Re: (TFT) Raw Text,Talents & Tech

["Jay Carlisle" <selfinflicted_wounds@boardermail.com>]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pvk@oz.net

> 
> I think I asked you if you'd given GURPS a try, but I don't remember if I
> really did, or what you replied.

Oh yes, I know GURPs and also played ALOT of Champions.
I'm sure you noticed the modified phase bit in non-combat movement.

> It'd just come down to playstyle -
> maybe you're satisfied with the level of detail in TFT combat and
> characters, but want more detailed campaign-level rules? 

Yeppers.
Campaign materal is highly overlooked IMO.
I find more useful information in the World Book than I've ever found in a comercial product campaign.
IMO campaign info should read like a regional Atlas.
I'm not advocating dry and boring writing, but the info comes first.

At a deeper level I'm concerned with issues of interactivity.
A player should have total freedom of choice.
The best way I've found to do this is to describe the World in toto.
The best way I've found to do this is to use Earth.
If I wanna make it unrecognizable (assuming thier culture has the Tech to make Maps and the explorers have already drawn some), I can crank her back twords Pangea and drop or raise the Oceans a few feet and, wha la!


> 
> Now, for an apeshit-detailed game, someone like you or I might actually
> want to distinguish form and materials, even length and striking surfaces,
> and the skill and success of the manufacture of each weapon. 

Consider though, that if I define a range of materal hardness to pST, then the duriability of the Mace is a by-produce of the bigger picture.
The same Sandstone that can make a Mace head can also make blocks for a pyramid.

> In the end though, it's about bonking someone
> with a heavy weight on a stick, and the main effect of such things is
> mainly going to be mass and length (desirable values for which can be
> achieved at low tech with rock/stick/cord) and durability and perhaps
> interaction with different types of weapons and armor (a flanged iron mace
> with points probably does injure and penetrate different types of armor
> differently than a round ball like most rocks - the questions become
> whether or not the difference is something we care about and understand
> well enough to include in our rules and/or weapon tables).

Another good point.
Now if I consider a "weapon" as a moment arm, then it seems to me that the various points of contact along it's length is well served by varaible damage, i.e. a range like 2d6.
However, seeing as a moment arm multiplies force as you move the force down the arm, it would seem to me that weapons would better be described as ST damage multipliers (based on length) with effects, like Flail/Morning Star ignores shield, or Pike allows HTH attack at distance.

> Clearly though, this type of thinking multiplies the depth of the
> discourse that is gaming by a factor of 100 or more. So it's for the few
> of us that enjoy it and become unsatisfied when our games don't fit our
> models of how things work in a world we can satisfactorily believe in.
> 

True, true, but a lot of this stuff can be buried in the tools of the game.
I wouldn't want to have to solve a quadratic every time I swung my sword, but if the rules are based on real world referance materal, then I can go to extream detail if/when appropiate.

Just because there is detail in the design dosn't mean that play HAS to be complex.
I think it's nice to have it available if you want it.


Jay

-- 
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.boardermail.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"