Tactics Skill

[Doc Tough]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Doc sez...

 

The Tactics Skill is one of those mixed blessing facets of the game. I have always been one to let players think their way through combats and wouldn't really restrain creativity in play action, but also felt it was odd that the characters with no combat background being played by very tactically inclined players were not quite acting in character. Sigh. I wouldn't want to make players dumb down involuntarily, but had to compensate in other manners that they would grow to disapprove of. Sigh again.

 

I do like the skill. Like other skills it allows the real life skill challenged to have a chance to play differently and in ways they would likely have no experience with. The GM steps in, lets them roll the skill, and then provides info and insights.

Most of the suggestion made above are just fine.

 

Perhaps the oddest way I tried to compensate was to make Tactics a Talent. I think it went something like being both a quasi-stat and an Int based roll. The quasi-Stat part rated how many skill levels you could change to compensate in a given time to deal with changing combat situation while the roll acted like a combat analysis feat.

Of course, this was all thought up during the slow point in lecture hall.

 

Doc Tough

[BlackSword]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Ok. I have to ask. In response to your first sentence: Why not for Hero? All of your points seem to me to be equally as applicable to Hero as any other game (although I usually try to avoid massive scale combats in Hero).

They all are valid uses for Hero, but [sheepishly] the group I play in which all those examples came from does not play Hero. My Hero group relies less on tactics and more on smashing.

[Kristopher]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

The Tactics Skill is one of those mixed blessing facets of the game. I have always been one to let players think their way through combats and wouldn't really restrain creativity in play action' date=' but also felt it was odd that the characters with no combat background being played by very tactically inclined players were not quite acting in character. Sigh. I wouldn't want to make players dumb down involuntarily, but had to compensate in other manners that they would grow to disapprove of. Sigh again.[/quote']

 

I've come to acknowledge that trying to play reckless, naive, unintelligent, and/or tactically inept characters just frustrates me as I sit there and can't do anything to stop avoidable trainwreck situations in the game.

 

I gave up trying to play those characters, and just always end up taking the "savvy" role in the game.

[tesuji]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

I encourage limited skill levels.

 

One of the common uses is to apply requires tactics skill roll to some CVs, like say one 8 pt overall combat skill level. You cut the cost down to 5 pts, which saves you 3 pts, which means you buy the tactics skill at 3 pts and wind up with about a 12- chance of success (assumes 13-17 char), more if you can give yourself circumstantial bonuses.

 

for circumstantial modifiers, if its an unknown adversary, you take some difficulty. if its a know adversary, you get bonuses based on how much experience you have with him.

 

I have also seen characters buy "requires tactics skill roll" on a couple extra dice for their attack, based on "hitting him where it hurts".

[actingkeith]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

...Tactics Skill? Do you actually have any hard mechanics that you utilize?

 

I don't. If the Tactics Skill comes into play during combat, I have the character with the Skill make a Skill Roll. I will generally apply a modifier to the combat based on the results of the Roll. I also give a guy with Tactics Skill the 'tactical edge' over someone without the skill.

 

Some people don't like skills like Tactics (and other Interaction Skills) because those people would prefer the players role play through things... I'm one of those guys who likes to remind everyone that game skills exist because players may not have those skills, and why would you penalize a player who is a tactical idiot who is playing a Green Beret...

 

I'm sure that that's a debate for somewhere else.

 

Peace,

 

-k

[CDad]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

I had a lot of success using Tactics this way... hope this makes sense!

 

A character can use his Tactics once per combat by making a Tactics roll. +1 to OCV or DCV (assigned when the roll is made and cannot change) for every three points he makes his roll by for all his subordinates that can hear him, lasting for as many segments as he makes his Tactics roll.

 

For Example, Captain Courage has Tactics 14-, and rolls a 9 (making his roll by 6). For the next 6 segments, everyone on the team that follows his orders gains the combat bonuses - in this case CC decides to go all offensive and everyone gets a +2 OCV. Yes, CC has to have a tactic for each character that gains the bonus - but it can be as simple as "Titan, take out that armored car, Dreamweaver, deal with Vesuvius. Polymer, protect that crowd".

 

EDIT: Found my chart... for anyone interested.

 

Tactics...Bonus

.Roll.....OCV/DCV

.0-2..........+1

.3-5..........+2

.6-8..........+3

..9+..........+4

 

Duration: Tactics Skill - roll + 1 Segments

[Zephrosyne]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

CDad, that is very interesting. Tell me, is the "once per combat" rule for a practical reason or a balance reason (if you don't mind elaborating)?

