What, Exactly, is The Fantasy Trip: Melee

[Terquem]

I’ve been thinking about this today, after reading most of the second book in the Designers & Dragons series and revisiting what it was like to think and feel about those games that were coming out in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

We were just learning what a “Fantasy Role-Playing” game was, and many people were introducing concepts and extensions of that realm that shaped and redefined the premise over and over again. Then along comes the video game, and we all needed to rethink what a “Role-Playing” game really was.

Now, I only tried The Fantasy Trip a few times, in the early eighties, as a full-fledged “Fantasy Adventure” game with elements of Role-Playing, but it always struck me that it was somehow different from other Role-Playing games I had tried, something unique, something I can’t really define.

So what, exactly, is The Fantasy Trip: Melee? Is it a man-to-man skirmish wargame? Is it a fantasy man-to-man skirmish wargame? Is it, a difficult thing to categorize, a supplemental addendum to a Role-Playing game that allows for resolution of man-to-man combat.

Is there a definitive description for TFT: Melee that succinctly identifies just what it is?

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Terquem

Is there a definitive description for TFT: Melee that succinctly identifies just what it is?

Referencing the original 1977 1st edition of Melee, we find written in the introduction:

1) "MELEE is a game of man-to-man combat with archaic weapons. It can be used to simulate combat between single opponents or small groups in any period."

The same basic description is reiterated, albeit truncated, as the sub-title on the interior title-page, as:

2) Man-to-Man Combat with Archaic Weapons.

Is that accurate? Yes.

Does it satisfy the deeper philosophical question your post is alluding to - and the effect of playing, as an experience, which you stated as: "something unique you really can't define."? No, not for me.

Does that basic game-description even remotely capture the nearly transcendental and mystical quality of this specific game, and more properly, the subsequent full game system, which allowed it's devotees to tap-into, like a Supernaught, as no other game I know of could - and satisfactorily describe the experience? No, and No; it wasn't intended to.

That my friend is a much deeper and heavier question for going down the rabbit-hole after.

"Welcome to The Fantasy Trip..." :::Insert maniacal cackling and hand-wringing here:::

JK

[Kirk]

One hidden element in TFT that often is not in other systems is the use of the bell curve which mirrors natural phenomenon much better than flat die rolls present in other systems.

There are other things down the "rabbit hole", as has been said, that make TFT unique and wonderful, but to me this is the first thing that I discovered the made the game feel right. The magic system is not a give away and instead requires tough choices of the use of ST, DX, and IQ to help your character survive. And yet, it isn't a "OK, I cast my one spell for the day, now I'll have to sit back and watch the rest of the game" approach, either. The combat system *works* very well, the use of "engagement" is key for that element, IMO.

With some college underneath me I was better able to understand the why behind the bell curve, but suffice it to say that it is a foundational element of TFT.

[Chris Rice]

TFT was the first RPG system to go full circle right back to the beginning and reengineer an RPG from the ground up.

The original Dungeons and Dragons game had evolved from the hobby of miniatures Wargaming which had detailed rules for movement, combat etc. The RPG element was later grafted onto that in a "mad-Genius creates Frankenstein" sort of way that worked, but was inconsistent and often confusing. The original D&D books even referred the users to "Chainmail", a totally separate set of wargames rules, to manage combat etc. As the game evolved new rules were added in supplements and magazines which added detail but even more rules inconsistencies.

TFT (Melee) went right back and created the character creation and combat rules as the foundation of an integrated system. Everything later: Wizard, ITL built on that in a consistent way, adding a genius "Talent" system to cover skills and special abilities. The system was unique in that way (and still may be as far as I know).

It was the first "system" to properly fulfill the promise of D&D, from the point of view of mechanics anyway.

[JLV]

I'd say Chris pretty much nailed that. The bottom line was that, for the first time ever, we actually had an RPG system that functioned as a coherent whole from the ground up, instead of being a thrown together mish-mash of semi-related (and often, completely UN-related) rules tailored for specific cases.

To my mind, it was the underlying logic and consistency that both made the game unique at the time, and made it so simple to understand and use.

Since then, other games have more or less built on the foundations laid by TFT, so it may not be nearly as unique...and, well, satisfying, an experience to new players as it was to us in the 1970's and '80's. But at the same time, it still is one of the best examples of precisely that kind of gaming approach I've ever seen. And I can't think of a better game for rapidly teaching the fundamentals of role-playing to new players in an organized and efficient way -- without all the GM fiat or excessive complexity that is more or less required by other RPG systems trying to do the same thing.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

TFT was the first RPG system to go full circle right back to the beginning and reengineer an RPG from the ground up.

You're ignoring RuneQuest... which essentially was a rewrite from the ground up (sharing only the 3d6 for attributes mechanic with D&D)...

Traveller, which, while sharing the same random rolls, rescaled to 2d6 instead. And shares few other mechanics with D&D - pretty much only the reaction roll and morale rule.

Both of them are 1977.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

You're ignoring RuneQuest... which essentially was a rewrite from the ground up (sharing only the 3d6 for attributes mechanic with D&D)...

Traveller, which, while sharing the same random rolls, rescaled to 2d6 instead. And shares few other mechanics with D&D - pretty much only the reaction roll and morale rule.

Both of them are 1977.

I'm not ignoring them, I considered them and discounted them because they do not, to me anyway, have a fully integrated tactical battle system in the way that TFT does. They evolved the rules and roleplaying element of D&D but did not go back and "re-engineer" Chainmail. Neither system is optimised for play with miniatures. That was the point I was trying to make.

[Dave Crowell]

In making your intitial case for TFT you said that it was "the first to reengineer an RPG from the ground up". You did not say that an RPG had to be optimized for miniatures play. Without that caveat both Traveller and RuneQuest may be considered to have pipped TFT to the post. Especially as TFT did not become a full blown RPG system until the release of the ITL supplement, one could argue that Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard were also part of the expansion from tactical wargame to RPG. And, yes, I do realize that the decision to release TFT as five (5) seperate products was not entirely that of the designer.

As the hobby has shown there is nothing inherent to RPGs qua RPGs that requires a provision for tactical miniatures play.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

In making your intitial case for TFT you said that it was "the first to reengineer an RPG from the ground up". You did not say that an RPG had to be optimized for miniatures play. Without that caveat both Traveller and RuneQuest may be considered to have pipped TFT to the post. Especially as TFT did not become a full blown RPG system until the release of the ITL supplement, one could argue that Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard were also part of the expansion from tactical wargame to RPG. And, yes, I do realize that the decision to release TFT as five (5) seperate products was not entirely that of the designer.

As the hobby has shown there is nothing inherent to RPGs qua RPGs that requires a provision for tactical miniatures play.

As I went on to eleborate in my second paragraph, I was talking about TFT re-engineering the Original Dungeons and Dragons game, which was a miniatures game. Obviously I didn't make that clear enough. To that end, neither RQ nor Traveller qualify in my mind. But you're entitled to hold a different opinion.

[Dave Crowell]

As a miniatures game TFT stands head and shoulders above the original D&D rules and the Man-to-Man and Fantasy Suplement rules in Chainmail.