The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Tactics Skill
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Tactics Skill Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11522
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:

The simplest way to help tactics is to allow for it to provide a bonus to the command skill (perhaps by stacking the dice to expand the size of the force that the commander can command... which makes sense when you have one dude in command of 30+ guys, but "only" a command skill of 10D; or, you could scale it: the higher the difficulty threshold crossed, the higher the echelon of command, so at first, 1 guy per D can be commanded, and at higher levels, 10 or 20 guys per D can be commanded), or to allow it to improve the combined actions bonus based on the tactics skill or a tactics roll.


Now that is a nice option..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forgive my lack of quotes in the response. When posting on my phone, it is very difficult to interact with the forum, so I have to just post without quoting.

With regard to Bren's assessment of tactics in real life, frankly, it IS an "I win" button, provided that the mission is executed with a low threshold fo mistakes (successful skill rolls). My comment about spec ops having a high survivap rate was basically geard toward the US military: the army Rangers are an example: by 2009, they jad lost a total of 8 men since 2001. When you consider that they have about the highest possible operational tempo, you see that their survival rate is disproportionately high. Add to that the fact they take on MORE dangerous missions (and on as frequent a basis as humanly possible) you'll see what I mean.


Superior tactics always wins barring any one or combination of the following: a (plot) twist/turn of events; a fumble/critical failure at a critical time (human fallibility); a lucky success at a critical time by the enemy. In other words, when expressed in gameplay, the randomness of the dice can STILL allow for the underdog to win. Also, incomplete intel influencing the initial tactics could reult in the superior tactician executing a plan doomed for failure. Bu if intel is correct/complete, and each soldier does his part, the tactical advantage yields victory. Otherwise, its not a tactical advantage.


Remember, if the resources are inadequate to carry out the plan (like a bunch of admin clerks launching an assault on a special forces compound), then the plan is almost certainly doomed to fail because the skill rolls are not sufficient to carry it out.

Also, I hope I didn't come across as having THE solution, but rather a (albeit raw) solution. I agree that if at least the GM understands tactics, that the RAW skill can be applied nicely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10553
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Naaman wrote:

The simplest way to help tactics is to allow for it to provide a bonus to the command skill (perhaps by stacking the dice to expand the size of the force that the commander can command... which makes sense when you have one dude in command of 30+ guys, but "only" a command skill of 10D; or, you could scale it: the higher the difficulty threshold crossed, the higher the echelon of command, so at first, 1 guy per D can be commanded, and at higher levels, 10 or 20 guys per D can be commanded), or to allow it to improve the combined actions bonus based on the tactics skill or a tactics roll.


Now that is a nice option..

I'd prefer to keep the skill portfolios separate and rework these ideas into the Command skill. Tactics should be about knowing the right course of action, whereas Command should be about properly coordinating a group of beings to implement that course of action in combat. Any house rules addressing command hierarchies and the relaying of orders should, IMO, be built into Command.

My thinking has long been to allow Knowledge skills to be rolled to generate a bonus to Action skills. Basically, roll Tactics against whatever the Difficulty is, then for every three points of success, add 1 to the Command roll. I'm partial to the 3/1 ratio, but haven't really had a chance to test it out in a game.
_________________
"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.
dunderhead marajain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not married to the idea of mashing the skills together. But there is a strong (in my opinion, insurmountable) case for knowledge or tech skills to be a prerequisite to the use of the command skill.

If the leader does not have knowledge of the task, he cannot improve the effectiveness of his followers' cooperation. He may be able to motivate others (persuasion: oration), but that would not "combine" their actions. Later on I'll see if I can dig up my post on this subject from a few years back (something about changing a tire).


EDIT:
Ah, here it is:
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=123758&highlight=change+tire#123758

That is a link to the post in context.


Last edited by Naaman on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10553
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I'm not married to the idea of mashing the skills together. But there is a strong (in my opinion, insurmountable) case for knowledge or tech skills to be a prerequisite to the use of the command skill.

If the leader does not have knowledge of the task, he cannot improve the effectiveness of his followers' cooperation. He may be able to motivate others (persuasion: oration), but that would not "combine" their actions. Later on I'll see if I can dig up my post on this subject from a few years back (something about changing a tire).

