womble

I love the smell of acetic acid in the morning!

It smells of last night's chips?

In "freeform" combat, there are still advantages of familiarity that a habitual southpaw fighter has over a habitual orthodox fighter. In shieldwall combat, it can be useful to put your southpaws in the extreme right files, since their shields will protect against incoming from that direction, where orthodox shield users will be more open, or contorting to cover their right (and incidentally opening up the trooper to their left. Of course you probably want your best (orthodox and southpaw) fighters in adjacent files, since neither gets the benefit of their neighbour's shield, as the ranks not on the join do.

One or two DCV/OCV combined is probably enough to simulate the difficulties a trained orthodox stance fighter faces against a trained southpaw, and those differentials should be relatively easy to overcome with practice. For un-/barely-trained fighters, I'd increase the differential for the orthodox fighter, and add some difficulty for the southpaw: they're both less likely to be able to do each other harm.

"Cuervo! Y este Llamas."

Obviously we see things very differently.

 

The combat mechanics serve to handle things we can't (or shouldn't) physically do at the table, like fire guns, swing swords, and throw cars at each other. However, there is nothing preventing us as players from making over-the-board game decisions. We don't need game mechanics for that. In fact, that is our job as players. Relinquishing that aspect to the dice is not what the game mechanics are for. Sure, the ability to substitute a dice roll for making a decision or interacting with another character is possible, but that doesn't mean it is the design intent or the nature of an RPG to do so. It is, at best, a crutch and a shortcut to roleplaying. And most of the time when that crutch is used, the results are less than satisfying.

Concrete example of how not allowing the rules to mediate a "personal interaction" led to a less than satisfying result:

The player of the "negotiator" character is somewhat reserved, and not particularly loquacious. The player isn't particularly familiar with the Shadowrun setting, and has zero real life experience of negotiating with a sprawlgang boss. So she stammers a bit and takes an approach that the GM decided wasn't going to get a particularly favourable result. Her attempts to describe how she wants to frame the argument are met with requirements to "Just say what you say". No dice are rolled. Bad consequences for the party occur. All the character points spent on Street Etiquette, Negotation and Knowledge skills relevant to the Barrens count for nought because no dice are rolled. The GM expected her to know all the ins and outs of his own take on the Remond Barrens ganglife, and to be able to translate that knowledge into a mode of interaction that would get a positive result. The fact was that she did her best, (though personally I wouldn't in this case have given her any bonuses), and her character's best was far, far better than anything she could have achieved in the situation left a nasty taste.

If there is no intent to allow a player to play something they don't personally have the chops to pull off, why are there skills in things? I take those as evidence that characters are better at some things than their players are and should be able to, by using the mechanics which present those skills, achieve better results in the game. It works the other way: there are things that some GMs aren't as good at as their characters are. And things their characters aren't as good at doing as the GM is, sometimes. Even if the GM is a perfect actor, deciding, for example, whether the less-than-poker-faced opposition cracks a frown/smirk is a job for the rule system, or you might as well just free kriegspiel the whole thing.

In my example there are several imponderables that, if I'd been reffing, I'd've given the player group chance to roll on:

knowledge of the gang leader they were talking to

Opposed Etiquette and Negotiation rolls to change his initial negotiating position and modify/moderate costs

Opposed Social perception rolls of some kind to notice that the negotiations didn't go well.

Etiquette rolls again to determine what probable courses of action such individuals (or even the specific one in question, if the Knowledge: Sprawl Gangs roll was a very good one) might take.

A charismatic GM "succeeding in a PRE attack" against the slightly shy player of a supposed "operator" (and then using the situation to shaft the player group) is not good game. While there are, obviously, problems with that GM's style (the list is larger than I've covered and we didn't play with him for long), using the rules provided would have mitigated them dramatically. Without rules to let characters do the things they can't do, the player, if they wish to be effective in the challenging situations presented, is constrained to playing roles for which they are already competent. Since at least part of the role of RPGs is escapism, and wish-fulfillment, it seems counter-intuitive to me to not let a character be good at the things that the character is good at, even if the player isn't. If the player doesn't try or the GM doesn't encourage them to try and allow them to fail, but for their character to rescue them, then  it seems to me that the result would be unsatisfying. It would, I agree, be unsatisfying for a GM to begin a combat with "Roll your Tactics skill. Oh, you succeed. Right, the best way to fight this lot is [full explanation of optimum approach]".

