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

[ErolB1@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/9/2003 3:42:15 AM Central Daylight Time, 
tbeard@tyler.net writes:

> 3. The 3d6 bell curve, in the sense that it is too easy to become really,
> really good at something

A number of people mentioned this. I don't have a problem with it, probably 
because I redefined what it means to be "really, really good at something."

Being able to succeed at the base task 90+% of the time (adjIQ or adjDx 14+) 
doesn't make one "really really good" in my campaign. To be "really really 
good" one has to be able to succeed 90+% of the time despite penalties of -4, 
-6, or even -10 or more. (Or, in some cases, despite having to roll 4, 5, or 
even 6+ dice) 

For example: To pull the Robin Hood trick of splitting an arrow requires a 
called shot at -16 Dx (at least in Etan). Etan has a scant handful of archers 
who can pull off that kind of shot - adjDx of 29+ when using a bow. It *is* 
possible for PCs to get that kind of skill, but even with my house rules it 
isn't easy. Rather it's the sort of thing players can aspire to as their PCs 
become legendary figures with attribute totals of around 50 pts. 

Now in combat this can be a problem because the skill of the target doesn't 
enter into the difficulty of the attack. That's something I should have put 
down in my own list of 'things that TFT oversimplifies' - the rules for 
defending / dodging / parrying are too rudimentary, and a large chunk of my 
own house rules consist of a total rewrite of them.

-- 
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"