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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2018, 06:43 PM   #41
Kirk
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
I'll only express a wish that the game do something so that quickness especially unarmored quickness offers some aid in defending. (Even the Dodging/Defending does nothing here. That is, it helps the nimble unarmored fighter, sure, but no more than it helps the burdened armored fighter.)
Good analysis of the two systems, but don't forget that the higher DX figure in TFT usually goes before an equivalently skilled character with armor, and so can often avoid damage completely by *disengaging*. :) It won't work for missile weapons and some other situations as well, granted, but just stepping back is sometimes the best defense, especially if there are several opponents.
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:11 PM   #42
Jim Kane
 
Jim Kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
I believe you're saying that GURPS (incl. MtM) is tougher on the unarmored fighter for a reason that can be restated as "GURPS boosts the damage from edged weapons (relative to TFT)..
Not trying to sound snarkey here, and I do thank you for your interest and intelligently asking me for additional clarity in why TFT works for me; so say it any way that makes sense to you.

I am a TFT-Guy. Quite frankly, now that you feel you see where I am coming from, I would much prefer talk with you about TFT, and "Where We Are Going".

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
It is important that TFT maintain its own unique feel.
Agreed; and even if the revised "official" rules were to be altered in any way which does not please, any GM can simply change the rules in their own home-game to the original rule that they prefer - or a completely different rule for that matter. As each Game Master rules over his own planet within Cidri, and no other. "Do What Thou Wilt, Shall Be The Whole of the Law" in your own game-world.
.
__________________
"A magical healing system, if overly efficient in it's effects, will reduce the frequency and intensity of game-tension and drama, in direct proportion to that overage of efficiency." - JK

Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-08-2018 at 07:19 PM.
Jim Kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 02:46 AM   #43
tbone
 
tbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk View Post
...but don't forget that the higher DX figure in TFT usually goes before an equivalently skilled character with armor, and so can often avoid damage completely by *disengaging*. :)
A good point. Using that to step off on a tangent for a moment:

On that topic of how unarmored (or otherwise nimble) characters could be given better defense in TFT, I had one passing thought as follows: perhaps the Defending/Dodging option could be tweaked to accommodate. That is, Defending/Dodging essentially means "-3.5 to enemy's to-hit roll". But what if that varied with the defender's quickness, so that a lumbering, armored fighter only inflicted (say) -2 on the attacker by Defending/Dodging, while an agile, unencumbered fighter inflicted (say) -5 on the attacker...

I'm not saying that it's a good idea; just that it maybe it could inject some "agility as defense" into the game. But, here's the mildly disappointing part: As it requires Defending/Dodging, it'd mean that the unarmored fellow only gets to enjoy that sweet, agile evasiveness when he's not actually fighting (i.e., when he's choosing to not attack). If he decides to slug it out, he's back to being no better at avoiding attacks than the slow tin-can fighter.

Which is neither here nor there, because it's an untested idea, not a rule. But I mention that because the same holds for disengaging. I like that the light fighter can disengage better than the heavy fighter, as you point out. That's the kind of advantage I want to see the "naked barbarian" enjoy. But... if our loincloth crusader decides to actually engage and fight, that disengaging ability doesn't do anything, and the unprotected guy enjoys no better an evasive ability than a steel-cased knight.

I'm not saying that's bad or wrong. Just that it's at least worth a look. The TFT method heavy weight hurts you on offense, not (much) on defense will likely run counter to the expectations of some new players.

But still. In the end, if people are happy with it, then so be it! If nothing else, it's uniquely TFT. : )
__________________
T. Bone
GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner:
http://www.gamesdiner.com
Twitter: @Gamesdiner
(Latest goods on the site: Zen and GURPS and the Art of Blowing up Death Stars. Or, the secret skill Luke used to save the rebel base (and why he had to turn off the targeting computer).)
tbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 03:54 AM   #44
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
I believe you're saying that GURPS (incl. MtM) is tougher on the unarmored fighter for a reason that can be restated as "GURPS boosts the damage from edged weapons (relative to TFT), and also boosts armor's effectiveness vs those. So you really need armor in GURPS to soak up damage."

There's truth in that! Take a 5-hit blow, for example. In TFT, that's 5 dam. In GURPS, it could be more if it's edged even tripled to 15 (!) dam if an impaling stab to the vitals. Ouch.

Armor subtracts hits before the multiplication, so the effect of armor vs that impale is also essentially tripled: armor subtracting 3 hits ends up reducing that stab damage by 9 points.

So, the point is valid. However... TFT offers the unarmored barbarian no way to avoid any of the 5 dam he was hit with. Whereas GURPS lets him avoid all of that 5-dam blow or all of that 15-dam stab to the heart with a Dodge. Or all of a 30-dam blow, or all of a 300-dam blow. Once dam is so high (Giants wielding logs, etc.) that even armor won't make a difference, the TFT unarmored barbarian has no particular way to avoid a lick of that damage, while his GURPS counterpart can try to avoid all of it (and, most importantly, can do so more successfully than the heavily armored knight can).

In short, and repeating myself from earlier:
  • When giving hits in TFT, I'd rather be an unarmored fighter (no offensive penalties!) than an armored one (big penalties!). In GURPS, it typically doesn't matter either way (no offensive penalties for armor, with the exception of some fighting skills).
  • When receiving hits in TFT, I'd much rather be an armored fighter (protection!) than an unarmored one (all the vulnerable squishiness of the unarmored, with no benefit in return). Whereas in GURPS, there's a tradeoff aspect: protection for the armored, vs better ability to evade damage for the unarmored.

But. You know all that, and I think Skarg essentially said the same. Just pondering out loud for anyone new to the games.

Even if TFT is awfully harsh on unarmored fighters (on defense, anyway), if you like the overall feel of its combat, then you like the feel; no argument from me about that! It is important that TFT maintain its own unique feel.

It's also a good thing that TFT makes armor something you definitely want to have when receiving blows. If heavy, tiring, expensive armor weren't a net benefit to defense, there'd have been no reason for warriors to use it, and there'd be no reason for the game to bother with it.

I'll only express a wish that the game do something so that quickness especially unarmored quickness offers some aid in defending. (Even the Dodging/Defending does nothing here. That is, it helps the nimble unarmored fighter, sure, but no more than it helps the burdened armored fighter.)

In short, I like the "sweaty, bare-chested and aggressive (i.e. barely armored) Low-Fantasy Barbaric-types" concept as much as you do. I'd just like to see that character become a more viable choice in TFT.
As I've mentioned before, if you use "comparative" DEX rolls this largely solves the problem without needing additional rules and options/talents. The rules at the moment use "absolute" DEX rolls, which are unfair, and also unrealistic although they have the benefit of simplicity.

As the rules stand, your adjDEX 10 warrior has a 50% chance to hit the DEX 7 opponent and the same chance to hit the DEX 14 opponent. That makes no sense at all. It's logical that he should have a greater chance to hit the DEX 7 or less skilled opponent and a lesser chance to hit the DEX 14 or more skilled one.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 08:58 AM   #45
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
As I've mentioned before, if you use "comparative" DEX rolls this largely solves the problem without needing additional rules and options/talents. The rules at the moment use "absolute" DEX rolls, which are unfair, and also unrealistic although they have the benefit of simplicity.

As the rules stand, your adjDEX 10 warrior has a 50% chance to hit the DEX 7 opponent and the same chance to hit the DEX 14 opponent. That makes no sense at all. It's logical that he should have a greater chance to hit the DEX 7 or less skilled opponent and a lesser chance to hit the DEX 14 or more skilled one.
I don't necessarily disagree. However, this would represent a profound change to the TFT combat system. And the 3d6 mechanic is a poor choice for comparative rolls IMHO. If I thought a comparative mechanic was the way to go, I'd use the d20 Pendragon mechanic. (Roll d20. The figure that rolls the highest while still rolling the target number or less wins).

