Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Tom's T&T "X Edition:" Character Types

Within the pages of my "super version" of T&T it's all about the basics when it comes to Types, that's "classes" to the D&D-head reading this blog. In the 7 Plus edition of T&T Ken St. Andre expanded and refitted the first through fifth-plus editions Types from Warrior, Wizard, Rogue and sometimes a Warrior-Wizard. These are the Citizen, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard, Paragon and then Specialist.

While the Warrior and Wizard remained essentially the same, the Rogue was given a bit more definition with the Talent ("skill" for the GURPS accountant set) of Roguery. Roguery allows the PC to have a bonus on any Luck, Charisma and Intelligence based Saving Roll.

The Citizen is essentially Ken exploring the "0-Level NPC" of the D&D world, but with usual the T&T adaptive flexibility where a player could actually play one if he, or she (have to say it once to be hip and modern), wanted to. No special traits, but the ability learn everything and develop Talents.

The Paragon is a Warrior-Wizard given an name with a "p" at the front of it so D&D-heads could identify which T&T Type was the Paladin class. Of course the Warrior-Wizard of T&T was not really the equivalent of the Paladin of D&D ever, so a pretty short treatise about exceptionally talented people and socioeconomic stratification is written in to try and rationalize changing the name. I suppose it's better than reading through the D&D "multiclass" rules, but it didn't add anything for me. And I noticed the people who played dwarf Paladins in D&D, had a tendency to like to roll up Leprechaun Wizards, as that is the special combination where the T&T player can optimize rolling potentials.

And then there is the Specialist, where Ken leaves room for players, and GMs, I suppose, to design their own Types. He even gives two examples of special Types that can be considered unique from other classes in other games, the Leader and the Combat Mage; but neither of these turn out to be very useful. At the game table, the Specialist turned out to be "add your D&D class/subclass here" slot.

So for my perfect set of T&T Types, here's what I have, along with some explanation why.

Warrior, well duh.

Wizard, ayup. Fer ser.

Rogue, keeping the Roguery Talent. It works out well, and avoids the "socioeconomic" babble that seems to permeate multiple editions of T&T to no real meaning. I will get into this further as we get along.

Wizard-Warrior, willfully losing the "P-lettered title" could miff a lot of people who think that T&T should resemble D&D, but not much else. And it focuses on the attributes that make up the Type not long-winded speeches about background and resources that beg for diversions into debates as pointless as D&D alignment and how it should be really interpreted.

The Specialist, okay I'll cede a little to the D&D-head who's willing to play T&T. I'll even work with the player who wants to introduce a new Type into play-- that is as long as he uses the word "type" not "class."

I'd definitely lose the Citizen. The arguments for it, even as a term for uninspired, plain-Jane and worthless NPCs is that socioeconomic thing that I don't like. Not because I do not understand the thinking, I just think that it adds nothing to role-playing and the narrative of an on-going campaign. One of the fantastic qualities of T&T was that it takes an amazingly open-minded view of the world(s) that it would inhabit. Monsters could be players, that were not Typed by their creature form. Wizards have an arsenal of helpful spells even at first level, only inhibited by their attributes. Attributes themselves can sky-rocket from 3 points until infinity. So why can't everyone in a T&T be a Type?

Characters do not need a world where bakers are only bakers to become special. Why having an unadventurous baker that is a 3rd level Wizard adds depths of perspective into a virtual world. It is my argument here that PCs shouldn't walk around any village or "towne" thinking that they might not be in for a surprise from any of its citizenry before the "sheriff" comes swaggering up. This approach to role-playing could help some people out in real life, and we all know the sorts of gamers that I am talking about here.

So there are my Types. Any thoughts?


  1. I don't see any D&D-ifying in changing the Warrior-Wizard to Paragon. What's wrong with wanting to give the type a name of its own instead of just hyphening its two components together? Also, no edition of D&D has ever had a Paragon class. D&D uses multiclassing for that. You know, sort of the "warrior-wizard" approach.

  2. I did not say anything about what you're stating.

    Now as opposed to the hyphening of two components. What made the Warrior-Wizard kickass is that it occurred before the Fighter-Magic User of D&D fame. Why turn the Warrior-Wizard into something that a crap-blogger like me can claim is a take on the D&D Paladin?

  3. "The Paragon is a Warrior-Wizard given an name with a "p" at the front of it so D&D-heads could identify which T&T Type was the Paladin class." - Tom

    This is a desperate reach IMO. I think Ken changed the name simply because "Warrior-Wizard" is a lazy attempt at naming the 'type' and, regardless of which game came first with which hyphenated multi-class type, it sounds kind of D&D-ish.

    No one hates D&D more than I do and I can go on for days about the problems with that system but accusing T & T of pandering to the D&D numbskulls is kind of wonky.

    And yes, I realize the irony of my defense of "Tunnels & Trolls" having that name only because "Dungeons and Dragons" was first out of the gate.