01-06-2018, 12:59 PM | #131 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
And I strongly concur with your last point too. One standard rule for aimed shots would be a good thing. Though it may also then force a discussion of "critical hits" which are currently handled quite elegantly via the success dice rolls for combat. Ideally we don't get encumbered with a lengthy set of rules on called shots and the like... As for the rest, it's numbers crunching, and I'll leave that to Steve -- he may have had other reasons than the smooth progression of the numbers arithmetically speaking for doing what he did with those things. Play balance is usually the one that leaps to mind, though I'm not sure what play balance point might be at stake. Still, as I've said repeatedly here, Steve spent a LOT of time working and thinking on this game back in the day, so I'll defer to his expertise on these things. Last edited by JLV; 01-06-2018 at 01:13 PM. |
|
01-06-2018, 01:37 PM | #132 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Hmm; 9 MH = 27 hexes, which is either 81 feet or 135 feet (I can't remember off hand whether the official idea is a hex is a yard or 5 feet!). Isn't that right? And if you did an aimed shot (-4 or 6 or whatever), wouldn't that bring his adj DX down to 3-5, which is basically in the hail-mary range? But I generally agree with you that there would have to be some sort of reasonable limit put on maximum range. Which perhaps is needed anyway.
|
01-06-2018, 02:25 PM | #133 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
There are several ways to address this, besides ditching the system (or constantly imposing absurd penalties during play): 1. Add more attributes, which violates the TFT emphasis on simplicity. 2. Make attributes much harder to improve. That can frustrate the players’ desire to advance at a reasonably frequent rate. 3. Use a different system than the 3d6 system. That’s what I went with. The hypothetical 39 point character above would be a 51 point character in a d20 system, more or less. 4. Allow players to improve individual skills...wait, that’s GURPS, isn’t it? Letting them add additional talents has some merit, but can easily get out of hand. 5. Abandon the roll vs attribute system, which makes it kinda NOT Fantasy Trip. And which might not actually solve the problem. 6. EDIT - limit attribute advancement to X points above the starting attribute value. Then only allow the character to add talents or spells. Eh, that’s doable, but I’d still prefer the d20 system (possible paired with this system so that the d20 system doesn’t get blown out). Some form of defense is necessary to prevent the “everyone hits” problem. I loathed the GURPS defense roll, so I won’t even discuss that. I used a system I called Evade/Blitz. An evading character could reduce his adjDX in melee combat and apply the same reduction to his opponent. A blitzing character could do the same, only adding. The character strikes in order of adjDX *before* modification. Since the real problem is “everybody hits”, you could ditch the Blitz (or limit it to significantly less than the Evade option. Another approach we used was to allow characters with adjDX > 15 to simply modify the enemy’s to hit roll by (say) -1 for every 2 points of adjDX over 15. It worked okay, though it made DX even more valuable. However, characters that used this ability could rarely wear much armor, so they were brittle. Finally, I wrote up Expert and Master level versions of melee weapon talents. Expert level meant that enemies had to roll 4 dice to hit you in melee (or -3 if you abandon the multiple dice system). Master level meant that enemies had to roll 5 dice to hit you in melee (or -6 DX). These talents required IQ 10 and DX 13+ for Expert, DX 16+ for Master. I can’t recall how well it worked, but the idea was solid. With the minimum required adjDX, A master would hit another master about 50% of the time and an expert would hit an expert about 50% of the time. So of the options above, I chose the simplest. And it worked very well for us. Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-06-2018 at 02:52 PM. |
|
01-06-2018, 02:35 PM | #134 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
Out to 25 meters: normal DX penalty 26-50 meters: DX -4 51-100 meters: DX -5 101-150 meters: DX -6 151-200 meters: DX -7 201-250 meters: DX -8 ... and so on. |
|
01-06-2018, 02:46 PM | #135 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
There is another option I may have mentioned, which is perhaps even simpler, and something I've being toying with, but it does change the dynamic of tactical play.
