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, 10:20 AM   #121
Dave Crowell
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyratejohn View Post
I'm curious to know what do you believe are the elements that define Melee/Wizard/TFT? When you think of the game, what is the first thing that comes to mind?
Simple rules
Hexes
Three Attributes
Ability to play as a quick boardgame or an RPG with the same rules
Dave Crowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 10:53 AM   #122
pyratejohn
 
pyratejohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

My answer would be:

Three stats.
Hexes, and even more importantly Megahexes.
Multi-d6 system, roll low.
Metric!
Takes all of 5 minutes to get someone up to speed and rolling dice in a basic game of Melee.
__________________
Happily RPGing since 1976.
My Gaming and Reenacting Site (under construction)
pyratejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:04 AM   #123
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
I never did see that as a flaw. It allowed for customized - and simple - gradual improvement. I’d submit that it simply wouldn’t be TFT without attribute increase.
So you never saw experienced Wizards with 18+ Strength as a problem? And that's exactly what happens with the system as written unless you fudge it or houserule it in some way.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:06 AM   #124
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyratejohn View Post
My answer would be:

Three stats.
Hexes, and even more importantly Megahexes.
Multi-d6 system, roll low.
Metric!
Takes all of 5 minutes to get someone up to speed and rolling dice in a basic game of Melee.
Ah yes, metric!

One thing that I always did was I assumed a “standard” 10’ wide corridor was 3 hexes wide (a scale implied in the 1st Ed. AD&D DMG). That made tactical combat more interesting. And allowed more PC’s in the front line. One complaint with 3E D&D was that the rigidly enforced 5’ squares made the rooms and corridors too constricted. In my opinion of course.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-06-2018 at 11:26 AM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:23 AM   #125
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
So you never saw experienced Wizards with 18+ Strength as a problem? And that's exactly what happens with the system as written unless you fudge it or houserule it in some way.
Never saw it and I ran multiple multi-year campaigns (meeting weekly) with ~6 players on average. Heard a lot about them from critics, but never saw one.

Of course, lethality was rather high in my campaigns. And TFT wizards, while more capable at the beginning than D&D magic users, were hard to keep alive. By the way, the d20 resolution mechanic makes it much harder to build high strength wizards who are also really smart and have high DX. With a 3d6 system a wizard with a DX of 14 will succeed 90% of the time. So a 36 point character can have a DX of 14 and still have 22 points to divide between ST and IQ.

With the d20 mechanic, he’ll need an 18 DX to achieve the same success percentage. Given the fact that attributes get more expensive as the total increases - and a significant increase occurs at 36 points - a player has to give serious thought to the trade off between high casting success rates and lots of strength and IQ. A 36 point character who wanted the same success rate would need an 18 DX in a d20 system and would only have 18 points to divide between ST and IQ.

And wizard PCs in my games preferred to increase ST through ST batteries and save their attribute points for DX and IQ.

If you get rid of attribute advancement, you’ve ripped the guts out of TFT and created a very different game.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:28 AM   #126
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Lots of good general descriptions of what makes TFT special here; I'm sure the author has his head screwed on straight enough to preserve all that.

Meanwhile, here's another set of more granular thoughts about edits/revisions: A few numbers that just don't 'scan'.

A hallmark of TFT is that it is first and foremost a well engineered game, suitable for balanced competition between two or more players. And, most of its quantitative properties make some level of physical sense. This makes any numerical anomalies really stand out. A few to consider:

1) The boomerang damage is too high, both by physical intuition and in a game-balance sense. I can see how it happened: the trade off is 1 special talent for a +1 damage, and at ST 11 this jacks the boomerang up to the same damage as a crossbow or broadsword. But it results in a thrown stick that is just too deadly. Easy fix: drop the minimum ST to 8 or 9 and the base damage to 1 or 1+1.

