Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

[RobW]

To amplify one of Kirk's excellent points. As written, distance penalties for missile weapons affect adjDX and therefore would seem to affect order of action and rate of fire. We never played that way but perhaps we should have. It would be nice to clarify the intention of the rules here.

[RobW]

The jobs table and aging rules might not qualify as a glitch given their intended use. But I once simulated the lives of 100,000 farmers and soldiers on this table. Results were published on the brainiac list, but a few highlights, which I have always found entertaining:

The 100,000 "soldiers" all had legal 5/16 jobs (5 or less = extra point, 16 or more = threat). Their life expectancy was then 27 years. Over 90% of the soldiers died "on the job", ie from misadventure. In fact, an amazing 58% of the age 16 soldiers died before they reached 17. Sounds pretty reasonable so far, right?
But about 9% of this population went on to reach very old ages (max=132 years old!), obtain very high numbers of character points (max=142!), and die peacefully. By the ITL system, the most powerful people on earth are 69-years-old. These people have been rolling weekly to increase their attributes for 54 years. That works out to 52*54 = 2808 chances to increase points. On a 5/16 job we would expect about 130 successes (although they have been losing one point a year through ageing). The members of this special group obtain so many points that they can survive any 4d damage roll. On starting their 70th year, the ageing rules really kick in, and the surviving population declines, in number and power.

The more peaceful 3/18 farmers led a less dramatic existence. Life expectancy for this group is 30 yrs, only 10% died in their first year of labor, and the oldest of the 100,000 farmers was 86.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Halflings with boomerangs and a pouch of shuriken are even worse.

I've often thought that Sauron clearly missed a bet with his punk orcs and Uruk-Hai. He really needed a platoon or two of Hairfoots instead...

[Jim Kane]

Before I add my personal 2 cent 'TFT Glitch & Fix' into the fray, I would like to offer some general food-for-thought to the forum contributors on this very important topic; as they consider their personal 'fixes' to what they perceive as 'glitches'.

1. When Charles Darrow designed the rules-set for Monopoly, the overriding goal - from the designer's perspective - was to bankrupt all but the last player as fast as possible; by returning the maximum amount of money back into the bank in the shortest amount of time - and thereby determining a winner by default (i.e.: the last man standing; which is not the same as: "the player with the most money at the end wins" - that's a different game and end-game.) Did you know the game's design-title was: BANKRUPTCY; and 'Monopoly' was the publisher's idea to put a positive sales-spin on the product during a time of great financial hardship for the USA.

Nearly every Monopoly house-rule (aka: 'fix') adopted into that game serves to specifically work directly against the entire point-and-purpose of Darrow's core-design.

By-and-large, the house-rules played by so many tend to keep monies out of the bank, and in circulation between the player's hands; and thereby extend the game play-time, and alters who should have won the game - in accordance with the correct rules and concept of the designer.

I feel this Monopoly example is important to keep in mind, as one considers 'Glitches & Fixes' to TFT.

In considering what I see as a "TFT Glitch & Fix", I used this simple test on myself:

"Is what I am about to offer a legitimate design-fix to a legitimate design-flaw? Or, am I actually offering-up something which is akin to putting that big pile of money - which properly should have been returned to the Bank - into the center of the Monopoly board, which awaits the player who's token perfectly lands on the "Free Parking" space, as a lottery windfall?"

2. The excellent observations about the Hobbits with boomerangs, the Sha-ken Machine Guns, et al. - Really all these 'Player Character Manifestations' are all by-products of players who are purposefully min/maxing the system, and not designing their character from a dramatic story-telling perspective - which is the real SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

The simple fix for ALL those 'rules-exploitations' - which are viewed as rules-quirks - only when one is looking to "game the game" - is for a GM to simply and flatly disallow such non-sense into his/her Game-World.

So, is it really the rules which are in need of tweaking, or is it the players and the GM?

