Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Kane
Skarg - I am glad you had a better reaction to Man-to-Man, than I did.
For myself, I have never had my gaming-hopes lifted so high, and then so quickly dashed in all my years of gaming. Granted, SJ had stated: "MtM is not TFT all over again."
...
So, to directly answer the OP's Question: For me and my game-world, it is not a line that separates MtM from TFT; but a gulf.
|
Yeah, I had a similar reaction to GURPS. While I admire the effort that has gone into it - to say nothing of the staggering number of supplements (most of which are very good and useful for any RPG) - it just wasn't the game I wanted to play. I did run it a couple of times, but soon abandoned it each time.
I don't really think there's that much overlap between the two games except the use of a 3d6 roll under mechanic.
Of course, GURPS solves many of the same problems as TFT, and since it does use the 3d6 resolution mechanic, some of those solutions may work for TFT. Nomenclature is often similar as well. But TFT ain't GURPS-lite and GURPS ain't TFT-heavy.
That said, if a GURPS rule will improve TFT (at least the TFT that I want to play), I'm all for stealing it. The best RPGs steal heavily from other games. GURPS itself was extremely similar to Champions; I'd submit that it's at least as similar to the Hero system as it is to TFT.
As far as comparing the two games - well, "realism" in RPGs is a pretty subjective thing in my opinion. If you like the GURPS combat system, then play GURPS with my blessings. I like TFT and will stay with that. But I don't see much benefit in comparing either game's "realism". You might as well argue about music.