TFT Dungeon Crawling

[larsdangly]

I intensely dislike games in which the PCs operate under a different set of rules than NPCs. So, I'd be pretty irritated if the damage/injury/death mechanics in TFT were changed in that way.

[ecz]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I intensely dislike games in which the PCs operate under a different set of rules than NPCs. So, I'd be pretty irritated if the damage/injury/death mechanics in TFT were changed in that way.

I agree. But all rules have an exception.
So, for example, while PCs and NPCs live and fight using the same rules, it's a good idea (to speed up the combat) let die the cannon fodder at zero ST, or let them fall unconscious at 1 ST when a PC in the same situation can still survive

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by ecz

I agree. But all rules have an exception.
So, for example, while PCs and NPCs live and fight using the same rules, it's a good idea (to speed up the combat) let die the cannon fodder at zero ST, or let them fall unconscious at 1 ST when a PC in the same situation can still survive

Nothing in the luck points suggestion requires that NPCs and/or monsters be treated differently than PCs, so the original objection (not yours of course) isn't really relevant.

I merely observed that restricting mooks from having luck points would make them easier to kill. But that was obviously dicta - i.e., not a primary goal of the luck point system and not at all necessary for the luck points system to work.

Of course, the classic D&D/AD&D game - which invented dungeon crawling - treats PCs and NPCs/Monsters very differently, and in a largely agreeable way. So I don't have a problem with treating NPCs and PCs differently, particularly when simulating the dungeon crawl experience.

In my campaigns, I always reserve the right to treat powerful or unusual NPCs/Monsters the same as PCs.

But by the same token, I find that encounters with hordes low level monsters went much faster if I didn't track each individual critter's ST. So I generally ruled them out of action if they took (say) 5+ points of damage.

Personally, I'm a lot more interested in what works. If a simple, special damage rule speeds up mass combats with weaker monster, huzzah. If defining Monsters and NPCs with abbreviated stats (like original D&D/AD&D) improves the game, I'm fine with that. Indeed, I prefer it. Of course, the latter point is largely academic in TFT's case. With only 3 stats to deal with, two of which substitute for level (adjDX) and hit points (ST), there's no need for an AD&D style simplified rating system. The exception (for me, at least) is with large numbers of minor monsters/npcs. In that case, as I noted, I prefer to have them drop if they take a single decent hit.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

In effect, you created the kind of “recovery” system I posited, though different than my idea. I don’t think I’d care for it because of the hassle implicit in tracking every discrete wound (and occasionally auditing the players), but that’s highly subjective. It *is* a lower footprint modification, which is always a Good Thing.

How do you record wounds? I've almost always written -3, -2 etc on the sheet, so it didn't involve doing anything different. With Codex-style damage boxes, you can just put a little ' mark between wounds.

I seem to usually have analytical / critical friends who couldn't tolerate the idea that physicking between each wound would have such a disproportionate effect on the amount of healing possible.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Perhaps. I was only musing.

One of the main things that had TFT break down on my original campaign was simply characters that had strong armor and could still reliably hit for 3d+ damage each turn. Fine Chainmail + self-powered Iron Flesh + Warrior talent = 9, making many humans with non-magical weapons and/or non-large weapons almost incapable of endangering the PC. Double and Triple damage results are one of the main things that keeps unexpected risk on the table when armor starts to negate damage from many hits.


As for having many fighters drop out after a single good hit, I often roleplay characters so that many may well tend to stop fighting when seriously hurt regardless of what's theoretically possible for them to do. Even non-mooks and PCs, as it's often also a good way to increase the odds of survival. (TFT Engagement rules as written (...) can make it tough to get away, though they can play dead.)

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Skarg

How do you record wounds? I've almost always written -3, -2 etc on the sheet, so it didn't involve doing anything different. With Codex-style damage boxes, you can just put a little ' mark between wounds.

