Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

[tbeard1999]

Let’s catalog the list of glitches, ambiguities, contradictions, clumsy implementations, and glaring omissions that we think exist in the TFT rules.

I propose that we list the items and limit proposed fixes to a single sentence. See my initial list below for examples. I also urge that we avoid debates in this thread. If you strongly disagree that something is a problem, say “I disagree that this is a problem” and move on. If it’s really interesting to you, start a new thread.

My initial list:

Boomerangs. I suggest they be nerfed so that they aren’t superior to light crossbows and to avoid swarms of disgusting, filthy, cowardly hobbit flingers.

Bolos. I suggest an immediate ST save so that filthy, disgusting cowardly hobbits can’t bolo giants.

General comment - review all automatic effects (i.e. that have no saving throw) and confirm that they aren’t subject to abuse. Because filthy, cowardly hobbits will abuse them Take my word for it.

Polearms. Nerf the Pole Ax (and maybe others) so that it isn’t superior to the battle ax in every situation.

Are charge attacks too strong?

Explain better the options for figures who have both the Two Weapons talent and the Fencing talent.

Does the DX increase from Missile Weapons talent also apply when determining how often the firer can shoot?

Does the DX adjustment for making an aimed shot also apply when determining how often the forer can shoot?

Replace the “add dice as difficulty increases” mechanic with modifiers.

Harmonize the multiple hit location charts or at least explain why they should be kept separate.

Consider some limit on the amount of ST that can be used in missile spells. If you think that such a limit is appropriate, increase the cost rather than impose an absolute limit. I.e., it takes 2 ST per extra die over 5 dice or somesuch.

Revise death and dying so a character does not die at ST 0.

Healing spells. Please.

Should wizards really die if ST drops to zero from spellcasting?

Make it clear that the jobs table is subject to GM discretion. Make the consequences of failing a job roll potentially fatal to any character no matter how strong he is.

Define experience costs in terms of extra attribute points. This keeps races that start with fewer points but considerable innate advantages (i.e., filthy hobbits) from dominating the game.

Please - no purple Speedos on the men. Pretty please. But bell bottoms are okay and likely even legally required.

Claim to have hidden a silver statue somewhere and fill the rules with clues as to its location. Put a note in the location that says “April Fool’s” and keep the statue.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Exclusively use the masculine pronounce just for the hell of it. This is 1981 after all.

I'm going to call you on this one; perhaps you meant it as a joke, but it's not funny. The last thing in the world that this community needs in 2018 is an intentionally sexist slap at female gamers.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I'm going to call you on this one; perhaps you meant it as a joke, but it's not funny. The last thing in the world that this community needs in 2018 is an intentionally sexist slap at female gamers.

Since it was a joke - by your own admission - your scolding seems gratuitous. The two female gamers in my house thought it was funny. They were more offended by the species bigotry implicit in my characterization of hobbits as filthy and untrustworthy. They obviously don’t know many hobbits, but I digress.

Besides, how dare you assert that there are only two genders? And the use of the word “slap” in reference to females seems misogynistic. You need to check your privilege, obviously.

[PK]

<MOD>

tbeard1999, this is an Official Warning to tone back the snark and be civil, or this thread is getting locked in its infancy. I've snipped the remark in question from your OP, mainly so that no one else replies to it specifically.

Everyone else, ignore the tangent and focus on issues with TFT that you want fixed.

</MOD>

[Steve Jackson]

Thank you for a very useful thread topic and ground rules, Ty. Now everybody play nice. I will point out that the issue Ty is pointing out is real! We are in 2018, things have changed, and we are trying to modernize gender references in our newly released material, while at the same time expecting our fans of all genders to understand that this text was written a long time ago, according to then standard manuals of style, and yes, it reads oddly now. (The punctuation is kind of funky, too.)

"Their" still sounds like a plural to me, since I learned to read in the 1950s, but "plural includes the singular" is no more strained than "masculine includes the feminine."

Scary to think that I've been doing this long enough that my oldest work requires TRANSLATION. I shall try to keep evolving.

Yes, charge attacks with polearms are too strong. After a few decades of reflecting on it, I don't think that charging with a halberd is any better than charging with any big pointy stick. The halberd's blade doesn't help in the charge. And I'm willing to listen to argument that the javelin is too short and light to get a charge bonus.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Thank you for a very useful thread topic and ground rules, Ty. Now everybody play nice. I will point out that the issue Ty is pointing out is real! ...Scary to think that I've been doing this long enough that my oldest work requires TRANSLATION. I shall try to keep evolving.

