Forum

It seems like we have a few points of misunderstanding here. A big one is that while I agree that solving game problems with player intelligence is a major source of fun in RPGs, it is not the only source of fun. Many players, who are there more for the roleplaying aspect than the game aspect, take plenty of fun from (for instance) playing their low-intelligence character as a low intelligence character and seeing what sort of trouble that leads them into, among other things.

Things get a bit sub-optimal when you end up with a mix of roleplayers and metagamers at the same table and people end up frustrated. So you've either got to decide how to point the horse to one direction or the other, or find compromises that keep everyone entertained.

However, hex-map and all, this remains a roleplaying game and not a tabletop wargame, which brings me to the next point. Certainly it is easier (and probably more fulfilling) to apply things like Tactics in the sense we're discussing it in theatre of the mind. No argument there. But the existence of a hex-map does not invalidate other ways. Here's a whole bunch of thoughts on that:

• ten meters is a pretty big amount of space. Within any given ten meters there are countless furrows, brush, tall grass. There's nothing stopping you from presenting a map to the characters and then permitting pieces of cover or concealed approaches that were not there initially to be discovered (ie, added) through play.
• in my most recent session I allowed a character to use their recon skill similar to a mobility roll, to move up undetected through a wheat field. With each success granting them a hex closer to the enemy that they were confident they could move without being seen or heard. This worked pretty well. It's easy to see other applications of this sort of thing.
• "you see a hill that dominates the approach to the bridge" is a good example. There are many others. As characters enter a map, if there are any who have decent Command or Recon skills, they should get knowledge like that, or "that building looks like a likely sniper position." No roll required for that. However, a roll to set up a concealed LP/OP on the hill overwatching the bridge might be -- to later determine the likelihood of patrols coming across it, etc. The flip side of letting players solve problems with intelligence is of course that many of them may be playing characters with more training knowledge than they themselves have. I have a player like this. His character gets fed this sort of knowledge to allow him to appropriately solve problems he otherwise might miss. Of course this depends on your group, as does everything.
• the terrain may be the battlefield but it is not the whole story. METT-TC always applies. So even if the terrain remains 100% unchanging, plentiful other factors like time of day, weather, observed patrol patterns and behavior of the enemy, etc etc will always apply. Someone who is a good commander will be able to see all of those factors to their advantage and make the most of available recon/knowledge -- while someone who is not, will not. This offers endless strings the GM can pull: enemy morale, how many reserves are available and when and where they show up, how well armed they are when they do show up, etc. Each of these things can be easily tweaked to reward or punish characters appropriately.

Because this is not a tabletop wargame, there is no such thing as hard truth. There is no such thing as "fair." (and if there was, the PCs would have very short, unsatisfying stories!) There is only the perceived reality that unfolds over time. The only thing "concrete" in a roleplaying game is the past -- and sometimes not even that. The rest is, at best, concrete that hasn't set yet.

This is not cheating or pulling punches. It's using all the tools in the toolbox to make good stories that everyone feels like they had a hand in. Basically everything in a roleplaying group is a Skinner box, and everyone -- but especially the GM -- has a powerful hand in shaping that behavior so it is the most fun for the particular people involved.

Two major examples from my personal experience just came to mind of "the map is not reality," which maybe also help. They were from the same exercise.

First, myself and a recce team spent four hours, starting pre-dawn, moving up an incredibly difficult hill to a dominant peak that should have given us terrific vision in multiple directions for a long distance. Except, when we got to the top, we realized the entire thing was covered with ancient tall deciduous trees, and we couldn't see a thing in ANY direction. We had good, modern maps. We had good training (my own training may be a bit lacking, but every other member of the patrol was a Ranger!). So what we lacked was the local tactical knowledge to realize the implications of what the map represented. (better maps, say Soviet style, might have helped -- but that's unrelated.

Later, learning from our mistakes, we tried to apply this new earned knowledge and move to an adjacent ridge where we figured we'd have better sight lines covering at least some of the AO. Except when we got over that ridge, we found the forest here had recently been clear-cut by loggers! THAT was not on the map. Not only did it provide almost no concealment, it was for all purposes a swamp -- everywhere you stepped you risked falling up to your waist over felled branches. We tried to cross it for a few minutes and realized it would take an hour or more -- and a single MG or mortar on the other side could very easily have ambushed us.

So that's two concrete examples of how a map, itself, is not concrete and could easily be "revealed" and altered as appropriate in the situation.

