Re: (TFT) d20 TFT Battle Report --> Rick's comments.

["Ty Beard" <tbeard@tyler.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "rsmith" <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>


> For this system to be successful, it
> has to be simple to understand.  Say that
> adding a die in old TFT is a -8 DX modifier
> in TFT d20.  (See my previous post for why
> I suggest -8 DX.)  Then a 5 die roll should
> be -16 DX.  A 6 die roll is -24 DX.  Simple.
> If the person has a 12 DX then that is what
> auto hits are for.
>
> Note that the bell curve of 3d6 works
> as an advantage on these large penalties. In
> a flat system, add up a few penalties, and
> you suddenly have no chance for a hit (not
> counting auto hits).  Where as with an 6 die
> roll, adding even a point of DX to a medium
> DX figure has a changes the chances of
> hitting.  The system behaves gracefully at
> the ends of the curves.
>
> You will have to accept that the flat
> curve rapidly slaps people down to the
> standard automatic hit, and once that happens
> a 5 die and an 8 die roll are the same.

Some observations about the standard TFT system to amplify your comments
below:

1. a. With 5 dice:
      - adjDX of 11- has the 5% automatic hit chance.
      - adjDX of 13 has ~15% chance.
   b. With 6 dice:
      - adjDx 13- has the 5% chance.
      - adjDX 15- has ~16%
   c. With 7 dice
      - adjDX 16- has the 5% automatic hit chance.
      - adjDX 19- has ~14%

So it looks to me like for the vast majority of figures, the standard TFT
system also seems to slap people down to the standard automatic hit% pretty
quickly. Also, a d20 modifier of -5 per die would loosely replicate the same
results for 5 dice, but not for higher rolls.

Now clearly, a d20 version of TFT cannot exactly reproduce its results. But
this was never the intent. My goal is to preserve what I consider to be the
most important parts of TFT -- its wonderfully engaging combat system and
lightning fast character generation system, while increasing the range for
character advancement. Also, a subsidiary goal was to minimize the need to
re-write the system (which is why I like a mathematical rule like "all DX
penalties and bonuses are doubled for d20 TFT"). Anytime you have a multiple
dice system, there is going to be more room for the extremes. But the
tradeoff is that the middle gets slighted -- the aforementioned narrow range
where the middle 50% in ability is expressed by only 5 numbers. I submit
that TFT has its priorities wrong. In my games, 6 die rolls are extremely
rare, while 3 die rolls happen all the time. Therefore, the system should
not slight the common 3d6 just to enable the comparatively rare 6d6 rolls.

> But in practice this won't be a big
> deal.  In TFT GM's could throw around 6
> die rolls knowing that the actual difference
> between a 5 and a 6 die roll was small for
> most characters.  The chances of getting
> lucky is about the same in both cases.  But
> it is more dramatic to make a 6 die roll!

No doubt. As anyone who plays my miniature rules will attest, I love
handfuls of d6's. This is one reason it took me 22 years to figure out that
the real problem with TFT is the 3d6 bell curve -- it's the problem with
GURPS as well IMHO.

> In TFT d20, GM's won't bother with a
> 6 die roll.  Why?  It requires EXACTLY THE
> SAME auto hit in both cases, for all but
> the most extraordinary figures.
>
>
> I think that the complexity needed to
> capture this graceful degradation of chances
> on multidie rolls for your d20 system will
> be more than it is worth.  The TFT d20 system
> will not handle low probabilities for tough
> tasks as easily as the bell curve.

True. For all practical purposes, there will be either a 5% chance or no
chance to do something. Though, I hasten to add that this is largely the
case in TFT as well.

> However I think that the system's
> simplicity makes up for this lack.

It does have certain incidental benefits in that area.

> This discussion has driven home to me
> an advantage of Steve Jackson's design that
> had not occurred to me before.  His two types
> of penalties system allows a kind of drama
> in attempting difficult tasks.  But I think
> that it boils down to a bell curve being a
> more interesting shape than a flat curve.
>
>
> ***
> I have found myself arguing for the
> bell curve in the last couple posts.  I
> think that I should give a bit of support
> for the flat curve here as well.
>
> Take a look at my Battle of Will's
> rules on Ty's site.  I was proud as heck
> with them, and they are playable.  But as I
> have got more experience with them, I've
> found a hidden disadvantage.
>
> The complexity and richness of the
> curve (especially for different numbers of
> dice) encourages player to spend long
> periods of time calculating odds.  (Do I
> roll 5 or 6 dice on this battle of wills?)
> The stakes are enormous, so you can't
> discourage the PC's from being careful.
> However long periods of fretting over odds
> is not the dramatic roleplaying I want.

And I unfortunately have several analytical types who'll do just that.
Incidentally, here's a nifty rule stolen from Pendragon that would handle
battles of wills in a d20 context:

Roll 1d20. If one player does not roll less than his DX, the other player
wins if he makes his roll. If both players make their roll, the player that
rolls *highest* wins.

> I belive that the system would work
> better in TFT d20 since the calculations
> become trivial.  In this case the simplicity
> of the curve works in its favor.
>
> ***
>
> Anyway, thanks to everyone for the
> posts!  This is the sort of chewing on
> design ideas that I love.

Me too.

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