Blood and Guts: Feedback

[Tzeentch]

I'm usually not particularly picky about RPG sourcebooks getting facts right, I can get scholarly books on the subjects I care about, or I simply know firsthand how things work. But the author of the book seemed to care about feedback so here is some.

All page references are for the PDF version of this book.

General
The text assumes some level of knowledge about the US military system, which is probably unwarranted. A case in point is references to reservists "drilling." Which is not explained, many people will not know what that means.

Please go through the text and add actual equipment designations if you can. It's very confusing what models you are referring to -- specifically with things like the TOW (which has numerous versions) and where it's obvious you mean one model (The F/A-18 E/F SuperHornet) but don't explain it.

p. 1 Although "hummer" is a common slang term for the HMMWV, "hummer" is actually the term used to refer to the civilian vehicle. The military slang is commonly "Humvee." The fact that "Hummer" is capitalized at every instance is odd.

This overcapitalization gets pretty strange. When you are capitalizing Helicopter the editors never said anything?


p. 5 "Unlike other branches of the armed forces, the Marines have no administrative or logistical personnel, nor medical units, relying on the Navy to provide these non-combat functions."

The first part is completely incorrect. I am a Marine logistical planner. The second part is correct, we have Naval Corpsmen.

p. 6 There is no mention of the fireteam. This is an odd oversight.

p. 23 Marine Force Recon: The text is not clear, but it seems to imply that Force Recon was designated as Special Operations (again with over-capitalization) unit for lack of work. It's worth pointing out that Force Recon and their close cousin Radio Recon were intentionally not placed under USSOCOM control. This has only recently changed, with a small detachment being placed under Joint command.

Note: They were not placed under USSOCOM control so they could not be pulled away from Marine commanders. It also had the interesting side effect of making them more useful for CIA and NSA operations.

The rest of the Force Recon text seemed a bit dubious as well but I can't comment on it much.

p. 47 Bit odd that being a member of a MEU is an "elite unit." Actually, it's more then a bit amusing but ok.

Personally, I would have made Radio Recon a specialization of Force Recon. That is, require Force Recon levels. They go to the same schools (generally) and do much of the same thing. Which is why there are always calls to get rid of it

p. 48 Seabees: There are certainly reservist Seabees.

p. 50 Medals: The medal requirements seem incorrect. For one thing a Bronze Star is not limited to the Army.

p. 65 M249: The M60 has been replaced for quite some time. "Minimi" is not a slang term, it's part of the actual name of the weapon.

p. 66 ANY aircraft with the President aboard is "Air Force One."

p. 75 The M998 is not a modified HMMWV. It's the basic designation for the vehicle. You are probably thinking of the M1097 or M998A2.

p. 76 The JDAM does not have the capability to seek on laser marked targets. You may be confusing a laser seeking capability with the DAMASK upgrade package.

p. 76 Mk 40 torpedo: The title says Mk. 40, the text says Mk. 48.

p. 76 The Stinger capabilities seem to change in every instance it appears in the text.

Correction: I was incorrect in stating the ATAS was not deployed. I should have consulted my own notes. I was thinking of the AIM-43D, which was the never-deployed air-to-air version of the Redeye. Sorry for the confusion.

p. 77 TOW: The TOW is not an "earlier version" of the Hellfire in any respect.

p. 78 I'm not aware of any level of classification called "Eyes Only." You're thinking of SCI (Secret Compartmentalized Intelligence) -- which is actually more like a separate level of classification as holding a TS is no guarantee of acquiring an SCI.

p. 79 In the last sentence Air Force needs to be capitalized. Odd this was missed heh.

p. 89 For MEU I'm assuming it should be read MEU (SOC) once they've received their training certifications. In any case, they probably should rate as Elite, Good.

p. 93 Your definition of REMF and HQ made my eyes roll, sorry.

 

[ElectricDevil]

Editing Errors: I blame Hildulf for the editing.
Factual Errors: I blame Chuck for not being a military man.

I can't vouch for the veracity of the rest of the errors pointed out, but I can put my 2 cents on these 2 bits

p. 65 M249: The M60 has been replaced for quite some time. "Minimi" is not a slang term, it's part of the actual name of the weapon.

All the "current" sources say that the M60 is still in service in the US Military, somewhere. The US Navy SEALs apparent still use the M60. I couldn't verify or deny this if I wanted to.

