Tactics skill

[copeab]

I was reminded of this in another thread and decided to split it off here.

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

My players are more normally fantasy gamers, so they've very little interest in, or need for, a rigid command structure. One of the guys tried playing as a hard line officer, but sadly made a number of poor decisions - players fault, not the characters

I think the lack of any kind of tactics skill is flaw in the T2K rules. I don't know if it was simply an oversight or a design decision to use the player's skill. The problem with this is that while it's possible to roleplay a character with worse tactical ability than yourself, the reverse isn't really possible without something to roll against.

So, how do you handle things when the character should be a skilled tactician (say, a special ops major with 20 years of service) but the player is tactically incompetent?

[Raellus]

Interesting question.

I really don't like a tactics skill because it seems to dictate how a player problem solves. It might work when a less competent player needs to address a tactical issue, but it doesn't work very well the other way around.

I think screening players might be the best solution to the problem of player-PC competence. If you have a person with little to no military knowledge/experience who wants to play a combat officer, then a rethink is in order. Recommend he/she play an enlisted person (or draftee, even), or non-combat officer thrust by circumstance into commanding a combat unit. Or dictate- whatever creates a better fit for the type of campaign you are playing.

I think that player maturity and RP'ing ability also have a large role to play in this. A mature player knows better than to create a PC that is not going to be a good fit, or that he/she can't play well due to a lack of conceptual background. A mature player can also turn an in-game tactical mistake into a good RP'ing opportunity.

[HorseSoldier]

So, how do you handle things when the character should be a skilled tactician (say, a special ops major with 20 years of service) but the player is tactically incompetent?

That sounds about right for a lot of majors I knew in SF . . .

The issue never really came up in games I ran, where things rarely or never got past squad level or sort actions where my players could pretty well grasp the concepts. Every once in a while I might pass a note here or there to a player whose character should know this or that factoid (tactical or technical) that the player wasn't read in on, but that was usually enough to cover the occasional gaps between real and notional knowledge.

If players were going to be in a situation where they were providing the leadership to larger elements, and firefights were going to be a mix of abstract rolls and direct participation in the gunfighting, I'd probably add in a Tactics skill (and probably just assign it arbitrarily based on background and maybe any flair or failings the player had demonstrated to that point with his character).

[Adm.Lee]

When I had groups that had little or no wargaming experience, I stuck in an NPC NCO to offer advice like, "Take cover!"

I wouldn't really know what to do with a Tactics skill in terms of game mechanics. Some games use that to roll for an initiative bonus, but that might not work so well in T2k.

[Legbreaker]

A tactics skill might be used when the player makes a bonehead decision. The GM rolls against the skill, and if it's a success, informs the player of the likely outcome of their planned action. It might also be useful during the planning stages of an engagement - a successful roll means the GM gives the player some additional insight into the enemy's likely reactions to ideas put forward.

A catastrophic failure on the other hand results in the GM giving misinformation, so it's a skill not to be used lightly - all rolls of course would have to be made by the GM in secret.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

A tactics skill might be used when the player makes a bonehead decision. The GM rolls against the skill, and if it's a success, informs the player of the likely outcome of their planned action. It might also be useful during the planning stages of an engagement - a successful roll means the GM gives the player some additional insight into the enemy's likely reactions to ideas put forward.

That sounds like a reasonable application of a tactics skill.