I hope my philosophical points are of help to everyone when considering what is a legitimate flaw with TFT, and what is - and is not - a legitimate fix. With that said, here is what has been bugging me about TFT Combat since the summer of '77:

A lower adj.DX fighter is at the mercy of a higher adj.DX fighter, nearly every turn; and is left to hope that Higher DX misses, so that Lower DX has a chance to upset the flow of the inevitable turn-by-turn hacking.

I believe the best 'fix' is to "borrow" a simple rule-concept from the Hero System; wherein a BLOCK maneuver is chosen by the lower DX character on the action phase of higher DX character who is attacking him.

Without going into mechanics. simply-stated, much like one would otherwise choose the existing TFT DEFEND OPTION - if successful, this BLOCK combat maneuver allows the lower DX character to strike first on the next turn, because "the successfully executed BLOCK sets up that character to deliver the next blow - regardless of relative DX."

This BLOCK OPTION, nicely simulates a "Parry & Counter" feel, and releases the TFT combat flow from the perpetual combat-rhythm of: High DX hacks-away, Low DX hacks-away, High DX hacks-away, Low DX hacks-away; repeat until ST=0.

And, when added as an additional 4th choice the preexisting DEFEND, DISENGAGE, and DODGE options, BLOCK would not only give the lower DX character a fighting chance when engaged wiith a higher DX character, but adds an additional layer of game-strategy when in Melee; and to me, THAT EQUALS FUN.

I hope you will give the concept some play-testing for yourself, and see if you agree.


Important Note: I am in no way suggesting that the DEFEND OPTION be replaced by BLOCK; as the DEFEND option is a great way to move 1/2 your MA, and quickly get inside to engage those pesky Pole Weapon users, and only give them ONE shot at the double-damage charge bonus,.. at 4d6 vs DX.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... 2. The excellent observations about the Hobbits with boomerangs, the Sha-ken Machine Guns, et al. - Really all these 'Player Character Manifestations' are all by-products of players who are purposefully min/maxing the system, and not designing their character from a dramatic story-telling perspective - which is the real SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

The simple fix for ALL those 'rules-exploitations' - which are viewed as rules-quirks - only when one is looking to "game the game" - is for a GM to simply and flatly disallow such non-sense into his/her Game-World.

So, is it really the rules which are in need of tweaking, or is it the players and the GM?

I think it should be fixed because it doesn't make sense that those weapons work the way they do, and it's those slips that create the weird min/max points that should not be min/max points. They're still parts that can and should be improved even for non-munchkins. After all, it's still a valid thing to do for someone to be a thrown weapons expert, and to choose to use peculiar weapons. Hopefully it would be a fun, interesting, and not out-of-proportion thing. It can be ok as written, if you apply some moderation, but the representation is still off and can be a balance issue that the GM and/or players will have to use meta-reasoning to avoid. Why not just make some adjustments so the representation of the things isn't a problem in the first place?

e.g.

• Give halflings Thrown Weapons and/or Missile Weapons as a free Talent, so it can't stack with a racial bonus.
• Tweak minST and/or damage and/or range modifiers for boomerangs.
• Have a limit on how many boomerangs you can effectively carry and ready each turn with Thrown Weapons. (2? 3? and/or just -1 DX for every at-the-ready slung war boomerang you're wearing).
• Give a max injury per sha ken hit (like 1 point) when thrown in groups.
• Have a limit on how many sha ken its possible to carry ready for use every turn with Thrown Weapons.

(And similar limits and tweaks for spear throwers, nets, bolas, whips, lassos are in order.)

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

A lower adj.DX fighter is at the mercy of a higher adj.DX fighter, nearly every turn; and is left to hope that Higher DX misses, so that Lower DX has a chance to upset the flow of the inevitable turn-by-turn hacking.

I believe the best 'fix' is to "borrow" a simple rule-concept from the Hero System; wherein a BLOCK maneuver is chosen by the lower DX character on the action phase of higher DX character who is attacking him.

