There are a number of things that I think are quintessential and “core” elements of the game; some are mechanics and some are features that don’t effect play but are more about flavor and for lack of a better word philosophy.
1)
Accoutrements: I go with
Wizardawn on this …“d6’s for everything”, “Simple Character Sheets”, pencils & paper. What more do you need? Something to drink and munchies…maybe some of
Zanshin’s “Powdered Rouges”.
Miniatures are fun but not really T&T. They are certainly not what I would consider “core”, considering the abstract nature of the combat system, and definitely not necessary.
2)
Saving Roll task/challenge/stunt Resolution System: Either of the “Must Roll A 5 or Better” (5th ed.) or “3 Is An Automatic Fumble”(7th ed.) systems (without the double-dip “Add Your Level # If It’ll Make The Difference Rule”, that seems like it should be an “Elaboration”) will work for me.
Attributes: (which I think actually ties in with the Savings Roll system)
I’ll go with maybe seven, with WIZ/Power as the seventh; although if STR were defined to mean different things for different character types you could go back to just six. I think that Armor, Weapons, and Spell requirements are all parts of the same mechanic.
Interesting point, however, I believe the two are one and the same mechanic, at least as far as core requirements are concerned. Your Savings rolls don’t have to be made just on Attribute scores alone. If you use any “elaborations” in the way of skills, abilities, or talents, it’s still the same mechanic. Since you have to have a score of some sort for a Saving Roll to be made against, Attributes seem necessary as the first and principle way to define a character’s strengths and weaknesses. But I suppose you could have a single attribute and still play.
I’m going to bring up
Personal Adds under this number because they are derived from Attributes. The personal adds element for combat is a nice concise way of handling individual fighting ability and prowess. It is a simple way of taking, essentially the same information as is used in ToG (Stat bonuses) and applying it differently. It also is a potential dial or button to tinker with for developing further ability bonuses to apply to Savings Rolls.
If STR, LK, and DEX can be used to describe a characters personal combat abilities, what about STR, IQ, and DEX being used further with spell casting. IQ, CHR, and LK might be used in some social aspect of character interaction. But the cool thing is the basic building blocks are there.
Why not
Speed?
I think of speed as it is in 5th edition. I think of it as an option (even though it is in the “Natural Developments” section and not “Elaborations”) which is slightly different than in 7th edition. Yet SPD in 5th, deals with movement rates on a map and is also defined as “reaction time” or how a character’s reflexes are rated. To me, how fast a character can be is already reflected in DEX though it is not specifically stated. Part of the issue for me is how fast a person is with clothes on is not the same as how fast they are without clothes on. In 7th edition, SPD is expressed in a relative way. My SPD is higher than your SPD so I’m faster but it still doesn’t account for encumbrance. It is also a muddled definition by comparing it closer to a person’s metabolic rate rather than how fast they can travel. Encumbrance is the first thing that goes out the window in almost any T&T game (actually almost any RPG) as it’s usually regarded as extra effort with little pay off for the players and GM. In 5th ed., the “Speed and Movement” section makes some attempt to deal with this, as well as the section on “Too Heavy Weapons.” It doesn’t get used most of the time because of the extra book work and it doesn’t do anything that I, as GM can’t implement by simply looking at someone’s character sheet and saying
“Wow! Your schlepping an awful lot of crap around, make a 3rd level SR on CON….”
In 7th ed., we know a character can carry up to their STR x 100 in weight units but that’s as far as the system goes. There is no suggested way to use this information in the rules other than the obvious… things will be harder for characters that carry too much weight. There is no real method how to apply encumbrance to attributes and Ken thumbs his nose at instituting an encumbrance system openly in the rules by saying he only includes the Weight possible and weight carried for “Purists” (there’s that word again.) The addition of SPD as a separate attribute which is implied to be static, just seems like an answer to so many disembodied voices asking “well why isn’t speed an attribute?” By rights there should be a system in place that will affect your SPD based directly on at least how much crap you’re carrying around. I won’t even get into how tired a character might be after slinging a sword or zapping beasties. The lack of specifics is okay by me because it allows the GM and players to deal with it as they wish, or not at all. In my book SPD is an “elaboration” that needs work or to be left out altogether.
3)
“Buckets of Dice”: As odd as it may seem, the crash of fist-fulls of dice on the table can add a physical element of excitement to the action of combat resolution that no other system comes close to.
Under this number, I would include specifics like Monster Ratings and “Big Cloud of Fists” combat, as
Zanshin says.
Combat: The abstract nature of the system allows for such a wide range of results especially for general melees and fast paced combats. The trouble I have with many systems is that they tend to force the narrative around the mechanics and T&T combat just doesn’t really do that. I’m also not forced to sit and glare at a rule book for twenty minutes figuring out how to play out two minutes of game time every time there is some kind of a simple straight on fight. The only instance that extra time may be spent considering all of the variables is usually a rare and unique occasion. In addition, new players “get it” fast, after a couple of rounds they figure it out and the game doesn’t need to stop for lengthy manual consultations. It is of particular interest to me that there are a few examples of modern table top miniatures war-games, typically notorious for being detail oriented and “fiddly”, that have adopted a more abstract approach to certain elements of their games in order to make the rules more “playable”.
