Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Well, this is largely my reaction to what I've seen in certain places, like the game where Chirine was subcontracted as the Bandit King (c) (tm) (reg us pat off). It seems like tactics is simply unknown to a lot of people, and more, that using tactics against them is "unfair" somehow.

What it boils down to is the whole notion of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" hits me like tinfoil on a filling.

I've got two words for you: encounter level.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Well, this is largely my reaction to what I've seen in certain places, like the game where Chirine was subcontracted as the Bandit King (c) (tm) (reg us pat off). It seems like tactics is simply unknown to a lot of people, and more, that using tactics against them is "unfair" somehow.

What it boils down to is the whole notion of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" hits me like tinfoil on a filling.

The GM is discussing with me the possibility of being the 'on-call' opposition in the campaign, possibly in addition to my duties as The Bandit Chief - I am working on the regal aspect of the job, ala the classic domain game - and this is causing quite the stir amongst the players. They were truly in fear of their PC's lives, in the game we played, and I do wonder why. (It's not like I'm Georgie Patton or anything; far from it). I just seem to have a quite fearsome reputation, based on my ability to apply tactical lessons and by thinking outside the box. It does worry me a little; I don't to spoil the campaign for these people, as I do like them and the GM. I'm concerned that my way of thinking may be a little too alien to them, as I am normally playing for very different objectives with very different rules in a very different game. It seems that people have a very hard time getting that notion into their heads, and not simply asking. Like Don Vito Corleone...

But then, they might enjoy the challenge of a 'live opponent'...

Originally Posted by AsenRG

I've got two words for you: encounter level.

Ah. I call it 'scalable threat levels', which probably gives away where I got the notion.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Ah. I call it 'scalable threat levels', which probably gives away where I got the notion.

An apothecary's scale? A dragon's scale? It didn't give it away to me.

Originally Posted by Bren

An apothecary's scale? A dragon's scale? It didn't give it away to me.

RAND, later SPI; Mr. Dunnigan drew on the former to create the latter. His books were quite the hot topic in gaming, back in ye olden daze, but I don't think that they may have aged well as they were based on the then-popular theories of the time. I frankly prefer Mr. Luttwak, myself, as he's a little more grounded in practical operational realities then Mr. Dunnigan seemed to be. As a theorist, though, I think he's still pretty useful.

These days, you'd be better off with Larry Bond's 'what if' scenario books; he does a very good job - especially in "Shattered Trident" - of explaining how theory can be translated into operational concepts.

Yeah I totally missed that. I own and have played a fair few SPI games, though I'm not sure I've played on this century. RAND Corporation I'm more familiar with from the military industrial complex side of the fence rather than gaming per se.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Ah. I call it 'scalable threat levels', which probably gives away where I got the notion.

It didn't give it to me, either. But I'm pretty sure that most of the people that would rely on all encounters being of an appropriate level would call it simply "encounter levels".

And my point is that when you have decent odds of winning a level-appropriate encounter purely by virtue of your class features, and have reason to expect those encounters would be level-appropriate, you don't really need tactics.

Scalable encounter and level appropriate encounter have different connotations for me.

Scalable is something I use more with numbers than with level.* So if the Cardinal's Guards are trying to capture or delay the PC King's Musketeers there might be a single Guard Lieutenant plus an additional 2 Average Cardinal's Guards per PC present. This presumes that whoever is sending out the Guards has some notion of how many PCs they are likely to face. I might also scale it more randomly by using an additional 1d3 Average Cardinal's Guards per PC present.



* Here I take level to mean not just levels in a D&D sense, but more broadly as a measure of the level of skill or competence of the opponent.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

It didn't give it to me, either. But I'm pretty sure that most of the people that would rely on all encounters being of an appropriate level would call it simply "encounter levels".

And my point is that when you have decent odds of winning a level-appropriate encounter purely by virtue of your class features, and have reason to expect those encounters would be level-appropriate, you don't really need tactics.

There's a lot of that.

Also, to be charitable, the meaning of "tactics" can include a great many things. I see even a D&D combat as a small unit skirmish, so things like establishing a holding line, anchoring your flanks, watching behind you, and using light troops to exploit flanks are important.

If you think of combat as a series of one-on-one duels, though, "tactics" might mean
" You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah?"
"I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain."
"Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro?"
"Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don’t you?"
"Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa… which I have."

Which is a perfectly defensible, but very, very different, use of the word "tactics."

What I really want is something to show the sharp deliniation between the tournament or dueling field and the battlefield; from a situation where some notion of honor and propriety holds as opposed to "kickin' and gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer."

Or to quote Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Chalion, “I don’t duel, boy. I kill as a soldier kills, which is as a butcher kills, as quickly, efficiently, and with as least risk to myself as I can arrange.”

(Chirine, you have GOT to read that)

And Tekumel, I'm happy to say, worked that way. Korunme engaged with a fencing master to learn arruche, the art of two weapon fighting, and practiced diligently to become quite good at it. But when the trumpets sounded and the battle began, it was "kill the other sons of bitches in the most expedient manner possible before they kill you."

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

There's a lot of that.

Or to quote Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Chalion, “I don’t duel, boy. I kill as a soldier kills, which is as a butcher kills, as quickly, efficiently, and with as least risk to myself as I can arrange.”

(Chirine, you have GOT to read that)

I'd agree with you about this, my General. Which, I think, is why I don't play in game sessions anymore; the recent 'guest star appearance' in the D&D game at The Source was all of fifteen minutes, but it was a very wonderful fifteen minutes because there was nothing but "Get in there and save them, Chirine!" No game mechanics, no gaming politics, no real-world politics, and - in short - none of the crap I've been seeing go by the the past five years. Would I do it again? Probably; I've been invited back by the GM and the players as their guest. I think, like the people you and I know, they were both startled and impressed by a play style like that quote, and which I tend to describe as "Get in, get out, and get gone" or "Focus on the mission objective." My job, as somebody once said, "is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Hardly romantic, but it does mean I'm still alive.

I don't read much anymore, my General; I have gotten tired of being told that what I like in fiction is '-ist' of some sort; the TOR books thing about the authors I knew and loved pretty much killed my interest in the F/SF genre. It was pretty much the final nail in the coffin, the first ones being driven down hard by quite a few of the fans I've known over the years. I'm sure it's a good book, and I may have a look; likewise, I looked in on Lord Meren, and stayed - following the Eyes and Ears of the Pharaoh around Middle Kingdom Egypt was a lot of fun, with none of the need for whatever political correctness that seems to be a vital requirement for literature today. Being told what to read, what to watch, what to game, and what to think has been getting on my nerves for a while now, and when it killed my decade-old game group I didn't move to replace what I'd lost. Being told that my little miniature people were 'racist', 'obscene', 'misogynist', 'not real gaming!', and 'BadWrongFun!' just got old.

Sorry about the rant; not your fault! I'll look for the book, and let you know what I find.