Full Version: Killing Rommel
| QUOTE (Snow_Fox) | ||
It should, but again look at the Japanese planning during WW2. They were terminally guilty of doing what Napolean called "Painiting a picture." They were sure they knew exactly what was going to happen and built up all sort of eleborate plans to go along with this but once the plan hit a snag, the whole thing tended to fall apart like a house of cards. The British stand at Kohima was a great example as the Japanese supply lines fell apart because their movement was meticulously planned to go through ground the British still held. The best example is Midway, a huge battle plan stretched across the ocean with hundredes of ships hitting mulitple targets. and the momment the Japanese realized the Americans were not playing the game the Japanese had expected, the Japanese command froze, there is no other word for it. When they finally settled on a course of action it was too late. Ameircan strike gorups found the main Japanese fleet and inflicted crippling wounds on Japan's navy. Japanese aviators were well trained ofr particular jobs-such as the Pearl Harbor bombing where exactly to go, but they lacked the training and inclanation to think on their feet. The adapatability was one of the things which led to the American victory. |
That would be a doctrine problem, not a planning problem. The way the Japanese planned was limited by their operational doctrine, which fortunately for the Allies was rigid and inflexible. Rigid and inflexible thinking does not result in too much planning. It simply causes the planning people to plan along a single(or a small number) path.
Players as shadowrunners are limited by their own experiences - their "doctrine". How the GM runs his game will influence how the players plan. If the GM dislikes "overplanning", then players will overplan or their PCs will die again and again or they will leave.
Kudos to Stainless Steel Rat.
| QUOTE (mmu1) |
To paraphrase a favorite fictional character (bonus points for anyone who knows which books I'm talking about): "Having no plan is better than having a bad plan. At least without a plan, you might get lucky." |
It's been a long time since I've read it, but my guess is Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love.
That sounds JUST like something he would say...
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin @ Aug 11 2006, 09:32 AM) |
| It's been a long time since I've read it, but my guess is Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love. That sounds JUST like something he would say... |
Nope... Not Lazarus Long. (though it does sound like something he'd say)
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) |
| you have to give them what they like |
Gotta partially disagree on this. It's up to the GM to give the players a game they can enjoy, but it's also up to the players to give the GM a game he can enjoy. It sounds like some compromise is needed in this case.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||
Gotta partially disagree on this. It's up to the GM to give the players a game they can enjoy, but it's also up to the players to give the GM a game he can enjoy. It sounds like some compromise is needed in this case. |
Actually the GM has to give the GM a game he'd enjoy(That's according to SR3 SRComp, so until the SR4 Comp comes out, this is what is written). So the GM has to produce a game that the players and himself will enjoy.
That statement assumes the players have no control over how the game goes. It doesn't matter how much the GM tries to cover both bases, if the players don't cooperate it's wasted effort.
Are you trying to say that's RAW, or just pointing out that it's in a book? Either way, it's SR3 and has no bearing on SR4. If you're trying to say it's RAW then I pity your GM>
Are you trying to say that's RAW, or just pointing out that it's in a book? Either way, it's SR3 and has no bearing on SR4. If you're trying to say it's RAW then I pity your GM>
Where did the camera image pseudoformat come in?
It is canon.
~J
It is canon.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Where did the camera image pseudoformat come in? It is canon. ~J |
This is such a photography in-joke its priceless!
<The RAW image format was proprietary to Canon digital cameras IIRC>
I call it a pseudoformat because it isn't actually a standardized format—Canon may have started it, but now any high-end camera has a format that they call RAW, but that is inevitably utterly unlike the format from any other manufacturer's cameras (and sometimes unlike other models from the same manufacturer).
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Where did the camera image pseudoformat come in? It is canon. ~J |
Oh, man, that' funny... 
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||
Gotta partially disagree on this. It's up to the GM to give the players a game they can enjoy, but it's also up to the players to give the GM a game he can enjoy. It sounds like some compromise is needed in this case. |
Let's take another look at what I actually posted (emphasis new):
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) |
| Part of the job of the GM is to provide the style of game that the players want to play... I think it's great to make them flex their playstyle now and then, but overall you have to give them what they like or you'll have an empty table. |
But way to take a partial quote out of context to change it's meaning! I feel like I've been nailed by Stephen Colbert! Consider yourself On Notice!
...and that's the Word.
