TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Anthony

TFT has DX penalties for wearing armor, GURPS does not. Thus, the unarmored fighter has a net offensive benefit in TFT.

Ah, that would be the big thing; thanks. I was thinking only about the defensive side of things, and where defense is concerned, I'd rather be an unarmored barbarian or swashbuckler in MtM/GURPS than in TFT.

But things change on offense, as you note, where TFT hoses the armored fighter while MtM/GURPS doesn't. Got it.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbone

I'm trying to understand the problem here, but failing so far... probably because I'm not fully recalling how things work in TFT.

TFT has no REGULAR DAMAGE BONUS for Cutting/Impaling weapons as MtM does; except in the special case of the Double-damage Charge-Attack for Pole Weapons.

So what does this mean in terms to no-armor TFT vs must-amour in MtM?

On average a 1d6 weapon will deliver approximately 3.5 hits of damage. At ST 14, an unarmed TFT'er can take 4 good average whacks before he is dead; and can take 3 average attacks and still stays above the dreaded -3DX near-death penalty.

However, if we add-in MtM's "Cutting Bonus" to the very same blows, those 3.5 hits, become increased by 50% to 5.25 hits per attack. Now, my same TFT figure can only sustain 2 average Mtm attacks, and the TFT figure is only 3 ST from Death - which brings with it special -DX doom-n-gloom in TFT.

Not good; but wait! It gets even worse,..

If we add-in MtM's "Impaling Bonus" to the very same blows, those 3.5 hits become increased by 100% to 7 hits per attack. Now my same TFT figure can only sustain 2 attacks and he is DEAD MEAT.

Sustaining 4 attacks on average in TFT, falling to 2 attacks in MtM. Cutting or Impaling, either way you cut it (sorry, for the pun) MtM is murder on TFT figures.

So as you can see, MtM just doesn't work for my TFT Fantasy Characters in my vision of Cidri; because MtM is too real and deadly for them without the armor.

"Yes, you need armor" - SJ; MtM sidebar, P. 15

"No, I need TFT" - JK; Summer 1986

Armed with the math above, if you go back and re-read my post #22, it should be "A clear as an unmuddied lake, sir. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. You can rely on me." - Alexander DeLarge #655321, 'A Clockwork Orange' 1971

[larsdangly]

These are important game-design issues, but it is worth considering another side to the question of armored vs. unarmored combatants: versimilitude. No combat system is 'realistic' but there is a big difference between games with combat systems that represent important features of reality and those that don't. And one important feature of reality is that armor is very effective and very important, and without it you will have a good chance of being debilitated by one blow from a weapon like a sword, spear or bow.

There are a lot of games that fiddle the probabilities of various damage outcomes to enhance player survivability, but end up creating a game where lethal or debilitating injuries are impossible or very unlikely. For instance, you can't hunt deer with a bow in D&D, or most other games, because no single attack will debilitate them, so they will just run away after you hit them. Not some of the time - 100 % of the time. There are many examples like this, and they are really frustrating.

How stupid do you have to be to make a combat system in which it is literally impossible for a person or person-sized creature to suffer a debilitating injury from a crossbow, spear or sword? Hard to say, but apparently that is how stupid most of us are, because that is how most of our games work.

So, when I deliberate revisions and house rules, I usually am trying to nudge us closer to reality rather than farther away.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

... And of course, when going into a pitched battle, as a knight or equivalent, armor probably makes sense, surely Aragorn used it. But most of our adventures are more of the stealth variety, where nimbleness, awareness, etc.are the watchword, not battlelines or castle sieges.

As someone who's played decades of medieval/ancient/Cidri/fantasy GURPS after TFT, the only real difference I see in the armor of the typical parties is more use of cloth and leather armor (more than TFT low-level characters because no DX penalty). The popularity of plate and chain in the GURPS adventurers I have seen is really about the same as it is in the TFT games I have played, i.e. uncommon because it's heavy/noisy/expensive and slows you down, but used by some tanks anyway, with mail more common than plate.

Originally Posted by Kirk

And the lack of a sticky half-ZOC for characters in GURPS and the one-at-a-time sequence always felt disjointed and un-fun. Not just me, but everyone I knew who tried it, it was a no-go.

It took a little getting used to for me but now I entirely prefer it, and now TFT engagement feels static/limiting and off to me by comparison.

Originally Posted by Kirk

It's not a matter of "realism", but enjoyment and playability. The point is that GURPS and other systems exist and have their fans, and I would hope that after so many years waiting for TFT it can retain its original appeal and dimension, however defined.

