Re: Deadly Fast Play Rules in Fighting Fantasy
Posted by Billiam Babble on Nov 07, 2010; 2:49am
URL: http://the-lost-and-the-damned.71.s1.nabble.com/Deadly-Fast-Play-Rules-in-Fighting-Fantasy-tp5703538p5713611.html
Where do you get these pictures from?
Yup your fumbles and criticals system makes total sense. But now I'm rooting for the dragon! Squish that adventurer good!
I was trying the simple version of the fast play rules last night in Citadel of Chaos - where, incidentally, there's a shocking lack of straight forward fights - and in fact there were times when the combat actually slowed. Lots of 1 damages, from very close Attack Strengths which hadn't occurred to me. Like you, I've been more worried about massive damage quotas.
Ranged Combat:
Comparing attack strengths, but only the target takes damage is a very elegant solution. (Much like defender against a second opponent). FF can be quite limited in it's use of opposition based maths. It certainly remains true to the system and is easy to remember.
*Massive tangent coming up*
EDIT: Honestly skip this, it really is just pseudo philosophical meta gaming navel gazing.
Missile or Range combat reveals an interesting conundrum in role playing mechanics. With hand-to-hand fights - Monster vs. Hero, weapon vs. armour, Attack skill vs. Defence Skill (parry). It's very easy to see opposing advantages and difficulties. Whereas range combat relates to personal skill vs. environmental aspects. I know this is obvious stuff, but if we think about how we set the scene in role-playing games, or in game books, a scene (a room, furniture) doesn't require any stats but as soon as two opponents are in proximity the dice mechanics simulate physical competition in a way that can't created by speech or text alone (well durr Will, that's why we use dice, because we're not LARPers or psychos ...). Many sports place emphasis on players vs. players. Psychologically we relate to games which make players oppose each other. Even in cricket the batsman is actively participating with the path of the ball as decided by the bowler. A DM controlling the monster vs. the player controlling the hero is extremely accessible to a new comer to the game. Apart from the dubious "Dodge" ability in some games, and dexterity modifiers, shooting is mainly about the attacker's skill to hit the target, vs size, distance, light.
It just seems "wrong" somehow that the targeted hero doesn't get to effect the outcome much.
I remember countless arguments about dodging bullets and realism. We have expectations in films based on epic physical one-to-one struggles, which is why that scene where Indy shoots the scimitar man is so funny. In Arthurian romance much of the emphasis is on swords, but the boring historians tell us that extremely long spears, pole-arms, bows, machinery, stakes, cover, weather, virul infections and overwhelming numbers, plus strategy based on marching around in blocks, win battles. Swords were for nobles and the coup-de-grace (big generalisation, I know but I'm talking about the whole attraction to medieval fantasy here). We know the "Melee" is a controlled contest like gladiatorial combat where spectators want to see the fight to be up-close and personal (rugby and boxing with pole-axes mwhahah). Now ... Role-players allow themselves to tune into the solo-protagonist-ego, where they are assured that their characters has skills and strengths which effect the campaign environment. Player-PC thinks... *surely* his pseudo-narrative role in the plot arc would mean that he won't be despatched by the first long ranged weapon he encounters ....
In contrast to this I'm rather fond of how the apt WH40K's tagline "it's big universe, and you will not be missed" is so appropriate for the disposable individuals in massive armies. :D
The combination of myself playing FF gamebooks at a young age and having a false notion of knights (as opposed to proper awareness historical battles) mean that I have still difficulty coping with cannons in games (which feeds my "gunnes" and blunderbuss anxiety...). Balistics!? Forward observation? Let me just run in and belt the fool! Naturally in my mind magic was a very short ranged and slow affair (remember how slow most magic special effects were in the 70s/80s).
Even the long bow in a dungeon seems to be fudge in the rules- the explanation for its ranges being limited is due to light conditions and low ceilings in dungeons or something, because we all know with the right kind of cornish bred yeoman the ISS can be brought down if you stand on the right hill in Kent...
Also, my introduction to role-playing was through talking-play and books, and figures came later (very different to today's D&D where counters and grids are included). Representing distances didn't really occur in my earliest games. The maps weren't even on graph paper (like the maps in FF Intro RPG) Darts from traps didn't seem like ranged attacks, they were immediate, perhaps the character was stepping on the trigger/plate/opening the chest. Somehow describing sniping scenes or long range fights seemed difficult and unfitting. Perhaps it's like snakes and ladders - piece A lands on the same square as piece B - some sort of exchange or battle occurs with the loser being sent back to the start. The event happens in the same square (god knows what the teleporting back to the beginning is all about - or am I thinking of Ludo)
Okay, I'm babbling.
The good news is that we know that pretty much everything in games can be simulated with dice rolls and /or opposing difficulty ratings which are negotiated with the referee who is consulting a tome of tables, or his following some interpretative ethos based on a story telling genre. Of course in Fighting Fantasy only several specific situations are actually represented by the main rules, which is why it still appeals to me because it grants the authority to the GM to wing in.
Okay, that's enough for now. I really shouldn't start typing in the middle of the night, I come over all "stoner"-like.
(also I promise I will edit that other post for typos... at least this one was typed on a real keyboard!)
Now, we were talking about FF, right? ;D
Fair enough re. role-playing threads.
I've got some thoughts about FF solos (mixed in with some OGL clone and T&T ideas) - including some possible copyright work-around, but more on that another time. Perhaps some mini adventures will be a great idea to keep the old intellect working!
