TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

From a philosophical standpoint, where does TFT end and GURPS begin? I suggested starting a thread to talk about this, so I'm going to do so.

If I have any authority to set ground rules in this thread: speak positively about both games. TFT is a fine game; so is GURPS. We wouldn't all be here if at least one of those weren't true. I'm not trying to knock GURPS or pump TFT at its expense, and I don't want anyone else to either.

I've seen lots of house rules for TFT that make it more like GURPS: separating fatigue from damage. Adding a HT attribute. Spending points on talents (or spells) separately from those provided by IQ.

So... what is TFT that GURPS is not? What is GURPS that TFT is not?

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I don't know the answer, other than to say that way back in the 80s I visited my local game store and saw the original GURPS set and the big yellow BRP book. I spent a couple of hours looking them over and decided that GURPS would be a relatively seamless transition for my long-running TFT group.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

A major design difference that transcends just the overall complexity is the fact that GURPS lets you trade everything against everything, including both positive and negative departures from the 'default case' human. So, if I am contemplating how high my ST score or battleaxe skill can get, I can consider raising them in exchange for taking on a fear or spiders or innumeracy or something. In TFT your 'trade space' is tightly constrained - ST can only be traded for DX or IQ (and visa versa), within narrow limits when characters are first defined. And the 'trade spaces' associated with talents and gear and so forth have a similar balance in effective outcomes, and narrow ranges of things that can be trade for each other. With the exception of leaving a stat low at character creation, there also aren't any really negative things you can trade for different positive things. This makes it much easier to play 'build a bear' in GURPS to create characters who are exceptionally effective at one thing (usually fighting), whereas if you try that **** in TFT it is pretty hard to change your overall dangerousness in combat or survivability on adventures just by design.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

(moved from another thread)

Well said.

In my opinion, here are some key distinctions -

TFT offers a FAR simpler and quicker character generation system. GURPS offers a much slower and infinitely more detailed character generation system.

TFT offers a better compromise (again in my opinion) between slow, detailed combat and fast, abstracted combat. In any case, TFT offers a faster combat system with a bit less detail.

TFT necessarily is more "generic" than GURPS in terms of character definition.

TFT is NOT "GURPS Lite" any more than GURPS is "Advanced TFT". They are very different games that share certain similar mechanics. Indeed, I always felt that GURPS looked a lot more like Champions than TFT.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I think comparison to the whole tool box thar is GURPS is a mistake. You should compare it to the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game, since both systems are aimed at the same kind of FRPG experience.

Having never played TFT, or even heard of it before I started playing GURPS, there's no real nostalgia reason for me to play it now. I probably won't be playing it because I suspect it won't be appreciably more focused than DFRPG already is.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

TFT and Dungeon Fantasy are really, really different. Beyond the complexity and speed of play, Dungeon Fantasy characters are more like those in the jacked-up modern versions of D&D (4E, or high level 5E characters), whereas TFT is a much deadlier, easy come easy go sort of game, where your characters are more like those in Tunnels and Trolls or low-level basic D&D.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Good points.

Good points as well. Except I'd call GURPS and Champions half-sibling children of TFT.

TFT would be something like the original D&D to GURPS' later (A)D&D editions.

To me, GURPS is what you get if you take TFT with a number of various house rules I've seen over the years (separate HT attribute, magic cast using a separate fatigue value instead of damage, move stat derived from attributes), and use some of the base assumptions that went into Car Wars combat. Essentially, if you change the focus to characters instead of cars, compress the phases out of Car Wars combat turns, and flip it from 2d6 roll high to 3d6 roll low, you've got something that starts looking very much like GURPS combat. Combine that with the house ruled TFT from above, especially with its hex-based combat system, add some Bondo and sand off the rough spots, and you've almost got GURPS.

Assuming the attributes are on the same scale (which I do), one attribute point in TFT is roughly equal to 20 character points in GURPS. TFT's ST is almost exactly the same as GURPS' ST plus HT.

So, I'd say that the "essential TFT" side of the line is: three attributes, slightly abstracted combat time, low-resolution points, low-resolution talents, attribute checks on more or fewer dice depending on difficulty. The "essential GURPS" has more finely detailed and general-purpose points, more finely detailed skills, more finely detailed combat, and is in general more finely detailed.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Agreed. You know, it's interesting to consider how Champions handled the 3d6 bell curve and the issue of how quickly the probabilities change (i.e.an 8 has a 26% chance of success on 3d; a 12 has a 74% chance).

