Jump to content

How to simulate a Master Tactican


Black Ops

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure that the system itself can provide tactical mastery through character stats. I mean, sure, bonuses to CV are always helpful in hitting your target, but I would argue that 99% of what makes a character like Capt. America so nearly unbeatable is the fact that he knows who to hit, when (including when not to), and under what conditions. Tactics are more than hitting and being missed; they involve broader situational understanding which really functions at the decision-making level of the player.

 

In my view, the proper way to handle a Tactics skill is that when a character succeeds with the Skill Roll, someone in the group (maybe even the GM) who has a strong grasp of combat tactics gives them hints as to what to do with their Phase and what to tell everyone else to do with their Phases so as to maximize the "tactical situation" at that moment. I just don't think Tactical Mastery can be "simulated" except in a purely metagaming sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're looking at that broader definition of tactical mastery, as zslane suggested, I would look at some very odd builds for this. The purpose is to give the player more access to information to make their combat decisions, right? So you'd start using sensory powers that give the player access to information that normally players or characters don't have. Probably for a good reason. Things like a discriminatory detect for STUN and END so  you'd know which enemies were hurt, how much, and how close they are to knockout. Or a discriminatory detect for defense powers, or something else that would be only questionably permissible and certainly munchkinlicious. Alternately, a IPE Mind Control to have enemies maneuver themselves in disadvantageous ways, similar to the way that certain versions of D&D had warlords that could shift the enemy's position. 

 

I'd really look at things like Find Weakness, Danger Sense, Combat Sense, CSLs, Fast Draw, Combat Luck. 

 

But the most effective way to turn a given character into a master of combat tactics is to keep a cheat sheet of combat maneuvers so you can see the options and modifiers at a glance at all times, with a note at the top to hold  your action if at all possible. There is no substitute for using the right combat maneuver at the right time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an odd concept to try to simulate in the first place. I mean, having masterful tactical insight has nothing to do with obtaining information, and everything to do with using the information you have to make the best possible decision. Capt. America will still beat your plan of attack even if he doesn't know what your powers are. He will out-think you and out-maneuver you move for move, even if he never sees your dossier beforehand.

 

Tactical insight can help anticipate what the enemy will do, but in a game like Champions, having the GM reveal a villain's next move (before it happens) assumes that the GM will have a particular move in mind before that villain's Phase comes up, which is not a very safe assumption at all. And executing good tactics can channel enemies in a particular direction, but doesn't necessarily guarantee they will go where you expect (they might even do something more disastrous--for themselves--than you thought they would).

 

Mostly, Tactical Mastery, as a concept, is only meaningful when it helps a team fight optimally in any given situation. That means figuring out what each member of the team should do on their Phase, and against whom. It means mastering the Speed Chart, the END usage of each team member (and/or their Charges), understanding what their attacks and defenses are, what CSLs they have available, etc. Basically it means learning to play the game like an experienced wargamer would, and that's just not something that I think can be simulated through DRMs or peeks at the villains' character sheets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combat skill levels usable by others, so he can give his allies better OCV and DCV based on the tactical situation.  

Danger Sense; he can tell an ambush zone and react to it.  

Clairsentience Precognition to see how the battle may go in the future (stuff like "at this point, reinforcements show up, they try to flee in that vehicle, etc). 

Telepathy only for battle plans and schemes, he's just so good he can tell what they're likely to attempt or their goals are

Aid defenses to friends because he's around; he knows when to duck and where the shot will come from

 

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't simulate it, because it's about making the right decisions in a chaotic environment.

 

Precisely.

 

That means everyone is offering suggestions for simulating something other than Tactical Mastery. Does that still help the OP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

I think the simplest way to model the effect is as a massive Mind Control on the opponents, where the command is "Do something completely random on your Phases." That way the players look like geniuses even if they couldn't coordinate themselves out of a paper bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you need to do is come up with builds that make the character seem like they are anticipating and properly reacting to the opponents and their actions, not actually forecast every move and be a tactical genius.  We don't expect characters who are built with 50 Intelligence to therefore actually be that smart, only to have abilities that simulate that intelligence in a game environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

I think the simplest way to model the effect is as a massive Mind Control on the opponents, where the command is "Do something completely random on your Phases." That way the players look like geniuses even if they couldn't coordinate themselves out of a paper bag.

