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

Re: (TFT) An Even More Radical Re-Imagining of TFT...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter von Kleinsmid" <pvk@oz.net>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>

> At 09:00 AM 1/21/04 -0600, Ty Beard wrote:
> >...
> >The Solution
> >...
> >Each figure makes a melee "attack" on every enemy figure in its front
> ...
> This will give you some Conan-like (or better) cinematic effects and speed
> combat results, all right, as you are essentially giving every character
> the ability to do a Sweeping Blow (q.v. Advanced Melee) every turn
> regardless of weapon type with zero penalty (or, up three attacks per
> one per enemy).

Sorta. But it also allows a figure's skill to make him harder to hit, so
leaping-about-fencing-types will be a bit more survivable than they
currently are in TFT.

> Ranged attacks and spells aren't getting a similar boost. In fact, they
> getting weakened by the added defensive abilities of their targets (who in
> Canon TFT generally get no defense unless they waste their whole turn
> dodging, and even that doesn't help against thrown spells IIRC).

You compare the roll to the target's roll *only* in melee. So missile
weapons and spells have the same chance to hit as before.

> More hack-power to ya, if that's what you want, but those considering this
> suggestion should consider these points.
> >...
> >3. Everything generally happens simultaneously, though if critical, the
> >can rule that the actions actually happen in descending order of rolls.
> >...
> Just another non-critical observation about balance - this is of course a
> disadvantage to high-AdjDX characters compared to TFT (where actions take
> place in order of AdjDX). However, this rule 3 could be omitted if not
> desired, without a big effect, as desired. Samurai fans might actually
> the ability of two swordfighters to kill each other (and up to four
> simultaneously.

I'm thinking the same thing, which is why I've left the option open of
resolving things in order of die roll.

> In fact, your basic system (rules 2 and 3, without option 4, and without
> the "if critical" part of rule 3), I would expect to butcher-high DX
> characters without armor. Sure they would butcher those they were facing
> the time, but there is no minus to the attacks against high-DX characters,
> and with simultaneous resolution and no "if critical" clause, you'd remove
> TFT's chance for a high-DX character to kill opponents _before_ they kill
> him.

Yep. Though in my experience, high DX fighters tend to have lighter weapons,
all else being equal. Pretty hard to kill someone with a 1d foil...

> >3. If a figure is attacking from the side or rear, add the appropriate
> >to his roll but only to attacks on the figure who is flanked.
> Why is this is an _option_? Seems to me it would follow from "add the
> appropriate modifiers" above? If not, you're dispensing with a large part
> of the point of using a hex map, no?

It isn't an option; it was just a clarification. You don't get a +2 to *all*
attacks merely because you're in one figure's side hex.

> >4. A less radical version would be to simply roll d20 (or 3d6) for each
> >attack and have the attack succeed if a figure makes his DX roll by as
> >or more than the target. This seems less intuitive to me, but veteran TFT
> >players might like it better.
> Yes, or use the GURPS system, which would be my choice, and which is very
> similar to 4, except with very comprehensive and play-tested (and more
> complicated) rules.

Welll, GURPS works differently -- and more slowly -- because that mechanic
is an optional rule that's applied to the parry roll.

> This point 4 adds a major effect compared to your basic rule

Well, it's essentially a replacement for the main resolution system (roll
d20/3d6 and add attribute), not an additional element.

> >6. Note that the resolution mechanic can be adapted to all of TFT -- 
> >roll d20 (or 3d6) and add the attribute. A 21+ is a success (or an 11+ if
> >you express the attribute as a +/- number with zero being equivalent to a
> >ten). I personally think that addition is more intuitive -- especially
> >new players. It also removes the little dissonance where rolling low is
> >good, but negative modifiers are bad...
> ...
> True, although I find TFT's "roll against skill by comparing values"
> intuitive. I think it's actually easier to follow the logic of that "add
> everything and compare to 21". No doubt I and most of this list are
> conditioned by years of TFT experience, though.

I think so. I've had some modest trouble making players understand that a
modifier is applied to the attribute, not the roll, which means that a -2 is
bad, despite the fact that low rolls are good.

Adding is more intuitive, I think, up to a point. The problem is that this
point is probably exceeded when you roll 17 and have to add 19 to it...
Hence my thought that attributes could be expressed as direct die modifiers.

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