Over the years, I have many times encountered a question along the lines of, "Why do RPGs always have tactical sub-games? Why isn't combat simply resolved with the same methods as other situations?"
GDW's En Garde!, despite the fencing game that was the original impetus for developing the larger game structure, was already pretty unusual in 1975 for emphasizing events in the large rather than the small. This is in contrast to the focus on minutes and tens of feet found in the dungeon games that became the common stereotype for design.
One thing we might note is that while the EG! formalisms are well suited to the subject of social climbing in 17th century Paris, they don't provide specific mechanical support for zooming in on other concerns (although those could be explored in more detail in "free style" roleplaying). This paradigm of tight focus and often artificial rules -- more game than simulation -- is characteristic of board games, and more recently of a trend significantly represented by the Forge school of RPG design.
Another thing is that the bulk at least of commercially successful RPGs have been inspired by genre fiction of the "action adventure" sort. Getting down to low-level actions (crossing so many yards of a log bridge, getting a shot or swing at a foe, and so on) is fairly representative of the source material.
Might a game inspired by, say, the novels of Jane Austen treat a life-and-death fight no differently than a tea party? I guess it might, if both were treated in a fair bit of mechanical detail. That seems to be the trend in "storygame" quarters: increase the number of factors and rounds of play in a "universal resolution" system, so that no affair comes off as being treated too cavalierly even if the treatment is from one perspective not much of a simulation and very "game-y."
This can be very flexible in terms of time and space scales. Talk of "conflict resolution" vs. "task resolution" can bog down into arbitrariness and incoherence, but I think at root the contrast is with games in which people insist on an inflexible scale regardless of the situation at hand.
On the other hand, we might note that the original D&D game and others sometimes feature "save or die" events resolved with a single dice roll. My first thought regarding this is that there's a wide consensus that such situations ought to be in a context that permits significant exploration -- various ways of learning about and taking measures against a hazard -- before coming down to the roll.
I never saw most RPGs as flat out tactical until the edition of D&D that had it as the focus rather than an element of a larger game in the normal sense. Most games can be played without minis. But some companies will want to push the tactical side so they can sell minis.
But some players want lots of tricks and stunts to use in combat.
Personally I think that a game can get too tactical and the sessions bog down once combat starts. People obsessing over how much they can move, can they set up this big showstopper power, etc. If I wanted to play a wargame I'd be playing a wargame. I came to RP. Probably why I liked AD&D, Gamma World and Star Frontiers so much. Each was pretty straightforward and you could play however you pleased. And 3rd and 4th ed D&D can be played just fine without all the tactical of course.
I do though love minis and using them to illustrate combat positions and distances when it is needed. In a chamber with lots of furniture and cover? Get the minis out. Jumped by bandits on the road? No need for minis. Just lay in and I'll call it as it falls.
I think one thing that "works" about combat is that you have lots of real-world factors like positioning and cover to deal with, that makes it feel more "real".
Social conflicts tend to be a bit less so. Rolling a d20 for combat feels right because combat is chaotic. But that same d20 telling me how well my speech impressed the king tends to make me feel like I'm not in control of my character.
Really, I think what any mechanical system should seek to address is matters of time, attrition, opportunity cost, and stakes. Combat already has these, with factors like hit points, fire and forget spells, ammunition, reinforcements, etc. To create a system for something else, you should figure out what real things like those that the system interacts with.
I won't be surprised, if I come up with a system that does something like, "Your rousing speech earned you 5 Social Leverage Chips," to hear a bunch of bored players asking when they get to go kill things. And I wouldn't blame them.
(shrugs) The hobby started out as tactical wargaming. That's always been, therefore, a basic and seldom-questioned expectation. The same gamers who flame the RPG forums over games which dare to include a few pages of social interaction rules don't often balk at the same systems having several dozen pages of core combat rules ... or multi-hundred page combat splatbooks.
One of the things Gary Gygax told me way back at a con was essentially. "Hammer down the combat system. In most settings it will be the most common part of the game in use." So I make sure the combat rules do what I want them to do. The rest falls into place usually (but not allways...)
As for rolling on that persuasion check. Often the player is playing a character with stats and abilities they dont actually have. The player could give a rousing speach. But what if their charisma is a 10? This is where the rolls come in.
