What was (is?) Tunnels & Trolls like?

[2D8HP]

The guys I learned Dungeons & Dragons from in the late 1970's, briefly tried Chivalry & Sorcery, which (at the time) was more complex than D&D. Back then there was also a simpler FRPG, Tunnels & Trolls.
What was (is?) T&T like?

[JAL_1138]

If nobody replies after a while, might try posing this question in the Older D&D/AD&D/Other Systems subforum. May have a higher likelihood of a detailed response. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?60-Older-D-amp-D-AD-amp-D-and-Other-Systems

[Stan]

I had only a tiny bit of exposure but I found it an odd duck. You have the 6 abilities of D&D, replacing wisdom with luck. Your hp are your Con. You get pluses to your combat roll. Melee combat is simultaneous, without separate to hit rolls. You roll dice based on your weapon and ability scores and compare the totals of the people fighting. The lower total takes damage equal to the difference, with the damage being absorbed by armor. A large fight is pictured as a scrum - same procedure but the totals for both sides are compared. I haven't played enough or looked into newer versions of the rules but melee seems boring to me as there are no decisions to make within other than whether to run away. There is also missiles and magic to add to the mix though. Spells are powerful but they temporarily reduce strength so you won't cast many in a combat.

Also not a lot of class options, basically a fighter, wizard or a combo of the two.

Compared to Basic D&D, there are lots of types of weapons and armor, with ability score requirements. I get the feeling that a big part of the early game was to get the best picks of weapons and armor for you money and ability scores. Ability scores can go up quite a bit when you level so the best choices will change. My impression is that a big part of the game was risk management dungeon exploration, not combat itself. How far can you go to get a bit of money and leave to get better equipment.

The game also has several solo adventures, no DM needed, which was probably a selling point.

[Jay R]

It was pretty much original D&D, with the serial numbers filed off, written in a more folksy, less pompous style.

[Shining Wrath]

I played it a lot.
It was much simpler. Your constitution was your hit points; you had Luck instead of Wisdom, and some saving throws were made against Luck, which was also the prime statistic for rogues. A monster could be as simple as a single number, the "monster rating (MR)"; you rolled Integer(MR/10)+1 six sided dice to represent the attack, and if the monster took damage you subtracted the damage from the MR (so monsters weakened quickly if you hit them).

[Arbane]

It was pretty much original D&D, with the serial numbers filed off, written in a more folksy, less pompous style.

Judging from the solo modules I dimly remember reading, it was also VERY silly and random in places. (Roll for random buffalo stampede?) One of the standard attack spells was titled Take That, You Fiend, for example.

[Algeh]

I have a copy (which I picked up at used book store in the 90s), but my gaming group never played it. (We mostly played GURPS, with a tendency to choose either SF or present day settings over fantasy ones.)

The main thing I remember about Tunnels and Trolls was that characters were really, really simple (I think it recommended using index cards as character sheets) and it was of the era when a player would often run multiple characters at once rather than try to be "in character" and focus on a single character with complicated motivations, backstory, and personality. Very much a "go in the dungeon, explore a bit, find some stuff, fight some stuff, surviving characters kept for future iterations of the same" school of thought game. It seemed like an attempt to be a lightweight system (all needed rules for both player and GM in one fairly short book) rather than one with a bunch of really specific rules for specific situations.

On the other hand, to a group that mostly plays GURPS most things probably look like lightweight systems with really simple characters....

[wumpus]

On the other hand, to a group that mostly plays GURPS most things probably look like lightweight systems with really simple characters....

That's not what I've heard about Chivalry and Sorcery (the other system the original poster mentioned playing). It was said to make casting a spell a long, drawn out process (and thus keeping magic, well *magic*, I hope).

[2D8HP]

That's not what I've heard about Chivalry and Sorcery (the other system the original poster mentioned playing). It was said to make casting a spell a long, drawn out process (and thus keeping magic, well *magic*, I hope).Op here. Unfortunately I'm just not that cool. I never played C&S.
The guys I learned Dungeons & Dragons from in the late 1970's, briefly tried Chivalry & SorceryThe older guys who taught me D&D, (I was class of 1986, they were '82 to '84) said that they were switching to C&S because it was more "realistic", and I was all excited to try it, and did eventually buy C&S, but before I could play it, they said it was too complicated, and decided to switch to Stormbringer! instead (which they also soon quit, as "just following Elric around is lame"). A slew of other games followed, and I became the guy who kept saying, "Let's just play D&D again". I also recall that another classmate, was into Tunnels & Trolls, which the guys I played with looked down upon as "too simple", so I didn't try T&T, which I now regret.
The only one I know of who is cool enough to have played C&S, D&D, and, T&T is @Jay R:
I But the prize for over-complication is Chivalry and Sorcery, the most lush, vivid, realistic, complete, unplayable mess ever published
it worked great for Sir Cornelius, in Chivalry & Sorcery, in the early 1980s.
It's been decades since I played Chivalry & Sorcery.
Sadly the only "&" game I've played besides Dungeons & Dragons was V&V (Villians & Vigilantes) which I didn't like at all.
C&S, and T&T are on a long list of games that I never played and am curious to try. I also have a long list of games that I have played, but don't want to play again. Of RPG's that I have played and would still play only D&D, Runequest, and Traveller make the cut.

[wumpus]

Op here. Unfortunately I'm just not that cool. I never played C&S.The older guys who taught me D&D, (I was class of 1986, they were '82 to '84) said that they were switching to C&S because it was more "realistic", and I was all excited to try it, and did eventually buy C&S, but before I could play it, they said it was too complicated, and decided to switch to Stormbringer! instead (which they also soon quit, as "just following Elric around is lame"). A slew of other games followed, and I became the guy who kept saying, "Let's just play D&D again". I also recall that another classmate, was into Tunnels & Trolls, which the guys I played with looked down upon as "too simple", so I didn't try T&T, which I now regret.
The only one I know of who is cool enough to have played C&S, D&D, and, T&T is @Jay R:
Sadly the only "&" game I've played besides Dungeons & Dragons was V&V (Villians & Vigilantes) which I didn't like at all.
C&S, and T&T are on a long list of games that I never played and am curious to try. I also have a long list of games that I have played, but don't want to play again. Of RPG's that I have played and would still play only D&D, Runequest, and Traveller make the cut.

Oddly enough, I probably enjoyed playing V&V more than any other game. I'm almost certain it was entirely due to the game master and not the rules (and suspect the game master's knowledge of the rules to be iffy). Of course, I never looked inside the rulebook (you weren't supposed to in those days, and in this case it certainly helped the game if not the book sales).