An essay on T&T which helps to understand how market and models have developed and...
TAGS: #CORERULES #PROJECT
A friend of mine pointed me out a great post by Tom Van Winkle “Our Debt to Tunnels & Trolls”. The author of this blog is great, I have always found interesting his posts!
This one however deserves more room than a simple link as it helped me to think about the relationship between my game and D&D… I have actually always used D&D as a comparison since I played D&D for the vast majority of the time I spent on the hobby, or better: I used D&D as the baseline to create VI·VIII·X as I felt it has always been the reference for the whole industry and, in addition, I have never played T&T but after I read this post I felt closer to T&T than to D&D! Needless to add, I do strongly recommend to read that post.
Let’s have a look at it: the author says that we (the RPGers) should be aware of the highly underrated contribution of Ken St.Andre: I totally agree. And that the development of new game models started from T&T and its approach to D&D: I totally agree again! To be fair, I would like to add a detail which is embedded in the explanation of the post but it is not made clear: I have the feeling that Ken St.Andre “made a better job” than mr Gygax thanks to the absence of any bias provided by wargames. Any idea in T&T which differs from D&D seems not supported by wargames mechanics… and the “contaminations” coming from an environment different from the original one often improve the overall picture.
I absolutely do not want to self-incense, but I did the same path of Ken St.Andre: I tried to review the concept of a game without the know-how provided by another game. I played wargames two times in my life and I didn’t finish the game and didn’t like both experiences (probably it’s not my cup of tea), therefore I can say I have never been in such a hobby. The result is that the changes I applied to the game model (starting from D&D) are similar to those made by Ken St.Andre (without knowing them!)… that’s amazing!
Let’s go through the post and see how and why I feel now close to mr St.Andre:
Ok the first reason is easy: I made a game (nearly) free of charge, based on the theater of the mind approach, with no artworks (but rather art) in it. Hereby a quotation form the original post: “St. Andre wanted to make a game that was affordable, easy to understand and play, and fun, purely as "theater of the mind" (not his term) without miniatures, and that didn't use funny dice (d6 only). … The game was supposed to minimize the money you sent to a game company that claimed authority, increase access to role-playing games, and maximize participant creativity with a DIY spirit and amateur black-and-white art. ...” Well, there is nothing else to add.
The saving throws: T&T replaces saving throws with a check in a stat (Luck) while first I simply removed saving throws (in my game there were not present); after a short time I realized that there was a hole in that sense and added the chance to “save” by spending one or more extra point in Morality (to foster this concept and stress it out!).
Then, combat: the post explains that this concept made a step away from the wargames (to my eyes this is the most clear example of the bias provided by wargames I mentioned above). The step Ken St.Andre made is from “alternating strikes” to a “contest”; well, I have to admit that the solution he found is both simple and brilliant (and I would have been happy to find a similar solution!), however I am satisfied in any case as the distancing path I did is similar… my game mechanics are for sure not as streamlined as the T&T ones however the higher complexity I chose helped me in a more detailed range of options the players can have during combat (and moreover to support the completely different sequence of the combat as a game mechanic).
Going further, magic is another topic which ended in a similar way of combat: I likely felt a similar need of Ken St.Andre and this led to a similar situation. Compared to T&T, my proposal is for sure more complex than T&T (like for combat) but it serves other goals and, again, provides more game options to players.
Another topic is hit-points: here the solutions are slightly different however I have the feeling that the reasons leading to a revisions are the same… while T&T has defined the score of a stat as a value of hit-points, in VI·VIII·X the is not even the concept of hit-point: any damage affects the character by reducing his stats (in case of doubt, the GM defines which are the affected stats)… in a nutshell, a character can take different attacks which lower a specific stat and, therefore, act with the reduced stats… the result is different compared to T&T, the rationale is likely the same.
Last but not least: growth, or better, advancement! The effect in levelling up in T&T is an increase in one of the character’s stats. Well, wow: in this case we have the same result with a slightly different mechanic. The increase in the stat is not direct in VI·VIII·X but it derives by the increase of the knowledge of the character (i.e. the exclusive skills). The increase is in the unknown stats which is explained by the logic “the more I train a skill, the more I am good in it” and, moreover, by fostering the KUP model!
So, to wrap it up: too many coincidences are present to think to an uncorrelated pair of events… and anyone could legitimately think I simply copied T&T! Well, whether or not you believe me, after 48 years from the first edition of T&T, without having ever read or played it, I reached a point very close to the one of Ken St.Andre. This post could generate a suit by Ken St.Andre but I am too proud for the result to run this risk!