Balancing social skills and role playing

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Last first' date=' Geneva has nothing to do with civil jurisdictions. Whilst a lot of that is just 'psych' anyway, the simple fact is you can't 'just' take interrogation techniques from a manual, you actually have to be good at it, which includes not just a plan of attack but judging your victim, sorry, suspect.[/quote']

I explicitly pointed them out as the Special Effect/Description for successfull Conversation Rolls. As an example how "interrogating the mook" can be handeled from the Roll side and what possible ways to Roleplay the result exist.

 

Certainly in this country' date=' if someone was represented at a police interview and the information supplied by the police to the legal representative was a lie then the case would fail, because the police would then be undermining the right of the suspect to get informed and accurate advice. In essence they would be co-opting the legal representative to help mislead the suspect.[/quote']

That would of course also happen in america. You cannot lie to a legal representative, nor withhold information, nor fake to be one and give false counsel (those are clearly among the no-go list in the article I linked).

But usually once the interrogate asks for a lawyer the interrogation is over/failed, so this isn't an issue of interrogation techniques anymore.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

My view on rolls is that whle I encourge roleplaying, rolls can and should be made to suppliment the game. I can bumble a speech something fierce, yet with a good oratory roll, I still can "sound" as a smooth speaker. I especially use this approach to deduction rolls. I had a friend who admitted during game, he couldn't figure out where to go with the info I gave him (it was a solo game), he made his deduction roll and I told him some insights he got. And the game proceeded fine.

[Ice9]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think there's two related but significantly different things going on here:

1) The Content.

2) The Presentation.

 

Talking in character and making a nice sounding introduction to the Duke is presentation. Telling him that the Earl consorts with goblins is content.

I prefer to handle things the same way I do for combat - presentation is a small bonus (because I like to encourage it), but content is a big factor - sometimes a deciding factor:

Actually having proof and showing it to the Duke? Success, unless the Duke distrusts you, and even then he might investigate it himself.

Slapping the Duke in the face and shouting "Attack the Earl, you dumbass!" Fail. Maybe if you're the god of social skills you can manage to spin this so nothing bad happens, but it's definitely not success.*

 

I don't think this is unfair to the characters' abilities or skills any more than the normal combat system is. Describe it how you like, but what you do in combat is more important than your OCV or skills.

Barbarian Bob, played competently, is going to be more tactically effective than Sun Tzu played by somebody who makes terrible moves.

 

 

* Ok, if you have Exalted-level UMI skills, it could be success, but that's pretty much mind control.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Well, maybe you are right, but Barbarian Bob certainly should not be the character you are playing if you want to be a tactical genius, because, presumably, Barbarian Bob is not supposed to be a better tactician/strategist than Sun Tzu.

 

Equally, if a person who is NOT a tactical genius wants to play a tactical genius, well, they should be able to. That is no different from someone with the coordination of, not to put to fine a point on it, my wife, wanting to play a master martial artist or someone with the chess playing ability of, say my wife, wanting to play a Chess Grandmaster. I mean, if you are playing chess in game then you work on Chess Skill Rolls, not the player's knowledge of chess.

 

I absolutely agree with what you say about content being vital: a PC who has convincing evidence of what they are trying to convince someone of will have a bonus, but they will have that because the GM has handed it out (or allowed them to find it as part of the scenario). I don't think that being a convincing speaker in reality should influence your character's chances at all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I could also suggest that it depends on how you approach making the rolls. The description becomes an exercise in descriptive and, hopefully interesting, prose, which is a reward in and of itself. If the Sun Tzu character describes an attack formation that should fail dismally because it goes against thousands of years of accepted military strategy but nonetheless has Tactics 20- and rolls a 4, it succeeds spectacularly, even though the exact same description by a Tactics 11- character who rolled a 12 fails.

