Re: (TFT) Word Value

[ErolB1@aol.com]

An alternate view is that TSR originally tried to pull a Gygaxian fraud, 
claiming that 1st level characters were "veterans" rather than actually being 
barely post-pubescent youngsters who had just last week learned which end of the 
sword to hold, and that 4th level characters were "heroes" rather than actually 
being newly promoted buck sergeants in charge of these children. And that in 
the face of much hooting, laughter, and general derision, they slowly and 
grudgingly accepted that *real* heroes are best represented by 18th level fighters 
with a +2/level Con bonus to hit points if they are to do justice to the 
source material. 

Likewise calling 32 pt non-wizard begining characters "heroes" in TFT is a 
bogus use of the term that cheapens it, in line with the degenerate modern 
practice of naming anyone who comes out of an emergency without pissing himself as 
being a "hero." 

Like D&D, TFT is good for producing the faceless mooks & grunts that, in the 
source material, serve as speed bumps for the real heroes on their way to the 
real challenge. Unlike D&D, TFT died before it could be dragged, kicking and 
screaming, into also producing "hero" characters who would actually do justice 
to the source material. 

Yes, sometimes new material does wreck a perfectly good game. But sometimes 
the new material is needed because the original version just doesn't cut the 
mustard. 

Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow


In a message dated 9/16/2006 4:20:19 PM Central Daylight Time, 
davidgrouchy@yahoo.com writes:


>           AD&D drops the bomb on itself
> 
> (A brief study of the use of the word 'hero' in AD&D,
>               with a TFT conclusion)
> 
> 
> 
>          In CHAINMAIL a hero is listed as being equal to four heavy horse. 
> In MEN & MAGIC a hero is four D8. Yet in THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK it is four D10.  
> And in DEITIES & DEMI-GODS the average hit points of the 22 listed heroes is 
> 139.6363. In the later case the minimum number of D10 that could cover such 
> a massive number of hit points would be fourteen.  But that's if one rolls 
> straight tens.  It is an average roll for twenty six D10.  Listed in order of 
> publication the inflation of numbers against the word value of hero is clear.  
> 
> 
> HERO
> 4D6     CHAINMAIL           (c) 1971 ''Tactical Studies Rules''
> 4D8     MEN & MAGIC         (c) 1974 ''Tactical Studies Rules''
> 4D10    PLAYERS HANDBOOK    (c) 1978 ''Tactical Studies Rules''
> 26D10    DEITIES & DEMI-GODS (c) 1980 ''Tactical Studies Rules'' 
>          It seems clear that the number value of the word ''hero'' gets 
> bigger over time. That shows me a lack of understanding for their own formulas.  
> It makes me wonder if they weren't just selling bigger numbers in each 
> subsequent edition.  I mean, aside from all that artwork.  Here is the same data in 
> graph form.
>          The word value of hero has been under examined.  A hero as defined 
> by AD&D is a fourth level Fighter.  One should think that it is the use of 
> the word ''hero'' that leads to the idea of ''henchmen'' as a game mechanic.  
> Any AD&D character can have charisma.  And Charisma brings followers.
>          Charisma, also doesn't usually increase without the use of wishes.  
> I find this strange.  The people at TSR seem to have missed the point. I 
> should think that Charisma, or number of followers, is what would make a 
> ''hero.''. In AD&D terms. This would make more sense to me than inflated numbers 
> over time.
>          TFT specifically lists Charisma(cost 2) and New Followers(cost 2) 
> as two separate talents. Neither one is listed as an attribute like in D&D. 
> Also Charisma is listed as a prerequisite of New Followers. I take this to be 
> intentional on Steve Jackson''s part. To explain in a more logical set of 
> rules how his system is different from D&D. Steve Jackson's work shows a greater 
> awareness of word value.  
>          The word value of ''hero'' in TFT means anything that is not a 
> Wizard. Even a thief or assassin is a type of hero. A wizard is not. A hero has 
> to spend four points of IQ if they wish to have followers. A Wizard is 
> required to spend eight points of IQ if they wish to have followers. This cost of 
> four points has an interesting, if coincidental, correlation to the four heavy 
> horse of a CHAINMAIL ''hero.''
>          I submit that if TFT had remained a living game it would have gone 
> through a similar form of unstable word value.  Not intentionally by the 
> designers of course, but they would be unable to restrain themselves from adding 
> new talents.  Seeing New Followers, and Monster Followers, they would do 
> something like add Thief Followers, so one could be GM of their own guild, and 
> Mercenary Followers for the same reason.  And they would think this to be 
> adding to the game, when really all it does is make it cost 8 points to start out 
> as a hero.  Whereas I could do it with 4 before.  Take GURPS for example.  
> One must have at least 26 points of talents to make a decent hero.
>          My conclusion on the word value in D&D, AD&D, and the rest, is that 
> there is almost none.  A consistent value for a defined word that does not 
> suffer from dilution over time as revisions and official expansions come out.  
> Or worse a new class is introduced that completely invalidates the old ones. 
>  Does anyone remember the Archer Ranger specialty from an issue of Dragon 
> Magazine.
>          In addition, what ever word value CHAINMAIL once had is completely 
> lost by the time of the Archer Ranger.  In that sense, TFT has been served 
> better by being a dead game than a living one. Who knows what would have 
> happened had TFT gone through multiple editions.  There would probably be sixteen 
> types of wizards Labs costing at least ten thousand silver each, where one 
> lab used to get the job done.  Among other atrocities to the system.
>          As a parting word, I would like to say strongly that I am all for 
> new stuff and new ideas, just not where it buries the old ones.  Personally I 
> feel that game designers do this to their own games out of insecurity.  They 
> fear that their new material may not be interesting enough to the fan so they 
> over compensate by pumping it up.  One must have the new Advanced Running 
> they say to themselves It adds 6 to movement for only 1 extra point.  Then 
> later they say look at how successful my Advanced Running Talent is.  
> Everyone has it.
>          I really wish they would grow up and stop doing this to games.  It 
> has been my experience that one can make an entire series of supplements on 
> nothing more than details of the Alchemists Lab while leaving the existing 
> rules unharmed in any way.  And this series will thrive or die based on it's 
> internal value, or lack there of.  Not because they threw in a bit of rules 
> inflation so everyone Had to have it.
>   
> 
>         Thank you Howard Thompson and Steve Jackson for getting a divorce at 
> the exact right moment in history.
>         And thank you gentle reader for you time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     David Michael Grouchy II
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"