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 01-08-2018, 09:36 PM   #201
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Yeah, I have a recessive gene as well and I loves my 3 attributes. Additinal attributes are blasphemous abominations of the one true rule set. :)

Of course, if I were to engage in heresy, I’d lobby for a Perception attribute. That would be very useful for fantasy campaigns. You could even base missile attacks on a perception roll rather than DX.

But I’m not a heretic.
You know, it's funny, but I've occasionally thought that there ought to be something that talks to "perception" separately from time to time. But at the end of the day, I just had 'em roll against IQ, and adjusted the roll based on my "perception" of how difficult it was to discover whatever they were supposed to discover...

It would be nice to get some better guidance in the rules about things like the level of difficulty for different Attribute tests, though. I mean the whole DX thing is pretty intensively covered (for obvious reasons), but it might be nice to get some kind of brief continuum for IQ and ST rolls too.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 10:03 PM   #202
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

There are ways to introduce a defensive capacity that retains game balance and doesn't slow play, but you have to be very, very careful. The arithmetic that is cooked into the game lets you trade something like 1 talent point per situational DX bonus (i.e., something that applies for only a certain weapon or situation), or 1 talent point per point of situational DX penalty to your foe, or 2 talent points per point of damage resistance or extra damage done. This trade off appears in different forms for different talents and weapons but something close to it applies in all cases I can think of. So, cook up any set of talents you want, but make sure it fits with the structure of the rest of the game. If you introduce some sort of 'grade inflation' when it comes to defense, you'll find that even a small imbalance has a big effect on the duration of combat and the match-ups between otherwise equal foes.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 10:06 PM   #203
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
You know, it's funny, but I've occasionally thought that there ought to be something that talks to "perception" separately from time to time. But at the end of the day, I just had 'em roll against IQ, and adjusted the roll based on my "perception" of how difficult it was to discover whatever they were supposed to discover...

It would be nice to get some better guidance in the rules about things like the level of difficulty for different Attribute tests, though. I mean the whole DX thing is pretty intensively covered (for obvious reasons), but it might be nice to get some kind of brief continuum for IQ and ST rolls too.
I've got a fantasy heart breaker on my computer that is basically TFT with 7 attributes. It's cool and everything (on paper, at least...). But it isn't TFT. The game is what it is. We've all had 40 years to think it over, and we still like it. So I'd say it's pretty good without any major additions.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 10:43 PM   #204
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
YES! I really thought it was in hard copy, but yep, that's the graphic I remember. Also, someone over on the other thread mentioned another person who did some statistical analysis and came up with a spear-holder with roughly equal ST/DX as being the "ultimate" warrior -- but not by much! I seem to remember reading that one somewhere too.

(Edited to add -- after reading through the Rivals Analysis, I think it was all the same analysis -- just talked about in two different places. My mind, she is a sieve!)
Yes, this was the analysis I mentioned in reply to the post claiming that ST 8 DX 16 was great and DX was almost always better to improve than ST. You may notice the table shows that (and ST 9 DX 15) are actually at the very bottom of the pile. We had a lively discussion about it at the time (a couple years ago? the list has an archive) on the TFT email list.

Other interesting bits from our discussion, IIRC, were that it rather mattered what the assumptions of the simulation were, such as assuming there will be a spear charge attack, which damage stats you use for weapons and armor (because various editions of Melee are not all identical, of particular relevance, with spear damage), whether a charge attack does double damage or +1d6 damage, whether you calculate double damage by rolling twice as many dice, or by multiplying the normal roll by 2, what the shape of the arena is and whether that means there is an opportunity to engage a spearman by running around to his side to engage him or not to avoid a charge attack, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
The only real "objection" I have is increasing the number of attributes (and, say what you will, when you add "mIQ" and "fST", you are adding attributes). Which is why I went with a "get rid of the IQ limit on Spells and Talents, and just list them -- and buy them with XP -- separately" -- it actually did everything you listed, and didn't add extra attributes to keep track of. Heck, it even got rid of the rule about "forgetting" stuff.

(By the way, I put "objection" in quotes because it's really more of a personal pet peeve of mine -- I LIKE only having to keep track of three attributes! But I realize I'm probably in the minority here since a lot of people seemed to have added new "attributes" one way or another...)
You're quite right. Just saying you can buy Talents/Spells with EP and that IQ only limits your maximum starting Talents/Spells is functionally the same... except if you want to take it into account when you calculate the point total of a character for purposes of gaining experience (or in an experience system that takes into account relative ability, their combat value, though that could be better handled in other ways).


Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
... But one thing the game won't tolerate is a quantitative change that upends the basic balance of power in combat, i.e., the trade offs between ST, DX, equipment and talents. Any new rule that lets a character short-circuit the arms race among combatants would undercut the qualities of the game as a combat engine, which is both the foundation of the system and perhaps its strongest suit.

So, I think good new rules in this system hold up to a clear-eyed quantitative analysis of what they do to the trade offs between DX, damage, protection, range, etc. They are so well engineered as they are that they are easy to break with an ill judged change.
Yes, that's true too. One way to maintain the combat balance while eradicating some unwanted side-effects, could be to add talents which are pretty clearly about the same combat value as an attribute increase, but only have a combat effect. For example, an armor talent that reduces the DX penalty for wearing armor by 1, pretty much has the same value as actually increasing DX by 1.

But yeah, there is a limit to how much tweaking can be done without making the game different in a way that some players may not like.

I think there may be a few really smart adjustments that might be possible that don't really add complexity or mess with balance or feel.

I think it would make sense for those to be the core rules, and then offer some advanced or optional rules as well. Figuring out what exactly they should be and where the lines are will take some careful thought.

Last edited by Skarg; 01-08-2018 at 10:56 PM. Reason: combining three posts
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 11:19 PM   #205
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Yes, this was the analysis I mentioned in reply to the post claiming that ST 8 DX 16 was great and DX was almost always better to improve than ST. You may notice the table shows that (and ST 9 DX 15) are actually at the very bottom of the pile. We had a lively discussion about it at the time (a couple years ago? the list has an archive) on the TFT email list.

Other interesting bits from our discussion, IIRC, were that it rather mattered what the assumptions of the simulation were, such as assuming there will be a spear charge attack, which damage stats you use for weapons and armor (because various editions of Melee are not all identical, of particular relevance, with spear damage), whether a charge attack does double damage or +1d6 damage, whether you calculate double damage by rolling twice as many dice, or by multiplying the normal roll by 2, what the shape of the arena is and whether that means there is an opportunity to engage a spearman by running around to his side to engage him or not to avoid a charge attack, etc.
Yep, now that you describe it, I remember reading that discussion after the fact (meaning I didn't find it until long after it was long concluded). That may even be where I first ran across the analysis tables presented here. There were a lot of good points brought up in the discussion as I recall, but overall, I remember thinking that it mostly proved two things -- one DX and ST were roughly equal in value (DX might get the nod in the early game, but ST probably does in the later game, and neither one totally dominates), and that pole weapons might be a tad "over-powered."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
You're quite right. Just saying you can buy Talents/Spells with EP and that IQ only limits your maximum starting Talents/Spells is functionally the same... except if you want to take it into account when you calculate the point total of a character for purposes of gaining experience (or in an experience system that takes into account relative ability, their combat value, though that could be better handled in other ways).
That's a valid point, but in my experience it never seemed to actually affect things. We went with the ITL experience point totals to increase attributes because they made sense both in isolation and in the broader perspective when we considered actual human learning. That is to say, it is progressively more difficult to increase things like basic strength, improve dexterity, and increase mental capacity through your own efforts -- and eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns attempting to do so -- so increasing the cost to buy attribute points made sense whether we tied Talents to IQ or not. Uncoupling the talents from IQ (in terms of how many Talents you can have, that is) both made them more accessible (which is fun) and meant that the players now had even more serious resource allocation considerations to deal with -- "do I take that extra IQ point so I can learn the next IQ level of spells, or do I take that cool spell at an IQ level that I've already got; or do I just say to heck with it and save the Experience so I can buy that cool Talent I've had my eye on for a while?" It also made languages a more worthwhile buy -- which under the existing system, they really aren't; who's going to waste an IQ point on learning Elvish if it's at all possible to avoid it?

All of which, frankly, I also saw as a positive effect of the change -- the players now had to make more complex "life-and-death" decisions instead of merely "which attribute do I advance." So, while I can definitely see your point, in my experience it simply wasn't a problem. As far as worrying about the "challenge level" of their encounters, well, there's always some leeway there anyway, because a) they ought to sometimes face challenges where the best answer possible is "run away;" and b) the luck of the die roll can materially affect the outcome in unexpected ways regardless of how carefully the GM matches the threat to the players' capabilities. So the easiest answer for that sort of issue, for me, was to simply total up player attributes, and put the bad guys within a few total attribute points (give or take; say, one or two points per player character) of the players, and let the dice fall where they may. It always seemed to work out. (And besides, the bad guys have talents too!)

