Re: Tactics

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

Lyle,

If my memory serves the tactics skill that Steve is referring to is
a skill that some Centralia characters as a group bought (XP and
all) and the die check is varied by the familiarity the characters
were with working with each other and how difficult the coordinated
action was.

This skill was bought to avoid GM type screws.  You know during game
actions one person says they run up to attach an available opponent
and another says he attaches so and so with a lightening bolt.  Some
GM's in the past have placed people in just the wrong spot so that
their actions messed up another party members.  Or since all actions
are artificially simultaneous with no method of reacting/avoiding
other characters actions (i.e. three people really don't run through
a doorway at once.  Try it, you will find that people naturally slow
down, turn sideways, take turns), the tactics skill allowed a way
for characters to react to other characters (For example a really
successful skill check could allow a 3 word action message to be
relayed to the rest of the party before the during the informational
questions round).

I hope this better explains the skill, but it is irrelevant to what
Wright was discussing for Geleia.  Steve was just mentioning that
the skill some Centralia characters have is different than the ones
Wright is proposing.

-Kris

----------
> From: Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>
> To: 'Steve Ames' <steve@ns1.cioe.com>; gmlist@cioe.com
> Subject: RE: Tactics
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:37 PM
> 
> Hmmm, interesting.  Circumventing a momentary lapse of reason or
common
> sense on the players' part with an in-game skill.  Sounds like a
crutch to me.  ;-)
> 
> Wonder what other ways we can think of to keep players from
accidentally
> killing each other (or getting each other bent over).
> 
> Hey, I have an idea; shouldn't we try to solve this with in-game
actions, maybe
> set up some form of code or a programmed sequence of actions, as
opposed
> to messing around with the rules (or adding new ones)?  Wait, I've
heard this
> before.  Isn't it you, Steve, who goes around tsk-tsk'ing those
who try to add
> or change rules when in-game solutions work just fine?  ;-)
> 
> Seriously, I would think that playing long enough with a
particular group would
> give you, as a player, that sense of tactics.  Otherwise you just
aren't learning
> from your mistakes in play, are you?  Also, do you truly only
apply this skill at
> full value when playing with the exact team you developed it with,
or are you
> getting the same roll despite who your erstwhile companions are? 
All round,
> this 'Team Tactics' skill sounds to me like a way for players to
get a rule-based
> system to keep them from screwing up.  I don't agree with its
inception and I
> will not allow its use on any game I moderate until Dan gives the
go-ahead.
> 
> Lyle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:19 PM
> To:	gmlist@cioe.com
> Subject:	Re: Tactics
> 
> > Land Tactics: Leading foot soldiers directly.  Formerly known as
"Tactics"
> > 	that many people already have.
> 
> Neagative... I think. A bunch of us have a 'tactics' skill which
is
> actually 'team tactics' of a sort. We specified in game terms that
> we trained together (and did nothing else) for a good chunk of
times.
> Doing this gave the adventurers a good feel for how people would
react
> in a given situation and allow us to work around one another. I
will
> never run in front of one of my teams lightning bolts without
getting
> a tactics check. That was the goal.
> 
> We have also, on occasion, applied this skill to trying to predict
> what another group would do... less than succesful in most
attempts.
> 
> 						-Steve
>