Re: (TFT) a survey of Melee and Wizard editions

["Edward Kroeten" <ekroeten@farmersagent.com>]

Hi Guys,
 

  

 

 I guess my take on Jeffrey's good enough theory is that TFT fits that mo
ld.  Think about it with 5 second turns parries and ripostes are assumed 
unless someone chooses the all out defensive posture of defend.  After al
l any klutz can hit someone with a sword/ax/spear in 5 seconds if the oth
er person is also just hacking away.  The system works for the most part 
there are flaws but at the same time there is a lot of depth in the game 
with aimed shots, crippling blows, waiting for an opening and unusual wea
pons.
 

  

 

 Now if you want to go into super detail where combats can take an entire
 day or possibly more then TFT probably isn't the right fit.  Again using
 Jeffrey's example of how a person falls plays out; according to my own e
xperience and everything I have read (history) generally falling in comba
t means that you are meat.  Now of course there are instances where someo
ne has survived but that just means that their opponent rolled a 16 or ab
ove.
 

  

 

 One thing that I do like that apparently Pvk doesn't is that usually you
 can guess how the combat will come out this is usually a realistic resul
t (i.e. a badly outnumbered party is going to lose).  So unless you are u
sing some house morale rules a small party of 8-10 really good warriors c
an't wipe out a small town like Bendwin in ITL (they get swamped and kill
ed).  Yet at the same time a good warrior has a chance to defeat 2 town g
uards.  If you want to play Cyrano de Bergerac or Scaramouche I have a ta
lent that I will post later that allows that type of character.  TFT is s
o flexible that it will adapt to whatever you want as long as you are wil
ling to go with good enough style of combat and let your imagination fill
 in the blanks.
 

  

 

 Best,
 

 

   

     

       

         

           

             

               

                 Edward Kroeten
                   Farmers Agent   

                   7100 Stevenson Blvd Suite 105
                   Fremont, CA 94538
                 

                 Office Phone 510-646-1500     

                   Mobile Phone 510-579-0135
                   Fax 510-438-6875
                   Website: www.kroeteninsurance.com  

                 

                  

                 

                  

                 

                  

                 

               

             

           

         

       

     

   

 

 

   

   

   

 

 ------ Original Message ------
   Received: 11:53 AM PDT, 03/16/2016
   From: Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>
   To: "tft@brainiac.com" <tft@brainiac.com>
   Subject: Re: (TFT) a survey of Melee and Wizard editions
   

   

   

   

     This particular exchange raises an interesting point. To my mind (an
d I sin
       cerely doubt I'm being original here) there are two kinds of playe
rs -- the
       "completionist/realism/detail oriented guy (or gal)" who WANTS rul
es for t
       hings like where people land when they fall so they can get into t
he "meat"
       of realism in play; and the "play's the thing/'close enough'/ let'
s get on
       with the imagination guy (or gal)" who wants rules that work well 
but are
       simple enough to learn and run in a few hours at most so they can 
get down
       to the "meat" of having an adventure.
       I think that's the only real dichotomy here.  We all, I think, fel
t th
       at TFT could have been made better, especially if Steve had stayed
 involved
       with it.  But our definition of "better" is where we hit our diffe
ren
       t strides.  Personally, I focus more on improving mechanics for th
ings
       like wilderness adventures and how to run town events and so on (m
ore of a
       GM's perspective, maybe?), where others want to massively re-work 
the nuts
       and bolts of combat or magic -- which seems a bit more player-cent
ric.
       Really, there's room for both of the types if we take a moment to 
understan
       d where each of us is coming from.  For example, I really apprecia
te R
       ick posting all of the excellent food for thought he's been puttin
g up here
       lately (really, "re-posting" I guess), but at the same time, he's 
attackin
       g a problem that doesn't bother me as much as it does him, so I re
ad his st
       uff, and then say; "Hmm, that's interesting..." and then tend to g
o on back
       to MY stuff.  Once in a while, someone will post something that hi
ts
       MY sweetspot and I'll get all enthusiastic about it; but a lot of 
the rest
       of you come across somewhat negatively to that information (it's n
ot of int
       erest to you, and you make that clear -- not saying you're "hostil
e" to it;
       I've never seen much hostility here), and so it kind of goes away 
after a
       while...
       As a recent example, I prefer to run with Wizard and Melee as my b
asis (wit
       h only a few of the Advanced Wizard or Advanced Melee rules in pla
y at any
       given time), but someone (sorry, I forget who, now) basically dema
nded to k
       now why anyone would think that was better.  I chose the soft answ
er (
       much to the surprise of some who know me, no doubt) and simply sai
d "differ
       ent strokes for different folks" even though, frankly, I felt some
what "att
       acked" for not doing it the "right" way.  But that just serves to 
illu
       strate my point -- that person was firmly convinced that AW and AM
 were far
       better than the earlier versions, whereas I remain unconvinced; to
 me, sim
       pler is better and AW and AM merely focused on edge cases (though 
with some
       notably useful exceptions in both) at considerable length and incr
easing c
       omplexity.  Now, were I a "realist" player, I would be much more e
nthu
       siastic about all of that than I am -- but I tend more towards the
 "close e
       nough" kind of play, at least in my RPGs.  Maybe I spent too many 
year
       s as a wargamer arguing with rules lawyers about comma placement i
n the ove
       rrun rule to get much joy out of complexity any more.  Heck, I hav
en't
       touched Campaign for North Africa in thirty years, now... ;-)
       

       Anyway, just thinking about what DMGII and PvK had to say. 