 

That may sound ridiculous, but it isn't: very often what matters is timing, and what can mark a great military leader is the ability to do something unexpected, even apparently suicidal at exactly the right moment, and succeed where others would fail.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Ultimately, it's unfair to the player who spends the points on that 20- Tactics roll, presenting his character as a tactical genius, if the GM says "fine, good character, approved" and then ignores both the mechanic of points spent on an incredible skill roll and the description of the character he approved so that the player doesn't actually get to play the character he envisioned.

 

I agree with Sean's point - the character with Tactics 20- is a tactical genius, and that is reflected in his dice. To modify the scenario a bit, If the Sun Tzu character describes an attack formation that should fail dismally because it goes against thousands of years of accepted military strategy but nonetheless has Tactics 20- and rolls a 15, it succeeds, even though the exact same description by a Tactics 11- character who rolled a 12 fails.

 

Sun Tzu implemented and adapted his basic tactic on the fly effectively. The lesser tactician did not - he rolled better, but his innate skill was so much less that the additional luck did not offset Sun Tzu's superior skill.

 

If the GM wants to resolve all tactics based on his own interpretation (here's hoping he has Tactics 30- or so), or all interaction based on his own perceptions of how well it was portrayed by the character, then tell the players those skills will be devalued or useless in this game so the shy wallflower doesn't waste half their points on skills designed to build a suave, smooth-talking James Bond only to be frustrated because the glib, smooth player who sold back PRE and invested nothing in social skills upstages him every time based on their relative Player Skills.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Ultimately, it's unfair to the player who spends the points on that 20- Tactics roll, presenting his character as a tactical genius, if the GM says "fine, good character, approved" and then ignores both the mechanic of points spent on an incredible skill roll and the description of the character he approved so that the player doesn't actually get to play the character he envisioned.

 

I agree with Sean's point - the character with Tactics 20- is a tactical genius, and that is reflected in his dice. To modify the scenario a bit, If the Sun Tzu character describes an attack formation that should fail dismally because it goes against thousands of years of accepted military strategy but nonetheless has Tactics 20- and rolls a 15, it succeeds, even though the exact same description by a Tactics 11- character who rolled a 12 fails.

 

Sun Tzu implemented and adapted his basic tactic on the fly effectively. The lesser tactician did not - he rolled better, but his innate skill was so much less that the additional luck did not offset Sun Tzu's superior skill.

 

If the GM wants to resolve all tactics based on his own interpretation (here's hoping he has Tactics 30- or so), or all interaction based on his own perceptions of how well it was portrayed by the character, then tell the players those skills will be devalued or useless in this game so the shy wallflower doesn't waste half their points on skills designed to build a suave, smooth-talking James Bond only to be frustrated because the glib, smooth player who sold back PRE and invested nothing in social skills upstages him every time based on their relative Player Skills.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hugh Neilson again.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I repped Hugh for you Derek. He said what I was thinking.

[phoenix240]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Well, maybe you are right, but Barbarian Bob certainly should not be the character you are playing if you want to be a tactical genius, because, presumably, Barbarian Bob is not supposed to be a better tactician/strategist than Sun Tzu.

 

Equally, if a person who is NOT a tactical genius wants to play a tactical genius, well, they should be able to. That is no different from someone with the coordination of, not to put to fine a point on it, my wife, wanting to play a master martial artist or someone with the chess playing ability of, say my wife, wanting to play a Chess Grandmaster. I mean, if you are playing chess in game then you work on Chess Skill Rolls, not the player's knowledge of chess.

 

I absolutely agree with what you say about content being vital: a PC who has convincing evidence of what they are trying to convince someone of will have a bonus, but they will have that because the GM has handed it out (or allowed them to find it as part of the scenario). I don't think that being a convincing speaker in reality should influence your character's chances at all.

