Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2018, 12:59 PM   #11
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: An Even MORE BLASPHEMOUS Polyhedral Dice Concepts for TFT

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Actually, that system was used in a British RPG, Dragon Warriors, which was published contemporaneously with TFT in the early '80's. Dragon Warriors has a LOT of interesting ideas in it (and was republished a few years ago and is available from DTRPG). Systemically it wouldn't be hard to convert DW to TFT or vice versa -- they're close enough to make it do-able. I've often thought it would have resulted in a very interesting game if the designers of TFT and DW would have gotten together and collaborated on their designs -- so many great ideas that didn't overlap exactly but were easily applicable from one design to the other.
I must have that game somewhere...

Lee Gold in FGU's Lands of Adventure used a fixed amount of damage for weapons. I can't recall how armor was treated.

I've toyed with the idea of putting the to hit rolls on the target when attacked. In TFT terms, this is what it would look like:

"Player A, the Orc attacks you with an adjDX of 12. Roll to avoid the attack."

The player must roll 13+ on 3d or he is hit. A 3,4,5 are critical hits per normal TFT rules.

If there's a hit, I roll damage normally. Or I can put that on the player as well.

That should reduce the GM workload, at least when there are more monsters than PCs in a battle.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2018, 10:26 PM   #12
Jim Kane
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: An Even MORE BLASPHEMOUS Polyhedral Dice Concepts for TFT

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Of course GURPS has that mechanic - base damage is a function of ST and weapons act as modifiers.
Yes, I think if SJ could adapt that same philosophy into TFT, without the deadly-damage-modifiers, that would be a boon to TFT; what is your feeling about that Ty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Average = mean.
Good, just want to be sure we are on the same page. Could you and I agree to use a phrase such as: "Which manifests as:", or, "manifested as:", or. "Real World Result", in place of your use of "real-world average" in our discussions; so we have a language which is in harmony with each other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Conclusion - adapting a rule that weapons will always do 1 point of damage (before armor, shields, etc.) will significantly increase average damage with negative modifiers starting at -3. I don't consider this a big deal, so I'd adapt the rule.
I like your concept and rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
No idea. We called them "throwing stars" until the early 1980s...
Back in the day, my cousin decided - after acting it out of course, for our group's entertainment - that if you say the word: Shuriken, quickly, and with a Texas accent - exaggerated so heavily as only a 15 year-old can do - the word comes out as: "Sha-ken",... 'cause when they a'hit ya in your butt, ya'll gonna find it's sha-ken!!!" LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
BOTTOM LINE - Letting all weapons do a minimum of 1 point of damage will not materially change the average amount of damage done, so add this rule if doing zero points of damage irritates you.
Good and Agreed.

Thank you for the detailed clarity, I appreciate your efforts.

Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-18-2018 at 08:27 PM.
Jim Kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2018, 12:06 AM   #13
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: An Even MORE BLASPHEMOUS Polyhedral Dice Concepts for TFT

Quote:
Yes, I think if SJ could adapt that same philosophy into TFT, without the deadly-damage-modifiers, that would be a boon to TFT; what is your feeling about that Ty?
Well, I like TFTs current approach just fine. But at the end of the day, I dont have a strong opposition to a GURPS style mechanic. I think Id try it the way I suggested above:

Take the unarmed combat damage from the chart on page 21 of AM, then add the listed damage for each weapon type:

Dagger 1d-1
Rapier 1d
Cutlass 1d+1
Shortsword 1d+1
Broadsword 1d+2
1h Bastard Sword 1d+3
2h Bastard Sword 2d-1
2h Sword 2d
Battleaxe 2d
Greatsword 2d+1
Convert adjustments of +3 into +1 die and adjustments of +7 into +2 dice.
Convert adjustments of -3 into -1 die and adjustments of -7 into -2 dice.

So, a ST 16 figure does 1d bare handed. With a Greatsword, he does 3d+1. With a Broadsword, he does 2d+2.

