I've probably mentioned before I started gaming with T&T, way back when. So I have a soft spot for it, though its combat system has a few things I no longer like, its system still does a few cool things. The frustrating thing for me is that I currently can't see how to fix any of the issues without dumping the whole thing.

For those who don't know it, Tunnels and Trolls works like this:
-both sides roll weapon damage dice, + combat adds (STR, DEX, and Luck add a point for each point above 12).
-totals are compared and the difference is damage to the loser. Damage comes off the loser's CON.


That's it (unless you have armour which subtracts from the difference). The plusses for me here are: simple, really fast.
It also has an amazing Monster Rating system that lets a character pull out a monster with very little difficulty; assign a number and the beastie uses that as their CON, with adds equal to (1/2 MR) and dice equal to (10s place of MR, plus 1) i.e. an orc with MR 20 would roll 3 dice + 10 and take 20 hits (it has no other stats unless you feel like it), a manticore with MR 80 would roll 9 dice + 40 and take 80 hits.

The way it uses CON for taking damage is also nifty in that its as fair to have damage go to any other stat e.g. monsters paralyzing you make you lose DEX or mental combat damage to Intelligence, without needing a condition system, and since a character's effectiveness can be reduced by damage i.e. less CON means you're less likely to making saving rolls against poison and such.

The system does have a number of downsides though, IMHO:
-no difference between hit/damage bonuses
-combat and noncombat use different resolution systems
-large differences in combat results between characters is too high (i.e. stats are weighted too heavily).
-lots of mathing required to compare HPTs
-no transparency in probabilities since its a dice pool.


What I'm like to do is make or find something that has the plusses without the minuses. Not necessarily all that similar as a system, just similar advantages. So seeing if anyone has any ideas for simple combat engines that do similar things. The closest thing elsewhere I have simplicity-wise to MR might be White Wolf (just pick some numbers 1-10 as dice pools and be good to go), although I don't think it handles some things (like ability damage) as well.

Didn't Pundit rework some of T&T for his own rpg, FTA!?

Thanks, hadn't thought of that. I don't have a copy but found this description of it on RPGPundit's blog (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/614703050/item/ ) :

QuoteCombat in FtA! is "collective"; which means that both sides act at the same time (no initiative) and both sides are generally fighting as teams against each other.  In each round of combat, participants must first declare their intended action in inverse order of DEX (allowing characters with higher dex to know what their opponent is planning to do before deciding what to do themselves) and then, where applicable, resolved in direct order of DEX (allowing faster characters to get an edge).  In a combat round, you resolve movement first, then missle attacks, then melee attacks. Missle attack rolls are checked individually, but melee is resolved by having all those who are fighting roll and add their sides' roll totals, then compare that to the total rolled by the opposing side. Whoever rolled higher "won" that melee round, and the difference between the two values is the damage dealt to the losing side, divided among its participants by the GM.  This makes movement and location fairly important in the game, because whether you are in a "melee area" or not determines whether you will be able to join in the melee part of the fight, and whether or not you are eligible to take damage if your side loses the battle round. Critical strikes add an extra 3d6 to your combat roll, and critical fumbles (triple 1s) make you roll on critical fumble tables (with different tables for missle and melee fumbles).
There is also a phase for performing stunts, which can be pretty crucial to giving your side an edge if its disadvantaged.  
There is an option for the GM to run the stunt phase either before or after the melee phase; this makes a big difference because putting the stunt phase before melee phase will really encourage people to stunt (leading to a more "swashbuckling" kind of game), whereas putting the stunt phase after the melee phase will lead to a more traditional kind of combat system, where only characters very inclined to stunting or otherwise unable to help in the battle will choose to stunt, while most other characters will just choose to fight in melee instead.

From reading the rest of it, it does seems to have consistent mechanic throughout (3d6 + mods), and separate hit/damage. Same stats as D&D on a -5-to-+5 scale, and hit points appear to be separate (based off class/level). So its definitely something to ponder, though maybe not exactly what I'm after.

I picked up T&T at this Free RPG Day. I liked the art. The system... haven't tried it, but was mostly disinterested. Aggregated group combat where only one side wins the swing of damage, blegh. And though it was simple math friendly, its accounting was not all that great: weapon dice + combat mods, but there were a lot of class things that changed weapon dice amounts, etc.

I only liked three things: Danforth art, stats as attribute relevant HP, armor absorbs damage.

The MR was neat, but too derivational of compacted data. Neat, but cumbersome; I've gotten annoyed with stuff like that from IN SJG. Direct stat line are cleaner. I have no interest in decompressing 'zipped' data right before or during a battle.

Of the two gamable aspects I liked, I'd easily run a game where stats were your fixed HP and armor absorbed damage (and likely also had HP or hash marks of damage). I'd keep physical and mental combat with the same resolution mechanics and mostly restat a bunch of new weapons and armor.

Fair enough. I suppose the 'unzipping' does get slightly awkward -e.g. after damage is applied, since you have to work out the dice and adds again for the reduced value.
 
