12-31-2017, 02:53 AM | #41 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the UFO
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
The main problem I found in TFT combat was that, barring the silly Unarmed Combat rules, it was "all offense." You couldn't play something like a cinematic swordfight involving light armored or unarmored fighters, because fighters only increased in attack ability (higher DX) but DX never improved your defensive ability. This is not a fault in the rules _as a game_ but it is a problem as a roleplaying game, because it makes certain common characters hard to play. I've seen various fixes for it - the 'abort to parry' (roll vs. DX but lose your next turn and retreat 1 hex is cute, but can get tedious), the GURPS parry (parry at half DX plus 2-3), the "high levels of Fencing talent impose 4d or 5d attacks" (two powerful in my book), the "extra HPs" etc. but it remains the single biggest issue I have with the system. At the same time, such fixes also risk slowing down the game and interfering with its existing balance, so I've never been quite happy with them, though the GURPS style works the best for me since it fits well with players who also play GURPS. When I ran the anime Fight: Iczir One with variant TFT rules and grafted on super powers and mecha rules, I used that version plus a GURPS-style dodge mechanic. Mind you, I've still used TFT "as is" for games where the characters are going to play somewhat stereotypical bruisers or where combined arms magic /spellcasting is common. Oddly enough, however, if you do use TFT for a modern or future setting this is less important as the emphasis is more on ranged than gun combat.
__________________
Is love like the bittersweet taste of marmalade on burnt toast? Last edited by David L Pulver; 12-31-2017 at 02:57 AM. |
|
12-31-2017, 04:27 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
ISTR Ty hangs out here. |
|
12-31-2017, 11:12 AM | #43 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: December 26, 2017: The Fantasy Trip Returns Home
Quote:
I also agree that the players ought to have the option of some kind of defense (and that the existing Dodge rule is bit off and should probably be better framed). the GURPS Parry rule works well for that purpose. Of note, however, the tactical time scales in GURPS and TFT are very different -- TFT's tactical turns are 5 seconds (which is an eternity in a sword fight, based on my fencing experience, with multiple attacks and parries usually occurring), whereas GURPS' are what? One second? Two? So that may influence how Steve approaches the issue (if he addresses it at all). ST batteries already exist, but I have always permitted players to store ST in their staves (1x owner's IQ for a Staff, and 3x owner's IQ for a Staff of Power). There was a process they had to go through to put the ST in there (effectively, they had to spend 1 hour meditating for each point they put in, couldn't put in more than IQ/3 per day, had to count the ST as lost for that day, and had to recover -- as fatigue -- before they could do it again; charging up a staff was a time management issue!), but it just seemed logical and gives someone a reason to have a staff besides having a physical weapon they can use. It also meant that ST batteries weren't as eagerly sought as they were without the above rule, but that was okay too. One other thing I'd like to see added would be healing magic; that always seemed an odd thing to be missing, though perhaps Steve had reasons for it that weren't ever stated (or at least, that I never read anywhere). |
|
12-31-2017, 01:14 PM | #44 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: December 26, 2017: The Fantasy Trip Returns Home
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-31-2017, 02:06 PM | #45 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: December 26, 2017: The Fantasy Trip Returns Home
Quote:
Though I agree, magical healing ought to be fairly expensive for minimal results -- only healing a couple of points of damage (1D/2 for example, for a similar ST cost for the spell), just so the characters don't become impervious tanks shrugging off the threat of damage. Also that level of cost means the Wizard character has to seriously consider just how much personal "damage" he is willing to take to heal a little bit of damage to another character! (Edited to add: Perhaps at that point the Wizard only does healing in order to "stabilize" a character so the team can get him/her back to town for proper healing.) |
|
12-31-2017, 03:04 PM | #46 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: December 26, 2017: The Fantasy Trip Returns Home
Quote:
One alternative method involves making sure you have enough comrades and/or hirelings and wagon/animals to be able to have some people set up a resting camp that won't get wiped out by a few wolves, and do do more scouting and bringing along semi-disposable assistants and so on. To me, that's really interesting - much moreso than having healing wizards and having injury and healing much less of an issue (or even not really an issue - see GURPS Major Healing, or not an issue at all - see D&D 5e) but the replacement issue you get is there are fewer possible outcomes other than success or death (and if you toss in revival or resurrection, not even that, so the stakes raise to Total Party Kill or else no real effect), which is a very different dynamic more typical of other RPGs, less interesting to me and less like TFT (and skewing the balance of TFT adventures), so why it seems like a good thing to make optional if it's added. Quote:
One of the cool things I love about Tollenkar's Lair is that it discusses the eventuality of needing to heal and replace losses for the adversary NPC groups as well. That would be quite different if the party (or adversary NPCs) has fast magical healing. In GURPS, in the cases I don't just remove the healing spells, I tend to nerf them by adding expensive spell ingredients that get used up, and limiting the amount of healing they can do (e.g. 1 per wound, or an amount per character per time) and/or adding risks of mishap that are scary and get more and more likely the more frequently someone tries healing magic on the same person in a certain time frame. In any case, I think it's about being conscious of what the healing rate you're creating is, and who has access to it, how much it costs, and what the limits are, so you can get a grasp of how it will affect both play and the expectations and practices of the competent people in the world. Since I started with TFT and played it for years and got to really like having to deal with all the injuries and having healing potion be a rare, limited, fragile and expensive commodity, I grew to really like and appreciate that. |
||
12-31-2017, 03:23 PM | #47 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: December 26, 2017: The Fantasy Trip Returns Home
Defence: Back in the day I used a simple resolution table to solve this perceived problem. I set the median value at 11, so that two fighters of the same skill would have just over a 50 per cent chance to hit each other. Actually, there was no real need for the table. Start each figure at 11 and adjust as follows based on the values of their adjDX:
Take the difference between the two values and halve it. Add one half to the value of the figure with the higher score and remove the other half from the lower score. If there is an odd number add the spare 1 to the higher value. Example... DX14 v DX14 (difference 0) =11v11 DX14 v DX13 (difference 1) =12v11 DX14 v DX12 (difference 2) =12v10 DX14 v DX11 (difference 3) =13v10 DX14 v DX10 (difference 4) =13v9 and so on... I felt this fixed a number of problems with the original rules, including reigning back the power of the polearm charging character with 14 adjDX who almost never missed and did massive damage, without taking away the value of having a higher DX score completely. For simplicities sake, and where there are multiple combatants, allow the figures to perform actions in the order of their adjDX before applying the resolution adjustment. Later on I used this idea for other things such as casting spells; IQ of spell v IQ of caster, etc |
12-31-2017, 08:39 PM | #48 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: December 26, 2017: The Fantasy Trip Returns Home
There is a pretty simple house rule (or set of house rules) that I instituted in my TFT campaigns 20+ years ago, and it addresses both the survivability issue and the issues people have noted when everyone's adjusted DX is above 16. It involves a couple of interlocking parts:
Any 'Attack' action (not charge attacks; normal attacks) can be executed as any number of sub-actions, where each sub-action could be an attack, a parry or a dodge. But, for every sub-action performed after the first, you must add 1 more die to every roll for every sub action performed that turn. E.g., two attacks and a parry would normally mean every roll is made on 5 dice. A parry is a standard (usually 3d) roll vs. adjDX, directed at one specified attack. If it succeeds, it blocks 3x the damage points that would normally be stopped if the parrying object (weapon or shield) had been used to block like a shield. So, a dagger or buckler parry stops 3; a sword or standard shield parry stops 6, and a great sword or tower shield 9. If a weapon or shield is used to parry it does not provide its normal block score protection on the same turn (and visa versa) A dodge is a new action that just lets you avoid a single melee or missile attack. It is rolled on 3d, and requires a 1 point talent to do at normal adj.DX and otherwise has a -4 penalty (so it is like a weapon skill in this sense). The biggest constraint is that no single part of you (sword, buckler, fist, foot, etc.) can perform more than one sub-action, with the exception of 'balanced' weapons (most swords, quarterstaff, one or two others), which can make 2, and dodges, which can be made any number of times. Thus, a very ambitious person might choose to dodge, attack and parry with a sword (which is a balanced weapon) and deliver a stout kick. This person will get two pretty good 'active' defenses that turn, potentially negating two separate attacks, and will deliver two attacks himself. On the other hand, he or she is going to have to roll 6d6 vs. adjDX for every sub-action. With an average roll of 21, the DX score better be high! This might sound complicated on a first read through, but I've used it for literally thousands of hours of play over many years, and it works awesome as a riff on standard Melee rules. It's the sort of thing that becomes second nature once you understand it and doesn't really slow play. Last edited by larsdangly; 12-31-2017 at 08:42 PM. |
01-02-2018, 07:45 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-02-2018, 09:03 PM | #50 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
As I've pointed out before, tactical turns in TFT are five seconds long (in GURPS they are one second or so) -- a very long time in a sword fight, in which a certain amount of chopping goes on, not just a single technique. In five seconds in fencing you can literally have five attacks, parries, ripostes, etc., by each contender. Now obviously a broadsword isn't a rapier, but at the same time, someone using a broadsword as a preferred weapon is probably strong enough to use it pretty rapidly. So really, the difference is between acting "primarily on the offense" or "primarily on the defense" by selecting an "attack" move versus a "parry" move. Which is probably a valid player choice, actually. Nonetheless, Steve spent a LOT of time thinking about this back in the day, and I'm assuming he has his reasons for doing it the way he did, and adding a "defense" may significantly change the flow of the game. At the end of the day, I'll defer to Steve's judgement on this...whatever it may be with the new edition! |
|
Tags |
in the labyrinth, melee, roleplaying, the fantasy trip, wizard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|