[CDad]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

When I GM'd I kept it to once per combat per character - only had one PC that ever used it - but he had Captain America-ish Tactics. Lot's of +2s and +3s, and an occasional +4. I did it because "The Bad Guys"® (especially agents) usually had more than one person with Tactics - Mastermind Villian, Squad Leaders for Agents. I wanted the "tip the scales at the opportune moment" effect, not the "Combat is a see-saw" effect.

 

Honestly, I think it would be too unbalancing if you allowed it multiple times in a combat. It's too cheap for the effect if you can use it multiple times.

 

Plus, they do not stack! That would be very bad.

[USAFguy]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

SGT Rock was an effective combat leader. Perhaps tactics could be the limitation for certain OCV/DCV (or other creative combat skills). In effect, +2 OCV(only if tactics skill is rolled)...maybe even take advantages like usable on others (party members), etc.

 

Just a thought!

 

Kofi

[Sean Waters]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

If you want tactics to really work it is going to require some effort.

 

At the start of combat have everyone make a tactics roll. Making the roll is worth 10 seconds, and each +1 = +10 seconds (see below). The leader's roll can be used as a complimentary roll to individuals within the team.

 

Give everyone 10 seconds to declare their actions and take their to hit roll (if necessary) - they can sort out damage at a more leisurely pace as that takes longer and is not really related to battlefield decisions. You only roll that tactics once at the start of combat (or when you enter combat) not every phase. You may want a new roll every PS12; it's up to you. If the time expires before they have made the roll then they lose the action.

 

If someone wants to abort to an action in combat they have to make a tactics roll to do so.

 

This simulates the ability to think on your feet in combat, limits the amount of player to player communication and really makes combats a lot faster, but not everyone likes it.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

I generally use tactics in one of two ways:

1. Analyse group combat ability/weaknesses/objectives, or
   
2. "Make your tactics roll and I'll tell you why that's a really dumb idea."

 

Some people don't like skills like Tactics (and other Interaction Skills) because those people would prefer the players role play through things... I'm one of those guys who likes to remind everyone that game skills exist because players may not have those skills' date=' and why would you penalize a player who is a tactical idiot who is playing a Green Beret...[/quote']

I don't disagree with you. But [engage devil's advocate mode] what about the player to his left, who is a tactical genius? Does he then have to pay points for a skill he doesn't really need? Or not take the skill, even though it's in character? Or does he get the skill for free, even though the player to his right had to pay points for it?

 

I'm not suggesting such skills shouldn't be used; just pointing out that the "some players are idiots" argument (while certainly factual) has the potential to open the door on some equity issues if not handled carefully. Personally, I think being a tactical genius is it's own reward.

 

A character can use his Tactics once per combat by making a Tactics roll. +1 to OCV or DCV (assigned when the roll is made and cannot change) for every three points he makes his roll by for all his subordinates that can hear him' date=' lasting for as many segments as he makes his Tactics roll.[/quote']

Interesting idea, especially for a Cap Am-type character, for whom Tactical Genius is a large part of his/her schtik.

 

I know that there are people who strongly oppose rolling for the players' date=' but sometimes it's the only way to avoid telegraphing something to them. Asking the players to roll is basically telling them that something is about to happen, and in some cases it can ruin surprises, tension, etc.[/quote']

Another trick is to have the players each make three or four 3d6 rolls before the session begins, and record the results. When you need a roll, but don't want to tip them off, use the top number from the list, then cross it off.

[actingkeith]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Some people don't like skills like Tactics (and other Interaction Skills) because those people would prefer the players role play through things... I'm one of those guys who likes to remind everyone that game skills exist because players may not have those skills' date=' and why would you penalize a player who is a tactical idiot who is playing a Green Beret...[/quote'] I don't disagree with you. But [engage devil's advocate mode] what about the player to his left, who is a tactical genius? Does he then have to pay points for a skill he doesn't really need? Or not take the skill, even though it's in character? Or does he get the skill for free, even though the player to his right had to pay points for it?

Here's my time-worn answer to this oft-asked dilemna:

 

You need to separate out the Player from the Character...

 

If the player is a tactical genius and the character is a tactical genius: The character must pay for the skill, and the player gets a bonus ExP every now and again when the player's tactical thoughts work really well into the game in character.

 

If the player is a normally tactical person (meaning no real tactical experience), but the character is a tactical genius: it's the situation that I originally laid out.

 

If the player is a tactical genius, but the character is a normally tactical person: The character doesn't buy tactical skill and the player gets bonus ExP now and again when he plays 'in character' by purposefully playing "non-tactically-optimally"

 

Lastly, if you've got two players, one a tactical genius and one... not, and both characters have Tactics, then you treat each player and each character separately per the guidelines above...

