Tunnels & Trolls: Combat

I still haven't found time to play this, even a solo. My comments are untested observations on a reading of the rules. You've been warned.

The first time I read T&T some time ago, one of the things that initially put me off was combat. I was in a hyper-tactical frame of mind, and upon reading T&T doesn't seem to fit that bill. Wrong answer.

Combat in T&T is bog-simple. Combatants roll a number of d6, that number being derived from chosen weapon modified by three stats. This modification is called "Adds", and that is exactly what is does, it adds to the roll. Weapons can have adds too, so you might have a weapon that is rated 3 dice +2 Adds. Your stats might yield another +2 in Adds. So, you would roll 3d6+4 when using the weapon. Monsters do the same thing, but their numbers are arrived at differently.

Essentially, there is no "to hit" roll in T&T. There is only one roll, and it does determine who does the most damage, so in a sense it is a hit roll, but not really. Each combatant rolls his dice and totals them. The lower number is the loser. That lower number is subtracted from the higher number and the remainder is the damage. Armor reduces damage directly, so it is subtracted from the damage remainder, and the final result is deducted from the victim's Constitution score. Zero Constitution equals dead guy. There is also a rule for the winner of the combat potentially getting nicked up in the fracas, which is reasonable.

That, to my eyes, seems very simple, straight-forward, and quick to play through. Upon my initial reading there were two things about it that jumped out at me. I'll admit to not really opening myself up to the spirit of the rules, which hindered my understanding greatly. The two things were:

1. All combatants on a side in combat pool all their dice and Adds. There is a single roll per side, compared for a final result, per side, with damage being evenly divided amongst all combatants on that side.
2. A distinct and total lack of tactical options.

The thing about #1 that never occurred to me is to split a big combat into individual combats. It is not carved in stone that all combats must be reduced to a single roll per side. Split it up however you want to. It is actually very handy to have a "mass" combat system built right into the base combat system. Who wants to waste half the session in a combat with 14 goblins that were a random encounter to start with? Not me. Just lump it all together and get it over with.

As far as #2, I wasn't applying the Saving Roll concept in combat. In a nutshell, Saving Rolls make it easy to adjudicate anything a player wants his character to attempt. Swinging on chandeliers, kicking sand, flipping table, tangling somebody in your cloak, whatever the player can think of. In a nutshell, there are endless tactical options, they just aren't spelled out.

So, now that I've read it more thoroughly and with a more open mind, what started out as a turn-off for me has become one of the game's selling points for me. Isn't life strange?

Tunnels & Trolls Character Sheet

I've created a pocketmod-style character sheet for T&T. It is on my google docs, but you can get to it here. I hope it works out for you, whoever you are.

Now for Something Completely Different

The roulette wheel that is my gaming ADD has spun, again. I've never played this game, even solo. I had only seen it in a game store one time, back in '93 (I think). Of course, I heard of it. My  impressions (and that is all they were, I never read a review or ad) were that is would be too simplified for me. I thought that to accommodate solo play it would have to be shorn of tactical options, deep character development, and long-term campaign potential.

Thus, in my early, formative gaming days it was D&D for serious gamers (like me), Runequest for potheads and hippies, and T&T for those who couldn't find a group.

Prejudice is ignorant at any age, and I am happy to report that I was horribly mistaken about T&T. (The jury is still out on RQ, I've known a lot of potheads and they swore by it.)

Before I go further, I want to stress: everything I'm saying is based only on reading, not on actual play.

There is so much in this game that I like in a fantasy game.

• It seems like it will play fast
• Combat features a "death spiral" effect
• Armor absorbs damage, rather than deflecting hits
• It uses only d6's
• Magic is not Vancian
• Characters have class and level, but advancement is "individualized"
• A simple Saving Roll system to handle anything a player wants to try, without limiting their imagination with lists of skills and/or "feats"
• Silver Piece standard, rather than gold (a personal thing, but I don't like the "Read GP as SP" conversion advice)

Those high points are from an incomplete and quick read, so I'm sure I'll find more to like. I'm reading the 5th edition. I think that pic may be the 30th Anniversary 7th Edition, I'm not sure. I just like it.

One definite boon is the community. A lot of games like to boast about their friendly community, but in my experience they seem very cliquish. I get almost no feedback on my posts on several forums covering a variety of games, and sometimes if I am getting a few replies going all of a sudden my thread gets hijacked by some of the "popular kids".

The designer of Tunnels and Trolls, Ken St. Andre, maintains an active and welcoming website, Trollhalla. It requires membership, which is free. There is a treasure-trove of T&T material there, as well as an active group of "trolls". One outstanding feature is the "walla", which is almost like an IRC window right smack in the middle of the homepage, allowing any members currently logged in to talk in real-time about the game. Instant feedback is a wonderful thing. Mr. St. Andre is often in residence, as well, so there is almost unprecedented access to the man behind the game.

If you've never given this game a serious look, you really should. There is a free "quickstart" download at Trollhalla, so no excuses.

Pondering Combat (Long)

Grab a drink and some snacks. This could take a while.

