what effect does it have?

how does it work?

If you have a lot of information (from various sources Perception, legwork, etc) and time to plan, then you should easily accrue a sufficient number of successes. I'd probably run it like an extended test then. I do not railroad, you have a choice to buy that skill or not. I do not force you to buy it, but like all things in my game, there will be consequences whether you buy it or not. Whether those consequences are going to be favorable or not is your choice.

As I said, it is not an active skill. I think it is listed under the Freedom Fighter NPC.

tactics was never intended to be an active skill and does not realistically or otherwise work as such.

do you actually run the game like this or is all of it just an idea?

I ran a game like this recently. But the financial crisis has left my players in need of more cash than game time.

And as I said already and many times besides, Tactics is not an Active skill. But it is still a skill and work like other skills do.

and ive asked for a game scenario example of why it should be treated as an in game skill. if its not and active skill then its knowledge right? so give an example of how its used and why it supersedes a players ability to devise tactics.

For information on the Tactical AR Network see Unwired, pp 124-127

Essentially, if you have enough sensor feeds, data streams, etc, you receive a bonus to certain tasks... this bonus equals the number of sources -2 (Max Bonus of +4). Your software also needs to be at least his value or you use the lower of the two...

Tests that you can use it for include...
Close Combat Tests, Dodge Tests, Firearms Tests, Infiltration Tests, Maneuvering Tests, Perception Tests, Shadowing Tests and Surprise Tests... it is a great (and very powerful) tool in the right hands and works wonderfully (for our group at least)...

There is also an optional rule that will allow initiative bonuses instead of extra dice...

Just like any other Knowledge skill is treated as an in game skill, so why should this Knowledge skill be any different? Or do you not use Knowledge skills in the game? Why should the History Knowledge skill supersede the player's own knowledge of History?

Why does the player's ability to devise tactics translate into the character's ability to do so? The skill does not supercede the player's ability to devise tactics, it represents the character's ability to do so. As a GM I am not stopping you as a player from devising plans. I am simply making sure you are roleplaying according to your character's abilities, if you are not, it will most likely impact the PC's character development.

if i use my history knowledge skill and succeed the gm gives me the historical information relative to the test.

if a player makes a tactics test do you give him appropriate tactics to use in a situation?

knowledge skills are to be used to translate what the character knows to the player.

seeing as the character is essentially the player the characters ability to devise tactics is automatically translated over. unless the character is less intelligent than the person playing them. i doubt it would be far off to say that most people characters are at least as intelligent as they are if not more.

i roll my tactics skill what happens?

You roll your skill. If you do not know what to do at all, I might give you some suggestions as appropriate to the roll. If you do have something in mind, I tell you what your character thinks, again appropriate to the roll and the situation at hand.

I think another way to look at it is this: How many gamers have a tatics skill of anything other than 0? Honestly? Put any of us into an actual combat scenario and see how well we fare. Without real world knowledge or experience to create that skill, I'd wager we'd all be defaulting. Despite that, we can all seem to come up with fairly basic tactics on the fly. For professionals that do this crud for a living, you'd expect they could do the same thing, regardless of the skill.

Honestly, if I ever was in a game where a GM did this, I'd make damn sure every single one of my characters, ALL OF THEM had a tactics of 2+, regardless of character concept. It wouldn't make any sense for the 16-year old technomancer who just likes to command drones because he likes the "toys" to have an average or better tactics skill, but sometimes you have to adapt to what your GM is going to do to you.

EDIT: You tell me what *my* character thinks? Why am I playing him then? Makes it less *my* character and more *our* character. The only time I find something like this appropriate is when the character I'm playing is unduly influenced, such as by high social skills or magical effects or some other mind-bending item. If I abide by your limits and make the roll successfully, and you *still* tell me what my character thinks, even though I already have a plan, then I call foul. I don't make a character to have it hijacked by the GM just because he doesn't agree with my roleplaying decisions.

ok, first part sounds reasonable but could easily turn into railroading depending on gm. the second part just seems pointless in most situations and seems to be more of a way to subvert ideas the gm doesnt approve of for whatever reason.

now what if a character is using solo tactics they arent conveying to the others. what then?

all in all it seems like a way to keep your players actions in check and less enforcing roleplay.