Yes.

I may have assumed more familiarity with the 70s-80s than actually exists. We gamers from the late 70s remember the agonizing and arguing that went on in the hobby regarding the use of the male pronoun.

It really got comical, frankly. Great amounts of ink were expended as folks argued about it. Virtue signalling and self-righteousness were just as popular then as now.

Many - probably most - game books contained some version of this disclaimer - "Exclusive use of the male pronoun is used in this book. However, this shouldn't be read to exclude women, etc., etc."

THIS is what I was referencing; I'm glad SOMEONE got it. Much like the bell bottoms and (regrettable) Speedos, it was a feature of the times.

(And sad to say, these times are no more or no less moral than those times. The lines are merely drawn in different places. Humans don't change; they just get smug.)

If I'd really wanted to make fun of the period, I'd have demanded that female characters lose 1 point of ST but get the Sex Appeal talent free. Yes, youngsters, some early RPGs (but not TFT) actually gave female characters charisma bonuses. And in some cases, lower maximums for Strength.

And consider this little jewel from Eldritch Wizardry (1976): "There is only one King of Lawful Dragons, just as there is only one Queen of Chaotic Dragons (Women’s Lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing)."

Different days indeed.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

We are in 2018, things have changed, and we are trying to modernize gender references in our newly released material, while at the same time expecting our fans of all genders to understand that this text was written a long time ago, according to then standard manuals of style, and yes, it reads oddly now. (The punctuation is kind of funky, too.)

"Their" still sounds like a plural to me, since I learned to read in the 1950s, but "plural includes the singular" is no more strained than "masculine includes the feminine."

This would be a very welcome change to your editorial policy for me, as it currently is I find that I need to write around using pronouns at all, since I am not personally comfortable with generic masculine.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

...and yes, it reads oddly now. (The punctuation is kind of funky, too.)

Yes, I think I blame you for my lifelong overuse of ellipses...

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Thank you for a very useful thread topic and ground rules, Ty. Now everybody play nice. I will point out that the issue Ty is pointing out is real! We are in 2018, things have changed, and we are trying to modernize gender references in our newly released material, while at the same time expecting our fans of all genders to understand that this text was written a long time ago, according to then standard manuals of style, and yes, it reads oddly now. (The punctuation is kind of funky, too.)

"Their" still sounds like a plural to me, since I learned to read in the 1950s, but "plural includes the singular" is no more strained than "masculine includes the feminine."

Scary to think that I've been doing this long enough that my oldest work requires TRANSLATION. I shall try to keep evolving.

I find the fact that of all the neuter pronouns that have been added to English (and the one that's been there all along), because it causes a loss of information. We crippled our second-person plural in official contexts; you crippled yours in all contexts, murdering its sibling 'thou', I would've hoped that Englishmen wouldn't so carelessly do it with the third-person after witnessing the ambiguity of 'you' for a lifetime.

That being said, I have an impression that the things you say about changes are heavily skewed towards viewing the world through the cultural lens of the former British Empire. For example, the assumption that this is a one-way street, or that grammatical genders are tightly linked to social genders.
Examples:
There are many peoples for which the moon is grammatically feminine, but that does not imply that a piece of rock has a social gender; a robot is grammatically masculine, even though the hypothetical individual robot may be socially feminine; the same automobile may be grammatically masculine, neuter or feminine depending on whether you spell the word fully, shorten it halfway, or shorten it to its shortest form.

It can even go further than that. Consider the following paragraph:
"A person came to see you. Her name is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He wants to become a governor."
This is a grammatically correct formation around here, because 'person', 'human', 'individual', and even '-man' when used in composites like 'Spider-Man' are all feminine words, and 'her' in this case refers to the person who came to see you.

Recently, I've been shown an even more interesting example from a culture I didn't know much about: apparently for the Jewish people, some words are grammatically masculine in singular and feminine in plural, or vice versa.

[BrotherBill]

So, if you are not engaged by moving into a front hex of a figure unable to harm you (being under a Freeze spell, for example) why are you engaged by a figure which has moved to far to act during the action phase?