My players weakest point is planning, they know this but they do the job. I punished them when they did no planning against a exsperienced shadowrunning team and they did plan simply for the corp exstraction. Over planning is fear or obsession with looking clever. The first is a matter of calming the player in question down the latter simply let contact the enemy, it wont survive long.
I, as ref, like to plan defensive protocols for the sec guards, they will do something according to threat, so the players then have to adapt accordingly. Job done usally.
Just don't get to the point where you have a player declare,"Plans? We dont need plans! Plans go wrong!"
I, as ref, like to plan defensive protocols for the sec guards, they will do something according to threat, so the players then have to adapt accordingly. Job done usally.
Just don't get to the point where you have a player declare,"Plans? We dont need plans! Plans go wrong!"
Excellent point, Pendaric, about considering why the players (over)plan. Because they think they're "supposed to?" Are they trying to do something clever?... for the karma? Are they procrastinating? Or are they really just trying to find the best way to do the job? I suppose each reason might require a different response.
Maybe they just like the thrill of a black-ops planning and execution? I dunno.
That too...
| QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat) | ||||||
Let's take another look at what I actually posted (emphasis new):
But way to take a partial quote out of context to change it's meaning! I feel like I've been nailed by Stephen Colbert! Consider yourself On Notice! ...and that's the Word. |
Let's take another look at what I actually posted...
| QUOTE |
| Gotta partially disagree on this. |
Hmmm...
I think of it as the Farscape Method, since what always comes to mind is Crichton ducking behind a wall while under intense fire and yelling out to his comrades, "Why do our plans always suck?!"
In my SR games, like in so many of those Farscape episodes, the twist of the run is usually something that can't be reasonably accounted for in planning. It's not a failure on the character's part, it's simply a component of the game's drama when they learn a pretty vital piece of information way too late to do anything but react now to it.
If the players express a desire for a slower and more methodical game (they never have), I'd be willing to provide it. However, this method seems to promote much more straight-forward and flexible planning, and puts the impetus of decision making where it always is in good action movies and drama: in the field of fire, instead of around a map.
In my SR games, like in so many of those Farscape episodes, the twist of the run is usually something that can't be reasonably accounted for in planning. It's not a failure on the character's part, it's simply a component of the game's drama when they learn a pretty vital piece of information way too late to do anything but react now to it.
If the players express a desire for a slower and more methodical game (they never have), I'd be willing to provide it. However, this method seems to promote much more straight-forward and flexible planning, and puts the impetus of decision making where it always is in good action movies and drama: in the field of fire, instead of around a map.
There's an easy way to kill Rommel. All you need is Longarms (6), Agility (6), a Ranger Arms SM-4, and a good rooftop.
I always thought you just gave him the choice between committing suicide and having his family disgraced and possibly killed…
~J
~J
Depends on which Rommel you're trying to kill.
| QUOTE (BookWyrm) |
| Uh hey. That should actually be "Montgomerys", not Rommels. |
heh. bears repeating.
Market garden was NOT a good idea.
Hence my point. While Rommel was deriled for being the enemy, Montgomery was worse, him being a snooty, upper-class-superior, prima-donna-know-it-all. I've seen all the documentaries to at least say this; if Monty had been on the Nazi's side, the war in Europe would have been over in half the time.
I'm just making an observation. Everyone got into the conflict with more than enough arrogance & presumtion to begin with, it just took a few bloody noses on both sides to get their heads clear. Despite what the movie Patton tells you.
Over-complicated plans are one thing, but it's the implimentation that things get bogged down. Don't be the monkey-wrench, just learn to know when to apply said tool.
I'm just making an observation. Everyone got into the conflict with more than enough arrogance & presumtion to begin with, it just took a few bloody noses on both sides to get their heads clear. Despite what the movie Patton tells you.
Over-complicated plans are one thing, but it's the implimentation that things get bogged down. Don't be the monkey-wrench, just learn to know when to apply said tool.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) |
| Market garden was NOT a good idea. |
Basically, it was a good idea. Only the intelligence (aka legwork) sucked.
| QUOTE |
| Hence my point. While Rommel was deriled for being the enemy, Montgomery was worse, him being a snooty, upper-class-superior, prima-donna-know-it-all. |
As far as I know, this description also fit Rommel.
Granted, Butterblume. I guess it's more of a personal choice whether to call such things by either.