Emphasis mine.
Chummer, it's called a role-playing game. Do you have them make Intuition(2) rolls to see if they are allowed to actually bring a creative out-of-character idea in game? Of course not! (Or at least I HOPE not.) Tactics isn't what a lot of people seem to think it is, and I am pretty surprised somebody else hasn't posted about that before. I will get back to that in a minute. We use knowledge skills a LOT, and we primarily use them as a way to help suplement character knowledge and limit the stuff we know because we all read the books. What you're describing is an ACTIVE skill, something that determines (your own words now) "what your character thinks, again appropriate to the roll and the situation at hand" not at all unlike a perception roll, or a judge intentions roll. That's active, period.

So let's examine for a moment what Knowledge (Professional) Tactics [ed: uses LOG since it's professional] might look like:
You have a knowledge of tactical maneuvers, historical precedents, and a theoretical idea of when a given tactic might be useful. This would not include any active ability to implement those theoreticals, build a battle plan, or successfully lead a group using your tactics in a real fire-fight. Now, that theory might help you come up with a good idea about how to approach a problem if the player is stumped (GM knows Player Jane's character has Rtg 4 in Knowledge Tactics, and Jane is stumped. He asks her to roll her skill, and based on her successes - if any - gives a hint that might guide the player in the right direction. A glitch might let them make a BAD suggestion, and since the player's stumped already, they're likely to follow the bad idea, but the active implementation will be the player's).

Now, the RAW Canon skill of Leadership (Specialization Tactics). This is live implementation of tactical principles and the ability to get others to follow the plan under fire. It could also (like all active skills) be used to come up with directly aplicable knowledge as well. It would cover the organizational details required to insert, fight and extract a unit of fighters. There is still a lot of theory here, but we're more hands on.

What a THEORETICAL active skill Tactics [INT based, since it's the ability to react fluidly that determines success here] (specializations like small unit, air assault, air-to-air, mechanized, et. all) would be like the Leadership ability but focused on the "ground" level implementation over the planning. This will cover the ability to realize when a plan is coming unglued, spot a possible ambush site (as opposed to the ambushers), experience with actually doing things like room clearing, and all the other million and one things that make up firefight-level tactics. This only covers planning so far as getting in the door, or off the chopper, or after the initial pass in a dog fight. There's virtually no theory here - take the Leadership for the planning and the knowledge for the classroom stuff. This is what every grunt is supposed to be learning, and your long service operators have it at VERY high levels. This is about individual training, practice and experience under fire.

Now, here's the problem with tactics used in the combat-turn. Split-second tactical decisions (like making it to cover, or choosing which fire mode to use) are all apropriate in the combat turn, and should always be the purview of the player. The Tactics active skill applies to the pre-entry phase, and after the shooting stops to make sure you remembered to clear your sector. It would apply when things changed dramatically, like the bad guys getting reinforcements - this is where you can give the character a quick nudge suggesting "they're more lightweights, you have this chill" or "Time to go, we're didee mao!" and represents intuitive split second reads on the changing dynamics of the fight. You can't command troops or make major changes every three seconds, even if that's all you're doing. The TacNet (Tactical Network) gives a real-time ability to perceive the shifting fight, but it's still going to be reacted to either on the basis of pre-fight planning or player override. So you see big problems coming, you order your team to fall back. That's a good place to roll the active skill - the miniatures on the table don't say much, but trained fighters learn to recognize and evaluate threats instinctually, and experience is what this skill is about. After the fight, deciding if you have the resources to proceed, either the active or the leadership, depending on how much is based on resources and oposition and how much is objective and acceptable losses. If there is a break in the fighting, even for a couple turns while everybody takes a breath and reloads behind cover, you could ask for a test on the "leader" to see if they get the proper read and apply a DP modifier to one aspect of combat - hit rolls, initiative, cover bonuses - for the winner, sort of like reach. But that would ONLY be once people have a chance to breathe (and communicate).

Getting back out to the extraction point starts to flow back and forth between the active skill and the leadership specialization again, assuming no more shooting. The extraction itself is more often than not immutable by the folks on the ground (besides aborting or calling for an alternate point) until they have made contact. While running for your pickup, it's a bad idea to be discussing new options with your rigger/pilot, even if it's DNI.

