RPG Tactics article

[Lyrax]

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.

I thought we already said D&D  ;-)

[Valamir]

Thats actually pretty poignant.  

Its amazing the number of games out there that we could say "so that's just like D&D" about, yet the designer and fans will swear 6 ways till Tuesday that its absolutely nothing like D&D and will produce the laundry list of differences to prove it.

What it really means is they have a particular pet peave about D&D that makes all the world to them when they edit it out, but to those who don't share that peave looks pretty much the same.

[spunky]

Glossing the article, it seems his criticisms are valid in terms of game theory.  

Personally, I feel the great strength of TROS is that it is not a "balanced," "resource management" game.  Instead of trying to be a great "game," TROS strives to be a good simulation.  And simulation-type RPGs are better.  They force players to think, to exploit situations, and sometimes actually run away (something almost unseen outside of CoC).

Don't gte me wrong.  I love resource management games -- like Starcraft and Warcraft III.  But when it comes time to sit down and play an RPG, I want rules that further the creation of great stories.

JMHO.

[svenlein]

Instead of trying to be a great "game," TROS strives to be a good simulation.  And simulation-type RPGs are better.

hmm

JMHO.

ok

[Jaif]

That was all very odd.  I read some of the long thread, but not all, so forgive me if I hit something somebody else covered:

1) Good tactics is very much about making winning choices based on the situation.  Making it based on meta-game knowledge is still a question of tactics; It may not be the best design for a role-playing game (but then again, Amber...), but that's a different issue.

2) The drop-die mechanic is mostly not a random or metagame issue.  Considerations like a short sword versus a halberd at long range are vastly more important.  Situations, like defending until your buddies can intervene, are even bigger components of the decision to drop red vs white.  In fact, there really aren't that many times that it would pay to make your choice based off the opponent's choice (if you could see it first), unless the opponent tries something surprising.  All the die-dropping allows is that occasional surprise.

3) His article seems (to me) to dismiss the whole fog-of-war, psychological side to tactics, and that's just crazy talk.  Lee defeated Hooker at Chancellorsville through gambling and guts, and those most certainly are as much a part of tactics as anything else.  If you chose to defend (pick white die) because you know your opponent (say, crazy orc) is likely to attack, bully for you, that's tactics!

4) With the whole metagame thing, I have to ask: who exactly is fighting whom? Is the GM peering in Joe's soul, trying to gain some advantage for his Orc? Is it the reverse?  Frankly, if that's your situation you probably have a problem with your role-playing games, but that's just me.

-Jeff

[Irmo]

4) With the whole metagame thing, I have to ask: who exactly is fighting whom? Is the GM peering in Joe's soul, trying to gain some advantage for his Orc? Is it the reverse?  Frankly, if that's your situation you probably have a problem with your role-playing games, but that's just me.

-Jeff

That's what I told him pretty early on: If all his GM cares for is to see his char die, die, die, and thus tries to "read" him on a player-to-player basis, he should pick a different GM. If the GM is readable and consistently throws the same die, regardless of who he is representing, he should also pick a different GM. If HE is the GM and does one or the other, he should be glad he has people who RP with him :)