Flying Buffalo's Legacy - Part 2: Tunnels & Trolls

In the previous installment we learned how Flying Buffalo became a thriving business, but the play-by-mail industry the company helped create wasn't its only innovation. Founder Rick Loomis knew he was on to something when game developer Ken St. Andre's D&D-inspired Tunnels & Trolls role-playing game sold out at Origins in 1975. That was just the beginning. Tunnels & Trolls was the second...

In the previous installment we learned how Flying Buffalo became a thriving business, but the play-by-mail industry the company helped create wasn't its only innovation. Founder Rick Loomis knew he was on to something when game developer Ken St. Andre's D&D-inspired Tunnels & Trolls role-playing game sold out at Origins in 1975. That was just the beginning. Tunnels & Trolls was the second fantasy role-playing game ever created, largely as a response to perceived flaws in in Dungeons & Dragons.

tunnelsandtrolls.jpg

D&D: "Nearly Incomprehensible"

on Peterson retells St. Andre's reaction to Dungeons & Dragons in Playing at the World:
St. Andre first laid eyes on the rules around the same time. He amply qualified as a member of TSR’s target audience: a science-fiction fan, fluent in wargaming, and an early member of the Society for Creative Anachronism’s southwestern branch, the Kingdom of Atenveldt. Nevertheless, his initial enthusiasm for Dungeons & Dragons soon gave way to disappointment. “When I had finished reading I was convinced of several things: (1) that the basic ideas were tremendous, even revolutionary, but that (2) as then written, the mechanics of play were nearly incomprehensible, and (3) that the game rules cost far more than they should, and (4) that 4, 8, 10, 12 and 20-sided dice were too much to bother with.
In response, St. Andre set out to address all these issues, and by doing so introduced several innovations into the role-playing game mainstream. He was in good company. St. Andrew explains in his own words:
Between 1974 and 1980, there must have been 10,000 variants of D & D played all over the country. The first thing any Dungeon Master (this was before the days of the politically correct term Game Master.) would do when starting a gaming session was explain the house rules to his players. My difference was that I wrote my rule changes down and published them as an independent system. So did Dave Hargraves who created Arduin.
Armed with his new version of D&D, St. Andre went to the Arizona State University print shop and had 100 copies made for $60.
That was a lot of money for me at the time. I was out of work and newly married, but I figured I could peddle it to my friends for $1 a copy and get my money back. So I took the chance. Thus, in June of 1975, Tunnels and Trolls became the second ever published fantasy role-playing game in America. I did one thing that I considered very important. I copyrighted the game–got the forms, sent copies to the Library of Congress, paid the $10 copyright fee, and printed my copyright notice in the booklet. The first edition of Dungeons and Dragons was printed without copyright–Gygax and Arneson probably never even thought of it.
St. Andrew still had copies left over, so he gave them to Rick Loomis to sell:
By late July all of my friends had copies, and I still had about 50 left over. In November I saw Rick Loomis, who I knew slightly from having visited his Flying Buffalo (Starweb) business a few times, and I asked him if he’d try to sell the rest on consignment. He took my extra copies to a convention and sold out–it was kind of funny–he was sitting in a booth next to Gary Gygax who was still flacking his first printing of Dungeons and Dragons. T & T was the simpler and cheaper game and it outsold D & D at that convention. Gygax took a dislike to me and Flying Buffalo that endured for years.

Trolling the Game

In Tunnels & Trolls, a character's Constitution acts as hit points, with attributes increasing as the character advances in level (and thus allowing hit points to increase with Constitution). Combat involved damage inflicted rather than attacks rolled; armor absorbed hits rather than avoided taking damage like in D&D. Peterson explains the trade-offs:
By dispensing with an avoidance check, this optimization hugely speeds and simplifies the resolution of combat, though the resulting system is grossly unfair to the lesser side in a conflict (as high rollers take no damage), far too deadly to magic-users and in practice can produce imbalanced outcomes.
Additionally, Tunnels & Trolls rejected the Vancian school of magical memorization endemic to Dungeons & Dragons. The system used spell points derived from the Strength of the magic-user, with each spell gradually depleting the magic-user's spell points with use, reduced by the caster's level. The spells also reflected Tunnels & Trolls' whimsy. The game never took itself too seriously:
The spells themselves bear far more whimsical and obscure names than those of Dungeons & Dragons (for example, “Hidey Hole” makes the party briefly invisible, “Yassa-Massa” ensures the subservience of subdued monsters, “Zingum” transports inanimate objects short distances), and to learn any spells requires first a payment in hard cash (500 gold pieces each for second-level spells) and second an adequate Intelligence score.
Monsters had no statistics, embracing the old school belief that it was on Dungeon Masters to make their own content:
St. Andre mainly slimmed the rules by omitting the vast taxonomic sections which fatten the original Dungeons & Dragons pamphlets. He supplies no statistics for monsters, for example, but instead just a page of instructions on “Monster Making” which contains, in a single paragraph, an enumeration of seventy-some potential dungeon fiends, ranging from fire-breathing dragons to misogynists. Magic items he neglects entirely— aside from an occasional mention in passing of staples like magic swords, he says nothing about them whatsoever. A few pages of charts list the properties of various prosaic and exotic weapons, but rather than provide a glossary on the nature of these implements, the author “decided to let you do that work for yourself in order to save space.”

The Original Fantasy Heartbreaker?

