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 02-21-2018, 01:34 PM   #531
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Engagement rules - "You don't engage me!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Engagement was one of those concepts that "just worked". It enforced reasonable behavior and prevented player omniscience from generating unreasonable tactics.
That said, a referee might want a more cinematic combat system that resembles the swordfights in the 1982 Conan the Barbarian film or 300. Engagement does restrict that kind of fluid action.

A fast and playable system could probably be created that would model those movies; but it explicitly wouldn't be "realistic", so fiddly mechanics can be ignored.

Playtesting would be required, but here's how I could see it working. (Acknowledged that it has stuff that others have mentioned).

To start with, you could ignore engagement completely and go to a quasi-action point system. Figures would move, strike (maybe at say 2 movement point cost), move, strike, etc.

Allow non-moving figures to face any foe before the foe strikes. However, a figure must not turn to allow a figure already in his front hexes to be in his side or rear. So foes can be pinned.

Allow a figure to guard a hex - he can only move 1 hex or less to do this. He gets a shot at everyone who tries to move past him.

To really capture these films would require a different to hit system. Opposed attack rolls, with winner hitting. This is best done by Pendragon in my opinion. Roll d20; high roll that also is equal to or less than skill wins. Rolling exactly the number for success is a critical. With 3d6, something different would be needed - maybe whoever makes the roll by the most or somesuch.

This system might be interesting to play around with, but I always liked the tactical issues in TFT games. I don't think I'd want to replace it with this system.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 08:16 PM   #532
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: Engagement rules - "You don't engage me!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
That said, a referee might want a more cinematic combat system that resembles the swordfights in the 1982 Conan the Barbarian film or 300. Engagement does restrict that kind of fluid action.

A fast and playable system could probably be created that would model those movies; but it explicitly wouldn't be "realistic", so fiddly mechanics can be ignored.

Playtesting would be required, but here's how I could see it working. (Acknowledged that it has stuff that others have mentioned).

To start with, you could ignore engagement completely and go to a quasi-action point system. Figures would move, strike (maybe at say 2 movement point cost), move, strike, etc.

Allow non-moving figures to face any foe before the foe strikes. However, a figure must not turn to allow a figure already in his front hexes to be in his side or rear. So foes can be pinned.

Allow a figure to guard a hex - he can only move 1 hex or less to do this. He gets a shot at everyone who tries to move past him.

To really capture these films would require a different to hit system. Opposed attack rolls, with winner hitting. This is best done by Pendragon in my opinion. Roll d20; high roll that also is equal to or less than skill wins. Rolling exactly the number for success is a critical. With 3d6, something different would be needed - maybe whoever makes the roll by the most or somesuch.

This system might be interesting to play around with, but I always liked the tactical issues in TFT games. I don't think I'd want to replace it with this system.
I'll agree that such a system might be interesting to fiddle with, but frankly it would defeat the purpose of TFT, and I'll also agree that I would not want to replace the existing system with this one.

A more fruitful look at a more complex combat system might be done by taking a look at how En Garde! manages sword fights. The system is simple, plays quickly and is very effective in simulating renaissance style sword fights. However, it is also extremely limited in that it doesn't really deal with armor, shields and weapons other than swords, which means some serious effort would need to be made with that system as a whole in order to allow it to cover all the nuances that Melee/Advanced Melee deals with in Combat.

Still, there might be something useful there, especially in the way they deal with opponents of differing skill levels (which is also why it's so important to actually train during down time in En Garde!). I could see adapting that system to the existing TFT system so that once figures are "engaged" they would deal with their actual combat using a psuedo-En Garde!-ish system for the specific rounds of combat. It would still lengthen combat, but not tremendously, and it would definitely add a sense of differing skill levels and excitement to the individual combats (which are now basically a die roll per player per turn...).
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 08:49 PM   #533
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Based on that last sentence alone, I'd have to be against the change, then. Here's why: I've played games like Dragonquest, Sniper, and others that used an "action points" system to allow precisely that sort of detail. Such systems are, inarguably, more accurate and simulationist than even GURPS is, but they are also far more nit-picky, time consuming and rules driven than TFT is or ought to be. One of the key attractions (to me) of TFT is that we can get through combat fairly quickly, with a good feel for the action, and without measuring everything with a micrometer caliper. Changing to a system that requires that much more work to complete a combat situation is precisely why I decided that I still preferred TFT to Dragonquest in the first place. Naturally, I only speak for myself in this regard, but I suspect I'm not alone in this feeling.
There is a pretty straightforward solution to this: resolve action in turns that follow the same decision/action sequence as melee, but shorten what can be done during each. I.e., movement is 0, 1 or 2 and an action is just that - 1 action. I've toyed with this sort of variant and it is not slow. It is just a bit like playing chess, with a quick back and forth between sides. It is relatively inappropriate for combats with a half dozen combatants on a side, because you end up having to juggle too many decisions per combat. But it is not a slow or difficult way to resolve a duel.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 09:06 PM   #534
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
There is a pretty straightforward solution to this: resolve action in turns that follow the same decision/action sequence as melee, but shorten what can be done during each. I.e., movement is 0, 1 or 2 and an action is just that - 1 action. I've toyed with this sort of variant and it is not slow. It is just a bit like playing chess, with a quick back and forth between sides. It is relatively inappropriate for combats with a half dozen combatants on a side, because you end up having to juggle too many decisions per combat. But it is not a slow or difficult way to resolve a duel.
My bad. I was unclear in my original comment. The "time-consuming" part comes from having more than one or two combatants per side; even if the players are only handling one or two combatants, the GM is handling as many as two or three times the number of player characters, and the challenges of remembering who was doing what rapidly overwhelm him. If he uses "deputy" GMs to handle every two or three enemy combatants, the problem is less, but where are you going to find ten or more people to play, four or more of whom don't want to be actual characters but just deputy GM's?