Does that make sense? I know it's not as coherent as I might like, and adding it as a specialized active skill could work, but NEVER as a means to tell a player what their character THINKS. What they see, or what they believe they see, that's no diferent than perception. If the player missed an idea their character SHOULD have known, you can help them out if they roll well. But telling them they can't do something you didn't expect because them to think of?? If I saw a GM tell a player they couldn't implement an idea because they don't have enough "Tactics" skill or anything similar at any table I was at, it would be the last time I sat down there. As Jhaiisiin said, at that point it's no longer MY character, it's OUR character; if it was a mandatory game mechanic, I would probably hand you the character sheet and tell you it's YOUR character, as I leave. If you warned me ahead of time, I can tell you I would have that skill as my special at 7, each and every time. As it is, any character I have who has even basic paramilitary training gets Leadership (Tactics) at 2, since there is no RAW tactics active skill for personal training and experience.

A final thought: Tactical, Operational and Strategic levels. A lot of people don't seem to grasp the diference between them. The simple breakdown I use is "Tactical" is sharp end, shooting and maneuver; "Operational" is the means of getting the fighters to the right places (in the battle space) with the right equipment in the right numbers to win tactically - this also includes theater logistics; Strategy is overall planning and methedology, determining the enemy's intentions, arranging supplies for the entire army (or whatever your whole unit is), movement to and from the war zone for troops, materiel and supplies. Using Leadership in a corporate setting, Strategic planning includes acquisitions, mergers, paradigm changes, and other far-reaching decisions. Tactical would be much more a department level and goal oriented focus. Operational (if it existed) would be about converting the company's (or division's) Strategic goal's into functional departmental goals and objectives, while providing the resources to meet the same.

Ok, it's getting late. If somebody wants to help me refine that, I'm ok with it, because I know it's both rough and a bit of a ramble (even for me).

Oh, the OP: I consider the things (GDs) inviolate by the players or anthing they should be able to do. If they get that powerful, they should have retired. As for government groups, I think everybody already hit the big ones for me.

I got lost somewhere along the top of page 3 and skipped to the bottom to post this:

Tactics is not a player's way of being able to avoid planning. It is the player's way of gauging how well his character thinks the player's plan is.

Or rather, a way for the GM to give the players hints. A good roll on tactics (because tactics as a skill is not the immediate next 6 seconds, but rather, the plan for the next 24 hours, jumping off the building was a poor example, but easy to work with) can allow the GM to point out to the players that they forgot an obvious piece of information; "You can't just use invisibility, you looked up their astral security and the place is swarming with watcher spirits, they'd spot you glowing with spells a half mile out."

The "you've been spotted, but you planned for the possibility" means "they tried to surprise you, but you're not surprised. Roll initiative as normal."

Emphasis mine. Probably yes. Depending on the "creativity" of the idea, the threshold may change though. You may allow the player to skate by on his out of character abilities, I do not. He may get by once or twice, but he is not going to be able to do so consistently.


This would be a Security Design/Procedures roll, probably.

It does not mean that actually. It probably means that while the PCs are surprised, instead of all of them cluster at the same place or some further tactical blunder, they know that Bob is going to take cover there, Jane is going left and Jack is ducking right.

See, and I think you're being incredibly obsessive here, because after a coupe runs, any survivors are going to figure out that bunching up is bad. Heck, just watch a bunch of bad Trid and you probably have that much. And per the RAW description of Skill 0 "no more or less than the average person posesses". You don't think 'runners will have just a tad more ability in the area due to simple first-hand experience? Drek, the RAW states the for most "routine" things, you don't need to bother with a die roll. If a character has only one point in pistols, do you make them roll to see if they remembered to remove the safety? Seriously. I would think "don't bunch up" is "routine" after a run or two where any kind of area-effect whatever goes off.

I can't fault your arguments, because they're logical and generally well presented. Your understanding of the RAW seems very detailed. But in this case, I just have to disagree. The only exception would be if my character had either INT or LOG below the human average: 2 or 1. In those cases, the character is nowhere as smart as the player probably is. THEN we've got a real question of what they might come up with. But if the character has INT 6 and LOG 4, I can see them coming up with pretty wiz "tactics" by virtue of high raw intelligence and superlative creative and intuitive abilities.

You seem determined to make the characters roll to see if they don't trip going up the stairs with bags in their hands. That has the unfortunate effect of forcing your players into a much more "roll-playing" mindset instead of "role playing" their characters. Why bother to see how to phrase a question politely to Johnson? Just roll for etiquette, knowledge: fill in culture here, and negotiation. I put lots of points in them, so I don't have to worry about it. Or to continue your precise example of Tactics: I don't need to worry about where I go, I can just roll and since I have a gajillion dice the GM pretty much has to tell me where the best place is to go and who to shoot first. I know I'm generalizing and over-simplifiying a LOT of what you've said, but that's all I keep visualizing when I read your subjective posts. OBJECTIVELY you seem to be very precise AND acurate (not the same thing, my 10th grade chemistry prof told me) on the substance of the rules. It's on the intent and flavor that I most often find myself in opposition to you. Despite your demonstrated ability to keep even a large table running smoothly, mechanically speaking, I hate to say that I don't think I would want to sit down at the table with you sitting behind the GM screen.