 

At the very least the player being a poor orator shouldn't penalize the character's actions. I don't assign penalties to Ace Decker, Master Hacker because his player is lucky to turn on their PC without accidentally reformatting its C drive after all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

At the very least the player being a poor oratory shouldn't penalize the character's actions. I don't assign penalties to Ace Decker' date=' Master Hacker because his player is lucky to turn on their PC without accidentally reformatting its C drive after all.[/quote']

 

Quite right too: one of the reasons we play these games is to imagine being someone that we are not. It would be desperately unfortunate if Ace Decker turned out to be as big a computer klutz as I am, although I can probably bring Ace down to my level with my amazing dice rolling skills *sigh*

[Vondy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think I'm inclined to say that there should be no bonus to social Skill Rolls for good roleplaying.

 

If you mean by "role playing" the player's personal acting ability at the table, I agree. No bonuses to rolls. The system traditionally suggested a 1XP bonus at the end of the session for this kind of good role-playing. I think that is the best way to handle it.

[Vondy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I humbly submit there is a distinction these discussions frequently fail to make.

 

The difference between the player's first person personal acting and speaking abilities, and their ability to accurately and vividly describe what their character does in the third person.

 

While the former can be entertaining, I have never considered it native to the traditional tabletop role-playing medium. Traditional tabletop RPGs are traditionally third-person modelling and scripting exercises. Or, even when you use "I," it is delivered in first person meta-description... "I tell them X," or "I walk in, hessian boots clicking on deck plates, cape swirling around my angles, helm under my arm..."

 

First person delivery is largely leaven, and not strictly necessary to traditional tabletop RPGs. If I wanted to act I would join a drama troupe, go to renfair, or LARP. Those mediums of play are designed for first person delivery by the person acting out the role, which is different from describing the role or action.

 

Also, these mediums blend the player and the role they are playing more directly than the traditional tabletop medium. A traditional tabletop RPG functions with greater distance, both personally and conceptually, between the player and their character. Because of that the player's personal charisma and dramatic skills should be less important.

 

In my opinion, in a traditional tabletop RPG, bonuses should be given for good third person description (or first person meta-description) and not for personal charisma and dramatic-speaking talents. The medium itself is a sort of leveler. Every player should be able to script/direct/describe their character's actions with a relatively equal impact on play.

 

I do give small bonuses (+1) for good descriptive prose and interesting in-character meta-play. Everyone can rise to that occasion, in my experience. I do not give bonuses for being a ham at the table and trying to prove you can do Hamlet or deliver the state of the union.

[Vondy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Well' date=' maybe you are right, but Barbarian Bob certainly should not be the character you are playing if you want to be a tactical genius, because, presumably, Barbarian Bob is not supposed to be a better tactician/strategist than Sun Tzu. [/quote']

 

Say what? The last time I checked a barbarian named Genghis Khan steamrollered an entire continent, including its civilized folk. That he didn't write his tactical genius down for posterity does not diminish that he was a tactical (and strategic and logistical) genius of the first order. He is only one of several examples of barbarians who handed hoity-toity civilized folk their backsides in war. Indeed, the people Genghis rolled over first had read Sun Tzu. Fat lot of good it did them. Being a barbarian does not mean stupid, untalented, or incompetent. Especially at things like hunting, fighting, surviving, or trading for value. Its just means fat merchants and ennobled nancy boys don't like your manners.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

@Vondy:

The context in wich Barabarian Bob was used implies that he has no or a lot weaker tatics skill than Tsu Tzu. It was a nice description for "Good Skill, Bad Skill".

 

I could also suggest that it depends on how you approach making the rolls. The description becomes an exercise in descriptive and' date=' hopefully interesting, prose, which is a reward in and of itself. If the Sun Tzu character describes an attack formation that should fail dismally because it goes against thousands of years of accepted military strategy but nonetheless has Tactics 20- and rolls a 4, it succeeds spectacularly,[i'] even though the exact same description[/i] by a Tactics 11- character who rolled a 12 fails.

I would say: "to hell with hundreds of years of military praxis". The player makes an asumption and mostly the die roll should determine if he is right or wrong.

 

Let's take a different example:

Heros want to enter an warehouse held by Viper. One of the player says "Viper only ever puts one guard at the rear enterance". If he is right is decided by rolling the dice:

Tactics, with KS: Viper being Complimentary. Rolled hidden.