Yes there is a place for people who have the innate talent of organizing and coordinating others.

Based on what you're saying, I'd suggest:
    1). Making the Command Difficulties for large tasks very high, representing the challenges faced by someone who has a high Command skill but little practical knowledge of the task at hand...

    2). A shallow bonus slope for the associated Knowledge/Technical skill, maybe a 1/1 ratio, so a good roll drastically effects the Command roll, thus overcoming the high Difficulty.

_________________
"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.
dunderhead marajain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11522
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the past, i have on RARE occasion made it a very high diff for the command to coordinate troops when NO one rolled Tactics/survival (to know how to use the terrain they had)...
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I put a link to the previous discussion in my previous post, above. Here is the relevant snippet:

Quote:
As for combining non-combat actions... that isn't really the focus of this thread, but, a person who is an expert at the task he is coordinating can more effectively distribute his assets than someone who is just "managing personnel." For example, consider a group of people performing a tire change. Let's assume that no-one, not even the "leader" has done this before.

The leader wouldn't know to tell his followers that they should loosen the bolts on the wheel before they jack the car up. He also won't know that he should use a jack-stand if available. Heck, he wouldn't even know where to tell his team to place the jack (for example, they might wind up punching the jack right through the floor board). Sure, he might have the sense to say something like, "you two work the jack, and you two get that that tire off, while the rest of you bring the spare." But that's not enough to actually get the job done right (much less grant a bonus).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:

Yes there is a place for people who have the innate talent of organizing and coordinating others.

Based on what you're saying, I'd suggest:
    1). Making the Command Difficulties for large tasks very high, representing the challenges faced by someone who has a high Command skill but little practical knowledge of the task at hand...

    2). A shallow bonus slope for the associated Knowledge/Technical skill, maybe a 1/1 ratio, so a good roll drastically effects the Command roll, thus overcoming the high Difficulty.


I would swap "large" with "complex" or "technical" or "specialized." Furthermore, when the command roll is meant to augment opposed skills (such as blaster or starship gunnery) then it's necessary that the commander have some understanding of the capabilities of his assets lest he make the mistake of committing the wrong kinds of firepower to the wrong kinds of targets, or exposing assets to particularly effective firepower for not knowing the limitations of those assets in the given context.

Depending on how you define "large" (by RAW, it would take a commander with 20D or more to coordinate the following), here is a real world experience that defies the difficulty scale given for command in RAW.

When I was in the army on deployment, I was at the air base heading home for R&R leave. There were some 30 to 40 of us all getting on the same flight, but none of us were from the same unit. No-one knew each other. However, we had to get all of our luggage from the tent into the truck to be driven to the airfield. Without discussion, we all just formed an assembly line and loaded up the rucks/duffels onto the truck. Took 5 minutes, maybe less. This task is "simple" but "large" (by D6 command skill standards) Does that make sense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
With regard to Bren's assessment of tactics in real life, frankly, it IS an "I win" button, provided that the mission is executed with a low threshold fo mistakes (successful skill rolls)
I don't know, maybe we are just talking past each other here. It seems like you are saying that the only thing that matters to determine victory in war is better tactics and not making too many mistakes. That seems way too reductionist and it ignores the other key factors* that throughout history have matter in determining victory. Treating tactics as the sole determinant of success in combat also sounds like a boring way to play an RPG where combat features and characters have a "tactics" skill.

At this point I think we should just agree to disagree.


* Other key factors in victory include: morale, weapons and armor, training, combat skill and experience, numbers, position, and really important in these abstract discussions - the objective. If you make the objective sufficiently limited you can set up the situation so better tactics will allow you to achieve your very limited objective, but in this case your objective may be something really narrow like "don't die today," "retreat with a at least a core portion of your forces intact so you can rebuild another day," or "make the other side expend more resources today than your side does."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the difference lies in our understanding of what "tactics" is. Going by RAW, I can only interpret it as a conditional "win" button, because I literally cannot comprehend a GM saying that the roll was successful, and then still allowing the players to fail the mission despite successful execution.

