| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Naaman wrote: | | On the other hand, if you check out d20, they've got a rule for everything from how a character ties his shoes (which requires a feat) to how to use the force telekinetically slam one living creature into another. The level of specificity in that system really bogs it down. It seems rather apparent to me that D6 is a lot looser purpose, and the only thing that really matters in th end is the GM's interpretation. |
I agree completely; as a GM, I can accomplish more, and do it more smoothly with the D6 system than I ever could with d20 (even SAGA). The vagueness and light-touch of D6 rules, like combined actions, gives me the freedom to best accommodate the narrative, and as long as I am consistent in-game, with my rules calls and give reasoned consideration, my players have typically been fine with it.
I've also been able to differ my interpretation or implementation of rules between games to best accommodate the specific tone of that game (informing the players if I know they have differing expectations or I feel I am truly straying from the nature or intent of the rule... and sometimes when I don't think so)
Orion, that is a very in-depth and thorough examination of the rules, and I'd have to agree with you whole-heartedly, especially:
| Orion wrote: | | What's more the section this comes from is Gamemastering Tips, which state that it's a collection of tips and game options, so use of these 'rules' are definitely GM discretion. |
Though I think I can see and sympathize with concerns over a consistent understanding and interpretation of the rules and how this innate vagueness only complicates the issues in cases of convention play and other occasions when you have more than a close-knit group of friends to consider. Regardless, as a player, I put a premium on respecting the GM's decisions, and as a GM I favor a more conservative approach than I otherwise might do for my home games, when dealing with those types of concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | It really is a mess. |
Command/combined actions have always been a bit of a mess.
| Quote: | Example: Threll, a Rebel officer, has a command
skill of 8D+2. He can command a maximum of eight
characters when leading combined actions. |
The fact that Threll - whose command score of 8D+2 makes him among the best on his planet and better than 1 out of 100,000,000 people. Imagine the best leader you've ever met, Threll is at least that good and probably better. But the best Threll can do is command a maximum of either characters.   Huh!?!
To me this is a far bigger issue than whether or not all eight characters have to use the exact same skill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | To me this is a far bigger issue than whether or not all eight characters have to use the exact same skill. |
Maybe that is why their is a chain of command, the senior officers can command those under them to command, in some sort of cumulative effect, making it possible for Junior officers to command their men? Lol, doesn't sound convoluted at all...
Just don't make me try to run it in-game  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | To me this is a far bigger issue than whether or not all eight characters have to use the exact same skill. |
Maybe that is why their is a chain of command, the senior officers can command those under them to command, in some sort of cumulative effect, making it possible for Junior officers to command their men? Lol, doesn't sound convoluted at all...
Just don't make me try to run it in-game |
That is how i have always read it. The boss man commands his senior leaders, who command their junior leaders who then combine the troops...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, Bren that sounds about right. To put it in military terms, there are three types of leadership: objective, strategic, and direct. The command skill seems to be attempting to portray "direct" leadership, which is directly supervising and instructing individuals. Crimson red has it exactly rigjt with how Threll would operate in the chain of command. He would "command" his subordinate leaders too command their subordinates, who would in turn get a bonus to their skill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Orion wrote: | | It really is a mess. |
Command/combined actions have always been a bit of a mess.
| Quote: | Example: Threll, a Rebel officer, has a command
skill of 8D+2. He can command a maximum of eight
characters when leading combined actions. |
The fact that Threll - whose command score of 8D+2 makes him among the best on his planet and better than 1 out of 100,000,000 people. Imagine the best leader you've ever met, Threll is at least that good and probably better. But the best Threll can do is command a maximum of either characters. Huh!?!
To me this is a far bigger issue than whether or not all eight characters have to use the exact same skill. |
There is a reference in the rules that I overlooked when posting my summery and that is it specifically says that 'If a task is very easy and the characters are highly skilled or experienced, you may even allow a leader to command combine actions for more characters than he has command skill dice." As to how many more, it gives no indication, but it does provide for exceeding the 'maximum' number of participants.
