| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | I don't feel like the OP has a grasp on how the rule was intended to be played. |
Or perhaps he had enough of a grasp to decide he didn't like how much of a load it placed on the GM (to either become an expert on tactics in the SWU so as to provide good tactical advice to PCs on the result of a good Tactics roll, or to become adept at pulling random tactical-sounding noises out of his pudu-port) in addition to the GMs other duties. |
I don't agree that the skill puts too much of a burden on the GM or require him to be an expert on Tactics. The GM knowing the totality of the scenario, running all NPCs and everything in the universe outside of the PCs, is more than enough knowledge to use the Tactics skill in a game.
In addition, the GM doesn't have to provide tactical information upon the success of any particular Tactics skill roll just as using the Blaster skill and firing into the air doesn't return much--and just as rolling Knowledge when there's nothing special to learn will not yield positive results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree. I've never met a GM who understood every single detail of every scenario his characters could possibly face, especially when they go off-the-rails on him and leave him scrambling to answer a question he didn't prepare for. Pre-game prep can only cover so much, and Tactics as written needed a much better framework for establishing Base Difficulties, Modifiers and in-game results than the bare-bones method provided. If you think it's sufficient, you are entitled to your opinion, but plenty of people here feel otherwise.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | I don't think I was clear about my objection. Tactics has nothing to do with whether a character knows that asteroids usually have caves or that asteroids in this specific asteroid field have caves. |
I don't agree. |
OK. We won't all agree.
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | I don't agree that the skill puts too much of a burden on the GM or require him to be an expert on Tactics. |
OK. We won't all agree on this either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I disagree. I've never met a GM who understood every single detail of every scenario his characters could possibly face, especially when they go off-the-rails on him and leave him scrambling to answer a question he didn't prepare for. Pre-game prep can only cover so much, and Tactics as written needed a much better framework for establishing Base Difficulties, Modifiers and in-game results than the bare-bones method provided. |
I didn't say that it couldn't be presented in a better way. It probably could. But, as presented, I think the GM has enough control over the world to handle a simple successful Tactics roll.
| Quote: | | If you think it's sufficient, you are entitled to your opinion, but plenty of people here feel otherwise. |
LOL! There's only a few people in this conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14031
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: |
There ain't much to work with in space. The asteroids are close and obvious. It can be a tactical decision to hide among the asteroids.
I'd allow a Planetary Systems roll to discover the caves, too.
There's no reason why that should be mutually exclusive. |
Sure, tactics might say 'go into the asteroid belt to get away, but it won't tell you "HEY remember that obscure piece of info you heard about hollowed out tunnels in some asteroids, that might be a good spot"..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | LOL! There's only a few people in this conversation. |
The definition of “plenty” is “more than a sufficient amount or quantity.” Over the course of this conversation, at least half a dozen people have commented about problems with Tactics as written, or suggested their own fix.
That’s plenty.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: |
I think the roll should be made by the player. Like making a Perception roll--to find out what the character notices/sees. |
What would you do with a paranoid player who wants to make a tactics roll for *each* *and* *every* *round* ?
Logically, there would be no reason not to. Why not get extra advice from the GM every round, especially if you can take it or leave it? |
That's a very good point.
Allow me to answer that with a question, though.
What would you do with a paranoid player who wants to make a Perception roll for each and every room he walks into, and every round when his character walks down a path, looking for ambushes and stuff that catch his attention? |
I would allow him to do so. The difference is that I would generally be telling him "you detect nothing of interest". Because I already know if there is an ambush or stuff of importance or not.
I would not have to analyze the situation from a tactical advantage point of view and provide feedback or suggestions to where the character should stand in relation to his allies and where he should aim his weapon in case there IS an ambush, and what formation to advance in.
(which are significant in small unit tactics)
I'd rather provide a set bonus that provides for the character's situational skill without having to invent the details.
| Quote: |
Special Note: In my game, I use 1E Core Rulebook rules, and we don't have the Tactics skill. That skill is only in R&E.
