The Fantasy Trip

[JLV]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

-- snip --

The problem, of course, is that you’re misrepresenting my arguments. I reviewed them and they seem pretty clear to me. So I have to assume you simply misread them. I can’t really imagine that you’d intentionally misrepresent my points...

-- snip --

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'm honestly not trying to misrepresent your argument, I'm simply looking at the totality of your posts on this whole D20 idea. You've said that you solved the problem of attribute bloat by converting to a D20 system, which minimized the issue, and then you showed us a bunch of other rules changes you made in order to better fit with your D20 system. If that is a "misrepresentation" of your previous posts, I'm having trouble seeing how. Was that not what you said in them?

In effect, I'm using the exact same approach as you say you are:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

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”.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Nor have I lobbied for any of these changes to be made to the official version of TFT that will ultimately be released.

As far as "lobbying" for these changes goes:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Replacing the 3d6 roll with a d20 will simultaneously make lower attribute characters more capable and expand the opportunities for more powerful characters. Obviously, converting monsters will require some effort (like recognizing that IQ 6 animals would have a revised IQ of 2).

...Which sounds a bit like at least advocating the change... Nor, might I add, was I the only one who read it that way.

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I would like to hope that there is absolutely no chance of replacing 3d6 with d20.

To which your response (I won't quote the whole thing here) was pretty much solid advocacy for a D20 solution.

So again, I'm not sure what I'm "misrepresenting" here, but whatever. If you were offended by my failure to fully grasp your position here, I apologize for that, but all I can do is read what people write...

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

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.

I've made it pretty clear in this thread that my primary issue is the attribute bloat issue, and even offered suggestions on how to fix it, so I'd say "asked and answered" would be the response in court. I've also made it pretty clear throughout this thread that I think Steve's ideas on pretty much any TFT subject are probably better than any number of house rules or systems revisions any of us will come up with. So my "solution" is to raise the things I think are problematic, offer a suggestion on how to fix them, and then sit back and let the designer make his decision, which I will then cheerfully accept -- pretty much the same SOP I used in the military when the general asked us for comments and critiques on the plan or procedure he wanted to execute. At the end of the day, if Steve likes a suggestion that someone makes on these boards, he'll probably pick it up and run with it (though at the end of it all, the idea may not bear much relationship to the original proposal!). ;-)

Now, please, don't be upset with me over this. I'm not attacking you personally at all; I'm merely pointing out issues that your own comments have raised in my mind and asking if what you seem to have said was what you meant. If it is, then by all means, let's agree to disagree and continue on down our separate paths; if not, then explain to me where I'm wrong or "misrepresenting" you, and help me to better grasp your arguments. As it stands, what I'm hearing from you can be roughly summarized as: "Attribute bloat isn't a problem, and here's the system we use to play, which is completely different from TFT as written." Is that a "misrepresentation" of your comments? If so, please help me understand how. I'm always ready and willing to admit I'm wrong or made a mistake if that is indeed the case. Also, please don't think that I'm saying that your ideas are bad ideas, or that what you created isn't a great game (really, if you and your players are having fun, that's all that matters); all I'm saying is that it's not "TFT" anymore. Likewise, I've done enough house ruling in my own games over the past 35 years that they aren't TFT anymore either. In fact, I wonder if ANYONE is still playing actual, you know, TFT, as written, anymore!

[larsdangly]

A lot of what is being discussed at this stage of the thread are basically other games. There are hundreds of roleplaying games, and I'm sure people will write hundreds more, and lots will be great. But I think we should all hope TFT stays closely recognizable as what it always was. 3d6 (mostly); 32 stat points; deadly as hell; and all the rest of the stuff we know.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A lot of what is being discussed at this stage of the thread are basically other games. There are hundreds of roleplaying games, and I'm sure people will write hundreds more, and lots will be great. But I think we should all hope TFT stays closely recognizable as what it always was. 3d6 (mostly); 32 stat points; deadly as hell; and all the rest of the stuff we know.

