The Fantasy Trip

[Dave Crowell]

Having used Classic Traveller to run a fantasy campaign once, I don't think it would be difficult to produce a science fiction version of TFT.

The difficulty would come in that lazer ray guns have a tendency to vapourize people they hit!

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

Having used Classic Traveller to run a fantasy campaign once, I don't think it would be difficult to produce a science fiction version of TFT.

The difficulty would come in that lazer ray guns have a tendency to vapourize people they hit!

Actually, you should wander over to Dark City Games and check out their free download of Time and Space -- their TFT clone's Sci-Fi version -- I've been buying the Sci-Fi programmed adventures as money permits, and enjoying them very much, but the basic rules are free and would get you well on the way...

They also have some old west rules, Untamed West; which, alas, they only have one programmed adventure for, but are very well done too. Mind you, there are differences between their rules and TFT -- fairly significant ones -- but they're easily understood and used.

[Rick_Smith]

This is something I think the new TFT needs, but Steve Jackson has suggested he might get rid of rolling more or less than 3 dice, so my version won't work.

The rpg Firefly has a sweet system where you roll several polyhedral dice where you want to get as high a total as possible. Various mechanical and roleplaying things can allow you to roll bonus dice (but you only keep the highest two dice which keeps the total in a fairly tight range).

Several other rpg's have contests built into the base rules.

GURPS kinda has this, but it is awkward.

But there are many times in TFT I would like to have someone roll vs DX to be sneaky and someone else needs to roll vs IQ to notice them.

In my campaign, if the guy being sneaky rolls more dice (e.g he rolls 5vsDX to sneak really well), the guy rolling vs IQ also has to roll more dice.

For example of how this works, see my article on improving the economics of Battle of Wills.

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/GM...illsInTFT.html

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/title.html
// The root to my web published rules.

But however it done, I think that the core rules of TFT need to handle direct contests between figures. It will make writing rules for many other subsystems of the game much easier.

Warm regards, Rick

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

This is something I think the new TFT needs, but Steve Jackson has suggested he might get rid of rolling more or less than 3 dice, so my version won't work.

The rpg Firefly has a sweet system where you roll several polyhedral dice where you want to get as high a total as possible. Various mechanical and roleplaying things can allow you to roll bonus dice (but you only keep the highest two dice which keeps the total in a fairly tight range).

Several other rpg's have contests built into the base rules.

GURPS kinda has this, but it is awkward.

But there are many times in TFT I would like to have someone roll vs DX to be sneaky and someone else needs to roll vs IQ to notice them.

In my campaign, if the guy being sneaky rolls more dice (e.g he rolls 5vsDX to sneak really well), the guy rolling vs IQ also has to roll more dice.

For example of how this works, see my article on improving the economics of Battle of Wills.

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/GM...illsInTFT.html

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/title.html
// The root to my web published rules.

But however it done, I think that the core rules of TFT need to handle direct contests between figures. It will make writing rules for many other subsystems of the game much easier.

Warm regards, Rick

The "contest" mechanic is central to the way I came to play TFT. Instead of just rolling against an Attribute like DX in isolation, I compared the scores of the opponents. So if both have the same DX in a fight they each have a 50% chance to hit (hit on a 10 or less). Where there is a difference in scores, if one has DX14 and one has DX10 for example, the higher has a 12 chance and the lower an 8 chance, and so on. If the target is not actively resisting, like a locked door, I'd assign a value to contest against; so for a standard door I'd assign a 10, a heavy door 13 and so on.

It's also simple to compare different attributes. So in the example you gave just compare the sneaking characters DX with the watching characters IQ to see if he is spotted/heard.

For harder rolls (4d equivalent) I'd set the value at 13/14 and for very hard rolls (5d equivalent) I'd set it at 17/18. This approach does away with the need for rolling any number of dice other than 3, although I have to admit I do like rolling lots of dice. It also means there's no need to remember different numbers for automatic successes and failures since you're always using 3d6.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

The "contest" mechanic is central to the way I came to play TFT. Instead of just rolling against an Attribute like DX in isolation, I compared the scores of the opponents. So if both have the same DX in a fight they each have a 50% chance to hit (hit on a 10 or less).

This means your opponent needs to know what your DX is. What if I don't want him to know what my DX is?

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

If the target is not actively resisting, like a locked door, I'd assign a value to contest against; so for a standard door I'd assign a 10, a heavy door 13 and so on.

ITL Page 45 "CHOPPING THE DOOR DOWN. A regular door has a ST of
30". Far more simpler to just hack at the door till its down to 0 hit points. I think this Opposed Challenge concept works best with something that has a will to fight your challenge. If the door was a living entity (like an Ego Sword), it might be able to do something about your hacking at it.

I am in favor of keeping the adding a die for making the difficulty greater. I also am in favor of keeping the game a d6 game.

I am in favor of keeping the rulebooks nearly the same, but with small fixes to whatever SJ thinks is useful.