So...it's not a headache for me. |
So, you CAN see how it could be a headache for others who might have to deal with it more often or regularly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, I can see how it's a headache for others. I understand the trepidation about the skill.
I also default to playing rules as intended in the game's rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: |
There ain't much to work with in space. The asteroids are close and obvious. It can be a tactical decision to hide among the asteroids.
I'd allow a Planetary Systems roll to discover the caves, too.
There's no reason why that should be mutually exclusive. |
Sure, tactics might say 'go into the asteroid belt to get away, but it won't tell you "HEY remember that obscure piece of info you heard about hollowed out tunnels in some asteroids, that might be a good spot".. |
As Bren says, we'll have to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14031
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: |
What would you do with a paranoid player who wants to make a tactics roll for *each* *and* *every* *round* ?
Logically, there would be no reason not to. Why not get extra advice from the GM every round, especially if you can take it or leave it? |
I'd do the same thing as i do as is.. They'd get the roll (me making it in secret), and i would tell them what they see/here IF its successful. BUT it would also make things go longer, AND eventually their PC might wind UP picking up the mental trait "Paranoia".
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And, you know, reading the skill description, it seems like the intended method is "Roll this to get some hints from the GM about what you can do." I'd be inclined, going from that, to say "How hard is this fight going to be, with force X facing force Y? If it will be Very Difficult for Force X, he'll need to come up with a Very Difficult roll to get useful information. If it will be Easy for Force Y, he'll only need to come up with an Easy roll to get an idea of what his opponent might try."
Tactics could also be useful in figuring out what the enemy is doing with the forces you can't see.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | And, you know, reading the skill description, it seems like the intended method is "Roll this to get some hints from the GM about what you can do." I'd be inclined, going from that, to say "How hard is this fight going to be, with force X facing force Y? |
Yeah, I can see that. And, the Tactics roll can just give the player options--information like--
--This area over here is prime for an ambush (the GM saying this whether he has an ambush planned or not).
Maybe no ambush is planned by the GM. The roll still revealed tactical info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14031
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Or like i've done.. Plan out the base and how they guard the entrances, inc the non-obvious ones.. And allow the pcs with a good enough tactics roll to see holes in the enemy's plan.. OR see that 'this non-protected way in is a set up'..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | And, you know, reading the skill description, it seems like the intended method is "Roll this to get some hints from the GM about what you can do." I'd be inclined, going from that, to say "How hard is this fight going to be, with force X facing force Y? If it will be Very Difficult for Force X, he'll need to come up with a Very Difficult roll to get useful information. If it will be Easy for Force Y, he'll only need to come up with an Easy roll to get an idea of what his opponent might try."
Tactics could also be useful in figuring out what the enemy is doing with the forces you can't see. |
Both sound like sensible interpretations to me. The first moves to a level of greater abstraction to avoid bogging down in a series of invented details. The second provides information that the players don't have. That the GM necessarily does have. And that the PCs might reasonably derive information about. It also easily covers what a complication on the wild die means. The GM tells the players that the enemy is doing something that they aren't doing. "Based on your assessment of the tactical situation you conclude that the enemies you can't see behind the building are most likely retreating and regrouping." <When in fact the GM already knows the enemies are doing something else like moving to the top of the building to get sniper positions from the windows and the roof.>
| Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: | | As Bren says, we'll have to disagree. |
First me, now garhkal, seem like you are being a bit disagreeable about tactics.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another thing to consider...
If a player continually makes Tactics rolls and becomes a liability to the game, or if the GM is blank on what information to provide the player on a successful roll, then make the task quite hard.
Unless the player gets really lucky, he'll fail the roll.
You wouldn't want to do this all the time. And, if I had a player who favors his Tactics skill and uses it a lot, I'd make a special effort to pre-think some encounters during my prep on ideas to give that player when we play that section in the future.
But, as GM, you're blank, maybe there is just no Tactical information to give. Make the Difficulty really high--that's the difficulty the GM is having coming up with a tactical idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
