D&D -vs- T&T: Magic

Or, Are Healing Potions Too D&D?

Being a comparison of the original 1974 boxed set edition of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) and Tunnels & Trolls 5th Edition (T&T).

In the D&D rules we have a Vancian-based magic system. For those of you unfamiliar with Jack Vance's writings? Let us simply say this is a fire and forget system. The magic-user (MU) studies his spells, imprinting and storing the magick in his mind. This potential is then unleashed when the MU speaks the final part of the spell with accompanying hand gestures. Releasing the spell energy removes that spell from the MU's mind. More powerful spells take longer to both memorize and cast, and take up more room in the MU's mind. With experience, the magic-user can hold great numbers of spells in memory, making him a dangerous foe. This is balanced by the fact he cannot cast a spell he does not have memorized, as well as his relative weakness in combat (though a first level fighter in melee with a 9th level magic-user would still be candy).

T&T magic is based upon some kind of psi-factor [...] all powered by an inner strength. Any spells the wizard knows can be cast at will, provided the wizard has enough Strength (changed to WIZ in later editions) to do so. STR can be exceeded but run the risk of draining the wizard and killing him. Wizards in this system are also poorer in combat, but do have the advantage of being able to wear armor and carry a shield if they so desire.

Though it is a rather useless comparison, magic spells in D&D go as high as 6th level and eventually up to 9th in later editions. T&T's magic goes to level 20. Because the two systems are so different, however, this comparison is of little value. We mention it here because the question has arisen an number of times in discussions of the two rules sets.

Both systems allow spell-casters to research and write new spells. MUs must have a spellbook to relearn any cast spells, or to change their memorized spells to a different one. Wizards either know a spell or do not, though they can learn new spells by studying another wizard's spell books.

Wizards carry staves as an aid to spell-casting (termed a focus in later editions) in the T&T universe, the better the staff the better the magic effects of the cast spells. A wand may be used for the same purpose. D&D MUs use staves for combat. Magical D&D staves are like giant wands, holding specific spell casting abilities and a finite number of charges.

The oddest difference we have found? T&T has no potions! Obviously these would be a simple matter to add to the rules. In point of fact, out of curiosity we checked the most recent edition of the game: Deluxe Tunnels & Trolls. We found potions and rules for them included.

T&T spells aren't fixed in power, they can be increased in effect when cast by a wizard of higher level. Additionally, as a wizard increases in level he can cast spells of lower level more easily. This is shown by requiring less STR to cast them. A staff also reduces STR needed to cast spells, though no spell can ever be reduced to less than 1 point cost.

D&D -vs- T&T: Community

Or, What's That Crawling Up From Under The Bridge? 

I've been struck by the stark comparison between the D&D and T&T online communities. Granted, the community for the former is (comparatively) huge. More numbers means a larger sampling of populations and greater opportunity for outliers. Additionally, my time with the T&T community is far more limited than D&D. Still ...

I have to say that I've seen a lot of ridiculous arguments over the years about D&D. I recall when Gary was alive and, both in person and online, always encouraged folks to shape the game to their vision. The one thing that would set him off in a big hurry was somebody arguing rules with him, the dreaded rules lawyer. He despised gamers who did that. He frequently answered rules questions by asking how the questioner handled it and his usual reply was "sounds good." I never had the pleasure of meeting Dave Arneson but his approach to the questions I saw him field online was similar.

But now? Both these innovators have left us. Those among us who actually played D&D back in the day (as current OD&D revivalists often term it) are being increasingly shouted down by persons who weren't around then. Of course, this doesn't prevent them from informing us and the gaming community at large how it was really done back then or even what Gary (or Dave) actually meant when he wrote that. Often this is merely doubled down on when presented with a direct quote from the authors disproving their supposition, or contradiction to their statement by the players who were actually worked with Gygax or Arneson or regularly played in their games.

But even that isn't all of it. The so-called Old Guard representing the TSR staff of core gaming group members during the formative years of D&D's development are increasingly active in the community. Most of them are supportive of the old school gaming movement but a vocal few spend most of their time criticizing everything the fans do. In these cases (no, I won't ID them) the critique has ranged from snarky but somewhat helpful up to strident and outright taunting. The latter is becoming more frequent as the same arguments about this, that, and the other thing get repeated or old threads revived.

I can't help but contrast this with my interactions with T&T fanbase and still active folks who brought that game to reality. I've only interacted with author Ken St. Andre on non-gaming related issues on Facebook but he seems to very approachable. I just haven't known enough about his rules to be able to even cogently frame a question about them. Same with Flying Buffalo notable Rick Loomis. I was looking for an out-of-print edition of the game and Loomis was very helpful. I also interacted with him during the dT&T Kickstarter and, again, he was approachable and willing to answer all my questions.

Finally, this brings me to the one major remaining forum for T&T gamers: the TrollBridge. As a neophyte I have been online and asking questions I'm sure they've heard many times before. Not a single person has given any trouble over these inquiries. Every time my question has been answered in a way that didn't make me feel like something scraped off the bottom of one's shoe for asking. I appreciate this. I don't feel I'm thin-skinned but I have grown weary of the constant bickering over playing a freaking game that bedevils the D&D community.

What's The Difference? The Various T&T Editions

This list was swiped from the T&T Trollbridge Forum in response to a poster's questions. The answer was written by Aramis of Erak and can be read here. I've edited his words slightly, so my apologies to Aramis.

4E and earlier have lower dice for monsters and weapons, and Rogues are limited to 7th level. Original Monsters! Monsters! (M!M!) is 4E variant. Citizens originate in M!M!... but are different in 7.0.

