|
Post by mahrundl on Aug 3, 2007 19:58:08 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I found this thread over at Dragonsfoot quite amusing: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24578The author has listed T & T as a 'flavor of D&D'. When last I checked, there had been more than 20 responses, and only 2 had explicitly made a comment that T & T was a separate game. One of these was Skathros (hi Skath!). I'm not intending to poke fun at anyone posting over there; I know that there are many games that I'd be hard pressed to identify the lineage of without access to Google (and possibly a time machine). Just amused that everything in the list is D & D or a very closely related off-shoot, but for some reason T & T snuck in there too...
|
|
|
Post by skathros on Aug 13, 2007 6:50:05 GMT -5
Yes, odd that T&T was lumped in there with D&D derived games. Although one can see how Ken started off with D&D and subsequently changed what he thought was wrong/didn't like to arrive at T&T, I don't believe T&T has enough anchors tying it to D&D to be included in that list (other than the time period it was created).
T&T is a very funny beast with regards to old-school D&Ders, and this is something I've long pondered on. I got into T&T with 7E and moved backwards from there. T&T was always peripherally available on the shelves, but we were D&D players, so we never thought to pick it up in those days. With the advent of my discovery of T&T through 7E, i was more than excited to "talk up" this great game which, even in its 7th edition, retained the values and priciples of old school gaming. Unfortunatly, my enthusiasme was met with mostly luke-warm reactions.
OGL retro games seem to be the trend with the old school community at the moment. Although I think the movement is great for fans of Out of Print gaming, i'm curious as to why folks would prefer old school gaming shoe-horned into the OGL as opposed to a game (T&T) that has not diverged from its flavor/feel since its inception.
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Aug 13, 2007 8:06:44 GMT -5
At a guess: familiarity. Even in the OGL framework, they are more familiar with the D&D stuff than T&T. Also, T&T fits the category of 'rough diamond' even more than early editions of D&D and their recent variants - the true beauty of the system is not obvious at a casual glance. But once you brush away that layer of dirt, the value becomes apparent.
As for your D&D players, I shall refrain from commenting on the possibility that they are just ignorant brutes with no appreciation of the finer things in life... ;D
|
|
|
Post by skathros on Aug 13, 2007 8:13:34 GMT -5
LOL! My D&D players have long since gone. We managed to game together for 20+ years, which is more than most. Back then, T&T simply slipped us by. Now, in my mid-30ies, with no gaming group, it'll be a hell of a task geting a T&T game going (even tougher than getting a B/X game up and running).
|
|
|
Post by gamepunk26 on Nov 22, 2007 1:37:31 GMT -5
A couple of my freinds and I were lucky enough to play a T&T game run by rick Loomis at Strategicon Sept 07. I had owned T&T before but traded it away as I never played it. I recognzed both Mr. Loomis and T&T on the event sheet and signed all three of us up.
I had tow instant converts on my hands. I have since introduced T&T to my larger gaming group (The Lords of Excess) and have met with many cheers and thanks. We are all tired of D&D, even classic which is my fave. T&T was a breath of fresh air and has revitialized the interest in RPGs in my group. Hail!
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Nov 22, 2007 17:57:30 GMT -5
You know, the truth is, T&T is pretty closely derived from early D&D. In fact, if you read T&T and early editions of AD&D side by side, they practically answer each other at times.
For example, AD&D1e says that no one can play a lycanthrope, and a character infected by lycanthropy should be removed from play.
T&T says that were-characters are playable, and even gives multipliers for different were-types.
AD&D1e says that only the listed Humanoids (Elves, Dwarves, etc.) should be allowed as players, and any player wishing to be a monster type is just a power-monger and should be slapped down.
T&T gives multipliers for monsters in gameplay and suggests that it could be fun to play a monster in the game.
This sort of thing happens over and over again, although it's been so long since I've read them together that I'd have to research to find them all... but over and over again it occurs: D&D1e says you can't do something, then T&T says, "why not?" then goes ahead and does it!
In the Troll Talk section of the game, Ken calls this "reacting against," but I didn't even realize he was "reacting against" anything until many years later when I got my own AD&D1e set.
Still, read them together, and it's pretty hard to ignore the way T&T seems to "talk back" to AD&D1e.
(I realize that this is semi-off-topic with the discussion; T&T is not a D&D derivative game like AD&D or OD&D. I hope I have not mis-communicated my message or intent! I'm not suggesting that T&T stole from D&D, but instead that it rebelled against it... and gaming as a whole is better for it!).
|
|
order99
7th Level Troll
Coffee-fueled Carrion That Walks Like a Man
Posts: 1,039
|
Post by order99 on Nov 23, 2007 4:25:00 GMT -5
Funny, that. If you compare T&T to the Holmes D&D Blue Box or the OD&D Box (just the first three books) you don't see as much of a difference...it isn't until the AD&D hardcovers that you see the game getting more rigid and codified( and stuffy IMO) and the differences came to be much more apparent. In fact, OD&D-using just the Chainmail rules and not the "alternate" D20-uses the D6 for everything. Chainmail(the original) uses 2d6, all weapons do 1D6 and Hit Die progression uses D6's (with a staggered progression that still favors the Fighting-Man). In essence, it looks like T&T split off from the Wargaming origins of D&D in favor of freeform(a style which is all the rage 30+ years later) and AD&D went all Caste-system and Crunchy. Not so much an open rebellion as an agreement to disagree, with both parties walking away in different directions...
