03-02-2018, 10:10 PM | #51 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
|
03-03-2018, 05:50 AM | #52 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
Before I add my personal 2 cent 'TFT Glitch & Fix' into the fray, I would like to offer some general food-for-thought to the forum contributors on this very important topic; as they consider their personal 'fixes' to what they perceive as 'glitches'.
1. When Charles Darrow designed the rules-set for Monopoly, the overriding goal - from the designer's perspective - was to bankrupt all but the last player as fast as possible; by returning the maximum amount of money back into the bank in the shortest amount of time - and thereby determining a winner by default (i.e.: the last man standing; which is not the same as: "the player with the most money at the end wins" - that's a different game and end-game.) Did you know the game's design-title was: BANKRUPTCY; and 'Monopoly' was the publisher's idea to put a positive sales-spin on the product during a time of great financial hardship for the USA. Nearly every Monopoly house-rule (aka: 'fix') adopted into that game serves to specifically work directly against the entire point-and-purpose of Darrow's core-design. By-and-large, the house-rules played by so many tend to keep monies out of the bank, and in circulation between the player's hands; and thereby extend the game play-time, and alters who should have won the game - in accordance with the correct rules and concept of the designer. I feel this Monopoly example is important to keep in mind, as one considers 'Glitches & Fixes' to TFT. In considering what I see as a "TFT Glitch & Fix", I used this simple test on myself: "Is what I am about to offer a legitimate design-fix to a legitimate design-flaw? Or, am I actually offering-up something which is akin to putting that big pile of money - which properly should have been returned to the Bank - into the center of the Monopoly board, which awaits the player who's token perfectly lands on the "Free Parking" space, as a lottery windfall?" 2. The excellent observations about the Hobbits with boomerangs, the Sha-ken Machine Guns, et al. - Really all these 'Player Character Manifestations' are all by-products of players who are purposefully min/maxing the system, and not designing their character from a dramatic story-telling perspective - which is the real SPIRIT OF THE GAME. The simple fix for ALL those 'rules-exploitations' - which are viewed as rules-quirks - only when one is looking to "game the game" - is for a GM to simply and flatly disallow such non-sense into his/her Game-World. So, is it really the rules which are in need of tweaking, or is it the players and the GM? I hope my philosophical points are of help to everyone when considering what is a legitimate flaw with TFT, and what is - and is not - a legitimate fix. With that said, here is what has been bugging me about TFT Combat since the summer of '77: A lower adj.DX fighter is at the mercy of a higher adj.DX fighter, nearly every turn; and is left to hope that Higher DX misses, so that Lower DX has a chance to upset the flow of the inevitable turn-by-turn hacking. I believe the best 'fix' is to "borrow" a simple rule-concept from the Hero System; wherein a BLOCK maneuver is chosen by the lower DX character on the action phase of higher DX character who is attacking him. Without going into mechanics. simply-stated, much like one would otherwise choose the existing TFT DEFEND OPTION - if successful, this BLOCK combat maneuver allows the lower DX character to strike first on the next turn, because "the successfully executed BLOCK sets up that character to deliver the next blow - regardless of relative DX." This BLOCK OPTION, nicely simulates a "Parry & Counter" feel, and releases the TFT combat flow from the perpetual combat-rhythm of: High DX hacks-away, Low DX hacks-away, High DX hacks-away, Low DX hacks-away; repeat until ST=0. And, when added as an additional 4th choice the preexisting DEFEND, DISENGAGE, and DODGE options, BLOCK would not only give the lower DX character a fighting chance when engaged wiith a higher DX character, but adds an additional layer of game-strategy when in Melee; and to me, THAT EQUALS FUN. I hope you will give the concept some play-testing for yourself, and see if you agree. Important Note: I am in no way suggesting that the DEFEND OPTION be replaced by BLOCK; as the DEFEND option is a great way to move 1/2 your MA, and quickly get inside to engage those pesky Pole Weapon users, and only give them ONE shot at the double-damage charge bonus,.. at 4d6 vs DX. Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-06-2018 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Typo |
03-03-2018, 11:23 AM | #53 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
Quote:
e.g.
Quote:
|
||
03-03-2018, 03:06 PM | #54 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
Quote:
I have always found that when considering adding a revision, rather than add a specialty rules sub-system (i.e. a Patch), the best way to 'Fix a Glitch' is to simply add a simple option - focusing primarily on MIRRORING the existing form and feel of the original designer's rule-set - so that it FEELS THE SAME when it plays, rather than how perfectly it simulates reality, etc; after all, if an Avalon Hill-style 'Advanced Squad Leader'-type rules sub-system appeared in TFT, it would no longer feel or play like TFT; no matter how amazing that simulation of reality might be in it's own right. |
|
03-04-2018, 03:32 AM | #55 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
Quote:
|
|
03-04-2018, 02:23 PM | #56 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
"Surrender or Die" !!?!!? LOL! Wasn't that Howard Thomposon's catch-phrase battle-cry,... just before his character (Melio Gloriosus) would hide behind the rest of the Adventure Party when melee would occur? I just crack-up every time I see those words in print.
