Re: (TFT) Too simple / not as simple or elegant... Survey

[ErolB1@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/8/2003 9:24:28 PM Central Daylight Time, 
cgadda@earthlink.net writes:

> Oversimplifies:
> - many combat details. Note that it is not always so much 
oversimplification
> as a matter of wrongsimplification. I would not recommend seriously any
> changes that are a wild break from canon (such as a penetration stat for
> weapons, or allowing swords two attacks per turn given sufficient adjDX, 
all
> have precedent in the rules) but make changes to better reflect the flow 
and
> ebb of real battle without going to the real world of swords being totally
> useless against armour, etc. I have some ideas, but nothing I should like 
to
> post just yet

A lot depends on whether one wants a "realistic" combat system or a 
"cinematic" or "epic" combat system. I suspect that many on this list like 
TFT because of it's inherent deadliness, whereas I consider that a flaw in an 
otherwise great system. 

> - The fact that talents have prerequisites and spells do not. This is one
> area where GURPS has the right, if overcomplicated, approach. I suspect,
> though, that the reason for this is because Wizard was writ in stone before
> the talent rules were developed. Had SJ been able to, I think he might have
> done this.

This is a point where I think that TFT got it right and GURPS got it wrong. I 
*hated* the way GURPS magic locked in all those spell prerequisites. I know 
why SJ did it, but I still hated it. IMHO prerequisites for talents in TFT 
make some sense, but for spells? bleah!

-- 
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"