Re: (TFT) 18's & broken weapons / weird stuff / variety of encounter. 2

[ErolB1@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:46:25 PM Central Standard Time, 
rsmith@lightspeed.ca writes:

>> If the mechanics are such that Random Bad Crap is inevitable in the long 
run, 
>> then you're running the gaming equivalent of an Idiot Plot if you expect 
>> characters to be taken by surprise when the inevitable Bad Crap happens. 
>
>    I disagree.  In real life, things really
>do go wrong, sometime for effectively random 
>reasons.  Just because your game system says
>that occasionally things go wrong does not mean 
>that the story you are telling is an idiot plot.
>
>    Or perhaps I have missed the point you
>are trying to make?

I think you missed my point: In the real world, the insurance business is 
booming, adventurous heroism is rare, and when people do do anything resembling 
adventure, they take all sorts of fiddly precautions. 

But if a character tries to take fiddly precautions - if he carries extra 
bowstrings or buys a Charm before attempting a major enchantment - he gets 
thought of as a paranoid munchkin and a wet blanket on the game. Worse, the GM may 
be tempted into get into an arms race, ratcheting up the Bad Shit and changing 
the ground rules so as to make it harder to avoid, so as to make sure the Kewl 
effects of the Bad Shit hit the PC full in the face. (IIRC, you yourself have 
mentioned that you made Charms rare-to-nonexistant in your game). 

I've been on both ends of that stick, and IME it's amusing in the short term 
but a net loss of Fun in the long one. 

>> (IMO, one of the few truly great ideas in 3rd ed D&D were the rules on 
>> "Taking 10")
>
>    I've never played 3rd ed.  What is taking
>10.

When preforming more-or-less routine events, a player can have his character 
choose to "take 10" - automatically roll a "10" on the d20 check for success, 
rather than actually rolling the die. It represents such things as circus 
acrobats being able to earn their daily bread without having to have obscene skill 
levels. If their "average" roll is good enough to walk across a tightrope 
without going splat, they can do a daily tightrope act without going splat two or 
three times a week. 

(if an enemy takes a potshot at them, they have to roll that d20 and risk 
going splat, even  if the potshot misses - they can't "take 10" (usually) in 
combat.) 

>> It bugs the hell out of me to see rules that imply one thing about the 
game 
>> world and then... Or critical spell failure rules that imply that a 
kingdom with 
>> 100 wizards in it will inevitably become a blasted wasteland within a 
year, 
>> but the GM ignores that and keeps the kingdom around. 
>
>    ???   Which rules blast kingdoms? 

I'm thinking of some versions of GURPS "unlimited mana" rules, or of various 
other spell fumble house rules I've seen proposed from time to time. If 100 
wizards cast spells every day, with a ~1% chance of fumbling each casting, then 
you're looking at dozens or hundreds of spell fumbles each year. And while a 
single fumble isn't (usually) enough to blast a kingdom, even with the 
"enthusiastic" fumble results I've seen proposed, a hundred of those high-end fumbles 
is a different matter. 

Or closer to home, the alchemy rules you had for TFT back when we first 
corresponded - the ones that featured large explosions on fumbles. Not enough to 
lay waste to kingdoms, but I can't imagine any town or city allowing an 
alchemist to set up a lab if the town fathers were even remotely sane. Not to mention 
the fact that it was impossible to make any money via potion brewing, once the 
expected costs of the fumbles were figured in.

>    I wouldn't mind a small chance of some 
> trivial spell effect (ears turn blue), but if a
> large fraction of the table was like that then it
> would just annoy people.  (At least it would 
> annoy me.)  What I would aim for is a number of
> effects that are large enough to have an effect
> in a combat, particularly interesting effects
> that are not normally possible in TFT fights.
> e.g. "Blood runs / splatters into your eyes.  DX
> -4 until you can rub it clear with a hand (one 
> action)."

This is where milage varies and tastes differ, as we keep telling each other. 
While the little fumbles I propose would be mildly annoying to me, the bigger 
ones you propose would annoy me worse.

>    In my campaign, people can master spells,
>by spending double memory for them.  If you have
>mastered a spell, you never critically fail, the
>most that can happen is you lose 1 fST if you 
>fail.  When you are 5 over the minimum IQ of a 
>spell, it is automatically mastered.

This is good, if it doesn't annoy you when your players take full advantage 
of this and make it the "standard" way to know their spells (or at least all 
the important ones). Question: If a wizard spends double, then later raises his 
IQ to 5 over the minimum, does he get the double memory back?

Also, both spell fumbles and the cost of avoiding them will make wizards less 
powerful. This may be a good thing if you think wizards over-powered to start 
with, but otherwise it is something to think about. 

Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"