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.
> 
> 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. 

Exactly.  This also rules out templates and Classic Traveller careers, which
you said you felt were 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.
> 
> 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. 

Actually, IIRC, every career allows Broadsword skill and gun combat skill,
and nothing prevents you from learning it later.  Nothing at all.  See,
no limitations.

> 
> > >>>>>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....)

Well, you said that you *couldn't* imagine a wizard who wouldn't pick up a
broadsword and use it if he needed to.  I just did.  Took me less than a
minute to think of it and write it up.

And now you're changing the subject.

If I was playing (pre-3rd ed) AD&D and wanted to play a mage who could wield
a sword, there are several ways I could do it.  If I wanted to play a human,
I'd use Dual-Classing.  If I wanted to play a "demi-human", I'd use
multi-classing.  If I were playing 3rd ed, I'd play a wizard who uses a sword.

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

Borrow the 3rd ed PHB and read it.

> 
> > >>>>>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!

Ok.  Here's the situation.  Expert swordsman with 20DEX is locked in a 
prison cell in only his loincloth.  He whomps a guard with his bare-hands,
and picks up the axe that he *has no skill with*, because four other guards
come running.  He still has exactly the same chance to hit with the axe
that he had with the sword!  Even though he *never* learned how to use it.

In fact, a merchant who's never picked up a weapon in his life would be in
the same category if he had a 20 DEX.

Now, you might say that a merchant might not develop a 20 DEX, but if he
was a merchant who wanted to be a master craftsman, he might.
An example: The best basket-weaver in the world can pick up a broadsword and
beat most novice guardsmen in a dual, even if he never touched a sword before
in his life, because he has a 20 DEX (to make sure he's the best basket-
weaver).


> 
> > >>>>>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. 

But, it does support my premise that the rule system doesn't impede anyone's
ability to role-play.  If they want to do it, they can, regardless of
rule system.

> 
> 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...

I was going to comment on this, but it was starting to get a bit personal.

I really don't like when you belittle my friends, and say that they're
somehow inferior because they enjoy D&D.

I think this thread is at an end.

Signing off...
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"