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.

[Legbreaker]

Tactics skill would probably come under Education in V2.x
It would probably be taught as an NCO skill, and available to officers in combat arms.
It may also be available as a secondary skill (wargaming, roleplaying, paintball, etc).

[Tegyrius]

In writing Reflex, I didn't assume that the majority of players were going to be well-versed in tactics, which is why I chose to include a Tactics skill. My feeling at the time was that the system needed to model all reasonable aspects of a successful PC group's skill set rather than assuming player knowledge of certain key items. Some of my recommended tasks for the skill are setting (and detecting) ambushes, analyzing a battle as it unfolds, and determining an enemy commander's likely intentions from intelligence and biographical data. In the absence of a Profession cascade skill, I also used it as the wildcard skill for combat troop tasks - calling for and adjusting fire, communication with simple hand signals, and the like. I did toss in a sidebar for the "know the right thing to do" application, too:

GM Hint: Team Orders
Given the often vast discrepancies between the capabilities of players and their PCs, your group may wind up with a team leader whose player has absolutely no sense of small unit infantry tactics. Unless you’re using the Reflex System as an instructional tool in a military academy, we strongly suggest that you cut such a player a fair amount of slack. Before the character issues a team order, allow the player to solicit advice from more experienced players as to which orders to give to minimize PCs' chances of dying poorly. If no one has any good ideas, a Tactics (EDU, TN +1) skill check is appropriate for determining how well the character understands the situation. While a firefight is no place for democracy, the characters in it may have years of experience that allow them to make split-second decisions. Most players have no such live-fire experience, regardless of how much time they’ve spent in front of their PlayStations.

- C.

[Panther Al]

I tend to use the 'crusty old vet' routine when it comes to groups that don't have much in the way of military know how in order to keep them from making too many bad mistakes. Not a free ride, but if they miss the obvious my npc will point it out.. "Pardon me sir, but don't you recall that the best way to deal with an ambush is to assault it?" or, "Sir, standing on top of the pc while yakking on the radio is a bad idea..."

[pmulcahy11b]

Another thing a Tactics skill might give to the friendly side is a slight initiative/CUF advantage.

[kota1342000]

I added several skills to my 2.0 games, and tactics was one of them. Ive run a lot of players who had no military experience, or people in the military without combat arms experience for that matter (cooks, armorers, supply, S1 shop). A tactics skill really comes in handy when players are either at a loss for what to do ("Help....this character would know what to do but I dont"), or is about to make a serious mistake (me looking over my glasses at a player and telling them to roll tactics before they proceed with running across the open area covered by the pair of 12.7s). Thats why I was happy to see a tactics skill in Reflex.

[Slappy]

I also like a Tactics skill and have added it to several systems. It has a risk of overruling player decisions or being a crutch for poor player decisions, but you can roleplay around that. Plenty of systems have a persuade skill, but that shouldn't prevent a player with a silly line of persuasion from looking like an ass. I've found it best to try to slip the results of the roll into the game where possible rather than give outright advice.

For example "that sounds like a fine idea, but as you walk over to the other fire team to give an example you realize that this could look disturbingly like when your platoon tore to shreds that soviet patrol that stumbled into your lines up north in '97. Of course this time you'd be playing the role of the patrol and getting cut to shreds. Now, if instead they had put their point man and flankers out farther and kept them quieter, things might have gone differently..."

[B.T.]

Just an idea, thought about it for a while ...

I would not like to have a new skill "Tactics" in my T2K-rules (Ver 2.2).

As Leg said, "Tactics" should come under education. I'm not quite shure, how to handle this in detail, but I can imagine to base the skill-level on the terms spent in active military duty (Okay, count terms as criminal, member of some police force, gouvernment agent, etc. as "active military duty"!). Maybe there should be some kind of factor. Something like

asset: Edu + n x 2 (Where n equals the terms spent in combat units!)

