[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Howard Thompson versus Steve Jackson
Hey Sgt Hulka!
Some thoughts.
Why? Simply because HT was a printer and SJ was a game designer. While
I have no love for SJ I do admire what he has accomplished and, like
you, feel there is no more elegant skirmish rules system out there. In
or out of print. SJ admitted he wanted more time to play test Advanced
TFT but HT rush it into production. It really comes down to balance
between pure design and pure business needs. So, from HTs perspective
I can understand why it needed to get into the game stores and be
sold. Without HT we would most likely have no TFT. He wanted and
needed his game to be finished, not play tested more. And from what
I've read he got very angry at SJ wanting and taking too much time.
But that first printing deadline doesn't matter anymore, here 30+
years later. What does matter is what's left, the printed word. So,
it's really too bad it wasn't play tested a little bit more. (Even
though I disagree that it really needed that much more.)
So we bash HT. Even though I thoroughly understand his point of view
from a business perspective. Of course what I and many of us fail to
understand is why he absolutely refuses, to the point of being
certifiably insanely stubborn about it, to work with anyone to reissue
this game system. And it seems to have been based purely on
personalities. That's why I don't respect him anymore and why he's
easy to bash. Come on HT, enough already. There's so many talented
people out here that would pour a lot of energy into putting out a new
version of Advanced Melee/Wizards. He doesn't know what he has.
As for the pole weapon rules when a game designer creates a new ruling
to fix a perceived problem he looks at how this new ruling effects the
entire game. When an inexperienced layperson does so he's just
plugging one hole with a rule that most likely creates problems with
other rules.
The HT move three hex to do a charge attack rule alters the overall
game way too much for my liking. It gets rid of a lot of the movement
strategies when a mob a figures are in close battling each other and
penalizes the pole weapon user way too much by making him take turns
to back up then run back in. If a GM feels that pole weapons are too
overpowering then the way to tame them does not lie in the movement
but in the damage. Just change it to an extra 1D6 and leave in the one
hex charge and everything plays so much better.
As for house rules, well, I sometimes wonder if we are all playing the
same game! As for the current debate we might as well argue about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We might get somewhere
with that! ;^)
David O. Miller
www.meleewizards.com
On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Sgt Hulka wrote:
> Why so much Howard Thompson hate? If a rule is a good rule, who
> cares who it came from?
>
> It's pretty clear to me that Steve Jackson did not properly playtest
> TFT. Or, if he did, that he did not adequately listen to the
> feedback. In my opinion, that automatically disqualifies him for the
> pedastal most people on this list place him on.
>
> Melee/Wizard/TFT are my favorite muscle-powered age of warfare
> miniature skirmish rules. Sadly, every version has a hole in it that
> is easily exploitable and skews what it is trying to model. If
> everyone agrees not to exploit that hole, it works great. But if
> anyone starts trying to work the system, it has to be house ruled or
> the game falls apart. That saddens me because I don't feel I can
> ever just put a copy of the rules on the table and say "we're
> playing this", without qualifications.
>
> Why does that matter? Because house rules are subjective. Just look
> at the current debate about the historical accuracy of the dominance
> of pole weapons. I think they dominated. Others are equally adament
> that they didn't. How could we possibly agree on a house rule to
> address pole weapons? We have opposite points of view on what the
> model should try and simulate. So all we can fall back on is the
> rules as written. And if those rules have an imbalance, the game
> falls apart and we have to move on to (shudder) Warhammer or
> something.
>
> --- On Thu, 10/6/11, David O. Miller <davidomiller@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> From: David O. Miller <davidomiller@verizon.net>
>> Subject: Re: (TFT) Death Test 1, take 4: SURVIVED!
>> To: tft@brainiac.com
>> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2011, 10:55 AM
>> Well, the 3-hex charge rule is not in
>> there. Not in any version that Steve Jackson wrote or
>> approved at least. It was added in a later edition by Howard
>> Thompson based on a perceived problem / interpretation of
>> the rules by readers of InterPlay magazine. Or by Howard
>> Thompson.