I increment down, but players differ on how they do it. My games tend to move very quickly and I'm very paranoid about implementing anything that will increase "friction".

Your system seems to have no particular advantages over the luck point system - though it isn't particularly inferior either. It lacks the resource management angle since presumably the physickers are not limited in the number of times the physicker can heal. But it's a bit less abstract, which may matter to certain types of players.

But...decades of roleplaying and writing numerous combat systems have convinced me that hit points do a very poor job of modeling how humans take and react to damage. So I don't really have a problem abstracting them a bit more.

Also, SJ calibrated the TFT physicker's ability to heal 2 or 3 points of damage on the assumption that one healing would be done after each combat. Obviously, this is abstracted and (I suspect) designed to avoid having to track each wound.

If so, then your system might seriously overstate the amount of healing that the designer would find plausible. Maybe they should only heal one point per wound. Or 1/2 a point. Or whatever.

In my opinion, the most "realistic" damage would be a blend of Runequest's hit location system, a blood loss system ala the original Morrow Project, and a non-cumulative wounding system ala Striker or Azhanti High Lightning. It would be far more realistic than hit points. And it would be far less fun.

All of that said, "complexity" and "hassle" are extremely subjective. There was a time when I didn't find 1st Ed. Chivalry and Sorcery too complicated. And some don't to this day.

I don't think either system is necessarily superior. They just provide different play experiences that reasonable folks can differ on. So if your system suits you better, I'd stay with it. I just don't think it is better for me than the luck points system.

I seem to usually have analytical / critical friends who couldn't tolerate the idea that physicking between each wound would have such a disproportionate effect on the amount of healing possible.

But as noted, the *number* of points you allow them to heal per wound may be questionable.

One of the main things that had TFT break down on my original campaign was simply characters that had strong armor and could still reliably hit for 3d+ damage each turn. Fine Chainmail + self-powered Iron Flesh + Warrior talent = 9, making many humans with non-magical weapons and/or non-large weapons almost incapable of endangering the PC. Double and Triple damage results are one of the main things that keeps unexpected risk on the table when armor starts to negate damage from many hits.

Well, here's a possible fix, though it is blasphemous.

One version of my polyhedral weapons table introduces a single die roll for armor protection (and a single die roll for damage). Leather armor stops 1d4 hits; a broadsword does 1d12 damage. The system does make armor slightly more effective and weapons slightly less effective. (Leather averages 2.5 points and broadswords average 6.5 points). But that seems a fair trade for more unpredicable combats. Your 9 point stopping warrior above would stop d12+3 damage. Or d20-1 if you really want a wild range.

You can tweak this as you wish. If you want a less extreme range, you could have the warrior stop 1d6+6 hits (or 1d8+5, or 1d10+4) and the broadsword keep its 2d6 damage (or do 1d6+3 damage). Or you could keep weapon damage as is, though I'd replace some damages with a bell curve. A longbow would do 2d-2 instead of 1d+2, for instance.

Anyhow, this might help mitigate the problem you describe. You could also modify Iron Flesh so that it doesn't work as well with armor. But of course, a self-powered Iron Flesh item would cost $160,000, so perhaps it should be pretty awesome. To be fair, the same result could be obtained by enchanting the armor to stop 5 points - but that would still cost $31,000.

However, I abandoned it because it slowed things down a bit. But just using polyhedrals for weapon damage would help. A broadsword would damage that opponent 1/6 of the time if it does 2d6. It would damage the opponent 1/4 of the time using a d12.

You could put the fear of the GM into players by basing all weapons damage on a d20 (!). A broadsword would do d20-4. A shortsword d20-5. A dagger d20-8. Etc. Even a lowly dagger could occasionally put some serious hurt on someone.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I increment down, but players differ on how they do it. My games tend to move very quickly and I'm very paranoid about implementing anything that will increase "friction".

I get not wanting to slow your rate down.
What does increment down mean?

