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 01-09-2018, 12:02 AM   #11
Andrew Hackard
Munchkin Line Editor
 
Andrew Hackard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
(And sad to say, these times are no more or no less moral than those times. The lines are merely drawn in different places. Humans don't change; they just get smug.)
Mr. Beard, this characterization includes a number of your fellow posters and could be considered a group attack. You've made your opinion clear, and now we're asking you to move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Moderators, could you delete the sexism accusation, my response and your reprimand, just to clean the thread up?
No, I don't think we'll be revising history to make you look better.
__________________
Andrew Hackard || Munchkin Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games

Twitter: @SJGames || Facebook: SJ Games and Munchkin || Medium: @SJGames
Instagram: @stevejacksongames || YouTube: Steve Jackson Games

New Munchkin player? Visit our Munchkin 101 forum!
Andrew Hackard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 12:44 AM   #12
ak_aramis
 
ak_aramis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
I joined the SCA to research MELEE (and had a lot of fun, and stayed in for years). One of the first things that I learned is that most swordfighting does not involve parries; fencing is a spectacular exception. If you are using your weapon to parry, you are not using it to strike.

Now, rattan (which is what SCA weapons are made of) is NOT the same thing as metal. It is known :) I am told by those who have swung real swords at real shields that metal has less "bounce" even when it does not bite into its target. But I came away feeling that if you have a blocking device (cloak, shield, second sword, chair) you should use that to block with, and use your weapon to hit with.

I enjoyed SCA fencing a great deal, and eventually became competent, and it really is a different art.
Having studied several different forms, including 4 armed forms...

Low-armor forms, like SCA Rapier/Fencing, tend to be parry heavy. If there is one thing TFT lacks, it's the ability to cover the civil HEMA forms. It's VERY VERY close to SCA Heavy.

But one thing about Armored combat - shields are damned effective against blades. But blades can bypass the shield.

I'd suggest +1D difficulty to bypass the shield's damage resistance.

A parrying talent allowing a roll to block would be a good addition, provided it's not too
ak_aramis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 07:15 AM   #13
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard View Post
No, I don't think we'll be revising history to make you look better.
Seems a tad harsh, coming from a moderator. A simple “no” would’ve gotten it done.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-09-2018 at 07:31 AM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 07:24 AM   #14
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_aramis View Post
Having studied several different forms, including 4 armed forms...

Low-armor forms, like SCA Rapier/Fencing, tend to be parry heavy. If there is one thing TFT lacks, it's the ability to cover the civil HEMA forms. It's VERY VERY close to SCA Heavy.

But one thing about Armored combat - shields are damned effective against blades. But blades can bypass the shield.

I'd suggest +1D difficulty to bypass the shield's damage resistance.

A parrying talent allowing a roll to block would be a good addition, provided it's not too
You may have uncovered the real issue. It may not be possible to thoroughly cover both “light” and “heavy” styles of combat in a single, *simple* set of rules. At the very least, they may require somewhat different rules. In the Real World, didn’t “light” combat systems evolve because gunpowder ultimately reduced heavy armor? If so, then they wouldn’t exist in a normal fantasy setting. That would be unfortunate because my campaigns feature a fair amount of swashbuckling.

Maybe a “classic” Melee covering “heavy” combat and a Melee Swashbuckler supplement covering “light”combat? The latter could have specialized rules that better handle light combat. These rules might be structured so that they are compatible with the classic Melee game, but not at all essential for it.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-09-2018 at 08:15 AM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 08:16 AM   #15
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
...and yes, it reads oddly now. (The punctuation is kind of funky, too.)
Yes, I think I blame you for my lifelong overuse of ellipses...
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 08:53 AM   #16
ak_aramis
 
ak_aramis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
You may have uncovered the real issue. It may not be possible to thoroughly cover both “light” and “heavy” styles of combat in a single, *simple* set of rules. At the very least, they may require somewhat different rules. In the Real World, didn’t “light” combat systems evolve because gunpowder ultimately reduced heavy armor? If so, then they wouldn’t exist in a normal fantasy setting. That would be unfortunate because my campaigns feature a fair amount of swashbuckling.

