Re: (TFT) Converting Dungeons and Droolers...

["Anthony Merlock" <amerlock@execpc.com>]

Who, this is getting long ;->


"Michael Taylor" <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Message text written by INTERNET:tft@brainiac.com
> >
> >>>>>After all, your TFT character is either a Hero or a Wizard - two
> distinct
> >>>>>classes that directly and permanently affect your character
> development.
>
> Well that's one way of looking at 'classes'. But I dont look at them that
> way because while they affect your character development they dont really
> 'inhibit' it in the same way that D&D or Palladium classes do. Wizards can
> use any spell or talent that a Hero can use and a Hero can use any spell
> that a wizard can use.
>
> Changing the 'cost' permanently affects your character but it doesn't mean
> that your character  WONT be able to learn or do something in the way that
> Theives will never be able to cast 9th level spells (as an example).

Yes, there are varying definitions of 'class', and of course, we each will
use the one that helps "prove" our point.  I was in a discussion with
someone on the Traveller Mailing List who was saying that the careers in
Classic Traveller were classes.

>
> >>>>>>Of course, all games with classes subtly enforce a 'winning'
> mentality, which
> >>>>>>means that no one who plays these class-based games is capable of
> actually
> >>>>>>role-playing, right?
>
> Good twist,

Thank you.

> but no, not at all. You can role-play even if you play D&D. But
> your not very likely too. You'd be role-playing *despite* the rules, not
> because of them. It's definitely a generalization, but so is "Walking
> around downtown LA at night is dangerous.". It's not *always* true, but
its
> true enough times that its safer to pay attention to than not....

Hmm.  I guess I've *never* seen a rule that inhibits my role-playing.  D&D
has rules which limit your character creation and advancement options, but
so does TFT.  TFT just happens to have less of them.  Some of them are very
annoying, however.  I can't play a moron who is a powerful instinctive mage
and I can't play a clumsy master swordsman (or conversly a person who's as
agile as a cat that couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a club).
Well, I could play them, but it would be *despite* the rules, not because of
them.

>
> >>>>>>Quite frankly, how much role-playing is required for Death Test,
DT2,
> TSD,
> >>>>>>Orb Quest, Grail Quest, or even Tollenkar's Lair?
>
> That's a good question. Personally I dont think of those as role-playing
at
> all. I dont even think 1 GM and 1 Player is role-playing. (this is
probably
> another discussion, but you did bring up a valid point).
>
> Can the 'audience' of Role-Playing but ONLY yourself? I dont really think
> so, because part of Role-playing (in the Game sense - not the
Psychological
> sense) is Improvisinational acting. Can you improvise by yourself? I dont
> think so. Because you can't prevent yourself from knowing "whats coming up
> next" and therefore you can't really improvise a solution different
> according to the stimulus.
>
> What about the first time  you played Death Test? You improvised because
> you didn't know what was coming. But doesn't Role-Playing require that all
> the participants be part of the audience as well as the actors? I think
so,
> so I dont think you can really do that with 1 or 2 players. You can't play
> enough different roles (audience, actor, team-mate and gamemaster)  that
> way.
>
> But that's just me...

Actually, the first time I played Death Test, it was as a tactical game, not
a role-playing game, so I didn't improvise at all.  In fact, I've generally
treated those as board games rather than RPG's.

>
> >>>>>>on to make it marketable as a RPG).  The big difference is that D&D
> has
> >>>>>>evolved over the years, and TFT is still TFT
>
> I disagree completely! Even the third edition of D&D is being hailed for
> having new features that TFT has had since the beginning! D&D has
evolved -
> but it still hasn't caught up to a mere 'board-game with RPG rules added'.
> You still have a MUCH harder time playing a Theif-Pirate or Merchant
Prince
> in D&D than you do in TFT....

Well, not to delve into semantics too deeply, but D&D has indeed evolved
over the years, and TFT has not.  The TFT we play today is the same TFT we
played in 1980, while 3e is incredibly different than 1st edition.  I never
said (nor do I claim) that 3e is a great game; however, it's the best and
most flexible version of D&D ever made.  Interestingly enough, with the
greater emphasis on tactical combat and the use of figures on a square grid,
D&D 3e is even more 'board game with RPG rules added' than 1st or 2nd
edition was.  However, the quality and quantity of those RPG rules has
improved greatly over earlier versions.

>
> To me, the nature of evolution is improve over time. D&D has only very
> slowly added more modern concepts and has kept concepts that have long
been
> shown to be outdated and/or detrimental (classes and levels).
>
> Certainly some of this is opinion, because game design has a large
> component that art - and art will always be somewhat subjective. But part
> of it is also science, and I dont think alot of the concepts of D&D can
> stand up very well to being 'good' game design. Some of it is simply
> "Because its' always been that way!". Not necessarily a bad thing - but
you
> can't call that 'evolution'.