As I recall, the success roll was 9 + (attribute/5). (?) This allowed you to have very high attributes without having virtually automatic successes on 3d rolls.

I'm not advocating for such a system (yet), although it does address one of my key issues with TFT. So a ST15 character in such a system would need a 12- on 3d. 74% chance rather than 95% chance. A ST20 character would need a 13-. And so on. Of course, you do lose some distinction between ST levels. But high ST has advantages besides a better 3d roll - damage, weapon use, health. DX could be an issue, since it mainly is used as a 3d roll. IQ includes talents/spells, so it might be okay. (And you could make spellcasting a 3/IQ roll without overpowering IQ).

And of course, you can change the equation. 7 + (attribute/3) for instance, or 8 + (attribute/5), both of which give an average person a 50% chance of success on 3d.

Just musings, really.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I played tons of both and never really saw TFT as anything but "the thing that was on SJ's mind before GURPS." Experience-wise, for me, playing TFT felt more like playing Tunnels & Trolls or another fast-and-easy fantasy RPG, while GURPS felt like playing a cousin of what would become known as Hero. You can see some turns of phrase, trait names, etc. in GURPS that originated in TFT, but that sort of bleed-through is inevitable when two works have the same author. In actual play, they never seemed much alike to me.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Exactly. TFT felt like "second generation" Tunnels and Trolls to me. It took the basic ideas of T&T; no character classes (OK, two), saving throw v attribute resolution, power point magic system and added tactical combat and a simple Talent system. That was all I wanted then, and all I really want now. I don't like GURPS or other rules heavy systems and don't want TFT to move in that direction.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I heartily agree. I love a game where I can generate characters in literally a few minutes, then play with a very engaging combat system. I never really thought about the T&T connection. SJ did edit Monsters Monsters I think. And Mercenaries Spies and Private Eyes has a skill system that’s definitely inspired by TFT (and might be worth adapting).

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

"This is an interesting thread," said Steve, interestedly.

I am too close to both of them to value my own opinions very much!

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Well, most parents love all their children.

I am curious - were there any decisions you made with GURPS that were motivated by a desire to separate GURPS from TFT?

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

While I never played T&T and thus can't agree or disagree with any of that; I totally agree with your last two sentences here, Chris!

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

This made me think of something - in many ways GURPS is a blend of TFT (small number of stats; 3d roll vs attributes in particular) and Champions (points used to buy everything). That is meant as a compliment, by the way, as both systems are excellent (in my opinion). I don’t think the GURPS combat system is as complex as Champions, but it’s more complex than TFT. And while the GURPS character generation system is more complex than TFT, I don’t think it is as complex as Champions. At least this is applicable to the mid-1980s versions of both games.

I seem to recall that a lot of time passed between the announcement of GURPS and the publication of Man to Man. And a fair amount of time between Man to Man and full blown GURPS. This implies that Steve took a lot of time to polish GURPS and “get it right”. From what I infer from articles in the Space Gamer, ITL was a much more rushed project.

Also, GURPS was explicitly a universal RPG. Just guessing, but I imagine that this required far more robust testing of the mechanics than a fantasy only RPG. It really wasn’t the game I wanted to play, but it’s obviously a strong design. And while the number of “splatbooks” exploded when the d20 OGL arrived, through the late 80s and 90s, GURPS provided a huge resource of supplements that could be adapted to any RPG. Oh, and Steve brought back the Third Imperium...a personal thanks for that. To this day, my GURPS supplements are a valuable resource.

But I digress.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

There were a couple of interesting additional effects, particularly relating to different divisors and different usages for different stats. Success rolls for skills and "saving throws" (stat rolls, in other words) were based on the 9 + (stat/5) formula, but combat was based on a different one: 11 + attacker's Offensive Combat Value, or OCV (DEX/3) - defender's Defensive Combat Value, DCV (also DEX/3), with bonuses and penalties from maneuvers, skill levels, and so on. The Ego Combat Value (EGO/3) would substitute for OCV and DCV when using mental powers. Also, initiative order in combat is by Dexterity, from high to low, so a single point can matter there.