But, perhaps clarity can be achieved if you gave an example of how a successful RAW tactics roll would manifest in a game you are GMing?

For what its worth, all of the key factors you list are factors that I assume will be subsumed into either the tactics difficulty, the roll itself, or will manifest as the skills necessary to implement the plan, or as modifiers to those skills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I think the difference lies in our understanding of what "tactics" is. Going by RAW, I can only interpret it as a conditional "win" button, because I literally cannot comprehend a GM saying that the roll was successful, and then still allowing the players to fail the mission despite successful execution.
It's unclear to me what you think the "thing" is that is being executed. To my mind the tactical plan is the thing that one side is trying to execute.

I can easily comprehend a tactically sound plan failing. The aphorism no plan survives contact with the enemy applies here. The person creating the plan and choosing the tactics (whether we consider that person to be the player, their PC, or some combination of the two) does not have perfect information. The tactics they choose is based on what they know at the time (more strictly what they think they know and what they surmise) and that information is limited and imperfect. So any plan they create must necessarily be imperfect. Regardless of the actual execution since the plan is imperfect, success cannot be guaranteed.

Quote:
But, perhaps clarity can be achieved if you gave an example of how a successful RAW tactics roll would manifest in a game you are GMing?
I’m skeptical that will be the case. I don’t have a single method and I haven't seen tactics used recently. From my recollection of the past I've used and seen tactics used to do a number of things depending on the situation.

    1. If the player is more tactically skilled* than their PC, a Tactics roll may be used to determine whether the PC is able to conceive of the plan the player(s) came up with. Here Tactics acts as a enabler of player skill or a limit on player skill that exceeds their PC's skill. If the PC has a good or very good Tactics skill this would preempt the requirement for a roll, but it might instead move us to case 2. below.

    2. The GM may outline a plan or suggest improvements to a player's plan based on a good Tactics roll for the character in charge. This is most likely to be used if the player's skill in tactics seems lower than the skill of their PC.

    3. Opposed Tactics rolls can be used as a proxy in a battle featuring multiple NPCs to figure out which side wins. Usage here is similar to the way the Battle skill works in Pendragon.

    4. Opposed Tactics rolls can grant a benefit to the winning side. The benefit may be surprise, an ambush, or gaining a tactically advantageous position for the battle. It might be a defined benefit like allowing a squadron of starfighters to coordinate their launch so all their torpedoes or missiles hit the same target, in the same location, at the same time to overwhelm the target's defense or to extend the range of all the missiles by using the missile lock of a lead pilot. The benefit might be a predefined adjustment to the outcome of the battle, especially the number of NPC casualties on either or both sides.

    5. Based on the Tactics roll or opposed rolls success gives a modifier to that side's actions based on the Modifier Guidelines on page 77 of the SWR&E rules.
    Quote:
    Modifier Guidelines
    +1-5 Character has only a slight advantage.
    +6-10 Character has a good advantage.
    +11-15 Character has a decisive advantage.
    +16+ Character has an overpowering advantage.


Quote:
For what its worth, all of the key factors you list are factors that I assume will be subsumed into either the tactics difficulty, the roll itself, or will manifest as the skills necessary to implement the plan, or as modifiers to those skills.
I don't see how you intend Tactics to work in actual play. Did you provide an actual example already? If you did, I'm sorry but I missed it.

If you subsume all the factors into the difficulty for the tactics roll then you are making tactics into something similar to skills or abilities in some other games e.g. Military Ability in Chivalry & Sorcery and En Garde and the Battle skill in Pendragon and some versions of Runequest. Usually those systems don't use a single 'tactics' roll. Instead they either use opposed skill rolls or they use the difference between the abilities of the respective leaders. And even then a single roll (or opposed roll) is only used to decide skirmishes or other small scale actions. More involved combats (whatever that means in context) use multiple battle rounds and multiple skill rolls.


* A similar situation can occur if the player gets good advice from other tactically skilled people at the table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11522
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I think the difference lies in our understanding of what "tactics" is. Going by RAW, I can only interpret it as a conditional "win" button, because I literally cannot comprehend a GM saying that the roll was successful, and then still allowing the players to fail the mission despite successful execution..


