[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

But High DX figures SHOULD win.

Hi Neil, everyone.
  I was not able to understand your ‘seminar’ story at the bottom.  
What are the techniques you are discussing?  Why do the high
‘rank' figures need to use ‘techniques’.  If the ‘high rank’ figures 
are higher attribute characters, it would seem to me that they 
don’t need to use special battle tricks to win fights.  I think that 
your story needs a bit more background to give context.

  I note that my defend rules do NOTHING to change your 
general rule that "high DX figures win”.  My rules just try to slow 
down that result a bit.

Warm regards, Rick

> On May 16, 2018, at 9:28 AM, raito@raito.com wrote:
> TFT doesn't scale well to ultra-high attributes. At the same time, it's
> not hard to kill any particular character, if you work at it. This is why
> my campaign encouraged PCs going in for temporal power. And why I enforced
> the aging rules.
> No one quite got to the point of being able to ensure their life through
> Youth potions. Nor figured out why that was so.
> But back to mechanics...
> In my real-worked experiences, low DX (inexperienced) fighters, and high
> DX (experienced) fighters have about the same outcomes with their similar
> counterparts. The salient difference is that the inexperienced use
> technique to win (whoever gets the technique right first wins), and the
> experienced use strategy to win (whoever outmaneuvers the other first
> wins). Low vs. high is nearly inevitably the same result every time --
> high DX wins*. Period. In that respect, TFT is accurate. And it doesn't
> matter if the low DX guy is fully defensive. He's still going to get hurt.
> TFT combat is deadly, and I like that (same things I've said before, and
> it depends on what sort of game you want). Don't go into combat unless you
> don't mind dying.
> If you're stupid enough to go after an opponent who outclasses you you die.
> If you're stupid enough to make an opponent who outclasses you come after
> you, you die.
> *One example was at a sort of seminar. There were maybe 9 guys of high
> rank, and about 70 of lower rank. At the end, the 9 of us took on each of
> the 70, one at a time. A couple of the 70 complained at having to do 9
> bouts back to back. Sheesh. We had to do 70 back to back. I did not lose a
> single one. In fact, I did the same technique on the first 30 at least. My
> fellow high-ranker leaned over and asked, "When do you think they'll catch
> on?"
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.com
> =====