When GMing I tend to just listen to some oration then glance at the characters stats quick and mentally weigh how well that speech really went across. But thats a tale for some other thread.
But basically an RPG needs a combat system if there is going to be a-lot of fighting. It does not have to be robust to get the job done. That does not inherently make it tactical. It does make it potentially tactical. Some GMs and players just do not click to tactics at all. But the potential is there for those who want it.
I will let players play characters who are more clever or more socially adept than themselves, but they can't just roll the dice for it. If they want to charm someone, they have to describe what their approach is, what kind of points they want to get across, what they know about the target that can be used as leverage, etc. If they want to be a master tactician who can analyze any situation for an advantage, they don't have to draw me a map of a strategy, but they should at least lay out some basic goals and how they want to set about achieving them.
Generally, I want to hybridize the two methods discussed in
Stars Without NumberQuoteThere is a Persuade skill, and the fact that this and similar social
skills exist sometimes causes players or GMs to simply shut offmore
informal evaluations of social situations. When the PC wants to
convince an NPC of something, they roll Persuade + Charisma and
let the dice tell them how far the NPC is willing to buy their premise.
The actual words and arguments they use are simply decorative.
On one level, this is justifiable. Th e player of the warrior isn't expected
to be a real-life shootist to roll a good attack roll, so why should the
player of the silver-tongued expert con-man have to come up with
a smooth line of patter to use his own abilities? It's legitimate and
reasonable to let the dice determine the success of a conversational
gambit. If a player has spent character resources on something like
social skills, they should see a mechanical benefit from it. Moreover,
relying on a player's conversational talents to move negotiations can
often boil down to a game of finding the right conversational gambit
for the GM rather than rationally persuading the NPC
QuoteStill, some players and GMs prefer to let actual argumentation play a
bigger role. One potential way to do this is to let the player state his or
her case, and then set the Persuade diffi culty accordingly. Convincing
a crime boss to give a PC access to his network of corrupt city offi cials
might be a difficulty 8 test if the player makes a good argument for
it, while a desultory request might be diffi culty 10. Alternately, you
might implicitly adjust the consequences of success or failure based
on the character's total Charisma and skill bonus. A character with a
+5 total might not succeed in persuading the crime boss if they roll
very low, but he'll point them towards someone who might be able to
help them. Th e key for this sort of approach is to let both skills and
player argumentation have a visible effect on the outcome, so that
players feel that both matter.
I *like* the possibility that a rousing speech can fail. But I want to know why, and I want to know what happens after it fails. That is, to say, I think a player who says "I grill the crowd for info on the whereabouts of the bandit fortress" like they would "I swing my sword at the goblin" will probably accept a failure at face value. Which is fine, as long as they can come up with a backup plan on the spot.
Quote from: Shauncat;695560I will let players play characters who are more clever or more socially adept than themselves, but they can't just roll the dice for it. If they want to charm someone, they have to describe what their approach is, what kind of points they want to get across, what they know about the target that can be used as leverage, etc. If they want to be a master tactician who can analyze any situation for an advantage, they don't have to draw me a map of a strategy, but they should at least lay out some basic goals and how they want to set about achieving them.
Generally, I want to hybridize the two methods discussed in Stars Without Number
I *like* the possibility that a rousing speech can fail. But I want to know why, and I want to know what happens after it fails. That is, to say, I think a player who says "I grill the crowd for info on the whereabouts of the bandit fortress" like they would "I swing my sword at the goblin" will probably accept a failure at face value. Which is fine, as long as they can come up with a backup plan on the spot.
We had a huge thread on this recently.
My position remains
i) Get the player to say what they want to do, encouraging them to role play it out.
ii) Get them to roll a dice and do a coresponding resistance or whatever
iii) role play out the result that makes sense of their rolls.
The last part which is where you temper the response of the target of a social check to fit the response that roll would elicit. this encourages the player to participatre in a roleplay exchange.
If their actual idea is crap but the player rolls well I can role play a positive response to it that makes sense of the scenario.
Mercifully with my group the players oration and diplomacy skills about match their stats and character skills.