No mater how the roll goes, the back enterance appears to be guarded by only one goon. But if the heroes go in and take him out, the roll becomes important:

If he made the roll, there was really only one guard.

If he failed the roll, then half a dozen agents (or at least enough to sound the alarm) waited just behind the door. Or his partner was just inside for a moment. In eitehr way, their surpise attack failed.

 

Of course they can counter check the results (N-Ray Vision).

 

To take a pop-culture example:

When han solo sneaked through Endor's forest and Critically Failed his sneak roll, anotehr group of imperial scouts just randomly spawned where nodbody expected them to and nobody saw them before.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

About role playing:

 

I humbly submit there is a distinction these discussions frequently fail to make.

 

The difference between the player's first person personal acting and speaking abilities,

 

in-character...

 

and their ability to accurately and vividly describe what their character does in the third person.

 

...& out-of-character.

 

While the former can be entertaining' date=' I have never considered it native to the traditional tabletop role-playing medium. [/quote']

 

I award xp for role playing in-character & out.

 

Traditional tabletop RPGs are traditionally third-person modelling and scripting exercises. Or' date=' even when you use "I," it is delivered in first person [i']meta-description[/i]... "I tell them X," or "I walk in, hessian boots clicking on deck plates, cape swirling around my angles, helm under my arm..."

 

War gaming, right?

 

First person delivery is largely leaven' date=' and not strictly necessary to traditional tabletop RPGs. If I wanted to act I would join a drama troupe, go to renfair, or LARP. Those mediums of play are designed for [i']first person[/i] delivery by the person acting out the role, which is different from describing the role or action.

 

Mr. E:

• LARP: check
  
• SCA: check
  
• drama troupe: check
  

 

 

Also' date=' these mediums blend the player and the role they are playing more directly than the traditional tabletop medium. [/quote']

 

In story telling there can be occasions for both, but yes, obviously the more objective approach is the most proper for tabletop.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Similar to Christopher's suggestion, but different:

 

Passed upon how well they do on the Tactics roll, you tell them what would be (in your mind as the GM, who knows what defenses/guards are where) the best approach to a situation, where dangers are likely, etc. If they know the opponents' tactical prowess and do quite well on the roll, you give them increasingly accurate information about where things definitely WILL be.

[Vondy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

War gaming' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Where did this come from? I've never seen anyone use the sort of character-centric / driven prose or description I used as an example in a war game. The point was, a traditional tabletop RPG is not "drama club." It is about character and narrative, but its traditionally a step removed from the live action approach. That doesn't render it a war-game or tactical exercise. Not everyone who games is an actor or orator, or feels comfortable giving a live performance. That doesn't mean they aren't into playing their characters and telling a good story. Its just that what they do is more like what the writers and directors do before the actors get in front of the camera. Calling what they do "war gaming" isn't accurate.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Passed upon how well they do on the Tactics roll' date=' you tell them what would be (in your mind as the GM, who knows what defenses/guards are where) the best approach to a situation, where dangers are likely, etc. If they know the opponents' tactical prowess and do quite well on the roll, you give them increasingly accurate information about where things definitely WILL be.[/quote']

I would prefer it if the player with the tatics skill would be enabeled to paraphrase his knowledge in Character. As opposing skill I would not use it for tatics. But for knowledge Skills I might use a variant (that only works well with preparation or on PbP):

I roll hidden, then I tell the player his Characters Knowledge in Private (a note or a hidden post/personal message). I see multiple advantages:

The player gets to say it in character (for the usual "describe natarator style as the action unfolds" scenes), the player can hold back information (for surprises/those nobody trusts anybody games) and the player would react to totally wrong information based on a critical fail (if the game uses such a rule).

 

One Situation that wasn't discussed with tatics, is an opposing leader with tactics. Using the "only one guard at the back enterance" example, an opposing tactican could be aware of it and made fitting preparations. So even if the heroes roll itself has succeded, the enemy might still make a countering tatics roll to simulate that "he thought of that". The player who jsut got foiled should be able to notice that "there is someone with a clue" guiding those people.

