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)
-   -   The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=156467)

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 01:02 PM

The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
The Immovable Foundation-Stone of TFT

As new approaches to defining a TFT Character are suggested and presented by their respective independent re designers to the forum members for purposes of evaluation and feedback - along with the associated sub-systems which attempt to redesign how Talents and Spells are assigned to a character in order to avoid the Conan-the-Scholar and Merlin-the-Muscleman effect - I feel it may be important to take some time to examine some fundamental mathematical realities which are at the foundation of the TFT design.

The original premise, as stated in Melee, was simple, elegant, and satisfied within it's originally intended scope and purpose.

As originally published in Melee: "... thus each figues begins with a total of 24 points - 13 to ST and 11 to DX, or any other combination adding to 24." - Jackson, Steve. "Character Creation." In The Fantasy Trip: Melee, p5. Austin: Metagaming, 1977.

The Character Creation premise under the Melee definition could be expressed Algebraically as: [(a+b)=(b+a)]=24.

To best illustrate the premise, a coin will be used as an example.

The original premise contained three Defining Key Concepts, being:
1)"... each figure begins with a total of 24 points..." (Example: a Coin),
and,
2)"... or any other combination adding to 24." [(H,T)=24=(T,H)],
and,
3) "... combination ...". noun 1. a joining or merging of different parts or qualities in which the component elements are individually distinct.
{[(H)+(T)]=24=[(T)+(H)]}

If one were to consider only concepts 1 and 2 together, and independent of 3, we might reasonably arrive at the understanding stated as: 24 points is the sum expression of the values belonging to an individual and indivisable character - of which ST and DX are NOT truly independent values and separate unto themselves, nor are they modular-sectional parts of your character - but is simply stated as:

"...a unified two-tiered description of one character."

The Commutative Law of Addition (a+b=b+a) which was stated as part of the original premise of the character definition would seem to demand this be so. After all, the head and the tail of a coin, are NOT independent values unto themselves, but merely the obverse and reverse descriptions of one individual and indivisible single coin.

Or so it might seem.

The "Commutative Coin" rational sounds convincing until we consider Key Concept 3:

Combination: noun. 1. a joining or merging of different parts or qualities in which the component elements are individually distinct." Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

If one focuses on the first part of the definition as the qualifier, "joining or merging", the Commutative Coin rational would still stand.

However, if we shift our attention to the second part of the definition as the qualifier, we would be focusing on: "individually distinct".

This could reasonably lead one to an understanding that ST and DX are individually distinct elements which are unique modular-sectional parts of a character, which are then described as 24 points in sum as a total; whereas: total, being defined as: (a sum + b sum)=c total.

ST and DX when viewed from this Independent and "Individually-Distinct" perspective - such as when attempting to redesign how Talents and Spells are assigned to a character - are treated as unique residual values, often as a result under the operation of subtraction; and occurring when one of these variables is subtracted from the whole to reveal the other.

The Individually-Distinct Understanding perspective is the inverse of the Commutative Coin Understanding perspective.

The Individually-Distinct Understanding perspective is also the usual understanding employed by independent re-designers when trying to solve for the Conan-the-Scholar and Merlin-the-Muscleman problem.

Problems begin to arise when employing the "Individually-Distinct" perspective - or any of it's various disguised permutations, no matter how heavily camouflaged, or finely separated in form-and-format, they may be - for the very simple reason that the principles of mathematics informs us by declaring that:

"The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

Some independent re-designers put their talent, time, and effort into developing systems and sub-systems for The Fantasy Trip which are - if one looks deep enough - invariably based around the central-premise of bifurcating (dividing) Talents and Combat Skills into some form of independent sub-attribute system and out from under the original attribute which governed it. This amputation is done so a specific Talent or Combat Skill is no longer directly linked to the governing attribute to which it was assigned in the original premise.

