Re: (TFT) Justifying an aspect of combat...

[<Gavin@TheFantasyQuest.com>]

But if we wanted that level of detail then
> we'd take something like Rolemaster and add four more books of rules to 
> it, and single combat would take a weekend or some serious computer 
> support to play.

I know your response is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think it's also waaaaay 
off-the-mark.

The whole quandary can be very easily fixed by adding one extra die-roll 
between "To-Hit" and "Damage":  the "Defense" roll (parry, shield-block or 
dodge).  It's a tiny price to pay to correct an enormous oversight/flaw of 
the TFT combat system.  The extra time it takes to make the defense roll is 
a worthwhile investment in the Reality-side of the "Simplicity-Reality" 
equation.

Gavin Gossett
The Fantasy Quest
TFQ Games

Gavin@TheFantasyQuest.com
www.TheFantasyQuest.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven K. Mariner" <skmpu@bhmk.com>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: (TFT) Justifying an aspect of combat...


> Dear David,
>
>  > > From: joel.siragher@gmail.com
>  > > After years of play, I just realized something.
>  > > Combat is only based on your ability to hit, and it
>  > > doesnt take your opponents dex into consideration.
>  >
>  > David Michael Grouchy II wrote:
>  >
>  > You have yet to make a convincing argument that
>  > something is amiss.
>
> Is that really needed?  In a friendly forum like this?
>
> I think it's clear that Joel is addressing an issue of a perceived 
> weakness of "realism" in the combat system.  The weakness in question 
> seems pretty evident to me, so establishing that with a geometric proof 
> would seem tedious at best.
>
> By the same token, I suspect your stance is that Joel has missed the 
> primary goal-set of the TFT combat system.
>
> I have always held the opinion that the goal of the TFT combat system is 
> "speed and ease of use through simplicity".
>
> I also think it is fairly common knowledge that these two goals (realism 
> and playability) are often at odds with each other, requiring some kind of 
> trade-off in any game design.  In the business, I believe this is usually 
> referred to as "abstraction".
>
> So if I've sussed yours and Joel's stances correctly, my response would be 
> something like this:
>
> "Yes, it's a bummer we can't show that a master swordsman or someone with 
> amazing reaction speed is likely to avoid being hit by a total newbie in a 
> sword fight.  But if we wanted that level of detail then we'd take 
> something like Rolemaster and add four more books of rules to it, and 
> single combat would take a weekend or some serious computer support to 
> play.  Melee is about gettin' it done quickly.  Detailed realism simply 
> takes a back seat here."
>
>
> My apologies if anything here is seen as disrespectful, as it was not 
> intended as such.  Perhaps a tongue-in-cheek moment here or there, but 
> again, not intended as an overt thing in any way.
>
> And if I've missed your mark, David, I do look forward to being educated 
> as to what you really were driving at.  'Cuz I do love your posts and your 
> perspective on the game.
>
>
> - Steve M.
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"