You do know the phrase "No plan survives the first encounter with the enemy" don't you. You can plan the best tactic there is, but there will always be things you couldn't plan for, that bork things up. SO even with a great tactics roll, you may still fail.
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to say that I appreciate the discussion. More to follow later on, but for now,if we are doing the quote thing, here is one from The Art of War:

"If I know myself and I know my enemy, I need never fear defeat, even in 100 battles."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2097

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:


It's unclear to me what you think the "thing" is that is being executed. To my mind the tactical plan is the thing that one side is trying to execute.


I see. This is what I was trying to uncover. I've found that when two people disagree, if misunderstanding is a contributing factor, finding the point at which they both agree, and then analyzing the point of divergence is a reliable way to gain understanding.

Quote:
I can easily comprehend a tactically sound plan failing. The aphorism no plan survives contact with the enemy applies here. The person creating the plan and choosing the tactics (whether we consider that person to be the player, their PC, or some combination of the two) does not have perfect information. The tactics they choose is based on what they know at the time (more strictly what they think they know and what they surmise) and that information is limited and imperfect. So any plan they create must necessarily be imperfect. Regardless of the actual execution since the plan is imperfect, success cannot be guaranteed.


Here is where we begin to diverge. I regard tactics as a skill that is constantly (passively, or perhaps reactively) in use. The initial tactics roll may involve the original battle plan, but it also (IMO) represents the tactical or strategic agility of the tactician: his ability to adapt on the move, so to speak, to changing conditions. Regardless of losses sustained during the battle, the tactician remains aware of his objective(s) and has already conceived (or has trained on) methods for continuing the fight even with a reduction in power. In other words, the initial plan will account for the probability of losses: the tactician will say to the commander: "If you want this done, it will require x at a minimum," with that minimum factoring in a "buffer" for anticipated losses. The tactics roll itself would reveal whether the tactician has the foresight to account for losses and how to handle them even in the midst of being shot at.

Furthermore, a tactician will also account for what he doesn't know. The quality and reliability of intelligence will affect his risk analysis. Whether an objective is worth pursuing will be based on a risk/reward analysis which factors in available resources. A good tactician knows when not to fight, or when to hit and run, etc.

Quote:
I’m skeptical that will be the case. I don’t have a single method and I haven't seen tactics used recently. From my recollection of the past I've used and seen tactics used to do a number of things depending on the situation.


I once heard that skepticism is a sign of open mindedness, so I'm going to go ahead and interpret this as such. Wink

Quote:
    1. If the player is more tactically skilled* than their PC, a Tactics roll may be used to determine whether the PC is able to conceive of the plan the player(s) came up with. Here Tactics acts as a enabler of player skill or a limit on player skill that exceeds their PC's skill. If the PC has a good or very good Tactics skill this would preempt the requirement for a roll, but it might instead move us to case 2. below.


This relies on the GM knowing what a PC would know that a player doesn't. If a GM knows nothing of tactics (other than what any person could reasonably conceive of), then how does he decide if the player's plan is too elaborate or intricate for the character? This, of course, could just fall under GM purview, but at some point, it could get frustrating having to make a tactics roll for something that a player (who may be naturally resourceful, if not tactically proficient) sees as mere common sense.

To give a parallel example, I once had a GM who made me roll climbing/jumping every time I wanted to get into my X-wing... Rolling Eyes

Quote:
2. The GM may outline a plan or suggest improvements to a player's plan based on a good Tactics roll for the character in charge. This is most likely to be used if the player's skill in tactics seems lower than the skill of their PC.


This is where I tend to have compassion on the GM. I don't want the GM to have to create a tactical plan. I'd rather he just say, "roll tactics," and then allow the player to describe the plan. The plan may suck (especially because the GM likely knows more about the target then the players do), but he can assign a bonus to attack rolls (or initiative or whatever) to represent a well conceived plan that works until it doesn't. This would fall perfectly in line with your interpretation of tactics not being the end all be all.

