The Unseen Servant forums

Thanks! It sounds like I'll be picking up a copy.

The quick rules are enough really - there are many more 'elaborations'. One of the reasons I like 7.5 better (and there are many!), is that saving rolls are only failed on a 1,2 roll and not on 1,3 also. This puts the odds at 1 in 18, much like the roll of 1 on a d20 in D&D. I think the 5th Edition D&D rules and 7.5 T&T are much closer in spirit = there seemed to me a big gap before. At any rate, I've been able to run 5th edition on the fly, just as Ken does with T&T (he is a master storyteller). I do have my own quick rules if anyone would like them but they are 7.5/deluxe rather than 5.5.

I'd be very curious to see them!

Pulpatoon wrote:Not that the Quick-start rules are particularly long or dense, but, for my own reference, I made a two-page summary. I hope it's useful/accurate!

Tunnels & Trolls Cheater

Thanks for this! So much clearer than the rules as written (or maybe more succinct is what I mean).

I'd like to see your quick rules as well, Khaboom. From what I can find the only quick rules published for T&T are for 5.5.

I've never peeked inside 7th or Deluxe, but I'd be interested in picking one up. Aside from Deluxe being the current edition, is there a big difference between the two?

I can send them by email - do you want to let me have your email addresses or is there another way you'd prefer?

Thanks, mate. E-mail is fine, I'll PM you.

There were several (imo) really good changes from 5.5 to 7.5. I got converted to 7.5 by Ken and to be honest struggle to play 5.5 now. I wrote up a detailed comparison which I can dig out if anyone wants.

Of course, many diehards didn't like the changes. Deluxe ditched some of those changes and holds the middle ground.

I use very few new things from Deluxe (even though I think it is very high quality) - in particular, I think the specialists rules are 100% better. I ditched the 'add level' into SR rule of 7.5 myself bu that aside, I think Ken injecting a lot of practical gaming experience and merge with fluidity and fun.

2 shifts from 5.5 I will mention now...

1) The players track their APs not the GM and 'spend' them to up attributes on a regular basis rather than wait to hit an arbitrary points total
2) 1,3 is not an automatic fail - just 1,2 (much more in keeping with the D&D odds of 1 in 20)

Lobo89 has found himself with too many things to chew at once and has left the game to help manage that.

Rusty's still finalizing his character sheet, but the important bits are already there. I don't see any reason we can't just start the game now. So without any further ado, off to the tunnels we go!

Yay!

I'm updating my character's equipment, but otherwise ready to go.

First GM post is up! Post away when ready.

viewtopic.php?f=482&t=6505

Sorry for the delay over the weekend, and thanks for being patient. I'll have a post up as soon as possible, when I have a break at work.

Not to worry, Starbeard. I've just started a new hire class at work. While I love teaching the curriculum it really is a time sink. I swear I need to borrow the Tardis and ask Hermione how to fit it into my wrist watch. Do what you need to and we'll be patient. Would it be worth discussing a posting schedule, f'ex, expect GM posts twice per week on Weds and Sun evenings? Not pushing one way or the other, just thinking out loud, as it were...

I'd like to make a GM post at least 2-3 times a week, so I might adopt a schedule to ensure that happens. If the schedule is fixed, GM posts can occur every Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday. If the schedule is kept 'rolling', then I can post every 3 days, or sooner if everyone has already posted.

Would anyone prefer one of these over the other?

No preference from me. Whatever you need to stay sane.

I recommend a posting schedule, myself. It's helping me from getting overwhelmed in my own campaign.

I can see benefits to either path. If I were to pick, I'd say I'm leaning ever so slightly more towards a fixed posting schedule simply to ensure I don't miss a turn or hold folks up for neglecting to post. In the end, I'm happy to be playing so which ever direction works best for you, Starbeard, I'm happy to work with.

I think you're right, a fixed schedule is probably best. I'll go on the record now and say that I intend to post Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, but it may take me a post or two to figure out the exact time GMT that works best for me.

Starbeard wrote:Digsby Shovel Attack [1d6] = 6 + [1d6] = 2 + [1d6] = 3 + [1d6] = 3 + 3 + 1 = 18 hit points, with 1 point of spite damage!
The two huge foxes attack = 21 hit points
Digsby loses, taking 3 hit points, but all of it is soaked up by his leather armour. The foxes also take 1 point from Spite.

This isn't featured in the light rules, but Spite damage is a rule that helps keep fights from getting too lopsided after the first round or two, where only the losing side takes all the hits. Spite works like this: in a combat, the losing side still gets to inflict 1 point of damage for each 6 rolled. It started as a very common house rule way back in the 70s and I think it's both fun and a clever idea. I'll be putting it into the house rule thread.

Starbeard wrote:Fighting purely defensively, I'll give that Digsby does no normal damage to the foxes, only spite damage, but they attack him normally.

For those of you who are more familiar with T&T, is there an actual rule in one of the editions that covers 'fighting defensively'?

(please make a Level 1 Strength Save to push the chest up to the top of the stairway).

Sure thing. I don't have the rules with me though. How do I do that?

Starbeard wrote:For those of you who are more familiar with T&T, is there an actual rule in one of the editions that covers 'fighting defensively'?

I'm not familiar with any specifics for such combat. I've quickly scanned my e-copies, dT&T & M6E, and I don't see anything along those lines. I'll check my dead-tree version of 5.5 a bit later when I can get to it. For the moment, your ruling seems fair, though I would hope that, perhaps, mechanically, there was more of a benefit to the character to be defensive, i.e. it made him harder to damage or some such. Just musing off the cuff. Maybe, can only deal spite damage but double armour points while defensive (Of course, for warriors that means four-times the base armour value). In any event, T&T has never concerned itself with game balance or fairness. So, I can live with the current ruling if that's where you'd like to keep it.