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Nov 23, 2007 10:57:39 GMT -5
If you compare T&T to the Holmes D&D Blue Box or the OD&D Box (just the first three books) you don't see as much of a difference...it isn't until the AD&D hardcovers that you see the game getting more rigid and codified( and stuffy IMO) and the differences came to be much more apparent. That's so cool... I did not know any of this. When you think about how both games are a part of gaming history, and yet D&D has undergone so much changing while T&T stayed basically the same... well, it all makes sense. T&T got it right the first time! ;D (I'm not sure where 7th ed. fits into that comment, and I'd prefer not to think about it...).
|
|
order99
7th Level Troll
Coffee-fueled Carrion That Walks Like a Man
Posts: 1,039
|
Post by order99 on Nov 24, 2007 2:45:00 GMT -5
I'd probably compare 5.5 and 7.0 with AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd editions...some rules changes(a few radical ones), but still recognizably T&T.
I'm not adding the Alternate rules into the comparison though.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Dec 14, 2007 22:23:08 GMT -5
You know, the truth is, T&T is pretty closely derived from early D&D. In fact, if you read T&T and early editions of AD&D side by side, they practically answer each other at times. I just wanted to note that I just found another instance of the "call and response" idea that I noted up in reply #5, but this one is a bit more odd... the two are in clear disagreement, but T&T's comment appears to be a response, but the AD&D quote comes from a product dated 1980... which makes no sense unless it's a) coincidental or b) a reference to a reference. Maybe someone here can enlighten me? According to AD&D Dieties & Demigods, "The reaction of the average creature to a hypothetical non-divine being with a negative charisma would be a desire to kill it immediately." T&T Fifth Edtion says, "Monsters with negative charismas do not inspire positively-rated beings to riot and beserkly attack." As noted, this seems like the "call and response" comments I noted previously, but the copyright dates don't bear that out... unless AD&D made the same comments in other (older) books, and I haven't noticed it until this one.
|
|
|
Post by zanshin on Jan 3, 2008 7:47:25 GMT -5
i dont have the rule book to hand but i always thought that the 5e comment was a reference to earlier versions of T&T. Rufus the Morose ? Or was that a Ken in joke i missed completely?
I also still dont 'get' the need for a distinction between positive and negative charisma. Surely it can all be handled descriptively without a need for the positive/negative dichotomy. Perhaps someone can persuade me otherwise.
I have played d&d alongside t&t since 1979 so i get the charms of both. D&D 3e was a step in the right direction towards the t&t resolution system, and 7e talents was a small step towards the D&D feat/skill crunch, but a sufficiently small step to retain the feel of true t&t.
The hobby is better for both games being around IMO.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Jan 3, 2008 8:53:28 GMT -5
i dont have the rule book to hand but i always thought that the 5e comment was a reference to earlier versions of T&T. Rufus the Morose ? Or was that a Ken in joke i missed completely? I also still dont 'get' the need for a distinction between positive and negative charisma. Surely it can all be handled descriptively without a need for the positive/negative dichotomy. Perhaps someone can persuade me otherwise. Well, I won't be doing any persuading... I agree with you. I think the game rules agree with you, too, because all spells that require you to use the Monster's Charisma as part of a formula tell you to treat the Charisma as positive for the calculation. For example, a Monster with ST, IQ & CHR of 10 each would have a total of 30 points in those attributes, not 20 (i.e., the CHR of -10 is not really "minus" at all). For this reason, I tend to ignore the "negative charisma" idea, also. So maybe someone can persuade us both.... I think the main reason for the positive/negative charisma is, as has been pointed out, that D&D did it that way orginally, and T&T borrowed quite heavily from D&D in the beginning. In fact, according to the introduction in T&T1e, Ken states: "[D&D] could be simplified and changed in concept to retain the best parts of the original idea with better ideas substituted for the things I didn't like about D&D. I went home and spent the day thinking and writing, and soon had a variant of Dungeons & Dragons to try out on my friends. They liked it. They made suggestions... So now it is no longer Dungeons & Dragons--it is now Tunnels & Trolls." So, yeah, strictly speaking (and according to Ken) T&T really is an off-shoot of D&D; I think that's why a lot of things D&D did were done the same way in early T&T. I understood the Rufus the Morose comment for the first time about a week ago... Rufus is a character that explains Charisma and Charisma Effects in T&T4e (whether or not he's in 2e or 3e is unknown (or at least, I don't know!), but I didn't see him mentioned in 1e). The chapter starts out: "Hi! My name is Rufus the Morose, and I'm here to talk to you about the effects of having charisma! I talk about charisma a lot, because I just brought mine up to 7, and now people don't always run away or try to kill me whenever I show up." The article then continues on pretty much the same as the 5e chapter on Charisma, but continues in first person rather than third... and, of course, the reference to having a high charisma if you're a "frigging Elf" rather than "grinning Elf" (which still has me laughing!).
|
|