|
Post by mahrundl on Sept 25, 2006 0:15:01 GMT -5
Folks,
I've been mulling over a thought for a few days, which was triggered at least in part by the Hogscape's House Rules thread.
If you change enough T&T rules and mechanics, the game won't be T&T any more. You may still have a good and playable system, but not T&T. But there are a myriad of things that can be changed and still leave something that is recognisably T&T. The change from 5th edition to 7th edition is a good example - there are a lot of changes, but it still has a very T&T 'feel' to it (as one would *hope*!).
So, what is the essence of T&T? What part(s) are crucial to a set of rules having that T&T 'feel'?
I do realise that this is largely subjective, and that different people will have different ideas of where the line is drawn (or indeed, if it can / should be drawn at all).
Anyone?
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Sept 25, 2006 6:38:23 GMT -5
T&T has been pillaged by other, more successful games since its creation. So most of what is T&T has turned up elsewhere. To me, the quintessential element of T&T has not been copied (to the best of my knowledge), the combat system.
But the bit of T&T that really appeals to me is the quick 'n' easy make-it-up-as-you-go 'devil-may-care' spirit of the game!
|
|
khaydhaik
4th Level Troll
Thumb up!
Posts: 412
|
Post by khaydhaik on Sept 25, 2006 22:36:20 GMT -5
For a game system to feel like T&T to me, it would have: D6s for action resolution and combat dice (other dice used only in an auxiliary fashion)
Saving Rolls using DARO
Combat adds based primarily on attribute values
Simultaneous melee actions; no individual initiatives (this is where the T&T computer game lost me)
The ability to pit groups of combatants against each other with practically the same game mechanics as pitting individuals against each other.
Casting spells causes an attribute drain
Spells do not have to be 'slotted' before they are cast
Simple monsters can be reduced to a single numeric value (MR)
Any character can try any sort of mundane action and have some chance of pulling it off. (What passes for a mundane action will vary from GM to GM, but for the most part, if an action can be performed by anyone without magic / kremm / WIZ being involved in some fashion, then it's a mundane action.)
|
|
gwindel
4th Level Troll
-Spirituality is a crime against Humanity-
Posts: 252
|
Post by gwindel on Sept 26, 2006 10:45:28 GMT -5
I think your list is on the spot, except the MR use. As there are three ways to define monsters in the rulebook itself, I don't think that using one of them can be said to be the essence of the game (I mean if you can play the rules "by the book" and not use MRs, it can't be said to be essential, even if it is widespread).
|
|
|
Post by skathros on Sept 26, 2006 15:52:48 GMT -5
Simultaneous melee actions; no individual initiatives (this is where the T&T computer game lost me) The ability to pit groups of combatants against each other with practically the same game mechanics as pitting individuals against each other. There two, to me, are typically, quintessentially T&T! I've yet to see a game implement something similar.
|
|
khaydhaik
4th Level Troll
Thumb up!
Posts: 412
|
Post by khaydhaik on Sept 26, 2006 23:00:53 GMT -5
I think your list is on the spot, except the MR use. As there are three ways to define monsters in the rulebook itself, I don't think that using one of them can be said to be the essence of the game (I mean if you can play the rules "by the book" and not use MRs, it can't be said to be essential, even if it is widespread). essence n. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. The MR mechanic serves to identify T&T. Take away MRs, and you take away part of the identity of the game, regardless of whether or not MRs are required to play the game. How many other RPGs give you the ability to represent the capabilities of a monster using a single number? Right now, I can't think of any. Granted, players probably don't care about MRs. Players wouldn't know if the GM is using MRs for monsters or not. So in that regard, I agree that MRs don't really add to the feel of the game for everyone. As a T&T GM and as a player of numerous T&T solos, I would have to say that if I played an entire game of T&T without any reference to a MR, I would think that something was awry. So, to me, MR is an intrinsic part of the game. But I realize it might not be for everyone. So it belongs on my list, but not on your's. OK then.
|
|
|
Post by ironfang on Oct 5, 2006 18:32:09 GMT -5
As usual, Khaydhaik hits the nail squarely on the head. The Monster Rating mechanic is the essence of T&T. The process was (and still is) so antithecal to the table-laden D&D system, that it truly makes T&T what it is.
I remember an encounter with a hardline D&D'er at a con back in '79. We each took an identical dungeon map and created a dungeon - monsters fully statted-out from a list a third party provided. I was done with the whole thing before he had 3 rooms done.
