Psychology of Combat, a little off topic

[Jaif]

Let's ignore the people who died with their fingers on the triggers but were to scared to fire.  It happens, but it wouldn't really be fun gaming.

A major problem for me is how quickly everyone makes decisions in a very fast and chaotic situation.  If you, as a player, are sitting there taking a minute to decide wether to attack the orc on the right or go over and aid the cleric, how long is it taking your character to make that decision?  Granted there's translation time from the GM's description and your statement of action, but TRoS is second by second.  That's great when the person is in front of me; humans can and will make sub-second decisions (and if you don't believe that, watch olympic fencing).

But now complicate things with uneven terrain (say a room with a table and chairs), multiple combatants, and a lot of noise.  How quickly can you decide where to go and what to do?  What if you want to retreat, but your friends have decided to fight? How long does it take you to mentally process all of this?

It's not just a matter of fear, it's again a highly-charged situation with many variables that can make things difficult.

-Jeff

P.S. ...and I think what I ended up with in my games is that switching to a new target took a tactics roll or something like that (been awhile since I played).  If not, you hesitated a second.

[Valthalion]

As a player I like to take my time and decide what is the best course of action often taking minutes to decide my characters next second's fate.  It is completley different to be given a short time to act.

Training makes actions into reflex.  Reflex can become almost involuntary.

I remember situations where I acted in reflex and got to the end and thought wow I can't believe I did that.  I think that that is the most vauable part of training.

As a Seneschal I like to pressure my players.  He who hestiates is lost.  I especially like the surprise rules in TROS.  

Valthalion

P.S. Re red coats, apparantely the Swiss (on Napoleons side) wore red coats and were frequently shot at by their own side.  (Actually that could be a wargamers myth but its a good story)

[Turin]

Thinking about it, applying some of the psychology of combat to npc's in TROS can gice PC's a bit more survival skill against larger groups of NPC's.  The mechanics would have to be worked out, but firing into the air in modern combat might be the equivalent of backing off, fighting almost purely defensively, and not seeking to be an agressor unless an "open shot" occurs.  90% of opponents doing this would be too high IMO, and the better quality troops would obviously do better at this than your militia type.

But a good may to allow a PC to extricate themself from what looked like almost a sure death, and somewhat realistic to boot.

[Drifter Bob]

I don't know how this could be integrated into TROS but my experiences have led me to believe that people react very differently to emergencies and life and death situations.  When there is a car wreck, or a fire, or if someone is crticially ill or seriously injured, especially when it happens suddenly or unexpectedly, you see a variety of reactions.  A small numebr of people will act very effectively and efficiently.  A few more people will act rationally, but in slow motion or in sort of a dream - like state, with a lot of hesitation.  They can take orders, usually.  Many people will not be able to do anything, and will sit there or sort of waver around as if helpless.  In cases of serious injuries, many people get nauseous and throw up just from the sight of it, and a few will actually go into life threatening shock just from seeing another person seriously injured.

When you add direct threat into the mix, i.e. when you are walking down the street and someone suddenly comes at you with a knife or a gun, whether in a robbery or just some brawl, or even if you are just suddenly facing having to get into a fight against serious people who pose a genuine threat, the percentage of those who behave rationally goes down, the percentage of people who don't know what to do goes up.

I was a medic in the army for 3 years and an EMT for 5 years, not to mention a lot of time getting in a lot of scrapes as a young punk in New Orleans.  I've seen a lot of these situations, over and over again.  I think that the factor of  "morale" of some sort is a key part of how people react to calamaty or horror, or to a fight.  It is what separates a real fighter or warrior from an ordinary person.

Of course, in a period like the renaissance, many more people might be more inured to violence, catastrophy and death since there was so much more if it going around.

DB

[Andrew Mure]

I think rather than any hard and fast rules for group psychology some guidelines for seneschals on how to quickly model how individual grunts in any group might react is what is desired. Naturally I feel the psychology of major npcs is better reflected by SAs.

I personally do this by quickly prioritising what are the prime motivations for each minor npc from the three below.

themselves
the group
the cause - anything else such as furthering a cause or strong emotions.

I would then rate them in order of importance to the npc as I saw the character type 1 being most important and 3 being the least. For example I would rate your average trained soldier as

The Group 1
Themselves 2
The cause 3

This is because the soldiers tend to be trained as team players, take risks with themselves but usually calculated ones and are discliplined against letting their emotion get in the way of their judgement under fire. It would sensible to assume that the majority of a reasonably well trained squad are the above of course it is more realistic and fun to include a few wildcards. So lets say the pcs get into a fight with 6 geluroise men-at-arms 4 of which are the above profile. The group however also includes.

'Private Yellow' - the rational coward.

Themselves 1
The group 2
The cause 3

This guy is mostly interested in his own self-preservation, but not to the point of losing control. He shirks from combat rather than fleeing straight away from it, sensibly hanging back while other 'hot-headed fools' charge in. Will full evade if attacked by odds of 1 to 1 or better. He may eventually engage himself if he believes his involvement could tip the balance, but don't count on it...

'Private Red' - the physcopath

Cause 1
Group 2
Themselves 3

Always throws red and devotes more dice to attack than defense. Acts mostly on gut instinct and is overly aggressive. Likely to sacrifice themselves for their mates should the fight go badly.

[Irmo]

I don't quite see someone putting top priority on the cause as a pychopathic killer. It depends what the cause is. I think it is quite a common problem that the group is put above the cause in some modern conflicts. Given Clausewitz's "War is the continuation of politics with other means", the primacy in war is on the political cause, the political ends one wants to achieve. Group spirit tends to get into the way of that when the group is put above that political ends. Example: A liberator is only seen as such when indeed he is perceived as acting on behalf of the local population. That would require cherishing their lives as much as one's own, which would recquire subordinating the group's survival to the cause as soldiers go out of their way to preserve the lives of the locals. Likewise, someone with a strong group identification might deem it a question of honor to eradicate a previously attacking enemy to the last man, independently of surrenders or disablements. Thus the cause, and the rules of engagement it presents, are subordinated to restoring the "tarnished honor of the group".

[Andrew Mure]

Interesting.

What I was trying to use 'cause' to represent was how much the individual would react to stimulants outside of those affecting personal or group survival. In short it's anything that might how someone acts in field regardless of the rational factors of personal or group risk. I meant an individual with 'cause' as best priority to be emotionally volitile, this best represents someone who basically lets their base instincts take over in a combat situation and could equally cover both people who flee in blind panic and those who attack in a berserk rage. To a lesser extent it might briefly reflect individuals motivated by hatred and propaganda. In retrospect I agree that in some cases it could need a exact definition.  

Anyway I admit I wasn't entirely happy with the name and description when I wrote it first and I am sure there is another name that would better cover this very broad catergory. Just someone else will probably come up with it.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Drifter Bob]

I think this is an intresting approach.  Not perfect, but very interesting.  Thanks for posting it.

DB