The Fantasy Trip

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi all,
I bought a Chessex Vinyl hex map, and manually drew mega hexes on it with permanent markers.

Actually, I put in dotted lines black lines for mega hexes, solid red lines for Mega-Mega hexes (a collection of 7 mega hexes), and made mega-mega-mega hexes in solid black.

A regular hex I call a 'level 1' hex, a mega hex is a 'lv 2' hex, etc. Note that a level 4 hex (a mega-mega-mega hex) is exactly equal to a Lords of the Underearth hex.

This map is sweet. I can draw terrain on it with dry erase markers. It is big enough for the largest battles.

Finally, a lot of my area spells have radius of (for example) 5 mega hexes (like the Dazzle spell). Where the mega hex the wizard is standing in when he casts it counting as radius zero. A nice big map is a good fit for such spells.

Signing a contract with Chessex to make such maps would be a useful addition to the new TFT. (Or you could hire someone to make them for you and sell them yourself.)

Warm regards, Rick.

While I did so thematically, with cascading submaps, I never drew past the mega-mega-hex.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Hi Rick, ...
Your Defend and Edge Away option also seems ok but not liable to make much of a difference except in certain cases. If anything I think it's a bit stingy requiring two turns to back away one, and if someone wants to get away, they might rather just Disengage since it's faster.

I've seen many times when a character needs to defend just to stay alive. Getting a free disengage after two defends can be a life saver. That said, I was suggesting beefing up this option.

Originally Posted by Skarg

For the extra Defend effect on rolls where the total is divisible by 3, I don't mind the intended part of the effect, and actually like it because it has the aspect that GURPS defenses give, where something the defender does actually counters the hit rather than just making it harder (and being trumped by high DX). What I don't like about it is that to me the "divisible by 3" mechanic seems gamey and has peculiar side-effects by adding a new meaning to particular die-rolls, which masks their usual meaning (e.g. adjDX 9, 12 and 15 are no better than 8, 11, and 14 against Defend) and that the defender's ability level has no part (also a problem with regular TFT Defend).

I've said I'm not totally happy with my suggestion but it has a couple of nice points built into it. First, no extra dice are rolled. Second, it works the same, even if the defender's talents force the attacker to roll more dice to hit. Third, it significantly increases your chance of not being hit, to trade off using up your action.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think you overcomplicated the mechanic you wanted by writing it that way, as if you want 33% chance, it gets messed up and has the side-effect I mentioned by using 3d6 and combining with a roll that also has the usual meaning of a TFT to-hit roll.

So rolling an extra die of another color. That has shades of the "Planet Mercenary RPG" where a die of another color adds finer shades of meaning to the 3d6 bell curve. Very clever design actually.

Originally Posted by Skarg

...
Even if you want a max-simplicity version and are extra-roll-averse, just have one of your dice on the to-hit roll be a different color, and use its roll alone to determine whether the defense negated the hit or not!

That is functionally identical to my suggestion. As you had said, having an extra die of a different color would make it easy for some new "Expert Defence" talent to modify it.

I doubt Steve Jackson will use this idea. But the key thing is far too often Defending is a meaningless choice because the attacker's DX is so high. Tactically it would be worthwhile for someone to defend, but it is useless because of attribute bloat.

If I use up an entire action to defend, I would like to gain a significant advantage for the loss of my option.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

... So rolling an extra die of another color. That has shades of the "Planet Mercenary RPG" where a die of another color adds finer shades of meaning to the 3d6 bell curve. Very clever design actually.

Thanks. And if you don't have a colored die, you can just drop an extra die after the other roll (you don't need to if it missed).

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

That is functionally identical to my suggestion. As you had said, having an extra die of a different color would make it easy for some new "Expert Defence" talent to modify it.

It's not really identical though. The separate die disentangles the result from the to-hit roll. Your version has some peculiar probability artifacts due to using the same roll for two effects (different results are moot because they're misses), and from the bell curve.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

I doubt Steve Jackson will use this idea. But the key thing is far too often Defending is a meaningless choice because the attacker's DX is so high. Tactically it would be worthwhile for someone to defend, but it is useless because of attribute bloat.

If I use up an entire action to defend, I would like to gain a significant advantage for the loss of my option.

Yes. So Defend is not also just a bad move a lot of the time, but is also ineffective, and there's not much other way to fight semi-defensively.

[Bayarea]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Thanks. And if you don't have a colored die, you can just drop an extra die after the other roll (you don't need to if it missed).



It's not really identical though. The separate die disentangles the result from the to-hit roll. Your version has some peculiar probability artifacts due to using the same roll for two effects (different results are moot because they're misses), and from the bell curve.



Yes. So Defend is not also just a bad move a lot of the time, but is also ineffective, and there's not much other way to fight semi-defensively.

Posted over from Brainaic so sorry if this duplicates for some people.

The Defend option there are 4 basic reasons to defend (there are others of course).



1 Recover from injury penalty

2 Things are going to improve Clumsiness spell or summoned beastie will disappear

3 Friends are coming to help

4 Hold the bridge ala Khazad Dum



If you think about any of these examples Glen the Graceful (DX 14) vs Clive the Klutz (DX 8), Glen should be better at all of the defend options assuming the same DX penalties.



With the current rules Glen and Clive would have exactly the same chance for success in defending against anyone. The same goes for Rick Smith's Defend option just upping the chance of success 33%. This artificially gives Clive an advantage over Glen especially in regards to any adverse DX modifications when defending. So Glen would almost certainly not defend as where Clive might in the current rules.



Example Clive and Glen are both -2 DX from injuries Clive's adjDX is 6, he not likely to hit anything (under 10%) as where Glen adjDX 12 is still at 74% chance to hit.



