'Deal Breakers'?

[tomc]

I don't think I have any deal breakers. I have preferences, certainly, but I'm willing to try whatever gets published. I've liked most of what SJG has put out over the last 30+ years, and if SJ says it's good, then I'll at least try it out before forming a strong opinion.

As for preferences:

I'd like wizards to be more dangerous. Try thrown spells at -1DX for every two hexes to the target, and Trip and Drop Weapon have some teeth. If this means Wizard PCs need to start with a few less attribute points to give players a reason to choose fighters, that's fine with me.

I don't think all formulas need to be linear. It's okay with me if some options are "better" than others, as long as there are reasons to choose the "lesser" option occasionally.

"Balance" can have different meanings. I don't give the term much weight, because it's usually bundled with an idividual's play style and expectations. Everyone wants things to be simple, but no one minds added complexity in areas in which they're especially interested. Myself included. :)

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Oh, and there is no way I am switching to having characters advance based on their players' roleplaying, cooperation, making people laugh, etc., instead of what the characters actually do that could lead to them improving their abilities.

I don't think a new session-based XP-earning model has to completely erase the current damage / dice-roll based one.

Why not have both models and let GMs pick the one they want?

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Oh, and there is no way I am switching to having characters advance based on their players' roleplaying, cooperation, making people laugh, etc., instead of what the characters actually do that could lead to them improving their abilities.

Agreed. *Not* awarding EPs based on combat (aka: killing monsters and enemies) is absurd enough, but all the rest of that sounds more like conceptual EP Rules for: The Tellie Tubbies: the feel-good kumbaya game.

JK

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

This is my main concern, too. Though I think of it as a few sub-issues with two semi-exceptions:

* I think skill should help people not get hit, not just improve their hitting ability. I don't like the certainty of high-DX attacks, or that high-DX vs. high-DX fights mean you almost surely get hit unless you take the opponents down before they get to act. (But I can/will just use house-rules (or GURPS (or actually, house-ruled GURPS)) to avoid this, so it's not a deal-breaker - except in the sense I'll prefer not to play TFT as-written without something to change this.)

I agree, I'd love DX differences to affect attack chances.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Agreed. *Not* awarding EPs based on combat (aka: killing monsters and enemies) is absurd enough, but all the rest of that sounds more like conceptual EP Rules for: The Tellie Tubbies: the feel-good kumbaya game.

JK

Eh, I'm pretty sure we started using session-based EP rewards around 1981 when we decided to stop wearing the green visors and arm garters -- too much accounting!

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by tomc

I'd like wizards to be more dangerous. Try thrown spells at -1DX for every two hexes to the target, and Trip and Drop Weapon have some teeth. If this means Wizard PCs need to start with a few less attribute points to give players a reason to choose fighters, that's fine with me.

Ooof, bad idea. Starting (human) characters with different points to try and make up for them being just better type characters is surely an inelegent "solution".

You want wizards to be *more* powerful? Ever cast an illusion to fight vs. an equivalent pointed fighter with an IQ 8?

Ever cast Sleep vs. a fighter of *any* IQ, or ST? No saving roll, just 5 or less seconds of sleep before your throat is cut by same wiz.

Ever been impaled by a wizard's wooden staff spear?

The list of tricks for even a 32 point wizard makes them very dangerous, IMO.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I agree with the point about being able to defend yourself. Particularly if stats have a low cap, I think there should be some talent-based routes to making yourself harder to nail.

Hi Larsdangly, everyone.
I agree. But if the new talent slows down the game in any way, I would like to make it fairly hard to get. (So only bosses and PC's get it basically.)

I added two advanced shield talents, one which made you harder to hit with melee attacks thru your shield, and one that gave shields extra armor. Originally the armor one was the harder to get talent, but later I swapped them, so that the talent that required telling the opponent about your ability, became the one which was rarely bought. (So it almost never came up and usually didn't slow down the game.)

On this post here...

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=112

I suggested a number of new talents. In addition to better shield talents, I suggest a general, "you are harder to hit" talent, AND a "someone with this talent boosts the defend option" talent. (A talent to boost the defend option is a cool idea I think.)

I think both are useful and needed for new TFT.

I wouldn't mind a few talents that boost defence, but that post was my minimum list of needed talents. I tried to keep it short.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Kirk

... You want wizards to be *more* powerful? Ever cast an illusion to fight vs. an equivalent pointed fighter with an IQ 8?

Ever cast Sleep vs. a fighter of *any* IQ, or ST? No saving roll, just 5 or less seconds of sleep before your throat is cut by same wiz. ...

The list of tricks for even a 32 point wizard makes them very dangerous, IMO.

Hi Kirk, everyone.
I totally agree. In my campaign I rewrote most of the dangerous thrown spells so that they give a saving throw. (For example, if someone casts a Sleep on you, you get a 4vs(your lowest attribute) to resist the spell.

Sleep still works fine on mooks, but wizards are a bit less likely to cast it on bosses or PC's, since they have a decent chance to make the save.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by zot

Eh, I'm pretty sure we started using session-based EP rewards around 1981 when we decided to stop wearing the green visors and arm garters -- too much accounting!

I don't mind whether EP involves accounting or just estimating based on GM feel... but I would want the GM to estimate based on what the PCs did that could rationally make them more capable, not what the players did that was good roleplaying.

What I'm talking about is changing what EP is awarded for. The latest version SJ posted said EP was awarded for roleplaying, cooperation, making people laugh, etc., and not for killing things. I just want it to at least acknowledge that some GMs may want to award EP for logical PC experiences, rather than player behavior.

I've played under GMs who were giving us piles or points for sessions where we were doing a great job roleplaying and so on, but the effect was we got better combat & magic skills for doing nothing very related to combat or magic. It broke the logic of the cause & effect of why/when those characters were improving. As written, starting TFT players could gain several attributes just because their players stayed in character as they learned about their setting and didn't really have the PCs do anything that would logically have the PCs become more powerful. In fact, the way to become powerful would not be to survive wild adventures, but to avoid risk while roleplaying.

There also needs to be a system for appropriately assessing how much NPCs improve over time (hopefully based on their actual experiences).

[tomc]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Ever been impaled by a wizard's wooden staff spear?

Can't say that I have.