06-30-2018, 08:29 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
'Deal Breakers'?
There are a lot of creative new ideas for TFT revisions kicking around these threads, and I appreciate that SJ is following some of it. I thought it might be equally valuable to think about changes to the game that people think would be a bad move. House rules are a common feature of table top roleplaying games, but we all know that they tend to vary from table to table, mutate over time, and are often tried and abandoned. When publishers try this, their experiments tend to get locked in place and so when they fail it is a significant problem for the game as a whole. There are lots of long-standing game lines that have gone through this. TFT has avoided it because its official development has been in a deep freeze for a long time, but now this risk is in play.
The one that I'm mindful of, and that I think would have to be on any game designer's mind, is anything that substantially changes lethality of combat. The risk of character death is a challenge to TFT, but its also a really significant part of the feel of the game. I think it would be fine to monkey around at the margins of how this works (e.g., giving you a couple of points below 0 where you are messed up but not dead). But much more than this would make it into a different game, and probably not a better one. I've seen TFT variants that do something like this by providing PC's with a large reserve of ablatable hit points; I understand where the thought comes from, but I did not like it in play, at all. A smaller issue that I suspect will not be a problem but has to be handled carefully is the 'trade space' of stats, damage, armor values, etc. A hall mark of TFT is is very finely tuned balance between different approaches to putting together and equiping a character. But that means it is surprisingly easy to goof up. This is another one I've seen in TFT variants that play with ST requirements and damage values for weapons - the tweaks might have rationales behind them, but they created really obvious winner and looser combinations, invalidating most character types. A subtle example of this that is already in TFT is half-plate armor; how dumb do you have to be to wear that, given the way all the other equipment works? |
06-30-2018, 08:58 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
I definitely agree. SJ needs to address areas of the rules that obviously been interpreted differently over the years, i.e. make them completely clear and even adding one or two examples would resolve them, and then the few problematic areas such as pole weapon damage and a few others. Adding an index and good TOC, alphabetizing the spells and talents, and other obvious improvements are necessary, as well.
Beyond that, dinking with the balance between spell casters and fighters, adding things to make TFT less lethal, changing the way combat works, adding stats, etc. all need to be done with actual, careful playtesting, if done at all. Everyone seems to have some pet peeve or preference that to others seems odd, unwanted, or will break TFT, these types of things that GURPify, or DnD, or complicate the look and feel of TFT in the name of "realism" or "period correctness" need to be avoided at all costs. Posting a set of beta or pre-beta rules for everyone to read and make notes on would be an excellent way to ensure hitting unclear areas, organization and agreement areas, etc. before anything becomes canon by intent or accident. Last edited by Kirk; 06-30-2018 at 09:10 AM. |
06-30-2018, 09:01 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
The only "deal-breaker" for me, would be if TFT moves towards GURPS in complexity/realism. The game I love is elegant in its simplicity and I'd like it to move even more so in that direction by doing away with book-keeping for wounds and magic use, for instance. However, I'm pretty happy with it as it is and I can easily tweak these things myself. Steve has already stated pretty clearly that it won't move in the complexity direction and will retain its unique feel with minimal changes, so I'm happy with that.
|
06-30-2018, 11:21 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
Chris, could not agree more. I love to read the GURPS splat books, but I really treasure the simplicity of TFT.
|
06-30-2018, 12:34 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
Too many of the house rules I've seen touted on this forum (and that includes many of mine) tend to address fiddly edge cases that don't really need rules to resolve, and thus add unnecessary complexity to the game. To me that would be the bete noir of change -- adding complexity for very little actual play benefit.
Putting it another way, I love the way Steve kept KISS firmly in mind during the original design, and very much hope that he'll keep it that way in the future. |
06-30-2018, 12:56 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
The less changed, the better. I'm in one way or another, because I want new copies of Melee and Wizard that I can use during my lunch break at work, but my fingers are crossed that changes are minimal, and aimed toward clarifications or simplifications of existing rules.
|
07-01-2018, 12:52 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
Quote:
|
|
07-01-2018, 09:06 AM | #8 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
It isn't in my 'deal breaker' category but I agree that I prefer the TFT dice pool approach to lots of things (traps, doors, etc.)
|
07-01-2018, 02:38 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
Quote:
* I think skill should help people not get hit, not just improve their hitting ability. I don't like the certainty of high-DX attacks, or that high-DX vs. high-DX fights mean you almost surely get hit unless you take the opponents down before they get to act. (But I can/will just use house-rules (or GURPS (or actually, house-ruled GURPS)) to avoid this, so it's not a deal-breaker - except in the sense I'll prefer not to play TFT as-written without something to change this.) * I think the one-point difference between unconsciousness and death is too small and could be tweaked. Like larsdangly, I'd rather it stay that way than be too likely that people aren't killed (e.g. by making unconsciousness more than about a 4- or 5-point range, or by giving easy saving/physicker/magic rolls to not have someone die). My non-exceptions are: * I don't want a healing spell removing wound/healing issues from play. * I don't want to see the 5-attribute loss for revival (or other difficulties) go away. * I don't want rules that add hitpoints to PCs to make combat less deadly (as larsdangly mentioned). * I don't want destroyed-limb restoration magic. Oh, and I would not like all DRMs to be rounded into dice, because the precision is too small and there are side-effects of rolling a different number of dice. Oh, and there is no way I am switching to having characters advance based on their players' roleplaying, cooperation, making people laugh, etc., instead of what the characters actually do that could lead to them improving their abilities. Last edited by Skarg; 07-01-2018 at 02:46 PM. |
|
07-01-2018, 03:02 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: 'Deal Breakers'?
I agree with the point about being able to defend yourself. Particularly if stats have a low cap, I think there should be some talent-based routes to making yourself harder to nail.
|
|
|