In my own book there is not a charisma equivalent stat. Diplomacy and interaction was purely based on the players ability to get across what they want.
Quote from: Omega;695548As for rolling on that persuasion check. Often the player is playing a character with stats and abilities they dont actually have. The player could give a rousing speach. But what if their charisma is a 10? This is where the rolls come in.
When GMing I tend to just listen to some oration then glance at the characters stats quick and mentally weigh how well that speech really went across.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat? If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?
Combat* is fun**.
*Some implementation thereof.
**To most of people who play games.
Quote from: Omega;695610Mercifully with my group the players oration and diplomacy skills about match their stats and character skills.
In my own book there is not a charisma equivalent stat. Diplomacy and interaction was purely based on the players ability to get across what they want.
I like the OD&D approach to Charisma. Roll on a bell curve range behind the GM screen, apply Charisma mod, but don't actually tell the players the result. Let them interact with the NPC to find out. I'm surprised it doesn't come up more often as a classic feature.
Quote from: Phillip;695428Over the years, I have many times encountered a question along the lines of, "Why do RPGs always have tactical sub-games? Why isn't combat simply resolved with the same methods as other situations?"
GDW's En Garde!, despite the fencing game that was the original impetus for developing the larger game structure, was already pretty unusual in 1975 for emphasizing events in the large rather than the small. This is in contrast to the focus on minutes and tens of feet found in the dungeon games that became the common stereotype for design.
One thing we might note is that while the EG! formalisms are well suited to the subject of social climbing in 17th century Paris, they don't provide specific mechanical support for zooming in on other concerns (although those could be explored in more detail in "free style" roleplaying).
All I remember is fighting duels during lunch. What were the social climbing rules?
QuoteMight a game inspired by, say, the novels of Jane Austen treat a life-and-death fight no differently than a tea party? I guess it might, if both were treated in a fair bit of mechanical detail.
I can pretty easily see an AustenWorld game working, with custom moves* tied to her characters and settings. The Bennett's could be the PC party, with the various suitors played by the GM. Although Lydia running off with Wickham just screams GM move following a failed roll. Actually, Lydia seems the product of a particularly poor roll.
*Stupid jargon, can't you just say "action"? Although in this case I'm okay with fiction, since you'd explicitly be trying to emulate Austen. Although it would turn into a Bronte story, or worse, a Harlequin romance, if the GM didn't show restraint with their moves, since the goal would be clever comedy and light drama, rather than melodrama.
Quote from: Ravenswing;695615Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat? If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?
I much prefer to let a player use all his tactical ability and diplomatic ability if he wishes to do so. If his PC has poor abilities that will still affect the outcome. In combat the tactically smart player with a weak PC has to deal with that. Likewise I treat the charismatic player with the low-CHA the same; you are free to give a rousing speech but still success will be tougher for you than if you had a high CHA PC. Maybe your character is like Tyrion Lannister, or there's something else about him/her that puts people off. I play a CHA 8 Cleric in a Labyrinth Lord game like that; she's always trying to give stirring speeches, negotiate with NPCs etc, but she's hampered by her innate low charisma, so eventually she'll often give up and turn to one of the handsome CHA 14 oafs in the party to take over. :)
Anyway for immersive roleplaying games I don't want to discourage players from using their own abilites as well as the abilities of their PC. If a player chooses to play a character as dumb-as-rocks that should be their choice, but unless their PC has been Feebleminded I don't want to force a player to play stupid.
As for the low-CHA player with the charismatic PC; I expect them to step on up and attempt to roleplay their character. Then they get an (eg) Diplomacy check using their character's skill, so if they made an effort at all they should be able to succeed. If the player is just shy they soon learn they can succeed at diplomacy etc. I prefer in-character speech but will usually accept a paraphrase. They need to give some indication of what they're saying before I can set a DC for the roll, though - no "I diplomatise him".
The net result is that success is a hybrid of both PC and player abiliity in both social and combat spheres. I may do this with other areas too; eg if a player knows about rock-climbing and makes a convincing description of how they're climbing the rock face I may set a lower DC for their climb check, as long as it's not slowing the game down - some stuff I just want to gloss over quickly.
