Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by RobW

The jobs table and aging rules might not qualify as a glitch given their intended use. But I once simulated the lives of 100,000 farmers and soldiers on this table. Results were published on the brainiac list, but a few highlights, which I have always found entertaining: ...

Hi RobW, everyone.
Very nice work you did there!

I strongly feel that the job table should have a flat exp bonus (say 100 exp or 50). It is harder to do damage well. You want everyone to be at some risk, but 4d6 damage seems far too excessive.

One roll I use in TFT is "Roll 1d6, rerolling 6's". This is when you roll 1d6 and keep a running total. If you roll 1 thru 5, you stop. If you roll a 6, you add 5 and roll again, until you get a non-six result.

"Roll 1d6, rerolling 6's", averages 5, but has no upper limit. So if the damage of failing a risk roll was "Roll 1d6, rerolling 6's", then everyone is at some risk, but the majority of the time the damage you take is 5 or less.

Those two changes might go a long way to make the job table work better.
It will also help with attribute bloat.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Before I add my personal 2 cent 'TFT Glitch & Fix' into the fray, ...

I disagree. I do not think that TFT is prefect as it is, and therefore any change is for the worse. Or even most changes are for the worse. There are plenty of places where some rule changes result in a better game.

For example, the rules say that if you drop a study you lose an attribute's worth of experience or 1,000 experience WHICH EVER IS HIGHER(!) (page 16, ITL). Obviously that rule should be tossed, how could it conceivably make the game more fun. It simply punishes new players who make a mistake in character write up.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

1. When Charles Darrow designed the rules-set for Monopoly, the overriding goal - from the designer's perspective - was to bankrupt all but the last player as fast as possible; ...[/I]

By the way, Charles Darrow tried very hard to trick people in to thinking he was the designer of the game. But he stole the design of Monopoly from "The Landlord's Game", (written by Elizabeth J. Phillips), up to and including a misspelling of a property.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... With that said, here is what has been bugging me about TFT Combat since the summer of '77:

A lower adj.DX fighter is at the mercy of a higher adj.DX fighter, nearly every turn; and is left to hope that Higher DX misses, so that Lower DX has a chance to upset the flow of the inevitable turn-by-turn hacking.

I believe the best 'fix' is to "borrow" a simple rule-concept from the Hero System; wherein a BLOCK maneuver is chosen by the lower DX character on the action phase of higher DX character who is attacking him.

Without going into mechanics. simply-stated, much like one would otherwise choose the existing TFT DEFEND OPTION - if successful, this BLOCK combat maneuver allows the lower DX character to strike first on the next turn, because "the successfully executed BLOCK sets up that character to deliver the next blow - regardless of relative DX." ...

I hope you will give the concept some play-testing for yourself, and see if you agree. ...

Hi Jim, everyone.
The main cost of blocking is that you have to remember who has blocked last turn. In a big battle, this is a significant mental overhead.

Also, it works fine on one on one duels but what about this case...

A and B are on one team, C is on the other.

A's DX is 12, B's DX is 15 and C's DX is 11.

A swings at C and C blocks. A hits anyways, but does minor damage. B is busy doing something else.

Next turn C goes before A, but does C go before B? Does C jump to the head of the queue, or does his speed of action equal A's "plus a little bit". If you say that it is "plus a little bit", then you gain more benefit from blocking master swordsmen than ordinary guys.

For example if I block Inigo Montoya (a DX 21), then my effective speed of action is DX 21. Whereas if I block Dullem the guard (DX 12) my effective speed is 12. This means that fighting master swordsmen is very advantageous when I block, (in multiplayer fights) which seems counter intuitive.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by red2

Here are a few unclear things I have run across. Not sure if I am misreading the rules so please correct me if I am. Also I just skimmed the thread so sorry if they have been mentioned.

(1) If you take 5 or more hits in one turn, your DX is adjusted by -2 on the next turn. But if you haven't attacked yet during the current turn ...

Hi Red, everyone.
The way I play you are at -2 DX for the rest of this turn and all of next turn. It is harsher on low DX figures (they could easily be at -2 DX twice), but it felt more realistic that way. I never understood the delay before the penalty kicked in.