There's also a general rule for rounding of fractional values: below .5 rounds down, above .5 rounds up, and .5 exactly rounds in the character's favor. So characters get the benefit of hitting different breakpoints. Dexterity 13 is a breakpoint for stat rolls, but for combat it's just shy of hitting one, so Dexterity 14 is more common. But sometimes someone will go Dexterity 15, in order to go before all the folks who went with 14. 23 is an even better breakpoint; it's both a combat value (DEX/3) and stat roll (DEX/5) breakpoint. But again, that makes 24 a tempting target, to go ahead of the 23's. And 25 to go ahead of the 24's. And so on.

Fuzion came along as a sort of descendant system of Champions, explicitly with R. Talsorian's Interlock (Cyberpunk 2020). It generally irons out the stats so that every point matters. Instead of dividing by one breakpoint value for stat rolls and another for combat, it reduces the values overall. A base human might have DEX 3, which might be roughly the equivalent of DEX 13 in Champions; combat there would be 3d6 + attacker's DEX - defender's DEX. Stat rolls are done with 3d6 + stat against a difficulty value.

Fuzion was not well received by the general Herodom, but not for anything to do with the system. Fuzion has often been called Hero Games' New Coke; it's a decent system, fixing a number of problems people have had with Champions and the HERO System over the years, but it was a Big Announcement at exactly the wrong time, and as a result it didn't really get a fair shake by Hero gamers.

All of that is to say... applying math to a stat value to get a roll works for Champions, but people who dislike the system hold the quite reasonable position that having to do extra math to play a roleplaying game can be a barrier to entry. Not much of one by itself, but with Champions especially, it's one of a number of them that add up.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Ah, yes, it all comes flooding back. It’s amazing what we’d tolerate when we were young and limber...

Thanks for the rundown. I’ve got C2020 somewhere. I think I’ll pull it out and take a look, for curiousity’s sake.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

True. Champions wasn't the originator, but it really made the design trend visible. It was very successful, to the extent that a lot of games that were coming out afterward were of the "base points plus points gained from flaws to buy stats, powers, skills, etc." pattern. The specific implementation for Champions came from Wayne Shaw's attempts to turn Superhero 2044 into a playable game; S2044 was contemporary with TFT, or at least Melee (1977 for both). As I've said elsewhere, the Champions designers were playing a lot of TFT, and I could see TFT's influences all throughout Champions when I was writing my TFT retro-clone.

GURPS first edition's character creation wasn't anywhere near as complex as GURPS' is now; it has evolved over the years. The GURPS system of advantages with modifiers (enhancements and limitations) was most likely directly influenced by Champions, as it first appeared in GURPS Supers (in a somewhat different form in that book's first edition, but more like its current implementation in its second). That particular subsystem is no less complex in GURPS than it is in Champions and Hero, but I think GURPS is generally a good bit less complex overall, and that subsystem isn't ingrained into GURPS the way it is in Champions. (Edit for clarity: Advantages existed in GURPS from the beginning, but enhancements and limitations came along with GURPS Supers.)

I think I wasn't following the announcements at the time; the first I'd heard of it was, I think, seeing Man To Man on the shelves. I bought it instantly, because I'd played TFT before and loved it, was a Car Wars player as well, and because it had Steve Jackson's name on the cover. Still have it, and my Roleplayer #1. :) (Still wishing SJG had gotten a license for Robert Asprin's Myth Adventures... the magic system in GURPS Magic was very nearly perfect as is for that.)

True. The HERO System started out as Hero Games' house system, rather than explicitly a universal system, first appearing in Champions but shortly after in Espionage, Justice Inc., Fantasy Hero, and Danger International (the update of Espionage, itself taking influence from Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes). My group treated it as a universal system, though, and it de facto was one. Just wasn't explicitly sold as one.

Agreed 100%.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

For me, the distinction is in how skill is represented.

TFT, skills (properly, Talents) adjust the dice thrown
GURPS, skills increase effective attributes

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Many talent related modifiers adjust the attribute. E.g., Thrown Weapons, Missile Weapons, or the penalty for not having a weapon talent.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I have always related to GURPS as a more advanced and detailed version of TFT that also now has tons of toolkit rules and content available for it.