For example, in the old SPI game Cityfight, which uses an action point system, I've seen five minutes of combat take well over an hour to complete... And that's with all sorts of markers and game aids to help you along the way -- which takes up counters, which means fewer actual counters, and so on.

Last edited by JLV; 02-21-2018 at 09:10 PM.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 10:41 PM   #535
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

The best method I've seen for variable time requirement is a racetrack system: each counter starts at initiative 0, and every time you take an action your initiative count goes up by the cost of that action. Who goes next is whoever has the lowest initiative; faster characters can perform actions at a lower initiative cost.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 05:34 PM   #536
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi all,
On page 3 of Advanced Melee there is a rule that says, "... the GM may declare that a figure is not engaged - i.e., a knight in plate mail is not engaged by an unarmed 13 year old girl..." However, edge cases are harder to handle. If I stop 10 hits, and a goblin is doing 2d-1, should it engage me? (Not really I think. But what if I only stop 8 hits?)

I have added a tactic for characters to take. They may declare in movement that an enemy doesn't engage them, and move as if that enemy does not exist. (Or declare that several enemies do not engage them.)

The enemy so ignored gets a free attack with either +2 damage or +2 DX (enemies' choice). If you are chopped down as you try to leave the hex, ... well I guess you were engaged after all!

I'm not campaigning hard to have this rule included in the new TFT, but it is pretty simple and plays well. (I've been using it for years now.) It also removes some of the arbitrary force field 'feel' of the engagement rules. It might be worth a paragraph as an optional rule.

Comments are welcome.
Warm regards, Rick.
Yep, I agree. I think it's a logical sort of extension of that line from Advanced Melee to allow ignoring engagement but add a consequence, though I don't think I'd add a +2 damage option just for this one situation.

My version is like this:

Advanced Melee adds the idea that some figures don't threaten others enough to engage them, but doesn't give a rule for how to assess this. In play there are sometimes cases where someone really wants to run from engagement (e.g. you're fighting someone not terribly deadly but trolls are coming and you could get away if you could move). I suggest: During movement, turn them to face the direction of the hex they want to start moving away. Then allow any adjacent foes a FREE attack (during the movement phase, does not use their upcoming action) - they have to roll to hit but get a DX bonus for attacking side/rear if that applies to the new facing. If the fugitive is still able to move after that, he can. If he moves through other front hexes after that, the same process occurs again. If the enemy has not yet moved, they move normally and if the situation permits, they could re-engage the fleeing foe on their move. This provides a logical consequence naturally resolved, and removes the need to determine who is considered engaged or not - you are engaged by front hexes - you can just choose to ignore them. For multi-hex creatures, I would keep the existing rule meaning this would apply to them only if engaged by two or more figures (three for 7-hex creatures) as to me it seems like an abstract thing about the agility and options of a larger figure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
It's a bridge too far, but my positive experiences playing AH's Gladiator have always made me think Melee would be even more tactically juicy and interesting if no one 'engaged' anyone and long-ish weapons had greater reach. If you want to run into someone, run into them; if you want to step back, step back; if you want to grab someone so they can't get away, do that; but no one is a velcro patch that sticks to others.

