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

[NineDaysDead]

Overall I like the new Tactics rules but:

In battle, a leader may grant his rerolls to any ally who has just attempted a combat-related die roll. The recipient rolls twice more and selects the best result. The leader’s player must describe how such tactical factors as cover and formation altered the outcome. If the GM disagrees, the reroll is wasted.

So a tactical genius Character is penalised because the Player is tactically ignorant? There doesn’t seem to be anywhere else where the Character is penalised because of the Player’s limitations:

• Does the Player have to be an engineer to play a Gadgeteer Character?
• Does the Player need to be good looking to play a character with a Character witha high Appearance?
• Does the GM have to find the Player sexy for a Sex Appeal roll to succeed?
• Does the Player need to be strong to play a Character with high ST?

[vicky_molokh]

Actually, the rant that GMs who don't find the player charismatic will either disallow Charisma or will ignore the rules about its effects is one of my favourite rants. So I guess things are as bad as usual.

[KlausPrinceOfTheUndeads]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Overall I like the new Tactics rules but: So a tactical genius Character is penalised because the Player is tactically ignorant? There doesn’t seem to be anywhere else where the Character is penalised because of the Player’s limitations:

• Does the Player have to be an engineer to play a Gadgeteer Character?
• Does the Player need to be good looking to play a character with a Character witha high Appearance?
• Does the GM have to find the Player sexy for a Sex Appeal roll to succeed?
• Does the Player need to be strong to play a Character with high ST?

Actually, I think the sense of the rule is:

- battles should be described, not a mere matter of dice rolling. Of course, no detailed description is required: but things like "I order the men to raise their shields for cover against the volley of arrows" or "I shout: <<Spartans, hold them!>>" are and should be the standard.
- the GM needs to have an idea about what's going on in the battlefield. Both "keeping the formation closed and the ranks tight" and "open the ranks to let the charging chivalry pass without trampling everyone" allow to reroll an active defense, but they also open the way to different counteractions (such as ordering the chivalry to retire and the balistas to fire against the packed men in the first case).

Of course, I'm not one of the authors, so it would be bettet to wait for their answers.

[David Johnston]

[QUOTE=NineDaysDead]

[list]

[*] Does the Player have to be an engineer to play a Gadgeteer Character?

No, but he does have to say what he intends to build

[*] Does the Player need to be good looking to play a character with a Character witha high Appearance?[*] Does the GM have to find the Player sexy for a Sex Appeal roll to succeed?

No but he does have to avoid screwing up too badly with his dialogue.

[Extrarius]

Originally Posted by KlausPrinceOfTheUndeads

[...]but they also open the way to different counteractions (such as ordering the chivalry to retire and the balistas to fire against the packed men in the first case).[...]

Which, once again, means characters are penalized for players' lack of ability.

While it's not realistic, it's much more fair to bend reality to the attributes indicated on the paper than to penalize a player for making a choice not in agreement with his character sheet. After all, you won't allow a player to ignore their disadvantages simply because they say so - they have to roll self control in order to suppress their disadvantages, so I'd say they at least get a roll to utilize their advantages/skills/etc.

[Mark Skarr]

Actually, no.

What it is saying is that the leader must simply explain how the use of tactics is affecting the battle. For instance:

Bob is taking a re-roll on his botched block roll when being attacked.
Bob's leader tells the GM that because Bob is part of the front line of the phalanx, his shield-mate would also be covering him.
Or, Bob is taking a re-roll for his first stab with his spear because he missed. His leader says that since Bob's in the front line of the phalanx, and there's no where for his opponent to go Bob should be much more accurate.

For a tactically dis-inclined player (GummiBear comes to mind), I wouldn't be expecting them to give me a dissertation on how their going to be waiting for specific openings to present themselves. But things like: "Bob is going to be using the big rocks for additional cover" or "Bob's going to be crouching behind some of the trees so they won't see him clearly" or even "With all the confusion some of the enemy troopers get tangled up on the underbrush which gives me a better chance to dodge!"

[mikeejimbo]

Actually, I think we're looking at it from the wrong point of view. We're assuming we're entitled to these re-rolls, and that by not being tactical, they're being withheld. I guess it is described more like that, but I think of it like this: The leader is getting a chance to be rewarded through creativity.

[Kromm]

It's called "roleplaying." Many rules for skill use suggest that the GM give a bonus to for good roleplaying: "Your approach and the plausibility of the story may further modify the roll, at the GM's discretion." (Fast-Talk), "The GM may assign a +1 or -1 for especially appropriate or clumsy dialog." (Intimidation), "-1 to -10 for using an inappropriate Influence skill (GM's decision)." (Influence Rolls), "If the player's description is especially clear or clever, the GM should give +1 or +2 to all invention-related skill rolls." (New Inventions), etc. The same goes for reactions: "A good approach should be worth +1 or more! A wholly inappropriate approach that antagonizes the NPCs should give the party -1 or -2 on the reaction roll." (Reaction Rolls). Advantages and skills provide the basic capacity to do things, but ultimately, the player has to give some input or it's just a computer simulation.

In this case, the Tactics skill provides rerolls, but how the rerolls are used requires a player to speak. He doesn't have to speak brilliantly -- just say "I had Frank taking cover behind a tree, so a branch got in the way of the arrow" or "I'd have put Merlin in the back row, so he'd be screened and in a better position to make his concentration roll." That's really no different from the examples above.

The OP's assertion seems needlessly confrontational. It's entirely clear to me that this rule simulates the game mechanics of Luck and more-or-less requires the nominal group leader to suggest ways that his mates could've got lucky in combat. In that sense, it resembles Serendipity in play: stuff happens, but the GM has the right to ask the player for suggestions.

[vicky_molokh]

BTW, can specialities such as Tactics (Duelling) or (Hand-to-Hand) be used in the same way, without commanding anybody except oneself?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Molokh

BTW, can specialities such as Tactics (Duelling) or (Hand-to-Hand) be used in the same way, without commanding anybody except oneself?

No. "Tactics" in a one-on-one fight is represented by the skill roll.

The GURPS Tactics skill is for groups. The ONLY way I'd ever allow it is before a battle where one faces many, representing best use of Ambush tactics vs the group's leader. I'd only allow this in Cinematic Rambo type games.