 

At least, that's what I'd do.

 

Now... if your issue is that the Tactical Genius Player is getting upset that the other players don't see the wisdom of his plans... that's another issue.

 

Peace,

 

-k

[DangerousDan]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

No Deduction? Heresy. That's my favorite "I need to smack the player upside the head with a clue stick" mechanic.

 

I have yet to see a single character with Deduction.

 

But then again, I've played with a number of GMs that are not above calling for a skill roll or INT roll when the party needs a whack with the clue stick. I've done it myself. In a sense, every character has Deduction, No Conscious Control (Everyman).

[Edsel]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Deduction seems to work much better as an NPC skill. I often run heroic-level Dark Champions games. The players in these games have to solve mysteries on their own. It is a key part of many of my games, the players get the clues and its up to them to figure it out. If they are completely off track I can always have an NPC discover some vital information to nudge the players back on track. However if I have a situation where an NPC has to figure out a mystery (perhaps something the players have done) then a Deduction skill is a useful game mechanic for determining whether or not the NPC chooses the proper path.

[JamesG]

Re: Deduction

 

Deduction seems to work much better as an NPC skill. I often run heroic-level Dark Champions games. The players in these games have to solve mysteries on their own. It is a key part of many of my games' date=' the players get the clues and its up to them to figure it out.[/quote']

 

One of the best uses for Deduction, and one suggested in several Hero genre books, is as follows. Often the players brainstorm a number of possible scenarios that fit in with the clues given. But they have no good way to figure out that scenario A is dead on and scenario B is way off. That’s where Deduction comes in. If the Deduction roll is made, the GM can say “Scenario A seems right to you.â€

 

This way everyone wins. The players get a feeling of accomplishment since they DID figure out the mystery. After all, the GM didn’t tell them the solution, he merely told them which solution that they came up with was the correct one. And the game can move along without getting bogged down while the players debate the likelihood of the different scenarios for hours.

[BlackSword]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

I don't disagree with you. But [engage devil's advocate mode] what about the player to his left, who is a tactical genius? Does he then have to pay points for a skill he doesn't really need? Or not take the skill, even though it's in character? Or does he get the skill for free, even though the player to his right had to pay points for it?

 

I'm not suggesting such skills shouldn't be used; just pointing out that the "some players are idiots" argument (while certainly factual) has the potential to open the door on some equity issues if not handled carefully. Personally, I think being a tactical genius is it's own reward.

The way we sometimes do this is allow other players to help. If a character has tactics, but the player is tactically disadvantaged, then the group can give the player suggestions. Frex, I made a comment one time, and then paused and said, my low INT character would never think of that. The GM brushed it aside and said, but it is helping the high INT character by giving the player extra ideas. Ultimataly though it is up to the player to make a decision for his character.

 

If a player is tactical genius, but his character lacks the skill, then its up to the Player to role-play that. This can sometimes be a simple reminder from the GM, "Would your character really think of that tactical manuveur?"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Here's my time-worn answer to this oft-asked dilemna:

 

You need to separate out the Player from the Character...

 

If the player is a tactical genius and the character is a tactical genius: The character must pay for the skill, and the player gets a bonus ExP every now and again when the player's tactical thoughts work really well into the game in character.

 

If the player is a normally tactical person (meaning no real tactical experience), but the character is a tactical genius: it's the situation that I originally laid out.

 

If the player is a tactical genius, but the character is a normally tactical person: The character doesn't buy tactical skill and the player gets bonus ExP now and again when he plays 'in character' by purposefully playing "non-tactically-optimally"

 

Lastly, if you've got two players, one a tactical genius and one... not, and both characters have Tactics, then you treat each player and each character separately per the guidelines above...

 

At least, that's what I'd do.

 

Now... if your issue is that the Tactical Genius Player is getting upset that the other players don't see the wisdom of his plans... that's another issue.

 

Peace,

 

-k

 

This is the reason I use the 10seconds+tactics idea (filched largely from the Space Marine board game): even a tactical genius will do better if they have longer to think about it, and even a tactical incompetent will do better if they have time to discuss it with the other players.

[actingkeith]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

I know that there are people who strongly oppose rolling for the players' date=' but sometimes it's the only way to avoid telegraphing something to them. Asking the players to roll is basically telling them that something is about to happen, and in some cases it can ruin surprises, tension, etc.[/quote']

Or, it can heighten tension... If the GM brings the players into the fun of the adventure (rather than trying to surprise them with stuff)... the players can roll their dice, and tell the GM to:

 

1 Screw them royally because they missed by a lot

2 Do them wrong because they missed their roll

3 Groan and hurt them because they barely missed

4 Groan and bless them because they barely made it

5 Do them justice because they made their roll

6 Trounce the bad guys because the made their roll by a lot

 

If the players know how they're doing by the numbers, they can also role play better/more-appropriately to their levels of success.