2) The general recipe is that you trade 1 point of armor protection for 1 point of DX reduction (and, on average, a similar drop in MA). Half plate and plate armor break this pattern, costing more DX than protection. This makes them highly undesirable, and it makes no physical sense - in reality, plate armor provides much better protection for less weight and better weight distribution than mail, lamellar, etc. Again, for both realism and 'gamist' reasons, these should be 4/-4 and 5/-5

3) Fine plate gives you a 3 point swing in protection and DX penalty vs. standard plate, for only a 10x change in cost. There might be some argument to be made about the relevant technology, costs, etc. but those don't really matter in this context: it mucks with the general trade offs of DX for protection, and costs, in talent points or money, of exceeding those normal limits. e.g., IIRC, a 1 point improvement in weapon quality costs 10x.

4) The DX penalty for thrown weapons makes no physical sense. Full stop. It should be something like -1 DX per full MH range, at worst. The idea that your odds of hitting something with a thrown weapon drop by a factor of 2 (or worse) when it is 10 feet away is absurd. It's possible a similar argument could be made about missile weapons though it is less noticeable at the scales of most combat maps.

5) HTH damage scales pretty smoothly with ST, but resistance to injury (hits taken for a certain penalty) is super coarse. These should be normalized. The easiest way to do it is just make a unified table, where every time you jump up in HTH damage bracket it takes more damage to impose a penalty.

Oh yes, while I am typing, another structural issue that calls for editing: There are something like 3-4 separate hit location specific damage effects rules in the game: The optional one for a special success on a to hit roll; the one for aimed shots with daggers, and the ones for use of the bola, lasso and net. This should be pulled together into one place in the book and addressed with a single parsimonious set of rules.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:37 AM   #127
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
Never saw it and I ran multiple multi-year campaigns (meeting weekly) with ~6 players on average. Heard a lot about them from critics, but never saw one....

If you get rid of attribute advancement, you’ve ripped the guts out of TFT and created a very different game.
Oh they existed all right. If you ever get a chance to look at the Chaosium supplement Thieves World there are official TFT stats for the major characters and they are... Stratospheric!! I don't agree that stopping (or at least limiting) attribute advancement destroys the game.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 11:45 AM   #128
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

We made several minor changes to the tactical system. We allowed an engaged figure to shift one hex and, as long as was still engaged with at least one enemy, he could break engagement. This made initiative matter a lot more. In my campaigns someone usually went for Tactics and Strategy.

Some other changes (copied from my standard player orientation sheet):

“Aimed Shots and Firing Twice with Bows

“Archers may not double fire if, on either shot, the penalty for taking an aimed shot lowers the archer’s DX below the minimum DX for double fire.

“For example, Aerial, with a DX of 18, fires an aimed shot to the leg with a longbow. The DX penalty for such a shot is -4. Since this would reduce Aerial’s DX below the 18 required to fire a longbow twice in a turn, Aerial may not take a second shot. If Aerial takes a non-aimed shot for his first shot, she cannot fire an aimed shot for the second shot because it would reduce her DX below the 18 minimum. Note that Bob, with a DX of 22 could fire one aimed shot to the leg and one normal shot in a turn with a longbow. Dexter, with a DX of 26 (!) could fire two aimed shots to the leg in one turn.

“Missile Weapons Talent and Firing Faster with Missile Weapons

“The Missile Weapons talent gives archers a bonus to hit with their weapons. This DX bonus does not count for determining whether a figure can fire a missile weapon faster. This is simply my interpretation; one could easily argue that Missile Weapons gives an archer the knowledge to fire the weapon more efficiently. I think that only a girly-man would want to rely on such unmanly weapons anyway!

“Revised Weapon Data

“Pike axes do too much damage compared with other weapons. At 2+2 damage, a ST 15 warrior should always take a pike axe rather than a battleaxe (3d damage). To restore the balance and make battleaxes attractive, a pike axe now does 2+1 rather than 2+2. [Note - 2+1 might still be too high...]?

