The (Unintentional?) MMO End Game of TFT

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by zot

A GM who decides that NPCs ought to be wish farming too gets an interesting dilemma: whether or not to simply cancel PC wishes as they use them, one at a time. I guess a cancelled wish would be a signal to the players that this combat is a "wish-free zone", as the PCs would cancel NPC wishes as well. I dunno, maybe that would make for a good boss fight in the MMO-TFT world...

Anything PCs do, NPCS can and should do. In fact, I find its a good barometer for how the campaign world should behave. If PCs find some optimal strategy, then NPCs should have discovered it as well.

I also like the idea of high level combat becoming a 'wish-battle'. Character's become more mythic when you imagine their clashing swords are surrounded by a constant struggle of wills to shape reality to their whim.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

"My impression of GURPS as a college kid was very good but my impression of it as a grown-up is very negative and I wouldn't recommend GURPS to anyone. I realize that there are a lot of GURPS fans out there, particularly on this list and maybe I'm missing some fundamental understanding of the game. In my experience, however, most role players make do with what they have and seem to have played only one or two systems assuming one RPG is much like another, but there are many different takes on role playing and no system is actually universal."

I'm not a fan of complex systems with LOTS of rules such as GURPS. Having watched many groups play GURPS, Rolemaster, D&D 4th edition, Dragonquest and other such systems, the one common feature I notice is the very slow pace of play at the table especially when there is some sort of action, but also generally. I've no interest in stultifyingly slow play; I like my games to have a sense of action and tension.

I guess it would be possible to play these games with better pacing but you could only do that by ignoring most of the rules. So why bother in the first place.

Whoa now! I'll totally agree with all those other systems, but 4th Ed has very little in common with them. The core mechanics are fast, combat is visceral, and even in long fights, a lot happens. Granted, some fights can take a long time but that's a math issue from the first 2 monster manuals rather than a problem with the system (they fixed it in MM3).

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

Whoa now! I'll totally agree with all those other systems, but 4th Ed has very little in common with them. The core mechanics are fast, combat is visceral, and even in long fights, a lot happens. Granted, some fights can take a long time but that's a math issue from the first 2 monster manuals rather than a problem with the system (they fixed it in MM3).

Ah ok. It's just all the games of D&D 4th edition I watched seemed to be one long fight that went on for hours. We'd play an entire adventure with multiple encounters and the D&Ders would still be on their first one!

[zot]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

That sounds really interesting! I love the 'wizards on asteroids' for creativity!

I don't think Dissolve enchantment would have any impact on a Wish that has already been made, any more than it would heal damage from a fire ball. The wishes change has been made, it doesn't linger after that. YMMV and all that.

And thank you for pointing out the kinds of games the old system allowed. People are acting like making magic items can't be done or some nonsense when its right there in the book!!!

Thanks. Yes, we had a TON of fun with "gate engineering" and did a lot of magic item creation, hunting for components -- gargoyle gall bladders, dragon hides, etc. We played for quite a long time after we went higher than 40 points each.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Ah ok. It's just all the games of D&D 4th edition I watched seemed to be one long fight that went on for hours. We'd play an entire adventure with multiple encounters and the D&Ders would still be on their first one!

I have to agree with Chris on the slowness of 4e. I played through a couple modules and it was not uncommon for one encounter to take 2 1/2 hours. Also, if you look at the class descriptions I think you'll find that almost everything a PC does is in terms of combat. Not absolutely everything -- there's a very nice "skill challenge" system for resolving complex tasks using any means the players have at their disposal -- but the vast majority of rules seem to be about to combat.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Ah ok. It's just all the games of D&D 4th edition I watched seemed to be one long fight that went on for hours. We'd play an entire adventure with multiple encounters and the D&Ders would still be on their first one!

Sadly, that's a fair complaint. 4th Ed wasn't complicated or difficult at all...but the math was screwed up in the early days of the game so unless you uber optimized, fights could be a slog. They fixed it eventually and it ran much better, but I think it was too late to help the line.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by zot

I have to agree with Chris on the slowness of 4e. I played through a couple modules and it was not uncommon for one encounter to take 2 1/2 hours. Also, if you look at the class descriptions I think you'll find that almost everything a PC does is in terms of combat. Not absolutely everything -- there's a very nice "skill challenge" system for resolving complex tasks using any means the players have at their disposal -- but the vast majority of rules seem to be about to combat.

Sure, but I'll argue that most games that aren't narrative or story focused games do that as well. Even TFT split characters between two methods of handling combat (magic and non-magic...though of course ITL gave nonmagic characters more to do, in the beginning there wasn't anything). Most rule books devote most of their page space to combat and magic/powers (which are often used for combat).

[Skarg]

I just want to mention (since some people were saying GURPS was too slow or complex) that GURPS combat does not have to be slow, if the GM knows the rules well and has players say what they are doing when it is their turn. I can run GURPS combat (even with players who don't know the rules) almost as quickly as I can run TFT combat.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I just want to mention (since some people were saying GURPS was too slow or complex) that GURPS combat does not have to be slow, if the GM knows the rules well and has players say what they are doing when it is their turn. I can run GURPS combat (even with players who don't know the rules) almost as quickly as I can run TFT combat.

Yes, but how long did it take for you to develop that sort of expertise? Every group I've watched playing GURPS seemed to spend a lot of time looking at the rules, discussing the rules, arguing about the rules, trying to find the rules etc.

Even TFT isn't really quick, compared to systems like BOL and T&T, but I can put up with the slowdown for the added tactical nuances. And to develop a reasonable familiarity with the rules doesn't take very long.

The worst thing I ever watched was a group playing Rolemaster who weren't really familiar with the rules at all. They were right next to my group's table and I seriously considered killing them to put an end to the misery.

[Shostak]

I've run GURPS for complete beginners and had it run quickly. Not as fast as TFT, but plenty fast for the attenuated attention spans of teens used to D&D, Pathfinder, and Fate.