All this is done, in an attempt to stay (stop) increases of the ST or DX attribute on a commutative level, so that the new sub-stat can be defined and grow independently; or, to eliminate having to directly increase the ST or DX attribute in order to accommodate an increase or adoption of a new Talent or Combat Skill. (i.e. Solving for Conan-the-Scholar and Merlin-the-Muscleman).

Taking smaller things out of, and away from, a larger thing is called subtraction, and:

"The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

This is the first basic problem to this approach in finding a solution to Conan-the-Scholar and Merlin-the-Muscleman; it attempts to subtract from the sum (bifurcate and stay) by design.

Therefore, aside from attempting to by-pass the laws of mathematics,

The Second Basic Problem with these approaches are:

Much like a gambling-system which is built upon a gambling-fallacy, or which attempts to simply dazzle with detail - they are ALL guaranteed to break-down at some point and hit the mathematical-wall - they will invariably exhibit their own unique problems and quirks which will eventually manifest over time and with growth.

Again, this is simply because:

"The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

The Third Basic Problem with these approaches is that they can be operationally incredibly detailed, and/or highly complex.

This is in direct contrast to:

"the original premise, as stated in Melee, was simple, elegant, and satisfied within it's originally intended scope and purpose."

Therefore, no matter how fantastic a new redesign may be in it's own right, it will not fit the description of the original premise; nor will it fit the mathematical statement at the very heart of TFT; and therefore it can never qualify in terms of consistency and continuity as TFT in form, feel, and flow.

The question then becomes one of:

"If a re-designer cannot subtract nor divide from the original premise [(a+b)=(b+a)]=24, because "The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division.", what can be done to enhance the system?

You can add.

You can add, but you cannot subtract; the Principles of Mathematics will arrest your efforts for attempting to break the Commutative Law of Addition.

In 1979, Wizard was published and introduced the concept of IQ to accommodate the addition of spells into the combat arena; and occupied the:

The Third Side of the Commutative Coin.

Some may decry: "There is no third side to a coin!!!"

Some may feel this little treatise I am presenting is proof-positive of what you have always suspected, that this Jim Kane guy is really on the edge.

And that, is precisely where a person can find the third side of a coin;

On it's edge.

The introduction of the IQ attribute added a third value to the definition and sum of a character, and with it, an expansion to the premise was stated as: "Thus, each figure begins with a total of 32 points - for instance, 9 ST, 12 DX, and 11 IQ." - Jackson, Steve. "Creating a Figure." In The Fantasy Trip: Wizard, p3. Austin: Metagaming, 1979.

This newly re-stated Character-creation premise under the Wizard definition could be expressed mathematically as: [(a+b+c)= (c+b+a)]=32, from a Commutative Law of Addition perspective;

or,

Building directly onto of the original Melee premise as: [(a+b)+c=c+(b+a)] from an Associative Law of Addition perspective.

Or,

with accent on "individually distinct" {[(a)+(b)+(c)]=[(c)+(b)+(a)]}

Perhaps an analogue from the basic rules of punctuation would best illustrate the possible implications when translated into written English, as:

1) "What's that in the road ahead?"

versus

2) "What's that in the road, a head?"

As an aside, one has to wonder if it is by design or coincidence that the word: Parenthesis, has the word: Thesis, "put inside" of itself; curious, no?

The whole situation begins to very sound similar to the Commutative Coin Perspective versus the Individually-Distinct Perspective.

How much impact did altering the original premise as stated in Melee with the newly expanded premise as stated in Wizard change what the absolute definition of a TFT character actually is, I cannot say.

I do know however that the math reveals that the premise did change mathematically with the release of Wizard.

Since TFT is not a game of Swords & Sorcery, but is actually a game of mathematical Premises & Probabilities masquerading AS Swords and Sorcery, how much can be added to the existing equation?

For me, I would say the most correct answer would be found somewhere between: "Just enough, and no more than that." - if that helps.

So what is "The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are built"?

