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

[Michael Taylor <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by INTERNET:tft@brainiac.com
>>>>>Who, this is getting long ;->

Yeah, the next morning I was surprised at sudden upsurge of email! 

>>>>>Yes, there are varying definitions of 'class', and of course, we each
will
>>>>>use the one that helps "prove" our point.  

Your right. So what is a good logical definition of classes? 

>>>>>I was in a discussion with
>>>>>someone on the Traveller Mailing List who was saying that the careers
in
>>>>>Classic Traveller were classes.

I'd agree. I'd even consider most 'Templates' from various systems
(including GURPS) to be 'Classes'. 

>>>>>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.  

Really? I would think that has more to do with your experience and skill
than the rules themselves though. I can't imagine playing a magic user who
wouldn't pick up a sword and bop someone if it was appropriate - but that's
just me. 

However, for new players I think this *does* teach them to consider their
'class' limits rather than use their imaginations to come up with
solutions...

>>>>>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.

I tend to agree - they ARE board games and good at that. I think TFT
becomes an RPG only with ITL and the 'solo-quests' are really
'entertainment' - but not quite role-playing. In the same way that a
Chat-room has some role-playing, but isn't *really* role-playing. 

>>>>>The TFT we play today is the same TFT we played in 1980.....

Not the version I play. Does the game have to be 'published' to evolve? I
dont think so - it helps that's for sure, but I think Rick S. TFT game has
'evolved' even more than mine!

>>>>>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.  

Yeah, it is. Do you really think that the rules and materials made being a
Gambler every bit as likely an encouraged as being a Fighter? Lets just
ignore the fact that the Gamber secondary skill is in the DM's guide NOT
the Player Guide! There's just absolutely NOTHING in the rules to encourage
Gamblers or Farmer/Gardners as being equal or as good as Magic-Users,
Theives and Clerics. There weren't even any descriptions of what they *did*
beyond those words!

You could gain Levels as a fighter. You cant gain levels as Gambler. The
proficiencies from 2nd editoin are a little better but stilll obivously (by
the rules definitions), they are 'secondary' to your "Class". 

TFT puts all talents on a equal footing. It costs you the same amount of
points to be terrific Swordsman as to be a terrific Merchant. And both of
them are equall good - in their respective fields. You can't say that of a
D&D Merchant and D&D Fighter in ANY edition. 

Sure people learned how to role-play eventually, but when they did, they
usually (and not coincidentally) found the D&D system lacking.... 

>>>>>I've taken hard-core hack&slash D&D players, and had entire game
sessions go
>>>>>without rolling a dice once.  

I'm not saying that's not possible - I'm just saying the rules make it
unlikely. Very unlikely. So unlikely that you *notice* when it happens. You
dont usually 'notice' that in the Star Trek RPG or even Vampire. It
*usually* happens in these games!

>>>>>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.

I'd never consider Death Test to be role-playing. I'm a big collector of
solo adventures (Fighting Fantasy) and I love playing these things - but I
dont think I'm roleplaying (strangely enough this discussion is occurring
this month on the Fighting Fantasy mailing list!). 

>>>>>Thus, in 3e, you can be rewarded for things other than combat.

I never said you couldn't be rewarded for things other than combat. Only
that the rules dont point you in that direction. The obligatory 'oh...and
if the GM wants he can give rewards for roleplaying..." aren't NEARLY as
important (IMO) as the rules that say You Get EP if you Try Something Else!
. Even if you get *less* ep than for combat, its still a better learning
tool than "oh and maybe the GM can come up with something else vague for
roleplaying..."

>>>>>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?  

>>>>>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

Of course not - who's counting Death Test as part of role-playing? 

>>>>>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.

I dont know, that statement seems to say that D&D does. If D&D is more
narrowly focused, then by defininition that's prohibitive. Not exlusive but
*more* prohibitive....

>>>>>Actually, people tend to gravitate towards games they are comfortable
with.

There are definitely *other* reasons for choosing RPG's -- "Play Vampire
and you'll meet GURLS!". 

But in general (and remember, I KNOW that I'm only speaking in generalties)
if you stay in the hobby, you tend to play games you like! FILLINGAMENAME
could be a terrific role-playing game, but that's not going to matter if
the people who tend to play it aren't fun to be with for any particular
player. 

>>>>>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).

Sure, munckins will be munchkins. But how did they get to be munckins? The
natural averice of man?

Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. I've seen too many good roleplayers turned
into munckins after playing GURPs and too many munckins turned into
roleplayers after playing Star Trek or Villians and Vigilantes or (as
painful as it is to admit) even Vampire!

Your milage may vary, but I'm still willing to bypass those games....

>>>>>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.

Yeah, everyone says that, but everything I've heard that's suddenly 'good'
about it has already been in TFT for years!

>>>>>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).

Well, there you go. That's why its a generalization. Its not always true.
It's just always been true for me. This is ultimately a nature-nurture
discussion...

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

That I disagree with. All of the munckin things players do are MUCH harder
to do in TFT and the rules dont really have any 'crunchability' factor.
Even TRYING to crunch TFT will result in more-roleplaying because the rules
are so sparse, you really can only deal with the situations...

Wanna be a combat monster? Go ahead and try in TFT. The Flinger and Blob
will last forever in Melee, but in a TFT campaign they'd get slaugthered! 

>>>>>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.

Which  is valid for an *individual* group but doesn't mean the
generalization isn't true of MOST groups who play D&D...

Do you think that MOST groups playing D&D 'just roleplay'. Do you think
that MOST groups who are *beginning*  to play D&D 'just roleplay'. 

So tell me --- why dont you play D&D3 instead of TFT? More importantly as a
player and/or GM - why dont you like it better?

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"