thread: 2006-03-05 : No, THIS is the perfect medium
On 2006-03-07, kaare berg wrote:
Joshua,
I can see the three tactical choices:
hurt the other guy
protect yourself
move around
become valid choices in any RPG that contains conflict.
Lets say you basically got these here options:
Fight
Move
Something else.
Choosing to move means you choose not to hurt the other guy. Maybe to position yourself better to fight next round, but right now you can't hurt the mofo.
If you fight, you may drop the other guy, but then again if you don't he may outmanouver you putting you at a disadvantage next round.
Doing something else leaves you open for both, but it may be nessecary depending on the situation or it may give you an advantage next round, if you make it so far.
This is the idea behind the current combat rules for Descent (wip).
This makes JBR go "Tactics =!= Strategy"
This is the root problem behind lots of RPG combat systems which conflate tactics and strategy. This is why lots of combat systems end with one side dying instead of one side giving up to avoid death. Strategy is the optimized use of resources; tactics is being the resource.
This makes KSB go "Hurt =!= Kill"
I hear you.
But hurt is what makes him give up.
This makes BL go "Indeed"
This makes NinJ go "You guys need to read the Book of Five Rings."
Musashi says that strategy is the same, no matter the scale. Discuss.
This makes KSB go "I've always been . ."
more the sort of strategy is the long term thoughts behind the here and now, tactics is what lets me "survive" the here and now.
This makes CR go "I'm not sure if this is the standard way of thinking of it, ..."
but I've always thought of tactics as "what you do with the resources you have now", and strategy as "what you do to bring more resources to bear." Tactics is the short-term, closed world, and strategy is the long-term, open world. But of course the line between the two is fuzzy.
This makes NinJ go "Seriously. Read The Art of War and The Book of Five Rings..."
... they talk about this extensively. They're also thin books that are easy to understand (The Art of War is easier if you haven't studied any Japanese martial arts, but it's so short, it won't kill you).
This makes KSB go "I've got the art of war"
Shit, I live in a "war". I sell for a living. So I read Sun Tzu, I'll pick it up again as soon as I've finished a biography on Napoleon.
But even in my green-clad days I was more dependent on/a piece of tactics, 'cause I never got high enough up the food-chain to worry about strategy.
This makes Chris go "Tactics/Strategy"
War, like anything else, is about understanding the principles vs. the particulars. In principle, disrupting the opponent's momentum, managing resources, etc. is the same on all scales. The particulsrs, though, are what allow folks success in given areas. Whether we're talking about the Book of 5 Rings or the Art of War, both mention that you have to both be conscious of the particular tactics that should be used according to your units/weapon/landscape/etc. and you should also be aware of the principles that can be applied all around. Being able to apply the principle in many particular situations is what people consider expertise.
