01-09-2018, 04:32 AM | #211 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2018, 05:45 AM | #212 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
It is indeed. And it reminds me of how we would play Melee when as kids. One of us would get on a run with some fighter who seemed unbeatable, until another of us would come up with an idea of something to counter him. It really was a thrill to be able to find the right combination to defeat the reigning king of the arena.
|
01-09-2018, 05:51 AM | #213 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2018, 06:27 AM | #214 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2018, 06:40 AM | #215 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
So, in essence this would be the opposite of the "Advantages of Great Strength" rule on page 8 of TFT?
|
01-09-2018, 06:59 AM | #216 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
In any case, at least one player in every one of my classic TFT campaigns played a one. We didn’t find the UC talents unbalancing and the character was refreshingly different. I say leave them alone. If you find them objectionable, you can fix them to your liking in your own campaign. But I don’t think that they should arbitrarily be reworked merely to be consistent with other talent progression approaches. Also, this was a part of the old school game design ethic - systems were designed to do the job and consistency between systems was subordinated (and often not considered at all <cough, AD&D>). Regarding the use of weapon talent levels, I agree that there may be some merit in that approach. In the “Fantasy Trip Defense” thread, I posted a solution that begins to approach what you’re talking about. I suspect that you might fold the Fencing talent and perhaps some other benefits into this structure. Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-09-2018 at 07:03 AM. |
|
01-09-2018, 09:46 AM | #217 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2018, 09:49 AM | #218 |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Rolling additional dice for more difficult tasks is obviously too coarse to rely of for all task rolls. Hence TFT had modifiers to the roll as well. I replaced the additional dice mechanic with modifiers for the following reasons:
1. The original system required me to have (and try to remember) different, non-intuitive numbers for automatic hits, double damage, triple damage, automatic miss, weapon dropped and weapon broken results. These numbers weren't provided in the original 3 TFT books as I recall. They had to be derived or gotten from the Codex or GM Screen (neither of which I could find until the mid-late 1980s). In an era where personal computers cost $2-4000 in 2018 dollars, this had to be done by hand. Ugh. 2. Fencing talent made automatic hits, double and triple damage more likely on a 3d6 roll. What were the comparable numbers for rolling more than 3 dice to hit? As an aside, the only other game I saw that used the "roll more dice" mechanic was Traveller 4. It tried to avoid the granularity by introducing the half die (i.e. a d3). In TFT terms, you might replace a -1 or -2 modifier with adding a d3. I'm not sure that's a great solution but it does allow you to get rid of die roll modifiers. |
01-09-2018, 10:10 AM | #219 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
On 4 dice, the chance of double damage is 0.8%; the chance of an automatic hit is 0.32%. And the whole point of automatic hits and misses is to introduce a chance of uncertainty regardless of other conditions. |
|
01-09-2018, 11:25 AM | #220 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
There were multiple takes published, e.g.: Melee 03-1-003 (glossy gargoyle): Defend/Dodge 4-die roll -> No automatic hits, 20+ is a miss. Advanced Melee: Defend/Dodge 4-die roll -> 3 (sic), 4, 5 auto-hit, 20 auto-miss, 21-22 drop, 23-24 break. Note no mention of any chance of a triple or double damage, though I'd think presumably at least a 4 would be double. In The Labyrinth: "use your imagination when determining the results of spectacularly successful (or incredibly bad) rolls" 1-die roll -> auto success 2-die roll -> 2 auto-success, 12 auto-fail 3-die roll -> 3-5 auto-success, 16+ auto-fail 4-die roll -> 4-8 auto-success, 20+ auto-fail 5-die roll -> 5-11 auto-success, 24+ auto-fail 6-die roll -> 6-14 auto-success, 28+ auto-fail 7-die roll -> 7-17 auto-success, 32+ auto-fail 8-die roll -> 8-20 auto-success, 36+ auto-fail "The result is that any character, no matter how dextrous, has around a 4 1/2% chance of missing a roll - and even a clumsy or stupid character has the same chance of making it." And GM can rule out automatic success (noted for repeated tries, also limited). Codex: Has a whole page-long table of what 3, 4, 5 and 16, 17, 18 mean for weapons, bare hands, and various types of spells. Then spells out equivalents of 3, 4, 5 and 16, 17, 18 results for up to 7-die rolls, following a set pattern that could be extended to any number of dice for the crit successes, but a less regular progression for the crit fails. Moreover it is not what ITL says. It says only the lowest (e.g. a 7 on 7 dice) is the equivalent of a 3 on 3 dice, and [number of dice]+1 is like a 4, and [number of dice]+2 is like a 5 on 3 dice. So, increasingly vanishing chances of those on hard tests. It reads: Code:
To Hit with more dice 3 4 5 16 17 18 4 4 5 6 20 21&22 23&24 5 5 6 7 24&25 26&27 28-30 6 6 7 8 28-30 31-33 34-36 7 7 8 9 32-34 35-38 39-42 The growing auto-failures rate is the same but the 17/drop and 18/break columns are irregular in progression - I haven't run the odds yet, but I think they were trying to keep similar odds with each number of dice. One nice thing about the Codex version is there is more spread of possible values with higher dice. The ITL version preserves the ~4.5% auto-success/fail chances, but at the cost or reducing the range of possible values on both ends, making more attribute values equivalent. Ty, your house rule had the feature of a second roll to see what sort of effect on extreme rolls, which IMO is nice (and especially wanted for your blasphemous d20's). An "exploding dice" system of some sort could also be a useful option, though of course original TFT had nothing like that so might be considered blasphemous too. Last edited by Skarg; 01-09-2018 at 11:33 AM. |
|
Tags |
in the labyrinth, melee, roleplaying, the fantasy trip, wizard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|