Quote:
To Clarify: The real point-and-purpose of suggesting the possible addition of the Block maneuver as an additional defensive option is not to give a DX "boost" to a lower-DX figure; but ONLY to re-attune the current static and binary feel from the overall current combat-rhythm. Which I am sorry to say, has always felt more like 2 people alternately chopping at trees, than simulating the FEEL and FLOW of exchanging blows with a living, emotional, reacting, sentient being - at any DX level. Give the Block option concept a few dozen play-tests for yourself Chris, and see if you feel the idea has any merit to you, and, if it actually impacts the game-mechanics as you suspect it might; after you have play-testing it for a while. I hope you will find it as exciting as I do; and perhaps feel that it does indeed re-attune the combat FEEL and FLOW, in a way that escapes the perpetual locked-in feeling of "alternate hacking", while keeping the rules-set otherwise undisturbed. Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-05-2018 at 01:31 AM. Reason: Typo |
|
03-04-2018, 03:01 PM | #57 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
Jim, I do agree that, once figures are engaged, combat between individuals can seem somewhat lacking at times. In multi-figure combats this is usually less noticeable since there is so much going on and so many possibilities to assist or hinder other figures. Still, I've sometimes toyed with adding additional mechanics to spice up combats but I've never been entirely happy with the results.
I'm planning a series of Melee combats, stripped of all the additional stuff I've added over the years and back to the barebones rules. I may give your idea a try. Thanks. |
03-04-2018, 06:13 PM | #58 |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
The great thing about Melee and the resulting TFT system is that an adventure can handle encounters "quickly" enough to actually get somewhere in the course of an evening's play.
It isn't meant to be a combat simulation game in detail, yet it does work very well and presents fighting tactics with magic and swords that I never found in other systems. I've been involved with martial combat for almost 50 years and only very basic fighters block and attack, but rather make their attacks intercepting movements that also deflect as they attack. Attacks are also not usually single events, and rarely does the first movement succeed, but rather the follow up attack or attacks, working the opponent into a figurative "box" of poor options. This is true for striking, blade and weapon work, and wrestling. This type of simulation, detailed combat, done well, would be an evening's play unto itself, and does not lend itself to completing an adventure in due time. Put two characters in a featureless room, and it might feel like a hack hack hack situation, and that is more than likely the fault of the GM or players than the system. But even with these two figures, as someone has mentioned, the choice of higher DX and lower ST and the accompanying pluses and minuses WORK WELL. If you then add armor options, thrown weapons, missile weapons, spells, etc. then even two characters can have a very interesting combative situation on their own. With nothing against the game, we don't want to recreate GURPS and its detail and combative elements, or other roleplaying systems. Those already exist and if they were all things to all people, there would be no need or desire for TFT. But there are those that love the features of TFT, so great care needs to be taken (and with much playtesting) when contemplating adding tactical options to a system that is already very satisfying for what it was intended to do, which is not detailed combat but *adventuring* with personal interactions handled in a very satisfying and reasonably balanced way, that, IMO, is *much* better than any other system I have ever tried. |
03-05-2018, 01:35 AM | #59 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
|
03-05-2018, 04:02 AM | #60 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities
Amen to that!
In keeping in concert with design MIRRORING concept, both the DODGE and the DEFEND options simply modify the attackers to-hit roll by adding a single d6 of variable adjustment. To maintain a "mirroring" of the original design-style, there would likewise be an equally simple die modification added to the attackers to-hit roll, when a defending figure chooses the BLOCK option. However, as the potential reward for BLOCKING is greater for the defender if successful, then is his reward for successfully DEFENDING, although in both cases, the defending figure forfeits his pending attack phase on the current turn, the risk of failure to overcome the defense for the attacker MUST proportionally be LESS; this is so that the simplicity and the play-balance is maintained and remains consistent to the existing TFT form and feel. A simple fixed DX adjustment, mathematically equal to the addition of approximately 1/3 to 1/2 a d6 of variable adjustment to the attackers to-hit roll ought to be just about right, all things being equal; BUT, since the effect of a successful BLOCK not only negates the attacker's ability to land the blow, but moreover sets-up the lower DX defender to attack first on the next turn, you might lower the modification to simply a consistent -2, or even a mere -1 as a DX modifier on the attacker. In giving the figure who would choose to BLOCK with those two good outcomes POTENTIALLY at-hand, and yet only imposes a -1DX or -2DX penalty on his higher DX attacker, AND, as it is with DEFEND, gives up his pending attack phase, should definitely curb the potential for abuse, or, turning TFT into an Errol Flynn movie over a hex-map. Everyone has to work it out for themselves, and to what feels right to YOU in your own play-tests. Although it's your game, and you can do whatever you like, I personally would not actually roll for the 1/3 d6 variable (1,2 =1, 3,4=2, 5,6=3) and 1/2 d6 (1.2.3 =1, 4,5,6 = 2) to simulate the 4th die added to the to-hit roll, as this is not in the established style of how TFT operates, and would also violate the MIRRORING concept of maintain the existing TFT feel; if that matters to you. Do some play-testing with it on your own, and see what FEELS best to you; and then, do that. If you like it, keep it - if not, toss it away. In any case, ENJOY! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|