[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: (TFT) Fatigue Damage?

From: David Michael Grouchy II

Gary Guygax introduced Hit Points into role playing
(a mistake I think, but that is another discussion.)



From: Michael Taylor

This was an interesting statement! I'd love
to hear this discussion?



From: srydzews@ix.netcom.com

Really?  You would?  Best reserve judgement until you
hear it.


  (next paragraph snipped until later in this post ...)


The durability of the idea of hit points is self-evident.
Even 'modern' computer games such as Diablo II still use
them.  Are they realistic?  Of course not.  Are they
convenient and very "game-able"?  Yes.


Stan,
Hahahaha. Love that first paragraph. I take it you have been in many "Hit Point" vs. "Realism" discussions, as I have. Then you say "Best reserve judgement until you hear it." Your crackin me up. Hehehe. What I am talking about is actually less realist. That is to say, more "heroic". I'll get to that at the end of the post. 

  (The second paragraph Stan wrote...)


Well as far as the statement "Gary Guygax introduced Hit
Points into role playing" it's not as if there were FRP
games before Gygax, and he sullied the concept by grafting
the idea of hit points onto it.  There weren't FRP games
before Gygax and Arneson wrote D&D in '73.  When they did,
they used the concept of hit points--brought over from
Chainmail like most of D&D's combat mechanics.
Excuse me a second while I catch my breath. Laughing too hard at this one.
"It's not as if there were FRP games before Gygax, and he sullied the concept..." 

  Ahhhhh.  haaaaa.   hahah.     O.K.
Uh, allow me to say timidly [scared I'm gonna get my hand bitten off] that what you say about Chainmail is true. Notice that in the general Chainmail rules, one rolls for a kill and there is no wounding. For instance if a Super Hero attacks a Dragon with a dagger he kills it on a 12 on 2D6. A hero on the other hand stands no chance of killing a Dragon with a mere dagger. Also about the Gygax Arneson colaboration in '73, Dave Arneson had been running a role playing game for over a year and a half before Gygax got him to start publishing. In that original version (Detailed in "The First Fantasy Campaign") Arneson explained in the intro that all attacks were considered kills. Just like Chainmail. But, that the character then got a "Saving throw." He went further to say that Warriors progressed in that save as they went up in levels, but Wizard's and Clerics didn't. They progressed in spells and other areas, which may or may not enhance their save vs. death. The alternative I'm talking about is more "heroic" and less "realistic" because even a begining character can get lucky and keep making save after save. There's no telling how far they can go. Hit point based systems seem to serve as warnings to the players. When they start getting low in hit points they back off and start looking for healing. I really don't consider the saving throw method realistic at all. Testing has shown it to be more dramatic though. The way we did it was to let the player describe any action they wanted. If they actually made the saving roll. The better the roll, the crazier the description could be. Apparently players really like this kind of descriptive athority. When I saw how much fun they were having, that is when I decided that the introduction of Hit points might have been a mistake.
That being said I still think TFT is the best, simplest, fastest, most comprehensive fantasy combat system. Making the characters ST = Hit Points is a master stroke. I just thought I would be interesting to mention that in the dim misty dawn of RPGs there were no hit points at all. 

    David Michael Grouchy II


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"