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

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

Michael wrote:
> That seems like a drastic oversimplification. It's easy to say - but not
> very realistic in practice. All of us tried to 'fix' D&D by modifying it at
> one time - myself included. Realistically the farther away from what you
> want the system is, the more work it is to modify. 
> 
> If what your saying were literally true - no one would ever play anything
> else. We wouldn't need any other rule systems at all. We'd just 'go outside
> of D&D's rules'! 

Which is what the D20 system from 3rd edition D&D will do to the gaming world!
Ryan Dancey said so.  We will all abandon our "alternative" gaming systems
and bow down to the "one true" system!  Ia! Ia! D20 Fthagn!

> 
> But all I've done is change the TFT combat system from one Microgame combat
> system to another very similar. Neither the combat system nor the rest of
> the game broke. The TFT design is modular enough to stand up to massive
> changes without affecting the rest of the system. The same is not true of
> the D&D design. 
> 
> I want to play "D&D" only without character classes and levels and armor
> class and using spell points and without Charisma and Wisdom and
> Constitution. And all I have to do is 'go outside the rules...'? I dont
> think so...
> 
> I think I have to go to another system!

So, you don't like the generalizations that D&D makes, and you have to go
to another system to get the generalizations that you like.  I have no
problem with that.  However, the generalizations that D&D makes do not
stop people from role-playing.  That is the crux of our discussion here,
remember?

> 
> >>>>>Sure, however, you are limited by the means with which you represent
> the
> >>>>>tactical situation to the players, and with how they are able to
> interpret
> >>>>>your representation.
> 
> Why is that a limiit? How are you *not* limited to that with 'non-tactical'
> combat?

In non-tactical combat, you are free to go beyond the representations that
having a tactical representation of combat allows.  For example, if you
use TFT's tactical combat resolution, you limit yourself to representing
terrain (for the purposes of combat resolution) as 1 meter hexes on a 2D
surface.  Now, you could add a third dimension, but it gets very tricky to
do so, and can confuse the group far more than going to a more abstract combat
system, and winging it.

Not to say that you can't do that with TFT - in fact, I have.  But, it's a
different beast than TFT's standard tactical combat system.  Until 3rd edition
D&D, combat was always presented as "tactical resolution optional" - that is,
they didn't "require" hex or square grids or miniatures to resolve combat.
Third edition has gone more tactical, and definitely 'pushes' tactical
combat resolution.

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"