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, 11:53 PM   #241
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Okay, that was completely different from the way I was reading it. I see your point, but I have to think about it for a while before I can constructively comment; mostly because I don't think I ever worried about some sort of EP scale for the individual opponents much. It may even be an issue, though no one ever brought it up in any of my campaigns -- a kill was a kill was a kill for my crew, and any bonus came from looting the body of the victim! ;-)
It wasn't on our radar either at first either. But after some conspicuous examples, and especially after five or six years of playing TFT all the time, when we noticed our higher-level campaigns (40-46 points with a few magic items) started to seem problematic. The 46-pointer wasn't even munchkiny but he was smart and he had armor 9, adjDX 16, and could pull off sweeping blows doing about 3d+3 damage, so he could take out three decent-ish opponents per turn and was rarely in any danger except from exceptional opponents. But it was painfully clear that laying waste to 30-36 point opponents with no special equipment, while nearly not worth rolling the dice, was giving more EP than defeating someone who was a worthy opponent. So we made an EP system that would take that into account, though it means calculating the combat value of everyone and comparing it and maybe doing some pro-rating if you want to be accurate, which many wouldn't want to do, but there could be a simpler version written, and it could be an optional rule.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
I think Dragons of Underearth is a non-event in SJG's world. That seemed to be HT's attempt to "dumb down" TFT into whatever it was that HT apparently originally wanted from Steve in the beginning (at least, based on Mr. Thompson's complaints at the time), and Mr. Jackson doesn't have copyright to it anyway, so I think it's a moot point at best.
I thought so too. I thought the idea for a larger-unit combat system in Lords of Underearth was good, but HT's later design efforts seemed to want to dumb things down (not the direction we wanted) and were not nearly as well designed or edited as SJ's stuff. I tried it and realized it wasn't as good as the wargame systems I was already using for larger combats, and that it had silly things like the narrow tunnel modifier meaning one dwarf champion could not only hold a narrow tunnel against 100 orcs, the 100 orcs would all die... etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
One more comment I'd like to throw out for consideration here.

Many years ago, someone published a neat little article on "Magic Backlash in TFT." ...
Yeah, we also added a Magic Item Breakdown system and table which we really liked (versions of which I still use in GURPS), particularly because we had reached a balance crisis where the challenge of fighting lesser foes without magic was vanishing. But it mainly felt needed/wanted later on. I'd have such things as options rather than core rules (also because some people dislike unreliable magic).
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 02:36 AM   #242
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
I thought so too. I thought the idea for a larger-unit combat system in Lords of Underearth was good, but HT's later design efforts seemed to want to dumb things down (not the direction we wanted) and were not nearly as well designed or edited as SJ's stuff. I tried it and realized it wasn't as good as the wargame systems I was already using for larger combats, and that it had silly things like the narrow tunnel modifier meaning one dwarf champion could not only hold a narrow tunnel against 100 orcs, the 100 orcs would all die... etc.
Ha! Yeah, I remember that! Of course, it makes perfect sense if you're writing a fantasy novel a la Tolkien -- one hero is easily worth 100 of those nasty, cowardly, orcs... But it kind of screwed up the game -- plus the method for translating individuals into LoU small-unit terms didn't work that great, as I recall; probably because they didn't really fully develop it. Sorry to bring this up here, but SJG did a pretty good job with GURPS Mass Combat -- maybe they can use some similar structure for small skirmishes -- and even large battles -- in TFT!
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 03:39 AM   #243
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
Because I am a troublemaker, I will point out that TFT had two implicit classes: those with magic talent, who got to buy their spells cheaply, and everyone else.

But I am not going to propose the introduction of a class system. I'm not that heretical. I will admit that that kind of system has its points, pun not intended . . . but just no. D&D has that base covered.
Ha! I even did away with that distinction. I saw no reason why Wizard shouldn't just be a talent like everything else. So that's what I did. I had two talents as I recall. The first, "Magic User" was IQ 8 and was designed for Witches, Hedge-Wizards and those without formal Magical Training. Magic Users could use spells up to IQ 13. "Wizard" was IQ 14 and allowed learning and use of all spells up to IQ 20.

I also had two levels of Clerical Magic: A "Devotee" could cast blessings and call on some minor God powers. The higher level, "Priest" allowed the performance of higher level stuff like performing religious services, consecrating shrines, curses, etc.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 03:54 AM   #244
ak_aramis
 
ak_aramis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
I DO NOT want to "dis" your idea here. But I have to say, from my personal perspective, putting out a TFT-lite is like serving a hotdog bun and telling the customer; "now imagine there's some meat in there..." Honestly, I loved Lords of Underearth, but considered Dragons, as published, pretty much a rip-off -- I was basically paying again for a worse version of a game I already owned. And I don't think my opinion would have changed had I bought them in reverse order. The extra counters and maps suitable for TFT were nice, though...

