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 02-20-2018, 09:03 AM   #521
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Also, my 'maximum house rule' version of the game addresses the wizard/hero divide by removing the distinction (all characters are working with the same rules set), but adding a half dozen talents that are 'gate keepers' for learning spells. I.e., you can't learn any spells at all unless you know Apprentice talent, and so forth.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:34 AM   #522
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Generalists are between Heroes and Wizards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
David your generalist class seems pretty cool. I assume the price of spells (125% fST cost) is rounded UP?
I assumed he meant to track them with quarter-point precision. Otherwise, unless he also added talents that cost 5+ IQ points, he could just say everything costs +1 IQ.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 12:05 PM   #523
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: Forgetting Talents --> Very gamey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
I mostly agree with this, and Rick's mIQ model actually leads to much the same effect. The main differences are:

*In your model IQ is effectively more expensive than in RAW TFT, because it no longer comes with a free point of talent. If I've understood you correctly.
Not quite. Since talents are no longer limited by IQ (other than by WHAT you can learn, as opposed to both WHAT and HOW MUCH), IQ is no longer quite as important to Conan. It still requires a level of IQ commensurate with the talent you want to learn (i.e., if you want an IQ 10 talent, you still need to get IQ 10), but it no longer forces you to go to IQ 12 in order to earn a three-point IQ 10 talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
*In your model it might be possible to construct a character who has normal IQ but has never learnt anything in his life except e.g. to use a sword. I think this would be a less interesting starting character.
You can do that right now, if you so choose, but why would you choose to do that? And how does decoupling IQ limits from talents force you to do it in *my system*? Quite the reverse, I would think -- it allows you to build a character with a normal IQ who has the ability to learn more talents than he would be able to do under the current system OR the mIQ system. There aren't any arbitrary limits on the number of talents he can learn, as long as he has the XP to spend on them and chooses to spend it that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
It could be argued that Rick's mIQ model introduces an unnecessary layer of indirection, relative to just buying talents. On the other hand it could be argued that Rick's implementation makes it easier to keep track of how many attributes a character has, and therefore XP costs. But generally the approaches are pretty similar in effect.
In effect, yes; but again, I remove an extra layer of book keeping by simply saying that you can a) buy as many talents as you can afford; and b) buy them directly with XP instead of going through "middleman" requirements to get there. The only other note to add is that starting characters should probably have a set limit on the number of talents they can start the game with -- probably somewhere around 5, give or take a couple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
You could also take your model to extremes. Delete all the attributes and replace them by talents. Fighters hit more often because they've bought higher levels of the fighting talents; they dodge falling boulders if they've bought the agile talent; etc. This has pluses and minuses, but it isn't TFT. Keep going this way you might end up with something vaguely similar to Fate, or not.
Why would anyone want to do a silly thing like that? Besides, that wouldn't be TFT anymore, but some entirely different game, such as FATE. I don't like FATE nearly as much a I like TFT.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 09:17 AM   #524
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Berserking Rules.

Hi all,
I think that some thought should be given to the Berserk rules. (Page 20 AM.)

I do not like that they require an IQ roll to enter and leave the Berserk state. My feelings of berserkers is that they are not brain trusts. Also if they ARE high IQ, it all seems far too easy.

Other thoughts:
-- I wouldn't mind if berserk figures did +1 or +2 damage with Melee weapons.
-- When a berserker comes out of berserk they lose 2 ST. Is this real damage or fatigue ST? (I assume that it is fST loss.)
-- Are berserkers allowed to use missile weapons? It seems untraditional, but it should be spelled out either way.
-- If a wizard berserks, what spells and actions can the wizard take?

I enter / exit berserk status, I suggest:
-- To enter berserk, a character must roll 1d6 and spend an action. On a 1 or 2 they go berserk. Thus they may have to spend several turns shouting, gnawing on their shield, etc. to work themselves into this state. (As a GM I sometimes allow automatic berserking, if they see their family attacked, or if something dramatic happens.)

-- To exit berserk, at the start of movement they roll 1d6. One a 1 thru 4, they exit the state. This DOES NOT use their action, and if they fail to exit berserk status, they will then move and attack their friends.

I welcome any comments.
Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 09:33 AM   #525
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Toning down Exploding Gems.

Hi Everyone,
I think that Exploding Gems should be nerfed. Having an 8 die exploding gem just makes too many problems easy to solve. (The same can be said of 12 fST Wizard Wraths.)

I suggest that the rule of 5 applies to them and the largest gem that can be made is 5 dice.

The cost of the better gems should go up fast. I double the fST cost for each level of gem. For example, 3 fST, 6 fST, 12 fST, 24 fST and 48 fST for 1 die to 5 dice gems respectively. (Incidentally, this makes the gems behave like Note A on the Magic Item Enchantment Tables, which is logical.)

I like that gems do area damage. So I suggest that 4 dice gems do 1d-2 damage into all adjacent hexes and 5 dice gems do 1die of damage into adjacent hexes.

(Altho, I wouldn't object if Exploding Gems were simply eliminated from new TFT. My players always hate NPC's with the damn things.)

I welcome any comments.
Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 11:48 AM   #526
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Engagement rules - "You don't engage me!"