What do you think of allowing engaged figures to move away but suffer a free extra attack from the figure(s) they disengage?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

So what does this mean in terms to no-armor TFT vs must-amour in MtM?
[...]
Now, my same TFT figure can only sustain 2 average Mtm attacks
[...]
Sustaining 4 attacks on average in TFT, falling to 2 attacks in MtM. Cutting or Impaling, either way you cut it (sorry, for the pun) MtM is murder on TFT figures.

Only in the specific situations you mentioned, and if you mean "hits" instead of "attacks".

Consider:

* Unarmored figures in TFT can also be taken out in 1 or 2 hits if they get hit with a weapon that does 2 or 3 dice damage (or they hit you for double or triple damage).
* In GURPS, the active defenses mean many attacks don't do any damage at all, and not getting hit by defending and by clever use of movement, reach, waiting, etc., there are more opportunities in GURPS for an unarmored fighter to avoid being hit at all. (It does however help if you use 4e or house rules that don't have armor passive defense stack with active defenses.)
* TFT gives unarmored fighters few ways to avoid being hurt at all (avoid engagement or take out your foes before they hit you).

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Only in the specific situations you mentioned, and if you mean "hits" instead of "attacks".

Consider:

* Unarmored figures in TFT can also be taken out in 1 or 2 hits if they get hit with a weapon that does 2 or 3 dice damage (or they hit you for double or triple damage).
* In GURPS, the active defenses mean many attacks don't do any damage at all, and not getting hit by defending and by clever use of movement, reach, waiting, etc., there are more opportunities in GURPS for an unarmored fighter to avoid being hit at all. (It does however help if you use 4e or house rules that don't have armor passive defense stack with active defenses.)
* TFT gives unarmored fighters few ways to avoid being hurt at all (avoid engagement or take out your foes before they hit you).

All very well and good Skarg, but the overriding and simple fact-of-matter is that MtM does NOT fit my game-world, my play-style, my style characters, nor my vision of what they look like in my mind's eye.

Bottom-line: MtM is just not for me, thanks; I am a TFT-guy.

Yes, attacks; being the singular variable damage generated during another figures attack-phase; which I averaged to 3.5 hits per attack at 1d6.


BTW, are you still running that joint on the outskirts of the Village of Bendwyn? I had a great time last time I was there, and uh, sorry about all the, uh,... damage; but had it been an MtM party, the damage to your place would have been 50%-100% heavier ;-)

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... Bottom-line: MtM is just not for me, thanks; I am a TFT-guy - and that's that.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Yes, attacks; as in the singular variable damage generated during another figures attack-phase; which I averaged to 3.5 hits per attack at 1d6.

Oh sorry - by "hit" I meant "successful attack" not point of damage. My point being that the active defenses in GURPS mean that a skilled/agile low-armor character hopefully entirely avoids taking any damage from many attacks because they dodge, retreat, block, parry, etc many of the attacks, and survive that way, where in TFT-as-written there is no effective way to do that except the Defend option (which precludes attacking and doesn't take into account skill). I like playing little-to-no-armor fighters too, but I'd rather be able to use my skill to avoid being hurt (without having to take out every opponent I face before they can attack me) than get slowly cut down.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

BTW, are you still running that joint on the outskirts of the Village of Bendwyn? I had a great time last time I was there, and uh, sorry about all the, uh,... damage. ;-)

Why yes, Skarg's is ever-popular and going strong in my original campaign (though I haven't run it in a long time). Don't worry about the damage. Skarg learned long ago how to capitalize on nightly mayhem. In my campaign, Skarg had a second bar-room built so when one gets too damaged, he can keep the other open while the damaged one gets repaired. And of course there's a large graveyard.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Skarg

What do you think of allowing engaged figures to move away but suffer a free extra attack from the figure(s) they disengage?

Not for it. This is one of the TFT mechanisms that allows a less armored-no armored character to survive. Without armor, you are gambling that you are faster, so you can very often disengage if you are outmatched and be immune that turn to a regular type of attack, waiting for some other opportunity, strategy, or companion to help you out. Or you force your opponent to attempt HTH, with all of its risks. Or you can perhaps make an aimed shot, disarming or knocking down or out your opponent before he can strike you well.

Our experience, which maybe I didn't make clear enough earlier, is that TFT allows an interaction to be resolved in an interesting and enjoyable way in a reasonable length of time, fundamentally for three reasons.

In TFT, each side does its thing at once, or together, getting it done. GURPS is one guy at a time, while everyone sits and waits.

