Re: Dark City Games etc

[PvK <pvk@oz.net>]

--- jlv61560@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well, in DCG's defense on the maps thing -- if you pop open your old Death Test map, you'll see that DCG's maps are clearly a cut above!
> (Of course, 30 years after the fact, they sort of should be, I guess!  ;-)  )  And I like the fact that I get a completely playable game, 
> right out of the baggie...much like the old Microgames/quests when it comes right down to it.

The DCG adventures seem really well done, but the free sample space-age adventures seem to have two maps each, both of which have very little terrain and are re-used for many scenes which describe settings which should have very different terrain from the descriptions, but they just say to use the 5x5 map or whatever... and the maps are always so small that the one minimal effect of range (being out of range of non-missile attacks long enough to get a free shot or two off) is usually a non-issue.

I take it the full adventures have much better maps? 

Ya, it is much easier/cheaper to provide maps than it was circa 1980.


> I agree with you that much detail for a full RPG experience is missing -- if you check out the forums at DCG, you'll see all sorts of 
> comments on that, but at the end of the day, what they give you works quite well for it's intended purpose -- a quick playing miniquest.
> I would like to see them go in to more detail though...
> To me, their best feature is the way the skills work -- that and the healing magic!  For the rest of it, I have to admit I backslide 
> into TFT pretty thoroughly when playing the games.

Yep. I did read and post on the forums. They clearly have a focus on providing very concise simple rules and letting players play or
even interpret or change whatever they're written. But the format is almost a shorthand "quick reference" style, and they don't seem
to realize how much they've left out or left unclear. I think it shows more in the Time & Space and Untamed West rules, where the 
combat is mainly rolling to hit each other back and forth until dead, with the only issues being if you are close enough to attack
any other way, or if you can actually block line of fire or take cover (which is always the same value), oh and whom to shoot at.
No range penalties, no hit locations, no body positions, no cover types, no snap shots, no effects of injury, no ammo limits, no
differences between guns other than damage, shots per turn, min ST, or hands required. Etc. Which, hey, I can fill in from TFT, 
GURPS, or my imagination, or player suggestions on DCG forums, but it's pretty bare bones.  


> Likewise, CW Brandon's Heroes and Other Worlds is an interesting take on TFT, and he has a lot of support material out for it, 
> including a fairly comprehensive monster manual that translates most of the D&D monsters into TFT-ish versions (though I think a 
> number of them are fairly overinflated in characteristics).  I disagree with his EN (Endurance, or health, or HPs, if you like) 
> characteristic though -- not because I feel it's a bad idea (after all Steve Jackson went down that road with GURPS), but because 
> it only applies to the PCs...which feels a bit "gamey" to me.  Still he's got an interesting system there, and he too uses a 
> DCG-like skills system.

That does feel gamey. I didn't see that per se in the current rules. There are instead some other PC metagame survival/advantages,
namely "karma" and wishes. Maybe those got revised out? 

(GURPS has a health score, but it isn't generally used as a way to soak more wounds than you would in TFT. Also in 4e they 
interestingly back-pedalled and swapped ST back to the stat that wound capacity is based on.)