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 01-06-2018, 03:35 PM   #141
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles G. View Post
1 hex = 1.3333 meters; so about 4 feet. So roughly 108 feet if I did my math in my head correctly?
There are rules for long range missile fire (for figures with Missile Weapons talent) on page 25 of Advanced Melee:

Out to 25 meters: normal DX penalty
26-50 meters: DX -4
51-100 meters: DX -5
101-150 meters: DX -6
151-200 meters: DX -7
201-250 meters: DX -8 ... and so on.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 03:46 PM   #142
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

There is another option I may have mentioned, which is perhaps even simpler, and something I've being toying with, but it does change the dynamic of tactical play.

Change absolutely nothing except this: instead of using experience points to increase attribute points, they are used to purchase "Hero Points."

These HP can be used during play to alter the results of dice rolls after the roll is made or to change the number of dice used before the roll is made.

Example1; you need to roll a 12 to hit and you roll 13 (normally a miss) but you spend 1HP to reduce the roll to a 12 and thus achieve the desired hit.

Example 2; you score a hit on the enemy but your 1d6 weapon is too light to do heavy damage. You spend 1HP to increase the damage to 2d6.

I've only recently started experimenting with this idea but so far it seems promising.

You could also allow some attribute increase if that's your preference, but more powerful characters will be tough because of more HP not higher attributes.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 04:01 PM   #143
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
There is another option I may have mentioned, which is perhaps even simpler, and something I've being toying with, but it does change the dynamic of tactical play.

Change absolutely nothing except this: instead of using experience points to increase attribute points, they are used to purchase "Hero Points."

These HP can be used during play to alter the results of dice rolls after the roll is made or to change the number of dice used before the roll is made.

Example1; you need to roll a 12 to hit and you roll 13 (normally a miss) but you spend 1HP to reduce the roll to a 12 and thus achieve the desired hit.

Example 2; you score a hit on the enemy but your 1d6 weapon is too light to do heavy damage. You spend 1HP to increase the damage to 2d6.

I've only recently started experimenting with this idea but so far it seems promising.

You could also allow some attribute increase if that's your preference, but more powerful characters will be tough because of more HP not higher attributes.
That system would require a lot of playtesting, I’d imagine. You’d also have to decide if HP are lost permanently when used or do they regenerate? It could be a very interesting and fun RPG...literally the extreme version of the resource management part of classic dungeon crawl games (that I always found engaging). But it would be a very different game and experience than TFT, I think.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 04:13 PM   #144
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
That system would require a lot of playtesting, I’d imagine. You’d also have to decide if HP are lost permanently when used or do they regenerate? It could be a very interesting and fun RPG...literally the extreme version of the resource management part of classic dungeon crawl games (that I always found engaging). But it would be a very different game and experience than TFT, I think.
I had the idea that the HP would regenerate between encounters (I know that's not very precise!) and so would be a reusable resource. Even toying with the idea of allowing the permanent sacrifice of HP to permit survival in hopeless situations. Yes, I admit it would be quite a different experience, but would allow a more high-powered D&D style of game, at least when characters have amassed a fair number of HP.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 06:05 PM   #145
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far northern California
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles G. View Post
1 hex = 1.3333 meters; so about 4 feet. So roughly 108 feet if I did my math in my head correctly?
Oops, you're right. For some reason, I had in my head that a MH was 10 meters; it's actually four. 4 x 9 = 36 meters, A meter is about 3.28 feet. 36 x 3.28 = 118.08 feet, which is still an awfully long way to throw a weapon with enough oomph to cause major injury, and an awful long way to "aim" against a called-shot target with a thrown weapon... But, based on that, I'd recommend a range limitation of ST/2 then for thrown weapons -- it takes muscle to fling a thrown weapon with enough power to insure a wounding or killing hit. So our hypothetical 9 ST person could throw four or five MHs with any likelihood of actually doing a mischief to his opponent; which is still between 52.48 and 65.6 feet, which sounds about right to me...