TFT is already pretty light, and if he does indeed go with Melee and Wizard separately first, followed by full-up TFT, then you already HAVE your lite version. It's one of the things that made TFT so easy to learn in the first place -- it was modular, and you could tackle physical combat, then magical combat, and then tie it all together with a nice framework. Putting it another way, TFT is already about as "lite" as I want to go...

HOWEVER -- that is only my PERSONAL opinion and is in no way a reflection on the quality or utility of your concept to others! I wouldn't buy a "lite" version, but that's probably just me.
Note that Dragons was my gateway to a "full TFT"...
I had played melee, but couldn't find wizard, nor ITL. I got AM, AW, and the 1981 FMC because I found Dragons of Underearth, and saw it as an RPG

You're angry that it covered the same material - but for me, it was the gateway to the rest of the game, and the only RPG rules chunk I had access to.
See, I found TFT in fall of 1983, courtesy of a friend, and then went looking. The Book Cache (Anchorage, AK) had Melee, Dragons, and several solos; later they got wizard. But none of the "full sized books" - for those, I had to make my way (3 busses) to Spenard Hobby, but first I had to know they existed.

I didn't find ITL until about Spring 1987.
ak_aramis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 06:43 AM   #245
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Regarding classes and classless systems, I’d add that I consider TFT to be functionally classless. The Hero vs. Wizards distinction could be replaced by making a Wizard talent that would let wizards buy spells a lot cheaper, but it’s a much easier and cleaner solution to have the Wizard and Hero distinction.

This is a good thing in my opinion. I think that mechanics and systems should be selected because they work. I don’t mind harmonized systems, but I don’t think there’s that much virtue in harmonization in and of itself. That’s why I don’t object to 5 levels of Unarmed Combat, when most other weapon talents have 1 or 2 levels. Yes, it’s inconsistent with the treatment of other weapon talents. Yes, it works (in my opinion). And no, I don’t care about the inconsistency. (Not trying to reignite the debate on Unarmed Combat; just using it as an example).

That may be one of the qualities of Old School gaming - use whatever it takes to get it done. And yes, needless inconsistency can, at some point, be a bad thing.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 08:01 AM   #246
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
Regarding classes and classless systems, I’d add that I consider TFT to be functionally classless. The Hero vs. Wizards distinction could be replaced by making a Wizard talent that would let wizards buy spells a lot cheaper, but it’s a much easier and cleaner solution to have the Wizard and Hero distinction.

This is a good thing in my opinion. I think that mechanics and systems should be selected because they work. I don’t mind harmonized systems, but I don’t think there’s that much virtue in harmonization in and of itself. That’s why I don’t object to 5 levels of Unarmed Combat, when most other weapon talents have 1 or 2 levels. Yes, it’s inconsistent with the treatment of other weapon talents. Yes, it works (in my opinion). And no, I don’t care about the inconsistency. (Not trying to reignite the debate on Unarmed Combat; just using it as an example).

That may be one of the qualities of Old School gaming - use whatever it takes to get it done. And yes, needless inconsistency can, at some point, be a bad thing.
As you say, the system is functionally classless, so I decided to make it completely so. This was, in large part, because I was introducing a third character type - the Devoted, and rather than create a third set of distinctions seperare from attributes/talents, I decided to put everything into the talent system. This for me was much simpler.

Whether it's simpler to distinguish between characters beyond Attributes and Talents, as presently happens, is debatable. I also don't agree with your idea that "whatever it takes to get the job done" is acceptable. That's what happened with Dungeons and Dragons - a huge morass of inconsistent rules, and why I moved on to something much more logical like TFT.

I do agree however, that the unarmed combat talents always worked for us, and I see no reason to change them. I don't think anyone got beyond UCIII in any case.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 11:22 AM   #247
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles G. View Post
Y...particularly if you are going to deify Oriental martial arts to goofy degrees.

I understand how you got to the conclusion you came to, but you're seriously misunderstanding this. Thx.
Heh. I like "deify Oriental martial arts". We sorta did that a lot in the 70s and early 80s, didn't we?

I think you also agreed that it might be acceptable to add expert and master level weapon talents in lieu of nerfing Unarmed Combat. That would be my preference.

As an alternative, perhaps an explicit comment that GMs should feel free to eliminate Unarmed Combat 3+ talents if they don't want Bruce Lee style characters. UC 1 and 2 make decent general purpose brawling talents. I would, however, either reduce them to IQ 8 talents or provide IQ 8 Fisticuff or Brawling talent(s) that would allow a figure to do 1-2 extra points of damage.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 12:07 PM   #248
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_aramis View Post
Note that Dragons was my gateway to a "full TFT"...
I had played melee, but couldn't find wizard, nor ITL. I got AM, AW, and the 1981 FMC because I found Dragons of Underearth, and saw it as an RPG

You're angry that it covered the same material - but for me, it was the gateway to the rest of the game, and the only RPG rules chunk I had access to.
See, I found TFT in fall of 1983, courtesy of a friend, and then went looking. The Book Cache (Anchorage, AK) had Melee, Dragons, and several solos; later they got wizard. But none of the "full sized books" - for those, I had to make my way (3 busses) to Spenard Hobby, but first I had to know they existed.