I'd like to call this "military experience". The GM could give further informations, not only on tactics, but knowledge on foreign uniforms, typical tactics used by the enemy, or maybe some military phrases (short commands) in some foreign languages, allied or enemy.

If I should use this skill, I'd roll the dice secretly for the PCs and give them further info or hints.

Not quite shure about it, but it might work and help avoiding some of the "usual" traps, players like to set up for themselves.

Hm ...

[Legbreaker]

I can see where you're going and why you tied to to military experience, but don't forget there's a hell of a lot of soldiers who never serve in a combat unit. It's highly likely that those soldiers would have little working knowledge of tactics.

Tactics in my experience (Australian Infantry) is taught to NCOs and Officers during promotion and refresher courses. To be promoted from Private through Lance Corporal to Corporal for example, the soldier must complete Subject1 (Drill, giving lessons, etc) and Subject2 (field work on section level including tactics). Everyone does Sub1 to be promoted, but Sub2 is job specific and could be simply advanced electrical skills for an electrical engineer.

While an infantry/armour/other combat type Private can pick up knowledge without the courses, it's not specifically taught to them on more than a small unit scale. A non-combat soldier has no exposure besides wargaming/rpgs in their spare time.

[Targan]

I don't use a Tactics skill in Gunmaster-T2K but I'm not entirely opposed to the concept, especially if you had player(s) who displayed little or no tactical acumen. Were I to use it I would do so in a manner similar to that described by Legbreaker, and allow the player to make the skill check or I would make a hidden skill check on their behalf depending on the situation (in general I prefer not to make hidden skill checks for PCs but sometimes it is necessary so as not to forewarn the player that something dangerous is about to happen). In the case of a successful check I would give the player a series of options and let them figure out the one that would work best. The better the level of skill check success, the more I would make the right tactic obvious (maybe by throwing in one or two really dumb options that only a moron would choose) or perhaps as has been suggested in other posts by providing more information or insights.

There are some great ideas in this thread's posts. I like Panther Al and Adm.Lee's approaches, I had a couple of very experienced NCO NPCs in my last campaign that provided advice to the senior officers PCs. You just have to use good judgement as a GM and not spoon-feed the players.

[Legbreaker]

There is a danger though with Tactics skill that the GM is a bit, well, inept themselves.

But, as long as everyone is having fun....

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Traveller: The New Era had a tactics skill from what I remember. I don't think that it's a bad thing to have in the game, specifically for all the reasons previously mentioned.

I also think it gives the Referee a way to make life a little easier on the PCs (without them really knowing about it) if things are likely to go really bad. For example, the Ref can roll the Tactics skill as a hidden roll and state that the PC with the skill realizes that 'Plan A' is not particularly good and 'Plan B' is a better option. The players see it as a successful use of a skill and not the Ref giving them a lucky break and in that way, it doesn't feel to them as though the Referee is taking it easy on them, they feel as though they've earned the 'good luck' through the use of their own abilities.
Yeah it's deceptive but it's purpose is to stop the PCs being killed off unnecessarily and GMs have been doing that sort of thing forever so that their players keep enjoying the game and enjoying the game is, after all, what it's all about.

[Legbreaker]

I've spent a bit more time thinking about this and feel that Tactics should be a skill learnt just like any other - ie not given to characters for free based on military or combat experience.
This opinion has come about because I've personally seen some really boneheaded decisions made by people with 20+ years of experience, while others who have actually spend some time and effort (and obviously had the interest) to study the subject, whether formally (military lessons) or even extensive reading of military history, tend towards better tactical judgement.

Therefore, and to repeat my earlier comments, Tactics skill should probably be under Education and available in 2.x as an NCO or combat branch Officer skill, or a Secondary Activity (military history enthusiast/reenactment).

[helbent4]

Group,

I think a good way of running Tactics would be a bonus to Initiative (if using Last Battle/First Clash, Rivering/Mega-combat/Miniatures rules), CUF/Init. for v1/v2/v2.2 rules, per Paul's suggestion.

