RPG Tactics article

[Brian Leybourne]

There's an article on "Elements of Tactics" in RPG's up at rpg.net. Although it's not about TROS, it does refer to it a couple of times.

Interesting read.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html

Brian.

[Jake Norwood]

Yeah, but, as far as I know, Gleichman hates TROS and is unfond of me (for whatever reason). What's funny is that he was a huge critic of TROS on those boards until I said "if you haven't even read it, don't talk." Then he shut up about it.

In all fairness to Brian, though, the article had some good insights and it's points on TROS weren't really too far off. His mini-discussion with our Irmo made things pretty clear where he stands.

jake

[Irmo]

In all fairness to Brian, though, the article had some good insights and it's points on TROS weren't really too far off. His mini-discussion with our Irmo made things pretty clear where he stands.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious. It's also pretty obvious that he has precious little idea what he's actually talking about. ;)

[Jake Norwood]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious. It's also pretty obvious that he has precious little idea what he's actually talking about. ;)

LOL, yeah, it's true.

Jake

[Mike Holmes]

Gliechman used to be a Forge regular. Some people from the Forge disagreed strongly with some of his theories, and he left. Since then he's had some sort of grudge against many members here (though for some reason he doesn't take it out on me). Especially anyone who he associates with either Ron or Ralph (Valamir).

This may explain his dislike for Jake and TROS (and then again, maybe not).

The article has some good insights, but some clinkers as well, IMO.

Mike

[Lyrax]

With enemies like Gleichman, who needs friends?

[Irmo]

LOL, yeah, it's true.

Jake

Dontcha just hate those armchair swordsmen ;)

[Andrew Martin]

Gliechman used to be a Forge regular. Some people from the Forge disagreed strongly with some of his theories, and he left. Since then he's had some sort of grudge against many members here (though for some reason he doesn't take it out on me). Especially anyone who he associates with either Ron or Ralph (Valamir).

I've recently been added to his ignore list at RPG.net, because I asked for an apology after he repeatedly swore at me in several of his forum posts. His attempts to bait me into loosing my temper failed to succeed, so he lost his temper.

[Brian Leybourne]

You guys will probably hate me for this, but actually I can see Gleichman's point.

I don't particularly like his tone most of the time, and obviously I think he's wrong in his opinion of TROS, but I can see the point he's trying to make in his argument..ahem..discussion with Irmo over at RPG.net.

And in fact, he and Irmo are are both right, since they're arguing slightly different points :-)

Brian.

[Valamir]

I think we've seen his point since the beginning.  That what he calls "in-game" influences and "meta-game" influences are two different things.

What I'm contesting (and I think what Irmo's contesting) is that the "in-game" influences lead to "tactical game design" and the "meta-game" influences do not.

Brian LOVES tactical gaming and he LOATHES meta-game.

What he's done is created a definition based around his own personal preferences...one that includes all of the features of tactical gaming that he likes and excludes those he doesn't.

I absolutely agree with him (and said as much) that the difference is a useful distinction to make.  The only issue I have is when he says

But that still doesn't alter the fact that the game is calling for an decision by the player almost completely unconnected to anything in the game.  This is not tactical game design.

My contention is that is absolutely is...its just a different kind of tactical game design and a kind he doesn't like...so he doesn't want it in his definition...which IMO makes his definition wrong...or more precisely incomplete.

[Irmo]

And in fact, he and Irmo are are both right, since they're arguing slightly different points :-)

Brian.

I still question whether his model is a valid one, and his resorting to insults suggests he doesn't really have a solid basis for it himself.

[OriginalFlash]

Seems like he has to justify his like for D&D.

[Roger Eberhart]

Seems like he has to justify his like for D&D.

I got that feeling too.

[Irmo]

If any proof was needed that he has no idea what he's talking about... but that he doesn't even revise himself when the role of stances is pointed out to him demonstrates his true attitude. He can't be wrong, no matter what such unimportant things as the facts indicate...

[Valamir]

Actually Brian doesn't like D&D.  The set of games that he does like is very very narrow.  

Basically, Brians preferred game style is basically this.  Combat:  where everything is detailed out as a set of 1:1 miniatures combat rules complete with maps specific movement rates and specific rules to time out when any possible action occurs and exactly what its effects are (with very little room for interpretation).  Everything Else:  Almost completely free form with very little rules interferring with how players and GMs interact.

In otherwords Brians game is a miniatures war game sandwiched in between episodes of free form narrative which serve to set up the next miniatures war game.