I am also in favor of having an ALTERNATE RULESBOOK with many of the variations that this TFT forums are cultivating. These alternate rules should be vetted with logic and playtesting, of course. But the ALTERNATE RULEBOOK would be a tool kit that you either just plug into the Standardize Core Game or pops out something that is not liked and puts in the tool kit part.

Then when you play at a convention you could say. Standard Core rules with ALTERNATE C Rules, using a D20 dice system. If the players just can't handle that, they won't play or you would have to play the Standard Game.

- Hail Melee

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

This means your opponent needs to know what your DX is. What if I don't want him to know what my DX is?



ITL Page 45 "CHOPPING THE DOOR DOWN. A regular door has a ST of
30". Far more simpler to just hack at the door till its down to 0 hit points. I think this Opposed Challenge concept works best with something that has a will to fight your challenge. If the door was a living entity (like an Ego Sword), it might be able to do something about your hacking at it.

I am in favor of keeping the adding a die for making the difficulty greater. I also am in favor of keeping the game a d6 game.

I am in favor of keeping the rulebooks nearly the same, but with small fixes to whatever SJ thinks is useful.

I am also in favor of having an ALTERNATE RULESBOOK with many of the variations that this TFT forums are cultivating. These alternate rules should be vetted with logic and playtesting, of course. But the ALTERNATE RULEBOOK would be a tool kit that you either just plug into the Standardize Core Game or pops out something that is not liked and puts in the tool kit part.

Then when you play at a convention you could say. Standard Core rules with ALTERNATE C Rules, using a D20 dice system. If the players just can't handle that, they won't play or you would have to play the Standard Game.

- Hail Melee

I'm not sure what you mean? Under most circumstances you will know the opponents DX as soon as you cross swords with them. There might be some possibility that a highly skilled opponent could feign lesser skill than they actually possess but there is currently nothing in the rules about that.

As to doors: often there is not time to chop them up, they just need to be immediately broken down. There are rules further up the same page in ITL although I prefer to assign my own difficulty levels when designing a scenario.

[Steve Jackson]

OCR work continues. It is absolutely amazing how often the OCR renders "turn" as "tum," and how hard that is to see on the screen.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

But however it done, I think that the core rules of TFT need to handle direct contests between figures. It will make writing rules for many other subsystems of the game much easier.

Warm regards, Rick

One of the more elegant opposed roll systems (in my opinion) is in Pendragon. In that game, you rolled a d20, trying to roll a skill/attribute or less to succeed. If opposed, the other figure would do the same. The winner is whichever figure (a) succeeded in rolling the skill/attribute or less and (b) rolled the *highest* number. As I recall, if you rolled the exact target number, you got a special success. Combat was an opposed roll.

I'm not sure if this approach would work with TFT (particularly mapping it to 3d6), but I thought I'd mention it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

One of the more elegant opposed roll systems (in my opinion) is in Pendragon. In that game, you rolled a d20, trying to roll a skill/attribute or less to succeed. If opposed, the other figure would do the same. The winner is whichever figure (a) succeeded in rolling the skill/attribute or less and (b) rolled the *highest* number. As I recall, if you rolled the exact target number, you got a special success. Combat was an opposed roll.

I'm not sure if this approach would work with TFT (particularly mapping it to 3d6), but I thought I'd mention it.

For a d20 or other flat die roll, that's exactly equivalent to a comparison of margin of success, and may be slightly faster in play. It doesn't work for multiple die rolls, though.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

One of the more elegant opposed roll systems ... is in Pendragon. In that game, you rolled a d20, trying to roll a skill/attribute or less to succeed. If opposed, the other figure would do the same. The winner is whichever figure (a) succeeded in rolling the skill/attribute or less and (b) rolled the *highest* number. As I recall, if you rolled the exact target number, you got a special success. Combat was an opposed roll. ...

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

EXAMPLE ONE:
Arbrem DX 12 vs Balleth DX 18.

These two guys have a log rolling contest. Since neither have Log Rolling skill, they both use their DX rolling 3vsDX.

Arbrem rolls a 11. Balleth rolls a 12. Since they both succeeded we look to see who had the higher roll. Balleth wins. This result rewards the figure with the higher DX which is good.


EXAMPLE TWO:
Arbrem DX 12 vs. Balleth DX 18.

As above but Arbrem rolls a 12 and Balleth rolls a 13. Does Arbrem's special success trump Balleth's higher roll? If so, then people with attributes closer to 10 or 11 gain an unfair advantage over those with higher attributes which is not ideal. If we say that the higher roll trumps the special success, then only the higher attributed figure can gain special successes (or tied figures).


EXAMPLE THREE:
Coval DX 18 vs. Deadalus DX 22.

As above, Coval rolls an 11 and Dadalus rolls a 10. Attribute bloat has defeated your system. Who wins is basically random. Since a key purpose of adding contests to TFT, is to handle situations with attribute bloat, I do not think this system is idea for the new TFT.

Of course, my understanding may be unclear.
Warm regards, Rick.