Not slamming D&D, it is the #1 FRPG for a reason - whether you consider that good or bad, well, that there is your First Amendment Right! - but 3 MR 20 goblins tells the GM everything he needs, and is a heckuva lota easier than 3 goblins, 1-1HD, 3/4/5hps, THAC0=19, 1d4 damage, AC7.
MR combat at its basic 5e level is classic military thought - ht first and hit hard. The first round is critical, and the reduction of combat ability as wounds build up is painfully obvious to anyone with SCA or other "real" melee experience.
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Oct 6, 2006 4:18:22 GMT -5
Minor quibble, Ironfang: T&T is the #1 FRPG. D&D is merely the #1 selling FRPG...
|
|
|
Post by lionrampant on Oct 6, 2006 7:21:27 GMT -5
One of the things that gives T&T its unique flavor, which I haven't seen mentioned, is the fact that there is no divine magic. Just about any other fantasy gaming system has divine magic in one form or another, but in T&T the only divine creature is the Gamemaster. You can have gods and religions in your game, sure, but there is no base game mechanic for handling divine power.
I also agree that MRs and the combat system help provide T&T with its unique feel.
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Oct 6, 2006 19:09:15 GMT -5
Although we do have the TrollGod, LionRampant. Not entirely sure whether he counts as a divine creature in T&T or not?!?
|
|
|
Post by lionrampant on Oct 11, 2006 12:22:15 GMT -5
As someone who has met the Trollgod in person, I am going to have to say that he didn't strike me as being particularly divine.
|
|
|
Post by Vin Ahrr Vin on Oct 14, 2006 9:30:22 GMT -5
Minor quibble, Ironfang: T&T is the #1 FRPG. D&D is merely the #1 selling FRPG... A potential minor quibble, Mahrundl. I hear this quoted about D&D all the time, but wonder if they mean #1 selling OF ALL TIME or in any ONE YEAR. I really don't know. If it's the "all time" thing, I would argue that the current D&D is a totally different game but unfortunately has the same name as the original. If you subtract all the earlier versions (1974-1999) away from their sales, what does 3E look like now? As much as I love T&T, my first and greatest love is the old brown-book D&D from 1974. (Probably because I began playing it in 1974 -- years before I got to play T&T.) The current game is nothing like that.
|
|
|
Post by Vin Ahrr Vin on Oct 14, 2006 9:32:26 GMT -5
Oh, and I agree 100% that the essence of T&T is in the MR. The MR is the basic structure on which the combat system is built and forms the heart of why T&T is so flexible and easy to run.
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Oct 14, 2006 17:28:20 GMT -5
A potential minor quibble, Mahrundl. I hear this quoted about D&D all the time, but wonder if they mean #1 selling OF ALL TIME or in any ONE YEAR. I really don't know. If it's the "all time" thing, I would argue that the current D&D is a totally different game but unfortunately has the same name as the original. If you subtract all the earlier versions (1974-1999) away from their sales, what does 3E look like now? As much as I love T&T, my first and greatest love is the old brown-book D&D from 1974. (Probably because I began playing it in 1974 -- years before I got to play T&T.) The current game is nothing like that. My usage was all-time sales, Vin. I don't know (or care) how well it sells currently, although given the prices I've seen around, the gross sales figures must be pretty high. I thought that I saw something recently that has it as the most 'popular' (whatever that means) in terms of total sales. And I agree that TETSNBN is nothing like the other editions. I mostly lost interest in D&D around the time that I started encountering 2nd edition AD&D. To me, it had lost too much flavour. I liked all of the earlier versions that I encountered - I think that the first one that I encountered was the blue covered basic book - and I also have my White Box set stored safely. But while I do like (early) D&D, I still prefer T&T. There's no one reason for this, but many of the things that have been written on this thread apply. But the largest reason, for me, is one that Khaydhaik put into words in another thread: the T&T rules are non-intrusive. T&T is the incredibly comfortable shirt that fits so well that you hardly even know you're wearing it; early D&D is a comfy shirt that you have to adjust from time to time; 2nd edition D&D is a formal jacket that restricts your movements; and current edition D&D is a tuxedo that's been turned into a strait-jacket. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Vin Ahrr Vin on Oct 16, 2006 15:57:39 GMT -5
I mostly lost interest in D&D around the time that I started encountering 2nd edition AD&D. To me, it had lost too much flavour. I liked all of the earlier versions that I encountered - I think that the first one that I encountered was the blue covered basic book - and I also have my White Box set stored safely. That's cool. I think I lost interest in new D&D products at about the same time you did. The difference is that I still dust off by White Box set and read through it often. I like to use rules similar to those, but "house ruled"a bit. And, as I said, I have nothing against T&T but have just loved brown-book D&D for longer.
|
|