1. The Fantasy Trip has been locked away in a hermetically sealed chamber since 1982

2. A lot of the artwork is being prepared by one of the essential 70's-80's era roleplaying game artists

3. The official setting amounts to 'everything is possible, and it is your job to figure out what that means'

4. Your characters will definitely die.

5. But that's o.k. because it will take you less time to make a new one than it took me to write this sentence.

6. And every character basically fits on a 3x5 card

7. Yet somehow combat in this game kicks the crap out combat in whatever other game you are currently playing

8. Hyper intelligent armed octopuses

9. Great company that you know will deliver the goods

10. All those OG nerds will be playing it in a couple of months

I have a copy of the original and have been trying it out with friends. Our impression is that it is not bad but not is clear cut as to it advantages other than it terseness.

Comments

I get the feeling there some emergent tactics due to the interplay of the turn order and whether a combatant is engaged or not engaged. However not seeing it so far. I think it there but need better explanation and illustration.

So far combat as consisted of running up and bashing each other. Or shooting missile weapons if we had them. But like I said their a hint of something more but we are just not seeing it.

Definitely thinking that the megahex system is being over used and it use as a basis for mapping is going to be a negative factor in its acceptance. Now to be clear it use as way to account for range and area effect is fine. Nor do I think it would be a problem if the maps used a hex grid with the megahex boundaries marked in bold lines. But if they insist on mapping all the labyrinth i.e. dungeons with megahex based tiles it will give it a niche feel.

On a most positive note I do like the simplicity of character creation for example. I just got a copy of the original In The Labyrinth and found the talent system very nicely done. A lot like how AGE handles things or the original set of D&D 3.0 feats. And I like both especially AGE.

And the nice thing about Talents that you get a number of them at the start of the campaign.

Not really sold on the ever increasing attributes but really takes running a campaign to see how it works out.

Movement and maneuver is a strong point of the game; it is the only roleplaying game I've every played that has a 'chess like' feeling of interaction between the decisions made by various combatants. This is most obvious when you have fights with 3 or more combatants on a side, and both players understand enough about the game to make use of the different properties of pole arms, missile and thrown weapons, and magic (which is highly tactical as compared to most other games). I'm not sure why there are things about this you are still puzzling out, but I'd suggest just playing in a competitive mode with a few combatants per side for an hour or two and it should become obvious.

The hex-based maps can be approached in one of two ways: Either go all-in with the idea that you actually map dungeons (and similar spaces) as tessellated hexes; or superimpose a hex grid onto a 'normal' dungeon map. The first of these is how most of the original materials are presented, and I agree it results in something that is pretty niche (though I find it charming, and it obviously 'works' in a purely gamist sense). The second is how I've always made my own maps of dungeons, cities, etc., and I'd say it is the approach most people would settle on if you left them to their own devices. I have been of two minds about how the new edition should approach this issue. I think in the end I'm glad they seem to be sticking with the original design, which retains the look and feel of the original game, and doesn't prevent me from doing whatever I want in my own games (there is no meaningful rules implications for just putting a hex overlay on a normal map, other than that you have to decide how partial hexes work).

Could someone correct a possible misconception?

Back in the day, I watched a Melee fight where one character on his turn would run around to the rear of the other character and attack from behind. The other character on his turn would react and change facing, only to next round be run around and attacked from behind. That struck me as absurd. Maybe the players were playing something wrong. I don't know, but it's a very strong negative impression of the game to me.

And I have backed the Kickstarter, whether I ever will actually play the game, the game has good stuff in it and is worth supporting.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1052321Back in the day, I watched a Melee fight where one character on his turn would run around to the rear of the other character and attack from behind. The other character on his turn would react and change facing, only to next round be run around and attacked from behind. That struck me as absurd. Maybe the players were playing something wrong. I don't know, but it's a very strong negative impression of the game to me.

You have one set of options if you are engaged in combat i.e. within one hex of an opponent. You have another set when you are not.

My current reading of the allowed actions while engaged is that you can shift one hex as your max move. So what you witnessed was not RAW.

One thing I sussed out is that in order to retreat I had to take a disengage action shift away one hex so I am no longer engaged. Then hope that next round I win initiative so I can do a full move away from my opponent. Otherwise on their move the opponent will move next to be me and I am once again engaged.

Quote from: estar;1052323You have one set of options if you are engaged in combat i.e. within one hex of an opponent. You have another set when you are not.

My current reading of the allowed actions while engaged is that you can shift one hex as your max move. So what you witnessed was not RAW.

One thing I sussed out is that in order to retreat I had to take a disengage action shift away one hex so I am no longer engaged. Then hope that next round I win initiative so I can do a full move away from my opponent. Otherwise on their move the opponent will move next to be me and I am once again engaged.

Do pole arms have reach? Otherwise, yea, maybe I saw something that wasn't valid, very likely the game was being played wrong, but is sure left an impression and a sour taste.

Frank

Quote from: Larsdangly;1052318I'm not sure why there are things about this you are still puzzling out, but I'd suggest just playing in a competitive mode with a few combatants per side for an hour or two and it should become obvious.

The issue is figuring out how  to use the rules in terms of tactics. The rules themselves are simple enough. So far the impression is that you pretty much go up and bash each other. We agreed that if we added terrain and multiple combatants it would be a little more interesting.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1052318The second is how I've always made my own maps of dungeons, cities, etc., and I'd say it is the approach most people would settle on if you left them to their own devices.