My next question is how often is Defend used now?



From my own experience and Rick's and others assessment not very much. Right now the PC will be better off most of the time to attack rather than defend.



Then if they are already rolling because they are attacking rather than defending, then having an active defense is not adding any die rolls.



I know some people don't want to add parry, but I am not talking about parry and riposte just defensive parry or The Defend option. Now Clive and Glen are both -2 DX when an attack comes both would make a roll to parry (their only action) this would make Clive basically meat, as he would still have to roll a 6 or less. Glen on the other hand would be able to parry quite well at 74%.



I would propose a -4 DX penalty for a second parry attempt and a -8 for a third as it is really hard to parry 3 separate attacks.





An example might help here Glen is defending a bridge 1 megahex wide if he had one opponent attacking him he would us his normal DX of 14 to defend giving him 90% chance of parrying. Now a second person arrives the next round he now has the option of trying to parry that person as well. The first parry at normal DX (90%), the second at -4 DX (50%) and if there was a 3rd in his front hexes at -8 DX (9%).



I would also add that the Parry attempt would have to add in any -DX for a special attack. Like in the case of an aimed blow at the head which has -6 DX for the attacker, that would also be -6 DX on the parry roll as well. Thus a highly skilled attacker can still make parrying very difficult.

[JLV]

Thank you for posting that over from Brainiac!

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
One thing TFT did really well is have some rules for terrain. Rough ground, height advantages, etc. help make one fight different from others.

I would suggest that this is given a bit more emphasis in the New TFT.

I have some counters I've made which show brush on one side and spiky thorns on the other. These come in one hex, 2 hex, 3 hexes (triangular and a bent line), and 4 and 5 hex clusters. The smaller ones are most common and there are 2 or 3 each of the big ones.

I can drop a few of these on a map and quickly generate a fair bit of brush.

I also have some boulders. They are pointy and hard to stand on on one side, and have a flat area (still conforming to the hex grid) on the other. So some boulders are just rubble that you can't fight on, and others are ones that you can stand on and get a height advantage from.

I suggest that the New TFT has a few more standardized terrain types and a few flat, heavy, cardboard counters to support these types. (Thorny brush is the one I feel is the candidate for first addition.)

Pole weapons should have rules for what happens when you have brush in the hex opposite to the person you are attacking, etc. (What happen when you fire arrows thru brush?)

One thing that TFT does far better than most rpg combat systems is show the advantages of maneuver. I suggest that you emphasize this in the New TFT.

Warm regards, Rick.

[larsdangly]

I strongly agree with this. Following the principle that you should always lead with your strength, it would be really smart for a TFT revision to flesh out the way hex-map combat is run, including a parsimonious set of rules and a nice set of materials (like overlays) to develop terrain (slopes, brush, rocks, etc.). I would go further and say the same thing should be done for play at scales coarser than melee combat.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Bayarea

1 Recover from injury penalty
2 Things are going to improve Clumsiness spell or summoned beastie will disappear
3 Friends are coming to help
4 Hold the bridge ala Khazad Dum

Another reason is seen in Turn 4, page 28, Advanced Melee. The troll had three people behind it read to attack, but only one in front. Grabby arguably should have picked Defend.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
As other people have pointed out, content is king. For a game to be successful in the long run, it has to have numerous products that expand the game. Fans of the game are ever willing to pay more money for new spells, talents, monsters, magic items, places, and adventures.

I would suggest that the world of Cidri is expanded into a full sized book and the rules are not written as Cidri 'centric'.

Two reasons for this. Compared to many rpg universes, Cidri is bland. This is mainly because so little was published in it. But it does not hold a candle to Sky Jammers, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun, Glorithana (sp?) from Runequest, etc.

It deserves a full world book with several cool maps, adventures, etc.

Second, people who do not want to run a Cidri campaign would prefer to have the rules separate from the background.

(Any readers of this post interested in creating a Cidri world book?)

***

I was very impressed with the Earthdawn (Second Edition) RPG. (It reminds me of a second generation TFT, where attribute bloat has been fixed.) I was talking to my Friend who introduced me to it, about the game and said, "This game is so good, I wonder why it never took off?" Steve asked me why I didn't run it. I replied, "... that the setting was built into the game so strongly, that it would be a tonne of work to separate the rules from the background." He said he felt the same way.

Do not give me wrong, the campaign setting in Earthdawn (a world called Barsaive) was a powerful, and well written setting. There were a tonne of clever ideas in it, and it was better than most game settings. But I like doing my own worlds.

***

Some people have said, "Put a tonne more Cidri stuff in the rules!" My feeling is that make one (or more!) world books for Cidri, but do not clutter up the base rules with Cidri. I would prefer that the game is setting agnostic.

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

Personally, I'm okay either way (Cidri in the rules, or Cidri not in the rules), but either way I want a ton more Cidri material.

By the way, I see nothing, even in ITL, that confines the players to "Cidri." Cidri was designed to be all-inclusive, and the only real discussion in the rules of Cidri is the page or so of setting info at the beginning of the game. Even if Cidri is mentioned with regard to things like Wizards' Guilds and the like, there is nothing in the rules that specifically states that such a guild can ONLY be in Cidri. There is absolutely zero difficulty in simply ignoring the Cidri aspects of the game and setting it anywhere you want -- as my several campaigns in Judges Guild's Wilderlands of High Fantasy did quite successfully...

In short, I'm not seeing the problem with the Cidri information that's in the rules now, and if that section were expanded, it could simply be used as an example of a fantasy world setting; much as GURPS Basic provides some examples of world settings...