There were other innovations that made St. Andre's marketing savvy prescient of issues that would crop up later with other D&D "fantasy heartbreakers":
St. Andre, however, had the larger ambition to transform his variant into an independent commercial product which he aspired to sell at a price point far lower than Dungeons & Dragons. It is this pioneering audacity that earns Tunnels & Trolls its place to sell the remaining stock in nearby Scottsdale: Rick Loomis, head of the Flying Buffalo play-by-mail game company and publisher of Wargamer’s Information.
Flying Buffalo's tactics did not go unnoticed. TSR served them with a cease and desist, which led to Flying Buffalo removing all reference to "Dungeons & Dragons" from its Tunnels & Trolls advertising. To get around this change but still convey the game's fantasy roots, the phrase "fantasy role-playing game" came into common usage:
Thanks to TSR’s prohibitions, Flying Buffalo and Metagaming became the first companies to market their products as “role-playing games” in the sense that the future game industry would recognize.
In addition to being the second tabletop game that launched damage reduction armor, spell points, and a great deal of humor into the industry, Flying Buffalo created its own genre.

The rapid of development and distribution of Tunnels & Trolls, hot on the heels of Dungeons & Dragons, meant Flying Buffalo and St. Andre could react quickly to the needs of their customers. And one of those needs was the ability to play the game without other players. We'll discuss the launch of the solo gamebook in the next installment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

DM Howard

Explorer
I think the quote from Peterson describing St Andre as "fluent in wargaming" is slightly contradicted by St Andre's self-description:
I was not a miniatures gamer. I had never seen four, eight, ten, twelve, or twenty-sided dice. What’s all this stuff about campaigns?​

That's not to say that familiarity with miniatures wargaming would cure all the incomprehensibilities of the original D&D books, but it would help with some - I know that I find it hard to read in places because it relies on Chainmail, and Chainmail in turn relies on familiarity with a wargaming idiom that I don't have.

That's probably because he means "fluent in wargaming" as in map and cardboard chit wargaming, not miniature wargaming which has subsumed the general term of "wargaming" these days.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Teflon Billy

Explorer
I played T&T a few times in my teens, but man there was just nothing there for me. :/

The aforementioned goofiness was in the exact opposite direction of anything we liked as a group, the combat system was just nonsensical (if you were winning, you were not only going to keep winning, it was going to speed up. And was there a reason to not use missile weapons? They bypassed the opponents fighting altogether if memory serves.

I also recall Dwarf stats for PC's being *distantly* the best.
 


aramis erak

Legend
I played T&T a few times in my teens, but man there was just nothing there for me. :/

The aforementioned goofiness was in the exact opposite direction of anything we liked as a group, the combat system was just nonsensical (if you were winning, you were not only going to keep winning, it was going to speed up. And was there a reason to not use missile weapons? They bypassed the opponents fighting altogether if memory serves.

I also recall Dwarf stats for PC's being *distantly* the best.

Having been in enough SCA Rapier Melees and seen enough SCA Heavy melees, the side that is winning in the first 30 seconds USUALLY wins, and it spirals. T&T's overall dynamic isn't too far from the way it plays out with guys beating each other with wasters.
 

Teflon Billy

Explorer
Having been in enough SCA Rapier Melees and seen enough SCA Heavy melees, the side that is winning in the first 30 seconds USUALLY wins, and it spirals. T&T's overall dynamic isn't too far from the way it plays out with guys beating each other with wasters.

Is that what we're doing with D&D now? Modelling the SCA? :D

I generally have always used D&D to model the fantasy fiction upon which is was (originally) based (appendix n).
 

aramis erak

Legend
Is that what we're doing with D&D now? Modelling the SCA? :D

I generally have always used D&D to model the fantasy fiction upon which is was (originally) based (appendix n).

T&T ain't D&D.

The SCA is the most accessible practical martial art. For what it's worth, having watched video of a few Crown List Melees for Acre, and for some boffer-larps, the results are in fact more simiiar to T&T than D&D. I can't find any video of IFGS...

T&T is, in all its silliness, more realistic than D&D.

D&D has never been realistic - not since day one - but comparing it to the SCA is a viable, valid, and easily done check on how fantastic is it...

Oh, and most of my SCAdian friends play D&D, and also other RPGs. Amongst them: RuneQuest (Usually 2nd or 3rd ed), Chivalry and Sorcery (3rd, 4th, or 5th), Pendragon (Any edition), T&T, Traveller (Various editions)... all of which model combat better than D&D in various ways. As one chap put it, "D&D is for the gaije. TROS is for those of us who know the sword"... (TROS = The Riddle of Steel.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Teflon Billy

Explorer
T&T ain't D&D.

The SCA is the most accessible practical martial art. For what it's worth, having watched video of a few Crown List Melees for Acre, and for some boffer-larps, the results are in fact more simiiar to T&T than D&D. I can't find any video of IFGS...

T&T is, in all its silliness, more realistic than D&D.

D&D has never been realistic - not since day one - but comparing it to the SCA is a viable, valid, and easily done check on how fantastic is it...

Oh, and most of my SCAdian friends play D&D, and also other RPGs. Amongst them: RuneQuest (Usually 2nd or 3rd ed), Chivalry and Sorcery (3rd, 4th, or 5th), Pendragon (Any edition), T&T, Traveller (Various editions)... all of which model combat better than D&D in various ways. As one chap put it, "D&D is for the gaije. TROS is for those of us who know the sword"... (TROS = The Riddle of Steel.)

Huh! I wasn't expecting the answer to be "yes, we're modelling the SCA" :/
 



aramis erak

Legend
But perhaps slightly better than it does REH?

Well, no, not really. Cugel learns nothing despite adventures that should have taught him things, save for pressing a spell into his mind then using it repeatedly. It's taken 10 editions to get one that does Vancian magic in a manner consistent with the first 4 novels.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top