TFT is also a much faster-to-learn and clearly ready-to-play system, where GURPS (especially 4e) daunts many players and can seem like a massive task to choose/design a setting and even make characters because of the huge number of options. I can run either system for a non-gamer right away as the GM, but a person can more or less learn Melee in under an hour.

I also relate to GURPS as solving many issues that eventually had TFT (after 6 or so years of heavy play) become unsatisfying to us (see below for details).

However since then, I've also seen that house rules can also make TFT work well enough for me, and occasionally I've still played TFT (even without house rules) for fun/nostalgia/curiosity.

I think the main difference is in the complexity of the character sheets (especially the potential length of the skill list) and character generation process.



Background story, if interested:

It also was our answer to having burned out playing TFT. We played TFT from 1980 to 1986, but about 1985, particularly with the first character still going from 1980 (a 46-point fighter), most of the combat seemed extremely predictable and not challenging unless excessive opponents were involved. Fine chainmail, fine greatsword, Veteran, Fencing, self-powered Stone Flesh ring. Does sweeping blows for fun, stops 10 hits per attack (if anyone ever survives long enough to attack) and has friends. Sure he could die to one powerful lightning bolt or a thrown spell or poison or something, but the interest in combat was not really there. Even for less-powerful characters, we'd done so many TFT combats that the action felt really predictable.

So we started house-ruling and then largely stopped playing and were designing new systems to make combat more interesting and unpredictable and to work more like we thought it should (defensive moves, more interesting representations of high skill level, differences between how different hand weapons and armor types work, more options for actions, more maneuvering)...

And then GURPS Man To Man appeared, and it did about 95% of what our redesign was trying to do, but elegantly, well-written, and playtested.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Skarg - I am glad you had a better reaction to Man-to-Man, than I did.

For myself, I have never had my gaming-hopes lifted so high, and then so quickly dashed in all my years of gaming. Granted, SJ had stated: "MtM is not TFT all over again."

No it is not, MtM is a totally different animal.

For me, Man-to-Man signaled the first resounding peal of the death knell for:

1) The singularly most appealing thing to me about TFT over ALL OTHER FRPG systems,

and,

2) Eliminated the only core-rule in the TFT-system which INDIRECTLY simulated the psychological FEEL of the danger/relief of physical confrontation with another being.

On the first-point:

When I read the words: "Yes, you need amour"; I basically lost 99% interest in the MtM design right then and there. - See MtM p. 15, sidebar

Why?

Mechanically, MtM, with the weapon damage bonuses added-in for cutting and impaling, reflected the true effect of weapon damage REALISTICALLY, but that also instantly killed-off the FUN and COLOR of sustaining multiple hits in a Melee and surviving as an unarmored, bare-chested wild-man who swings a Frazetta-style weapon while surrounded by Ogres with sharply gnarled clubs and bone axes.

In MtM, my TFT-style characters would die by the second blow, or the first good one - more often than not.

So why was this change in the scale of weapon damage and "forced into armor" dynamic so devastating to my TFT game-world, so-much-so that MtM was wholly unrelatable in game-world terms?

Simply because MY take on Cidri, was - strike, correct - IS, and always has been, an extremely dark, mysterious, oppressively brutal, unforgiving, and sinister world. A savage world, populated with sweaty, bare-chested and aggressive (i.e. barely armored) Low-Fantasy Barbaric-types with large, exotic, and deadly weapons; battling bizarre and esoteric wizards and monster-sized natural predator-beasts - classic Robert E. Howard "Swords & Sorcery" set and setting - and certainly not the world of Prince Valiant, nor Gandalf and the trapping of Tolkienesque High-Fantasy - nor the world where:

"Yes, you need amour." is a defacto-mantra for survival in that game-world.

The characters of MY Cidri, both PC and NPC - being totally and wonderfully Non-PC in every way - ONLY survive and flourish on: cunning, savagery, brutality, force of will, while dominating their environment and each other - or die.

Remember THE PROMISE printed on page 3 of IN THE LABYRINTH: "Each player creates a character - whatever type he wishes.";

TFT fulfilled that promise beautifully in game-world terms.

However, MtM's "Yes, you need armor.", and the Cutting/Impaling Damage Bonuses, instantly revoked TFT's above promise upon publication. Sure, you COULD go without armor, after all, it's not a RULE, but I hope you enjoy playing a character who will die really fast.