Now, while I see this as the "easiest" answer to attribute point bloat, I also recognize that a lot of people here seem to hate the idea, and, since I have no idea how Steve feels about any of this (and that's a good deal more important, frankly, than my personal opinion is), I will simply defer to whatever (if any) "solution" Steve comes up with.

Oh, one other point, that is sort of off to the side on this. I know a lot of folks have revamped the NUMBER of XP a player gets from the game (Dark City Games, for instance, basically just divided everything by 10 and then removed the XP for "hits/DX of thing killed" entirely -- just giving one point for each enemy killed to each PC involved.) I've seen comments on various boards about similar things other people have done.

Personally, I want to put in a vote to keep the XP accrual system pretty much exactly as it currently is in ITL -- it's always "felt" about right to me, and it allows for much finer gradations in XP awards for various things if you can expect to get roughly 100 XP for an average starting adventure, as opposed to 3-5 XP. In the first case, if I award someone 5 or 10 XP for something special they've done, I haven't skewed the XP flow too badly, and I've encouraged good play by awarding 5% to 10% of the "normal" XP award. In the second, if I award a single XP for the same "good thing" I have dramatically affected the XP curve for that player by awarding anywhere from 20% to 33% of the XP "normally" awarded -- which should be enough to provoke an outcry from the other players.

Last edited by JLV; 01-08-2018 at 11:38 PM.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 11:36 PM   #206
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles G. View Post
A good solution to the lack of defensive ability was proposed some 35 years ago in Interplay (No. 8, I think). Someone came up with the "Defensive Quickness" talents, which basically take the roll more than 3 dice to hit the figure with the talent that already exists in the UC talent series, and make its own talent set. So merely having a DX of 16 or more can be countered with these talents.
Yes, I remember (Interplay 8, page 9). We actually used those in our TFT campaigns but almost no one had them. As written, they have a similar issue as do the Unarmed Combat talents. IQ 14 / 3 points, DX 16+ for Defensive Quickness I, IQ 16 / 2, DX 20+ for Defensive Quickness II, IQ 18 / 2, DX 24+ for Defensive Quickness III. The notes suggest adding higher levels too. I.e. they were for characters with very attribute totals (and fighters with high-IQ) who would/could also use up the memory points for it. It's a high-level power talent which doesn't help other characters defend. The problem of "you will probably get hit unless you take down whoever you engage first" start closer to IQ 8, DX 13.

A few years ago, I played in a campaign run by Rick Smith using house rules which instead offered weapon mastery talents that were considerably more accessible and more common, but which sort of did the same thing. (He also had an automatic active defense calculation for everyone, which I liked a lot in my limited experience as a player.) But it was clear that his rules, which also added +1 (or +2 for level 2) dice to be hit, created a kind of stratified tier situation, where pretty much everyone with mastery was clearly superior to non-masters, and people with mastery II were a serious cut above those with level 1, well it was clear that was the path to mastery, all right. That part reminded me of martial arts films and D&D, where there are distinct levels that trump lower levels, which I didn't really like).

I ran and played in four TFT campaigns before GURPS, two of which ran from about 1980 to 1986 (and one continued as a GURPS campaign) and after those years of fairly frequent play with quite frequent combat, using the Codex experience table and adjustments for opponent difficulty, even the one PC who survived that whole span only reached 46 points, and was a fighter who did not get this talent and was 2-3 points away from being able to get the first one even if he focused on that next. Of the hundreds and hundreds of TFT NPCs I made, there were not very many fighters with IQ 14, very few with DX 16 too, and only a handful with even Defensive Quickness I. If I gave anyone Defensive Quickness II, it was probably as an experiment or to define the best fighter in all of Elyntia, or something, and no doubt I thought the IQ of 18 was weird, also because he was IQ 18 but probably had a peculiarly low level of mental talents with all those memory points used up by fighting talents (i.e. a good example of why buying talents with experience without increasing IQ and without having high IQ prereqs for physical talents could be good).
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 11:50 PM   #207
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
-snip-