Whether the evolution of D&D shows improvement over time or not all depends
on your point of view.  Certainly, D&D's market share has increased (more 3e
Player's handbooks have sold since August than the entire first print run of
the 2nd edition PHB), and many aspects of it have improved.  Yes, at the
core it's still D&D, but, as I've said before, it's an improved D&D.

>
> >>>>>>(unless you count GURPS as an
> >>>>>>evolution of TFT, which I hate to do because I strongly dislike
GURPS
> for
> >>>>>>various reasons).
>
> Definitely agree there.
>
> >>>>>>It's all in how you play it.  Some people can't role-play to save
> their
> >>>>>>lives.
>
> This is the common defense of D&D. The system doesn't really matter. But
in
> truth it does. That's why some people like football and some people like
> baseball. It's not really how you play. It what your doing. And while it's
> certainly theoretically possible to role-play in D&D, it's not very
likely.
> After all, your first limited to a character that's only spent his life
> doing one thing and one thing only!

And some people always make 12/12/8 Heroes with broadswords, leather and
small shields, or halflings with shortbows and missile-weapon talent so they
can get 2 shots per round from the get-go.  Some people only play Gargoyles
or Reptilemen because of the advantages they get.  1st Edition D&D had
Secondary Skills and Non-Weapon Proficiencies, which you could use to give
role-playing depth to your character.  2nd Edition had Non-Weapon
Proficiencies.  It's not the fault of the game that most players chose those
abilities which focused them down even more narrow paths.  D&D 3e expands on
this even more by introducing the Commoner, Expert, and Warrior classes (in
the DMG).  True, most people won't want to take them, because they remove
focus from their stereotyped view of their character, but that's not the
fault of the game.

I've taken hard-core hack&slash D&D players, and had entire game sessions go
without rolling a dice once.  Yep, we spent the entire game session
role-playing.  And, they enjoyed it.  I've run people thru the Death Test
series, treating it as a pure tactical/board game, with no role-playing
whatsoever, and they enjoyed it.

>
> Secondly, none of your rules are going to inspire you to be a Theif-Pirate
> because it's not on the 'list' and your not likely to be a Merchant-Prince
> because you dont get rewarded unless you kill things.

Lets see - In the Labyrinth has 5 categories for giving experience points -
Combat, Casting Spells, Die rolls, Time Spent in Play, or Game Master
Discretion.  A 4-die skill roll gains you 10 experience points - about the
same as a single hit with a battle-axe.  In other words, in  TFT, hacking
orcs is far more profitable experience-points wise than being a merchant.
Of course, according to the rules of TFT, if you're a merchant, you merely
roll on the Jobs table weekly to see if you're rewarded. There aren't any
role-playing modifiers to that roll.  Of course, if you're a wizard, you
don't gain experience points for using your spells unless it's a pressure
situation, but you can gain experience points for using Sex Appeal to get
free beers in a bar.

The 3rd edition DMG has advice on giving XP for combat, for story awards,
for non-combat encounters (which includes mercantile encounters), for
achieving mission goals, and for roleplaying awards.  Thus, in 3e, you can
be rewarded for things other than combat.

>
> So sure, it's possible to role-play in D&D, but if someone invited you
over
> for a Role-Playing Game and when you got there they whipped out Monopoloy
> or Checkers, would you really think you were going to be in for a
> role-playing game? Possible but not likely....

Likewise, if someone invited you over for a role-playing game, and pulled
out TFT and Death Test, would you really think you were going to be in for a
role-playing experience?  Possible, but not likely.  Most likely, you'd be
bored as you went from room to room fighting things and trying to figure out
how many gold bars you can carry.

>
> >>>>>>My point?  I guess it would be that the player's and the GM define
> the game,
> >>>>>>not the rules, and it's far easier to avoid the rules and get to the
> >>>>>>role-playing if everyone knows the rules well.
>
> Nope. Not at all. It's the rules that define the game. The players and the
> GM can go *beyond* the rules, but the rules have to be the starting place.
> You can role-play without rules, but if you do use rules, your play will
> tend to reflect the concepts built into the game. We like TFT because it's
> simple, fast and flexible.  Therefore our games tend to be simple, fast
and
> flexible.
>
> D&D games reward killing and single-definition characters. Therefore D&D
> games tend to be about killing and gaining levels. They don't HAVE to be,
> but you WILL notice a 'general' simularity between D&D games and GURPS
> games and Traveller games and any other games.