Therefore - and sadly for me - as you can see, the idea of Mad-Maxian Iron-Age Fantasy Characters, being forced to wear layers of amour and a pot-helm, just to avoid dying from a pin-prick from a clumsy Halfling-tailor while mending a torn loin-cloth, did not work at all for me - at all.

Again, SJ did warn us: "MtM is not TFT."

On the 2nd Point:

The other Klaxon-of-Doom resounded with the reading of the words about ["eliminating the concept of figures being 'Engaged', as there is no invisible magical force-field which glues you to another character while in combat"] - or something along those lines; I paraphrase.

While in point-of-fact there is no magical force-field that binds you to another while in combat, true enough; however, there is a psychological mind-set that occurs at three distinct stages of real combat: 1) At the moment you have to decide to actually engage a combatant within striking range - it can often feel like putting a bet down in a Casino, no matter how (over/under)confident your are; 2) The unspoken psychological/emotional communication-cross-chatter that occurs - it's a "sensed" thing between you and the enemy combatants you are embroiled with, even at-range; and 3) the feeling of the "release" from the psychological/emotional embroilment when the combat has finally been resolved.

To me, as a secondary by-product, the "invisible force-field of Engagement", indirectly simulated the FEEL of the head-trip of being in a direct confrontation; either as the engaging aggressor, or as the target-of-opportunity - who suddenly finds themselves "glued" into a combat situation.

I suppose it has something to do with the oft-weighty decision to commit to an engagement, evaluation of the opposition for strength and weaknesses, before making the decision to execute and thereby becoming committed to to the mission, etc.; and that's what the TFT rule of willfully entering that "invisible force-field of engagement" made come alive in play.

I think it is one of the best parts of the combat rules-set, even if it was not designed with that feature in mind.

I also get that a LOT of people feel the "engaged" rule is limiting and unrealistic from a purely mechanical point-of-view.

Well, from a purely mechanical point-of-view, the rules must somehow consistently bar players from doing the two things they want to do most, and that is: a) Attack and then Move out of range of retaliation, or, b) Attack while on-the-move, and hence, out of range of retaliation.

You really can't have that in a two-tier, sequentially-based, Movement/Action mechanical system, and also avoid having those who move first consistently overrun those who move second.

In sum: There is a beautiful "Chess-Like" feeling that is almost unique to the TFT combat-system, with it's "Option Menu/Scripted Action/Outcome, where no two attacks happens simultaneously" frame-work. Add to this the limited list of movement/action options, and to me, in someways TFT characters of different types and weaponry, behave very much like the wonderful difference between various Chessmen.

Like Chess, it is simple and elegant.

I would hate to see any of that beautiful uniqueness, flavor, and FEEL lost; as it was in MtM.

So, to directly answer the OP's Question: For me and my game-world, it is not a line that separates MtM from TFT; but a gulf.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Umm...I think TFT works pretty well for the high-fantasy part too. And while I certainly do appreciate (and agree with) your passion for swords and sorcery, to me the "appeal" in TFT was that it actually handled just about every single genre we ever tried with it with very little difficulty.

Sure, it's not as detailed as GURPS, but that was okay, and whether we were doing Conan-esque things or Gandalfy things, pirates on the high seas, three musketeers things, or even space combat with weapons that go "pew, pew, pew" (somehow) in the depths of vacuum, it all worked pretty darn well.

Now THAT'S a system! At the end of the day, the real appeal for me was the simplicity and portability of the system itself; which allowed the imagination to take over. Which is why I still prefer it, with or without modifications, to GURPS or D&D or Pathfinder, of any of those retro-clone thingies that get all the web time these days...

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I agree, this is well-said. We tried MtM, we tried GURPS, we tried liking it, it killed our game group for many years. The points made here are spot on, TFT's engagement rules are must when designing a system that has a UGO IGO mechanic.

And in reference to the emphasis on armor to survive and difficulty simulating characters that are skilled enough to avoid getting hit while besting their foes, think about a classic party such as the Fellowship. The only serious armor in the group was had by Gimli, the stand and deliver character (besides Frodo and his exceptional mithril mail). As best I can determine, Aragorn, Boromir (he did have a shield), Gandalf, and Legolas travelled lightly.