URL: http://the-lost-and-the-damned.71.s1.nabble.com/Deadly-Fast-Play-Rules-in-Fighting-Fantasy-tp5703538p5713611.html
Where do you get these pictures from?
Yup your fumbles and criticals system makes total sense. But now I'm rooting for the dragon! Squish that adventurer good!
I was trying the simple version of the fast play rules last night in Citadel of Chaos - where, incidentally, there's a shocking lack of straight forward fights - and in fact there were times when the combat actually slowed. Lots of 1 damages, from very close Attack Strengths which hadn't occurred to me. Like you, I've been more worried about massive damage quotas.
Ranged Combat:
Comparing attack strengths, but only the target takes damage is a very elegant solution. (Much like defender against a second opponent). FF can be quite limited in it's use of opposition based maths. It certainly remains true to the system and is easy to remember.
*Massive tangent coming up*
EDIT: Honestly skip this, it really is just pseudo philosophical meta gaming navel gazing.
Missile or Range combat reveals an interesting conundrum in role playing mechanics. With hand-to-hand fights - Monster vs. Hero, weapon vs. armour, Attack skill vs. Defence Skill (parry). It's very easy to see opposing advantages and difficulties. Whereas range combat relates to personal skill vs. environmental aspects. I know this is obvious stuff, but if we think about how we set the scene in role-playing games, or in game books, a scene (a room, furniture) doesn't require any stats but as soon as two opponents are in proximity the dice mechanics simulate physical competition in a way that can't created by speech or text alone (well durr Will, that's why we use dice, because we're not LARPers or psychos ...). Many sports place emphasis on players vs. players. Psychologically we relate to games which make players oppose each other. Even in cricket the batsman is actively participating with the path of the ball as decided by the bowler. A DM controlling the monster vs. the player controlling the hero is extremely accessible to a new comer to the game. Apart from the dubious "Dodge" ability in some games, and dexterity modifiers, shooting is mainly about the attacker's skill to hit the target, vs size, distance, light.
It just seems "wrong" somehow that the targeted hero doesn't get to effect the outcome much.
I remember countless arguments about dodging bullets and realism. We have expectations in films based on epic physical one-to-one struggles, which is why that scene where Indy shoots the scimitar man is so funny. In Arthurian romance much of the emphasis is on swords, but the boring historians tell us that extremely long spears, pole-arms, bows, machinery, stakes, cover, weather, virul infections and overwhelming numbers, plus strategy based on marching around in blocks, win battles. Swords were for nobles and the coup-de-grace (big generalisation, I know but I'm talking about the whole attraction to medieval fantasy here). We know the "Melee" is a controlled contest like gladiatorial combat where spectators want to see the fight to be up-close and personal (rugby and boxing with pole-axes mwhahah). Now ... Role-players allow themselves to tune into the solo-protagonist-ego, where they are assured that their characters has skills and strengths which effect the campaign environment. Player-PC thinks... *surely* his pseudo-narrative role in the plot arc would mean that he won't be despatched by the first long ranged weapon he encounters ....
In contrast to this I'm rather fond of how the apt WH40K's tagline "it's big universe, and you will not be missed" is so appropriate for the disposable individuals in massive armies. :D
The combination of myself playing FF gamebooks at a young age and having a false notion of knights (as opposed to proper awareness historical battles) mean that I have still difficulty coping with cannons in games (which feeds my "gunnes" and blunderbuss anxiety...). Balistics!? Forward observation? Let me just run in and belt the fool! Naturally in my mind magic was a very short ranged and slow affair (remember how slow most magic special effects were in the 70s/80s).
Even the long bow in a dungeon seems to be fudge in the rules- the explanation for its ranges being limited is due to light conditions and low ceilings in dungeons or something, because we all know with the right kind of cornish bred yeoman the ISS can be brought down if you stand on the right hill in Kent...
Also, my introduction to role-playing was through talking-play and books, and figures came later (very different to today's D&D where counters and grids are included). Representing distances didn't really occur in my earliest games. The maps weren't even on graph paper (like the maps in FF Intro RPG) Darts from traps didn't seem like ranged attacks, they were immediate, perhaps the character was stepping on the trigger/plate/opening the chest. Somehow describing sniping scenes or long range fights seemed difficult and unfitting. Perhaps it's like snakes and ladders - piece A lands on the same square as piece B - some sort of exchange or battle occurs with the loser being sent back to the start. The event happens in the same square (god knows what the teleporting back to the beginning is all about - or am I thinking of Ludo)
Okay, I'm babbling.
The good news is that we know that pretty much everything in games can be simulated with dice rolls and /or opposing difficulty ratings which are negotiated with the referee who is consulting a tome of tables, or his following some interpretative ethos based on a story telling genre. Of course in Fighting Fantasy only several specific situations are actually represented by the main rules, which is why it still appeals to me because it grants the authority to the GM to wing in.
Okay, that's enough for now. I really shouldn't start typing in the middle of the night, I come over all "stoner"-like.
(also I promise I will edit that other post for typos... at least this one was typed on a real keyboard!)
Now, we were talking about FF, right? ;D
Fair enough re. role-playing threads.
I've got some thoughts about FF solos (mixed in with some OGL clone and T&T ideas) - including some possible copyright work-around, but more on that another time. Perhaps some mini adventures will be a great idea to keep the old intellect working!
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |