How does this skill work, from a player's perspective? From some of the specializations (Gut Check, Morale, Persuasion, Strategy, Tactics), it sounds like it doesn't have to be an opposed test at all.

I can see an NPC ordering a lowly grunt to open the door first as an opposed test, for example. Unless a player has some sort of henchmen, I don't see much use they have Leadership and opposed tests.

So if PCs don't use it for opposed tests, what other kinds of tests do you think there'd be? Looking for suggestions.

The specializations of Strategy and Tactics scream out to me "buy this supplement rule book if you want to be a r33t military commander".

I expect they have planned to add something like the Small Unit Tactics skill from the CC, but without a new skill. However i'm not sure what such a skill use would add, given the change in Initiative.

BTW how often do your see henchmen, hirelings, and such at your table? We do see them from time to time in limited roles.

A PC might also attempt to use Leadership to calm down or convey "orders" to bystanders or perhaps your protection client in some situations?

Well, given the Third Edition mechanics the Tactics specialization of Leadership relates pretty closely (given that Small Unit Tactics tests were focused on communication environment rather than the actual tactical environment). There is also a very vague mechanic in the book on utilizing AR to give the Initiative bonus SUT could give, which might require a Tactics test on someone's part to actually make use of the information. In that event, you'd want to set the Threshold at something which reflects the complexity of the tactical situation.

I just made up my own rules for Tactics for another system which was a bastard test because it was effectively an Opposed Test utilizing communication and situational modifiers, and it was rolled by whomever was fighting (i.e., runners and guards, etc.) where the winner got the bonus and the loser got hosed. And that's how it could be Opposed in SR4 if you roll against the NPC Leader and whoever has more hits gets the Tactics, etc. bonus.

Morale should be used like Instruction to help on Composure tests. I'm still not entirely sure what the difference between Morale and Gut Check would be mechanically, but uh... that's something.

Strategy is, well, strategy. But it could also be used for management, and I see uses for assisting in Teamwork Tests.

Persuasion is, well, yeah that's the most obvious one for an Opposed Test. I think the rules for Leadership should have been fleshed out some more because it can be a good skill to exploit (plus since you have it with the Influence Group, you may as well use it once in a while). There is enough stuff that socialization (which I am working on for other projects) could be its own chapter.

Ya, i suppose Small Unit Tactics were centered around the Battletac system. I like the idea of Opposed rolls, including modifiers for communication systems. If the Battletac system resurfaces i hope that's how they handle it, a nice prefab field communication package that gives a bonus, like allowing Teamwork dice to be added, to the Leadership (Tactics) pool.

Re: Gut Check vs. Morale, i think Gut Check would make some sense in aiding a Composure Test because a gut-check is related to morale, but usually refers to an extreme, accute crisis.

Morale in general is a willingness to work towards goals of the group/leader. So maybe it is a recognized authority figure giving orders to a subordinate? Like possibly a Teamwork application where what has to be done is fairly obvious, but you need to convince people to do it.

Persuasion could then be closer to Ettiquette, where you are directing people without explicit pre-arranged authority over them.

Strategy would then be logistics, planning, etc. Teamwork applications too, but where the key part is the planning and/or tracking rather than the actual directing.

Persuasion seems more like what Leadership is or is thought of.

You make a good point about Gut-Check and Morale. I do like the idea of how Morale and Strategy affect Teamwork Tests, differentiating which specialization affects them.

I also think that maybe there should have been a Negotiation example (given the thread, I think asking one of Leadership is strongly implied) because that (well, both Neg and Lead) are ones which cover probably the largest scope both in mechanics and Role-playing, and both IMO have a lot of mechanical modifiers which are contingent upon what is (or isn't) said or done while role-playing the scene (I role-play it out first and then roll depending on the RP).

hahaha.

Indeed. Let's wait for the Companion.

Sense Motive also seems odd given the Judge Intentions mechanic at the end of the Skills chapter (Attribute-Only Tests). I guess if you have a higher Negotiation than Intuition, but then... well, that's kind of dumb. Possible. But dumb.

I'm thinking SUT will be more like a cooperative oppsed roll. basically, the two sides make opposed rolls. The side that wins, each member of the unit gets the humber of hits as extra dice to use in a test. Like in cooperative lifting and such. That way, also, a side using tactics, against a group such shooting like crazy, is going to get better results,as well they should, I don't think it will be on inititave, although it could always just add the hits as dice to the initiative roll I suppose.

That was one of the suggestions I made, and it is the mechanic I'm using for my new system.

sorry, I jsut kinda breezed over the thread. Didn't mean to steal your idea.


ok I'm a liar . I did it and I'm happy! Ya' hear!? HAPPY!

....... I'm gonna go now

(how's it working for you BTW?)

No biggie.

I'm still in the construction phase. Playtesting won't be until early next year after the first whole-body rules edit. The modifiers charts are monsters because of the multiple methods of communication and separate modifiers, plus combat mods, plus tactical mods. But the examples I ran through look very good, and it emphasizes a lot more tactical RP because it can either be close enough to make it exciting (e.g., getting a boost on one round, but the actions can put the survivors in a better tactical position the next) or just horrifying (ambushes become awful when you can get enough of an edge to effectively nullify the target's dodge mechanic).