Gandalf dies, Boromir dies, true, but a party like this has a chance in TFT, not so much in MtM or GURPS. The chess-like feel mentioned is important, and changing the combat system will change that feel, and what I enjoy about TFT.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Yeah, I had a similar reaction to GURPS. While I admire the effort that has gone into it - to say nothing of the staggering number of supplements (most of which are very good and useful for any RPG) - it just wasn't the game I wanted to play. I did run it a couple of times, but soon abandoned it each time.

I don't really think there's that much overlap between the two games except the use of a 3d6 roll under mechanic.

Of course, GURPS solves many of the same problems as TFT, and since it does use the 3d6 resolution mechanic, some of those solutions may work for TFT. Nomenclature is often similar as well. But TFT ain't GURPS-lite and GURPS ain't TFT-heavy.

That said, if a GURPS rule will improve TFT (at least the TFT that I want to play), I'm all for stealing it. The best RPGs steal heavily from other games. GURPS itself was extremely similar to Champions; I'd submit that it's at least as similar to the Hero system as it is to TFT.

As far as comparing the two games - well, "realism" in RPGs is a pretty subjective thing in my opinion. If you like the GURPS combat system, then play GURPS with my blessings. I like TFT and will stay with that. But I don't see much benefit in comparing either game's "realism". You might as well argue about music.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

They do if the players and PCs are skilled and fortunate enough, especially if you grant them cloth or leather armor (and/or use 4e or a house rule that doesn't add PD to defense rolls, but adds to everyone's defense a bit to compensate). (Also cloth or leather doesn't penalize the wearer except for some encumbrance, so unlike TFT it doesn't interfere with low-level characters to use it.) I've played decades of GURPS medieval fantasy adventures and combats, and characters in light armor or even no armor can be quite viable in combat if they fight well enough.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Unarmored can work in GURPS, it's just suboptimal. In any case, LotR actually has a quite small number of battles where armor would matter (a fight against an orc in Moria; unlikely that armor would much matter against a Balrog; multiple orcs when Boromir is killed; Helm's Deep; Sam vs Shelob; Minas Tirith -- but Merry and Pippin were given armor there).

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Right, that's the point, suboptimal. Whereas in TFT the system provides for a better balance for a non-armored character, using various game tactics and the ST, DX, and IQ relationship, i.e. less armor isn't necessarily suboptimal. It makes a character like Aragorn more viable because he probably strikes first and hard, can disarm or cripple or shock, disengage to avoid being hit, rely on companions to cover his weaknesses, etc. etc.

And of course, when going into a pitched battle, as a knight or equivalent, armor probably makes sense, surely Aragorn used it. But most of our adventures are more of the stealth variety, where nimbleness, awareness, etc.are the watchword, not battlelines or castle sieges.

And the lack of a sticky half-ZOC for characters in GURPS and the one-at-a-time sequence always felt disjointed and un-fun. Not just me, but everyone I knew who tried it, it was a no-go.

It's not a matter of "realism", but enjoyment and playability. The point is that GURPS and other systems exist and have their fans, and I would hope that after so many years waiting for TFT it can retain its original appeal and dimension, however defined.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

I'm trying to understand the problem here, but failing so far... probably because I'm not fully recalling how things work in TFT.

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that if you're on the receiving end of a hit in TFT, and you're not wearing armor... well, that's it. You're hit for damage. Maybe a lot.

Whereas, in MtM/GURPS: If you're on the receiving end of a hit... you still have a chance to Parry, Block, or Dodge. And if you Dodge (a very common thing to do, and generally a "free" action), you increase your chance of avoiding the hit by wearing no armor (i.e., by being unencumbered).

In other words, it seems to me that MtM/GURPS is more forgiving of the unarmored character (even explicitly supporting swashbuckler-type characters whose survival is entirely based on speed, not armor). Whereas in TFT... If not armor, what else have you go to keep you alive? (The optional defending/dodging rule?)

Again, I suspect I'm simply failing to see something supporting your idea that TFT better supports the unarmored fighter. Is that the case?

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

TFT has DX penalties for wearing armor, GURPS does not. Thus, the unarmored fighter has a net offensive benefit in TFT.