However, that makes me reconsider the need for a change at all -- under the existing rule, my hypothetical 18 DX character can throw about 10 hexes (or 3 and one third megahexes) before his chances of actually making a hit drop below the point where it's actually worth while to do so -- meaning under the existing rules, he can throw about 42 feet with a reasonable expectation of getting a hit. While that's shorter than the MH distance under the more complex rule above, the above rule is considered in terms of distance and strength only, whereas the bottom rule could also be considered to account for the "flustering" effect of being in actual combat at the time the throw is made -- which would tend to shorten the range at which such an attack will be made. There's also the issue of time of flight of the weapon which we haven't addressed at all -- the longer the distance thrown, the longer the weapon spends in the air, and more likely the target will move, even if only inadvertently, thus rendering the attack a miss or a failure. Steve's existing rule also elegantly accounts for that variable by simply making it much less likely a long-distance throw will actually work; which accounts for the muscle required to make the throw, and the variables on time in flight and the target's likelihood of movement during that time.

Overall then, the more complex rule fails to make any material difference to the outcome, and may actually be less "realistic," and I withdraw my approval for the change; the existing Thrown Weapons rule is just fine. My apologies to Steve for doubting him! ;-)

Last edited by JLV; 01-06-2018 at 08:17 PM.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 06:20 PM   #146
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far northern California
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
The problem, in my opinion, is not the attribute progression system per se. It’s that there simply isn’t much room in a 3d6 system. As noted earlier, a 13 in each stat works out to an 84% chance of success. That means that a 39 point character can be superb in all three areas. A starting character can be superb in one area, average to slightly below average in the other two.

There are several ways to address this, besides ditching the system (or constantly imposing absurd penalties during play):

1. Add more attributes, which violates the TFT emphasis on simplicity.

2. Make attributes much harder to improve. That can frustrate the players’ desire to advance at a reasonably frequent rate.

3. Use a different system than the 3d6 system. That’s what I went with. The hypothetical 39 point character above would be a 51 point character in a d20 system, more or less.

4. Allow players to improve individual skills...wait, that’s GURPS, isn’t it? Letting them add additional talents has some merit, but can easily get out of hand.

5. Abandon the roll vs attribute system, which makes it kinda NOT Fantasy Trip. And which might not actually solve the problem.

6. EDIT - limit attribute advancement to X points above the starting attribute value. Then only allow the character to add talents or spells. Eh, that’s doable, but I’d still prefer the d20 system (possible paired with this system so that the d20 system doesn’t get blown out).

Some form of defense is necessary to prevent the “everyone hits” problem. I loathed the GURPS defense roll, so I won’t even discuss that. I used a system I called Evade/Blitz. An evading character could reduce his adjDX in melee combat and apply the same reduction to his opponent. A blitzing character could do the same, only adding. The character strikes in order of adjDX *before* modification. Since the real problem is “everybody hits”, you could ditch the Blitz (or limit it to significantly less than the Evade option.

Another approach we used was to allow characters with adjDX > 15 to simply modify the enemy’s to hit roll by (say) -1 for every 2 points of adjDX over 15. It worked okay, though it made DX even more valuable. However, characters that used this ability could rarely wear much armor, so they were brittle.

Finally, I wrote up Expert and Master level versions of melee weapon talents. Expert level meant that enemies had to roll 4 dice to hit you in melee (or -3 if you abandon the multiple dice system). Master level meant that enemies had to roll 5 dice to hit you in melee (or -6 DX). These talents required IQ 10 and DX 13+ for Expert, DX 16+ for Master. I can’t recall how well it worked, but the idea was solid. With the minimum required adjDX, A master would hit another master about 50% of the time and an expert would hit an expert about 50% of the time.

So of the options above, I chose the simplest. And it worked very well for us.
But since you completely changed the game, your experience with attribute bloat is not indicative of the reality of TFT. You, by your own statement, went with a system (D20) that materially changed the bell-curve, and which significantly increased the tolerance of your system for high attribute numbers, and then compounded the effect with a host of new rules on combat, talents, etc., tailored to your new bell curve, all of which changed the nature of the problem for you and your gamers. The rest of us, who were playing TFT, had an issue with attribute bloat. Sorry, but them's the facts, and telling us about some other game you were playing doesn't actually invalidate our reasoning about TFT. (NOT trying to be snarky, but I need to point out the logical issue behind your argument and how it changes the nature of your experience.)
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 09:27 PM   #147
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
But since you completely changed the game, your experience with attribute bloat is not indicative of the reality of TFT.
I’ll assume you are taking about both of my posts, since the one you quote very clearly identified the problem that I think exists with the standard 3d6 system and very clearly is a list of ways that I think these problems could be addressed. “There are several ways to address this [purported problem with the 3d6 mechanic]:”

