It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Historical evidence suggest : "Follow the line of command" and "Die for your country".
How much leeway do the players have in interpreting those orders? What if circumstances change and they are clearly a bad idea, for instance? What is "good play" under such circumstances? (And is there a way to make "following orders when they're clearly a terrible idea" fun?)How does simultaneous resolution of orders work, in practice? Does it end up looking like a "turn" or round of combat in a typical RPG?
Excellent summaries and examples!Perhaps I can clarify my question further:Given a setup where Player A is told to "take the bridge by 18:00", and Player B is told to "defend the bridge at all costs", AND given "simultaneous resolution", how do we maintain "fog of war" so as to give them both a reasonable way to decide what to do and then resolve those actions?Or does those players, in turn, write more specific orders, which are then revealed simultaneously? In Diplomacy, it makes sense to reveal and then process all the orders simultaneously, because no one can 'react' to other moves happening on the board. In a more 'realistic' simulation of a battle, though, once I march around the edge of the lake and see enemies where I didn't expect them, I am going to modify my plan, and so might my enemy. Logistically, how do we handle that, at the table? In my imagination, at least, all kinds of things will be happening in the battle which might affect my decisions, and the order in which we resolve them seems like it would be pretty important!
I understand the principle, sure. I would imagine it has limitations (e.g. "go see if that bridge is undefended!" - if the referee hasn't placed a marker there, we all know it's undefended), but I suppose that's an acceptable sacrifice now and then. I would still imagine it requires some very specific referee skills to keep the "board" and its movements unclear, but I'd imagine those can be learned, like GM skills.
Ohhh yeah. Sorry got lost in work
Also, in that scenario, what kind of fictional positioning might allow a side to win that objective? Is it stuff that might show up on the map, or the kind of thing that you would need to know about the history of whatever kind of warfare you're simulating to employ?
(I haven't been posting/reading as often recently, but I'm following this with interest! Esp. as I'm just starting up a Frostgrave campaign, and so have orthogonal but related concerns in mind.)
@komradebob This "multiplayer initiative, individual player scale/scope of actions, and methods for getting much of anything done in a period of 4 hours or so real-time" all comes down to the design of the game.
Hahahah so secret @komradebob
Ha. I need to find a different of saying this then @komradebob . Let me think about that.