Stirling' (SAS) and U.S. Army Rangers for one were not what the Special Forces are nowadays. They were far closer to common infantry soldiers with some specialization in to small unit operations. The game being about a PT-boat or the like would work, especially if they were to escape from Singapore or Philipines in the beginning. Another chance would be a Long Range Desert Group campaign, which would allow us to run on two (or so) trucks and it'd make the GM's life far easier as he would not be constrained by running things in a larger scale unit. Bomber would be harder to make work as they most commonly flew in bigger formations for protection.

And I agree with the GM-player co-operation. Everyone does not have a military background, but those who do can tutor the others towards a believable portrayal of military techniques, tactics and the general image of what a military character should have. Of course, some of them might be draftees, which would allow some variation from the norms.

I agree 100% - you can teach the basics. But SF is more than that, or should be.


I was talking about the Players, not the Characters.

You can't buy your way out of stupid with xp. ;)

But "stupid" is the exception, and I'm talking common, understandable ignorance. Any SF soldier knows, and NEEDS to know, about things like leapfrogging, interlocking fields of fire, noise discipline, how to set up an ambush (and what to do when you find yourself IN one), and so forth - basic and advanced small unit tactics - and the same can't be said for all players, no matter how cool and bad the character concept is.

And if the Player doesn't even know the basic stuff, they just can't RP anything more complex than a dumb grunt sprayin' and prayin', plain and simple, sad but true.

Yes you can, actually GURPS is very specific on this point in the inclusion of the Common Sense advantage. However it is accurate to say that just because you can, doesn't mean you will, or that the GM himself is not stupid. That's an entirely different story.

There is also the fact that even if a player decides to buy Common Sense, they may get annoyed at the frequency with which the GM steps in. Still, that's a separate issue from the absence of a compensatory GURPS trait.


Congratuations, you just described GURPS Tactical Shooting (possibly also GURPS Seals in Vietnam, and maybe even Black Ops, but I haven't read the second, and it's been a while since I read the first)
This message was last edited by the user at 09:52, Sat 01 Nov 2014.

Sure, the Common Sense works if the GM has experience in the matter, but if you throw in a GM with no military experience along wih players with no military experience, you get what the military calls a cluster-you-know-what. It might be sort of funny, but it can also be annoying, especially if there is a drive for authenticity.

Of course, we can argue about the actual skill of draftees, but most of the things 42Nato mentioned are taught in basic training in most militaries and were taught even back then. Some, more advanced stuff is also required for the believable (non-Hollywood) portrayal of special forces.

Got an Example that isn't in one of the books I listed?

Please do not turn this interest thread into a debate.

I'd say let the game be fun, use the rules to allow players to run characters that are experts even if the players are not.  The GM and players have to accept a certain amount of collaboration to balance out the varying levels of expertise; the expert players have to relax and accept the less expert and the less expert have to be willing to take counsel from the GM and the more expert.

That said... I do like the idea of the patrol boat in Singapore that escapes to the PI.  There was a lot of small naval action, barge landings and such during the campaign there.  A small boat crew could do a LOT.  It would also be rather less along the beaten path focused on Europe.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:12, Sat 01 Nov 2014.

I do really like the PT boat idea; I expect to have some clarity about my job next week? Or the week after that.

To be fair to the folks who have had a lot of discussion about Special Forces, etc etc., I must say that my concept for this game is much more low-powered than the apparent SF perception.

As far as I know, the British Vospers 73 was designed in 40, and operated in the Med. (http://books.google.com/books?...&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBQ).

For the sake of a game - game, folks, not a hypergrognarded WWII simulation - I like to thonk that perhaps the Vospers folks were thinking of making some in China or through license in French Vietnam or something, and so one - one exists outside of normal channels in the HK area as it falls to the Japanese on/about Dec 18. I'd like to say that 'engine' trouble prevented it from being involved in the disasterous battle for Hong Kong, and as a result, it's NOT staffed with trained Spec Ops killers, but rather with an odd assortment of characters; for instance, Rupert 'Wallaby' Wallace, a civilian who, having served with the RN (Signals) in the Great War, is now the cook. A native to Australia, he's an old Asia hand, and speaks six regional languages reliably.  He's further made useful by contacts across the area.

