Yea, I wasn’t referring to you Neal.
__________________________________________ David O. Miller Miller Design/Illustration
Well, that would be completely the opposite, wouldn't it? :) Neil Gilmore raito@raito.comI don't think he was responding to your game per se -- he was just
expressing the belief that a lot of what Steve has changed seems to be
influenced by what Dark City Games did.
From: "raito@raito.com" <raito@raito.com>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Steve Jackson - major change to TFT.
I, and my campaign, predate Dark City by decades.
Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com
Uh, this seems to be heavily influenced by Dark City Games mechanics.
__________________________________________
David O. Miller
Miller Design/Illustration
www.davidomiller.com <http://www.davidomiller.com/>
On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:26 AM, raito@raito.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
Ultimately, the rules are whatever the GM wants. But I wonder that
perceived 'problems' this solves. I can guess at some of them. And you
long-time readers will already know my opinions. They haven't changed.
1. Monty Hall/Haul There's not a problem is characters don't get
obscene
attribute numbers. And you only get obscene attribute numbers if the GM
hands out XP like candy.
2. Playing the sheet rather than the character. There's an awful lot of
players out there who seem to want extremely minute detail on what
their
character is capable of, mostly so they can min/max everything. This
runs
counter to any idea that a campaign or even a single adventure is a
story.
Remember that the literary double-0 agents were all min/maxers who were
so
conservative that they lived, but were dull. The only reason Bond got
anywhere was that he was reckless.
3. Not playing with the full set of rules. There's already mechanisms
to
keep characters from becoming obscene. Combat and aging.
4. Having to keep track of who killed what. Not a problem for me. But
then, I also use the detailed shield and armour degradation rules, and
keep track of encumberance.
Now on to opinion.
These rules, if I cared to use them, would completely destroy my
campaign.
Part of the point is that once characters get personally powerful
enough,
they really should consider not exposing themselves in petty combat and
instead build up a base of temporal power. I don't care how many points
you have, you're not really going to defeat an army. Far, far better to
grab the reins of power and multiply it by how many followers you can
attract. Besides, one of the basic tenets of TFT is that any character
can
try anything. Choose and attribute and number of dice, and have at it!
Years ago here, I recall calculating attributes for characters who just
had jobs. They got pretty powerful, but ultimately died off. Adding
adventuring doesn't really skew things, except at younger ages. The XP
from combat isn't that much in the scheme of things, and the
disincentive
of being killed is one of the charms of TFT. How many combats does it
take
to gain all those points? More than you can run...
I've always been a fan of TFT as a sort of less-is-more approach to
roleplaying. Your sheet doesn't have much. 3 basic attributes, MA,
Spells
and Talents. Race. And that's about it for the character himself. And
even
Spells and Talents only amount to a handful. Are there really IQ60
figures
around who know everything? Not in my game.
As for Mana, again, one of the charms of TFT is that doing magic is
powerful, but weakening. Essentially doubling the amount of ST skews it
up
quite a bit.
Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.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"
===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com. Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body "unsubscribe tft"
|