Re: (TFT) (SFB) (GURPS)

[pvk@oz.net]

On Tue, August 7, 2007 1:15 am, Jay Carlisle wrote:
...
> From the point of Game Theory you've put your finger on something here
> though about the tinkering. The "richest" game has the least number of
> rules leading to the largest number of outcomes. Tic Tac Toe fails here
> but actual warfare, looked at as a game, just about takes the cake. ...

It seems to me that not all rules limit outcomes. It's not the number of
rules that determine how limited or enjoyable or interesting a game is to
each player; it's how much they like those rules, and each player has
unique tastes, though some have some similar tastes (and hopefully they
can get together and enjoy some good games).

My personal examples, if interested:

To my tastes, TFT was wonderful because it had very tasty rules. I value
rules that are consistent, make sense, seem realistic, and add up to a
rich game universe I can explore and have huge amounts of fun with. I also
enjoyed SFB for several years, even when it had tons of complex rules. I
also enjoy complex wargames, program computers, etc.

My dissatisfactions with SFB weren't that it had a lot of complex rules
and charts and tables (in fact, I felt many of the rules provided
interesting possibilities rather than limits), but that some of it wasn't
to my taste (e.g. every navy having nearly parallel classes of ships, or
ships and scenarios blatantly based on the 20th Century Cold War, or
taking forever to play a battle).

The times I've tried to muster interest in D&D have always quickly
vaporized not because of the number or complexity of the rules but because
to me, the rules and game balance is (to my own tastes and sensibilities)
far too unbelievable, inconsistent, unrealistic and lame. Even if the
ruleset being used is simple, such as "what the DM understands, which is
little" or some basic (or complex) computer adaptation based on D&D, just
the fact that combat is a mapless hitpoint-whittlefest makes it dreck to
me. I'd rather be playing Melee arena combat.

The point where TFT broke down for me and my group was after several years
of play, when combat stopped being so deadly and unpredictable and
interesting because we had memorized the rules and the situations they
created, and we saw it more as a game system than a believable and
unpredictable world. We had developed great game worlds but the characters
we liked were now about 45 points with a few magic items and friends (some
of whom were even more capable), and combined with our ability to predict
combat outcomes, that was making combat less interesting than we knew it
could be, from our experiences playing TFT before. We tried starting some
new lower-point characters and had fun with that, but we wanted a system
that would keep things interesting for powerful characters and that would
also be believable for us.

We started developing our own rules expanding TFT, but then GURPS provided
something close to what we were trying to do, only (anticipating jibes
here) more elegantly. Which is just to say GURPS was very close to what WE
wanted to play at that point, not that everyone should.

After more years of play, though, I was back to seeing gamey imperfections
and making house rules. I have to admit though that my ideal RPG is too
complex for me to want to play with pen & paper. But that's just me... ;-)

I do think it's really very cool that there are still several groups of
players happily running TFT. TFT is still a sentimental favorite, and I
like the ITL gameworld and AW magic system a lot.

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