Maybe a “classic” Melee covering “heavy” combat and a Melee Swashbuckler supplement covering “light”combat?
Gunpowder was not, itself, the issue; spanish breast-and-back sets were often "Proofed" by a point blank shot from a musket; it was "proven" by only dimpling.

The split in sword techniques boils down to military vs civilian. "The Arte of Defense" was civilian; fencing is the derivative term. Sword and board was military. Civilians did not typically wear armor, nor typically carry a shield.

Quite literally, what killed armor was the expense of knights vs the expense of killing them.

Footmen with halberd replacing pike - shure, less range, but the ability to choke up and melee... and the different effects with the halberd head: an Axe for putting deep grooves into flesh and/or thin plate; a pick (for punching through chain or heavy plate), a spear for repelling knightly charges. The pick was also often slightly curved, to pull knights off their horses.

And The buttspike for post-sweihander two handed use... ;)

The Crossbow, far more than gunpowder, was capable of defeating knights with relatively untrained use. At the time, it was more accurate, more powerful, easier to train, and way more reliable. The energy on target is comparable to a 7.62N round... much slower, but way more mass. 3000+ grains at 200+ fps, and (unlike the firearms of the day) able to fire a case hardened AP bolt with good accuracy.

When 2 weeks of training can defeat 20 years of training... the 20 years have been wasted.

There's also the issue of the Roman Church withdrawing the ban on cannons. Grapeshot can take out knights easily.

Remember: I don't have to put my weapon into you to hurt you; I just have to put its energy into you in a concentrated enough space.

Another weapon that was making the knight obsolete was the Glaive - popular in scotland and the northlands, it was literally a seax on a stick, often with a hook on the back, and sometimes, a back-spike. The hook was, like the beak on a halberd, for pulling knights down; the sturdy blade would break bones through the armor. And the blade was sturdy enough to poke with, too. A poor man's version of the Halberd.

Simply put, knights were not worth their upkeep on the battlefield, let alone the cost of armoring them. Economics, coupled with religion and politics, not so much technical revolution.
ak_aramis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 09:02 AM   #17
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
Thank you for a very useful thread topic and ground rules, Ty. Now everybody play nice. I will point out that the issue Ty is pointing out is real! We are in 2018, things have changed, and we are trying to modernize gender references in our newly released material, while at the same time expecting our fans of all genders to understand that this text was written a long time ago, according to then standard manuals of style, and yes, it reads oddly now. (The punctuation is kind of funky, too.)

"Their" still sounds like a plural to me, since I learned to read in the 1950s, but "plural includes the singular" is no more strained than "masculine includes the feminine."

Scary to think that I've been doing this long enough that my oldest work requires TRANSLATION. I shall try to keep evolving.
I find the fact that of all the neuter pronouns that have been added to English (and the one that's been there all along), because it causes a loss of information. We crippled our second-person plural in official contexts; you crippled yours in all contexts, murdering its sibling 'thou', I would've hoped that Englishmen wouldn't so carelessly do it with the third-person after witnessing the ambiguity of 'you' for a lifetime.

That being said, I have an impression that the things you say about changes are heavily skewed towards viewing the world through the cultural lens of the former British Empire. For example, the assumption that this is a one-way street, or that grammatical genders are tightly linked to social genders.
Examples:
There are many peoples for which the moon is grammatically feminine, but that does not imply that a piece of rock has a social gender; a robot is grammatically masculine, even though the hypothetical individual robot may be socially feminine; the same automobile may be grammatically masculine, neuter or feminine depending on whether you spell the word fully, shorten it halfway, or shorten it to its shortest form.