Additionally, it would be nice for the GM to give some sort of tactical insight in a natural manner. Players can be naturally adverse to accepting such advice if it conflicts with what they think is best.

Instead of the GM simply telling the players the "best" course by some means, take it or leave it, a Tactics roll of some kind might instead allow insight into the enemy or opposing force. Either physical dispositions, numbers, armaments, locations, even goals or weaknesses. That way it's still up to the players to decide the best course, without the perception of having it spoon-fed to them.

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There is a danger though with Tactics skill that the GM is a bit, well, inept themselves.

But, as long as everyone is having fun....

Sort of like the munchkin GM at a convention assuring everyone in the group that a Claymore will take out a T-64? And no, I'm not talking about a M-18A1! His theory was that a claymore could be shoved into the gap inbetween the turret and the hull and be used to kill the crew....after wiping the tears from my eyes after that one, I went and played D&D!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

...a Tactics roll of some kind might instead allow insight into the enemy or opposing force. Either physical dispositions, numbers, armaments, locations, even goals or weaknesses.

I think that is the best course to follow in almost all situations. Tactics isn't just about knowing a large rock is a better bullet shield than a plywood wall, it includes (in my mind) effective recce, applying gathered intel properly, etc.

Hmm, could even have subskills - Tactics: gridiron, Tactics: icehockey, Tactics: chess, etc

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Sort of like the munchkin GM at a convention assuring everyone in the group that a Claymore will take out a T-64? And no, I'm not talking about a M-18A1! His theory was that a claymore could be shoved into the gap inbetween the turret and the hull and be used to kill the crew....after wiping the tears from my eyes after that one, I went and played D&D!

I'm speechless but I wish I'd been there to see that!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I'm speechless but I wish I'd been there to see that!

I think the table still has a imprint of my jaw where it hit!

But for the rest of the con, the jokes about antitank weapons were flying fast...

I think the M-242 Assault Catapult had lots of possibilities!

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Sort of like the munchkin GM at a convention assuring everyone in the group that a Claymore will take out a T-64? And no, I'm not talking about a M-18A1! His theory was that a claymore could be shoved into the gap inbetween the turret and the hull and be used to kill the crew....after wiping the tears from my eyes after that one, I went and played D&D!

My god. Sounds like the know it all I alluded to back when I joined: His latest pronouncement from his lair is that the Air Force launched two tomahawks from a cessna on 9/11, claims he saw video on YouTube, but the government took it down to hide the secret, and oh, the real reason for the deficit? All the pay offs to the folks of NYC to say they didn't see what happened and to tell the cover story.

[headquarters]

most if not all players have seen enough good and/or bad action movies to know a thing or two about tactics. (for gaming purposes at least)

Many have read alot about it and gotten tons of info from the net about it. In my mind the player who wishes to make a character with 20 years military experience but who has no clue in RL must take his chances and learn fast in game - or "die".

( Please note the clear distinction between RL & in game folks )

Of course I will allow a few questions to help the man on his way - just as I wouldnt stop two players sitting at the gaming table starting discussing what end of the hydrospanners should be used to create maximum impact on the conductor grease dispenser in the main cortex - when one of their two characters is about to do a task roll based on a high level in computers to fix some software problem on a nuclear warhead - subjects I have rudimentary and superstitious knowledge about in RL myself.

But -
in game you have the advantage of being able to ponder the tactical map from your vantage point high above the beercan, far removed from the dust and grime,smell of fear and shockingly loud clash of arms - that your poor tin mini-grunts go through down there on the paper sheet in game. The player doesnt feel the stress and the fear and the choking panic of confusion that the miniatures that are actually in rpg combat go through. Thus he can cooly calculate and deploy as he sees fit. He doesnt get the taste of blood in his mouth from running till the blood pounds in your ears or scraping his knuckles and elbows bloody and raw when crawling over shingle and debris on the advance or the retreat-nor will he have to deal with the agonizing screams of pain and fear of the minis fighting and dying all around his own mini down there on the slightly nacho dip stained battle map. He will not soil his pants in fear as projectiles whizz overhead and death comes eye to eye - although a few beer stains might be in the future.