Without going into mechanics. simply-stated, much like one would otherwise choose the existing TFT DEFEND OPTION - if successful, this BLOCK combat maneuver allows the lower DX character to strike first on the next turn, because "the successfully executed BLOCK sets up that character to deliver the next blow - regardless of relative DX."

This BLOCK OPTION, nicely simulates a "Parry & Counter" feel, and releases the TFT combat flow from the perpetual combat-rhythm of: High DX hacks-away, Low DX hacks-away, High DX hacks-away, Low DX hacks-away; repeat until ST=0.

And, when added as an additional 4th choice the preexisting DEFEND, DISENGAGE, and DODGE options, BLOCK would not only give the lower DX character a fighting chance when engaged wiith a higher DX character, but adds an additional layer of game-strategy when in Melee; and to me, THAT EQUALS FUN.

I hope you will give the concept some play-testing for yourself, and see if you agree.


Important Note: I am in no way suggesting that the DEFEND OPTION be replaced by BLOCK; as the DEFEND option is a great way to move 1/2 your MA, and quickly get inside to engage those pesky Pole Weapon users, and only give them ONE shot at the double-damage charge bonus,.. at 4d6 vs DX.

Yes, it's a good idea and something I've seen play well when exploring options for allowing characters to protect themselves in TFT. The details of exactly how it works can be tricky to get so they work well, especially if you're trying to avoid TFT becoming more complex.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Before I add my personal 2 cent 'TFT Glitch & Fix' into the fray, ...

I disagree. I do not think that TFT is prefect as it is, and therefore any change is for the worse. Or even most changes are for the worse. There are plenty of places where some rule changes result in a better game.

For example, the rules say that if you drop a study you lose an attribute's worth of experience or 1,000 experience WHICH EVER IS HIGHER(!) (page 16, ITL). Obviously that rule should be tossed, how could it conceivably make the game more fun. It simply punishes new players who make a mistake in character write up.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

1. When Charles Darrow designed the rules-set for Monopoly, the overriding goal - from the designer's perspective - was to bankrupt all but the last player as fast as possible; ...[/I]

By the way, Charles Darrow tried very hard to trick people in to thinking he was the designer of the game. But he stole the design of Monopoly from "The Landlord's Game", (written by Elizabeth J. Phillips), up to and including a misspelling of a property.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... With that said, here is what has been bugging me about TFT Combat since the summer of '77:

A lower adj.DX fighter is at the mercy of a higher adj.DX fighter, nearly every turn; and is left to hope that Higher DX misses, so that Lower DX has a chance to upset the flow of the inevitable turn-by-turn hacking.

I believe the best 'fix' is to "borrow" a simple rule-concept from the Hero System; wherein a BLOCK maneuver is chosen by the lower DX character on the action phase of higher DX character who is attacking him.

Without going into mechanics. simply-stated, much like one would otherwise choose the existing TFT DEFEND OPTION - if successful, this BLOCK combat maneuver allows the lower DX character to strike first on the next turn, because "the successfully executed BLOCK sets up that character to deliver the next blow - regardless of relative DX." ...

I hope you will give the concept some play-testing for yourself, and see if you agree. ...

Hi Jim, everyone.
The main cost of blocking is that you have to remember who has blocked last turn. In a big battle, this is a significant mental overhead.

Also, it works fine on one on one duels but what about this case...

A and B are on one team, C is on the other.

A's DX is 12, B's DX is 15 and C's DX is 11.

A swings at C and C blocks. A hits anyways, but does minor damage. B is busy doing something else.

Next turn C goes before A, but does C go before B? Does C jump to the head of the queue, or does his speed of action equal A's "plus a little bit". If you say that it is "plus a little bit", then you gain more benefit from blocking master swordsmen than ordinary guys.

For example if I block Inigo Montoya (a DX 21), then my effective speed of action is DX 21. Whereas if I block Dullem the guard (DX 12) my effective speed is 12. This means that fighting master swordsmen is very advantageous when I block, (in multiplayer fights) which seems counter intuitive.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Let’s catalog the list of glitches, ...