To that question, I would answer:

"The Immovable Foundation-Stone of TFT is the original Melee premise, of course; which is an argument which cannot reconcile itself." he stated arithmetically.

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 01:16 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165227)
The Immovable Foundation-Stone of TFT

...

"The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

...

"If a re-designer cannot subtract nor divide from the original premise [(a+b)=(b+a)]=24, because "The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division.", what can be done to enhance the system?

You can add.

...

Oh yeah? I counter with The Philosophical Revelations of Sinistar. http://onastick.net/drew/sinistar/

:D

Actually, I found your analysis interesting because I have avoided splitting TFT attributes.

If I understood your analysis correctly, the philosophically correct solution to Conan the Wizard problem is to add an attribute. Interestingly, my proposed solution was to add a separate attribute - Power - which would be used instead of ST to power spells. Poof, no Conan the Wizard. Of course, that would affect Wizard vs Wizard duels, since the Wizards don't lose hit points as they cast spells, but that seems a minor thing.

This adjustment would not reduce the value of ST to non-wizards. For them, ST does everything it always has. For wizards, it obviously reduces the value of ST -- which is exactly what you need to eliminate Conan the Wizard.

As an aside, my concern with allowing 2:1 talent points is more due to my desire to ensure strongly defined character archetypes, like Fighter, Thief, Wizard, etc. Providing more talent points blurs those distinctions in my opinion.

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 01:27 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165237)
Oh yeah? I counter with The Philosophical Revelations of Sinistar. http://onastick.net/drew/sinistar/

:D

Actually, I found your analysis interesting because I have avoided splitting TFT attributes.

If I understood your analysis correctly, the philosophically correct solution to Conan the Wizard problem is to add an attribute. Interestingly, my proposed solution was to add a separate attribute - Power - which would be used instead of ST to power spells. Poof, no Conan the Wizard. Of course, that would affect Wizard vs Wizard duels, since the Wizards don't lose hit points as they cast spells, but that seems a minor thing.

This adjustment would not reduce the value of ST to non-wizards. For them, ST does everything it always has. For wizards, it obviously reduces the value of ST -- which is exactly what you need to eliminate Conan the Wizard.

As an aside, my concern with allowing 2:1 talent points is more due to my desire to ensure strongly defined character archetypes, like Fighter, Thief, Wizard, etc. Providing more talent points blurs those distinctions in my opinion.

No my friend Ty, I think you might want to go over the thing again, and see that adding an attribute as you describe as Power would have to come from a bifurcation of the ST stat as stated in the original Melee premise AND violate the Commutative Laws; and as stated: "The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

That's not me speaking, that is Arithmetic Law speaking.

The difference is when SJ added IQ it wasn't in any way related to ST or DX, that is why it worked. Your Power stat would have to come from ST, and ST already exists in the original premise' so you would have to bifurcate ST to create Power; if you bifurcate, then you violate the original premise. SJ did not bifurcate anything - it was a clean add.

71. That is not the solution to Conan-the-Scholar. Go back to the OP (1), or flee (142). A little Death Test humor for you LOL!

Chris Rice 03-14-2018 02:21 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Another solution is to change the means of character development (power increase) from attribute increase to some other means such as hero points or some other method. That has been my approach.

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 02:25 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rice (Post 2165263)
Another solution is to change the means of character development (power increase) from attribute increase to some other means such as hero points or some other method. That has been my approach.

That's a good approach for you Chris, but you do realize that you are stating a whole new premise, yes?

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 02:31 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165248)
No my friend Ty, I think you might want to go over the thing again, and see that adding an attribute as you describe as Power would have to come from a bifurcation of the ST stat as stated in the original Melee premise AND violate the Commutative Laws; and as stated: "The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

That's not me speaking, that is Arithmetic Law speaking.