So far I haven't see any good ideas for representing a master tactician because you can't really simulate good decision making. Decision making happens at the player level, not the character level. Thus character-based abilities are the wrong tool.

[My bold]

It doesn't have to. That's the point of the "simulation" bit. It can occur at the "table" level: let the "Tactics Power" allow the player of GodOfTactics to run ideas by the other players; I've seen that work pretty well at tables I've played at, with some pretty tactically astute players who aren't necessarily playing characters with the experience or ability to quickly assess a combat situation helping the "Leader" type come up with a plan that makes sense, with the GM helping by providing more info to the BattleComputer character based on perception rolls and the like, information that the tactics players can use. Of course, then you've got the problem of getting the players to stick to the plan.

It can occur at the dice level. Enough DCV and OCV can mean that the characters bashing on the pointless targets survive long enough to finish the distractions/finish them quickly enough that the bad guy doesn't have time to set up the thing the distractions were supposed to be giving him time to set up.

The problem with requiring what we in the LARP game call "hard skills" for some (or even all, as is the case in most LARPs) situations is that you tend to see the same players playing in the same niche in every game. The guys who can operate effectively in the political field end up being "in charge" (or as in charge as the setting lets them be), the tactical-minded end up being generals, the martially-inclined end up being in the shield wall or guarding its flanks. Some LARP systems do offer "soft skills" (i.e mediated by the game system: dodge calls, or large quantities of hit points or armour etc) in the combat/tactical field; in those, the "Fighter" classes can take enough skills that a fellow who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag can turn in a good day at the coal face of combat, but they'll still be meat for someone else with near-equal soft skills and better hard skills. It's really hard to have non-intrusive mechanics for persuasiveness or "knowing who's who in the Senate, and what they want", though, so the phenomenon of the same people filling the roles repeatedly occurs more with that sort of interaction. Now it might not be a problem that worries you, but it's certainly something I've observed.

Playing someone who isn't very good at something you can do well is much less difficult than the reverse though, which leads to another phenomenon when there's a hard skill requirement of the player to play the character: the flight to non-combatant. Characters in front line combat roles die more often than those in support roles or who don't "take the field". Players don't like to take the same role over and over again, and so at some point, the player of the combatant character, when "re-rolling" after a death, decides to go "merchant" or "politician". And doesn't die. In fact none of the REMFs die, and so the proportion of "fighty types" decreases, because the ones who don't can't operate in a fight will never become combatants. At fest-scale LARPs, the ones who enjoy a fight can even go off and "monster" to get their combat fix, which means the fighty types who are left face an increasing pool of opponents, making their job even more difficult and accelerating the trend. It's not such a biggie with a five seat tabletop game; if everyone's opted for Courtier or Social Rogue archetypes when their hitit has died, the GM can just change the focus. But then you end up with inertia driving the campaign a certain way.

I was watching an episode of an anime series called Ajin the other night, and I witnessed the worst tactical decision making I've seen in a long time on a tv show (this is very common in anime series, I've noticed). However, in this case the reason behind the atrocious tactical choices (made by the show's characters) was the need for the plot to go in a specific, contrived direction, with a specific, contrived ending. But it only reinforced for me the fact that none of the skills, abilities, or game mechanics in the Hero System would have helped a "master tactician" character solve the tactical dilemmas posed by the scenario in that episode; only smart decision making on the part of the player(s) would have.

I feel your pain I spend most of my time actively suspending disbelief (the mental equivalent of putting my fingers in my ears and going "La la la.") when things get "tactical" in most any TV or movie that has action scenes. Drama trumps credibility pretty much every time.

What is wrong with having a few tools for the GM to help the player(s) to make smart decisions that their character(s) maybe should've? Particularly in a situation where the player probably doesn't have as good a picture, in some respects, of the actual status of everything as the character does?