Change absolutely nothing except this: instead of using experience points to increase attribute points, they are used to purchase "Hero Points." These HP can be used during play to alter the results of dice rolls after the roll is made or to change the number of dice used before the roll is made. Example1; you need to roll a 12 to hit and you roll 13 (normally a miss) but you spend 1HP to reduce the roll to a 12 and thus achieve the desired hit. Example 2; you score a hit on the enemy but your 1d6 weapon is too light to do heavy damage. You spend 1HP to increase the damage to 2d6. I've only recently started experimenting with this idea but so far it seems promising. You could also allow some attribute increase if that's your preference, but more powerful characters will be tough because of more HP not higher attributes. |
01-06-2018, 03:01 PM | #136 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-06-2018, 03:13 PM | #137 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-06-2018, 05:05 PM | #138 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
However, that makes me reconsider the need for a change at all -- under the existing rule, my hypothetical 18 DX character can throw about 10 hexes (or 3 and one third megahexes) before his chances of actually making a hit drop below the point where it's actually worth while to do so -- meaning under the existing rules, he can throw about 42 feet with a reasonable expectation of getting a hit. While that's shorter than the MH distance under the more complex rule above, the above rule is considered in terms of distance and strength only, whereas the bottom rule could also be considered to account for the "flustering" effect of being in actual combat at the time the throw is made -- which would tend to shorten the range at which such an attack will be made. There's also the issue of time of flight of the weapon which we haven't addressed at all -- the longer the distance thrown, the longer the weapon spends in the air, and more likely the target will move, even if only inadvertently, thus rendering the attack a miss or a failure. Steve's existing rule also elegantly accounts for that variable by simply making it much less likely a long-distance throw will actually work; which accounts for the muscle required to make the throw, and the variables on time in flight and the target's likelihood of movement during that time. Overall then, the more complex rule fails to make any material difference to the outcome, and may actually be less "realistic," and I withdraw my approval for the change; the existing Thrown Weapons rule is just fine. My apologies to Steve for doubting him! ;-) Last edited by JLV; 01-06-2018 at 07:17 PM. |
|
01-06-2018, 05:20 PM | #139 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
|
|
01-06-2018, 08:27 PM | #140 | ||||
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: The Fantasy Trip
Quote:
In other words, the changes I list are responses to a perceived problem - the 3d6 system makes too easy to get overly powerful characters in TFT in the base system. Nowhere in my posts can it be reasonably inferred that these changes were driven by the move to a d20 system, or by other changes. The move to the d20 mechanic was an attempt to solve the problem; it cannot reasonably be read to imply that the d20 mechanic caused this purported problem. Quote:
The combat fixes had nothing to do with the 3d6 vs d20 issue. They were simple fixes to widely acknowledged problems (ex. - making boomerangs less overpowering; ditto with certain pole arms) or clarifications (ex. - clarifying the effect of Missile Weapons talent on number of shots a figure can take; an issue at is not clearly addressed in Advanced Melee or ITL). The other fixes were independent of the d20 mechanic as well and were various attempts to address another widely acknowledged issue with TFT - the problem of everyone hitting 95% of the time, regardless of the skill of their opponent and at comparatively low power levels. These fixes were all tested with the normal 3d6 mechanic and some with the d20 mechanic. If you don’t think that there’s an “ever one hits most of the time” problem or that the clarifications are required, well, that’s fine with me. Quote:
Quote:
Also, I think I’ve been clear that I’m merely offering these ideas as examples of how my group addressed issues that I felt should be addressed. I really couldn’t care less if you (a) disagree that the problems exist or (b) don’t like the proposed solutions. use them or not. If you see a logical or mathematical flaw in a proposed solution that I’ve advocated, I’d be interested. But if your argument boils down to “I don’t think it’s a problem” or “I don’t like it”, my response is simply to shrug and say “suit yourself”. Nor have I lobbied for any of these changes to be made to the official version of TFT that will ultimately be released. I just don’t care, since I will play the game I want to play. Obviously, I think many of the changes improve the game, but that’s highly subjective, akin to arguing about which brand of potato chip is best (Pringles, obviously) or which version of “I heard it through the Grapevine” is best (Marvin Gaye’s version clearly). I am mildly curious as to which of these issues you think should be addressed and how you’d address them. If I think your idea is better, I’d certainly acknowledge that fact. Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-06-2018 at 09:22 PM. |
||||
Tags |
in the labyrinth, melee, roleplaying, the fantasy trip, wizard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|