Also, a 'nickname' does not automatically constitute slang. The "Fighting Falcon" aircraft designation is an official nickname for the F-16, not simply slang or jargon. The question about the M249 would be whether or not the Soldiers using the weapon first coined "Minimi" or not.

p. 66 ANY aircraft with the President aboard is "Air Force One."

This is technically untrue, the (lone) exception being Marine One -actually a helicoptor, but an "aircraft" as far as anyone is concerned.

Also, it is true that any other aircraft carrying the President is certainly always designated "Air Force One," but then those other airplanes are not dedicated aircraft such as the "Air Force One" that popular media loves to portray as being THE Air Force One in movies or other media. The "Air Force One" being referred to is built specifically for the President's use, and is not a "stock" aircraft by any means.

 

[Tzeentch]

All the "current" sources say that the M60 is still in service in the US Military, somewhere. The US Navy SEALs apparent still use the M60. I couldn't verify or deny this if I wanted to.

Never seen one except when I was at Ft. Huachuca in 1996 and they had some buried in the armory for training purposes. I think any claim they are still "in service" is highly suspect.

Also, a 'nickname' does not automatically constitute slang. The "Fighting Falcon" aircraft designation is an official nickname for the F-16, not simply slang or jargon. The question about the M249 would be whether or not the Soldiers using the weapon first coined "Minimi" or not.

To be clear, I've never heard it referred to as a "Minimi" -- most just called it a SAW -- and the text (due to the lack of actual real nomenclature) gives the mistaken impression that Minimi is a made-up term.

This is technically untrue, the (lone) exception being Marine One -actually a helicoptor, but an "aircraft" as far as anyone is concerned.

I'm not clear what you mean. This is a point of information you can easily acquire via Google.

http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/VC_25A___Air_Force_One.html

The presidential air transport fleet consists of two specially configured Boeing 747-200B's -- tail numbers 28000 and 29000 -- with the Air Force designation VC-25A. When the president is aboard either aircraft, or any Air Force aircraft, the radio call sign is "Air Force One."

 

[ElectricDevil]

Oh, I'm just nit-picking the nit-picking.

I meant, that for the sake of all technicalities, using the term "Air Force One" in a document or news releases usually refers to the planes that operate with that designation in mind, specifically the plane that was using the designation.

Marine One, either a Sikorsky VH-3D Sea King or a VH-60N, is the vehicle that shuttles the President to and from the White House from Andrews Air Force Base (this operation is known as "Executive air support").

Seeing that this aircraft is operated by Marines, this is the only known exception to the "Air Force One" rule-of-thumb that the President boarding any aircraft and it becoming designated as "Air Force One."

 

[C. Baize]

I accept full blame for the editing oversites...
*hangs head in shame*

 

[Vigilance]

I'm usually not particularly picky about RPG sourcebooks getting facts right, I can get scholarly books on the subjects I care about, or I simply know firsthand how things work. But the author of the book seemed to care about feedback so here is some.

Well- I *always* want feedback. I made some specific requests for military people to comment on this book, because my goal was for a book not So bogged down in the real world that it would be unplayable, but would ALSO not want to make military lifers puke in their soup.

HOWEVER, this was taken to mean I realllllly liked people nitpicking the book, and I have been inundated with emails to that effect. Its cool though

General
The text assumes some level of knowledge about the US military system, which is probably unwarranted. A case in point is references to reservists "drilling." Which is not explained, many people will not know what that means.

I think the text makes it pretty clear that drilling is practice and on-call time that can't be used for adventuring.

Please go through the text and add actual equipment designations if you can. It's very confusing what models you are referring to -- specifically with things like the TOW (which has numerous versions) and where it's obvious you mean one model (The F/A-18 E/F SuperHornet) but don't explain it.

When I refer to the TOW and the Superhornet, all equipment in fact, I am referring to the equipment IN THE BOOK.

There are many models of TOW and Superhornet.

There is only ONE MODEL of each in THIS BOOK.

And in fact, those are the only TOW and Superhornet game stats in the entire d20 Modern game.

I am referring to THOSE.

p. 1 Although "hummer" is a common slang term for the HMMWV, "hummer" is actually the term used to refer to the civilian vehicle. The military slang is commonly "Humvee." The fact that "Hummer" is capitalized at every instance is odd.