I'm not sure, from the dog's expression, that the dog thinks that's cute. I think the dog can feel the cat's dew claw over its carotid and dare not move...

Yeah, well, one area where RPGs in general sort of intrinsically fail is in the whole genius-level INT thing where the character is somehow expected to think and act with a level of intelligence the controlling player does not himself possess. It just doesn't work, and I've never seen a set of mechanics that "simulate" it to any degree of satisfaction when play has reached some critical point in the game (like solving an important, cryptic riddle, or entering combat with the villains). That high INT just becomes a cruch, a way to shortcut having to solve puzzles or make smart decisions on one's own.

 

It's not unlike players who try to play characters with high-level social skills (Negotiation, Persuasion, Seduction, etc.), and expect dice rolls to substitute for roleplaying all the social interactions. It can work mechanically, I guess, but that ain't roleplaying. I understand the idea that RPGs let us play people who aren't us, but I have always believed that all in-game social interactions should come from the player, not the character sheet. I would extend that philosophy to combat decision making as well.

Can't agree with this viewpoint for a tabletop game. The rule system exists to simulate the imponderables. The root of RPGs is wargames, and the biggest set of imponderables in most games is the combat: you don't have the room to run about and swing swords, nor the ability to go to work the next day with missing limbs and organs from not having the healing powers to cope with wounds received, and consider the problems faced by the unfortunate GM! Not to mention the set of people who actually have the skill, attitude and physique to engage in combat has small intersection within the set of people who enjoy sitting round a table rolling dice.

The rules let us do things in the game that we can't, for whatever reason, do IRL. If only the slick-tongued charmers get to play successful "face" characters, then only the stone-killer marksmen with cyberspurs and cyberpsychosis should get to play the Street Samurai. Sure, good roleplay (in any circumstances) should be considered by the GM to see if that approach would help but that's a case of dice roll/TN modifiers for good ideas and good roleplay.

There have been a lot of good ideas for how to represent a Master Tactician's skill set. Abstractions like CSLs for OCV and DCV are great to cover things that none of the parties sat around the table playing a non-zero-sum cooperative storytelling game can provide specific input on. Skills that allow others (whether the CQB instructor currently playing a pointless Noble or cowering wimp, or the GM who knows what the Bad Guys are actually up to and can therefore offer clues as to how to counter their plans) to pitch in with advice for the tactical Naif who wants to play an Ender Wiggin clone are useful for elements that can actually be represented above the abstraction layer. I'd say you need both approaches to cover all bases. Actual precog/TP "subconscious" powers to know what the opposition are fixing to do next are a crunchier way of building the "Tactical Genius" skill.

If you (or a given player) actually want the different mints and weights of coin to be something they can play with, how about a "Numismatics" skill that can complement other negotiation skills when money is involved? The clever coin connoisseur knows how to get best value out of the raw weight of metal depending on custom and mores.

Looks like a platypusling to me, so it probably hasn't developed them yet, given they're a sexual dimorphism.

I was expecting a Guinness ad...

Maple syrup is horrid.

Sugar and lemon on "proper" pancakes. American pancakes (the way we get them over here in rightpondia - also known as "drop scones") are generally pretty ho-hum, often verging on the inedible, and I'm sure they must be much better over there to be so poplier.

Is there no chance of Clinton-Sanders? What stage is the actual nomination process at? I remember Bernie saying he'd support Hillary's candidacy if she won the Dem nomination: has he conceded?

If you asked them and they said no, it's not being a jerk to tell them, "Sorry, the table's full now. But if anyone drops out, I'll give you a call!" So don't let that push you into running a group larger than you are comfortable with. I'd suggest starting on the low side, and inviting some of the ones who're late to the table one at a time to increase the cast if you think another body will fit.

I doubt it. "Endurance hunting" is only possible if you're able to carry food and water with you, so by definition it must follow the development of tool use, rather than preceding it. Personally I'm still skeptical that endurance hunting has ever been anything more than a sport or the occasional one-off; the cost of calories expended relative to the calories captured is still far too low to make it an effective survival strategy. And in evolutionary terms it's all about calorie efficiency.

