Re: (TFT) Re:Converting D&D

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

> >>>>>>So, if I like Star Fleet Battles, BattleTech, TFT, D&D (all versions
> but
> >>>>>>2nd edition AD&D), Risus, Warhammer 40k, and completely free-form
> >>>>>>role-playing, what type of player am I?
>
> Your an individual. The statement was directed toward the 'group' of
> players of a particular game. Now, I'm willing to bet that as an
> INDIVIDUAL,  you DO exhibit some characteristics of the GROUP of Star
Fleet
> Battles players, and Battle Tech players and TFT players.

But, you said, "but the game *does* determine the type of player that's
going to find it fun".  Therefore, you should be able to tell me what type
of player I am by what games I find fun.  Or maybe the game doesn't
determine the type of player that's going to find it fun.

>
> >>>>>>Now, I haven't played Worlds of Synnibar, Senzar, or
> >>>>>>Spawn of Fachan, but only because I haven't picked them up.
>
> If you do find a copy of Spawn of Fachan I'd like one too!

If I find *a* copy, it's mine.  If I find multiple, I'll share ;)

> So you dont really prefer ANY game over any other? Then your also signed
up
> on every other message board for every other RPG....?

I never said that I didn't have preferences; however there isn't any RPG or
tactical game that I've played that I didn't enjoy.  And, I bounce around
various message boards and mailing lists as time allows (depending on where
I decide to focus my attention that moment).  I must admit to hating games
like Trivial Pursuit or Scattergories, however.  I don't even know why.  I
just despise them.

>
> >>>>>>Of course, when I'm running a role-playing game, I'll freely ignore
> the
> >>>>>>results of the dice if they would interfere with the way the
> direction the
> >>>>>>game has decided to take.  If I'm playing a tactical simulation, the
> dice
> >>>>>>rule all.
>
> I dont really split up combat into 'roleplaying' and 'tactical' situations
> like that. I dont think they are mutally exclusive. You roleplay a
tactical
> situation when you make decisions that based on the dramatic integrity of
> the story and the character - regardless of its tactical considerations.
> But if your playing a military commander then it makes perfect sense to be
> better tactically than other characters.

You may have mis-read my sentence - I said 'tactical simulation', not
'tactical situation'.  By tactical simulation, I meant games like SFB, OGRE,
or Battletech.  If I'm playing Battletech or Star Fleet Battles, I'm not
role-playing, and I don't make any pretense to role-playing.  I'm there to
do one thing - win.  Of course, given that the people I play Battletech with
all have bloodnames, and most have won national tournaments, I rarely win
(but, I still have fun).

>
> I used to know this guy (you probably did to!) that was a perfectly good
> role-player until he got into combat - and then he went into
> 'Commando-mode' where all he could think about was the most efficient way
> to 'win' the combat, regardless of the type of character he was playing or
> the reasons he got in the fight...the rules didn't really matter, his
> ability to ignore his character during combat made the difference...

Nope.  I actually don't know anyone like that.

> >>>>>>Of course, you could simply stay home a month and make rolls on the
> Jobs table
> >>>>>>to see if you gain points (the Jobs table is one of the biggest
> things I
> >>>>>>dislike about TFT, in case you're wondering).
>
> Yes I noticed that. And I let it go the first time, but since you brought
> it up again, you deserve what you get! ;}
>
> What part of "during the time he/she isn't being played." (ITL:25 - JOBS)
> didn't you understand? If you are rolling on the Jobs table you aren't
> "playing" at all. Your presumed to be in 'down-time' when no adventures
are
> going on, the jobs table is to help the GM and player achieve a realistic
> result during those times when a long period of time passes without an
> Adventure.

I understood it perfectly.  It's a crappy rule to improve your characters
with little risk and no role-playing.  It makes a simple random event
replace any effort on your part to actually play the game or role-play your
character.  It's a crutch for those who don't know what they're doing.  This
time period between adventures should be role-played (I find 'blue-booking'
those periods is an excellent way to do that), not decided by 3d6.

