Okay, so WHY Tactical?Why The Tactical rules?
為什麼要製定Tactical版規則？
Traditional TRPGs runs on a hex- or Grid-based map.
The flow of combat involves players going through initiative to determine who go first.
And the people who go later then can know and react to the actions to the people go before them.
And the movement on the maps are moved one-by-one.
傳統的TRPG在六角或網格的地圖上運行。
戰鬥流程在玩家通過主動權來决定誰先走。
後來去的人可以對之前的人的行為做出反應。
在地圖上一個接一個地移動。
It is a perfectly fine way to do things. It is clear, precise, sequential, and nobody will get confused. As games goes, this might well be the perfect way to run combats.
這是很好的方法。它很清晰，精確，連續，沒有人會感到困惑。如果我們是在談遊戲，這可能是進行戰鬥的最佳方法。
But visually speaking, it is also akin to
"playing tag in a 70s Kung Fu movie, where punches and kicks are literally feed to each other 1 by 1." 但從視覺上講，這也類似於 “在70年代的功夫電影中捉迷藏，一個接一個地相互拳打脚踢。”
https://youtu.be/4t3Jlk4WrM8?t=108https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbtzMswulfMGo on youtube and look at street fights:
在YouTube上看看街頭打架:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgaHtncRJ5Ahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHImWNkkiwIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1gi3ZJb_chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDvsNvKOgIIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icc2qTpxDtohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7akwreOLpckhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohwmn7JSZL4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx0lv3u4WyYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Kq9b9hZyUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYx_vYcj4eA>Everyone's always moving around, getting in and out of reach.
>If they move exactly as fast as you, then they move exactly as fast as you.
>You don't know what that other guy will do at any time.
>You don't just stand in one spot, but always keep moving.
>You aren't only doing one thing at a time.
>It doesn't matter how "good" you are, one sucker punch or a group rush can drop you.
>There's no guarantee that you'll ever get close enough to land a hit
>每個人都在四處走動
>如果他們的動作和你一樣快，那麼他們的動作就和你一樣快。
>你不知道其他人隨時會做什麼。
>你不只是站在一個地方，而是要一直在動。
>你不是一次只做一件事。
>不管你有多“強大”，一次出其不意的打擊或一次集體攻擊就能把你擊倒。
>你永遠不能保證能足够接近得去攻擊目標。
It's chaotic, it's messy, it's scary, it's ugly.
它非常混亂，凌亂，可怕，醜陋。
I am not trying to go that far either, but
my goal is to simulate that "street brawl" element to a point. 我也不打算走那麼極端，但這系統的目標就是將
“街頭鬥毆”風格式戰鬥模擬到一定水平。
>The map is abstract: It assumes most people are always shifting position, and counts
"At that point in time, who are you close to" instead of a fixed position on a map.
>You have to guess what comes next, (and you can do that with certain commands not shown in the examples.)
>You don't just do one thing, but a number of things as once that you have to prioritize.
>Everything you can do can have an effect; On the other hand relaying on one single trick won't give you mileage.
>"Working with other" become more important than in more traditional games that focus on personal abilities. (You don't need 1000 skeletons to kill your characters. 3 can probably beat the crap out of the strongest fighter in the world - One takes the blow, one assists, and one focuses on dealing the biggest damage possible.)
>地圖是抽象的：它假設大多數人總是在移動，並計算
“在那個一瞬間的時間點，你和誰最接近”而不是地圖上的固定位置。
>您必須猜測接下來會發生什麼（你可以使用示例中未顯示的某些命令來執行此操作）
>你不只是做一件事，而且還必須優先考慮哪件事更重要。
>你所能做的每件事都會有效果；相對而言，僅僅依靠一個單一的技巧不會給你帶來好處。
>與注重個人能力的傳統遊戲相比，"與他人合作”變得更加重要。(你不需要1000個骷髏來殺死你的角色。3個就可以擊敗世界上最強大的戰士 - 一個承擔打擊，一個協助，一個專注於造成最大傷害。)
But that also means:
但這也意味著：
>There's a "double failure gap": You can fail in dice AND you can fail by making bad decisions in commands.
>As the "combat map" in tactical is abstract, in that sense, most players tend to get confuse and make the wrong attack range. ie "punching air."
>You don't have a guarantee of what others will do, so there's additional pressure on penalties.
>A string of bad decision can waste the strongest player, especially for people who were used to the more traditional systems.
>Moving alone cannot guarantee you reaching the person you want to hit. You have to be fast enough as well. People used to the old system always ignore the movement commands - Actually most ignore all the commands not related to attack or defense. - And that also leads to a large number of "punching air" results.
>存在“雙重失敗”：您可以在骰子中失敗，也可以通過在命令中做出錯誤的決定而失敗。
>戰術地圖是抽象的，因此從這個意義上講，大多數玩家會感到困惑，並且做出錯誤的攻擊範圍。 即“打空氣”。
>你不能保證其他人會做什麼，所以錯誤會有額外的壓力。
>一連串的糟糕選擇會浪費最強大的玩家，特別是對於那些習慣了更傳統的系統的人來說。
>只是移動並不能保證您能接近想要打的人。
您還必須夠快; 習慣舊系統的人總是忽略運動指令(實際上，大多數人會忽略所有與攻擊或防禦無關的指令),這也導致大量的“打空氣”結果。
If the traditional systems were like driving automatic sedans,
This would be like driving manual freight trucks.
如果傳統的系統像駕駛自動轎車，
這就像駕駛手動貨運卡車。
(read the book is even more important here, then traditional rules, and most players don't like to read or ask...)
("讀書"在這個系統中比傳統規則更重要,而大多數玩家不喜歡閱讀或問GM... =3= )
So I guess I did somehow achieve my goals, the end result it not user firendly. v=3=v
And this being a one-guy effort in a niche enough hobby already, there isn't much value for anyone to try to figure this out anyhow. !=w=v
所以我想我確實以某種方式實現了我的目標，但最終結果對用家並不友善。 v=w=v
而且這是一個小眾愛好裡面的個人努力，只是一種利己的興趣，學習這個系統對任何人來說都沒有太大價值。 !=w=v
Guess I can't have it both ways... Or, I can just use the FastHack version, which behaves more like how traditional systems work.
不可能兩全其美... 不過FastHack版本更像傳統系統的操作方式就是。