The difference is when SJ added IQ it wasn't in anyway related to ST or DX, that is why it worked. Your Power stat would have to come from ST, and ST already exists in the original premise' so you would have to bifurcate ST to create Power; if you bifurcate, then you violate the original premise. SJ did not bifurcate anything - it was a clean add.

71. That is not the solution to Conan-the-Scholar. Go back to the OP (1), or flee (142). A little Death Test humor for you LOL!

Heh.

<shrug> Well, that's the best way I can come up with to fix the Conan the Wizard problem with as little disruption to the rest of the system as possible.

And I posit that in the TFT world, ST is already effectively bifurcated. Sorta. Heroes use ST for 2 things - determining the size weapon they can use and absorbing damage. Wizards use ST for 3 things - powering spells, absorbing damage and determining the size weapon they can use. Yet ST costs the same for both heroes and wizards. Also, see my note below about how ST has had additional benefits bestowed on it, yet the "cost" has remained the same.

By splitting the power function out, ST now does the same thing for both Wizards and Heroes. And, you're doing the two things that need to be done (in my opinion).

First, you're removing the main incentive for Wizards to raise their ST to high levels. And you're doing this without having to mess with the magic system (other than replace "ST" with "PW").

Second, you're NOT reducing the value of ST to Heroes.

The second point is why I've resisted the common suggestion to add a "Health" attribute. While it makes ST far less useful to Wizards (thereby addressing the Conan the Wizard problem), it also makes ST much less useful to heroes. Which has the unintended effect of making DX even more valuable than ST, comparatively. This is already an issue in TFT; adding a health attribute makes it worse.

Besides, in Melee, ST was presumed to be as valuable as DX - which is why they cost the same. But when Wizard came out, ST received an additional advantage - it could be used to power spells. Then, in ITL, ST was given an additional advantage - at high enough levels, armor restricted you less (and you could use 2 handed weapons with 1 hand). Yet ST "costs" the same as it did in Melee, despite being more useful. So does the Law allow you to increase the uses (and therefore the value) of ST?

The only other low-footprint solution I can think of is to use IQ to power spells. But this would eliminate the "power vs. knowledge" dilemma that wizards currently have (and that I think is a Good Thing).

Oh, and if I added the PW attribute, I'd still only give starting characters 8 additional points (or whatever the applicable current number is).

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 02:43 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165268)
ST is already effectively bifurcated. Heroes use ST for 2 things - determining the size weapon they can use and absorbing damage. Wizards use ST for 3 things - powering spells, absorbing damage and determining the size weapon they can use.

Yes we use ST to GOVERN the max weapon, GOVERN HTH Barehand Damage, Fatigue. etc. BUT can you independently alter any of those thing out of relation to the other? If not, they are not "bifurcated", as the others do not "stay" - that's how you can tell what is, and what is not.


Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165268)
First, you're removing the main incentive for Wizards to raise their ST to high levels. And you're doing this without having to mess with the magic system (other than replace "ST" with "PW").

Hang on, I only presented the problem, and the arguments, not any solutions - go back and re-read, to check me

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165268)
The second point is why I've resisted a "Health" attribute. While it makes ST far less useful to Wizards (thereby addressing the Conan the Wizard problem), it also makes ST much less useful to heroes. Which has the unintended effect of making DX even more valuable than ST, comparatively..

Well, obviously HT had to come from somewhere,.. and it would be silly to use DX, so the default is ST, and if you bifurcate ST to create HT, you violate the original premise by taking something out, and if you take something out, you violate the Commutative Law which states that is does not work for subtraction.. and round and round it goes....

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 02:47 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165248)
No my friend Ty, I think you might want to go over the thing again, and see that adding an attribute as you describe as Power would have to come from a bifurcation of the ST stat as stated in the original Melee premise AND violate the Commutative Laws; and as stated: "The Commutative Laws of Mathematics DO NOT work for either subtraction nor division."

That's not me speaking, that is Arithmetic Law speaking.