This overcapitalization gets pretty strange. When you are capitalizing Helicopter the editors never said anything?

So sorry.

p. 5 "Unlike other branches of the armed forces, the Marines have no administrative or logistical personnel, nor medical units, relying on the Navy to provide these non-combat functions."

The first part is completely incorrect. I am a Marine logistical planner. The second part is correct, we have Naval Corpsmen.

p. 23 Marine Force Recon: The text is not clear, but it seems to imply that Force Recon was designated as Special Operations (again with over-capitalization) unit for lack of work. It's worth pointing out that Force Recon and their close cousin Radio Recon were intentionally not placed under USSOCOM control. This has only recently changed, with a small detachment being placed under Joint command.

Not lack of work. It was the impression given to me by my research, however, that the Marines wanted publicity for their special operations forces like the Navy and the Army got for theirs because those special operations forces made recruiting easier for the Army and the Navy.

That was the impression I was trying to convey, and I stand by it. Because according to my research, and my general opinion, it's correct.

p. 47 Bit odd that being a member of a MEU is an "elite unit." Actually, it's more then a bit amusing but ok.

I tried to make each branch of service have some elite units. Information on the marines was hard to come by, because of the Marine's assertion that ALL Marines are elite.

Would you rather I gave the impression the Marines were inferior by giving them no elite units?

Personally, I would have made Radio Recon a specialization of Force Recon. That is, require Force Recon levels. They go to the same schools (generally) and do much of the same thing. Which is why there are always calls to get rid of it

Well- that's easy enough to house rule. Just add that you have at least one level of Force Recon in addition to the other prerequisites. Or, you could just run them as Force Recon class members with the Signals and Signal Warfare MOS.

p. 48 Seabees: There are certainly reservist Seabees.

Any place the text makes mention of you needing the Active Duty allegiance to take something, it is specifically and only to TAKE IT. In other words, you have to be on active duty to receive Seabee training, at any time thereafter you can go on reserve status.

p. 50 Medals: The medal requirements seem incorrect. For one thing a Bronze Star is not limited to the Army.

[qupte]p. 65 M249: The M60 has been replaced for quite some time. "Minimi" is not a slang term, it's part of the actual name of the weapon.[/quote]

My research indicated otherwise. And it was an official marine site that named that as slang. Go figure

p. 75 The M998 is not a modified HMMWV. It's the basic designation for the vehicle. You are probably thinking of the M1097 or M998A2.

This is a mistake- and the lack of "A2" at the end of the designation seems to be HUGE, MAJOR, LARGE, and KEY, according to the VAST AMOUNT of mail I have received on this topic.

You may sleep soundly knowing that "A2" will in fact appear in the new edition of the book which I have spent all weekend working on.

p. 76 The JDAM does not have the capability to seek on laser marked targets. You may be confusing a laser seeking capability with the DAMASK upgrade package.[/quote}

My research indicated otherwise. The vehicle description of the JDAM package at an official Army website very clearly stated that it gave an aircraft the ability to key in targets with GPS satellites before a mission, or use laser siting for targeting on the fly.

p. 77 TOW: The TOW is not an "earlier version" of the Hellfire in any respect.

What I meant to say was that the TOW was an earlier anti-armor weapon than the Hellfire, which was my impression.

p. 93 Your definition of REMF and HQ made my eyes roll, sorry.

These came directly from the website of a Bosnian and Gulf War vet.

I found them funny so I included them. And I still find them funny.

Chuck

 

[Tzeentch]

Re: Re: Blood and Guts: Feedback

I think the text makes it pretty clear that drilling is practice and on-call time that can't be used for adventuring.

My point was that it's military terminology that will not necessarily be immediately understood. I'm not asking that you reprint the DoD dictionary

And in fact, those are the only TOW and Superhornet game stats in the entire d20 Modern game.

You were writing a military sourcebook for d20 Modern. I would have expected a bit more attention to detail on these facts, as different models and variants can vary a lot in capability, weight, and availability. Even d20 Modern (itself not a highwater mark for accuracy) is not always as lax with nomenclature as B&G.

I am referring to THOSE.

Which is the problem I'm afraid.

