[MA] Tactical genius Character is penalised because the Player is tactically ignorant

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

The GM is in the middle of a combat YOU the player are supposed to convince HIM your entitled to let the other player get a reroll the way the rules are set up.

Actually, you aren't. The leader's player must do the talking, and I submit that if you have no tactical, leadership, or interpersonal skills, you probably shouldn't be playing the leader without the willing support of your fellow players. I do think in such cases the GM is being unreasonable if they won't let other players chime in and help, but that's a group contract thing.

[Captain-Captain]

Regardless of who SHOULD be the leader, the PC who IS the leader is the one whose player has to convince the GM. This can be a bad thing, can't it?

[Mailanka]

People seriously have a problem with the better poet getting more bonuses, but not the better rules monkey exploiting the rules to find more bonuses? Some people are just better at playing the game, and roleplaying, entertaining your fellow players and GM, is part of playing GURPS.

I've never seen rules and roleplay divorced from each other. Rather, they should compliment each other. "I seduce her, and beat my skill by 4" just isn't nearly as interesting as listening to someone's approach and (not so) smooth lines, and the latter should get a bonus. He's involved, and helping other people get involved. You want to encourage that sort of activity, so it should get a benefit.

But just as dice shouldn't short-circuit roleplaying, the opposite is true too. If a hideously ugly, unpleasant bastard entertainingly attempts to seduce a barmaid, he'll get a bonus too, but considering his stats are through the floor, his chances of success are pretty abyssmal.

Which leads me to my question. I don't have the book, and this isn't cleared by the discussion: does this reroll benefit apply to anyone with a single point in tactics? Or does having a leader with an IQ of 20 and 8 points in Tactics (tactical GENIUS) help you more than a five-year-old who spend a summer at Tactics camp?

[zorg]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

If they give a description which goes contrary to the intent of the skill - eg, "I tell the boss to go to hell, but use Diplomacy to do it," I first advise the player that their character's skill lets the character know that doing that will be counterproductive; ...

Agreed. This simple trick makes life much easier.

Of course, it assumes that the GM isn't out to screw the players, and that the players try not to do obviously stupid things. If one of these conditions doesn't hold, the game won't be fun anyway, though.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by zorg

Of course, it assumes that the GM isn't out to screw the players [...]

Why would any GM try to screw the players when they're so keen to do it themselves? ;)

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Which leads me to my question. I don't have the book, and this isn't cleared by the discussion: does this reroll benefit apply to anyone with a single point in tactics? Or does having a leader with an IQ of 20 and 8 points in Tactics (tactical GENIUS) help you more than a five-year-old who spend a summer at Tactics camp?

You can find the relevant passage in this sample.

[carllarson]

I'm afraid I don't see the point here, except as the one applied to new players that have little exposure to the way things are written and GURPS plays out.

The skill roll gives an amount of rerolls available to the group. These rolls are to be used to show tactical influences that aren't obvious to everyone, as serendipity/luck/whatever.

We're GMs, and we know our players better than the authors of any book. I see a few variations easily handled by GMs;

the leader is one who actually keeps track of the situation in game, and he can suggest ways that a roll becomes a reroll.

the player is one who finds himself needing the reroll, and the leader isn't situationally or narratively aware, and suggests ways the tactics roll allows a reroll.

at the far end, as there are many variations possible, nobody has any clue, everyone is rollplaying, and the GM allows the rerolls as applicable, with or without any narration.

I don't see it as a vague paragraph, as it plainly says optional, and so, comes under 'tweak as needed for your players.' We are the ones who make the RAW work for our games, not the book telling us what we have to do.

I don't expect my 12 year old players to be any sort of geniuses, tactically or otherwise. When I played (Goddess, how long ago was the last time?) I tried to not let my tactical proficiency or acting skills overshadow anyone else, to the extent of never being the leader, but usually his second.

[carllarson]

And to answer the other question, the book is great, and the rest should easily overshadow any notoriety from this thread.

[Wicked Lurker]

Personally, I really like that Tactics Rule.

In reference to the OP: it's not different from many other skills..
If you take a skill where you (in RL) have absolutely no clue what it does or what you can do with it then you will always (generous GM or not) be at a disadvantage to someone who knows it in RL.

This isn't really an argument for me though..
You want to play a tactical genius? Great, prepare for the role!

(And it's not like preparation is even necessary for people who go watch a movie like Troy, Alexander the Great or Lord of the Rings now and then).

I find absolutely no statisfaction in players announcing nothing else but "I use Fast Talk"/"I use Diplomacy" etc.
Such players are better suited for other games where less imagination is necessary.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

In reference to the OP: it's not different from many other skills..

The difference is you don’t just get a penalty you get guaranteed failure if you have a momentary brain fart and can’t narrate the combat.

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

If you take a skill where you (in RL) have absolutely no clue what it does or what you can do with it then you will always (generous GM or not) be at a disadvantage to someone who knows it in RL.

How does being an Olympic fencer player help a character with the Rapier skill?

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

I find absolutely no statisfaction in players announcing nothing else but "I use Fast Talk"/"I use Diplomacy" etc.

If a player doesn’t narrate how they use their Rapier skill, would you say the attack is wasted and has no effect?