There should be a difference between Ogre or Tactius, the Tactican* making the plans to guard an warehouse.

 

*could not find any villain with direct Tactics Skill in my limited collection of writeups.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I wonder how many of us, as GM's, would take it if a player were a student of military history and tactics, and therefore constantly critiqued the horrible tactics, and completely unrealistic impact various issues were permitted to have on the results of a skirmish, battle or war in our campaigns.

 

The fact is that these skill rolls simulate characters with far greater skill in virtually every area than we, as players or GM's, can reasonably lay claim to. I don't expect the player of the Gadgeteer to show me how he builds an interdimensional portal from coat hangers, tinfoil and a paper towel tube in order to determine whether his character should succeed or fail. I don't apply the simple logic that it's impossible and rule he fails. I let him roll his gadgeteering skill, and interpret his skill from the results.

 

I would not ask a player to explain precisely what legal arguments his lawyer character advances before the Courts, nor would I pull the rug out from under him by pointing out that "surprise witnesses" aren't actually permitted under the rules of court, and that should have been raised in Examinations for Discovery.

 

So why would his tactics skill's success or failure depend so much more on his personal tactical knowledge and expertise? Why would I base the success of his character's interaction skills on the player's rendition of the character's speech, or even the character's approach?

 

Sure, I know that the Ice Maiden will react poorly to "Hey babe, howzabout me and you doin' the Horizontal Tango? Meetcha in the men's room in five!". But I rather suspect the 23 PRE, Charm 24- PC will also know better than that, will assess his target with greater care and skill, and will adjust his approach for nonverbal cues that would never be perceived by any of the players at a gaming table.

 

Whether this is rolled hidden or open depends on game style. I'm biased to the player making his own rolls as much as possible, but sometimes a roll needs to be secret. And I'm good with the player telling me he'd rather the roll not be made under the default (whether that's open or secret) because he may not, or certainly will, disclose all this info to his teammates. I lean to such information being provided to only the player with the skill, maybe for the possibility of secrecy but more because this is his character's special ability, so it should be the player in the spotlight, not the GM, as his point investments pay off.

 

An opposing leader with Tactics seems a lot like an opposed skill roll. Yes, you have a high skill and rolled well. He has a higher skill and rolled better. If tactics are a significant feature of the game, "Analyze Style" to assess the tactics of an opponent seems quite reasonable. Maybe Tactius the Tactician has a 20-, but he's also famous and his prior battles have been analyzed in numerous military schools. Perhaps PC's KS: Military History acts as a complementary skill, either to recognize Tactius' hand or (because he already knows who his opponent is) to recognize both the tactic and the hole in it.

 

Did the PC, with that bonus, think of a way around Tactius' tactics? Or did Tactius roll well enough to see the hole, understand his opponent is probably familiar with that tactic, and exploit that to cover the "weakness" with a trap? Well, that depends on who rolled better, doesn't it? Perhaps that Analyze Tactics roll tells the player that the unknown mastermind guiding all of these seemingly unrelated events is a cautious planner, so an aggressive, even reckless, plan could take him by surprise. Maybe that's just what the player decides to say. The roll of the dice will tell us whether this is something that Master Planner would never have expected, or is just what he expected and planned for. That's the reason we roll in the first place!

 

[As an aside, the interaction discussion reminds me of the Black Hands strip where Newt skillfully role plays out the part of seducer, and throws Nitro horribly off his game - probably not reflective of the skills of the characters, but of the strengths and weaknesses of the players. I didn't come to an RPG to play myself.]

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I wonder how many of us, as GM's, would take it if a player were a student of military history and tactics, and therefore constantly critiqued the horrible tactics, and completely unrealistic impact various issues were permitted to have on the results of a skirmish, battle or war in our campaigns.