First, myself and a recce team spent four hours, starting pre-dawn, moving up an incredibly difficult hill to a dominant peak that should have given us terrific vision in multiple directions for a long distance. Except, when we got to the top, we realized the entire thing was covered with ancient tall deciduous trees, and we couldn't see a thing in ANY direction. We had good, modern maps. We had good training (my own training may be a bit lacking, but every other member of the patrol was a Ranger!). So what we lacked was the local tactical knowledge to realize the implications of what the map represented. (better maps, say Soviet style, might have helped -- but that's unrelated.

Later, learning from our mistakes, we tried to apply this new earned knowledge and move to an adjacent ridge where we figured we'd have better sight lines covering at least some of the AO. Except when we got over that ridge, we found the forest here had recently been clear-cut by loggers! THAT was not on the map. Not only did it provide almost no concealment, it was for all purposes a swamp -- everywhere you stepped you risked falling up to your waist over felled branches. We tried to cross it for a few minutes and realized it would take an hour or more -- and a single MG or mortar on the other side could very easily have ambushed us.

So that's two concrete examples of how a map, itself, is not concrete and could easily be "revealed" and altered as appropriate in the situation.

So how do you propose integrating this into the game rules?

It seems like we have a few points of misunderstanding here.

I think our major point of misunderstanding is on what a Tactics skill is or would be, and on the nature of the game.

Moving undetected up that field is Recon, and so is setting up that camouflaged OP. These are abstract. Siting that OP, or a machine gun, or whatever, is Tactics. This is concrete: it happens on the hex map. A game like this is both an RPG and a tabletop wargame: as soon as you are looking at a hex map, you are in the world of tabletop wargaming.

Let's not confuse the hex map with a topo map. The hex map is intended to accurately represent line of sight, etc. It is the concrete ground truth. We have rules re what features block line of sight, how far you can see through trees, and so on. We are using the hex map because we are not actually in Poland. But because it is the ground truth, I would never show the players a hex map of a place where their characters were not standing. I would show them a sketch representing a topo map, if I thought they had one.

Also, I think it is a grave error to draw a firm line between "roleplayers" and "metagamers." Having tactical knowledge doesn't imply using it where your character would not have that knowledge; this is an assumption you are making (and applying to me in a way I find personally insulting, I might add). If I am playing a civvie character, I am not going to apply my knowledge of how to set up a defensive position. But if I am playing a soldier, I will. And the idea that the character needs to have some kind of magical "Tactics" skill to understand military basics, especially after surviving three years of high-intensity war against a peer adversary, is nonsense. That kind of skill bloat turns military characters into Soviet conscripts: they're useless at everything they haven't been specifically drilled in.

You're labelling me a metagamer, which is unfair. To me the essence of roleplaying is to allow players to attempt to solve problems using their wits while bearing in mind the limits of their characters' knowledge. The fastest and surest way to kill roleplaying is to turn the game into a series of skill checks. Die rolls should be limited to resolving abstract questions that need to be taken out of the hands of the people at the table.

First off, I definitely didn't label you anything. At no point did I say anything personal here. I'm glad to hear you don't engage in these sort of behaviors at the table. But I'd be incredibly surprised if you don't know people who do. Who do not faithfully play their character, because they as a player want to "win" or be the coolest guy at the table. There are munchkins everywhere in roleplaying. Fortunately, there are also tools and practices to weed them out -- or at least make sure the others at the table get to enjoy the game, too.

And the idea that the character needs to have some kind of magical "Tactics" skill to understand military basics, especially after surviving three years of high-intensity war against a peer adversary, is nonsense.

That statement implies a lot about the characters, which is by no means universal or true. It was the stated position of 1st edition that the characters were all US military. It is not the stated position of this edition; in fact the opposite. The characters can be refuges, criminals, spies, irregulars, town militia -- all sorts of interesting things that don't necessarily automatically give them any real tactical capability whatsoever. Since many of the players in my campaign have chosen not to be military, I am seeing these issues first-hand. Hence this entire thread.

The game also lets you easily create a US Army character (even a very veteran, highly-trained, capable one) that has no Command skill at all. Which is arguably silly. But, okay, there are many enlisted veterans who may understand intimately the "how" of tactical issues, but very little of the "why" (or any other question).

Anyway. I do not subscribe 100% to the idea that the hex map is concrete ground truth. Even assuming it was, it is only partial truth. It is the "how" only. All the features of the map may be correct. But the players may never discover the mines planted in the north or the sniper team waiting in ambush around the corner. They certainly may or may not know that the reserves off the edge of the map will be here in exactly X turns if Y happens, or that the flooded river means the bridge across town is washed out and the enemy will be trapped if they have to fall back. They may not know that the whole company of marauders will turn tail and run if their charismatic leader falls. However, they should be able to potentially come to these conclusions or deduce them. They may know ALL of those things, and as a result have much glory and success... in character.

