Posted by
MortiS-the-Lost on
Nov 06, 2010; 2:59pm
URL: http://the-lost-and-the-damned.71.s1.nabble.com/Deadly-Fast-Play-Rules-in-Fighting-Fantasy-tp5703538p5712295.html
Billiam Babble wrote
A d4 in an FF thread? GET OUT!
:D
I must admit I was struggling to create a range of 4 +/-1 or 4 +/-2 (3-5 or 2-6) whilst keeping the mechanic memorable and still using a d6. My brain then broke and it just become 1 to 6. A d4 or d3 would solve this nicely but in this thread I'll ban them! I'm even tempted just to say "dice" from now on, because there is only one shape, and it comes in pairs and they shall be stolen from an old board game. It is THE LAW. A polyhedral is a male parrot with a saliva problem... certainly not something which can be bought in a "hobby" shop...
Ahem. Sorry. Not sure what happened there...
Now where's that Lone Wolf 0-9 pencil chart gone ...? ;)

Sorry, the D6's fought long and hard to keep them out of this thread, but it looks like a polyhedral got though their lines

!!
I think the trouble is, that while having an all D6 system makes a game system more 'accessible' (ie you don't need to track down a place that sells the “funny dice”) it can make a system more difficult to write rules for from a design point of view and in some cases over complicate matters. I've seen a few games where you get bogged down rolling a D6 and looking up what the result means charts because a D6 just doesn't give the kind of variables required. Having said that the 2D6 and 3D6 bell-curves are 2 of the most useful and widely used game mechanics. In some cases you just need a different kind of dice to get the results!
Billiam Babble wrote
I'm suddenly thinking about what Balrogs use at home to open tins with...

