Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   The Fantasy Trip (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100)
-   -   Placement of Talents in the Rules (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=157573)

Kirk 05-24-2018 12:01 PM

Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
This has bugged me since 1980 whatever, but if I remember properly, at least with the 1st editions of AM/AW/ITL, weren't the Talents listed in ITL?

OK, so a character can be primarily a wizard or a hero, but a wizard can have talents and a hero can have spells. Right.

So it makes sense to put Spells in AW, they have to go somewhere and they are primarily used by wizards.

So it makes sense to put Talents in AM, they have to go somewhere and they are primarily used by heroes.

So why are Talents in ITL???

Chris Rice 05-24-2018 12:16 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Who knows the way Howard Thomson's mind was working back then. I doubt the way the books came out was according to Steve's intentions in any event. As to the future; I think Steve has already hinted that Melee and Wizard will be reprinted with minimal changes - so that means no Talents at all. If the Roleplaying system is reprinted (the Advanced stuff and ITL) I'd expect it all to be in a single book and the Talents will be in that. That's my guess anyway.

JLV 05-24-2018 02:03 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk (Post 2178046)
This has bugged me since 1980 whatever, but if I remember properly, at least with the 1st editions of AM/AW/ITL, weren't the Talents listed in ITL?

OK, so a character can be primarily a wizard or a hero, but a wizard can have talents and a hero can have spells. Right.

So it makes sense to put Spells in AW, they have to go somewhere and they are primarily used by wizards.

So it makes sense to put Talents in AM, they have to go somewhere and they are primarily used by heroes.

So why are Talents in ITL???

I was always under the impression that Advanced Wizard was a beefed up Wizard with more and advanced rules relating to the stuff in Wizard (and the spells for Wizards are in Wizard), Advanced Melee was a beefed up Melee with more and advanced rules relating to the stuff in Melee (and Weapons, Shields, Armor and tactics are in Melee), while In the Labyrinth was supposed to pull them both together and give the overarching rules that tied the disparate elements into one unified whole by adding completely new elements (such as Talents, how to GM, jobs, etc.) to the mix. Seemed pretty straightforward at the time...

Kirk 05-24-2018 04:02 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2178083)
I was always under the impression that Advanced Wizard was a beefed up Wizard with more and advanced rules relating to the stuff in Wizard (and the spells for Wizards are in Wizard), Advanced Melee was a beefed up Melee with more and advanced rules relating to the stuff in Melee (and Weapons, Shields, Armor and tactics are in Melee), while In the Labyrinth was supposed to pull them both together and give the overarching rules that tied the disparate elements into one unified whole by adding completely new elements (such as Talents, how to GM, jobs, etc.) to the mix. Seemed pretty straightforward at the time...

But not really, right? Spells are for wizards, talents are for heroes, each should be handled in AW and AM respectively. ITL should be about what affects both for GMing such as jobs, creatures, etc. Putting talents in ITL is very unsymmetrical and doesn't make sense. One could just as easily have put just the spells in ITL and the elements for GMing with as much sense, since heroes can use spells, just like wizards can use talents.

Skarg 05-24-2018 04:46 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk (Post 2178102)
But not really, right? Spells are for wizards, talents are for heroes, each should be handled in AW and AM respectively. ITL should be about what affects both for GMing such as jobs, creatures, etc. Putting talents in ITL is very unsymmetrical and doesn't make sense. One could just as easily have put just the spells in ITL and the elements for GMing with as much sense, since heroes can use spells, just like wizards can use talents.

Yeah, though it's not just that Talents are in ITL, as ALL character creation is in ITL, and all the character creation should be together, and it sort of makes sense because ITL ties together various considerations about making and running a character, and it kind of makes sense to start reading ITL first if you want a full RPG, and to start with creating a character, and both Wizards and Heroes can have talents (at least Literacy is a good one for Wizards).

I don't think any of ITL/AM/AW stand alone at all:

ITL by itself has no combat system.
AM by itself has no character creation system (and no talents).
AW by itself has neither character creation or a combat system.

but:

ITL + AM is a complete RPG without magic.
AM + Melee is sort of a complete combat game (but the talents are missing).
AW + Wizard is a complete wizardly combat game with some extra campaign stuff.

A player in a campaign run by a GM with all the books might just want to get ITL. A player of heroes only might want to just get ITL + AM. A player of a wizard might want to just get AW.

JLV 05-24-2018 11:37 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk (Post 2178102)
But not really, right? Spells are for wizards, talents are for heroes, each should be handled in AW and AM respectively. ITL should be about what affects both for GMing such as jobs, creatures, etc. Putting talents in ITL is very unsymmetrical and doesn't make sense. One could just as easily have put just the spells in ITL and the elements for GMing with as much sense, since heroes can use spells, just like wizards can use talents.

Personally, I don't mind a looser approach to these things. But maybe that's because I started out in roleplaying in 1975 with White Box D&D and you pretty much HAD to be okay with a loosely organized set of rules (and quite often with no comprehensible rules at all for some things...).

Still, if your point is that the rules could be better organized and integrated, I'm down with that (plus a really good ToC and Index). BUT, having said that, I still prefer Steve's almost conversational style of writing in TFT compared to some of the more "technically correct" but less flavorful writing in things like GURPS or a typical wargame rules set.

Kirk 05-25-2018 11:26 AM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2178185)
Personally, I don't mind a looser approach to these things. But maybe that's because I started out in roleplaying in 1975 with White Box D&D and you pretty much HAD to be okay with a loosely organized set of rules (and quite often with no comprehensible rules at all for some things...).

Still, if your point is that the rules could be better organized and integrated, I'm down with that (plus a really good ToC and Index). BUT, having said that, I still prefer Steve's almost conversational style of writing in TFT compared to some of the more "technically correct" but less flavorful writing in things like GURPS or a typical wargame rules set.

I love the conversational style of the original rules. It's just the organization that could use a little attention. Thinking "Spells" and going to AW, thinking "Talents" and going to AM, oops, it's not there, is annoying, wastes time, and prevents pleasant play. Every person I have introduced the game to has done this exact thing and was equally perturbed by it, besides the lack of a good index for each one.

JLV 05-25-2018 03:23 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
I don't disagree!

Jim Kane 05-25-2018 06:16 PM

Re: Placement of Talents in the Rules
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk (Post 2178308)
I love the conversational style of the original rules. It's just the organization that could use a little attention. Thinking "Spells" and going to AW, thinking "Talents" and going to AM, oops, it's not there, is annoying, wastes time, and prevents pleasant play...

  • YES! SJ's "conversational style" is major and fine part of the TFT Mojo.
  • Rule Book induced whiplash was one of the few, yet major, negatives.

Again, our friend KIRK has hit the nail squarely on the head.

JK

Rick_Smith 05-26-2018 07:59 AM

Fighting Talents in AM?
 
If all of the rules go into one book it is a moot point.

However, assuming that the new TFT is split into three books like the original, I would not mind if the combat talents are repeated in the AM book. With new players needing to look up talents can cause competition to get ahold of iTL. If the fighting talents were duplicated, then often one player could be looking up talents in AM, while others use ITL.

I think that the reason why the talents went into the GM book, was that the talents allowed you to do far more than just fighting.

Warm regards, Rick.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.