Tactics Skill: any utility at all?

[Michele]

Originally Posted by BraselC5048

At least in my experience, what happens is the GM draws up a quick sketch map, and gives a description, and then the player decides what course of action to take.

So, as you yourself point out, this is the way your GM does it. It might not be the only way.

The player has all the information the character would have, and the player has to make a decision based on it, and all the skill in the world your character has won’t help you if you ‘fail the rolls,’ so to speak.

Well. Think about the Common Sense Advantage. It's an Advantage that lets an impulsive player play the role of a careful character.

Tactics works similarly. Suppose you roll 10 against a Tactics skill of 12. You are successful. Now suppose you come up with a very very bad tactical idea. The GM will warn you that, on second thought, that plan seems to have an evident flaw.

Now what if you, the player, have a good tactical idea but you have failed your skill roll? That will depend on the group's gaming style and the GM's decisions. Some groups will not accept railroading (the GM forcing them to go along with a bad tactical plan). But then the GM has other ways. For instance, the plan was good but the execution is bungled. You do go around the building looking for the stairs, but as you do so, on the spur of the moment, you decide to fire a couple bursts for suppression fire at windows on the building's sides. Bad tactical implementation of a good tactical plan.

Apart from that, look up the skill's description. Good ideas there.

[Kromm]

Here are some rules citations. The ones marked with an asterisk (*) can be a lot like "I win!" buttons in many situations.

Advice (Dungeon Fantasy 2, p. 11): "If he listens, make your Tactics roll. The result affects all his attack and defense rolls that turn: +2 on a critical success, +1 on a success, -1 on a failure, or -2 on a critical failure."

Ambush* (Tactical Shooting, p. 21): "Instead, roll a Quick Contest of the ambusher's Camouflage, Shadowing, Stealth, or Tactics against the prey's Per, Observation, or Tactics. If the ambusher wins, the target suffers partial surprise."

Ambush and Surprise* (Spaceships, p. 48): "The GM may rule that an ambush does or does not take place on the basis of a roleplayed situation, a clever plan, or a Quick Contest of Tactics skill."

Battle Strategy Roll* (Mass Combat, p. 36): "Commanders of forces consisting of one to four elements may roll against Tactics instead." (In this case, every 3-5 levels of skill dramatically alters casualty ratios and relative position.)

Partial Surprise* (p. B393): "Having even one point in Tactics skill gives +1 on initiative rolls; Tactics at level 20+ gives +2."

Ruses (Martial Arts, p. 101): "His opponent can choose to resist with . . . his Tactics skill."

Situational Awareness (Tactical Shooting, p. 11): "When a PC turns his attention to new targets or areas of the battlefield, the GM may impose knowledge restrictions on him . . . These restrictions can be negated with a successful . . . Per-based . . . Tactics roll."

SOP Rule (Action, p. 8): "However, the kind GM may permit a group Soldier or Tactics roll, subject to Got You Covered (p. 5), and on a success let the players change plans retroactively because their characters would have known what to do." (Tactics is also essential to The Mission Plan, p. 17; Cool Commando Stuff and Bodyguard Tactics, p. 28; and Analysis, p. 39.)

Space Tactics Task (Spaceships, p. 51): "To do so, roll against your the lower of your Navigation (Space) or Tactics skill (or their defaults)."

Tactics (p. B224): "In personal combat, you may make a Tactics roll before the fight begins if you had any time to prepare. On a success, you start the fight in an advantageous position – e.g., behind cover or on higher ground – as determined by the GM."

Tactics (Martial Arts, p. 60): "Roll a Quick Contest of Tactics between the leaders of the two sides before the battle. The winner receives 'rerolls' equal to his margin of victory." (There are also some fairly effective advanced rules there.)

Tactics in Action (Tactical Shooting, p. 21): ". . . a successful Tactics roll by the team leader means that the PCs are deployed as appropriate in the moment the shooting starts: behind cover (if available), all facing the threat (except for the designated rear security, who'll watch the group's back), etc."