I didn't find ITL until about Spring 1987.
Well, not angry. Just disappointed! But yeah, circumstances DO make a difference. I was fortunate enough to have a couple of good hobby stores close by, back in those days (in El Paso, Texas), and got them all as they came out (mostly because I'd stumbled across Ogre and Stellar Conquest at one of them and thus learned about both Metagaming -- who did have some excellent games -- and microgames all at the same time!
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 12:24 PM   #249
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default TFT - Highly skilled characters.

Hi all,
I am totally charmed that TFT is coming back! Great work Steve!

When I was playing TFT long ago I was reading the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories by Fritz Lieber, and they had two swords, "Grey Wand" and "Scalpel". I assumed that they were awesome weapons. Fine +2 Damage, & + 1 DX. Super magics too! +2 Charm for sure. Then I read that the blades were broken several times and the heroes always replaced them with similar blades.

This blew my mind! F. & the G.M. were awesome not because they had kick ass blades, but because THEY were good.

I tried to think how TFT would handle that and nothing really came to mind. Other than just getting more and more DX, how did great swordsmen distinguish themselves from OK ones?

I decided then that I would add a bunch more talents to TFT, which would allow more specialization for heroes. More thief talents so great thieves could distinguish themselves from OK ones. More fighting talents. More ranger type talents. etc.

This also had the added benefit that high attribute heroes were better balanced with high attribute wizards.

So #1 on my wish list for new TFT, is more talents - especially some awesome ones which are hard to get.

Warm regards, Rick.

Last edited by Rick_Smith; 01-10-2018 at 12:40 PM. Reason: Fixed Grammar
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 12:27 PM   #250
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
As you say, the system is functionally classless, so I decided to make it completely so. This was, in large part, because I was introducing a third character type - the Devoted, and rather than create a third set of distinctions seperare from attributes/talents, I decided to put everything into the talent system. This for me was much simpler.

Whether it's simpler to distinguish between characters beyond Attributes and Talents, as presently happens, is debatable. I also don't agree with your idea that "whatever it takes to get the job done" is acceptable. That's what happened with Dungeons and Dragons - a huge morass of inconsistent rules, and why I moved on to something much more logical like TFT.

I do agree however, that the unarmed combat talents always worked for us, and I see no reason to change them. I don't think anyone got beyond UCIII in any case.
I tried a different, but essentially similar approach. I analyzed the Talents list and came to the conclusion that there were "talents," in the sense of things people are born with, and either have or don't have (things like better hearing or sight, innate toughness and resistance to disease, and yes, basic "charisma"); and "skills" which were trainable/teachable abilities. Among those things in the "talents" category, I thought (based on the way it was described in the game) was magic talent. So that's the way I broke it out. "Talents" -- the inborn things -- you took at creation, Humans and Orcs could take up to two of them, while the other normal player species (elves, dwarves, etc.) only got to take one, because their unique characteristics equated to an extra talent in my opinion (the "talent" of being an Elf with the advantages an Elf is given). Among those talents was the capability to use magic. Once you selected your talents, that was it, that was all she wrote. These talents conferred small, but useful advantages in things like "perception rolls," or healing rolls or resistance rolls to poisons/diseases, or whatever. Skills, you could learn normally (IQ levels, all that other stuff -- which later was morphed by me somewhat by letting players buy skills with XP separately from Attributes. ("Warrior" and "Veteran" were sort of the odd men out, but they worked fine the way they were, so no tinkering...though I had a "toughness" talent that was like a milder form of warrior...)

You'll note a couple of things here -- one, I moved to what was essentially the GURPS advantages/disadvantages system, except I only provided a very limited number of "advantages" (the Talents) that players could take, and no disadvantages. You had to pick and choose. And they didn't change for the rest of the character's life. One of those talents was what GURPS called "Magery" (and what I, in a spurt of sheer poetic imagination, called "magic using ability"), which meant that fighters could take two "useful" talents, but Wizards only got one -- and the ability to use magic, which might be the best one of all. And anyone could learn skills, but Wizards were at the usual disadvantages (the talent of magery forced their minds into different channels and it was hard to cross-over and learn things that other people found relatively easy to learn).

And I did all of this before I found GURPS (I was out of the gaming world at large for a number of years, thanks to being stationed in Berlin doing shift-work during the Cold War, followed almost immediately by numerous multi-month deployments to vacation spots like Panama, Saudi Arabia, and the jungles of Honduras, for various wars and other assorted foolishness -- which really limited my ability and time available for gaming of any kind; so I kind of missed GURPS, and most other new games, until about 1993 or so).

Last edited by JLV; 01-10-2018 at 01:59 PM.
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 12:27 PM.


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