Re: (TFT) Re:Converting D&D

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

Michael wrote:
> Well, I suspect that your yanking my chain (and it is a long one after all)

But, of course I am.  This wouldn't be any fun for me without a little
chain-yanking (both ways).  I know I'm never going to convince you that
D&D is a good game; likewise, you can't convince me that D&D inhibits
role-playing (because we do that every time we play D&D, and have for years).

> It seems obvious to me in the words "isn't being played" that this was
> NEVER meant to be interpreted that way. At the end of page 25 it says that
> the Jobs table allows you to "earn money, get experience, and get
> killed...all without ever going on an adventure...". 
> 
> So doesn't it stand to reason that if you ARE going on adventures the GM
> shouldn't be using the Job table? That's not going 'beyond the rules'
> that's not mis-reading them! (IMO).

Well, if you feel that making a contract with the local carpenter's guild
to build your tavern, and making contacts with local folks to hire employees
is an "adventure", then we have different ideas as to what an adventure is.

Yes, those things can be used as hooks for adventures, but heading down the
street to hire people to build a building for you isn't very adventurous,
and I'd see no need to waste the entire group's time doing that "in play".

Thus, when a player wants to do those things, we blue-book it.  I don't
leave it to game mechanics to find out if he died sampling pink-belly brew,
or if he gained a point because he found a smashing good buy on peanuts.
If I want something interesting to happen, then it moves back "in play"
and we determine the results.

> 
> >>>>>>>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.
> 
> The Jobs table IS blue-booking! Whether you still to the 3d6 rolls is
> irrelevant. If you HAVE something for players to do during their off time,
> then you obvously dont need to use the Job table! 

Hmm.  We definitely have vastly different views of blue-booking.  Usually,
I require the player to write up a brief short story, business plan, or
whatever that describes what they want to accomplish, and unless I find
something vastly wrong, there's no dice rolling, no crappy game mechanic,
nothing to interfere with the player's creativity and imagination.

As opposed to "I rolled an 8.  Nothing interesting happened this week, but
I earned some money".

> 
> >>>>>>> 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!
> 
> Sorry logic flaw. 20th century computer programming not comparible to 12
> century on a fantasy world, but I digress.
> 
> >>>>>>>ts 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.
> 
> Absolutely right and I'll stand behind that and support it logically. 

So, your role-playing uses random determination of death, severe injury, or
character improvement with no input from the player, and merely a "saving
throw" against a character statistic to allow the player to avoid it, regard-
less of the character's personality, decisions, or role in the world.

There was a "Wandering Damage Table" in an early issue of Dragon that you
might be interested in.  It applies the same principles of the Jobs table
to in-play use.

> 
> >>>>>>>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?
> 
> No, but if you hang out with enough TFT players you'll realize that you've
> grossly misread the rules and understand that what the Jobs table is
> suppossed to mean is that your life doesn't begin and end at the enterance
> to the dungeon. That you still have to find a way to eat, sleep and live
> beyond your treasure.

But by forcing a game mechanic on it, you remove the impetus to role-play
those situations, and trivialize it down to some dice rolling, which does
nothing to help define your character.  Better to have no rules at all
than have crappy rules that make it a dice-rolling experience rather than
a role-playing experience.
 
> 
> You CAN take the Job table WAY out of context to mean --- "All the rest of
> the rules are fluff, you're really supposed to roll on the Jobs Table until
> you die or get incredibly powerful and then start adventuring!". But first,
> no one will play with you - because it wont be any fun and second, you have
> to realize that 'blue-booking' and all those other concepts weren't
> invented till over 5 years later! 

Hmm... Maybe they weren't labeled as such until 5 years later, but we were
role-playing (and blue-booking) years before "role-playing games" existed.
But, hey, since role-playing hadn't been invented, I guess we really weren't
doing that.  We were just, uh.... Nope, we were role-playing.  Unfortunately,
I went thru an anti-gaming period in college, and pitched all that stuff.
Now, of course, I get on my wife's nerves because I never throw any gaming
stuff out.

> 
> Where in D&D was there any consideration that there WAS anything outside of
> the dungeon? Taken in the right context, its' perfectly reasonable to have
> around for NPCs or those long stretches when seperate groups of players
> have their times out of sync and want to get together. Not as a substitute
> for adventuring!

But, by not forcing a mechanic on it, D&D allows the individual role-playing
groups to role-play those periods of time, or to ignore them depending on
the desires of the group.  It was enlightened for its time!

> 
> >>>>>>>Actually, it's because you die quite often when facing even what
> should be
> >>>>>>>greatly inferior foes by most fantasy-genre expectations.  
> 
> Personally, I dont agree. Gandalf the Grey ran from a pack of wolves. I
> think D&D has given a different set of expectations that were *rarely*
> reflected in any fantasy literature, but that's a personal preference.

Of course it has. Any role-playing game will, because fantasy literature
is usually centered on what would be considered an "adventure", or sometimes
a short "campaign", and role-playing games can continue the story of a
character beyond that.  Plus, all role-playing games are subject to 'abusing
the spirit of the rules', while the characters in a book are strictly
controlled, and do exactly what the 'GM' wants.

> 
> >>>>>>>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.
> 
> Well, you could also solve problems without violence, but I wont deny that
> TFT is very lethal. I try to put the 'fear-of-gawd' into players by making
> them roll up 3 characters. I want them to CARE about their characters, but
> I also want them to fear for their own mortality. 

Interesting.  I'd never use the term 'roll up' to refer to creating a TFT
character.  I usually either "design" or "define" them.

> 
> I feel it's 'about-right' though I have also allowed just about every
> additonal rule that lets people survive longer.

Regardless of what game system I run, I give the players breaks so that they
can survive longer.  I've even told them that my goal is to keep them alive
as long as possible.  They still fear for their characters lives every time
they leave their base-of-operations, because they know that when they
encounter "important" encounters, I let the dice fall where they may.

> 
> >>>>>>>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.
> 
> Uh, no, if you take Fencing and Sword your better with a Rapier than with a
> two-handed sword. If you also take Two Weapons your WAY better with a
> Rapier than a two-handed Sword. All straight ITL.

So, replace rapier with broadsword.  If a TFT character who claims to be
an expert with a broadsword, finds a magical greatsword, he can pick it
up and use it like a pro, even if he'd never used a greatsword before. Oh,
wait, that's right.  Apparently, even though it's not part of his character
background, he was extensivly trained (and continued to train) with the
greatsword so that it matches his skill in the broadsword.  Must have done
it in the times when the character was "not being played".

And how does two-weapons talent improve your ability with a single rapier?

Or are you saying that all rapier experts have to wield two weapons?

> 
> >>>>>>>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......
> 
> You might be right. In a way, I think Howard Thompson was a better designer
> for certain aspects of TFT.

I don't know about that.

> Ultimately I think they both needed each other
> to make TFT as good as I think it is. Shame they didn't keep developing
> it...

I do agree with this.

Tony Merlock

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