Like all skills, Tactics relies on the GM offering situations where it matters, and then remembering to use it. In my secret-agents campaign, it's one of the most rolled-against skills – basically, all ambushes and sudden armed contacts call for it, and so does any situation where a PC has to lead a small force or make a battle plan. As well, Per-based Tactics rolls are life-savers in situations where a PC who's moving under fire wants to guess where the enemy might have positioned snipers, antipersonnel devices, etc.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by BraselC5048

Really, what good is tactics skill anyway?

At the very least, it keeps the GM from bopping you painfully over the head for not roleplaying, if you play your character as tactically savvy during combat. Whenever he raises his hand, you can point to the high figure on your character sheet, e.g Tactics 16 or 18 or whatever, as justification for your roleplaying.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by BraselC5048

For example, GURPS WWII give the example of ‘using tactics skill to determine the best way to approach the house.’ Do you roll, and then the GM tells you the best way if you passed? At least in my experience, what happens is the GM draws up a quick sketch map, and gives a description, and then the player decides what course of action to take. For example, “we’ll head along the creek until we get a close a we can, then we rush them, hopefully taking them by surprise, since there’s only two windows on that side of the house.”

The way I generally play it is to point out useful geography and such if the tactician succeeds. In effect, the accuracy and detail of their view of the scenario depends on their skills at forming that image (Tactics, Observation, etc.).

[Anaraxes]

Note the similarity with social skills in the old debate about roleplaying versus the ability to play a character with skills you don't personally have. A character might be a brilliant tactician even if the player is not. In that case, you have to rely on relative dry mechanical rolls to make sure there aren't any lapses, just as you do if someone is trying to play the fast-talking face.

It's fun to look at a map and come up with clever assault plans. Fun for the players, that is. Their characters may or may not actually have the ability to do so, were we sticking to the character sheets. The Tactics skill means your character really does have this ability.

The consequences have already been mentioned by others:
- if the player has the ability, then adding Tactics makes sure it's appropriate for the character, so there's not a roleplaying conflct.
- if the player doesn't have the ability, then adding Tactics gives you some mechanical assistance
- a sort of military Common Sense so the GM will let you roll to avoid doing things he thinks are dumb
- in the "roll with it" school, when all the players staring at the map think it's a great plan, the GM can make it so even if he thinks it's actually dumb, thanks to the Tactics skill
- bonuses to gain or avoid surprise
- a Perception skill for tactical matters such as placement of traps, strongpoints, lines of supply
- a sort of social skill that lets you guess enemy plans

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Note the similarity with social skills in the old debate about roleplaying versus the ability to play a character with skills you don't personally have.

Note also the similarity to social skills in the old assertion "What good are social skills in a fight?" That argument assumes that all adventure campaigns will be about violence, that the only abilities that matter are those help win battles, and that the only worthwhile measure of character effectiveness is points in combat-related traits. And indeed, if the GM only ever throws fights at the PCs (occasionally calling them "affrays," "brawls," "scuffles," "skirmishes," etc. for variety), then social skills are a waste of points.

The same basic idea holds here: If the GM springs all combat encounters on the PCs fully realized, with both sides magically transported to engagement distance on an open plain with no planning allowed, then Tactics is worthless. The skill assumes that violence is often precluded by seconds, minutes, hours, even days of planning and maneuvering, and that even when it occurs without warning, the side that forms up first, identifies threats, and moves toward the more defensible terrain is going to do better. Tactics is most accurately a pre-combat skill, and thus only valuable if combat usually follows some level of planning and organization.

I've definitely gamed in campaigns where all encounters amounted to "Suddenly, you're fighting 43 orcs!", and there, I'd never bother with points in Tactics . . . and, if that was everything that happened there, I'd leave out points in Diplomacy, Leadership, and Savoir-Faire, too.