Skills and dice rolls provide the basis for characters to do the things they need to do which set them apart from others. More important, they allow the game to be surprising and dynamic to everyone and feel like a shared experience. Another thing that kills roleplaying very quickly is a GM who has one vision of how things are going to turn out, because it's the only thing they've prepped for or are willing to present.

It was the stated position of 1st edition that the characters were all US military.

While technically correct, this is still a false statement. Non-US PCs are absolutely a part of the first edition of Twilight: 2000. Otherwise, there would be no need to have 10 times the number of this edition's nationalities in the ruleset. And while the default scenario assumes that all of the PCs, regardless of nationality, are part of the same US Army unit that has survived Kalisz, it also isn't explicitly the only way to play the game.

It is not the stated position of this edition; in fact the opposite. The characters can be refuges, criminals, spies, irregulars, town militia -- all sorts of interesting things that don't necessarily automatically give them any real tactical capability whatsoever. Since many of the players in my campaign have chosen not to be military, I am seeing these issues first-hand. Hence this entire thread.

Which is fine, and as I suggested, I wouldn't be playing some Polish history professor with a specialty in agricultural development following the Thirty Years War and having him site obstacles and machine guns. And if I had players doing that it would be time for a chat, although it's best to have that chat in advance: if you want to play a certain kind of character then make that character.

I don't think this argues in favour of a Tactics skill, because having a Tactics skill doesn't make it go away.

But the players may never discover the mines planted in the north or the sniper team waiting in ambush around the corner. They certainly may or may not know that the reserves off the edge of the map will be here in exactly X turns if Y happens, or that the flooded river means the bridge across town is washed out and the enemy will be trapped if they have to fall back.

To say that the hex map is the ground truth doesn't imply we can see things that aren't in line of sight. It's still in the realm of the concrete.

Skills and dice rolls provide the basis for characters to do the things they need to do which set them apart from others. More important, they allow the game to be surprising and dynamic to everyone and feel like a shared experience. Another thing that kills roleplaying very quickly is a GM who has one vision of how things are going to turn out, because it's the only thing they've prepped for or are willing to present.

This is a false dichotomy. I haven't suggested at all any kind of railroading. What I have suggested is that players can be free to play their characters without having to resolve questions using die rolls unless absolutely necessary. If the LT says, "let's position the M113 here so the MG can cover the approaches to...." I'm not going to interrupt and say, "Roll Tactics to see if that occurs to you." The game remains a shared experience without resorting to die rolls, because how to tackle a problem always remains up to the players, and they will always have their own ideas.

Yes, that's a good example of when not to call for a roll. If the player instead said "I'd like to find the best position to put the M113, so it can cover the approaches..." then that suggests a different situation. "Should we drive the M113 into town, or leave it back here?" suggests yet another one. But in any case you're right that a roll should only be called for in challenging situations beyond the mundane.

There's an important distinction between seeing and inferring which applies to maps and to "reality." Tactics is the art of inferring. The ability of taking different threads and weaving them into a picture that makes sense, while denying the enemy the same. A person can see something yet not really comprehend its significance. And they can also predict things without seeing them.

Anyway. I don't really care if there's a Tactics skill or not (as there is already Command), and we're pretty deep in the weeds of basically off-topic. I only suggested it as an idea for another skill that could cause an interesting split with Command (and allow more interesting character differentiation, which is where this all started).

I guess the difference here is that, with tactics being in part the art of inferring, I'd be much more likely to just up and say, "your training and experience would lead you to consider [consideration]" if I thought there was a glaring blind spot. Because there is no predicting things; there is only educated guessing. And succeeding on a die roll, to me, suggests a level of certainty in the result.

But to each his own. We are indeed way into the weeds here.

That's a situation where I'd be happy to let die rolls determine the degree of success. Anywhere from let's say zero successes (but a skilled character) giving just a basic concept: "This looks like the kind of spot you'd definitely have covered" to one or two successes maybe "This looks like an ideal place you might lay mines" to three or more maybe being "If they're stretched so thin that they're relying on just the minefield to cover this avenue, they definitely might not be expecting an attack from this direction if you could do it without setting any of the mines off!"

But in every case they're still getting results from their skill. Of course, then there might also be the mishap roll: "This looks like the fastest way to get through!"