I think that it's a dirty secret of GMing that your average GM is not unaware of this approach to getting their players out of paper bags. It's certainly an open secret of the tabletop RPG kibitzing community, although the question of intent arises. 

 

There's considerable precedent for whatchacall your "controller" as a model of the master tactician. Didn't they do that in D&D 4th Edition? I probably shouldn't ask, considering that no-one ever played it, but I gather from the Order of the Stick spoof that that was what the "Warlord" was all about. 

 

Now, it's not a very satisfactory solution (cf. "D&D 4th Edition, Jokes About No-One Ever Playing It"), but it is a solution, and Combat Skill Levels, Usable By Others is a much more graspable mechanic than an area-wide Int Drain or such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess.

 

It just seems like taking "design for effect" to a weird, inverted place. In order to simulate smart play with players who aren't so smart (tactically speaking), we make the opponents (artificially) dumber instead.

 

But there probably aren't many better solutions. Even giving PCs bonus CSLs or DEX Aids or whatever isn't much help if the players don't know how to make optimal use of those resources--which is sort of the problem in the first place. I mean, it doesn't do any good to give a PC +3 OCV if all he does is hit the tactically insignificant target that just happens to be closest to him, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof of a master tactician is whether they win or not. If beating up a dozen henchmen ends in victory, the tactic was brilliant. If a vertical pincer maneuver with half-envelopment ends in victory, the tactic was brilliant. We've got a mechanistic view of what is a narrative function: what the combat looks like in the mind's eye is never truly equated to what is going on with the dice rolls and character sheets. If Captain America knows that his opponent is going to flinch left to regain his footing and will be well set up for a ringing right-side roundhouse, it's because Cap is just that dang good. But in the RPG, we simulate that with CSLs. If a character's skills and talents that they use to win the fight are defined under the special effect of tactical mastery, that's what they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, Champions combat is a wargame. The moment you break out the Speed Chart and enter into Phases, you've begun playing a wargme, and the definition of "tactics" exits the narrative layer and falls exclusively into the realm of in-combat player decisions. The opportunity to resolve combat narratively has passed, and with it the ability to apply a skill like "Tactics Master" at the narrative level. Players can no longer just make a skill roll or activate a power and say, "My character does something tactically brilliant," they must actually do something tactically brilliant "over the board" themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since this is the Hero System, you reason from effect to power.  What does this do?  It simulates someone who's superpower is to be as great with tactics as Mr Fantastic is with science.

 

So you buy him powers that simulate being great with tactics, and the special effect is "he's great at tactics"

That basic concept and system fundamental doesn't stop being true because we're talking about tactics.  Its true for every power build, no matter how zany or irrational it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadowrun used to have a Perk called "Common Sense" best used for newbies, wherein if the player had misgivings about a plan or a line of thought they could ask the GM "Does this make sense?".

It seems that dropping in a power or skill slot of some number of points to be decided between the player and GM could be used to much the same effect. When the character comes up with a plan of attack first the Player rolls Tactics to see if there are any obvious Flaws, and then rolls Master Tactician and the GM more or less runs a detect weakness on the plan. Letting the player know whether or not it seems reasonable that the Villian would be fooled.

It would take a lot of trust between Player & GM but if the GM hates the idea from the start, the Power/Skill will never work right anyway no matter how many points you put into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadowrun used to have a Perk called "Common Sense" best used for newbies, wherein if the player had misgivings about a plan or a line of thought they could ask the GM "Does this make sense?".

 

 

I usually do that with an intelligence roll.  Sometimes its kind of a subtle bonk to the head.

 

"I run into the blazing fire to get a coal!"

"Wearing your gasoline soaked outfit carrying thermite in your pockets?"

"Yeah!"

"... make an Intelligence roll"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually do that with an intelligence roll.  Sometimes its kind of a subtle bonk to the head.

 

"I run into the blazing fire to get a coal!"

"Wearing your gasoline soaked outfit carrying thermite in your pockets?"

"Yeah!"

"... make an Intelligence roll"

 

It was mainly for players who weren't familiar with the genre and didn't know basic things that the character would about tech or other races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...