And while TFT has Defend and Disengagement options, there isn´t a lot of parrying or blocking to be had, the damage from each attack is, in effect, summed up in a single roll.

Lastly, if I remember correctly without dragging from storage my ruleset, GURPS turns are meant to be about half as long as TFT, effectively time slicing more finely and doubling the time required for an engagement. And truly, we found interactions to take about twice as long, and with more downtime for each player, to boot.

The important point to me is that TFT has a somewhat unique turn sequencing and options, using engagement and a UGO IGO mechanic, and sums up sword play into a single die roll to determine whether someone is rewarded with hits or not. This means more time can be spent on the adventure part of the evening, and not an overly long amount on more precisely animating the details of a fight. And in the end, for me and others like me, it makes the difference that is the difference between a system I look forward to playing, and one I do not.

I won´t say TFT is better, just preferred by some number of players. And since everyone else has been satisfied with available rules and adventures these past four decades, it would be nice to have the TFT option available once again for those that prefer it, for whatever reasons they present.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

... where in TFT-as-written there is no effective way to do that except the Defend option...

Exactly, and specifically why I advanced the proposal of a simple additional TFT OPTION: BLOCK; to be added to the current options of: DEFEND, DISENGAGE, and DODGE - See details on my post #52 under the thread entitled: "Glitches,... etc."

Although the point of that proposal is ACTUALLY to variate the turn-by-turn Combat Rhythm, and offer very a simple 4th Defensive Option for TFT, and remain in-line operationally and simply with the other meager 3 TFT Defensive Combat options that exist now; as you rightly have indicated.


"a Saloon with it's own Graveyard out-back",... nice touch!

.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

TFT has no REGULAR DAMAGE BONUS for Cutting/Impaling weapons as MtM does; except in the special case of the Double-damage Charge-Attack for Pole Weapons.

I believe you're saying that GURPS (incl. MtM) is tougher on the unarmored fighter for a reason that can be restated as "GURPS boosts the damage from edged weapons (relative to TFT), and also boosts armor's effectiveness vs those. So you really need armor in GURPS to soak up damage."

There's truth in that! Take a 5-hit blow, for example. In TFT, that's 5 dam. In GURPS, it could be more if it's edged – even tripled to 15 (!) dam if an impaling stab to the vitals. Ouch.

Armor subtracts hits before the multiplication, so the effect of armor vs that impale is also essentially tripled: armor subtracting 3 hits ends up reducing that stab damage by 9 points.

So, the point is valid. However... TFT offers the unarmored barbarian no way to avoid any of the 5 dam he was hit with. Whereas GURPS lets him avoid all of that 5-dam blow – or all of that 15-dam stab to the heart – with a Dodge. Or all of a 30-dam blow, or all of a 300-dam blow. Once dam is so high (Giants wielding logs, etc.) that even armor won't make a difference, the TFT unarmored barbarian has no particular way to avoid a lick of that damage, while his GURPS counterpart can try to avoid all of it (and, most importantly, can do so more successfully than the heavily armored knight can).

In short, and repeating myself from earlier:

• When giving hits in TFT, I'd rather be an unarmored fighter (no offensive penalties!) than an armored one (big penalties!). In GURPS, it typically doesn't matter either way (no offensive penalties for armor, with the exception of some fighting skills).
  
• When receiving hits in TFT, I'd much rather be an armored fighter (protection!) than an unarmored one (all the vulnerable squishiness of the unarmored, with no benefit in return). Whereas in GURPS, there's a tradeoff aspect: protection for the armored, vs better ability to evade damage for the unarmored.

But. You know all that, and I think Skarg essentially said the same. Just pondering out loud for anyone new to the games.

Even if TFT is awfully harsh on unarmored fighters (on defense, anyway), if you like the overall feel of its combat, then you like the feel; no argument from me about that! It is important that TFT maintain its own unique feel.

It's also a good thing that TFT makes armor something you definitely want to have when receiving blows. If heavy, tiring, expensive armor weren't a net benefit to defense, there'd have been no reason for warriors to use it, and there'd be no reason for the game to bother with it.

I'll only express a wish that the game do something so that quickness – especially unarmored quickness – offers some aid in defending. (Even the Dodging/Defending does nothing here. That is, it helps the nimble unarmored fighter, sure, but no more than it helps the burdened armored fighter.)

In short, I like the "sweaty, bare-chested and aggressive (i.e. barely armored) Low-Fantasy Barbaric-types" concept as much as you do. I'd just like to see that character become a more viable choice in TFT.