Quote:
3. Opposed Tactics rolls can be used as a proxy in a battle featuring multiple NPCs to figure out which side wins. Usage here is similar to the way the Battle skill works in Pendragon.


Sure. This makes sense. I think as written, it only makes sense to use it this way for PCs as well (pending successful execution, of course).

Quote:
4. Opposed Tactics rolls can grant a benefit to the winning side. The benefit may be surprise, an ambush, or gaining a tactically advantageous position for the battle. It might be a defined benefit like allowing a squadron of starfighters to coordinate their launch so all their torpedoes or missiles hit the same target, in the same location, at the same time to overwhelm the target's defense or to extend the range of all the missiles by using the missile lock of a lead pilot. The benefit might be a predefined adjustment to the outcome of the battle, especially the number of NPC casualties on either or both sides.


I can see using tactics to "grant" such an advantage, however, those things do not require a tactician. Any knucklehead knows that the element of surprise (for example) should be taken when at all possible, and will at least attempt to initiate contact by ambush, rather then announce with a trumpet blast that their attack is imminent.

The notion of a predefined adjustment sounds a lot like what I'm talking about. Couple that with the required number of successful skill rolls, and we have a "victory" (see below).

Now, the part in bold, it seems, should fall under the command skill (or are you in some way agreeing with me that the two skills should be necessarily linked when it comes to commanders influencing a battle?).

Quote:
5. Based on the Tactics roll or opposed rolls success gives a modifier to that side's actions based on the Modifier Guidelines on page 77 of the SWR&E rules.
Modifier Guidelines
+1-5 Character has only a slight advantage.
+6-10 Character has a good advantage.
+11-15 Character has a decisive advantage.
+16+ Character has an overpowering advantage.


Excellent point. I rather heartily agree on this (it echoes my earlier thoughts as a better/more consistent way to express tactical advantage).

Quote:
I don't see how you intend Tactics to work in actual play. Did you provide an actual example already? If you did, I'm sorry but I missed it.


I never quite committed to any one application of the skill. Rather, my point was to call out my perceived uselessness of the skill as written, since it's application (read: value) would depend on the savvy of players and/or GMs to actually conceive of tactical advantages. It would be especially weird, for example, if a player who has a "real life equivalent" of, say, 8D in tactics is playing a character with 6D in tactics, and the GM's "real life equivalent" is 2D. How would the GM "suggest improvements" to the tactical plan? Or else, how would he even come up with a counter tactic? Of course, this is why I advocate for the GM to fudge rolls for the story's sake: sometimes, you just need that BBEG to make his dodge roll (or, at least survive being hit) despite him being outsmarted prematurely by the PCs.

Quote:
If you subsume all the factors into the difficulty for the tactics roll then you are making tactics into something similar to skills or abilities in some other games e.g. Military Ability in Chivalry & Sorcery and En Garde and the Battle skill in Pendragon and some versions of Runequest. Usually those systems don't use a single 'tactics' roll. Instead they either use opposed skill rolls or they use the difference between the abilities of the respective leaders. And even then a single roll (or opposed roll) is only used to decide skirmishes or other small scale actions. More involved combats (whatever that means in context) use multiple battle rounds and multiple skill rolls.


In case this didn't already come out in the wash, above, I'll say that this is somewhat of an oversimplification. My interpretation of the as-written skill still requires successful execution rolls. The enemy spending CPs or FPs can really ruin the PCs day, for example. Also, if the enemy has "surprises" that the PCs are not aware of (so did not factor into their plan), this can also swing things in the other direction.