In other words, the changes I list are responses to a perceived problem - the 3d6 system makes too easy to get overly powerful characters in TFT in the base system. Nowhere in my posts can it be reasonably inferred that these changes were driven by the move to a d20 system, or by other changes. The move to the d20 mechanic was an attempt to solve the problem; it cannot reasonably be read to imply that the d20 mechanic caused this purported problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
...by your own statement, went with a system (D20) that materially changed the bell-curve, and which significantly increased the tolerance of your system for high attribute numbers, and then compounded the effect with a host of new rules on combat, talents, etc.
I don't think you read my posts very carefully (they *were* rather long). A clarification - when I said “besides ditching the system” I meant “besides ditching the ‘roll an attribute or under’ system”.

The combat fixes had nothing to do with the 3d6 vs d20 issue. They were simple fixes to widely acknowledged problems (ex. - making boomerangs less overpowering; ditto with certain pole arms) or clarifications (ex. - clarifying the effect of Missile Weapons talent on number of shots a figure can take; an issue at is not clearly addressed in Advanced Melee or ITL).

The other fixes were independent of the d20 mechanic as well and were various attempts to address another widely acknowledged issue with TFT - the problem of everyone hitting 95% of the time, regardless of the skill of their opponent and at comparatively low power levels. These fixes were all tested with the normal 3d6 mechanic and some with the d20 mechanic.

If you don’t think that there’s an “ever one hits most of the time” problem or that the clarifications are required, well, that’s fine with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
...tailored to your new bell curve, all of which changed the nature of the problem for you and your gamers. The rest of us, who were playing TFT, had an issue with attribute bloat. Sorry, but them's the facts, and telling us about some other game you were playing doesn't actually invalidate our reasoning about TFT.
The problem, of course, is that you’re misrepresenting my arguments. I reviewed them and they seem pretty clear to me. So I have to assume you simply misread them. I can’t really imagine that you’d intentionally misrepresent my points...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
NOT trying to be snarky, but I need to point out the logical issue behind your argument and how it changes the nature of your experience.)
Neither am I. But you seem to be misrepresenting my arguments pretty seriously.

Also, I think I’ve been clear that I’m merely offering these ideas as examples of how my group addressed issues that I felt should be addressed. I really couldn’t care less if you (a) disagree that the problems exist or (b) don’t like the proposed solutions. use them or not. If you see a logical or mathematical flaw in a proposed solution that I’ve advocated, I’d be interested. But if your argument boils down to “I don’t think it’s a problem” or “I don’t like it”, my response is simply to shrug and say “suit yourself”.

Nor have I lobbied for any of these changes to be made to the official version of TFT that will ultimately be released. I just don’t care, since I will play the game I want to play. Obviously, I think many of the changes improve the game, but that’s highly subjective, akin to arguing about which brand of potato chip is best (Pringles, obviously) or which version of “I heard it through the Grapevine” is best (Marvin Gaye’s version clearly).

I am mildly curious as to which of these issues you think should be addressed and how you’d address them. If I think your idea is better, I’d certainly acknowledge that fact.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-06-2018 at 10:22 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:20 PM   #148
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far northern California
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
-- snip --

The problem, of course, is that you’re misrepresenting my arguments. I reviewed them and they seem pretty clear to me. So I have to assume you simply misread them. I can’t really imagine that you’d intentionally misrepresent my points...

-- snip --

Nor have I lobbied for any of these changes to be made to the official version of TFT that will ultimately be released. I just don’t care, since I will play the game I want to play. Obviously, I think many of the changes improve the game, but that’s highly subjective, akin to arguing about which brand of potato chip is best (Pringles, obviously) or which version of “I heard it through the Grapevine” is best (Marvin Gaye’s version clearly).
I'm honestly not trying to misrepresent your argument, I'm simply looking at the totality of your posts on this whole D20 idea. You've said that you solved the problem of attribute bloat by converting to a D20 system, which minimized the issue, and then you showed us a bunch of other rules changes you made in order to better fit with your D20 system. If that is a "misrepresentation" of your previous posts, I'm having trouble seeing how. Was that not what you said in them?