The difference is when SJ added IQ it wasn't in anyway related to ST or DX, that is why it worked. Your Power stat would have to come from ST, and ST already exists in the original premise' so you would have to bifurcate ST to create Power; if you bifurcate, then you violate the original premise. SJ did not bifurcate anything - it was a clean add.

71. That is not the solution to Conan-the-Scholar. Go back to the OP (1), or flee (142). A little Death Test humor for you LOL!

For these Laws to be applicable, isn't it necessary that ST and DX be equally valuable, as posited in Melee? And that IQ has exactly the same value as ST and DX, as posited in Wizard? (Or, that the costs assigned to each attribute in Melee and Wizard are accurate?)

If so, then the laws are likely inapplicable, for two reasons.

First, a strong argument can be made that for heroes, DX is more useful than ST, up to a certain point. 2 additional points of ST will allow you to take 2 additional points of damage - once. 2 additional points of DX will allow you to take leather armor, which allows you to take 2 additional points of damage in every attack.

Of course, ST does govern the size weapon you can use. But I'd have a hard time agreeing that 2 additional points of damage done offsets the advantage of wearing leather armor.

Second, ST has been given additional advantages in Wizard - powering spells - and ITL (advantages of Great Strength), yet the cost has remained the same. So either ST cost too much in Melee or it costs too little in ITL. In the former case, the original cost was wrong. In the latter case, ST has been increased in actual value, yet cost has not been increased.

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 03:06 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165275)
For these Laws to be applicable, isn't it necessary that ST and DX be equally valuable, as posited in Melee? And that IQ has exactly the same value as ST and DX, as posited in Wizard? (Or, that the costs assigned to each attribute in Melee and Wizard are accurate?)

Here's the deal in a nut shell. Melee character creation is based on Algebra; that's why I included the formulaic expressions. But to directly your question of equal-value, can you cite where it says "necessary that ST and DX be equally valuable, as posited in Melee"? I want to get on the same page as you, so I can understand your question.

I do know that the stated premise reads: "or any other combination adding to" so that sounds like variable-value, not equal-value; do you see something else, I am missing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165275)
If so, then the laws are likely inapplicable. A strong argument can be made that for heroes, DX is more useful than ST, up to a certain point. 2 additional points of ST will allow you to take 2 additional points of damage - once. 2 additional points of DX will allow you to take leather armor, which allows you to take 2 additional points of damage in every attack.

The only Laws I know of govern the manipulation of numbers as a Mathematical Formula. So I am not seeing how you are tying the concept of the Commutative Law of Addition as it applies to the original premise of character creation, and into the specific weapon/damage/armor rules etc; can you clarify?

O
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165275)
f course, ST does affect the size weapon you can use. But I'd have a hard time agreeing that 2 additional points of damage done offsets the advantage of wearing leather armor.

Do you think it might be more accurate to say ST "governs", as opposed to "affects"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165275)
In any case, ST has been given additional advantages in Wizard and ITL, yet the cost has remained the same.

I totally get what you mean here Ty, but it is outside of the scope of the treatise I presented. That one my friend, is another 2000 word Treatise in my files which I should put up here so we can get into and examine together

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 03:25 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165281)
Here's the deal in a nut shell. Melee is based on Algebra. But to directly your question of equal-value, can you cite where it says "necessary that ST and DX be equally valuable, as posited in Melee"? I want to get on the same page as you, so I can understand your question.

Well, I'm asking, not quoting.

In Melee, the "price" of ST is exactly the same as DX - each point of ST or DX costs one attribute point.

If this is actually true (i.e., a point of ST and a point DX have equivalent utility in Melee and Wizard) then the "cost" assigned to ST and DX is accurate.

And then any reduction of the utility of ST will reduce the utility or value of ST. Which would then make the cost inaccurate.