Amen, brother! ;-)

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A lot of what is being discussed at this stage of the thread are basically other games. There are hundreds of roleplaying games, and I'm sure people will write hundreds more, and lots will be great. But I think we should all hope TFT stays closely recognizable as what it always was. 3d6 (mostly); 32 stat points; deadly as hell; and all the rest of the stuff we know.

Yes, although it's interesting to see what many of us have evolved TFT into during its long period of dormancy, they are different games. Mine is now 8 attributes, plus Hero Points, no attribute progression, Wizard is now just a talent not a different sort of character, clerical/devotional magic system added, changed weapons system, etc. All this evolved through long term campaign play and I guess that was never really what TFT was designed for.

It's probably best if Steve ignores most of our ideas - and I'm pretty sure he will!

[JLV]

@Chris: As I've read and participated in these threads, I have been gradually forced to the conclusion that you are pretty much on point with this. ;-)

So yeah, what you said is probably both right and true!

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

3d6 (mostly); 32 stat points; deadly as hell; and all the rest of the stuff we know.

Were I to begin a campaign today I might be tempted to lower that to 30 stat points, then I'd remind the players the game IS deadly as hell. It can be a veritable meat grinder which lends itself to the "stable of characters" style of play.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

It's probably best if Steve ignores most of our ideas - and I'm pretty sure he will!

I would if I were him.

Also, don’t overlook the fact that we might get Melee and Wizard spiffed up like Ogre. That might actually be a good thing. Rather than miniatures, thick 3d stand up counters (in glorious full color) like in Ogre, spiffed up heavy duty map, etc. Very nice cardboard counters would be more useful that yet another box of unpainted dungeon miniatures, in my opinion.

Of course, I’m a lawyer, not a game marketing expert.

As you point out, nearly 40 years of genetic drift has occurred. Many private versions of TFT bear little resemblance to the game as it existed in 1981.

I personally tried to keep my game close to TFT, but my opinion of what distinguishes TFT may not be shared by others. For instance, as noted, I don’t consider the 3d6 resolution system to be a critical element, but I consider rolling an attribute or less to be a VERY critical element.

I don’t see any real value to fetishising d6’s. In 1977, polyhedrals were expensive, hard to get and rather crude (though the TSR d4 could be used as caltrops). A set of them cost 2-3 times what the Melee micrograme cost. It would’ve been absurd to require Melee players to also buy a set of dice ($15-20 in today’s money) to even play the game. That situation doesn’t exist today; polyhedral dice are plentiful and cheap. I’m quite comfortable using them in TFT - something Steve Jackson endorsed in a TSG article on converting AD&D monsters to TFT. But I seriously doubt a lot of TFT fans agree with me.

I’ve resisted the urge to add a fourth (health) attribute, while many think it’s a necessary tweak. And so on.

Thus, I encourage Steve Jackson to do what I think I’d do - publish the game I’d have published in 1980 if I’d had the resources and capabilities that I have today.

Here are changes I would make:

Clean up legitimate glitches (you shouldn’t be able to bolo a giant, boomerangs shoudn’t be utterly superior to crossbows, etc.)

Resolve ambiguous, incomplete and contradictory rules. How *does* Missile Weapons talent affect rate of fire?

Change anything that you think unbalances the game. I’d argue that some pole arms need to be nerfed. If Steve agrees, he should fix them.

Replace clumsy mechanics with better ones, if they don’t shatter the “look and feel” of TFT. For instance I believe that adding dice for difficulty is better handled as a GURPS style modifier, and believed that before GURPS ever came out. I don’t think that this would obliterate the essence of TFT.

Fix any fundamental gameplay issues. Should wizards actually die if their ST drops to zero from spellcasting? Should figures actually die at 0 ST? In an arena wargame, this mechanic is agreeably simple. For the arena game, the important point is that the figure is out of action, not whether he’s dead/wounded. But in an RPG, the figure’s actual status is extremely important. Should wizards really be able to throw a single, 10 die Wizard’s Wrath at the big nasty? Does that produce the kind of game you (Steve) want?