5.0 is the 25 year baseline. M!M! 2E is 5E subset, but with only 2 types: Monster and Citizen. Shorter spell list. Loads of monster races with special abilities.

5.5 adds options in the back: skills ala Mercenaries, Spies, & Private Eyes; an additional statistic (WIZ); with the optional SPD stat being made a prime; TARO for stats.

6.0 is a fan job. it's got loads of little differences.

7.0 is essentially a redesign from first principles. Same 8 stats as 5.5 and same basic combat mechanics as 5.X. Spells differ in casting procedures, level requisites, and spell lists. Adds a different skill mechanic, Ken's Talent system. Types are: Warrior, Wizard, Specialist Wizard (4 sub-types), Rogue, Leader, Ranger, Citizen. The Citizen here is different, and less limited than the M!M! one. There is an implied extra type (monster), but that's a debate for another day.

7.5 nerfs the talents, and lessens the experience costs. It's better edited than 7.0, but is essentially the same except for talents and experience costs.

D&D -vs- T&T: Classes & Races

Or, Magic-Users Still Can't Use Swords!

Being a comparison between original edition Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) and 5th Edition Tunnels & Trolls (T&T).

Classes

D&D: Fighting-Man or Fighter
T&T Warriors

Note: these two classes are very similar. This is hardly surprising, since an adventurer with a bad attitude and a sharp blade is a basic and fairly easy archetype to render into most game systems. In D&D a fighting-man's skill is illustrated by his slightly higher and more favorable hit dice progression. T&T takes a slightly different approach, instead allowing armor to provide double the protection when worn by a warrior (and only for warriors). I believe both methods serve their respective systems well. In both systems fighters are unable to cast spells but can fight with pretty much anything they can get their hands on, though T&T does further limit weapon selection with minimum strength and dexterity requirements.

D&D: Magic-User
T&T: Wizard

Note: members of both professions should have high Intelligence, both are limited in weapon selection. Magic works differently in T&T, being psi-based rather than Vancian. Wizards in T&T face limitations on the power of magic spells they may cast based upon their IQ score, a feature added to D&D with the first supplement (Greyhawk). Unlike any pre-1983 edition of D&D the T&T rules also factors strength and dexterity into spell-casting, and allow the wizard class use of armor and shield. Wizards gain the use of the best magic staves, though this ability is shared with the Warrior-Wizard.

D&D: Thief (from Supplement I: Greyhawk)
T&T: Rogue

Note: The rogue is much more in the vein of "almost wizard" per Lieber's Gray Mouser than the Thief. Though limited as to accumulation of magic spells and capped with regard to spell power he can employ, the rogue is very much a spell-caster in T&T. Rogues, unlike thieves, have no rules-based thieving skills listed, just a stated mandate to live best by their wit and luck.

D&D: Elf
T&T: Warrior-Wizard

Note: the elf, as originally presented, was a rather odd character. He could be a mage or a fighter for an adventure, but not both simultaneously. As written an elf serving as fighter was only a fighter and unable to cast spells, and elf magic-users could not wear armor or use swords. Whereas the warrior-wizard is both classes at once. They suffer some limitations to both classes, but overall function rather effectively. By the time 5th Edition T&T (the rules used for this comparison) come about, the W-W is limited by ability score requirements. The W-W gains a bonus, smaller than that for full warriors, to their armor protection.

Further note the similarities between the rogue and the warrior-wizard classes. The rules go so far as to state the latter is what the former tended to evolve into (case 2.11.3), but as a tyro to these rules it seems to me both still have their places. I would play a rogue as the traditional sneak and the warrior-wizard as the mage filled with battle-lust (Tenser, anyone?).

Races

D&D: humans, dwarves (and gnomes), elves,  hobbits (renamed halflings in later editions)
T&T: humans, dwarves, elves, fairies, hobbits, leprechauns (and weres)

Note: while technically OD&D doesn't have "race as class" one sees in other pre-1983 editions of the game, it does practically. Dwarves can be fighting-men, as can hobbbits; while both are limited in progression. Neither can be anything else. Elves are an odd mix of fighting-man and magic-user almost everyone house-rules. Only humans can be anything.

On the other hand, in T&T every race, with the exception of leprechaun, can be any class. Even the warrior-wizard, though tough to qualify for, is attainable by all. Players can be were-creatures, werebears and werewolves are specifically mentioned, and allowed to remain under player control. Leprechauns are excepted because of their size rather than race or class, leaving a loophole for a clever player to exploit. At least I, as referee, reward clever play and I assume most others do as well.

In both systems, fighters are unable to cast spells, while wizards are poor at martial skills (though T&T's wizard has a bit of an edge in combat over the D&D magic-user). T&T has no cleric class though the wizard does have healing and curative magicks. Both have a stealthy class, and both have a combination of warrior/wizard, though the D&D version is rather clumsily implemented and (some feel) poorly explained.*

Humans: are the baseline in D&D, able to be a member of any class. T&T uses a similar idea, but rather than the various special powers such as infravision or secret door spotting, this game instead adjusts the ability scores per race chosen. Humans use ability scores as rolled, all other kindred (the T&T equivalent of the demi-humans) adjust some scores upward and others downward. Since ability scores play a much greater roll in every aspect of T&T, this represents some significant differences in the races.


-----
*I've never had an issue with it. It is sparsely explained but what one needs is there. It's just that most folks don't like the explanation. Particularly in light of the PC Class the elf eventually evolved into.