Not lack of work. It was the impression given to me by my research, however, that the Marines wanted publicity for their special operations forces like the Navy and the Army got for theirs because those special operations forces made recruiting easier for the Army and the Navy.

Bit more complex then that from what I understand. But I'm not intimately familiar with the political wrangling that led to the Commandant moving a unit to the Joint special ops community/command. I find it hard to believe it was simply for recruiting purposes, the Marines have no problem with recruiting.

I tried to make each branch of service have some elite units. Information on the marines was hard to come by, because of the Marine's assertion that ALL Marines are elite.

This is a conscious service decision. It's the reason Marines do not wear unit patches or any other special identification markings (i.e. distinctive headgear) except in a few special cases.

Would you rather I gave the impression the Marines were inferior by giving them no elite units?

I would rather see a more accurate portrayal of unit capabilities. A MEU (SOC) in general is not as capable and well trained on the individual level as Recon. Ability inflation is an unfortunate fact of life, but it's not necessary to have every "special ops" unit be ub3r 733t d00dz.

Any place the text makes mention of you needing the Active Duty allegiance to take something, it is specifically and only to TAKE IT. In other words, you have to be on active duty to receive Seabee training, at any time thereafter you can go on reserve status.

So I gathered. However, this does match the usage for the other classes. By the reasoning you gave above receiving ANY training requires Active Duty allegiance as you will be on active duty during your initial training cycle through the schools.

My research indicated otherwise. And it was an official marine site that named that as slang. Go figure

You may want to doublecheck. FN Minimi is the actual name of the weapon, M249 is the type classification applied when it entered US service.

This is a mistake- and the lack of "A2" at the end of the designation seems to be HUGE, MAJOR, LARGE, and KEY, according to the VAST AMOUNT of mail I have received on this topic.
You may sleep soundly knowing that "A2" will in fact appear in the new edition of the book which I have spent all weekend working on.

The reason people make a fuss is that these variants can be quite different from each other, as I have noted. You may not see much value in being specific but it does make real-world difference.

What I meant to say was that the TOW was an earlier anti-armor weapon than the Hellfire, which was my impression.

As you don't give designations that statement means little. For example, the BGM-71A TOW (1970) is quite different from the later BGM-71D TOW 2 (1983). The BGM-71D appeared after the AGM-114A Hellfire (1981), but the Interim Hellfire (AGM-114F) entered service in 1990 and the latest AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire entered operational capability in 1998. These are all very different weapon systems with some pretty drastic differences in capabilities (especially the Longbow Hellfire vs. Hellfire and Hellfire II).

B&G has some interesting parts I will borrow for my own games, but the lack of research and attention to detail is quite unfortunate.

 

[aurance]

Dear lord, this is not a military strategy simulation, it's a role-playing game. Even given its definate special ops focus Blood & Guts is just a storytelling tool with some very necessary generalizations. I have no problem with a number of oversights that just plain aren't important when running a d20 modern game. I don't believe *anyone* will regard Blood & Guts as some kind of be-all and end-all of military special ops information.

Tzeentch, I can't imagine the kind of fun that ensues after you've watched any kind of popular movie involving the military.

Blood & Guts is just fine for what it is. I honestly don't care one bit what all the different models of TOW can do. I don't think most other users of this book do either, except a select few who would be better off creating their own versions of this book.

-A

 

[Tzeentch]

I have no problem with a number of oversights that just plain aren't important when running a d20 modern game.

Not important to your d20 Modern game you mean. Or did you have something to actually add to the discussion?

Tzeentch, I can't imagine the kind of fun that ensues after you've watched any kind of popular movie involving the military.

As I said in my original post, I usually don't bother or care about such matters. It would be helpful if you didn't jump to conclusions so quickly.

 

[aurance]

Not important to your d20 Modern game you mean.

Yes, my game, and probably most other people who would use this supplement I suspect. I'm mostly basing this on other feedback to Vigilance's works. But anyone's welcome to prove me wrong.

Or did you have something to actually add to the discussion?

I thought I just did.

As I said in my original post, I usually don't bother or care about such matters.

So why now? You pointed some things out, and the author gave a perfectly reasoned reply according to his own research, and yet you still decried it as having "lack of research and attention to detail." According to a reasonable standard set forth by d20 modern and other rule books for that game, I find that Blood and Guts compares very well in terms of the amount of detail that goes into it.

-A