Re: (TFT) Re:Converting D&D

[Michael Taylor <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com>]

>>>>>>>But, you said, "but the game *does* determine the type of player
that's
>>>>>>>going to find it fun".  Therefore, you should be able to tell me
what type
>>>>>>>of player I am by what games I find fun.  Or maybe the game doesn't
>>>>>>>determine the type of player that's going to find it fun.

Well, I suspect that your yanking my chain (and it is a long one after all)
but in the interests of improving my communication skills I'll try to make
this clearer. The game does determine the type of player that is going to
find it fun, therefore *most* of the players will share the *some* similar
characteristics. But knowing the games you like doesn't tell what any
particular indivudal is like - especially as you seem to like them ALL
equally! Besides, of  those games I like only TFT! So I'll be you share
some TFT traits with me and other TFT players, but I have no idea what
BattleTech players are like! 

In other words, its fair to say that Football attacks larger males, because
its easier to be good at football if you are a large male. So you have a
really good chance of being a large male if you tell me you like football.
But it doesn't tell me that your NOT a short female! 

>>>>>>>I never said that I didn't have preferences; however there isn't any
RPG or
>>>>>>>tactical game that I've played that I didn't enjoy.  

Besides, my statements were specifically made toward the person who PREFERS
D&D even after being exposed to other more 'evolved' systems. These players
DO tend to be a certain type of gamer in my experience. 

>>>>>>>I must admit to hating games
>>>>>>>like Trivial Pursuit or Scattergories, however.  I don't even know
why.  I
>>>>>>>just despise them.

Probably because they are boring and relatively mindless, but there are
some exceptions in that category of games. I feel the same way about the
Collectable Card games. Mind rot! 

>>>>>>>You may have mis-read my sentence - I said 'tactical simulation',
not
>>>>>>>'tactical situation'.  

Whoops! Never mind!

>>>>>>>I understood it perfectly.  It's a crappy rule to improve your
characters
>>>>>>>with little risk and no role-playing.  It makes a simple random
event
>>>>>>>replace any effort on your part to actually play the game or
role-play your
>>>>>>>character.  

It seems obvious to me in the words "isn't being played" that this was
NEVER meant to be interpreted that way. At the end of page 25 it says that
the Jobs table allows you to "earn money, get experience, and get
killed...all without ever going on an adventure...". 

So doesn't it stand to reason that if you ARE going on adventures the GM
shouldn't be using the Job table? That's not going 'beyond the rules'
that's not mis-reading them! (IMO).

>>>>>>>time period between adventures should be role-played (I find
'blue-booking'
>>>>>>>those periods is an excellent way to do that), not decided by 3d6.

The Jobs table IS blue-booking! Whether you still to the 3d6 rolls is
irrelevant. If you HAVE something for players to do during their off time,
then you obvously dont need to use the Job table! 

>>>>>>> I didn't realize being a mathematician was so risky.  Oh my
>>>>>>>gosh, I'm on borrowed time! I've been a computer programmer (which
is
>>>>>>>probably a 3/18 Risk job) for 12 years!  I better boost my life
insurance,
>>>>>>>cause odds are, I'll die due to job-related causes any day now!

Sorry logic flaw. 20th century computer programming not comparible to 12
century on a fantasy world, but I digress. 

>>>>>>>ts built into the game."  Thus, the Jobs table helps define The
>>>>>>>Fantasy Trip as a role-playing game, and your play will reflect the
concepts
>>>>>>>inherent in the Jobs table.

Absolutely right and I'll stand behind that and support it logically. 

>>>>>>>Thus, since the Jobs table provides characters with rewards for
merely luck
>>>>>>>(good dice rolls), with no role-playing whatsoever, your play will
reflect
>>>>>>>that.  Or, is this one of the places where you have to go *beyond*
the rules
>>>>>>>to really be role-playing?

No, but if you hang out with enough TFT players you'll realize that you've
grossly misread the rules and understand that what the Jobs table is
suppossed to mean is that your life doesn't begin and end at the enterance
to the dungeon. That you still have to find a way to eat, sleep and live
beyond your treasure. 

You CAN take the Job table WAY out of context to mean --- "All the rest of
the rules are fluff, you're really supposed to roll on the Jobs Table until
you die or get incredibly powerful and then start adventuring!". But first,
no one will play with you - because it wont be any fun and second, you have
to realize that 'blue-booking' and all those other concepts weren't
invented till over 5 years later! 

Where in D&D was there any consideration that there WAS anything outside of
the dungeon? Taken in the right context, its' perfectly reasonable to have
around for NPCs or those long stretches when seperate groups of players
have their times out of sync and want to get together. Not as a substitute
for adventuring!

>>>>>>>Actually, it's because you die quite often when facing even what
should be
>>>>>>>greatly inferior foes by most fantasy-genre expectations.  

Personally, I dont agree. Gandalf the Grey ran from a pack of wolves. I
think D&D has given a different set of expectations that were *rarely*
reflected in any fantasy literature, but that's a personal preference. 

>>>>>>>combination of numbers in no time.  But, that isn't role-playing.  I
want my
>>>>>>>players to *care* about their characters, to invest some time and
effort
>>>>>>>into the role-playing.  If their characters died with any frequency,
they'd
>>>>>>>be even more apt to min-max and roll-play rather than role-play. 
Then
>>>>>>>again, this is probably a generalization.

Well, you could also solve problems without violence, but I wont deny that
TFT is very lethal. I try to put the 'fear-of-gawd' into players by making
them roll up 3 characters. I want them to CARE about their characters, but
I also want them to fear for their own mortality. 

I feel it's 'about-right' though I have also allowed just about every
additonal rule that lets people survive longer. 

>>>>>>>foolishly, as well.  And, of course, you can't make a TFT hero who
is an
>>>>>>>expert with the rapier, but less competent with a 2-handed sword. 
It's
>>>>>>>imposible, unless you go *beyond* the rules.

Uh, no, if you take Fencing and Sword your better with a Rapier than with a
two-handed sword. If you also take Two Weapons your WAY better with a
Rapier than a two-handed Sword. All straight ITL. 

>>>>>>>True, but if it had stayed around, it would probably have evolved to
>>>>>>>resemble GURPS, and I'd be an old grognard who whined and bitched
about how
>>>>>>>TFT was better in the 'old days', just like some of the 1st ed and
2nd ed
>>>>>>>D&D players are about 3e......

You might be right. In a way, I think Howard Thompson was a better designer
for certain aspects of TFT. Ultimately I think they both needed each other
to make TFT as good as I think it is. Shame they didn't keep developing
it...

Michael 
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"