In effect, I'm using the exact same approach as you say you are:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I really couldn’t care less if you (a) disagree that the problems exist or (b) don’t like the proposed solutions. use them or not. If you see a logical or mathematical flaw in a proposed solution that I’ve advocated, I’d be interested. But if your argument boils down to “I don’t think it’s a problem” or “I don’t like it”, my response is simply to shrug and say “suit yourself”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Nor have I lobbied for any of these changes to be made to the official version of TFT that will ultimately be released.
As far as "lobbying" for these changes goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Replacing the 3d6 roll with a d20 will simultaneously make lower attribute characters more capable and expand the opportunities for more powerful characters. Obviously, converting monsters will require some effort (like recognizing that IQ 6 animals would have a revised IQ of 2).
...Which sounds a bit like at least advocating the change... Nor, might I add, was I the only one who read it that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
I would like to hope that there is absolutely no chance of replacing 3d6 with d20.
To which your response (I won't quote the whole thing here) was pretty much solid advocacy for a D20 solution.

So again, I'm not sure what I'm "misrepresenting" here, but whatever. If you were offended by my failure to fully grasp your position here, I apologize for that, but all I can do is read what people write...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I am mildly curious as to which of these issues you think should be addressed and how you’d address them. If I think your idea is better, I’d certainly acknowledge that fact.
I've made it pretty clear in this thread that my primary issue is the attribute bloat issue, and even offered suggestions on how to fix it, so I'd say "asked and answered" would be the response in court. I've also made it pretty clear throughout this thread that I think Steve's ideas on pretty much any TFT subject are probably better than any number of house rules or systems revisions any of us will come up with. So my "solution" is to raise the things I think are problematic, offer a suggestion on how to fix them, and then sit back and let the designer make his decision, which I will then cheerfully accept -- pretty much the same SOP I used in the military when the general asked us for comments and critiques on the plan or procedure he wanted to execute. At the end of the day, if Steve likes a suggestion that someone makes on these boards, he'll probably pick it up and run with it (though at the end of it all, the idea may not bear much relationship to the original proposal!). ;-)

Now, please, don't be upset with me over this. I'm not attacking you personally at all; I'm merely pointing out issues that your own comments have raised in my mind and asking if what you seem to have said was what you meant. If it is, then by all means, let's agree to disagree and continue on down our separate paths; if not, then explain to me where I'm wrong or "misrepresenting" you, and help me to better grasp your arguments. As it stands, what I'm hearing from you can be roughly summarized as: "Attribute bloat isn't a problem, and here's the system we use to play, which is completely different from TFT as written." Is that a "misrepresentation" of your comments? If so, please help me understand how. I'm always ready and willing to admit I'm wrong or made a mistake if that is indeed the case. Also, please don't think that I'm saying that your ideas are bad ideas, or that what you created isn't a great game (really, if you and your players are having fun, that's all that matters); all I'm saying is that it's not "TFT" anymore. Likewise, I've done enough house ruling in my own games over the past 35 years that they aren't TFT anymore either. In fact, I wonder if ANYONE is still playing actual, you know, TFT, as written, anymore!

Last edited by JLV; 01-07-2018 at 04:47 AM.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:34 PM   #149
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

A lot of what is being discussed at this stage of the thread are basically other games. There are hundreds of roleplaying games, and I'm sure people will write hundreds more, and lots will be great. But I think we should all hope TFT stays closely recognizable as what it always was. 3d6 (mostly); 32 stat points; deadly as hell; and all the rest of the stuff we know.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2018, 12:22 AM   #150
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far northern California
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
A lot of what is being discussed at this stage of the thread are basically other games. There are hundreds of roleplaying games, and I'm sure people will write hundreds more, and lots will be great. But I think we should all hope TFT stays closely recognizable as what it always was. 3d6 (mostly); 32 stat points; deadly as hell; and all the rest of the stuff we know.
Amen, brother! ;-)
JLV 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 06:06 PM.


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