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.

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

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.

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

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

With enemies like Gleichman, who needs friends?

Jake Norwood wrote:

LOL, yeah, it's true.

Jake

Mike Holmes wrote: 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).

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.

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.

BrianL wrote:

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

Brian.

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

OriginalFlash wrote: Seems like he has to justify his like for D&D.

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...

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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

spunky wrote: JMHO.

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

Jaif wrote:

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