Quote from: S'mon;695642I much prefer to let a player use all his tactical ability and diplomatic ability if he wishes to do so. If his PC has poor abilities that will still affect the outcome. In combat the tactically smart player with a weak PC has to deal with that. Likewise I treat the charismatic player with the low-CHA the same; you are free to give a rousing speech but still success will be tougher for you than if you had a high CHA PC. Maybe your character is like Tyrion Lannister, or there's something else about him/her that puts people off. I play a CHA 8 Cleric in a Labyrinth Lord game like that; she's always trying to give stirring speeches, negotiate with NPCs etc, but she's hampered by her innate low charisma, so eventually she'll often give up and turn to one of the handsome CHA 14 oafs in the party to take over. :)
Anyway for immersive roleplaying games I don't want to discourage players from using their own abilites as well as the abilities of their PC. If a player chooses to play a character as dumb-as-rocks that should be their choice, but unless their PC has been Feebleminded I don't want to force a player to play stupid.
In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.
D&D has Int, Wis , Chr
If instead it had
Grokability* - how many skills, powers or spells you can learn
Perception - how well you observe things in the environment
Willpower - how well you can resist metal attack and temptation
Appearance - how attractive you are
* didn't like this one but was struggling to find a neutral term
These stats have none of the complexities of how to play a smart PC if you are dim, or how to play a social pariah if you are a charming MF. They still cover the stuff that the old stats covered but now you can totally roleplay how smart, charming, wise or cautious you are without breaking immersion.
Quote from: jibbajibba;695645In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.
D&D has Int, Wis , Chr
If instead it had
Grokability* - how many skills, powers or spells you can learn
Perception - how well you observe things in the environment
Willpower - how well you can resist metal attack and temptation
Appearance - how attractive you are
When I made my own system that's pretty much how I did it, yup. I always prefer to use the stats as a resource the player can call on, not as a limiter. This means a somewhat restrictive interpretation of INT, especially; but that's not a problem for roll-in-order games where stat importance doesn't have to be balanced vs each other.
For point-buy games I'll tend to give my PC (say) INT 10 and CHA 12 rather than INT 8 or CHA 8, so that I can justify being reasonably smart, talkative etc if the GM queried it. I'll put an 8 in INT only if I really don't want to bother with logic puzzles etc. Had one very annoying GM for 1 session who expected my drunken INT 8 dwarf barbarian PC to help solve a complex logic puzzle - and wouldn't let "I hit it with my giant hammer" count as 'solving'. :D
Off topic, I've thought for a while that Perception has much more basis in being a static character stat than any of D&D's big six, which IRL vary widely over a person's lifetime for generally easily understood reasons, typically training, which is the realm of skills. Sharpness of the senses decreases over one's lifetime, but does not vacillate much or for long, hence: stat.
On topic, of course RPGs focus on combat with rules. 1) The appeal of RPGs is to pretend to do things you can't do in real life, among the most basic and lurid of which is to FIGHT to the DEATH with WEAPONS, and 2) given that it is life and death you want to be able to adjudicate it most fairly, hence the rules focus.
Quote from: Imp;695749Off topic, I've thought for a while that Perception has much more basis in being a static character stat than any of D&D's big six, which IRL vary widely over a person's lifetime for generally easily understood reasons, typically training, which is the realm of skills. Sharpness of the senses decreases over one's lifetime, but does not vacillate much or for long, hence: stat.
On topic, of course RPGs focus on combat with rules. 1) The appeal of RPGs is to pretend to do things you can't do in real life, among the most basic and lurid of which is to FIGHT to the DEATH with WEAPONS, and 2) given that it is life and death you want to be able to adjudicate it most fairly, hence the rules focus.
I hate perception as a separate stat, since perception =/= sensory acuity, it's what sense you make of the information your senses are giving you. I think it should be tied to either an attribute, or better, a skill. For example, I have pretty good vision, but since I've never played football (American), even after years of watching I still can't see what the various linemen are doing while the announcers can. On the other hand, I have played soccer, and I will react to things that could happen but don't, since I can perceive possibilities in play, which people who don't know the game as well miss.