As for what I meant by "victory," above, what I really mean is successful accomplishment of the mission/objective. If that is hit and run, engage and destroy, gather intel, paint a target or whatever, the tactician assesses the requirements to achieve the objective successfully. That may very well mean doing a specific amount of damage to a specific target (such as a communications array or taking out the main battle cannon or whatever), or it may mean utterly crushing the enemy taking no prisoners. Either way, the tactician accounts for the amount of resources required to achieve the objective. What the tactician cannot do (no matter whether he has 15D in tactics) is substitute his tactics skill dice for the troops' blaster and dodge skills. However, their "lowest common denominator" is factored into his tactical assessment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Here is where we begin to diverge. I regard tactics as a skill that is constantly (passively, or perhaps reactively) in use.
But in the game, at some point, someone has to roll the dice. What you describe here as passively or reactively using a skill over extended time sounds exactly like several other skills, e.g. starship piloting insofar as the pilot is in the chair. Yet we roll more than one time for this skill usage. Generally a new roll is called for when the situation changes significantly, e.g. terrain and/or modifier changes, you try to outfly another ship, you try to dodge, etc. It seems like either you are only rolling the skill once like you seemed to say earlier where a successful tactics roll more or less guarantees success or you are rolling when the situation changes significantly. Which it will sometimes do in actual combat.

Naaman wrote:
Furthermore, a tactician will also account for what he doesn't know. The quality and reliability of intelligence will affect his risk analysis. Whether an objective is worth pursuing will be based on a risk/reward analysis which factors in available resources. A good tactician knows when not to fight, or when to hit and run, etc.
This seems to be a major point of disagreement between us. You can’t account for what you really don’t know. Sun-Tzu's assertion on not losing 100 battles depends on the commander already actually having the right intelligence. As Sun-Tzu says, you have to know your enemy. If you don't know that, you aren't going to win your 100 battles. And having the right intelligence is not a function of the tactics skill, but of a number of other skills and activities in the game e.g. sneak, investigate, search, communications, etc.

Naaman wrote:
This relies on the GM knowing what a PC would know that a player doesn't.
Yes. If that is not the case, then the GM should not try to do this. In practice I have found this is usually as clearcut as most other GM rulings.

Naaman wrote:
This is where I tend to have compassion on the GM. I don't want the GM to have to create a tactical plan. I'd rather he just say, "roll tactics," and then allow the player to describe the plan.
Then you shouldn’t do this. Personally I much prefer the player coming up with the basic plan and me adding anything that seems appropriate based on skill rolls, abilities, or what have you. But I think the GM outlining a plan is a reasonable expectation at times. Realistically if the GM is playing the NPCs on the player’s side at some point the GM is going to have to run Admiral Ackbar and come up with the outline of a plan for the players. So some GM outlining of plans is already occurring.

Quote:
Now, the part in bold, it seems, should fall under the command skill (or are you in some way agreeing with me that the two skills should be necessarily linked when it comes to commanders influencing a battle?).
I don’t think the skills need to be necessarily linked. I’m not unalterably opposed to the idea though. We have two skills and they seem different to me. And I think there is a good argument for the skills being different. Tactics seems like the cerebral, chess-like skill while Command seems like the ability (uncerebral really) to motivate and inspire. To get the best out of one’s people. Tactics would allow someone to figure out where to attack. But command is the skill that determines whether, when the commander says, “Charge!” anybody else is actually getting up and running forward.

Quote:
It would be especially weird, for example, if a player who has a "real life equivalent" of, say, 8D in tactics is playing a character with 6D in tactics, and the GM's "real life equivalent" is 2D. How would the GM "suggest improvements" to the tactical plan? Or else, how would he even come up with a counter tactic?
He or she couldn’t. Depending on the play style of the group the player might be able to help the GM. Though obviously that doesn’t work if the players and GM are supposed to be adversarial about the tactics the characters are using in game.

Quote:
Of course, this is why I advocate for the GM to fudge rolls for the story's sake: sometimes, you just need that BBEG to make his dodge roll (or, at least survive being hit) despite him being outsmarted prematurely by the PCs.
I’m really not a fan of GMs fudging rolls. If the BBEG (what does the EG stand for anyway?) get’s outsmarted prematurely that’s why the NPCs have FP and CPs to help them survive

Naaman, I’m seeing some of what you don’t like about what I’ve suggested and that’s helpful. But I don’t see how you would in actual practice use tactics nor how the GM would decide what skills are required for execution of the tactical plan nor how the difficulty of execution would be determined by the GM. So let me reiterate.
Bren wrote:
I don't see how you intend Tactics to work in actual play. Did you provide an actual example already? If you did, I'm sorry but I missed it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0