My own GMing style is to allow my players the time to plan as much as they wish. My sec team will react in the way I planned them to. If the PCs manage to circumvent them totally through planning, power to them. If the PCs stick to a given formula for a few consecutive runs, secs team begin to catch on. If the PCs vary their approach, shit might happen bu the possibility of that happening is very small.
| QUOTE (HullBreach) |
| I've been GM'ing for the better part of 12 years, and playing RPG's for about 14. As such, I have seen one recurrent theme, which is particularly bad amoung 'modern' RPGs: Overplanning! |
Hah! I just lean back with a sphinx-like smirk on my face and let them dig themselves into the ground all night. As a GM, obviously.
As a player? Well, if the planning goes on for too long there's nothing else to be done but just have my character go ahead with whatever he thinks is best. Or, if my character wouldn't do that, I just sit there sipping alcohol and enjoying the fury of self-doubt and rehashing. That's one reason why loner type characters can be fun; they can sneak off and do their own thing.
Once I used a character who was an 80s ninja and he'd always be "ninja vanishing" and going off to do things on his own. The best part about it all was that he was a totally underpowered character, a human with only melee skills and "traditional" (no dikote) weapons so that if he were ever found out by the bad guys he'd probably be killed right away. Nevertheless, the funniest thing I ever did was this character was sneak off, steal an objective, and return to present it to the other characters.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Once I used a character who was an 80s ninja |
Just once? I find that hard to believe.
One of my favorite tactics of another GM is that if the team gets bogged down doing too much planning and generally not moving on, he'll drop ninjas (or some other small tactical unit) in on them to get their attention.
Good ol' Commando Attack. It's never failed me yet.
There's planning and then there's planning - depending on how complex the GM tends to be will determine how thorough the players need to be.
-Siege
-Siege
Unfortunately what a lot of players don't understand is that the more complicated the GM the simplert he plan needs to be because it almost assuredly an't cover every eventuality.
| QUOTE (Butterblume) | ||
Basically, it was a good idea. Only the intelligence (aka legwork) sucked. |
Actually, the intelligence was good, but Montgomery and others ignored any intelligence that didn't fit with the plan.
It was probably the wrong objective in the first place, but the plan was flawed. It was unrealisitic about the pace that the ground forces could maintain. Forces dropped at the key target, Arnhem, were dropped much too far from the bridge. And thanks to ignoring intelligence, they were dropped on top of two panzer divisions. Every divisional commander had requested two airborn drops the first day, high command chose to make only one.
And that's just some of the flaws with the plan.
To tie this back to Shadowrun, if legwork shows the oppsition is much stronger than you'd planned for, then meeting it directly withoout changing your plan at all is very unlikely to succeed. Less than 1/4 of the British 1st Airborne made it out of Arnhem, the PCs are unlikely to do better.
"We have to have a plan so that we know what we're deviating from."
"Plans are nothing, but planning is everything." -- Napolean
Basically, you need to define how much time the characters have to plan. If the time is limited, then give the players a real-world limit on how long they can spend planning.
If it's large or unlimited, present the scenario which must be planned for at the end of a gaming session so that the characters can do the planning in the time between then and the next session. Make yourself (and the other players!) available by email so that they can possibly do some necessary GM interaction (possible legwork). Then implement the plan during the next session. This way, as the GM, you don't have to sit there and stare at the wall while the players plan.
As far as complicated plans are concerned, there's nothing wrong with them as long as you don't honestly expect them to survive contact with the enemy. The real key, as others have mentioned, is to have the objectives clearly detailed and each "unit" handling an objective is given and possessed of the initiative to deal with unforseen circumstances.
Of course, as other people have also said, simpler plans are superior ones.
Basically, you need to define how much time the characters have to plan. If the time is limited, then give the players a real-world limit on how long they can spend planning.
If it's large or unlimited, present the scenario which must be planned for at the end of a gaming session so that the characters can do the planning in the time between then and the next session. Make yourself (and the other players!) available by email so that they can possibly do some necessary GM interaction (possible legwork). Then implement the plan during the next session. This way, as the GM, you don't have to sit there and stare at the wall while the players plan.
As far as complicated plans are concerned, there's nothing wrong with them as long as you don't honestly expect them to survive contact with the enemy. The real key, as others have mentioned, is to have the objectives clearly detailed and each "unit" handling an objective is given and possessed of the initiative to deal with unforseen circumstances.
Of course, as other people have also said, simpler plans are superior ones.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.