Re: (TFT) chances of doing very little damage

[Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net>]

That sorta sounds like Aces and Eights for Western games... That was a  
fun system, but it was quickly discovered (realistically) that any  
sort of gunfight taking place between two guys on an open street...  
think a 'duel'... quickly resulted in almost everyone being dead or  
very badly injured, usually after the first second or so.

Oh, and if a guy had a rifle, he could basically just shoot people on  
sight (from a distance) and usually win.

Realistic, but we ended up having to add in 'cover' which felt  
'unwestern' to some people.... which is strange.
On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:17 PM, raito@raito.com wrote:

> The more I look at things, the more systems like Swashbuckler, En  
> Garde! and the infinitely detailed Emersonian variant of D&D make  
> some sense. All of those systems involve aynchronous timing in  
> preference to lock-step turns. For those unfamiliar...
> En Garde and Swashbuckler essentially used the same system, where  
> one could only initiate a combat maneuver when one had completed the  
> last maneuver. And maneuvers took more than one step. For example, a  
> heavy-damage cut might take 5 steps, where the cut actually occurs  
> on the 4th step, and during the other steps nothing happens. So if  
> someone else's attack is supposed to hit on the 3rd step, you have  
> no defense. Generally, parries took 2 steps, with the actual parry  
> on the second step. Emersonian was even more complex, with physical  
> and mental reaction times, etc. But then, Emerson Mitchell was a  
> math geek. (and trying to find current references for him did turn  
> him up, as a fan of Loglan, and another guy named Greg Rihn that I  
> used to know).
> But the one thing that none of these systems considered was  
> position. Not so much as in body position, but weapon position. I  
> know from my experience that most of my SCA fights (and kendo  
> fights, and all fencing bouts, and most of all the martial arts,  
> come to think of it) is about getting into the position where your  
> offense is unopposed. It's very seldon that you can just flat  
> outspeed your opponent and hit him as a one shot thing, or use so  
> much power that you just blast through his defense. That's kind of  
> the tradeoff -- defense is easy, but doesn't win. Offense is risky,  
> but wins.
> When I was in high school, I programmed a somewhat turn-based  
> fencing simulation where the actions you could take were advancing  
> and retreating, thrusting, and moving your blade among the 8  
> classical fencing positions (actually, there's 9, except that we  
> don't use 9, and we don't use 1 in epee or foil, so there were  
> really 7). If your blade was in a position, your opponent couldn't  
> land a thrust through the line your position was in. It was quite a  
> bit of fun.
> Some of these sorts of systems lend themselves well to computer  
> moderation.
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.com
>
> Quoting PvK <pvk@oz.net>:
> > Thanks Neil!
> >
> > (I think) I remember you objecting to Clements when I mentioned him  
> > years ago.
> > I will be making some time to do a review of all of this some time  
> > soon. It will
> > be good for the game design I'm doing.
> > PvK
> > =====
> > Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com. Unsubscribe  
> > by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> > "unsubscribe tft"
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"