In my never-ending quest to best represent my idea of fighters I have taken my thinking further back, and down stranger avenues, than ever before. In fact, I have taken it "back to formula" so to speak, the Fantasy Combat Table from Chainmail.

Man-to-man combat in Chainmail is straight-forward enough, as is Fantasy Combat. Hits equal kills (broadly speaking). Fantasy Combat is resolved by cross-referencing the fantastic combatants to arrive at the "to-hit" number. If the dice roll exceeds this number, the defender is killed.

(let me pause for a minute to apologize, for this will be pure stream-of-conscious writing)

What I have found to be the most compelling is this fact: in Chainmail combat, no matter which level of combat it is, one hit equals one kill. This is very significant, as it relates directly with what seems to be a design philosophy that is central to D&D combat. In D&D combat all 1st level characters, as well as normal men, have 1d6 HP. All weapons inflict 1d6 damage on a successful hit, thus we have one hit equals one kill (with minor variation) where "normal" men are concerned.

There are certain unaddressed disconnects in the translation from Chainmail to the "Alternative" system. At first level, these are minor to the point of being inconsequential. It is only when the characters rise in level that they become more apparent. Specifically, the one that causes me the most grief is the fact that damage output, at least for PCs, remains fairly flat, while monster HD go up and up the more powerful the creature is.

Creatures that enjoyed fantastic status in Chainmail, such as Ogres, only deal 1d6 in the LBBs. Dragon breath and certain giants are able to exceed that, but by and large creatures that slayed adventurers with one roll in Chainmail are now reduced to a war of attrition with their formerly fantastic opponents. This is one of the things that slows combat down at higher levels: the ratio of potential damage output to creature HP.

Obviously, no player wants to invest the effort and real-world time necessary to get a character to 10th level, only to have an epic battle that comes down to a single dice roll. That's only marginally removed from a save-or-die situation. But, think about this: aren't there really only two kinds of combat, when you get right down to it?

1) The dice go cold, one side is far superior and/or better prepared, or fortune smiles on the other guy. Whatever the reason, one side beats the cold, living hell out of the other. If this can be accomplished in 3 or maybe 4 rounds, it is fun. If it takes 14 turns because the bad guy has 70 HP and you max out at 10 points of damage, it gets tedious. We play this game to overcome life-or-death obstacles and exist in dramatically heroic moments. The object of our gaming is not to force a dragon to be pivot man in our circle-jerk, with no dramatic tension.

2) There is a boat load of tension as the fight goes back and forth, each side scoring blistering success and suffering grievous set-backs. Until, finally, the party is down to the last fighter, who has 4 HP left, and the Stone Giant king, likewise down to 5 HP. Guess what? For all the great drama of the ebb and flow of the fight, it comes down to one roll.

Admittedly, scenario 2 is preferable, but it still comes down to that one roll.

I'm not advocating a return to the Fantasy Combat Table. There, you can breath again.

What Makes a Fighter Better?


More to the point, what makes a fighter a more fearsome opponent? Is it that he can routinely crack your head? Maybe. But, if you have more than 6 HP, you know that no matter how good he is at connecting with your head, it will take him at least two rounds to split your head, magic and other bonuses notwithstanding.

What about more attacks? I think this gets closer to the mark, when you consider that an attack is actually an opportunity to injure your opponent. So, a skilled fighter will find more openings and opportunities in the span of that one-minute combat round to do some damage.

And that is where the nugget of truth lies for me. Damage. A really scary, capable fighter is one that lays waste and does so reliably. Not just "has the potential", but actually does more damage. If I know deep down inside that if that guy gets at me with that short sword he is going to end all my plans, I will leave him alone.

My Proposal

I propose a system of "hitting" like the one in Chainmail. Roll 2d6 on the table cross-referencing various weapons against various armor situations. If you hit, roll a number of d6 equal to your level.

Before you panic and cry FOUL! remember that the two most-desired magic-user spells, Fireball and Lightning Bolt, do caster level x d6. Of course, the target gets a save for half. Let's face it though, the threat of the possibility of a Fireball is enough to give most parties pause.

Exposure to the Mythic Environment

My Dannak megadungeon will be based on the principle of the mythic underworld. One of the things this allows, and something I have always wanted, is a concrete, sensible rationale to regard the PCs as regular folks that dare to achieve.

Most of the NPCs of the setting will be 0-level folks just trying to get by. That is the stock the PCs spring from. Sure, they may have a couple of above average stats, or be able to command simple magics, but at the beginning of their adventures they are only barely separated from the NPCs. This is why I am definitely limiting the availability of starting classes. Some classes are just too specialized to be allowable right out of the gate, in this environment.

It is their exposure to the mythic underworld that annoints them as true adventurers. Once they have braved its dangers and faced its horrors, they begin to acquire a certain legend surrounding themselves. I see this as an upward spiral, just as the game was designed to engender. The more capable (legendary, in mythic terms) the characters become, the greater the dangers they can face. The greater the danger, the greater the reward, and if they best that challenge and return with that reward, their legend grows, and the cycle perpetuates itself. This is represented, of course, by the character gaining levels, which enable him to delve ever deeper into the dungeon, slay more powerful opponents, take their shit, and continue gaining levels.