My personal phillosophy is to try to make the numbers match the "fluff" as closely as I can, be that as a GM or as a player designing my character at start. When I add a mechanic, I want it to help reflect the substance of what is supposed to be going on, rather than tripping over dice rolls and losing immersion in the 6th world.

While I would not allow wiz tactics(at least not without some form of collaborative support), the tactics would certainly be sound. Int 6 can buy a success, even if defaulting. And Log 4 is likely to still score a success after defaulting. For example, if your character knows that the opposition should act in a certain manner, say Security Procedures and you score successes on this test, you might get bonus dice due to your knowledge for the subsequent "tactics" test and that test might score 3-4 successes because of the bonus. Or I might just fold the entire thing into the Security Procedures test instead.

This is one drawback I pointed out to my players when they were all taken with the karmagen rules. No free Knowledges. You break into secure compounds for a living and you have no Knowledge of how security works? Really? You are a covert operative but have no inkling of Covert Protocols? You kidding me?

I ain't sure. i can't seem to find it.
I will try and keep an eye open.

I think it was some little Magician and some Austrian? or something Government Spy. One of the late German Only Books i guess.
Read up on the Article on Firewing in the Dragons of the 6th World. Try to Cross reference with the SOX and Völklingen.
Think i might have found it. Aeternitas written by Heitz, Markus... Or Gottes Engel, by the same guy . . no, i don't really like his take in Shadowrun either . .
Heck, i just checked. Not even uncle Ancient-I Am The Fluff-History says Feuerschwinge is dead.

Disclaimer: This post has, again, been edited 5 to 10 times.

Wow.

toturi has a very... unique way to play Shadowrun.

in soviet russia, shadowrun plays you.

Yes, yes, i know.
Think before posting.
Read over before clicking submit <.<

Ever have a player who knows lots and lots about guns, but has a character who doesn't? A player who can argue and lie and con very well, but has a PC with CHA 1 and Uncouth?

What do you do when they have a Gun Skill or Social Skill test?

And vice versa? A Player who is Uncouth but playing a Face PC?

Isn't it part of the RPG to play a character other then ourselves? Should I not be able to both have a PC that can do more then I can as a player, and may also be more limited then I am as a player?

Most of the fun I've seen in games have come out of needing to meet those IC challenges of explaining the differences between player and PC in a fun and interesting ways.

Isn't this about dragons?

whatever...

Since we're talking about Ghostwalker... As mentioned, he was in the metaplanes, until he popped out of the astral rift that D left when he died. This means that he was probably out to the metaplanes for some reason, but was gone for too long while the mana levels receded, so he got stuck. There are only a few known places where it would take an astral disturbance of this size to let you get back. The only one that I can think of off the to of my head (that's cannon) is the plane where the Enemy (Horrors) live. Whether or not this is the case, I'd like to point out that Ghostwalker was out of his body, in the metaplanes, for 7000 years. Talk about a magic rating, eh?

Also, the reason he was attacking Aztlan is not because they were in his city. In fact, he wasn't attacking them at all. He was, however, banishing the Force (absurd) blood spirits they had the size of their pyramid there. When he saw that he was pissed. Also do note that When he called up those elementals, it was in a game system where you had to summon them ritually, not like SR4 where they made everything be friendly and use the same rules because it was 'too confusing'. So he was pulling day-long magic out of his ass instantly. If i had spent most of the last age fighting the Horrors head-to-head, and then followed them back to their home plane (NOTE: Not confirmed by cannon) to fight them for another 7000 years, I'd be pissed off if the pesky humans were playing with magic that helped them get here faster (Re: Harlequin's Back) too. So, if your PC can easily take out, say... a Force 30 Blood Spirit, WHILE being attacked by a couple of combat helicopters... Then it might be possible (though still unlikely) that they could take out a Great Dragon.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that, as far as i know, dragons don't really know spells. They are magical beings. They name themselves (this is important, as metahumans only name others). They cast on the fly, creating the effect that they need. Coming up with an effect of "smash the pesky man-bug" is not really difficult to imagine.

