(TFT) TFT: Illusions

["Dave Seagraves" <dseagraves@austin.rr.com>]

   That's odd . . .  I didn't get Digest #187.  No wonder the next one took
so long!  Fortunately I was able to reconstruct it from the archives.


Mack writes . . .

>The way I've been handling player cast illusions for years now is that
[snip]

   This rule change goes great with the One-Track Mind handicap!  8^)


Rodney writes . . .

>I'm going to have to ask that the use of the word (leary) be removed from
all
>further conversation. It is quite anoying and i'm starting to belive it's
>being done on purpose.
>Rodney Leary

   Sorry about that.  I had no idea that was your name, and no pun or
offense was intended.  I sympathize -- imagine the jokes /I/ endured in
grammar and high school!  8^)


Justin writes . . .

>Another question about copyright.  If I wanted to share an dungeon
adventure
>(actually sewer) on this list would I be interfering with FAIR USE.  This
>"dungeon" was created by me in 1980 and what I have done is (actually
>working on) made it a programmed adventure.  I do not want any compensation
>for it, just to share it with you all.
>
>We have been writing and discussing attributes, new talents, new spells,
>etc..., and I thought adding adventures to the mix would be kind of neat.

   I don't think you'd have any problem distributing your own work, even if
you did use "DX" as an abbreviation for Dexterity, and especially for
non-commercial use.  I don't know the strict legal ruling, but so far no one
has given me a hard time for creating new talents and spells and using TFT
terminology to describe them.
   I've been thinking about writing an adventure specifically for
distribution on the list, and I'd love to see any similar material from
others here.  As a GM I'm always on the lookout for new ideas to steal.  8^)

>1)  How many people out there are primarily FM's (Fantasy Master is the
>correct title when it comes to TFT) in their years of TFT experience?  How
>many of you were primarily players?

   I've done more GMing than actual playing characters.

> 2)  How did you become involved in playing the game?

   We played games in high school during lunch -- Chivalry & Sorcery (my
first RPG), then D&D, then a lot of boardgames such as Ogre and Melee.

>3)  This question you don't have to answer it fi you don't want to.  What
>were you doing, occupation-wise, when you first enter the realm of Cidri,
>also called TFT:ITL?  And what are you doing now?

   Back then I was a high school student.  Now I fix computers and play the
stock market.
("C'mon XON!  Get up there!")
   (While I was writing this my cat Isabelle jumped up on my work table
where the continent map for my campaign was spread out, where she lay down
on it and covered 1/5 of the landmass.  How many dice of damage is that?
8^)


Joe writes . . .

>I'm probably not going to give TFT style statistics for any of the
>major players in this world. I'm hoping to give a brief but accurate
>description of each of them. That way, Each GM could adapt it as they
>see fit. My hopes are to have it up on a web page at some time in the
>future.
>Does this interest anyone?

   Yes, I'm interested in seeing material like this.


Charles writes . . .

>>Isn't it true that all "non-wizards" get a +1 in HTH automatically?

>Not sure where this comes from - basic Wizard mentions a -4 in HTH combat,
>though I don't recollect the details. I didn't see anything in Advanced
>Melee that supports this.

   See "Iron, Silver, and Magic" in /Advanced Wizard/, page 7, which
replaces the "-4 DX for Wizards" rule in /Wizard/.

>This concern touches on a real problem with the TFT system, namely the
>inconsistency between the acquisition of talents and the acquisition of
>spells.

   I personally don't have a problem with this, and I think it's fine the
way it stands.  I must admit though, it would be interesting to look at if
you came up with such a system, but I suspect it would be too complicated
for my tastes and would add nothing to the game for me.
   This sounds like a play balance issue.  Spells are cheap because the
majority of spells only do one narrowly-defined thing and they cost fatigue,
while (in comparison) some talents are expensive because they are so
versatile.


   Most of the times I've played TFT, the players and I have used these two
optional rules, and I suspect some other players play this way without
hardly thinking about it.  I decided to explicitly spell them out in the
ground rules when starting my current campaign.

Wounds and Fatigue
   Wounds and fatigue are now assessed separately against
a figure?s ST and are /not/ added together.  (Normally these
two are added together when determining a figure?s status.)
So a ST 12 figure now has 12 ?hit points? and 12 ?fatigue
points.?  A ST 12 wizard with 4 hits of damage on him can
still have up to 12 fatigue points left to cast spells, not just 8.
This simplifies bookkeeping for players and GM alike, and
is actually more realistic as well.

Fatigue
   Changing when figures die also changes the way fatigue
is handled.  A figure with at least one ?fatigue point? left (i.e.
at least 1 ST) is still conscious and may act normally.  That
same figure driven to 0 ST (such as through spell casting or
other strenuous activity) immediately /falls down/ and may
do /nothing/ until he has rested for 15 minutes, but the figure
is still somewhat aware of events around him and may
defend himself so enemies don?t get automatic hits against
him.

Dave Seagraves
Seagraves Computers   dseagraves@austin.rr.com   1 (512) 255-2760


=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"