Billiam Babble wrote
I was at home this afternoon found the FF rule books. You're right about missile weapons: lots of variables based on size and distance, but its just a SKILL check in essence. I'm not too worried about long bow distance in dark dungeon rooms, but it's different from chucking a chair leg at someone. I certainly wouldn't bring missile combat as a player option in the gamebooks, and in the same way I wouldn't use what are special item rules in the gamebooks in a table top game. If I remember rightly, laser combat in Starship Traveller was insane!
The comparitive success of the Skill check could be the base damage plus a weapon modifier (+1 for arrows, +3 for a spear)
Yea it seems that up until AFF Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone hadn't given much thought to ranged combat either. Rarely are ranged weapons used in the books although they certainly exist, illustrations often show people and monsters carrying bows and Deathtrap Dungeon features a trap based around cross bows mounted on the walls. In the spirit of FF I maybe wouldn't let PCs start out with bows, but I wouldn't rule out ranged weapon for them entirely, sooner or later they're going to come across or try to improvise ranged weapons. After all bows, arrows, crossbows and archery are a staple of the fantasy genre, after all where would Legolas, Robin Hood and others be without their bows?
For ranged combat under your rules I'd suggest rolling combat as per-normal but only applying the damage if the combatant with the ranged weapon wins the round (anything else would mean they missed). In situations where both combatants have ranged weapons (eg an adventure and goblin on either side of a chasm both armed with bows taking shots at each other) combatants would have to take it in turns to shoot and defend.
The GM could also make adventurers take LUCK tests for particularly difficult shots
Billiam Babble wrote
Criticals and fumbles in all systems seem like a great idea. I really like the idea of lowest and highest values creating exceptional situations. In FF we know that's what luck in combat is for. I think with deadly fast play (comparitive) damage the mighty blow wouldn't be needed because of the potential for ridiculousy high damage already. But certainly in combat "as is" in FF and AFF special effects from doubles is a great idea.
My reasoning behind adding the Mighty Blow and Fumbles rules to the Deadly Fast Play rules is that it redresses a huge balance issue in combat.
It's always been my philosophy that in a good combat system the lowliest Goblin should be able to hurt the mightiest Dragon if he's lucky enough. This way it's still worth going into combat with a monster that massively out classes you and but also it's still dangerous to enter combat with a creature you can potentially kill in one blow.
Ok lets see if I can come up with a example, I'll try and keep it simples
“Perilous the Adventurer”
SKILL: 10
STAMINA: 30
LUCK: 9
... is fighting a ...
GOLD DRAGON
SKILL: 18
STAMINA: 40
the highest the adventurer can roll is 22 (12+10) and the lowest he can roll is 12 (2+10)
like wise the highest the Dragon can roll is 30 (12+18) and the lowest is 20 (2+18)
under the Deadly Fast Play rules as they stand
even if the Dragon Rolls 2 on the dice, the adventurer still has to roll at least 11 to cause any damage and even then the maximum damage he can cause is 2! (an adventurer with SKILL 8 or lower would have no chance at all of damaging the Dragon) the dragon will nearly always win and can cause between 1 (23-22) and 18 (30-12) each round the average damage (going by the bell curve) being 8 (25-17) per-round. (To keep it simple I'm ignoring the effect of the 'LUCK in combat' rules here)
You can see the problem
Now lets see what happens when we add my suggested Mighty Blow and Fumbles rules
if the Adventurer rolls Double 6 or the Dragon rolls Double 1 the lucky Adventurer can cause between 1 and 10 damage!
Like wise if the Adventurer rolls Double 1 and the Dragon rolls Double 6 the adventurer will take between 1 and 10 damage. (this may need some play testing but it might be worth ruling that Mighty Blow only counts against an opponents with a higher SKILL than you)
To put it simply the Mighty Blow and Fumbles rules introduces a factor of risk for even the most powerful combatants. Any fight could get you hurt no matter how much you out class your opponent and you still have a chance to win no matter how much your opponent out classes you.
Please note: Math is not my strong point at all, anyone who's spotted a mistake is welcomed to correct meHave looked over the mechanics a little closer I've changed my mind about LUCK in combat doubling or halving damage under your rules. So I suggest the following sequence:
1 LUCK tests can be used to effect the out come of combat rounds and should be taken after Weapon and Armour Modifiers have been applied.
2 A successful LUCK test after winning a round of combat doubles the Damage Caused, an unsuccessful LUCK test halves the Damage caused
3 A successful LUCK test after loosing a round of combat halves the Damage Taken, an unsuccessful LUCK test doubles the Damage caused
4 As per usual 1 point is deducted from the adventurers LUCK after each test is taken, this should stop any over use of LUCK in combat
Billiam Babble wrote
Hmm. I'm not sure what we're doing here. If I was about to run a fantasy game of any kind, I doubt I would be able to convince them to play FF as a system. Even a modern system like Warrior Rogue & Mage would be frowned upon when there's still D&D or WHQ to hand (that's my house, that is). Is the 12 year old in me still trying to rewrite rule history?
You'd be surprised, I'm sure anyone who enjoyed playing the game books would be interested in play an FF based RPG (although they might suggest Myriador's Fighting Fantasy D20 variant). I didn't think anyone would be interested in playing HeroQuest on a regular basis but after running a game on my 3D dungeon setup for a bit of laugh one afternoon, a bunch of my RPGing and Wargaming friends were hooked, and thus were laid the foundations upon which we built the MortiS Quest rules and now run an on going campaign! Not to mention that a lot of people on the forum are asking me to publish the rules, I never expected it to go this far – we've got a table top skirmish system based on it now and Mark RG will be taking a version of it out to the Czech republic, which with the help of his girlfriend and friends there, is likely to spawn a Czech language version of the rules – it's really gotten out of hand!
Billiam Babble wrote
Incidentally, AFF rpg seems to run really well as in-thread games on the forums, I think its because the mechanics are so simple. Perhaps we should think about RPing on LatD?
Argh! No, sorry I don't like forum based “role play”, IMHO it's mass-written lazy fan-fiction and has no place on tLatD, which is about real games played around a table

(discussions on RPG related computer games and Gamebooks not withstanding, I see them as an off shoot of the Tabletop Wargames and RPG genre and thus still relevant to the forum. Hence the FF and LW section we're posting in now)
also once a “game” of that sort of thing has got going it becomes very clique-ish and difficult for people to join, we want to encouraged people to read and join the forum. Admin/staffing/refereeing is an issue too I don't think anyone here has the time to dedicate to running something like that.
Again I'm sorry - I don't like having to turn down peoples ideas and I don't mean to be harsh
However should you wish to do something like publishing an FF inspired solo-adventure here that would be very much welcomed
-----------------------------------
~The ravings of a single mad Goblin is bad enough, but such a power-hungry, malice-filled creature as Mortis can never hope to be understood~