Armour as damage reduction is usually a good idea IMHO, though in T&T its a bit..odd...since incoming damage is so variable. Potentially you can have slow grindy combats where the warrior can't win and can't die (barring spite damage, the 7E rule where each '6' is one automatic damage), and shields work pretty badly since an off-hand weapon can usually increase the attack total more.

Er, whats IN SJG ?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668991Fair enough. I suppose the 'unzipping' does get slightly awkward -e.g. after damage is applied, since you have to work out the dice and adds again for the reduced value.
 
Armour as damage reduction is usually a good idea IMHO, though in T&T its a bit..odd...since incoming damage is so variable. Potentially you can have slow grindy combats where the warrior can't win and can't die (barring spite damage, the 7E rule where each '6' is one automatic damage), and shields work pretty badly since an off-hand weapon can usually increase the attack total more.

Er, whats IN SJG ?

In Nomine SJG version.

Thanks Rincewind!
Heard of it vaguely, never seen a copy.

Next question then, how does In Nomine 'zip' monsters to use less numbers???

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668994Thanks Rincewind!
Heard of it vaguely, never seen a copy.

Next question then, how does In Nomine 'zip' monsters to use less numbers???

I know only French IN, but I assume he means something along the lines of "mook rules" - you have small enemies treated like a horde, so to speak.

been a long time since I did it, but I revamped the T&T rules years ago.  They are hopelessly broken in some ways, but there are some fixes that help.

I added a defensive adds on, which was just luck and dex over 13.  added to protection.
I made the protection dice as well, so the players roll attack vs attack, but also roll protection.  Removed some of that awful "inevitable doom" from attacking someone just a little bit more powerful.

I allowed a an SR to allow a player to try to go one on one or flank someone

As of 7th edition, the rules are a bit more complex than that.  The main change is "Spite Damage", which is the fact that any 6 thrown does one point of damage to the opposition, no matter what, and isn't stopped by armor.  Where this can really get interesting is with monsters - the Basilisk has "4/Medusa", which means that if the Basilisk gets 4 sixes, instead of the damage it can fire off the Medusa spell, which as you could expect is going to cause some serious discomfort.

And you don't have to just whale away at folks.  Even aside from magic and missile combat, you can try near anything and get a skill/save roll to try and shift the pace of a battle.

I personally like the concept of aggregated melee.

Rolling gobs of dice has some fun value, but the curves mean that just 3 or 4 points of difference in adds (or a dice more to one side) can be pretty overwhelming.

One thing I'll say is that T&T's original 'ablative' armor system (basically one-use hit points bought with cash) had the merit that any round that wasn't a tie actually brought the fight closer to a conclusion.

Quote from: jcfiala;669059As of 7th edition, the rules are a bit more complex than that.  The main change is "Spite Damage", which is the fact that any 6 thrown does one point of damage to the opposition, no matter what, and isn't stopped by armor.  Where this can really get interesting is with monsters - the Basilisk has "4/Medusa", which means that if the Basilisk gets 4 sixes, instead of the damage it can fire off the Medusa spell, which as you could expect is going to cause some serious discomfort.

That is an interesting mechanic.

Thanks guys, interesting.

Quote from: Phillip;669071One thing I'll say is that T&T's original 'ablative' armor system (basically one-use hit points bought with cash) had the merit that any round that wasn't a tie actually brought the fight closer to a conclusion.

I hadn't realized that it'd done that in earlier versions, interesting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;669010been a long time since I did it, but I revamped the T&T rules years ago.  They are hopelessly broken in some ways, but there are some fixes that help.

I added a defensive adds on, which was just luck and dex over 13.  added to protection.
I made the protection dice as well, so the players roll attack vs attack, but also roll protection.  Removed some of that awful "inevitable doom" from attacking someone just a little bit more powerful.

I allowed a an SR to allow a player to try to go one on one or flank someone

I tried adding an initiative (SPD rolls) and separate defense rolls ages back but that killed the aggregate damage system (as well as having to use MRs that were generally lower). So I don't know about rolling it. Adding defensive adds is interesting (hadn't thought of that), but 'too much armour' is I think already another problem.

Really though I think what I'm after is probably a completely different system that just shares some of the same advantages, it seems to me that bandaiding the various issues is possible but ends up unwieldy.

Quote from: jadrax;669079That is an interesting mechanic.

The Spite system in 7E is pretty good. Where it tends to get iffy is when you're rolling large barrels of dice for the monsters - the common fix is to roll fewer dice and then multiply, but spite damage needs further considerations (usually the 6s are multiplied as well).

The probabilities are fairly nontransparent so its hard for the DM to fudge exactly, but certainly the likelihood of a PC getting stoned or what-have-you will shift depending on how you try to simplify the roll.

There is also the option to handle one on one combats as save rolls (like the noncombat stuff.) In fact 5E mentions that such maneuvers are useable.