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Your system seems to have no particular advantages over the luck point system - though it isn't particularly inferior either. It lacks the resource management angle since presumably the physickers are not limited in the number of times the physicker can heal. But it's a bit less abstract, which may matter to certain types of players.

But...decades of roleplaying and writing numerous combat systems have convinced me that hit points do a very poor job of modeling how humans take and react to damage. So I don't really have a problem abstracting them a bit more.

It might not seem advantageous to you, but I and my players are the sorts who found the situation I wrote about to be a deal-breaker in terms of not making sense. It can even impact play, for example: "Grog got hit for 2 points, so have him back off so the fighters who haven't been hurt yet step in" (because our OOC knowledge of the weird healing rule details make it worth 4 or more days of bed rest to only get each person hit once per combat.)

Even more of a dealbreaker for us would be having a cushion of abstract luck hit points, because again it's a mechanic players will be aware of and make decisions based on, but which has no representation in the game world. A cushion of points that work just like damage but represent luck, isn't how luck works, so for example say Bob has ST 12 and so has 6 luck and 6 meat points, and he faces someone with a hatchet or rapier or something that does 1d6+0 damage. The game situation is that in terms of injury, that weapon could take him out in one hit (which I like BTW), but actually can't do him any actual injury on the first attack. The player will know that, but it makes no logical sense in the game world. To me, that's fundamentally no longer a game mechanic that represents a situation where someone is facing someone with a weapon (which logic indicates should be able to possibly hurt him the first time someone attacks him), and neither does it represent how luck works (with real-world probability and real-world cause & effect, fortune doesn't get used up like that).

(If I wanted to represent luck (or more likely, the chance of using cunning and skill to avoid injury), I'd tend to add a mechanic such as an additional chance you don't get hit when attacked. e.g., you have a cunning/skill/luck rating and another roll determines whether that saves you from a hit or not, but it doesn't get used up.)

Oh, and there is a bit of a resource issue still in that it still takes more time to treat multiple wounds, and GMs who wanted that to be more interesting added rules for bleeding (so you need to triage which healers work on which injuries on whom before others) and/or physicker kit supplies as a resource & cost. Sounds like those later ideas are probably way over your detail/speed bar, though.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Also, SJ calibrated the TFT physicker's ability to heal 2 or 3 points of damage on the assumption that one healing would be done after each combat. Obviously, this is abstracted and (I suspect) designed to avoid having to track each wound.

If so, then your system might seriously overstate the amount of healing that the designer would find plausible. Maybe they should only heal one point per wound. Or 1/2 a point. Or whatever.

Maybe. We could ask him...

It's fairly common for a figure to take exactly one injury in a fight, though, in which case the healing would be 2 or 3 points per wound in either case. I'm pretty sure there's no spin that can make much sense that the guys who got peppered with several shortbow arrows at once can barely be healed, while the guys who got peppered by even more arrows, but spread throughout the day could be healed after each one and are barely hurt at all. Etc.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Well, here's a possible fix, though it is blasphemous.

One version of my polyhedral weapons table introduces a single die roll for armor protection (and a single die roll for damage). Leather armor stops 1d4 hits; a broadsword does 1d12 damage. The system does make armor slightly more effective and weapons slightly less effective. (Leather averages 2.5 points and broadswords average 6.5 points). But that seems a fair trade for more unpredicable combats. Your 9 point stopping warrior above would stop d12+3 damage. Or d20-1 if you really want a wild range.

You can tweak this as you wish. If you want a less extreme range, you could have the warrior stop 1d6+6 hits (or 1d8+5, or 1d10+4) and the broadsword keep its 2d6 damage (or do 1d6+3 damage). Or you could keep weapon damage as is, though I'd replace some damages with a bell curve. A longbow would do 2d-2 instead of 1d+2, for instance.