...no doubt I thought the IQ of 18 was weird, also because he was IQ 18 but probably had a peculiarly low level of mental talents with all those memory points used up by fighting talents (i.e. a good example of why buying talents with experience without increasing IQ and without having high IQ prereqs for physical talents could be good).
That was one of the things that stuck in my craw too. How many medieval knights could have quantified their IQs as 18? (Some, undoubtedly, but not many.) Yet by all accounts they were threshing machines on the field of battle. By modern standards, most of 'em would be lucky to have IQs of 8 or 9, probably. But man, they knew how to fight -- heck, they spent their whole lives training for it. Meanwhile, the local Priest was running rings around them in debate, economics, and politics (for the most part), and there was a reason why.

Also, the obverse of the coin is that I've known some quite stupid people who could fight very well (I spent decades in the military, you know), and somehow the whole IQ thing never really satisfied me with regard to physical skill learning...

Maybe that's the answer; physical talents aren't limited by IQ, but "mental" talents (things like Priest, or Accountant, or Navigator, or even Courtly Graces) are. And maybe that's the real difference between Warriors and Wizards too -- Warriors do physical talents easier, and Wizards do mental talents easier. But there I go again -- adding complexity.

Last edited by JLV; 01-08-2018 at 11:57 PM.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 12:03 AM   #208
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
That's a valid point, but in my experience it never seemed to actually affect things. ...
I'm not sure I communicated what I meant clearly. This is what I meant:

1. I'd use some version of the ITL/Codex curve, perhaps with higher costs for attributes rather than buying talents.

2. For several reasons, I think if you let people buy talents with EP above their IQ, I'd base the cost on their point total, taking into account any such extra talents. (Otherwise some issues happen.)

3. I wasn't talking about balancing what people meet in encounters, and yes I'd play out whatever they meet without tipping scales for balance.

4. What I was talking about, was assessing EP awards for combat based on how strong the opponents were compared to how strong you were. Combat talents would count for that. It's a significant thing when you realize that fighting and defeating someone with ST 20 DX 20 IQ 14, magic weapons and armor, combat talents, etc., only gives you as much EP as defeating a couple of ST 10 DX 10 IQ 7 hobgoblins with copper -1 cutlasses, or even ST 10 DX 10 IQ 6 Prootwaddles with clubs, even if you fight them one at a time, and it doesn't matter at all what your attribute totals or equipment are like, despite the fact that the difficulty is all about the differences in all those things.

Last edited by Skarg; 01-09-2018 at 12:09 AM.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 12:42 AM   #209
ak_aramis
 
ak_aramis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groknard View Post
I truly believe that TFT (including Melee and Wizard alone) needs only a light polish and updated presentation. There's a reason it remains so fondly remembered and still played to this day. It is easy to learn, makes sense and plays fast and fun. It relies more on the players than extensive rules to bring role playing to the table, to whatever degree they're comfortable. All it really needs to broaden its audience is to be back in print.
I feel much the same way. I would hope, however, for the other materials to be reprinted, as well.

I did like the presentation of a beginner box in the from of Dragons of Underearth was a great thing, but too little, too late.
ak_aramis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 01:05 AM   #210
ak_aramis
 
ak_aramis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groknard View Post
Not that it's up for a vote, but I would much prefer this. Simple, portable. I didn't grumble too much when X dice was introduced in the advanced game, but I felt it needlessly complicated the system. Granted, I've never approached most games in a statistician fashion, just assumed that the designer and playtesters knew best. But, personally, I find adjustments easier to interpret and apply than trying to determine the number of dice to apply to a situation.
It was in Melee.
Attacking a defending target with melee weapons or dodging with missile (AM 18, Melee 17), 4 vs AdjDX.

In AM, it's used for a number of things.

Disengaging (AM 18), 4 dice vs AdjDX. (In melee, it's a 1d for ≤3 if DX is better, for ≤1 if not. See Melee 17.)
Climbing (AM 19) uses 3D for typical rock, 2D for soft, 4D for hard rocks. Free-hanging ropes are automatic if talented, 2D vs DX if not.

I could go on, but it's part of the core from the beginning. And it's the biggest difference from GURPS. Almost the definitional one, IIRC Steve's comments in Roleplayer (I think issue #1) in his Designer's Notes.
ak_aramis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
in the labyrinth, melee, roleplaying, the fantasy trip, wizard

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 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.