And realistic?  An average mathematician typically dies after between 4 and
8 years on the job due to *work-related* causes (Risk 3/18 - Chance of
rolling an 18 is 1 in 216 weeks, plus a 3die roll vs an average stat of 10,
so about a 50% chance of 4d6 damage (which will kill an average man) every
4.15 years).  I didn't realize being a mathematician was so risky.  Oh my
gosh, I'm on borrowed time! I've been a computer programmer (which is
probably a 3/18 Risk job) for 12 years!  I better boost my life insurance,
cause odds are, I'll die due to job-related causes any day now!

>
> Personally, this never really happens in my campaign until you retire.
> Adventures jump out of the woodwork in the worlds I run --- you barely
have
> time heal! But its those long recuperations that the job tables are for --
> to add ROLE-PLAYING background to those times your waiting for your

You mis-spelled 'ROLL-PLAYING'.  As in letting the dice dictate the flow of
the campaign.

> comrades to heal, or some young whipper-snapper has come to you for advice
> because they hear you were a great adventurer once. So that it doesn't
look
> like characters are deep-frozen just because they exit play for a while...
>
> You're not actually suppossed to call all of your gaming friends over to
> 'role-play' and then spend a couple of game-years rolling on the job
table!
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you (and maybe I'm slamming you for something
> someone else wrote!) and if so I apologize, but it seems like you think
the
> Jobs table is "part" of the role-playing of TFT and nothing about it has
> ever given that indication. Steve Jackson and Aaron Allston (editor of
> Space Gamer) has also said as much in response to various questions about
> the Job table.

But, it is almost three full pages of rules in 'In The Labyrinth'.  Thus,
it's "part" of The Fantasy Trip role-playing game.  And, you said, "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."  Thus, the Jobs table helps define The
Fantasy Trip as a role-playing game, and your play will reflect the concepts
inherent in the Jobs table.

Thus, since the Jobs table provides characters with rewards for merely luck
(good dice rolls), with no role-playing whatsoever, your play will reflect
that.  Or, is this one of the places where you have to go *beyond* the rules
to really be role-playing?

>
>
> >>>>>>Of course, I could say the same thing about TFT and why some people
> won't
> >>>>>>play it.
>
> Could you? I suppose that due to the tactial nature of the TFT system,
some
> people could have completely overlooked its role-playing potential.

Actually, it's because you die quite often when facing even what should be
greatly inferior foes by most fantasy-genre expectations.  People who enjoy
role-playing and character development don't like to see 3 pages of
character background tossed out the window because the goblin rolled a '3'
with his shortbow attack.  Now, if you view your character as simply a set
of numbers, then death isn't a problem, you can whip up another interesting
combination of numbers in no time.  But, that isn't role-playing.  I want my
players to *care* about their characters, to invest some time and effort
into the role-playing.  If their characters died with any frequency, they'd
be even more apt to min-max and roll-play rather than role-play.  Then
again, this is probably a generalization.

>
> But it seems that by examining the game mechanics -- which stand up pretty
> well even nowadays and were light-years ahead of the game mechanics of its
> time - its' pretty clear that players are going make a much wider variety
> of interesting character than they are in D&D.

And they're going to need to as their characters die by the dozen.  Unless,
of course, you never go "adventuring", and just stay around town and chat,
or pool their money and invest in real-estate.

>
> Heck, even Melee fighters had much more interesting 'personalities' than
> D&D fighters because suddenly you could pick different weapons for
> different reasons and tactical considerations! Something you couldn't do
in
> the D&D back then....

Back when?  In Basic D&D, a fighter was allowed to use any weapons - more
choice than a TFT character.  First edition AD&D limited that to four at
first level, so a fighter could choose different weapons for different
tactical situations.  They then gained extra weapons at every other level.
I don't recall a situation where a D&D fighter of any level did not have
enough weapon proficiencies.  That is, unless the player was foolish, and
chose four different types of swords.  But, a TFT character can be designed
foolishly, as well.  And, of course, you can't make a TFT hero who is an
expert with the rapier, but less competent with a 2-handed sword.  It's
imposible, unless you go *beyond* the rules.

>
> Besides....being out of print for a long time probably has a little more
to
> do with why people dont play TFT than anything else!

True, but if it had stayed around, it would probably have evolved to
resemble GURPS, and I'd be an old grognard who whined and bitched about how
TFT was better in the 'old days', just like some of the 1st ed and 2nd ed
D&D players are about 3e......

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"