 

The fact is that these skill rolls simulate characters with far greater skill in virtually every area than we, as players or GM's, can reasonably lay claim to. I don't expect the player of the Gadgeteer to show me how he builds an interdimensional portal from coat hangers, tinfoil and a paper towel tube in order to determine whether his character should succeed or fail. I don't apply the simple logic that it's impossible and rule he fails. I let him roll his gadgeteering skill, and interpret his skill from the results.

 

I would not ask a player to explain precisely what legal arguments his lawyer character advances before the Courts, nor would I pull the rug out from under him by pointing out that "surprise witnesses" aren't actually permitted under the rules of court, and that should have been raised in Examinations for Discovery.

 

So why would his tactics skill's success or failure depend so much more on his personal tactical knowledge and expertise? Why would I base the success of his character's interaction skills on the player's rendition of the character's speech, or even the character's approach?

 

Sure, I know that the Ice Maiden will react poorly to "Hey babe, howzabout me and you doin' the Horizontal Tango? Meetcha in the men's room in five!". But I rather suspect the 23 PRE, Charm 24- PC will also know better than that, will assess his target with greater care and skill, and will adjust his approach for nonverbal cues that would never be perceived by any of the players at a gaming table.

 

Whether this is rolled hidden or open depends on game style. I'm biased to the player making his own rolls as much as possible, but sometimes a roll needs to be secret. And I'm good with the player telling me he'd rather the roll not be made under the default (whether that's open or secret) because he may not, or certainly will, disclose all this info to his teammates. I lean to such information being provided to only the player with the skill, maybe for the possibility of secrecy but more because this is his character's special ability, so it should be the player in the spotlight, not the GM, as his point investments pay off.

 

An opposing leader with Tactics seems a lot like an opposed skill roll. Yes, you have a high skill and rolled well. He has a higher skill and rolled better. If tactics are a significant feature of the game, "Analyze Style" to assess the tactics of an opponent seems quite reasonable. Maybe Tactius the Tactician has a 20-, but he's also famous and his prior battles have been analyzed in numerous military schools. Perhaps PC's KS: Military History acts as a complementary skill, either to recognize Tactius' hand or (because he already knows who his opponent is) to recognize both the tactic and the hole in it.

 

Did the PC, with that bonus, think of a way around Tactius' tactics? Or did Tactius roll well enough to see the hole, understand his opponent is probably familiar with that tactic, and exploit that to cover the "weakness" with a trap? Well, that depends on who rolled better, doesn't it? Perhaps that Analyze Tactics roll tells the player that the unknown mastermind guiding all of these seemingly unrelated events is a cautious planner, so an aggressive, even reckless, plan could take him by surprise. Maybe that's just what the player decides to say. The roll of the dice will tell us whether this is something that Master Planner would never have expected, or is just what he expected and planned for. That's the reason we roll in the first place!

 

[As an aside, the interaction discussion reminds me of the Black Hands strip where Newt skillfully role plays out the part of seducer, and throws Nitro horribly off his game - probably not reflective of the skills of the characters, but of the strengths and weaknesses of the players. I didn't come to an RPG to play myself.]

 

Rep to you, sir!

 

**bzzz** **frtzzz** **sputter** (bangs rep stick on the table)

 

Or not. (sigh)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hugh Neilson again.

 

Rep to you, sir!

 

**bzzz** **frtzzz** **sputter** (bangs rep stick on the table)

 

Or not. (sigh)

 

Well, I know you're trying!

 

I hit that "repped too recently" wall way too often - need to be more free-repping, I guess, so I can hit the "too much in 24 hours" limit instead!

[Ice9]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Well, maybe you are right, but Barbarian Bob certainly should not be the character you are playing if you want to be a tactical genius, because, presumably, Barbarian Bob is not supposed to be a better tactician/strategist than Sun Tzu.

 

Equally, if a person who is NOT a tactical genius wants to play a tactical genius, well, they should be able to. That is no different from someone with the coordination of, not to put to fine a point on it, my wife, wanting to play a master martial artist or someone with the chess playing ability of, say my wife, wanting to play a Chess Grandmaster. I mean, if you are playing chess in game then you work on Chess Skill Rolls, not the player's knowledge of chess.