Anyhow, this might help mitigate the problem you describe. You could also modify Iron Flesh so that it doesn't work as well with armor. But of course, a self-powered Iron Flesh item would cost $160,000, so perhaps it should be pretty awesome. To be fair, the same result could be obtained by enchanting the armor to stop 5 points - but that would still cost $31,000.

However, I abandoned it because it slowed things down a bit. But just using polyhedrals for weapon damage would help. A broadsword would damage that opponent 1/6 of the time if it does 2d6. It would damage the opponent 1/4 of the time using a d12.

You could put the fear of the GM into players by basing all weapons damage on a d20 (!). A broadsword would do d20-4. A shortsword d20-5. A dagger d20-8. Etc. Even a lowly dagger could occasionally put some serious hurt on someone.

Yep, I agree that the damage curves are a place where some blasphemy can be interesting. I particularly like limiting the positive constant damage mods some weapons have, especially when they stack with magic and quality bonuses, because it gives a predictable damage with a high flat minimum.

It's also possible to reinvent damage a bit without as much blasphemy by adding dice and negative constants (e.g. adding 2d-7 to many weapons), so 1d+2 could be 3d-5.

Rick Smith has re-worked weapon tables for his house rules to make some weapons swingier than others to try to represent some differences in weapon types, too.

[JLV]

I'd REALLY like to see Rick's revised weapon tables. From his description elsewhere a month or two ago, he's taken into account the TYPE of damage (a la GURPS; penetration versus crushing) in the rework of the damages inflicted, and I think that's a positively brilliant idea that should definitely be getting more attention on this forum than it has been.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

As for having many fighters drop out after a single good hit, I often roleplay characters so that many may well tend to stop fighting when seriously hurt regardless of what's theoretically possible for them to do. Even non-mooks and PCs

YES!!! I loved how our game played when I changed how I operated the NPC enemies to this philosophy! I used to have the Labyrinth enemy NPCs fight to the death; but then I "adopted" the Morale Check concept from AH's Squad Leader, and I made up a simple TFT formula for a single "NPC Reaction Roll to Injury Sustained" for NPCs, and it really made the Cardboard Cannon-fodder COME ALIVE!

And it was really dangerous for the players to let enemies "run-away", as they were usually running TO get there buddies,... and return,.. and hunt down the Adventure Party in the Labyrinth,... hehe, hehe heh.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

YES!!! I loved how our game played when I changed how I operated the NPC enemies to this philosophy! I used to have the Labyrinth enemy NPCs fight to the death; but then I "adopted" the Morale Check concept from AH's Squad Leader, and I made up a simple TFT formula for a single "NPC Reaction Roll to Injury Sustained" for NPCs, and it really made the Cardboard Cannon-fodder COME ALIVE!

And it was really dangerous for the players to let enemies "run-away", as they were usually running TO get there buddies,... and return,.. and hunt down the Adventure Party in the Labyrinth,... hehe, hehe heh.

Exactly! It makes the opponents seem more alive and the situation more dynamic.

One adventure that really made it clear to me that the game was a whole different thing (far more interesting and dynamic and challenging and consistent) if the foes cared about their lives and would retreat and possibly go for help was . . . Tollenkar's Lair. Though it took me a while (at about age 12 or 13 with a year of two of GM experience) to learn it - The first time I ran it without studying the whole thing, and without considering retreats or noise or dynamic movement much, and it was just piecemeal grinding through fairly easy simple situations. Later I had studied it and read and considered the parts about the NPCs doing things dynamically including going for help, and it was an entirely different and far more interesting experience for everyone.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'd REALLY like to see Rick's revised weapon tables. From his description elsewhere a month or two ago, he's taken into account the TYPE of damage (a la GURPS; penetration versus crushing) in the rework of the damages inflicted, and I think that's a positively brilliant idea that should definitely be getting more attention on this forum than it has been.

He posted a version on is web site, but the current one there is dated 2015. I'm not sure it's the one he means.

It is a good idea, and he did a really good job on the tables I've seen, although I think the idea you're talking about could be taken even farther.