TFT and GURPS - where is the line between them?

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

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.

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.