I have been a big fan of the notion that says "If enough people believe in it enough, it must be true". I think Earthdawn pulled that off pretty well, and I love it for that. I've seen rules in later iterations of D&D that have made a nod toward it, with magic items that can gain in power, but that never really satisfied. This, though, makes sense to me. The mechanics are already in place, with D&D's levels. All I needed was a campaign specific "dressing" (dare I say "narrative"?) to give form to the function.

So, here we will have a group of suicidal people trying to wrest their fortune from the ruins of Dannak (the 1st level party). After some time they return with some coin and jewelry, along with tales of horrors faced and battles won. Some of their former peers will be impressed, some will thumb their noses at the modest success. Orcs and goblins, though, are no longer feared by the characters, and having tasted success, and confident in their abilities, they reprovision and head back in. With each successful foray, rumors spread, becoming legend, and the PCs are no longer even part of the society that spawned them.

Which brings me to my next point. With the bulk of NPCs being 0-level, it would seem easy for the PCs, even at modest level, to take over. To be honest, I can't really divine a way to prevent that mechanically, other than the obvious solution of giving the NPCs levels. That is too artificial, in a lot of ways. No, this has to be handled narratively (there's that word again). The players have to realize and understand that once their characters have essentially become mythic through exposure to the mythic underworld, they no longer view 0-level people as worthy adversaries. They likewise are not tempted by whatever mundane wealth could be gained by slaughtering common folk.

If a player or two has trouble with that concept from time to time, a scattering a higher level NPCs should keep them in check. Mentors, and other like-minded adventurers are sure to be present. Side adventures could even involve one of these running amok, and the PCs hired to stop them. A little object lesson never hurts.

So, that's my take on weaving exposure to the mythic environment into the mechanics of leveling. As always, comments and discourse are welcomed.

Subject to Change

In case it hasn't become apparent, virtually all of what I say here is subject to change. Not having a group, I don't have to concern myself with "sticking with something". I can be convinced that S&W Complete is my game today, and be on a Rules Cyclopedia kick tomorrow. I try not to do that, but it does happen.

In that spirit, my desire/quest for the best way to represent fighters has brought me back around to one of my favorite on-again/off-again love affairs. Specifically, that is using the original 2d6 combat system from Chainmail. The reason I like it is its simplicity. Essentially, to-hit numbers are fixed based on cross-referencing armor type vs weapon. Improving ability is represented by increasing the number of attacks. That achieves two objectives that I feel should be modeled in skillful combatants:

1) It gives the skilled fighter tactical options. He is free to distribute his attacks among his opponents as he deems fit. I know there is the so-called "Combat Machine" class ability, but it only applies if all opponents the fighter is engaged with are 1HD or less. So, an 8th level fighter can wade into 8 goblins and start cracking heads. Great. If there is a hobgoblin bully-boy leading the goblins, a hobgoblin has 1+1 HD, btw, our 8th level fighter is reduced to one attack. That just ain't right.
2) It abstractly represents a higher possible damage output. I believe a skillful opponent should be something to fear. An 8th level fighter with a dagger in the "Alternative Combat System"? He might scratch you for 4 points. An 8th level fighter with a dagger under the Chainmail system? He'll hand you your liver with the possibility of a maximum of 48 points of damage!

That makes combat a frightening prospect. I genuinely like higher-level characters being able to enter combat with a certain level of confidence. I genuinely dislike players entering combat with a smug attitude because their character has 53 HP and that ogre can only do 10 points max per turn.

For any of you interested in pursuing this sort of thing for your own game, I refer you to:

Forbidden Lore by Jason Vey. The pdf is free, the link is near the bottom of the page, along with some pretty cool Conan stuff. You will need access to Chainmail to really use it, but if you have the Ready Ref sheets from Judge's Guild you might squeak by. The combat tables for 2d6 combat are in the Ready Ref sheets.

Misnomers and House Rules

It is amazing what a little clarity of vision, married with a well-defined goal, can enable one to accomplish.

It has never been lost on me that D&D is a toolkit. Especially D&D as presented in the LBBs. It is also well-known that it demands tinkering and house-ruling right out of the box (pardon the pun). I think, though, that maybe "house rules" is a term that is a bit misleading. I think the term should be "campaign modifications", or some variation thereof. Please allow me to explain.

For virtually my entire gaming "career" I have house ruled any game I have ever owned. Whether I had a group or not, a campaign in development or underway, or not, I was house ruling. It never dawned on me that I wasn't house ruling at all. Without a campaign in mind, I was actually modifying the toolkit. It isn't until the toolkit is applied to the campaign that it becomes a rules set. Some changes can be made to the toolkit, to be sure. The vast majority of the house rules should be informed by specific details of the campaign, however. Very few people will go to their workshop and modify their hammer or screwdriver, but they will take the blueprint for a project and modify it to better suit the unique nature of their needs.

Development of Dannak has lead me to this conclusion. Anyone can play D&D straight from the box. Anyone can start house ruling willy-nilly on their first read-thru. The best modifications, though, are the ones implemented to reflect specific peculiarities of the campaign.