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 02-25-2018, 10:52 AM   #51
ecz
 
ecz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default Re: TFT Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
My house rule for parries effectively boils down to the following:

1 standard attack, no parry: 3d/DX
1 parry, no attack: 3d/DX
1 standard attack and one parry: each rolled as 4d/DX
2 attacks: each rolled as 4d/DX
2 attacks and 1 parry: each rolled as 4d/DX

etc., plus some limits on how many attacks and/or parries can be performed on the same turn with any one weapon, fist, kick, etc.
So the Defend option disappears.
It could work and it's simple to apply, but the house rules should specify if a successfull parry blocks any damage. It's hard to say that a T-H Axe can be blocked by a shortword or by a small shield. Size of weapons and shields should matter. And this adds complexity.
__________________
VASLeague Tournament Director
www.vasleague.org
ecz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 11:08 AM   #52
ecz
 
ecz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default Re: TFT Defense

I was thinking to something really simple to implement and on the path of the existing rules.


If the problem is that Defend is not useful enough, even if the defender gets +1 DX for the next turn (and possibly +2 DX if he uses Defend for two turns), it's possible to improve its usefulness halving any damage delivered on the "Defending" guy in the case the hit is successful despite the 4d/DX.

Suddenly Defend becomes more desiderable.
Fractions are rounded up, and the inherent parry halving the damage is possible only against ONE enemy in a front hex.

Thus if the hero plying "Defend" is attacked by more opponents, all roll 4d/DX, but only ONE hit (coming from a front hex) is halved.

It's a little help to the Defend Option that adds no rules or bookeeping.
__________________
VASLeague Tournament Director
www.vasleague.org
ecz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 11:20 AM   #53
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: TFT Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecz View Post
I was thinking to something really simple to implement and on the path of the existing rules.


If the problem is that Defend is not useful enough, even if the defender gets +1 DX for the next turn (and possibly +2 DX if he uses Defend for two turns), it's possible to improve its usefulness halving any damage delivered on the "Defending" guy in the case the hit is successful despite the 4d/DX.

Suddenly Defend becomes more desiderable.
Fractions are rounded up, and the inherent parry halving the damage is possible only against ONE enemy in a front hex.

Thus if the hero plying "Defend" is attacked by more opponents, all roll 4d/DX, but only ONE hit (coming from a front hex) is halved.

It's a little help to the Defend Option that adds no rules or bookeeping.
I rather like this. It seems simple, doesn't require some kind of major re-write, buffs DEFEND a little bit making it more likely to be used, and generally meets my personal KISS principle for changes to TFT rules. It should be playtested! ;-)
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 11:58 AM   #54
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: TFT Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
My house rule for parries effectively boils down to the following:

1 standard attack, no parry: 3d/DX
1 parry, no attack: 3d/DX
1 standard attack and one parry: each rolled as 4d/DX
2 attacks: each rolled as 4d/DX
2 attacks and 1 parry: each rolled as 4d/DX

etc., plus some limits on how many attacks and/or parries can be performed on the same turn with any one weapon, fist, kick, etc.
Yes, of the house rules for this I've seen/tried and/or thought of, this is the sort of solution I like. That is, I think TFT needs a way to have a fighter's ability affect how hard it is to hit him (other than Unarmed Combat V), and also at least one level of fighting style between Attack (with no defense) and Defend (with no attack).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecz View Post
So the Defend option disappears.
It could work and it's simple to apply, but the house rules should specify if a successfull parry blocks any damage. It's hard to say that a T-H Axe can be blocked by a shortword or by a small shield. Size of weapons and shields should matter. And this adds complexity.
I would add some sort of Defend option that can help against more than one attack.

I would also not use the word "parry" but would call it something like "defense", because I think it is a trap to think of defense having to be a literal parry or block. If you watch skilled people fight (or try sparring), you'll notice that avoiding being hit is often about other things - timing, how you move, etc, and there is certainly a common middle ground between attacking with little thought to defense, and defending without attacking. In fact it seems to me that many fights mainly hinge on doing that (avoiding attacks and also attacking) better, and that THAT is the main thing missing in TFT's options.

(Ideally (personally I prefer detail to simplicity) I would also want some modifiers for equipment, too. I'd rather shields in particular added to efforts to defend, than strangely reducing damage a bit all the time. e.g. Shields don't stop hits but add their shield rating to defense, and penalty to defense for not having anything good to defend with - maybe a +/- for certain weapons.)
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2018, 02:39 PM   #55
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: TFT Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecz View Post
So the Defend option disappears.
It could work and it's simple to apply, but the house rules should specify if a successfull parry blocks any damage. It's hard to say that a T-H Axe can be blocked by a shortword or by a small shield. Size of weapons and shields should matter. And this adds complexity.
I suppose there was no way for you to know this, but all the problems you notice are based on incorrect assumptions about elements of these rules I didn't include.

The defend option remains, and is just as useful. A parry is always specifically against one and only one attack, and only helps you if your roll succeeds. The defend option helps against more than 1 attack, and is helpful without you having to make a roll.