The opposite side of that, however, is that superior skill matters less in TFT than in GURPS. In TFT, DX 14 vs DX 10 on average means hit probability 91% vs 50% -- an 82% benefit. In GURPS, Skill 14/Parry 10 vs Skill 10/Parry 8 means hit probability 68% vs 26% -- a 161% benefit.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Ah, that would be the big thing; thanks. I was thinking only about the defensive side of things, and where defense is concerned, I'd rather be an unarmored barbarian or swashbuckler in MtM/GURPS than in TFT.

But things change on offense, as you note, where TFT hoses the armored fighter while MtM/GURPS doesn't. Got it.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

TFT has no REGULAR DAMAGE BONUS for Cutting/Impaling weapons as MtM does; except in the special case of the Double-damage Charge-Attack for Pole Weapons.

So what does this mean in terms to no-armor TFT vs must-amour in MtM?

On average a 1d6 weapon will deliver approximately 3.5 hits of damage. At ST 14, an unarmed TFT'er can take 4 good average whacks before he is dead; and can take 3 average attacks and still stays above the dreaded -3DX near-death penalty.

However, if we add-in MtM's "Cutting Bonus" to the very same blows, those 3.5 hits, become increased by 50% to 5.25 hits per attack. Now, my same TFT figure can only sustain 2 average Mtm attacks, and the TFT figure is only 3 ST from Death - which brings with it special -DX doom-n-gloom in TFT.

Not good; but wait! It gets even worse,..

If we add-in MtM's "Impaling Bonus" to the very same blows, those 3.5 hits become increased by 100% to 7 hits per attack. Now my same TFT figure can only sustain 2 attacks and he is DEAD MEAT.

Sustaining 4 attacks on average in TFT, falling to 2 attacks in MtM. Cutting or Impaling, either way you cut it (sorry, for the pun) MtM is murder on TFT figures.

So as you can see, MtM just doesn't work for my TFT Fantasy Characters in my vision of Cidri; because MtM is too real and deadly for them without the armor.

"Yes, you need armor" - SJ; MtM sidebar, P. 15

"No, I need TFT" - JK; Summer 1986

Armed with the math above, if you go back and re-read my post #22, it should be "A clear as an unmuddied lake, sir. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. You can rely on me." - Alexander DeLarge #655321, 'A Clockwork Orange' 1971

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

These are important game-design issues, but it is worth considering another side to the question of armored vs. unarmored combatants: versimilitude. No combat system is 'realistic' but there is a big difference between games with combat systems that represent important features of reality and those that don't. And one important feature of reality is that armor is very effective and very important, and without it you will have a good chance of being debilitated by one blow from a weapon like a sword, spear or bow.

There are a lot of games that fiddle the probabilities of various damage outcomes to enhance player survivability, but end up creating a game where lethal or debilitating injuries are impossible or very unlikely. For instance, you can't hunt deer with a bow in D&D, or most other games, because no single attack will debilitate them, so they will just run away after you hit them. Not some of the time - 100 % of the time. There are many examples like this, and they are really frustrating.

How stupid do you have to be to make a combat system in which it is literally impossible for a person or person-sized creature to suffer a debilitating injury from a crossbow, spear or sword? Hard to say, but apparently that is how stupid most of us are, because that is how most of our games work.

So, when I deliberate revisions and house rules, I usually am trying to nudge us closer to reality rather than farther away.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

As someone who's played decades of medieval/ancient/Cidri/fantasy GURPS after TFT, the only real difference I see in the armor of the typical parties is more use of cloth and leather armor (more than TFT low-level characters because no DX penalty). The popularity of plate and chain in the GURPS adventurers I have seen is really about the same as it is in the TFT games I have played, i.e. uncommon because it's heavy/noisy/expensive and slows you down, but used by some tanks anyway, with mail more common than plate.


It took a little getting used to for me but now I entirely prefer it, and now TFT engagement feels static/limiting and off to me by comparison.


What do you think of allowing engaged figures to move away but suffer a free extra attack from the figure(s) they disengage?

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Only in the specific situations you mentioned, and if you mean "hits" instead of "attacks".