       

       

       From: Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>
       To: tft@brainiac.com
       Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:49 AM
       Subject: RE: (TFT) a survey of Melee and Wizard editions
       

       Interesting. It is true I haven't very often read much ITL recentl
y,
       but I nearly memorized it back when I ran campaigns with it, but
       decades ago. I have a very good memory, but not so much for word a
nd
       phrase use. If we can run a count of pairs of words, though, I thi
nk
       "GM discretion" ought to appear a lot. ;-) My copy of ITL is worn
       soft like a broken-in shoe, and has plastic side tab labels I adde
d
       for quick reference (same for AM and AW). Cidri is my sentimental
       favorite fantasy setting, and my actual favorite for generic "let'
s
       do some fantasy gaming" setting. My original TFT campaign flows ou
t
       from the map of the Duchy of Dran in the back of ITL, stretching o
ut
       several further maps in all directions until you need a fairly lar
ge
       empty room to lay it all out (using the same 12.5km hex map format

       and extending the map key).
       

       TFT was my first RPG (when I was 11), and remains one of my favori
te
       games, but after my friends and I had played it extensively for ab
out
       7 years, we could often predict how combats would play out, and we

       were more and more sensitive to the limitations, so that it starte
d
       to feel more like an abstract board game that wasn't satisfying in

       its representation of how violence might really play out, so we
       started inventing new rules, and then GURPS came out and covered
       everything we were trying to improve, but in a much more elegant,
       playtested and complete and ready to use way (than our own rules).

       

       Many years later, from time to time I have also played TFT, and fo
und
       that I still like it but that I still think it's missing several
       things (that I prefer and am sensitive to, which I know not everyo
ne
       is) from GURPS, but (I was surprised to find) that it's also possi
ble
       to add fairly simple house rules that do some of the same things i
n a
       fairly satisfying (to me) way.
       

       I think I'm just a detail&realism-oriented simulationist player, a
nd
       that has me always looking for detailed realism-oriented rules. It

       was only about 4 years after switching from TFT to GURPS that I
       started adding all sorts of detailed house rules to GURPS, too. I
       also show up on GURPS forums and talk about details like how I'm
       working on more detailed house rules for where characters should l
and
       when they fall down, etc., and how 4e GURPS dumbed down several
       things compared to 3e GURPS.
       

       I certainly don't read and participate here to be negative. I didn
't
       realize I was rubbing anyone the wrong way. I don't mean to be com
ing
       across as saying "GURPS is better", and I think I rarely if ever s
ay
       that. I think when I do mention GURPS, I'm trying to offer somethi
ng
       I think may be interesting or useful.
       

       PvK
       

       

       At 07:26 AM 3/16/2016, David Michael Grouchy II wrote:
       >I'm sorry for delurking,  PvK always rubs me the wrong way.  For
       

       >instance; in the word-count-analysis of ITL, the word "will" is
       >ranked as the most frequently appearing at 590 occurrences.  The
       >book is full of phrases like "the GM will", "the Player will", et
cetera.
       >
       >
       >But PvK asks "I wonder why 'will'? "  Causing me to wonder if he
       >has ever actually read ITL.  Which has now triggered me.  As I h
       ave
       >always felt he was anti-TFT.  Like another contributor who's answ
er
       

       >was always "g.u.r.p.s. is better".
       >
       >
       >I have no stomach for a flame war with such hard headed negative
       >minded people.  I return to radio silence.  /grouchy's submarine
       

       >sinks back beneath the surface.
       >
       >
       >David Michael Grouchy II
       

       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"
       

       

       

     

   

    

This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this transmission may co
ntain confidential information and are intended solely for the addressee (s)
 named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient, any use of, d
isclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on the contents of this e-mail
 information is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender advising of 
the error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the message and any
 accompanying documents.

Farmers Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Farmers 
Financial Solutions, LLC, reserve the right to monitor and review the conten
t of all e-mail communications and attachments sent or received by or from t
his address and to retain them in accordance with the applicable regulatory 
requirements. Securities are offered through Farmers Financial Solutions, LL
C, 30801 Agoura Road, Building 1, Agoura Hills, California 91301. Member FIN
RA & SIPC.

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