I'll third jibbajabba as well; I think the non-physical stats in D&D would be better if they represented things in-world that a players actual abilities can't influence, e.g. how strong the player is doesn't help their PC lift a log, so STR makes sense as an attribute, while how smart a player is can help their PC navigate the world.
It is true that perception is not entirely a matter of innate ability, but I would argue that when perception is used in an RPG it is very often used to detect things a character has never encountered in his life and thus is more in the realm of ability, and to an extent demeanor (innate level of cautiousness/ paranoia). "What's that sound? It gives me the creeps," etc. Activities like understanding a football play as it develops, or more in the medieval RPG-realm, detecting a sword attack en route, or identifying tracks on the ground, are usually tied to skills or classes that pertain to those specific endeavors.
Quote from: apparition13;695641All I remember is fighting duels during lunch. What were the social climbing rules?
The social climbing rules are easy to miss - they only make up thirty-eight pages of the forty-three pages of rules in the rule book.
Seriously, dueling is three pages and four tables in a forty-eight page book. The rest is the social rules. Did you ever even look at the rule book?
Quote from: S'mon;695642They need to give some indication of what they're saying before I can set a DC for the roll, though - no "I diplomatise him".
Ex-fuckin'-zactly. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/social-skills-and-roleplaying.html)
Quote from: jibbajibba;695645In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.
They already are. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/i-didnt-spend-all-those-years-playing.html)
Quote from: Ravenswing;695615Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat? If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?
There does seem to be a fairly common "double standard." I personally don't like "you can't think of that" interventions in either case, since to me they tend to rob the game of some fun, but there can be exceptions at the extremes of out-of-character behavior.
I'm more inclined to go the other way, letting ability scores give a chance of the player getting additional clues (which leaves actual choice of action in the player's hands).
Quote from: jibbajibba;695645In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.
Pendragon has only Size, Dexterity, Strength, Constitution and Appearance. Note the absence of an intelligence score. Willpower comes in with specific personality Traits and Passions, while perception is a matter of skills (chiefly Awareness, Heraldry and Recognize).
"CHAINMAIL is, first and foremost, a GAME. Therefore, player decisions are paramount."
The OD&D combat system makes perfect sense if you are a CHAINMAIL player. Positioning, movement, and timing are LEARNABLE SKILLS that the PLAYER!!! may learn. NOT THE CHARACTER. In D&D you don't roll a "Make Tactical Decision" roll, you fucking DO it.
And the negotiation and interaction rules make PERFECT SENSE IF YOU ARE A DIPLOMACY PLAYER! The referee determines the NPC initial attitude, and then you ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, just like you actually move to flank the goblins. Having a "BLUFF" or "INTIMIDATE" roll would be counter to the idea of PLAYER skill. And it also says that NPC attitude will change based on how the conversation goes, so there is your 'social combat resolution.' Just like Diplomacy.
And Gary, and Dave, and all Gary's players, and all Dave's players, were all avid Diplomacy players.
Quote from: Old Geezer;695804Having a "BLUFF" or "INTIMIDATE" roll would be counter to the idea of PLAYER skill.
It depends on how it's used, which can be just like the use of OD&D's 2d6 reaction toss. When I got into RuneQuest back in the day, the actual conduct of the game was not radically changed by having a "skill system," any more than we forgot how to deal with traps and such when we got the Thief class in D&D Supplement I. It's just another way to organize the same kind of data, geared to easy notation of differences among figures.
Quote from: Old Geezer;695804"CHAINMAIL is, first and foremost, a GAME. Therefore, player decisions are paramount."
The OD&D combat system makes perfect sense if you are a CHAINMAIL player. Positioning, movement, and timing are LEARNABLE SKILLS that the PLAYER!!! may learn. NOT THE CHARACTER. In D&D you don't roll a "Make Tactical Decision" roll, you fucking DO it.
And the negotiation and interaction rules make PERFECT SENSE IF YOU ARE A DIPLOMACY PLAYER! The referee determines the NPC initial attitude, and then you ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, just like you actually move to flank the goblins. Having a "BLUFF" or "INTIMIDATE" roll would be counter to the idea of PLAYER skill. And it also says that NPC attitude will change based on how the conversation goes, so there is your 'social combat resolution.' Just like Diplomacy.