Of course, both of these changes qualify for the "it just ain't TFT" critique I fear.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 09:04 AM   #46
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
A good point. Using that to step off on a tangent for a moment:

On that topic of how unarmored (or otherwise nimble) characters could be given better defense in TFT, I had one passing thought as follows: perhaps the Defending/Dodging option could be tweaked to accommodate. That is, Defending/Dodging essentially means "-3.5 to enemy's to-hit roll". But what if that varied with the defender's quickness, so that a lumbering, armored fighter only inflicted (say) -2 on the attacker by Defending/Dodging, while an agile, unencumbered fighter inflicted (say) -5 on the attacker...
Awhile back I posted the solution that I used to make swashbuckler viable. It worked, without overpowering them. A bit fiddly, but again, it worked. And it didn't really slow combat down. Anyhow, here it is (best I can remember):

Figures with any hand weapon talent (including unarmed combat and the staff spell) have a Defense rating (DF). All enemies subtract the target’s adjusted DF from all attacks with hand weapons or bare handed.

A figure’s base DF is 1 for each point of DX over 12. Armor seriously degrades DF, however. DX penalties for armor and shields are doubled against DF.

So if you have DX 17, your base DF is 5. If you wear leather armor (DX -2) you’d have an adjDF of 1 and an adjDX of 15.

Note that in original TFT, armor could be enchanted to stop more hits, but you couldn’t magically reduce its DX penalty. (You had to use a +1 DX enchantment which was more expensive than stopping an extra hit). So it was all but impossible to have a high DF if you wore heavy armor/shield. This was an intentional design goal.

Figures with Unarmed Combat V add 2 to their adjDF. This replaces the “four dice to hit them in normal combat”. As an aside, this means a figure with UC V, no armor and the minimum adjDX will be -6(!) to hit.

A 32 point would-be swashbuckler would have ST8, DX14, IQ 10. Talents could be Sword (2), Fencing (3), and 3 more points (saving 2 to get Two Weapons when he gets IQ8). His adjusted DF is 2, so he’ll be a little hard to hit by beginning characters. But against a ST12 DX12(10) IQ8 swordsman with leather, small shield and broadsword, he’ll probably still lose unless he gets some luck shots in.

At 36 points, he’s much more viable. His IQ is 11, ST is 10 and DX is 15. DF is 3. He uses a Sabre (Cutlass, 2-2 damage) in each hand. He’s hard to hit, but still fragile. Now, he stands a decent chance against a ST13 DX15(11) IQ8 fighter with chain and large shield (-5 hits), though he struggles against opponents with heavier armor.

This system allowed swashbuckler type characters to be viable, though perhaps unrealistically so. But realism wasn't the goal; movie swashbucklers were.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 12:29 PM   #47
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

I want to point out that someone else has already proposed a very nice fix to the weapon damage issue (it was either Rick Smith, or Ty Beard, and I'm leaning hard towards saying it was Rick), in the form of a revised weapon damage table.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but it was a brilliant solution to an issue that has bugged many of us ever since MtM first came out.

Rick, Ty (whichever one of you it was), can you re-explain that idea to us here (ideally with a couple of "new" weapon damage examples along with an explanation of why they changed from the old ones)?

Personally, I think a revised weapons table along these lines is one of the few suggestions made on these threads that actually has a significant chance of being adopted by Steve; and I strongly advocate it to him and the TFT team at SJGs.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2018, 03:09 PM   #48
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I don't necessarily disagree. However, this would represent a profound change to the TFT combat system. And the 3d6 mechanic is a poor choice for comparative rolls IMHO. If I thought a comparative mechanic was the way to go, I'd use the d20 Pendragon mechanic. (Roll d20. The figure that rolls the highest while still rolling the target number or less wins).

Of course, both of these changes qualify for the "it just ain't TFT" critique I fear.

I don't see it as a "profound" change at all. As the rules stand, to score a hit, you roll against adjDEX. DEX is adjusted for armour worn, wounds suffered, facing, etc. The way I play it is exactly the same; you roll against adjDEX but now DEX is also adjusted to account for the skill of the opponent. It's still TFT just a more logical TFT.

I'm also not sure why you consider 3d6 a poor choice for comparative rolls. If you believe that then you surely think that it's a poor choice for any rolls. Either you like the bell curve of 3d6 or you don't.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.