My initial list:

Boomerangs. I suggest they be nerfed so that they aren’t superior to light crossbows and to avoid swarms of disgusting, filthy, cowardly hobbit flingers.

Boomerangs are flying clubs so in my campaign they do club damage.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Bolos. I suggest an immediate ST save so that filthy, disgusting cowardly hobbits can’t bolo giants.

I feel that most of the special weapons should have some sort of contest to make them playable.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

General comment - review all automatic effects (i.e. that have no saving throw) and confirm that they aren’t subject to abuse. ...

Agreed. I've added saving throw to many thrown spells for example. (Not saying those saving throws are EASY.)

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Replace the “add dice as difficulty increases” mechanic with modifiers.

Disagree. I wrote a fairly long post on this.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Consider some limit on the amount of ST that can be used in missile spells. ...

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Revise death and dying so a character does not die at ST 0.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Should wizards really die if ST drops to zero from spellcasting?

It worked this way in the small games but it has never worked that way in the full game. See Recovering From Exhaustion on page 39 of Advanced Wizard.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Make the consequences of failing a job roll potentially fatal to any character no matter how strong he is.

I think that I would rather that the whole risk roll thing just go away. To make it work well, it needs more rules. Simplify and spend those column inches on something else more important?

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Define experience costs in terms of extra attribute points. This keeps races that start with fewer points but considerable innate advantages ... from dominating the game.

I disagree. It seems too fine a point to be worth rules. Hobbits simply need some new disadvantage to balance their buffs. e.g. a fairly low maximum ST or having to pay 2 times more exp to buy ST, or something.

Warm regards, Rick.

[michaeltaylor]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Replace the “add dice as difficulty increases” mechanic with modifiers.

Consider some limit on the amount of ST that can be used in missile spells. If you think that such a limit is appropriate, increase the cost rather than impose an absolute limit. I.e., it takes 2 ST per extra die over 5 dice or somesuch.

Revise death and dying so a character does not die at ST 0.

Should wizards really die if ST drops to zero from spellcasting?

To me, these all fall into the "If it aint broke, don't fix it." bucket.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Replace the “add dice as difficulty increases” mechanic with modifiers.

Please DO NOT... The dice by difficulty is the biggest, and for a good many, best, conceptual difference between GURPS and TFT.

If anything, I'd prefer to see modifiers stripped down a bit and replaced with extra dice.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Define experience costs in terms of extra attribute points. This keeps races that start with fewer points but considerable innate advantages (i.e., filthy hobbits) from dominating the game.

That one I agree with.

[tbeard1999]

Ty’s Ridiculously Simple Defense Rule

A figure with adjDX 11+ and a ready weapon can elect to reduce his adjDX (but he can’t reduce it below 10). For every -1 DX adjustment, all opponents are -1 DX to hit him with melee weapons. The character declares this at the beginning of the combat round, in initiative order (lowest initiative goes first).

This cannot be combined with the Defend option, which will become pretty useless for high adjDX figures.

A figure must have a ready weapon to use this option.


Those wanting to refine this rule can try the following enhancements:

1. You can combine it with defense. Your opponent rolls 4d to hit and suffers the defense modifier as well.

2. Defense can never reduce an opponent’s adjDX below 7. (This keeps high DX folks from mowing down low DX opponents, which may or may not be a good thing). Mechanically, apply all other DX modifiers before applying the defense modifier.

3. Defense can only be used by figures in leather or lighter armor. (I like this, as it makes swashbucklers useful).

4. Replace the main rule with this - a figure with adjDX 13+ and a ready weapon may take the defense option. He must roll 4 dice to hit his foes with melee weapons and his foes must roll 4 dice to hit him.

5. Or, as an alternative to number 4, a figure with adjDX 13+ with a ready weapon may take the defense option. He reduces his DX by 3 and his opponents’ DX by 3 in melee combat.