And Gary, and Dave, and all Gary's players, and all Dave's players, were all avid Diplomacy players.
But RPGs have developed in different directions and this RPG as sports or effectively projecting yourself into the game world isn't what a lot of players are after.
Some players want to have PCs that are more like Prince Charming than they are. Some players want to play characters that are more liek SunTzu than they are. Its a natural development of RPGs.
Quote from: Imp;695775It is true that perception is not entirely a matter of innate ability, but I would argue that when perception is used in an RPG it is very often used to detect things a character has never encountered in his life and thus is more in the realm of ability, and to an extent demeanor (innate level of cautiousness/ paranoia). "What's that sound? It gives me the creeps," etc. Activities like understanding a football play as it develops, or more in the medieval RPG-realm, detecting a sword attack en route, or identifying tracks on the ground, are usually tied to skills or classes that pertain to those specific endeavors.
I have made Perception the stat and then have various skills based on it.
So Interrogation uses perception as its base stat as does Observation, Art, Tracking, Weather Sense, Appraisal etc etc
Obviously you can use it raw to cover all these skills with a lower chance.
Quote from: Ravenswing;695615Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat? If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?
If necessary. If the player is using advanced tacticals with a character that is low on Intelligence and/or Wisdom, and doesnt have any indicators that they could be making these calls then I will point out they are falling out of character and need to rethink. Sometimes the other players will beat me to it and call them out on it.
Or I may let them go with the tactical choice. And then just adjust the enemies tactics to something unexpected. The character simply made a wrong call, was guessing, bluffing, etc.
Or I could let it succeed and leave the players and characters wondering WHY it succeeded. Where did that moment of insight come from? Luck? Supernatural intervention? I could spin a whole campaign off from something like that.
Usually though the tactical thinking players are playing tactical thinking characters.
Quote from: jibbajibba;695867Some players want to have PCs that are more like Prince Charming than they are. Some players want to play characters that are more liek SunTzu than they are. Its a natural development of RPGs.
I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill. Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.
So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.
Quote from: Old Geezer;696132I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill. Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.
So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.
Warfare in Amber Diceless seems the obvious counter-example. (Possibly also the exception that proves the rule).
Rogue Trader has a Command skill that we've been forced to use at several points during the current campaign. It's both your "presence" and your ability to give orders that are actually helpful, so yeah, Sun Tzu and Price Charming combined, and all in a system where the only player-facing feature is a die roll.
I don't blame the GM though. A lot of our time is spend outside of squad-level combat. Rogue Trader has an awkward setup where ideally, you're like the Star Trek TNG crew, where the most senior, valuable members of the crew are undertaking the most dangerous missions, but little mechanically incentivized reason to play that way (the GM can and does reward ballsiness when appropriate, at least).
Quote from: Old Geezer;696132I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill. Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.
So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.
Plenty of games have Leadership & Tactics and I don't know of any skill based games that have a mass combat system where there aren't skills that influence your success in mass combats.
The first game I played a "character" I created was Squad Leader, where you started as an NCO and played through a set of scenarios to advance in rank and ability. Basic, but also this thread made me remember that; I know I first played chainmail after I played regular D&D, and that I had played Imperium from GDW before I played Traveller. Trav had a huge number of tactical sub-games: Snapshot, Striker and Azhanti High Lightning, all which I owned, plus when I bought the Fifth Frontier War, it came with iirc, some rank and other rewards for characters printed from a dot matrix printer. I think like many of us, we came from a wargame background, in my high school chess club, we played diplomacy, and later, Traveller, Armslaw, etc. .
Quote from: Old Geezer;696132I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill. Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.
So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.
Off the top of my head...
In Eoris Essence your side can get a free round of combat if your team leader is better than theirs (and vice versa).
In Tenra Bansho Zero a character with the tactician skill can obtain a bunch of extra dice by making a tactical plan and then hand them out to other players as things go just according to Keikaku (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/just-as-planned).
In Iron Kingdoms an experienced commander character can buff the shit out of his companions twice over (everything you can see from buffer solos in Warmachine and then some).
In D&D 4e a warlord can can provide extra attacks, movement and healing, probably some extra buffs too.