A ST 10 figure does 1d-3 bare handed. With a Cutlass (1d+1), he does 2d-2. With a dagger, he does 2d-4 which converts to 1d-1. If you let him use a Greatsword - I wouldn't - he'd do 3d-2.

You'd need to decide if you will require minimum ST for weapons (I would).
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2018, 02:02 AM   #14
Jim Kane
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: An Even MORE BLASPHEMOUS Polyhedral Dice Concepts for TFT

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Well, I like TFT’s current approach just fine. But at the end of the day, I don’t have a strong opposition to a GURPS style mechanic.
The ONLY opposition I had to the MtM/GURPS style was those deadly cutting and impaling bonuses against unarmored figues. T'was a shame too, as MtM/GURPS had so many things worked out wonderfully that so many people "house-rule" in TFT. It's just was too deadly for non-armored Barbarians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
You'd need to decide if you will require minimum ST for weapons (I would).
I would too... maybe even a DX minimum; who knows.

Now we open up another Kettle-o-fish... A foil should PLAY different than a bastard sword. They all handle differently. Would it not be reasonable to give a figure who selects rapier a DX bonus with that weapon to reflect it's quickness in the air? Would you, at 12 ST, 12 DX, forego the old-hat 2d6 Broadsword in favor of a +2DX foil at a lesser damage?

Perhaps...

I know it would be a huge, Huge, HUGE, undertaking, but I feel that a specific weapon within a specific class (i.e. Sword class, Ax class, Pole class) should FEEL different in PLAY, so that the "difference" is not just in damage delivery.

I would love to see each truly different weapon be defined by:

1) It's minimum ST to use (possibly DX too)
2) It's reach - where is my 2-hex reach Morning Star Pole Weapon!!!
3) It's damage listed as a result of the ST of the figure using it
4) It's specific Advantage(s) Rule, and how it is used in PLAY
5) It's specific Disadvantage(s) Rule, and how it is used in PLAY


These Advantages/Disadvantages to each weapon of which I write, could be as simple as giving up a bit of damage for a bit of DX, or an increase in damage for either a reduction in DX and/or how often the weapon can strike (or both!), or how effective (or ineffective) it may be against other weapons/armor etc. We actually have an enormous amount of options available with which to define HOW A WEAPON PERFORMS IN PLAY, due to the myriad of possible combinations of effects which can be created.

SJ has this nailed also with the crossbows. Do you want the light crossbow with the higher rate-of-fire, or do you take the heavy crossbow with the slower rate-of-fire for the increased damage it delivers? This forces the definition between the two IN PLAY; as the two versions of the "same weapon" PLAY different. This adds STRATEGY and COLOR, through definition; which equals FUN to me.

This is the KEY, and thereby giving each player a weapon scaled to their figure, BUT specific PLAY rules which make their weapon choice FEEL different in Melee; AND, GIVES THE PLAYER A REASON to perhaps take a less damaging weapon in favor of a more STRATEGIC or a more COLORFUL weapon with special effects - or take a heavier weapon (with the ST min), or weapon with special PLAY effects, by giving up some DX or rate-of-attack; or both.

One thing I LOVE about "Net and Trident", "Whip", and "Bola" is with their specific PLAY RULES, they FEEL SO DIFFERENT IN PLAY - actually simulating that weapon set - I would like to see that for ALL weapons where there is actually a PLAYING difference besides damage/size etc.

Frankly I WOULD KILL (on the Melee map anyway) for some detailed PLAY RULES for FLAIL WEAPONS to REALLY DISTINGUISH them from the "ball on a stick Mace"; like was done for Pole Weapons, Net & Trident, Bola, etc.

Of course I have some ideas for making Flails PLAY like Flails... but that's another topic of discussion to look forward to.

Ah, perchance to dream...

Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-19-2018 at 11:37 AM.
Jim Kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.