“Boomerangs are way too potent. They do as much damage as a light crossbow (at a lesser ST), have equivalent accuracy and can be readied and thrown in the same turn! So reduce their damage to 1+1 and make the DX adjustment -1 for every megahex of range between the thrower and the target. Goodbye, legions of Hobbit flingers!

“Bolas are too powerful because the target doesn’t get a saving throw, no matter how strong he is. Therefore, give the target a difficult [4d or 3d at -3] ST saving throw if hit in the arms or legs. If the target makes the roll, the bola has no effect.

“ST Bonuses and Penalties for Weapons

“You can use weapons that you lack the ST for. For every point of ST you have less than the minimum ST required, you are –1 on damage. For every 2 points of ST (or fraction thereof) you have greater than that required, you do +1 damage. So, a character with ST 19 gets +2 damage with a Greatsword (which has a required ST of 16).[There should be some limit to that bonus, say +3 or so]?

“Experience

“The first 3 attribute points after the starting number of points cost 125 EP each. The next 4 points costs 250 EP each. And so on. Costs are doubled for lizard men and similar races. [This fixed a glitch where halflings could get 5 additional attribute points for 125 EP. I always figured the halfling bonuses were worth 2 extra points.]”

[Since we went with a modifier instead of adding dice to an attribute roll, we sidestepped this question - when a figure with Fencing attacks someone with Unarmed Combat 4, what rolls are required for him to hit automatically, do double damage and triple damage?]
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 12:08 PM   #129
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles G. View Post
I completely agree. While there are many changes I would recommend (and will, quite soon...) they are in the end nothing more than tweaks. Indeed, many more are simply expansions of existing rules

As for the LBTM puns, I interviewed Rich Meyer about this and other TFT related stuff many years ago, and he confessed culpability for the various puns... Otherwise, though, those supplements (including the two city modules which were rewritten for Haven after Metagaming went T.U.) are actually pretty good, though they take Cidri and to some extent the TFT rules off into new directions.
Oh I quite concur on the actual content (and have all four of the books -- both LBTM books, and both city books (which you can still buy from Different Worlds on-line, BTW), but come on: Buyun k'Ardryt, with his three sons, Adum, Hawz, and Liljo? And there are dozens more throughout the books. Give me a break.

Having said that, the backgrounds were well developed, the books did a good job of describing the regions and cities (though you really have to work to morph the cities back into their intended roles in TFT -- a LOT of detail changes have to be juggled and remembered as you go through them), and there were tons of great NPCs (once the stupid names were changed -- "Sherif Dilon and Miskitti? Jesus. Didn't that guy have ANY originality?)
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2018, 12:46 PM   #130
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: The Fantasy Trip

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I never did see that as a flaw. It allowed for customized - and simple - gradual improvement. I’d submit that it simply wouldn’t be TFT without attribute increase.
I assumed he meant "progression is achieved SOLELY by attribute increase" was the problem. I don't think he's advocating getting rid of attribute progression (no one actually is), but rather that something needs to be done to fix "attribute bloat."

I will agree with you that it's not actually a problem if you never play a campaign that lasts more than year or so. Unfortunately, many of us have played campaigns that lasted several years, and it really does begin to be a problem that can derail the game in the later stages, so it is kind of a big deal to many of us. Effectively it caps campaign play at some point, and you either start over, or move on to a different system.

I would say that it was a "failure of playtesting," except for the fact that Steve and the crew never had a chance to play for several years before publishing, so there was no way they could discover the problem that way, and until you see it occur and how it affects things, it just doesn't seem like that big an issue...

Now, however, Steve has the benefit of 35+ years of additional playtesting, which he can use to inform his re-writes (if any) of the rules. For example, if anyone really wants to throw the cat in among the pigeons, we can launch a discussion of the pole arm rules, the Metagaming "fix" to the original rules, and what everyone's personal opinion/favorite house rules are on that topic... From what I've seen over on Brainiac and other places over the years, that discussion can keep us going for a couple of years on this forum! ;-)
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 03:59 AM.


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