It what I did with GURPS for a long time. Until I got Cardboard dungeon and saw how they quashed hexes to make it fit a rectangular grid. It made translating dungeon maps so much easier.

So I did one of my own.

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Hex%20Grid%20Sheet.pdf

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2741[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Larsdangly;1052318I have been of two minds about how the new edition should approach this issue. I think in the end I'm glad they seem to be sticking with the original design, which retains the look and feel of the original game, and doesn't prevent me from doing whatever I want in my own games (there is no meaningful rules implications for just putting a hex overlay on a normal map, other than that you have to decide how partial hexes work).

I am currently 3 for 3 with different groups of gamers going "Huh? OK that weird.".

Quote from: ffilz;1052321Could someone correct a possible misconception?

Back in the day, I watched a Melee fight where one character on his turn would run around to the rear of the other character and attack from behind. The other character on his turn would react and change facing, only to next round be run around and attacked from behind. That struck me as absurd. Maybe the players were playing something wrong. I don't know, but it's a very strong negative impression of the game to me.

And I have backed the Kickstarter, whether I ever will actually play the game, the game has good stuff in it and is worth supporting.

Frank

This isn't a thing. It is possible to get to an opponent's flank or rear hexes and strike with advantage, particularly when there are several opponents on a side and everyone has to make tricky decisions about where they move and how they face. But when two able-bodied opponents face off on an open field it is not possible to repeatedly run around to a rear hex side. If you did, you would get 'stuck' when you engaged your foe. One thing that COULD happen in this system is that you could run around to the side or rear of a foe and jab at him or her with a pole arm. That foe could turn in place to face you, so there wouldn't be much purpose to this (unless it exposed him to a threat from another direction...), but you could do this turn after turn, provided the target didn't step forward one hex to engage you. Nevertheless, the strategy you describe cannot occur if you play by the rules.

Quote from: estar;1052325The issue is figuring out how  to use the rules in terms of tactics. The rules themselves are simple enough. So far the impression is that you pretty much go up and bash each other. We agreed that if we added terrain and multiple combatants it would be a little more interesting.

If you have only two opponents facing off and both have only reach-1 melee weapons and do not wish to shield-rush or engage in HTH combat, then it is true the game devolves to head-to-head attack rolls. That is basically a reflection of the fact that it is 1 step more abstract than GURPS (though quite a few combinations of gear and/or talents open up tactical decisions even in this case). Where tactical decision making gets important is if one or both combatants have different weapon systems (missiles vs. thrown vs. unarmed vs. pole arms vs. melee weapons vs. fire vs. magic, etc.), there is terrain involved (even walls you might back someone into), or there are more than 2 combatants interacting with each other. If any of these things are true, then things open up quite a bit.

Quote from: ffilz;1052324Do pole arms have reach? Otherwise, yea, maybe I saw something that wasn't valid, very likely the game was being played wrong, but is sure left an impression and a sour taste.

Frank

It original Melee no but the length of the polearm confers important benefits in certain situation. For example you do double damage if you charge an enemy with a polearm. You get +2 to DX if a enemy charges you while wielding a polearm. There are various situation where polearms grant an advantage beyond just whacking away.

Remember the order of attack may be different than the order of movements. This makes the interplay of combatants different than most other RPG combat systems in a good way.

In advanced Melee, SJ added the jab which allow the polearm to attack two hexes away. But the engagement zone is still only the ring of hexes around the character.

I think the new TFT will have things folded into together so it is a safe bet jab will be part of the base rules.

Quote from: Larsdangly;105231110. All those OG nerds will be playing it in a couple of months

Possibly.  The real test will be if they're still playing it a year after that.

O.k.; I should add a footnote to #10 that skeptics can go read the concurrent 'Is 5E a fad' thread for other possibilities...

Quote from: Larsdangly;1052327This isn't a thing. It is possible to get to an opponent's flank or rear hexes and strike with advantage, particularly when there are several opponents on a side and everyone has to make tricky decisions about where they move and how they face. But when two able-bodied opponents face off on an open field it is not possible to repeatedly run around to a rear hex side. If you did, you would get 'stuck' when you engaged your foe. One thing that COULD happen in this system is that you could run around to the side or rear of a foe and jab at him or her with a pole arm. That foe could turn in place to face you, so there wouldn't be much purpose to this (unless it exposed him to a threat from another direction...), but you could do this turn after turn, provided the target didn't step forward one hex to engage you. Nevertheless, the strategy you describe cannot occur if you play by the rules.

Ok, glad to hear whatever I observed was not correct application of the rules.

Even if it was, I think common sense can easily repair the problem. I think facing is a good thing, but obviously people who are not otherwise engaged can turn fast enough to keep up with a normal person trying to circle them even if they can't strike or move or anything else. So I look forward to perusing the new rules to see what sorts of tactical goodness are there to be used in the games I play that don't have such detailed tactical movement rules (like RuneQuest).

Frank

Combat in TFT is best played strictly by the rules, or strictly by whatever clearly specified house rules you might introduce, rather than by intuitive interpretation of circumstances. This is because the rules are simple but quite concrete and intentionally 'gameable'. It is just like chess in this respect. Chess is cool and fun to play, but wouldn't go well if you used your intuition to decide how far a bishop could move or whether a pawn could take a knight. You might have your reasons, but the result would be a different game that is won with different strategies.