Does that make sense?  Not everyone has to eccentric - it makes sense that maybe there'd be a commando or three, a few other types (espionage gal, sabotage guy, a nurse?), and the rest sailors. And then from a complement of 13, maybe half would be pc's?
So from Gurps terms, 50-100 pts max.

At least thats the game that im thinking about...
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 22:17, Sat 01 Nov 2014.

The following MTB's of the 60" class (2x 18" Torp, 4x .303 MG) were present in the Far East Fleet, Hong Kong. They were the only ones in Far East.

MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS
MTB 07 : Scuttled at Nano in Mirs Bay 26 Dec 1941.
MTB 08 : Burnt out by JAAF bombers 16 Dec 1941 during an air raid on Aberdeen DYd.
MTB 09 : Scuttled at Nano in Mirs Bay 26 Dec 1941.
MTB 10 : Scuttled at Nano in Mirs Bay 26 Dec 1941.
MTB 11 : Scuttled at Nano in Mirs Bay 26 Dec 1941.
MTB 12 : Sunk on the morning of 19 Dec 1941 while attacking Japanese landing craft off Kowloon. Ran into a sea wall and foundered after being hit by artillery fire.
MTB 26 : Sank on the morning of 19 Dec 1941 after attacking Japanese landing craft off Kowloon. Crippled by artillery fire and sunk later by JAAF aircraft.
MTB 27 : Scuttled at Nano in Mirs Bay 26 Dec 1941.



Their service was rather abbreviated.

c. f. above.

I think one could easily postulate a boat or two in Singapore without doing a great degree of violence to realism.

I think a mix of various types, all a bit unusual would be best.  The key would be for everyone to have something to do most of the time.

I'd play 100-125 points to make the players somewhat above the ordinary.

I had a thought last night - always dangerous - that perhaps taking a page from Ars Magica and all the players taking two characters - one that was perhaps a 'ship' person, and the other a 'shore' person, so that there was always a role to play - and the boat itself wouldnt suffer unduly. Thoughts?

Not a bad idea but I find things get diluted and too complicated going down that path at least in this kind of gaming setting.  I think if we kept the second character simpler it might not overwhelm people.  Attrition is always bad enough in these games.

That said, it is a good solution to keep people engaged.

Right!  So one might make a, say, 40-60 point 'sailor' who's station was one of the depth charge racks, loaded the torpedo tubes, or manned the radio, and a 75-point royal marine.

Yes, that would work exactly.

On the craft, how about a Fairmile D Motor Torpedo Boat? A bit bigger than the other MTBs and thus slightly more seaworthy, a bit more heavily armed and capable of carrying a bigger complement of crew as well as supplies.

The biggest problem will be fuel and provisions. None of the MTBs have a very great range at a reasonable speed, though we could load the deck with a pile of barrels containing fuel, which has its own problems. The Fairmile has greater mileage than most of the British boats, which makes it quite useful.

I think, we should go for a certain total of points, divided between two characters. That way the boat's complement would be easier to fill (though not all the characters would need to be sailors).

Good point on the range...

I like the bigger complement, too.

The bigger boat, at least for the start will be better.

I'd just be cautious about making people run two characters.  Burn out is a big problem here.  It is the best bet to keep people involved though.

I would rather punt the boat all together.  If the PCs are commandos, official or ad hoc, then the adventures can be what happens when whatever boat puts them ashore, and ashore can vary throughout the entire theater of operations.

With this many posts in the thread, it should be clear by now whether or not there is sufficient interest in this idea to warrant moving on to create the game.  Please leave all further discussion for the game, created by Arkyn, and linked to in the post immediately following this one.

Thank you.

link to another game : GURPS WWII, By Strength And Guile
This message was last edited by the user at 22:51, Tue 04 Nov 2014.