It can even go further than that. Consider the following paragraph:
"A person came to see you. Her name is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He wants to become a governor."
This is a grammatically correct formation around here, because 'person', 'human', 'individual', and even '-man' when used in composites like 'Spider-Man' are all feminine words, and 'her' in this case refers to the person who came to see you.

Recently, I've been shown an even more interesting example from a culture I didn't know much about: apparently for the Jewish people, some words are grammatically masculine in singular and feminine in plural, or vice versa.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 09:36 AM   #18
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

One of the challenges with using SCA heavy weapons fighting as a guide to armed combat is that the scoring system means your armor doesn't 'work' - i.e., a sharp rap that stops on an armored location scores a point, despite the fact that it would not effect you. And blows that would harm an armored opponent without finding a gap in protection - like full-rotation hits with a heavy pole arm, or a grappling throw - are disallowed. This isn't a criticism of the sport; all combat sports have protective rules and/or gear (usually both) that shape how you win and therefore how you approach the activity. But it does mean that SCA heavy weapon fighting is not very much like late medieval armored combat. Nor is it very much like unarmored combat, because of the restrictions in movement. It is like SCA heavy weapons combat. Which is cool, but its own thing.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 12:29 PM   #19
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Another possible "glitch":

Requiring Wizards to expend ST each turn to maintain summoned creatures, invisibility, flight, light, etc., made sense in an arena wargame. However, they create very serious limitations in an RPG. Should there perhaps be "extended duration" versions of these spells which last much longer (12 turns, or even an hour in the case of non-combat spells like light)? Maybe it takes 2 turns to cast an extended duration spell or more ST or both. I would assume that wizards know both the normal and extended versions of each spell.

Should Trip be nerfed so that it's no longer automatic? Maybe give the target a 4/DX or even 5/DX roll to not fall down? Should it be able to affect a figure that didn’t move?

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-09-2018 at 03:07 PM. Reason: Added additional entries
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 05:49 PM   #20
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

Thrown weapons talent - should it help with EVERY thrown weapon (specifically, I’m thinking of the net and the thrown nunchuks)?

Consider if it would be a good idea to allow figures to change facing at no MA cost after all movement has been done. Consider a figure that loses initiative but begins with an enemy in his front left and front right hexes. He can’t shift because doing so would break engagement. When the enemy figures move, each of them shifts into his side hexes. In combat, he can’t attack either of them. Worse, each of them gets a +2 DX for attacking his side.

Snap Shot. Consider an advanced rule allowing figures to fire a readied missile weapon during the movement phase to prevent “panzer bushing”. I’d suggest that you allow a figure who is eligible to fire in a turn to “hold fire” and fire in the movement phase of the following turn. To discourage gratuitous use of this ability, I’d impose a -2 DX if the firer shoots during the enemy movement phase. If he waits until the combat phase, no modifier. A figure that makes a “snap shot” like this shouldn’t be able to fire in the COMBAT phase. If the figure has enough adjDX to fire two shots, I’d let him fire them both as snap shots or hold one for the combat phase. (This rule would be very important for higher tech TFT variants).

I generally discouraged peculiar weapons in my campaigns, so I didn’t get as much exposure to any glitches with them. Boomerangs and bolas are the exception, which I’ve mentioned earlier. Has anyone else found any peculiar weapon issues?

Definitely keep the ability for Wizards to use silver weapons.

How do you imprison wizards? Perhaps manacles can be made out of some substance - copper or magnetic iron - that will completely jam magic? Maybe spells have minor material components that the wizard can be deprived of?

Should wizards be able to take the quarterstaff talent at normal cost?

I would suggest that if a wizard throws his staff at a target and hits it, the staff does NOT explode. Rationale is that the wizard actually wants to hit the target. The staff only explodes if the wizard doesn’t want someone to touch it. Consider eliminating exploding staves altogether.

Should charge attacks with pole weapons require that the pole weapon be used 2 handed? Other than lances. Should probably note somewhere that mounted charge attacks require stirrups.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 02-06-2018 at 01:44 PM. Reason: Edited text in "snap shot" section
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.