Consider:

* Unarmored figures in TFT can also be taken out in 1 or 2 hits if they get hit with a weapon that does 2 or 3 dice damage (or they hit you for double or triple damage).
* In GURPS, the active defenses mean many attacks don't do any damage at all, and not getting hit by defending and by clever use of movement, reach, waiting, etc., there are more opportunities in GURPS for an unarmored fighter to avoid being hit at all. (It does however help if you use 4e or house rules that don't have armor passive defense stack with active defenses.)
* TFT gives unarmored fighters few ways to avoid being hurt at all (avoid engagement or take out your foes before they hit you).

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

All very well and good Skarg, but the overriding and simple fact-of-matter is that MtM does NOT fit my game-world, my play-style, my style characters, nor my vision of what they look like in my mind's eye.

Bottom-line: MtM is just not for me, thanks; I am a TFT-guy.

Yes, attacks; being the singular variable damage generated during another figures attack-phase; which I averaged to 3.5 hits per attack at 1d6.


BTW, are you still running that joint on the outskirts of the Village of Bendwyn? I had a great time last time I was there, and uh, sorry about all the, uh,... damage; but had it been an MtM party, the damage to your place would have been 50%-100% heavier ;-)

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Ok.


Oh sorry - by "hit" I meant "successful attack" not point of damage. My point being that the active defenses in GURPS mean that a skilled/agile low-armor character hopefully entirely avoids taking any damage from many attacks because they dodge, retreat, block, parry, etc many of the attacks, and survive that way, where in TFT-as-written there is no effective way to do that except the Defend option (which precludes attacking and doesn't take into account skill). I like playing little-to-no-armor fighters too, but I'd rather be able to use my skill to avoid being hurt (without having to take out every opponent I face before they can attack me) than get slowly cut down.


Why yes, Skarg's is ever-popular and going strong in my original campaign (though I haven't run it in a long time). Don't worry about the damage. Skarg learned long ago how to capitalize on nightly mayhem. In my campaign, Skarg had a second bar-room built so when one gets too damaged, he can keep the other open while the damaged one gets repaired. And of course there's a large graveyard.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Not for it. This is one of the TFT mechanisms that allows a less armored-no armored character to survive. Without armor, you are gambling that you are faster, so you can very often disengage if you are outmatched and be immune that turn to a regular type of attack, waiting for some other opportunity, strategy, or companion to help you out. Or you force your opponent to attempt HTH, with all of its risks. Or you can perhaps make an aimed shot, disarming or knocking down or out your opponent before he can strike you well.

Our experience, which maybe I didn't make clear enough earlier, is that TFT allows an interaction to be resolved in an interesting and enjoyable way in a reasonable length of time, fundamentally for three reasons.

In TFT, each side does its thing at once, or together, getting it done. GURPS is one guy at a time, while everyone sits and waits.

And while TFT has Defend and Disengagement options, there isn´t a lot of parrying or blocking to be had, the damage from each attack is, in effect, summed up in a single roll.

Lastly, if I remember correctly without dragging from storage my ruleset, GURPS turns are meant to be about half as long as TFT, effectively time slicing more finely and doubling the time required for an engagement. And truly, we found interactions to take about twice as long, and with more downtime for each player, to boot.

The important point to me is that TFT has a somewhat unique turn sequencing and options, using engagement and a UGO IGO mechanic, and sums up sword play into a single die roll to determine whether someone is rewarded with hits or not. This means more time can be spent on the adventure part of the evening, and not an overly long amount on more precisely animating the details of a fight. And in the end, for me and others like me, it makes the difference that is the difference between a system I look forward to playing, and one I do not.

I won´t say TFT is better, just preferred by some number of players. And since everyone else has been satisfied with available rules and adventures these past four decades, it would be nice to have the TFT option available once again for those that prefer it, for whatever reasons they present.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

Exactly, and specifically why I advanced the proposal of a simple additional TFT OPTION: BLOCK; to be added to the current options of: DEFEND, DISENGAGE, and DODGE - See details on my post #52 under the thread entitled: "Glitches,... etc."

Although the point of that proposal is ACTUALLY to variate the turn-by-turn Combat Rhythm, and offer very a simple 4th Defensive Option for TFT, and remain in-line operationally and simply with the other meager 3 TFT Defensive Combat options that exist now; as you rightly have indicated.


"a Saloon with it's own Graveyard out-back",... nice touch!

.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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".

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.
.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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. : )

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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.

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.

Re: TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?
 

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.