Hi all,
On page 3 of Advanced Melee there is a rule that says, "... the GM may declare that a figure is not engaged - i.e., a knight in plate mail is not engaged by an unarmed 13 year old girl..." However, edge cases are harder to handle. If I stop 10 hits, and a goblin is doing 2d-1, should it engage me? (Not really I think. But what if I only stop 8 hits?)

I have added a tactic for characters to take. They may declare in movement that an enemy doesn't engage them, and move as if that enemy does not exist. (Or declare that several enemies do not engage them.)

The enemy so ignored gets a free attack with either +2 damage or +2 DX (enemies' choice). If you are chopped down as you try to leave the hex, ... well I guess you were engaged after all!

I'm not campaigning hard to have this rule included in the new TFT, but it is pretty simple and plays well. (I've been using it for years now.) It also removes some of the arbitrary force field 'feel' of the engagement rules. It might be worth a paragraph as an optional rule.

Comments are welcome.
Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 12:48 PM   #527
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

It's a bridge too far, but my positive experiences playing AH's Gladiator have always made me think Melee would be even more tactically juicy and interesting if no one 'engaged' anyone and long-ish weapons had greater reach. If you want to run into someone, run into them; if you want to step back, step back; if you want to grab someone so they can't get away, do that; but no one is a velcro patch that sticks to others.

The only trouble with this sort of movement and engagement change (in addition to it being just generally radical) is that it only works as a game if movement is broken down into smaller increments, so you have time to respond to what people around you are doing in a realistic way.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 01:03 PM   #528
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
It's a bridge too far, but my positive experiences playing AH's Gladiator have always made me think Melee would be even more tactically juicy and interesting if no one 'engaged' anyone and long-ish weapons had greater reach. If you want to run into someone, run into them; if you want to step back, step back; if you want to grab someone so they can't get away, do that; but no one is a velcro patch that sticks to others.

The only trouble with this sort of movement and engagement change (in addition to it being just generally radical) is that it only works as a game if movement is broken down into smaller increments, so you have time to respond to what people around you are doing in a realistic way.
Based on that last sentence alone, I'd have to be against the change, then. Here's why: I've played games like Dragonquest, Sniper, and others that used an "action points" system to allow precisely that sort of detail. Such systems are, inarguably, more accurate and simulationist than even GURPS is, but they are also far more nit-picky, time consuming and rules driven than TFT is or ought to be. One of the key attractions (to me) of TFT is that we can get through combat fairly quickly, with a good feel for the action, and without measuring everything with a micrometer caliper. Changing to a system that requires that much more work to complete a combat situation is precisely why I decided that I still preferred TFT to Dragonquest in the first place. Naturally, I only speak for myself in this regard, but I suspect I'm not alone in this feeling.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 01:19 PM   #529
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Engagement rules - "You don't engage me!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi all,
On page 3 of Advanced Melee there is a rule that says, "... the GM may declare that a figure is not engaged - i.e., a knight in plate mail is not engaged by an unarmed 13 year old girl..." However, edge cases are harder to handle. If I stop 10 hits, and a goblin is doing 2d-1, should it engage me? (Not really I think. But what if I only stop 8 hits?)

I have added a tactic for characters to take. They may declare in movement that an enemy doesn't engage them, and move as if that enemy does not exist. (Or declare that several enemies do not engage them.)

The enemy so ignored gets a free attack with either +2 damage or +2 DX (enemies' choice). If you are chopped down as you try to leave the hex, ... well I guess you were engaged after all!

I'm not campaigning hard to have this rule included in the new TFT, but it is pretty simple and plays well. (I've been using it for years now.) It also removes some of the arbitrary force field 'feel' of the engagement rules. It might be worth a paragraph as an optional rule.

Comments are welcome.
Warm regards, Rick.
A good test would be to ask what the average damage would be, tripled. If it can cause injury, then the opponent is dangerous enough that he can't be ignored.

I don't like "free attack" rules ala D&D 3rd+. They slow the game down. Worse, they exploit knowledge that the character might not have. The player may clinically know that the opponent is a minimal threat, but in the heat of combat it's hard to imagine an experienced warrior exposing his back to *any* armed opponent.

Engagement was one of those concepts that "just worked". It enforced reasonable behavior and prevented player omniscience from generating unreasonable tactics.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 01:20 PM   #530
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Based on that last sentence alone, I'd have to be against the change, then. Here's why: I've played games like Dragonquest, Sniper, and others that used an "action points" system to allow precisely that sort of detail. Such systems are, inarguably, more accurate and simulationist than even GURPS is, but they are also far more nit-picky, time consuming and rules driven than TFT is or ought to be. One of the key attractions (to me) of TFT is that we can get through combat fairly quickly, with a good feel for the action, and without measuring everything with a micrometer caliper. Changing to a system that requires that much more work to complete a combat situation is precisely why I decided that I still preferred TFT to Dragonquest in the first place. Naturally, I only speak for myself in this regard, but I suspect I'm not alone in this feeling.
At least I agree with you, so no you're not alone. Action points systems never really did it for me either.
tbeard1999 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 11:51 AM.


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