Originally Posted by red2

(2) If you have a left hand dagger, can you throw it? Is there a DX adjustment? The way we play, you can instantaneously switch hands from weak to strong ...

I don't have a problem with this.

Originally Posted by red2

(3) If you are engaged in a battle with a higher adjDX opponent, technically they get to act/attack before you get to take your action. If you want to choose to defend, you can't really do so from a strict reading of the rules. The way we play is that the defend option is an exception to the strict "highest adjDX goes first" rule. If the high DX figure decides to attack, the low DX figure states they want to defend and there is no changing your mind after that.

People pick their planned actions during the movement phase and can change it at any time to meet changing situations (so long as they have not moved too far for the new action). So I think it is perfectly possible to defend before someone attacks you.

Something that does happen in our games is when a strong figure is attacking one of two people, both will start off defending. When the strong figure commits to attacking one, the other switches option to attack.

Originally Posted by red2

(4) In my version of advanced melee, you can move up to one hex and either defend or dodge. However, if you move up to half your MA, you can only dodge. My guess is that this was an accidental omission of the defend option, so we play that you can choose to do either.

On page 3 of Advanced Melee it says you can move one hex and defend. But a LOT of people allow you to move 1/2 your MA and defend. Is there a rule somewhere that says that this is legal? If anyone can point me to a reference I would appreciate it.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

I disagree. I do not think that TFT is prefect as it is, and therefore any change is for the worse. Or even most changes are for the worse. There are plenty of places where some rule changes result in a better game.

Hi Rick, not sure what you are referencing here from my post. While I feel TFT is perfect in atmosphere, color, etc. no doubt it has bugs - as you and I discuss a bit further down the page here - being just one example. So, I have no reference to what it is you are disagreeing with specifically. Clarify?

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

By the way, Charles Darrow tried very hard to trick people in to thinking he was the designer of the game. But he stole the design of Monopoly from "The Landlord's Game", (written by Elizabeth J. Phillips), up to and including a misspelling of a property.

I did not know that. That is really funny to me, as there is (or was) a brass bust and memorial plaque in Brighton Park in Atlantic City (between Park Place & S. Indiana Ave), to Charles Darrow. Back in the late 80s and into the 90s I worked in the Gaming Industry (i.e. Gambling Industry) in Atlantic City, and I would often go "out of the office, and conference" with this famous game-designer, and consider what I did all day long, and think to myself: "yeah, old man, here we are, and you nailed it, it all comes down to dice, cards, and money." LOL!

So, to learn from you that he didn't even design the game after all, is a real hoot LOL!!

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Jim, everyone.
The main cost of blocking is that you have to remember who has blocked last turn. In a big battle, this is a significant mental overhead.

Also, it works fine on one on one duels but what about this case...

Rick, you are 100% correct! I had forgotten that was the problem with that rule! Exactly as you stated: "Good for 1-on-1 only; after that, too much mental-overhead." Exactly right.

Rick, I left you a piece quite some time ago on your questions about Summoning a Demon accidentally in TFT; still waiting on your response to that one.

JK

PS - Still cracking up about ol' Charlie D, and The Great Monopoly Heist LOL!!
Thanks for giving me the straight-dope on that Rick!

[JLV]

Hi Rick,

I've noticed a couple of times in your comments you referenced having to remember who did what in large combat situations. That's a real problem, especially for the poor, overworked GM!

I'd like, therefore, to suggest to Steve Jackson Games that they consider the possibility of including "markers" in the revised Melee, sort of like the ones someone had posted on one of the TFT websites a few years back -- they showed what spells were in effect, that is, being maintained (not so useful in a multi-player game, but VERY useful in a solitaire dungeon), what actions had been taken (either this turn or last turn) and so on. For example, placing a "BLOCK" marker on a character on the map would solve a LOT of the legitimate difficulty of remembering what Orc #27 did last turn...

These new markers would be additional to the ones we will hopefully get for things like dropped weapons and miscellaneous terrain features (pillars, holes in the ground, chests or other furniture, and so on).