The calories in one ungulate that weighs in at twice a human's body mass far exceed the calories that would be expended by a solo hunter running it down and spearing it when it collapses from exhaustion. Or even 4 hunters working as a team for an hour to drive the thing to physiological collapse.

It's still not as calorie-efficient, as driving an entire herd off a cliff, or trapping, or any number of other hunting strategies, but you wouldn't endurance hunt "small" prey and arguing that the return would not compensate for the expenditure is shaky ground.

This is not the right thread for this story

Unless he signed his real name...

I assume he didn't, or they'd not still be looking for him.

LS: can remain awake (one head at a time) at all times; can drink and breathe at the same time (good for drinking contests amongst other things)

Psych Lim: Argues with self.

Complication: requires two pairs of peril-sensitive sunglasses for proper effect.

there is, iirc, a book arguing he is worth significantly less than one billion dollars, in reality.  

Aye. And most of that tied up in assets, not cash. It's all part of the Trump persona, I guess; seems like a fertile source of ammunition for his opponents that hasn't, to my awareness, been deeply mined as yet.

We went to Brazilian barbecue last night for my son's 21st birthday.

Oh man. Did the same thing for a friend's [morethan21]th last autumn. I ended up feeling like a python that had swallowed a goat whole, and the horns were digging into my liver... It tasted great, but I really shouldn't let "eat all you like" turn into "all you can possibly stuff in short of using a plunger"...

Leaping.

Surely $250mill is chump change to a man as rich as the Trump. He can self-fund if he really wants to go the distance.

What's the town's reason for being where it is? Market? Industry? Trade hub? That should prompt some specifics.

I think that it needs to be an even lesser ratio than 2:1, because assigning OCV levels to DC is a choice that reduces your chance to hit in exchange for more damage (as is calling a shot to a high damage, hard-to-hit location), whereas "over-hitting" is a "free bonus" from getting lucky with the dice. I'd make it at least 3:1, maybe even 4:1.

A question about the Dem convention/selection process.

It seems to me, from an outside and somewhat cursory perspective that Hilary is doing rather better than Bernie in states that are much more likely to return electoral college votes for the Reps than the Dems. Bernie, conversely (with an exception or two) seems to be doing better in traditionally blue states and the ones that seem to crop up as "decider" states in the election for the Big Chair. My question is whether there is any weighting towards the candidate for the nomination who performed best in the battleground states that can go either way?

Again: one (or more) badly-built "monsters" in the "bestiary" doesn't illustrate any basic failing in the ruleset.

The snarky defensiveness is because you seem to insist that it does.

Any system can be gamed, or can allow someone to generate a useless, gimped character. Using DnD (3.5) as an example, a 10th level pure Cleric will outperform a 2nd/2nd/3rd/3rd Fighter/Paladin/Bard/Wizard or some such non-complementary multiclass combo in almost every conceivable situation where "stats" apply. Simple systems aren't immune to it either: I'm almost ashamed of the power level of my "Golem" construct character in the new Wild Talents game I've started, compared to my teammates' more normal concepts, and this is after spending only half an hour fiddling with a game system I'd never come across before.

Conan often used a short blade in his off hand.

Rapier/Main Gauche is a historical fencing style.

Singlestick (which actually has two sticks) is a style in manuals of arms.

Escrima.

Nazir in Robin of Sherwood.

Ambidex fighting was a thing in LARP (let alone tabletop RPGs) before there even were video games that could depict moving, fighting figures.

Video games were absolutely not the thing that drove the appearance of 2-weapon fighting in Fantasy.

Fighting 'ambi' is hard. It takes a lot more practice with paired weapons to be as effective in a fight as someone with sword and board. But if you're good at it, it's wicked in single combat. Less so in many-on-many when the passive protection of a shield or the reach of a 2-hander/pole really count.

Drawing that distinction between "Florentine" and "using both weapons for attack" by adding "as a primary technique" is strawmanning of the finest quality. The whole point of having a second weapon rather than a shield is that your potential for offense with the off-hand is increased.