The only trouble with this sort of movement and engagement change (in addition to it being just generally radical) is that it only works as a game if movement is broken down into smaller increments, so you have time to respond to what people around you are doing in a realistic way.
Yes. It seems to me GURPS does this quite well, and I really like it, but of course is more GURPS-y than TFT-y.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 06:10 PM   #537
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
The only trouble with this sort of movement and engagement change (in addition to it being just generally radical) is that it only works as a game if movement is broken down into smaller increments, so you have time to respond to what people around you are doing in a realistic way.
Yes. It seems to me GURPS does this quite well, and I really like it, but of course is more GURPS-y than TFT-y.
Which also gets us right back to the "five-second turns are not the same thing as one-second turns" issue...
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 12:37 AM   #538
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default You do NOT engage me! :-D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Yep, I agree. I think it's a logical sort of extension of that line from Advanced Melee to allow ignoring engagement but add a consequence, though I don't think I'd add a +2 damage option just for this one situation.

My version is like this:

... I suggest: During movement, turn them to face the direction of the hex they want to start moving away. Then allow any adjacent foes a FREE attack (during the movement phase, does not use their upcoming action) - they have to roll to hit but get a DX bonus for attacking side/rear if that applies to the new facing. ... For multi-hex creatures, I would keep the existing rule meaning this would apply to them only if engaged by two or more figures (three for 7-hex creatures) as to me it seems like an abstract thing about the agility and options of a larger figure.
Hi Skarg, everyone.
Yes, people saying "you don't engage me!" comes up rarely enough that it has little impact on the normal flow of combat. That is the reason I gave the opponents +2 DX or +2 damage. I want this tactic to be considered dangerous enough to KEEP it a rare event. I seriously considered making it a +2 DX _AND_ +2 damage. This would speed things up a bit since it removes a decision - the opponent would just roll the dice when someone ignores them.

We usually just have a pencil or finger point to which hexes someone is moving thru. So in my game, I tend to not worry about the moving figure's facing mid-movement.

If a 7 hex dragon is engaged by 3 figures, it also can move away from some freely (giving them free attacks with bonus), just like any other figure.

As I said above, this helps keep combat more fluid, and stops the "tractor-beam force fields", zone of controls from the basic TFT. Your rules would also fix this, as well as being perfectly logical and payable. (Arguably more logical than my version.)

Warm regards, Rick.

Last edited by Rick_Smith; 02-23-2018 at 01:18 AM. Reason: Fixed sentence structure to make meaning clearer.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 12:59 AM   #539
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Magic Backlash and Industrial Magic

Hi everyone,
There have been numerous threads on the TFT forums about magic being used in clever ways. For example, two gates above each other separated by 5 meters. A massive bolder is dropped into the lower one, and comes out the upper one. It goes faster and faster until it is going just below the speed of sound (terminal velocity for a heavy bolder). Then a wizard casts a new Gate spell to link the the bottom surface to a gate pointing at an enemy keep 1,000 km away. Boom! Massive bolder goes thru 2 or 3 layers of walls blowing open the castle with no risk to the wizard! Clever!

In other places magic (or magic items) are used to do jobs for which we use modern technology.

These types of ideas were termed 'industrial magic'.

*****

Industrial magic is, I think, a bad thing. I would prefer that the mind bending, reality smashing magic is something that is scary, unpredictable, and hard to understand. (This was part of the reason I made Environmental Magics, but that is another subject.)

Industrial magic, makes magic humdrum and predictable.

For this reason, I support the idea of spell failure and magic backlash which other people have suggested. Sometimes spells going wrong, is good. Rarely spells going wrong in spectacular fashion is better.

Magic is so difficult and hard to do, I would not mind an automatic miss happening on 15's, full fST loss on rolls of 16, full fST loss and fall down on a 17, and if an 18 is rolled, there is a roll on the spell failure table. (And on a really bad roll, there are severe consequences.)

If that is too excessive, 1/2 of the time on a roll of an 18 is the normal 18 result, and the other half of the time there is magic backlash.

This does add a table to the TFT system (which I dislike), but I think it is worth while to make magic less dull and predictable.

Comments welcome,
Warm regards, Rick.

Last edited by Rick_Smith; 02-23-2018 at 01:05 AM.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 01:00 AM   #540
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Generalists are between Heroes and Wizards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
I assume the price of spells (125% fST cost) is rounded UP?
It's the IQ (or mIQ) cost that's increased. I didn't change fST costs, do you think I should?

The mIQ cost is not rounded since if it were every spell would cost 2 which cripples the idea. If you have 10 IQ you can buy 8 points of talents and spells. Actually, a quick check on a spreadsheet suggests the +25% or -20% is too high a penalty.

In one game we played characters who were notionally wizards but (1) we could buy talents for normal price and (2) a wizard's staff did damage as though it were a regular club/maul/quarterstaff, then add the 1 or 2 dice for being a staff. The result was very capable, flexible characters who would switch between melee and casting spells on the spur of the moment. A distinctive and quite fun feel.
David Bofinger 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 06:05 AM.


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