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by JLV

Hi Rick,

I've noticed a couple of times in your comments you referenced having to remember who did what in large combat situations. That's a real problem, especially for the poor, overworked GM!

I'd like, therefore, to suggest to Steve Jackson Games that they consider the possibility of including "markers" in the revised Melee, sort of like the ones someone had posted on one of the TFT websites a few years back -- they showed what spells were in effect, that is, being maintained (not so useful in a multi-player game, but VERY useful in a solitaire dungeon), what actions had been taken (either this turn or last turn) and so on. For example, placing a "BLOCK" marker on a character on the map would solve a LOT of the legitimate difficulty of remembering what Orc #27 did last turn...

These new markers would be additional to the ones we will hopefully get for things like dropped weapons and miscellaneous terrain features (pillars, holes in the ground, chests or other furniture, and so on).

JLV, it's a good suggestion. AH's Squad Leader had large amount of counters (and stacked no less!) to maintenance; and the counters which indicated status of certain troop conditions was the only way to logistically control the play. GOOD SUGGESTION for mass combats you propose. A GM "Battle Control Sheet" might be another "Standard Fair" item from other war-games, that TFT might also benefit from for mass combats.

JK

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

JLV, it's a good suggestion. AH's Squad Leader had large amount of counters (and stacked no less!) to maintenance; and the counters which indicated status of certain troop conditions was the only way to logistically control the play. GOOD SUGGESTION for mass combats you propose. A GM "Battle Control Sheet" might be another "Standard Fair" item from other war-games, that TFT might also benefit from for mass combats.

JK

Ha! I was thinking of SPI's Cityfight when I wrote the suggestion (and, of course, those counters someone made up a few years ago), but you are 100% correct about Squad Leader too!

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Hi Rick, not sure what you are referencing here from my post. While I feel TFT is perfect in atmosphere, color, etc. no doubt it has bugs - as you and I discuss a bit further down the page here - being just one example. So, I have no reference to what it is you are disagreeing with specifically. Clarify?

Hi Jim, everyone.
Jim, you had given a very long argument about the perils of changing things. I think it would be a criminal waste of an opportunity if TFT stays the same. There are a LOT of places where large and small changes would help the game significantly.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Rick, you are 100% correct! I had forgotten that was the problem with that rule! Exactly as you stated: "Good for 1-on-1 only; after that, too much mental-overhead." Exactly right.

You could say that this was an optional rule "for small fights only", which I think would be fair. When I am doing big battles, I drop a lot of rules and keep things simple and fast.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Rick, I left you a piece quite some time ago on your questions about Summoning a Demon accidentally in TFT; still waiting on your response to that one. ...

Hi Jim, I remember that post. I had made clear my preference, and you had made yours clear as well. Arguing about personal preferences is pretty pointless.

Also your post buttressed your argument with the logic of magic, and many of those points I felt were baroque. But arguing the logic of magic is also pretty pointless.

Basically I didn't reply because there was nothing I could say which was not just going to cause me to repeat myself, or say, "Uh uh! I say magic does NOT work that way 'cause I know!" If I'm going to take up everyone's time by posting something, I would like to add more the the discussion than "I agree" or "I disagree".

Warm regards, Rick.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Jim, everyone.
Jim, you had given a very long argument about the perils of changing things. I think it would be a criminal waste of an opportunity if TFT stays the same. There are a LOT of places where large and small changes would help the game significantly.

Ah, I see how you have interpreted my post.

The message I was attempting to convey was NOT that everything was fine AS IS, and nothing should be changed; but rather than when one makes changes, one should exercise caution to be certain they are not changing things for the sole purpose of creating "Free Parking Monopoly Windfall Lottery Rules" which work in diametric opposition to the actual intent of the game of: BANKRUPTCY - unless that is what they truly want to do.

So the difference being: my post was NOT a pleading to keep things AS IS, but rather one to carefully examine the implication and consequence of proposed changes for imbalance and unintended consequence ON the game, not IN the game. Hence the entire point-and purpose of the "How House Rules actually change the game-design premise to Monopoly, beyond what it does for the players in the game."

Now I understand both of our confusions. LOL!