Monster Ratings:
That is another interesting point
derv. I wonder if that has occurred to anyone else?
While I don’t know that MR’s are necessary, they are most certainly a “T&T ism” and I would consider them a unique feature of T&T and I’ll allow them as “core.” I have a tendency toward giving my grunts and hordes of “extras” MRs because it is easy. Recurring “heavies” get Attributes only after they’ve signed on for a season or two, rather than just making appearances in a few episodes.
I know I just went into talking about monsters as if they are cast members in a show but quite often it feels that way.
Armor Taking Hits: Intuitive, it just works. The whole “armor class” thing seems way too complicated. It just makes sense that if I have a number called CON that represents my life and someone is trying to actively subtract points from my CON, I would want to put something in front of it to stop it; Hopefully a bigger more static number.
Spite Damage and
Multiple 6’s Triggering Special Damage:I like and use them both but I do not feel they are either “core” or necessary. I have had the situation of two evenly matched warriors beating the snot out of each other to no avail happen so infrequently that no solution is really required in my opinion. I usually say in that instance, that both characters exhaust themselves and pass out drooling and thirsty. The assumption that there has to be a winner in every battle is what is wrong about the situation not necessarily the mechanic. Either way I say “Elaboration.”
4)
Magick: As weird as it may seem; simple “memorable” names of spells. While not necessary they are a unique feature of T&T. Many do not care much for the so called “silly” names but they are easy to remember. I too go with a brief two or three sentence description of the effects of the spells. I can’t ever remember being annoyed, either as GM or a player myself, by another player in T&T trying to remember a spell the same way I’ve been annoyed by the same event in other game systems. For whatever reason the spell title completely escaped their memory or they had to leaf through pages of text to find the exact spell for that particular instance and be sure that they understood how every other element in the setting was going to be effected by casting that spell. Once they remembered what page it was on. I have to say I stick by the spell list in 5th ed. as “core”. I don’t mind some of the spells in 7th ed. but many are fan made spells that I don’t think have had the test of time given to the same degree.
The actual mechanics behind 5th ed. T&T Magick is simple but I don’t know how unique it is compared to any other games system. This is good because it allows a GM to create a customized mythology behind magic for different settings. 7th ed. starts to infringe on this ability a lot with the “discovery” of Kremm and Kremm Resistance and “schools of magic.” This way of approaching magic is fine but adds a complexity that I regard as an “Elaboration.”
5)
Terminology: Character Type over Class; Kindred over Race;
As I said in another post on a different thread “Character Type” and what I know as “Character Class” are two different things and are not really interchangeable…if you are talking about 5th ed.; However, if you are talking about 7th edition, with added “Specialists” and “Citizens,” then it does start to get a bit closer to “Character Class”.
As for Kindred, I just prefer it to “race” and I think it’s T&T.
6)
Basic Character Types: Short, sweet, and to the point; Can you use magic and how well? Can you use weapons and armor and how well? This too is an easy concept to grasp.
7)
Kindred NOT as Character Type: I have gone back and forth over the notion that every Kindred must define themselves by the points above. It is not out of the ordinary to assume that certain mythological humanoids be naturally imbued with a certain degree of magic. Leprechauns and Fairies come to mind first because attempts to give them their due powers do exist in the rules. Leprechauns are forced to be all “Wizards” and have the innate ability to “Wink-Wing”. Fairies can fly, that’s it, (if there is a Kindred that gets the short end of the stick, it’s fairies.) No such additional amenities exist for Dwarves or Elves though, except in the form of modified attributes. There are suggested back rounds, but nothing in the way of mechanics. Elves do not hunt better with missile weapons or commune with woodland animals getting a language or two. They do not see farther with a Savings Roll, or even live longer according to the rules as written. Dwarves do not get a special bonus on a Saving Roll to smell gold or gems, or to see better in the dark. They do not dig better nor are they fantastic natural engineers. Not by any mechanics anyway. I rather like the ability to say: “well
my elves don’t do this or that.” I like being left alone to create my own mythologies or to use established mythologies as I choose.
I will not even address Hobbits here.
8)
Lack of enforced setting material (applies only to 5th edition)
Aside from the minor insistence of the existence of a “Wizard’s Guild” and a small secret sect within said organization, whom it is rumored are responsible for the creation of Deluxe Magic Staves; I never had to worry about stripping out Ken St. Andre’s ideas of a fantasy setting before I sat down to play T&T. I never need fear that Lerotrahh, the “Death Goddess” would insert herself into my game settings unless I wanted her to. I never had to worry that I might encounter another player, in a game I was GMing, who would stop the game to give me a short lecture on the nuances of the race of Nagas that populate certain remote parts of the continent of Rhalph; How Ken had described them as being different than the way I am portraying them and that I really should try to be more true to his mythology, because that’s the way the rules are written. (Incidentally, this sort of interruption would likely be followed up rapidly by a sharp blow on the offending party’s head with the rule book or a 30 sided die which I keep handy for such occasions, bounced accurately off their forehead.)