 

In case you couldn't tell, I'm a big fan of bringing the players into the story generation process. Now, I'm not talking about players who only love and enjoy their gaming experience when their characters are kicking *** and taking names... I'm talking about players who enjoy role play and know that failures can be enjoyable and fun (like in real life)...

 

Here's an example of what I mean (true gaming example):

 

GM: You're in the super-hip club, talking to the informant, trying to get her into your confidence... make a Seduction Roll with a -2 because this girl is really underconfident.

 

Dice Roll...

 

Suave Player: Ah Crap! I rolled an 18... (laughing)... OK, my character smiles at her with his brilliantly white teeth, confidently reaches over to take her hand reassuingly, and says, "I admire your courage to be the wonderful you that you are... showing up here with spinach in your teeth and not caring at all who knows or sees or what they might think. I think your flaws are amazing..." Again, I flash my pearly whites to let her know my admiration is ultimately sincere."

 

GM: (nodding), Yep... that'll just about do it... and a couple of stunningly beautiful women who were standing/dancing behind you overhear and start giggling and pointing at the girl's mouth... She is mortified, starts crying, and runs through the crowd... The girls behind you start laughing and the really cute one says to you smiling, "Wow! How bad did she hurt you that you went to all this trouble to do that to her? You're awesome, can I get your number..."

If the GM had hidden the roll, he'd wouldn't be able to tap the brilliant creativity of the player. It takes a lot of weight off a GM's shoulders when he's got players who aren't in the game to 'win every dice roll'

 

For me, a game is about teamwork between the GM and the players, the players knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their characters, and a group of people not afraid to have life's downs impact the game...

 

...but then again, I'm an idealist.

 

Peace,

 

-k

[RDU Neil]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Or, it can heighten tension... If the GM brings the players into the fun of the adventure (rather than trying to surprise them with stuff)... the players can roll their dice, and tell the GM to:

 

1 Screw them royally because they missed by a lot

2 Do them wrong because they missed their roll

3 Groan and hurt them because they barely missed

4 Groan and bless them because they barely made it

5 Do them justice because they made their roll

6 Trounce the bad guys because the made their roll by a lot

 

If the players know how their doing by the numbers, they can also role play better/more-appropriately to their levels of success.

 

-k

 

Perfect example of what I mean by "intent." The players get to influence/decide what they want to have happen when they roll the dice. They get to say, "If I make it by a lot... I get X! If I miss by a lot... GM you get to really hose us with Y! etc."

 

The point being that whenever a player (or GM) says they want a roll... there is usally an idea about "what they want the roll to do".... i.e. "what is the intent of the roll."

 

Yes, this is about providing more "director stance" to players in some ways... but it is a hugely powerful tool to effective group dynamics and enhanced role playing.

 

Rep to actingkeith!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

In a sense' date=' every character has Deduction, No Conscious Control (Everyman).[/quote']

Yeah, that's the way I generally run it. With the additional lim Conditional Power: Only To Advance The Plot.

 

Or' date=' it can heighten tension... If the GM brings the players into the fun of the adventure (rather than trying to surprise them with stuff)...[/quote']

In general, I agree. However, there are times when I DO want to surprise them. Forex, if a PC is using conversation to get information out of someone, it keeps a bit more mystery in the game if the player doesn't know that he rolled a 5 instead of a 17.

 

Here's an example of what I mean (true gaming example):

Great example! I had a similar one happen in one of my Genghis Con games last weekend. A female character tanked her roll while searching an actress' trailer. So the very attractive female player decided that she had gotten distracted by the actress' lingere drawer. "Ooo, she's got some nice stuff in here; this would look great on me..." Became a running gag for the rest of the session. Also make it difficult for the male players (and the GM) to concentrate on the rest of the story, but that's a different thread.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

Yeah, that's the way I generally run it. With the additional lim Conditional Power: Only To Advance The Plot.

 

I've always considered "No Conscious Control" to be along the lines of "Only to Advance the Plot (or to Amuse the GM)", so NCC + CP:OTATP is for me, a redundancy.

 

NCC + CP: Only to Amuse the GM could be worth significantly more than -2, because the owner of the power couldn't expect the power to actually often be useful even when it does activate:drink: .

[Lucius]

Re: Tactics Skill

 

I have yet to see a single character with Deduction.

.

 

My current character has Deduction. So have several others I've played.

 

Everyone has it at 8 or less.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Making up a list of Everypalindromedary skills