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

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

Michael wrote:
> Your right. So what is a good logical definition of classes? 

No clue.  Each RPG that claims to use them has a different implementation,
and some games that don't claim to use them do.


> >>>>>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'. 

See, I disagree - after all, in Classic Traveller, a career only defines
character generation - once character generation is done, the career only
has role-playing significance.  Heck, during play, a CT character is less
restricted in learning skills than a TFT character.  And templates are no
where near classes - they just provide a starting point if you want it.

> 
> >>>>>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. 

Hmm.... He's learned all his life that only those mundane, stupid, petty
fools who call themselves warriors touch those things, and now he's supposed
to *lower* himself to that level??? He'd rather *die* than be thought of
as a..... mundane.  Pretty easy to imagine.  Of course, he wouldn't be
slogging around sewers unless there was something pretty dang big brewing,
but that's role-playing!

> 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!

But, then you've gone *beyond* the rules. Once you let that happen, D&D
becomes a much better game ;)

> 
> >>>>>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!

True, they kept the secondary skills 'rules-lite' to encourage role-playing,
because throwing too many rules in there would inhibit that.

> 
> 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. 

Yes, but in TFT, if you're a terrific swordsman, you're a pretty damn good
hand with an axe, a bow, and with anything else that requires DEX.  You
can't make a terrific swordsman who's a clutz at everything else, or a
brilliant merchant who can't remember someone's name unless you go outside
the rules.

> 
> 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!

Actually, the only people I know who have ever played Vampire played it like
a combat game.  No role-playing, only roll-playing. 

> 
> >>>>>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!). 

Exactly my point.  So, we played through Death Test, using TFT (including
ITL), and the rules didn't lead us anywhere near role-playing.  We played
D&D, and we ended up doing nothing but.

> 
> >>>>>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..."

Actually, the rules in 3e do point you in that direction.

> 
> >>>>>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? 

You suggested the same scenario with Monopoly.  I merely replaced that
with TFT and Death Test to show you that it's not the rules that define
the role-playing, or lack of it - it's the people.  If one wanted to,
one could role-play through the Death Test series.  And it should be easy,
since the TFT rules naturally lead one to 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....

Granted, you have less choices in character generation and advancement.
However, that doesn't stop you from being a merchant prince, owning a bar,
training horses, or doing whatever you want your character to do.  In fact,
since there are *no* rules for these things, it gives you infinite freedom
to do them, and have your character become an expert at them without going
outside the rules.  In TFT, you're limited by how the dice fall when using
your Merchant or Animal Trainer skills, thus putting your character's role
in the hands of a randomizer, rather than playing it out as a group.

> 
> >>>>>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. 

Of course, that's my point.  TFT is a terrific role-playing game, but that
doesn't matter because the people I enjoy gaming with prefer D&D.

> 
> >>>>>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?

Yeah, pretty much.  These are the people who cheat at football, checkers,
cards, and anything else as long as it gives them an apparent 'edge'.

> 
> 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!

In my opinion, this does not take away from the fact that D&D 3e now has
them. 

> 
> >>>>>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 haven't found this to be true.

> 
> >>>>>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?

We will be playing D&D 3e instead of TFT.  My group spoketh, and they sayeth
D&D.  To me, it's not as good as TFT, but it's tolerable, so I agreed.


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