05-30-2018, 03:34 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
The reason this was such a problem is the lack of an index, which I really hope will be corrected.
|
06-01-2018, 02:41 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
According to Steve, both the Table of Contents AND the index will be vastly improved (of course, simply creating an index will be a "vast improvement," but I'm hoping for a really good one from SJGs this time around).
|
06-01-2018, 06:31 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
Quote:
I do know that In the Labyrinth was a LONG time coming. If I recall correctly, it was first announced in 1977 (or was it 1978) in The Space Gamer. Howard's impatience may have been justified, but it was unfortunate that he didn't allow a final proofread. And the original format was to have been a $20 boxed set with rules, thick counters, maps, and a full color map of Tollenkar's Lair. HT then decided fairly late to change that to the 3 books and separate adventure costing $18 total instead. In 1980, $20 was a significant amount of money to come up with at one time. With TFT, you could buy ITL for $6 and if you already had Wizard and Melee, you could start playing. I can see Thompson's view on that, but I do wish they'd been able to do a "deluxe" edition then. |
|
06-01-2018, 06:35 PM | #24 |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
Since AM and AW didn't even have a table of contents, that's a pretty low bar :)
|
06-01-2018, 11:28 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
Quote:
Wizard was harder to integrate into D&D. |
|
06-02-2018, 12:16 PM | #26 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
Steve said somewhere that Melee was first written due to his extreme dissatisfaction with the combat rules in existing RPGs (and let's face it, D&D style combat rules were all there were, even if they were re-skinned as blasters and ablative armor). So it makes perfect sense that you could easily do that. (And good on you for doing so! I was always too lazy!)
Wizard, on the other hand, was created more to fit in with Melee than to work as a substitute for the existing Vancian magic system. So it makes sense it would be a lot harder to use as a substitute unless you simply ripped out the existing system and replaced it wholesale with Wizard. |
06-02-2018, 03:07 PM | #27 | |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
Quote:
RuneQuest (1978) had attack and parry, damage and HP both general and to the body location, HP by attributes only, and no easy ways to raise attributes. Armor was non-ablative, and reduced damage taken, if present on that location. T&T (1975) went the other direction - no rolls to hit, only relative damage, winners doing the difference, which was divided over the loser group evenly. Armor was still non-ablative, and reduced your individual damage taken. Traveller (1977) had Rolls to hit, with armor as a modifier to be hit. And had damage to attributes. Many did use close variants to D&D, but there were already options - tho' not everyone had access to them. Dallas (1980) didn't even have physical combat . While Melee was 1977, RuneQuest was in playtest, and shows that SJ wasn't the only one diverging. There was variation, and it was good. |
|
06-03-2018, 12:48 AM | #28 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
So basically, my statement WAS true, since at the time Melee was published, only T&T was actually already in print. And prior to 1977 (when Traveler came out -- with ablative armor) the only thing we really had was D&D, given that most of us had never heard of T&T at that point.
But nice try. |
Tags |
in the labyrinth, rules, talents |
|
|