That's not strictly true under my understanding of things. I was under the impression that, while yes, they worked magic on a different level than metahumans it wasn't quite up to "creating spells on the fly, as needed." It's just that they know better spell formulas and aren't willing to share.

There is a very easy way to determine if Great Dragons are killable by lesser races.

A) Are any Great Dragons threatened by any other forces?
B) Do those Greats suffer said threatening forces to live rather than removing the threat?

If A and B, then yes, Greats obviously can be killed, because no Great dragon with ruthlessness as a defining characteristic - such as Lofwyr - would suffer a force that threatens his interests - such as Ares - to live if he could kill them without fear of getting smoked.

The fact of the matter is that Great Dragons have suggested stats, and even if you increase the suggested stats by an ADDITIONAL +10 points in all regards, naval-grade railguns, tacnukes, and 10,000 pound bombs WILL kill them, because the rules say they will. Let us try to separate the fluff of what happened with Ghostwalker from the rules. We do not have a play by play, roll-by-roll account of what he did. Just some fairly vague fluff about his campaign.

Also, if Aztlan army HAD used "all of those weapons" (such as tac nukes) against Ghostwalker, Denver wouldn't be there any more. You cannot tac nuke a treaty city without getting nuked in return.

The following work is transcribed from the words of Vasdenjas, the Master of Secrets, a most noble and intelligent great dragon.

EDIT: As a note, 'Raw magic' is what folk in Shadowrun use.

Ah, Earthdawn stuff. Haven't delved into Earthdawn.

Yes. Sorry I should have mentioned that (and i thought that I did). As Earthdawn was written by the same people as a history of the Shadowrun world, I take it as cannon. Sorry about the miscommunication.

Also of note, my group did play a 3 year Earthdawn campaign, so it interests me how the two integrate. I would talk about it instead on some Earthdawn forums... but well, they don't exist... =(

That will come to bite us in the ass if / when the Horrors come back within the Shadowrun timeline.

I have to agree with Adarael.

The dragons and the (immortal) elves are to blame for this. The other metahumans have only been learning about magic for about 50 years. They keep knowledge of the Horrors a closely guarded secret for some reason. We (and by we, I obviously mean "our fictional characters in a fictional setting that is not actually reality" ^-^) would be able to prepare ourselves for their inevitable arrival, but we know nothing of them. If the world were told about this Enemy, about the Scourge of ages past, we could meet them head-on and stop it from happening once again! But no, they keep these things from us for their own petty reasons. We are "not yet ready" they say. But I have seen this Enemy, I have seen them building their bridge the the metaplanes to our doorstep. We were able to stall them for now, but they will not cease. Hear this: The enemy may not come today, but they will come. We have learned in 50 years what it took those of the fourth age one thousand to learn. We can stop them this time.

*people continue to walk past the scruffy guy on the wooden box on the street corner, ignoring him*

Though really, it would be cooler if the Horrors did come back, and they made ANOTHER game that's post-apocalyptic. Old tech with some cyberware and magic and horrors running around in a mostly dead world where life is holding on by a thread. That would be awesome.

If the timeline is only advanced 5 to 10 years each edition, that will take another 100 editions.
But maybe they will do something like that with Shadowrun5 D20. But by that time, People of Shadowrun Earth are probably space-faring.
Wonder how the Horrors will deal with the big Void of Space? Think about it. The Kaers created in EarthDawn did their part. Now build one of those on the Moon.
Most magical beings are most likely not going to try and cross the void.

You could do it with Alpha Omega.
It's set in 2280ish after every possible natural disaster occurred. War, famine, nuclear winter, asteroid pelting...

What, no Mega-Quakes and Super-Volcanoe?

Given that I didn't read all of the backstory, I don't know for sure.

Magic rating has nothing to do with it. Any Initiate with Magic 1+ could pull off the same trick magically-speaking. The hard part is extending your body's lifespan to more than 7,000 years along with keeeping it cared for while you're out. I'm sure spells have a lot to do with the latter, but I don't think the longevity issue is as easy to cover.

Dragons also don't need to "take care of their body" as it were during the low magic times.

Time also runs differently on the metaplanes. Ghostwalker could be playing horror and spirit away (the local variation of hide and go seek) for 10 minutes or 20,000 years.

Kaers never created a void.
And btw, you do know the differences in the use of capital letters between english and german?