In my house rules, a successful parry does not negate an attack; it provides additional damage reduction against that attack (in addition to whatever armor and shield you are using). A small weapon like a dagger or buckler stops 3 on a successful parry; a medium weapon like a sword or mace or a large shield stops 6, and a large weapon like a two handed sword or pole arm or a tower shield stops 9.

Also relevant: you cannot parry with a shield and benefit from its normal 'block' protection on the same turn.

As for complexity, that is in the eye of the beholder. In practice, this is not really a source of much complexity because few combatants chose to perform two attack and/or parry actions per turn, because the additional die rolled means they will fail. Basically, these rules are relevant to duels between high-adj.DX combatants.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2018, 10:33 PM   #56
Bayarea
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default Re: TFT Defense

If you want to do this the simplest way (no extra rolls) one player designates how many DX points he will add to the opposing player's attack. He then subtracts this from his own DX on his own attack.

Example 1: Robin Hood DX 19 is fighting Sir Guy DX 15, Robin decides he wants to be safe so he takes 7 DX to use for defense and that is added to Sir Guy's DX roll. Thus Sir Guy will need to roll an 8 or less to hit Robin. Robin will need a 12 or less to hit as he used 7 of his DX defending.

Example 2: Robin against 3 henchmen DX 11. Robin decides to use 2 DX points on each of the henchmen lowering their to hit number to 9 or less. Robin still has an AdjDX of 13 as he needs to knock out at least one of them from the fight before the numbers catch up to him.
Bayarea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2018, 11:43 PM   #57
Jim Kane
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: TFT Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayarea View Post
If you want to do this the simplest way (no extra rolls) one player designates how many DX points he will add to the opposing player's attack. He then subtracts this from his own DX on his own attack.

Example 1: Robin Hood DX 19 is fighting Sir Guy DX 15, Robin decides he wants to be safe so he takes 7 DX to use for defense and that is added to Sir Guy's DX roll. Thus Sir Guy will need to roll an 8 or less to hit Robin. Robin will need a 12 or less to hit as he used 7 of his DX defending.

Example 2: Robin against 3 henchmen DX 11. Robin decides to use 2 DX points on each of the henchmen lowering their to hit number to 9 or less. Robin still has an AdjDX of 13 as he needs to knock out at least one of them from the fight before the numbers catch up to him.
Yes, this is a rough equivalent to what 1st Ed CHAMPIONS did with what they called: Combat Value (think of this as your raw DX in combat), and you could split that value, up or down, between your modified Defensive Combat Value (DCV), and your Offensive Combat Value (OCV), on a turn-by-turn, or phase-by-phase basis (can't recall which).

Does it work? Yes.

However, when applied to TFT, we found the following results: 1) It slowed play. 2) It didn't feel like TFT anymore. 3) We were not sure why we liked it for CHAMPIONS, but didn't like it for TFT. 4) We abandoned using it in TFT and very quickly went back to the "as written" TFT rules.

Stating the matter as briefly as possible, with the insights I have today versus then, I would say "why" it didn't feel like TFT, and caused us to abandoned this concept is the simple fact that it takes the play out of that fixed and binary, Chess-like, TFT-feel, form, and flow, and into a gradient mode.

I keep coming back to this fixed, binary and Chess-like feel to TFT as key. As gradient rules, being scalable, may offer more fine-tuning in reflecting the detail of what's happening with an attack or talent, but at the cost of moving the feel further away from what feels like TFT to me.

So, yes, the simple formula Bayarea presents as an option DOES work; it just didn't work for US in TFT - however, your mileage may vary.

JK

Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-12-2018 at 02:50 AM.
Jim Kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2018, 01:59 PM   #58
Kirk
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Default Re: TFT Defense

Yes, the TFT feel. It's important to keep it and be able to have others who haven't experienced it have access.

Back in the early 80s when GURPS was under development someone told me about a new feature that was being considered, a "defense roll" based on DX plus one die.

I thought, hmmm...., might work, but as a house rule it might change TFT in ways I can't even predict. Let's see how it all works out in the game under development. GURPS was the result, we bought Man to Man, tried it, didn't like it, never played it much afterwards.

So it sounded innocuous, seemed like it would solve the problem of not having one's own skill alter someone else's attack, but in the end began a set of changes that just played much differently than TFT, and which we just did not enjoy.
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2018, 02:24 PM   #59
Jim Kane
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: TFT Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk View Post
...So it sounded innocuous, seemed like it would solve the problem of not having one's own skill alter someone else's attack, but in the end began a set of changes that just played much differently than TFT, and which we just did not enjoy.
And this often happens when someone tries to "update" something that while perhaps not perfect in it's mechanics, yet, IS perfection in it's inspiration and spirit.

So often they "fix" the one situation and somehow sacrifice the other.

Like changing bad grammar contained within the lyrics to most Stones' songs:

"I am unable to acquire and retain a measurable level of Sa-tis-fac-tion,... though I endeavor, I endeavor, I endeavor,... I am wholly unable to procure a modicum of,... Sa-tis-fac-tion"

Somehow it "precisely misses" the magical-mark set by inspiration and spirit.

JK

Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-14-2018 at 02:49 PM. Reason: Typical Typos
Jim Kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:04 PM.


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