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

You could say that this was an optional rule "for small fights only", which I think would be fair. When I am doing big battles, I drop a lot of rules and keep things simple and fast.

I think that could be a very good idea; however, now the question becomes one of how-to determine the actual when and when-not of the rule. Any specific ideas on that Rick?

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Jim, I remember that post. I had made clear my preference, and you had made your clear as well. Arguing about personal preferences is pretty pointless.

From what I recall at this late-date - unless my memory is faulty - your post was comprised of two or three (?) questions which were seeking further information, and not stating a position. Apparently, I mistook your questions as legitimate questions; hence my exhaustive post was offered to share with you the information I had on more esoteric matters. It occurs to me now that your use of the posted "questions" was not as actual interrogatives seeking further information, but merely as a device to drive your position home - a position which I wholly missed.

So no Rick, I never stating any position at all from which to "argue"; but rather, merely shared with you the information I had on the theory and practice of esoteric magickal operations in Hermeticism for your use... in answering questions you really didn't have LOL!

Mea culpa!

Also, I think you will find if you go back through every post of mine you shant find one single instance of "arguing"; in fact, I am fairly sure you would find where I iterate repeatedly that people should do what is right for their game... as my genetics are free of any Prootwaddle blood LOL!

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Also your post buttressed your argument with the logic of magic, and many of those points I felt were baroque. But arguing the logic of magic is also pretty pointless.

Again, no Prootwaddles here LOL!

"Baroque? Yeah, we was broke, so what!" - Eddie Murphy, Trading Places. Paramount Pictures (1983)

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Basically I didn't reply because there was nothing I could say which was not just going to cause me to repeat myself, or say, "Uh uh! I say magic does NOT work that way 'cause I know!" If I'm going to take up everyone's time by posting something, I would like to add more the the discussion than "I agree" or "I disagree".

Again, I sincerely was trying to offer you actual information which you could apply to your questions, which apparently, were not questions after all, but devices.

Now I fully understand why you didn't respond to someone who went out of their way with their time to assist you in finding serviceable answers for your "questions".

LOL! I have to tell you Rick, I was thinking: "This Rick guy is certainly odd, in that, he is extremely friendly in his openings and closings to his posts, but is quite the rude one when it comes to people who provide him specialty information to help him answer his questions for himself LOL!

Like the Monty Python bit about the guy who is alternately complimentary and insulting within the same sentence. LOL!

I am glad we got that all sorted out LOL!

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Warm regards, Rick.

Agreed.

Thanks for taking the time to clear my mystification Rick; I appreciate it.

JK

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Ah, I see how you have interpreted my post. ...

So the difference being: my post was NOT a pleading to keep things AS IS, but rather one to carefully examine the implication and consequence of proposed changes ...

Hi Jim, everyone.
OK. However, I think that most people who are suggesting changes are pretty clear about what they are trying to fix. A lot of those ideas I would never use, because I've got my TFT in a pretty sweet place and the odds of a random solution working in my game are low. That said, many peoples ideas would work OK, but sometimes I think they are missing something, so I am tempted to comment.

So I actually agree with your warning, tho I suspect most of the regular posters have already taken it to heart.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I think that could be a very good idea [when to use Jim's blocking option]; however, now the question becomes one of how-to determine the actual when and when-not of the rule. Any specific ideas on that Rick? ...

Saving it for boss fights, is my suggestion. It seems to me to be too fussy for when the party is beating up a bunch of mooks. I would bring it out when you have fewer figures in a climatic battle. (And if that climatic battle has a swirling melee with lots of people on both sides, maybe not then.)

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... It occurs to me now that your use of the posted "questions" was not as actual interrogatives seeking further information, but merely as a device to drive your position home - a position which I wholly missed.

Yes, I like to present my arguments powerfully and clearly. Obviously I fell down a bit on the 'clearly' part in that post.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... [It was] Like the Monty Python bit about the guy who is alternately complimentary and insulting within the same sentence. LOL!

I am glad we got that all sorted out LOL! ...

Thanks for taking the time to clear my mystification Rick; I appreciate it.

JK

I agree, thanks.

Warm regards, Rick.