>>
>> This goes back to the discussion of which version do you
>> believe to be canon. I happen to go with the original
>> designers version, that's all. Never trusted what HT put
>> in.
>>
>> I understand about putting your weight behind the strike. I
>> have no problem with a pole weapon running towards a foe
>> causing extra damage. I just fail to see why there needs to
>> be a rule that changes the original and says that now you
>> "have" to, and ditches the move one and charge rule.
>>
>> I still see it as counting the strength you put behind it
>> as well, added to any momentum. To me a one hex charge is a
>> lunge forward, hit, and then a push to ram the weapon home.
>> This causes the extra, impaling damage. The game mechanic is
>> elegant. It accounts for the extra impaling damage, in
>> either a run towards, or a step and thrust into, without
>> adding complexity. Either way you are moving towards your
>> opponent. I just fail to see why you have to suddenly
>> penalize the pole weapon user and say he now has to back up
>> and then run in to gain extra damage.
>>
>> David O. Miller
>> www.meleewizards.com
>>
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:14 PM, gem6868 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not putting in the 3-hex charge rule, it's already
>> there.
>>> And the inspiration behind it is clearly that you get
>> the double-damage because the charger - or you - are adding
>> significant amounts of momentum to your impaling
>> damage. Check out Newton's 3rd law (I think it's the
>> third) and you'll see there's a big difference btw you
>> standing there with your weight behind a weapon, and you
>> charging with you weight behind your weapon.
>>> Frankly, if we stood in you yard, you'd never get a
>> chance to impale me, I'd be way to fast for you and your
>> cumbersome weapon. Of course, I wouldn't be a threat
>> to you either, I'd just run around and the biggest danger is
>> that I'd laugh to hard and lose some agility. Now a
>> slashing weapon...
>>> :)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: David O. Miller
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:32 PM
>>> To: tft@brainiac.com
>>> Subject: Re: (TFT) Death Test 1, take 4: SURVIVED!
>>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, gem6868 wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I also subscribe to the rules
>> interpretation that says if there isn't a successful
>> charge (3 straight hexes) or the character isn't
>> Charged, then the polearm advantage doesn't come into
>> effect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not? I can go out in the back yard with a thick
>> pointy stick,
>>> stand fairly close to an enemy, and putting all my
>> weight behind it on
>>> that tiny point do a massive amount of damage to a
>> person as I run
>>> them clean through and keep pushing really hard. It's
>> called impaling
>>> damage and I'm sure it hurts like hell. I've always
>> thought that the
>>> unfortunate choice of the term "charge attack" narrows
>> a persons
>>> interpretation of what the rule is attempting to cover
>> way too much,
>>> which is really being impaled. I don't need to run 10
>> or 15 feet
>>> towards a person to put my weight behind such an
>> attack. All of my
>>> weight and strength is centered on a small point that
>> has a better
>>> chance of puncturing armor than an edged or club like
>> weapon does and
>>> momentum, at least to me, really doesn't add that
>> much. In fact it
>>> might even make it harder to hit someone.
>>>
>>> This is always an interesting subject for me every
>> time it comes up.
>>> There is always a perceived problem with the rules
>> that centers on the
>>> word "charge". Put in the three hex charge rule and
>> you change the
>>> tactics of the original advanced game too much for my
>> liking.
>>>
>>> David O. Miller
>>> www.meleewizards.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" =====
>>> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
>>> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com
>> with the message body
>>> "unsubscribe tft"
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> David O. Miller
>> Miller Design/Illustration
>> www.davidomiller.com
>>
>> Network Diagram Solutions
>> www.diagramsolutions.com
>>
>> davidomiller@verizon.net
>>
>> East Northport, NY 11731
>> (631) 266-6875
>> =====
>> 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"
__________________________________________
David O. Miller
Miller Design/Illustration
www.davidomiller.com
Network Diagram Solutions
www.diagramsolutions.com
davidomiller@verizon.net
East Northport, NY 11731
(631) 266-6875
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"