Add things that were accidentally omitted or that really should have been included. A healing spell, for instance, assuming you agree with 99% of RPG designers that healing spells are desirable.

But leave the major surgery to the fan community or optional supplements. And be especially careful about allowing GURPS concepts to taint TFT. You don’t want to do all this work, only to produce a GURPS clone. So respect the fact that they are different - actually very different - games with some superficial similarities.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'm honestly not trying to misrepresent your argument

Nor am I saying you did. If I thought you intentionally did so, my tone would be rather more animated :)

I'm simply looking at the totality of your posts on this whole D20 idea. You've said that you solved the problem of attribute bloat by converting to a D20 system, which minimized the issue, and then you showed us a bunch of other rules changes you made in order to better fit with your D20 system.

Ah, that’s the misunderstanding. The changes I listed were largely independent of the d20 mechanic. Where appropriate, I may have discussed how they affected the d20 mechanic. But they were not linked to it. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

As far as "lobbying" for these changes goes...Which sounds a bit like at least advocating the change... Nor, might I add, was I the only one who read it that way.

Well it isn’t lobbying.

I was merely sharing how *I* handled flaws that I believe exist in TFT. For what it’s worth, I really doubt that Steve would abandon the 3d6 mechanic in a TFT reprint in favor of a d20 mechanic. Nor would I expect him to, since I doubt he shares my assessment of the limits of the 3d6 mechanic. Even if he did agree with me, he still shouldn’t do it (in my opinion) because it would antagonize too many TFT fans.

Fortunately, I can gleefully modify the new TFT with a d20 mechanic as easily as I did the old TFT. So I’m good.

By the way, I deal with proposed mods of A Fistful of TOWS 3 (my miniature wargame rules) all the time. When a player breathlessly tells us how he’s fixed some horrible flaw in FFT3, we (a) explain why we did what we did (almost always explaining the trade offs we made in picking a particular approach); (b) identify any negative consequences that we think might arise with the mod; and (c) suggest alternate ways (if any) that we think might resolve the problem. Then we encourage the player to thoroughly test the proposed modification and let us know how it played. Of course, we only have about 1100 members of the FFT email group to deal with and only 1 set of rules to worry about. Steve Jackson has considerably more complexity in his life.

So again, I'm not sure what I'm "misrepresenting" here, but whatever. If you were offended by my failure to fully grasp your position here, I apologize for that, but all I can do is read what people write...

Accepted. It truly wasn’t an argument to change the “official” TFT. As noted above, I wouldn’t change it even if I loved it, unless I was sure it wouldn’t alienate lot of TFT fans.

Oh, and “misrepresent” to lawyers doesn’t necessarily imply any intent. When I use that word, I mean “inaccurate” not “lying”. If I think some is lying, I usually call them a liar. Or if I’m being polite, I’ll say they “intentionally misrepresented” something. Sorry for the confusion.

As it stands, what I'm hearing from you can be roughly summarized as: "Attribute bloat isn't a problem, and here's the system we use to play, which is completely different from TFT as written." Is that a "misrepresentation" of your comments?

Well it doesn’t accurately interpret what I meant. What I meant was that, in my opinion, the problem isn’t attribute bloat per se.

The problem is that the 3d6 mechanic allows for a very small range of *useful* attribute ratings. In practical terms, a 13 (84% chance of success) isn’t materially better than a 14 (90%). A 6 (10%) isn’t materially worse than a 7 (16%).

So with a 3d6, the useful range of attribute ratings is only 7-13. At best, the range is 6-14.

Starting TFT characters have 8 in each attribute. So for them, the useful attribute rating range is now only 8-13. And remember that they have 8 more points to divide between their 3 attributes. The upshot is that TFT characters can quite easily breach “near automatic success” territory pretty quickly. With a combat system that mostly doesn’t take into account enemy defensive skill and a magic system that has few, of any, defensive saving throws, the result is a flash-bang system that I don’t much care for.