Ultimately, it's unfair to the player who spends the points on that 20- Tactics roll, presenting his character as a tactical genius, if the GM says "fine, good character, approved" and then ignores both the mechanic of points spent on an incredible skill roll and the description of the character he approved so that the player doesn't actually get to play the character he envisioned.

 

I agree with Sean's point - the character with Tactics 20- is a tactical genius, and that is reflected in his dice. To modify the scenario a bit, If the Sun Tzu character describes an attack formation that should fail dismally because it goes against thousands of years of accepted military strategy but nonetheless has Tactics 20- and rolls a 15, it succeeds, even though the exact same description by a Tactics 11- character who rolled a 12 fails.

I think I miscommunicated there. I'm not saying that Barbarian Bob should have better tactics, or that I would make it the case IMC, I'm saying that he would be more tactically effective, right now, in the current HERO system rules (and in any other RPG with non-abstract tactical combat rules), if he was played by a somewhat experienced player and Sun Tzu was played by a noob (or just somebody who's bad at tactics).

 

Here's a concrete example:

Barbarian Bob - Shouts out "cowards, none of you could even slow me down!", and delays action. He's standing where only the front-most enemy will reach him. After they attack, he goes for a Haymaker, which they can do nothing about. Highly effective.

Sun Tzu - Moves right into the middle of the foes and attacks one, who hasn't acted yet and successfully blocks. He has accomplished nothing and will now get dogpiled.

 

Unless the player is willing to have the GM literally tell them where to go and who to attack, that Tactics 20- has no real effect in phase-by-phase combat.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Maybe the GM should point out Sun Tzu's Hero misconception, given a fellow with Tactics 20- should find that obvious.

 

Barbarian Bob's psych limits should be looked at (absent some deficiency, like "Rushes into Combat" I see no problem with his choice), and so should the enemies' tactical skill (maybe they shrug and point their crossbows rather than rushing forward; perhaps some delay their actions since they can't get there, etc.). No reason their tactics should be any worse than Bob's, is there?

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think I miscommunicated there. I'm not saying that Barbarian Bob should have better tactics' date=' or that I would make it the case IMC, I'm saying that he [i']would[/i] be more tactically effective, right now, in the current HERO system rules (and in any other RPG with non-abstract tactical combat rules), if he was played by a somewhat experienced player and Sun Tzu was played by a noob (or just somebody who's bad at tactics).

 

Here's a concrete example:

Barbarian Bob - Shouts out "cowards, none of you could even slow me down!", and delays action. He's standing where only the front-most enemy will reach him. After they attack, he goes for a Haymaker, which they can do nothing about. Highly effective.

Sun Tzu - Moves right into the middle of the foes and attacks one, who hasn't acted yet and successfully blocks. He has accomplished nothing and will now get dogpiled.

 

Unless the player is willing to have the GM literally tell them where to go and who to attack, that Tactics 20- has no real effect in phase-by-phase combat.

That is a general Problem you describe here - new player does not know the system. It's the GM's job to make certain he does understand the meaning of it.

It has no connection whatsovever how effective Tactics is or how to balance Social Skills/Knowledge Skills.

This is simply "Character knowledge is not Player knowledge", a situation the GM has to do it's utmost to not affect gameplay negatively. You wouldn't let a "super-martial artists" run around with 3 CV and 2 SPD either, just because the player did not know how to build on?

 

Also note that Bob's Haymaker will likely not land. They might not be able to abort this segment, but they can still abort next segment (to say a 1m dive for cover or dodge). After all Haymaker only get's resolved after the end of the next segment, enough time for any unstunned/unentangeled enemy to react to it.

Also, what mooks have a realistic chance to Block a PC's attack?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Also' date=' what mooks have a realistic chance to Block a PC's attack?[/quote']

 

Depends on the campaign. In a Heroic level and gritty campaign, possibly quite a few.