The player has got it good. So - he has chosen to play a character that he hasnt got a CHANCE to actually roleplay you say? Not even a sliver of a hope of pretending to be on top of the situation? Hasent seen a single war movie that has any hint of realistic firing and manouvering in it?

Well, he shouldnt have bloody well staked out a path to the mother of all skill points munchkin special forces character then should he?

But the gm must be merciful. And just. And justice should be swift - but not abrupt. So a session or two with a list of recommended reading and watching inbetween and some commitment from the player and he should be good to go - not the old salt that everyone depends on to get them home perhaps...

so - no- no tactics skill in our games, but any player may ask "in my PCs experience of 12 years as an NCO..." at least once or twice up to the second or third session since rolling up


. Assuming the PC lives that long.

I would like to add on a diplomatic note that - everyone knows what his own game needs better than the GM you discuss it with on line. A tactics skill you say ? Might be a good idea.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

My god. Sounds like the know it all I alluded to back when I joined: His latest pronouncement from his lair is that the Air Force launched two tomahawks from a cessna on 9/11, claims he saw video on YouTube, but the government took it down to hide the secret, and oh, the real reason for the deficit? All the pay offs to the folks of NYC to say they didn't see what happened and to tell the cover story.

I've heard a lot of 9-11 conspiracy theories, but that one...I don't know what to say...

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by headquarters

But -
in game you have the advantage of being able to ponder the tactical map from your vantage point high above the beercan, far removed from the dust and grime,smell of fear and shockingly loud clash of arms - that your poor tin mini-grunts go through down there on the paper sheet in game. The player doesnt feel the stress and the fear and the choking panic of confusion that the miniatures that are actually in rpg combat go through. Thus he can cooly calculate and deploy as he sees fit. He doesnt get the taste of blood in his mouth from running till the blood pounds in your ears or scraping his knuckles and elbows bloody and raw when crawling over shingle and debris on the advance or the retreat-nor will he have to deal with the agonizing screams of pain and fear of the minis fighting and dying all around his own mini down there on the slightly nacho dip stained battle map. He will not soil his pants in fear as projectiles whizz overhead and death comes eye to eye - although a few beer stains might be in the future.

[...]

Well, he shouldnt have bloody well staked out a path to the mother of all skill points munchkin special forces character then should he?

But the gm must be merciful. And just. And justice should be swift - but not abrupt. So a session or two with a list of recommended reading and watching inbetween and some commitment from the player and he should be good to go - not the old salt that everyone depends on to get them home perhaps...

Wow - So, the minis are quite busy on your battleground, are they?

That's the right spirit, son

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

My god. Sounds like the know it all I alluded to back when I joined: His latest pronouncement from his lair is that the Air Force launched two tomahawks from a cessna on 9/11, claims he saw video on YouTube, but the government took it down to hide the secret, and oh, the real reason for the deficit? All the pay offs to the folks of NYC to say they didn't see what happened and to tell the cover story.

Your friend is waaaaayyyy behind the curve! It was done by a wet-ops Special Forces Team that planted C-4 and Thermite throughout the towers. And the reason, so that Bush W could get oil cheap for his cronies....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I've heard a lot of 9-11 conspiracy theories, but that one...I don't know what to say...

Maybe its me, but these theories just get more and more silly. Believe me, I've worked for the government as a shooter and as a bean-counter for almost thirty years now...and no branch of the government could pull off such an operation!!! Too many back-stabbers, power players, ass-kissers and just-plain-in-general-morons to pull it off!

[HorseSoldier]

+1. Our government is profoundly incapable of maintaining secrets effectively. The only place where it does so is in the imagination of conspiracy theorists.