I think the reason this is in the optional section is that the author saw the huge possibility for abuse and didn't want or wasn't allowed to, by virtue of space available, write definitive rules on the matter. So they wrote a basic framework implied it can be used for more than that but didn't explain exactly how, other than to define how the bonus can be used, and left it to the GM's to use if they want. It's 'unfinished' state to me implies they will need to adapt it in application, based on the situation, at least in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While an acceptable house rule and a bit of a fix to command, the chain of command is unsupported in the text. Which is why I say that the command skill is messed up.
Or to put it in other terms, if you look at the bridge layout for the OS Enterprise - the average Starfleet captain doesn't have the 10D command required to actually command the personnel on his or her bridge.
This command skill means that to command half a squad you would need a 4D or 5D command skill. Are we really saying the average corporal needs (and has) a skill that high?
| Orion wrote: | | There is a reference in the rules that I overlooked when posting my summery and that is it specifically says that 'If a task is very easy and the characters are highly skilled or experienced, you may even allow a leader to command combine actions for more characters than he has command skill dice." |
It's on page 83. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was a corporal. I had three direct subordinates, but have led missions involving as many as 9 personnel simultaneously. It's not hard, if you think it through before hand and stay focused on your objective.
And I would say yes, a corporal should have a higher command skill than a leiutenant because copprals actuallu know how to coordinate the actions of others, while officers more or less assighn a subordinate to lead the task (rather than leading it themselves). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | I was a corporal. I had three direct subordinates, but have led missions involving as many as 9 personnel simultaneously. It's not hard, if you think it through before hand and stay focused on your objective. |
Seems reasonable, an average corporal (Per 2D: Command 3D) could command three subordinates, use a prepared action (+1D) to help with more difficult tasks, and due to the familiarity he would have with his squad-mates, could lead more with general or easier tasks.
The section Sargent, and platoon Warrant Officer*, in addition to having better command skills could benefit through delegation and cooperation of command. Both of the latter two would be more skilled than the Lieutenant, but he only needs to command them directly.
Or something like that.
*Note: I'm Canadian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, hey, hey! My PER attribute is more like 3D+2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lol, Well that is why I specified a typical corporal, we can't expect every Corporal to be as good at his job as you! 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Yeah... Just wanted to post something lighthearted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | While an acceptable house rule and a bit of a fix to command, the chain of command is unsupported in the text. Which is why I say that the command skill is messed up.
Or to put it in other terms, if you look at the bridge layout for the OS Enterprise - the average Starfleet captain doesn't have the 10D command required to actually command the personnel on his or her bridge.
This command skill means that to command half a squad you would need a 4D or 5D command skill. Are we really saying the average corporal needs (and has) a skill that high?
|
Being i just retired from the US Navy (20 years in) i can easily answer that Bren.
For the prior 2 years to me getting out i was an Assistant Platoon commander, and a squad leader.
My platoon had 3 squads, 4 when we got restricted people added in.
Each squad had a Squad leader, an assistant SQL, and 3 (sometimes 4) fire teams with in each squad.
Each fire team had a fire team leader, an automatic rifleman/grenadier (the bodyguard to the FTL) and 2 to 3 riflemen. This is standard seabee, marine or army breakdowns of order of battles.
So i don't order all 46 people in the platoon, i just order the squad leaders (3)
They order the fire team leaders (3)
They order the fire teams (4)...
So at no time am i commanding more than 4 people. BUT the net effect is that i command 46.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | ...So at no time am i commanding more than 4 people. BUT the net effect is that i command 46. |
Yes, I understand the chain of command concept and as I said it is a good house rule or fix for the WEG command skill. But the chain of command you list is the ideal TOE. What happens in a shooting war after the casualties start to mount? Soon links in the chain go missing and there is little or no command redundancy to allow for missing NCOs.
The limitation to being able to command 4-8 people also seems contrary to real world examples of officers directly commanding larger formations of troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, in the army, we train two levels higher than our position. So that in the event you are describing, even a private wont be totally clueless if he finds himself the highest ranking member of a squad. Sure, he's not as experienced or as proficient as an nco (4 or 5D in command, but at least he has an idea of what to do (+1 or two pips in command). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
