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

[Michael Taylor <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by INTERNET:tft@brainiac.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.

Hmmm.... what about "A set of game mechanics that pre-assumes social and
economic background and confers specific game mechanic benifits to members
of its particular set that are denied (or only allowed at increased cost)
to members of other 'classes'." 

Of course, this goes back to 'definitions-that-prove-the-point. After all,
TFT classes dont fall into this category but most other classes do. TFT
classes being except because a TFT Wizard doesn't acutally have to be the
pointed-hat type of wizard that D&D wizards do. 

> >>>>>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.

Though actually that definition lets slip the Traveller classes which I
dont think really works either. You can't GET Broadsword skill in Traveller
unless you're a Pirate! That's the kind of articial limitation I think that
makes classes insidiously bad mechanics. 

> >>>>>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!

If that works for  you, that's great, but if I saw that in a movie or read
that in a book I would hear the clatter of dice in the background. That
might be valid for a couple of high-faluten wizard-types for *most* of the
society of EVERY different fantasy world? 

Nope. The D&D rules only work for D&D worlds...(not that they are suppossed
to do anything else, but I dont think those worlds are very fun to
role-play in --- and conversely I dont think you can be a very good
role-player if those are the only worlds you play in....)

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

Your right...and so does TFT, but I think the old ITL books still make
better players unmodified than any edition of D&D.....

> >>>>>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.

But of course you can! You dont need rules for that! You just need to
roleplay it! And yes, D&D lets you do the same thing, but that's a whole
lot different than the difference between someone with Reconize Value,
Business Sense, Courtly Graces, Assess Value, Charism and Diplomacy and a
Fighter with the Merchant secondary skill! Apples to Oranges!

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

I've heard that too actually, I've no direct experience with any World of
Darkness games, but I presume from people that I've talked to that they
have at least brought in *some* more role-playing into it than I ever heard
of D&D bringing into the hobby. Posing *is* role-playing after all!

> >>>>>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.

That's quite a stretch...again, statistics do not predict indivual behavior
- you may well have gotten different results. But that doesn't mean that
MOST people who play TFT don't role-play or that most people who play D&D
*do* role-play. 

What criteria would you use to determine whether a role-playing game was
worth playing if it wasn't 1) the quality of the rules and 2) the quality
of the players?

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

It's about time! But unfortunately probably way too late for D&Ders...

> >>>>> 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. 

Nope. It's the rules. Monoply AND Death Test dont' in any way try to be
role-playing games. It's *possible* with both of them, but not very likely.
The people can change the equation, but given average players, the rules
*do* encourage a certain style of play (they have to!). With Monopoly and
Death Test (and D&D) that style tends away from role-playing. My statement
is that with TFT and Star Trek and Vampire it tends more towards
role-playing. 


>>>>>>>>>>one could role-play through the Death Test series.  And it should
be easy,
>>>>>>>>>>since the TFT rules naturally lead one to role-playing.

Your attaching "Death Test" to TFT as if statements that I've made toward
the role-playing mechanics in TFT should apply equally well to Death Test.
Another nice twist, but I'm not falling for it.....

>>>>>>>>>>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.
 

I've never claimed it STOPPED you. I only claim that because there is no
indication that these things are possible a given player (especially
beginners) are unlikely to think of it. Honestly - do you *really* think
that reading ITL with the rules on Animal Handling and Training and reading
First Edition AD&D your going to be JUST as likely to try horse training in
D&D as you are TFT? 

>>>>>>>>>>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.

Well there you go. The people CAN make all the difference in the world, but
I've never met D&D players that I'd want to play with. But EVERY TFT player
I've ever met has been pretty fun. Now that's not conclusive, but it IS
indicative...

>>>>>>>>>>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'.

Again, I've seen people adopt different styles for different games. The
most die-hard D&D hack-and-slasher will become a heckuva lot better
roleplayer if they start playing Star Trek or any number of other games
who's mechanics dont reward munchkinism. And the BEST roleplayer who plays
Champions will eventually learn to be munchkin -- at least in Champions
games... It's not a 'provable' theory, but I dont think its an uneducated
prejudice either....

>>>>>>>>>> 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. 

Well, okay, but do you want to play with people that JUST NOW learning to
roleplay after YEARS of playing without benefit of those rules? And okay,
lets toss aside the quality of the players, lets just deal with the rules
themselves.

My problem is that now D&D only has *some* of those rules. I've already
graduated to games that have much more than just some of them. As long as
D&D hangs on to Classes and Levels its going to be limited. I just dont see
how it can 'evolve' without changing to another game system.... I dont
blame them for not doing that -- after all the Star Trek movies still make
money as well - but it's not something that seems worthwhile to me...

After all, was the decision to keep classes and levels made because it made
for the best game design -- or was it made as a compromise to maintain some
consistency between editions? If someone comes up with a game better design
I'll look at it even if it's called D&D - - but since that's not the case I
dont understand what interest it could have --  even if it has caught up to
1986 game design standards in 2000!

>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

Really? How can you get a job as a Flinger or a Blob? You can't read,
you're a one-trick pony and a molotail/fireball will take either one of
them - not to mention a Freeze spell or a group of angry villagers. In D&D
you could run roughshod over peasants as a combat monster. You just can't
get that tough in TFT.... 

A high-level magic user in D&D is almost unstoppable by normal means
available to villagers. A high-level TFT wizard is tough, but could be
slapped around if he ticked off the wrong people...

>>>>>>>>>>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.

Hoody hoo! I hope you have fun!

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"