I chose the d20 solution for several reasons that I thought valid.

First, it was a simple mechanical change. I didn’t have to strip out or modify numerous subsystems to make it work. Adjustments were minimal, almost trivial.

Second, it works very well. I.e., it seriously mitigates the problem; it allows characters to amass a lot more points before breaking the system.

Third, it’s pretty much completely compatible with other adjustments I’ve tried - the Evade/Blitz system or Expert/Master level talents. And those adjustments, or something similar will ultimately be needed because the d20 system is just as breakable as the 3d6 system. It just takes a lot more time.

Finally, it doesn’t require me to abandon mechanics that I personally really like about TFT - a small number of attributes and rolling against those attributes.

So for me, the d20 mechanic is a desirable tweak. YMMV.

But consider this -

I think you can have (a) 3d6 resolution, (b) a “roll under attribute” task system, or (c) a wide useful attribute range. Pick 2.

If I’m right about this, then obviously I picked (b) and (c). Default TFT picked (a) and (b). Most of the other changes I’ve seen picked (a) and (c).

For me personally there simply isn’t anything inherently magical about rolling 3d6. As a game designer myself, I had to weigh using 2+ dice to generate a bell curve or a single die to generate a flat curve. They each have their uses and limitations, and neither is inherent superior any more than a nail is inherently superior to a screw or to glue. So 3d6 is a tool to me, but it requires me to give up (b) or (c). I preferred to replace the 3d6 tool and keep (b) and (c).

I wonder if ANYONE is still playing actual, you know, TFT, as written, anymore!

There were slight changes in each edition, of course. I have never played any RPG without modification and TFT is no exception. I’ve played most board games without modification, so I suspect that Melee and Wizard were often played unmodified.

However, everything is on a continuum. There’s a range of modifications of TFT that most folks would agree don’t fundamentally change the game into something very different from TFT. But it’s hazy.

[tbeard1999]

I’ve pulled this point out of my rambling post above because it encapsulates my reasoning about the delightfully controversial d20 mechanic.

I think you can have (a) 3d6 resolution, (b) a “roll under attribute” task system, or (c) a wide useful attribute range. Pick 2.

If I’m right about this, then obviously I picked (b) and (c). Default TFT picked (a) and (b). Most of the other changes I’ve seen picked (a) and (c).

For me personally there simply isn’t anything inherently magical about rolling 3d6. As a game designer myself, I had to weigh using 2+ dice to generate a bell curve or a single die to generate a flat curve. They each have their uses and limitations, and neither is inherent superior any more than a nail is inherently superior to a screw or to glue. So 3d6 is a tool to me, but it requires me to give up (b) or (c). I preferred to replace the 3d6 tool and keep (b) and (c).

And as I stated I’m another post, Melee cost $1.95 in 1977 (about $8 in today’s money). A set of awful TSR polyhedral dice cost $2.95 as I recall in 1977 (about $12 in today’s money) and they weren’t universally available. It would’ve been insane for Metagaming to require players to buy $12 of dice to play an $8 game. So the d6 system was an economic necessity, regardless of its other merits.

And I suppose you could add “(d) a small number of attributes and pick 3” to the above list. My point remains - you can’t always get what you want. But, as the song doesn’t say, you can sometimes get some of what you want.

[bookworm562]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

So you never saw experienced Wizards with 18+ Strength as a problem? And that's exactly what happens with the system as written unless you fudge it or houserule it in some way.

Never. We topped out at 36 to 38 points. A few guys had survived ugly scenarios where we lost 3 or 4 guys, but the numbers eventually came up and someone got clipped so maybe 1 or 2 guys at 39 and 40. Very tough but not invincible. And that changed the nature of the game dramatically. Remember that an excess of gods and superheroes make your characters meaningless.