Now I haven’t actually had to put up with that yet but I have seen it occur in other game systems and with some of the “fluff” writing contained in 7/7.5, I’m not so sure T&T is staying generic in it’s setting the way it once did.
9)
Salute to any other established fantasy setting and encouragement to create your own.This is one of the main reasons that T&T is or was the best table-top FRPG out there in my opinion. Part of this comes from the fact that it’s creator was not only a comic book and fantasy literature nut but Librarian by profession. It offered you an opportunity to be
King Arthur,
Conan the Barbarian
Gandalf
Gilgamesh
Hercules
Bilbo Baggins…
and any others you could think of. I think though it could have been, and may still be able to be, used to encourage more exploration in literature and history in general rather than just fantasy literature.
And last but not least…
10)
Elaborations: I use this term because of 5th ed. but really it’s any optional rule that can be added to T&T to customize it for whatever your needs are at the moment.
Like
Quogh says
Really that’s the way it is for me too. Sometimes I start out thinking about the players and what they expect to experience in a game and alter from there based on what characters they create; or I might decide the adventure will be for certain character types and then allow them to build a wide variety by using talents to aid in personalization.
Things not core or that ought to be regarded as “Elaborations”…
Okay Okay here it is...
The double-dip “Add Your Level # If It’ll Make The Difference Rule.”7th and 8th attributes plus some new Attributes…SIN=sinuses, in earlier editions this function usually fell under Constitution but new rules illustrate how characters can be effected by the dank atmosphere of the dungeons. For every 10 “Mucus Points “you gain subtract 1 point of CON.
HYG=Hygiene; once thought to be a part of Charisma but no longer, this Attribute actually is most useful for Monster and Citizen Kindreds. It aids in repelling royalty, and social interactions. This Attribute can also be effected by SIN (see above) as well as BLA and IF (see below)
BLA= Bladder, coupled with IF=Intestinal Fortitude, the addition of these two Attributes now brings a new and heighted experience to your T&T game, how long can your character’s “hold it” before it’s too late? Of course Kindred multipliers will effect each Kindred in it’s own way. Here’s another reason for Ken to dislike the Fairy Kindred, with an IF modifier of
x.18 from now on playing a Fairy will be just like playing a Pigeon or Seagull. Nothing says T&T like incontinent Hobbs either!
Kremm Resistance and the whole of 7th edition Magic: The basics of the system can work It’s just more that it feels like somebody else’s “House Rules” that I don’t want to use. The back story on “Kremm” also imposes “Trollworld” and “Trollworld fandom on my game and I don’t like it.
Plus “Kremm rhymes with phlegm and reminds me of what you might get after drinking whole milk and having a SIN score of 10 or higher.
“Off the Cuff Magic”: Interesting concept and guaranteed to provide futzers with plenty of dickering opportunities.
Talents/ Abilities/Skills: I like Talents in 7.5 I think they work well.
Spite Damage: I like spite for the simple realistic implication that getting into fights hurt, even the characters who are good at it.
Special Damage: I have used it but generally it doesn’t happen in the dice roll often enough to make facing certain foes as potentially as terrible as you might expect.
Armor Attrition: If you are up for the additional book work, have at it. I use the rules published in an old SA article.
Con at Zero Knocked Out rule: We like using this but rather than dead at -10 we allowed our characters to completely go negative: So with a CON of 16 the character is K-O-ed at zero and isn’t dead until -16.
Fatigue: Combat, Spell Casting, Travel, Speed and Encumbrance: I always liked these for and an “advanced” campaign style of play. Casting spells and spending multiple rounds in combat or travel would begin to wear on a character. We used various methods which I’d have to dig around to find.
Other Character Types: Specialists, Citizens, Lawyers, TSA Agents, and Parking Enforcement Officers. Create as many as you want for your game but let me do as I want for mine. And for those who say “Well you can always do what you want in your game.” My answer is fine… leave the extra crap out of the rules unless you want to make it up for
your game. It’s harder to convince a player that is new to your particular style of play that a certain rule is unnecessary than if the rule wasn’t there to begin with.
And the last thing that I think is more and more optional and less and less necessary for T&T as time goes by is…
Ken St.Andre…
...(ducks)
I say this, not out of spite, meanness, or disrespect but because he himself has prompted this thought. He admits that he has long ago left behind much of what makes 5th edition T&T. If that is true and I regard the greater portion of the “core” and necessary components of T&T as having been established in 5th ed., then I must regard much of Ken’s new ideas about T&T as either optional or not T&T at all. Ken St Andre’s T&T doesn’t have to be Flying Buffalo’s T&T and I think to some extent Rick Loomis sees that.
EDIT forgot to embolden "Spite Damage":
EDIT Spelling