True, and you'll notice the same similarities in most TFT games.  In fact,
I've seen far more role-playing in D&D games than I've seen in TFT games,
which all seem to boil down to labyrinth crawls for monster-bashing tactical
fun.  After all, the rules define the game, and TFT is combat rules +
spellcasting rules (primarily aimed at combat) + 'roleplaying' rules which
are highly focussed on roll-playing and labyrinth crawling.  True, you can
make a character with no combat ability, but when the GM pulls out Death
Test II, what are you going to do?  When the other players all have hobbits
with shortbows and missile-weapon skills or reptilemen with battleaxes, and
you have a goblin merchant, someone is not going to have fun.

D&D is much more narrowly focused than TFT.  There are no arguments there.
However, that really doesn't prohibit role-playing any more than TFT does.

>
> The GM and players can change the nature of the game over time, but GMs
and
> Players tend to gravitate toward the games that reflect the concepts they
> like. GURPS players like 'realism' therefore they play GURPS. They picked
> the game, not vice versa..

Actually, people tend to gravitate towards games they are comfortable with.
Since most people's lives are very busy, and their leisure time is short,
they don't want to spend a lot of time hunting down out of print game books,
or learning different game systems.  They want to sit down with a group of
friends and have fun while doing some out-of-character socializing.  Thus,
the appeal of D&D - it's the most common RPG denominator.  There is a small
minority that find reading and playing other games to be more fun than
playing the same-old-thing, or who get so po'd with the people they're
playing their current game with that they seek other games to avoid those
people, or those who actually didn't learn RPG's with D&D, and those people
are the ones who gravitate towards other games.

>
> >>>>>>BTW: I came very close to converting my D&D group to TFT; however, a
> couple
> >>>>>>of the players got their hands on D&D 3e, and begged to go that
route
> >>>>>>instead.  Since the campaign is as much theirs as it is mine, and I
> was
> >>>>>>outnumbered, I relented.
>
> That's certainly understandable, but I'll bet they created typical
> one-dimensional characters nonetheless......

Actually, several created very interesting characters.  Of course, there are
the couple who chose the most munchkin classes, but I expected that (the
same ones who play the Reptilemen or hobbits-with-shortbows).

>
> My players begged me to run Robin Hood. D&D3 as well. I told them no, I
> wouldn't do it.  I told them to give TFT a chance, and if they don't like
> it, then someone else can run.

That's what I said about 2nd edition - I refused to run it anymore.  I did
buy the 3e player's handbook and read it, and realized that it had
potential.

>
> Here's a couple of character ideas:
> ---- an expert fencer who's got a reputation for sullying a nobleman's
> daughter and is only a really good fencer when he's intoxicated.
> --- a courtesan who's common sense advice is used by noblemen and outlaws
> alike
>
> This was within *hours* of perusing the TFT rules after NEVER having heard
> of TFT and there are others....everybody came up with something
interesting
> right away...inpsired by the interesting array of Talents.
>
> Could this be done in D&D? Sure! Does it happen very often no matter WHO
> the player is?
>
> I've never seen it happen in D&D AT ALL, but I imagine that it happens
> occassionally. But with TFT it seems to be the rule rather than the
> exception....a generalization for sure, but it's always been my experience
> with the game.....

And my experience with TFT is that you have wizards with no talents and all
combat spells, or heroes with all combat talents (except for the token guy
who sacrifices 2 int so he can take physiker).

>
> >>>>>>>of the campaign - go slowly, or you might scare them.  Teach them
to
> role-play
> >>>>>>rather than roll-play, and you might have a convert for life.
>
> This is what to me is the biggest problem with the Converting D&D players
> theory. TFT seems to allow nothing BUT roleplaying. How can you
'roll-play'
> in TFT? There's not really enough rules to occupy that much time.....which
> seems to me to be what it should be...
>
> >>>>>>Just my opinion, and this is mostly a joke.
>
> Agreed. All in fun.

Yep.

>
> But everyone who tells me it's the Players and not the Game tells me ways
> AROUND the system - not how the system makes them roleplay better. But I
> can tell you how TFT makes you roleplay.

TFT does not *make* you roleplay.  It doesn't even make it more likely than
D&D does.

>
> Really simple rules. You'll know them well enough to ingore them after the
> first session or two. You wont have anything else to do BUT roleplay.

I know D&D well enough that I can ignore the rules and just play.  So do my
players.  So, unless some really weird situation arises (which I normally
wing, just like I would in TFT), we just roleplay.

> Wide variety of Talents that allow you to focus on the one or two things
> that make you different and then run with it...you can do anything - even
> if you are a wizard or a hero!
>
> Whew! Good flame-bait! Why throw magic missile when you can throw a
> molotail!

Or, Alchemists' Fire (3e PHB, pg 113).
>
> Michael

Tony

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