Quote:

I totally get what you mean hear Ty, but it is outside of the scope of the treatise I presented. That one my friend, is another 2000 word Treatise in my files which I should put up here so we can get into and examine together
I don't think I have the spare brain cells for it. I think that you make a good point - assuming I understand correctly - that if you take something away from ST, you make ST less valuable. This then invalidates a key concept of TFT - that all attributes have equivalent value.

My argument is that the original "price" of ST in Melee/Wizard may not accurately reflect its actual utility/value.

Plus, the ITL additions to ST will increase the utility/value of ST. If ST was accurately priced in Melee/Wizard, this addition will render that pricing invalid.

Finally, I am asserting that splitting Power from ST will have no effect on the value of ST to heroes, which is a Good Thing.

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 03:48 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165281)
Here's the deal in a nut shell. Melee character creation is based on Algebra; that's why I included the formulaic expressions

If I understand what you are saying, the equation is:

ST + DX + IQ = Attribute Points

So for a beginning character -

ST12 + DX10 + IQ10 = 32 = ST10 + DX12 + IQ10, for instance.

If so, then any change in the actual value of ST will render this equation invalid.

And logically, if you bifurcate ST, you reduce the value of ST. This invalidates a key TFT presumption - that ST, DX and IQ are equivalent in value.

My point is that the presumption is not actually true. The utility/value of ST has been increased in ITL, yet its cost in attribute points has not changed. (Also, the actual comparative value of ST, DX or IQ depends on the type of character - a thief is likely to value DX more than ST for example).

I also assert that breaking Power out of ST has no real effect on the value of ST to heroes. And while it does make ST pretty much useless to Wizards, so what? After all, THAT'S THE GOAL. Plus, Power effectively replaces ST completely for Wizards. 8 points of Power will give a Wizard virtually the same real benefit that he currently gets from 8 points of ST. (Yes, ST governs damage taken. But I think this is balanced out by the fact that casting spells no longer causes the wizard to take damage.)

It's the best solution I can come up with to solve the Conan the Wizard problem. It's an easy change, it solves the problem and it has no effect on heroes. Other solutions - adding Health being the most popular - hurt heroes by making it harder to get tougher and do more damage.

JLV 03-14-2018 03:56 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165227)
The Immovable Foundation-Stone of TFT

...skipped about 8000 words

Too long; didn't read.

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 04:13 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165287)
In Melee, the "price" of ST is exactly the same as DX - each point of ST or DX costs one attribute point.

Okay, 2 things: 1) I have t answer this way - I do not see where in the rules it states anything about relative value of ST and DX, or the concept of any cost associated with the distribution of the 24 VERY FREE points everyone is allotted to distribute across the form of: [(a+b=b+a)]. I am answering you this way on purpose, as I am trying to get you into the perspective of the actual stated premise, and not how we have come to assume we understand the premise - so we can go deeper into the belly of this thing when we are on the same page.

Can we agree the notion of the concept of "cost" is not stated in the Melee rule-set; BUT that is a common interpretation of the rules as is an "assumption via inference" and not a rule, nor stated?

Which leads me directly to: 2) LOL! I suspect you and I both know the approximate quantized value of ST, DX, and IQ; but again, it is outside the scope of the treatise, so I dont want to answer it here and risk a De-rail - so PM me, and I will give you my values there. Lets see how our numbers agree, but not here; okay?
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165287)
I don't think I have the spare brain cells for it. I think that you make a good point - assuming I understand correctly - that if you take something away from ST, you make ST less valuable. This then invalidates a key concept of TFT - that all attributes have equivalent value.

Nope, but you were good about something being violated. The point is you can't take anything away from anything, not from ST or DX without theoretically subtracting,.... and if you subtract to create,... you violate the Commutative Law of Addition which the premise is founded on.

You can only add. But you cant add by taking away,...because the whole thing is built on [(a+b)=(b+a)],.... which is Commutative, and the Arithmetic Law states that the Commutative Law of Addition does not work for Subtraction, and if you cannot subtract to add... where are you?,... round and round it goes.

That's why the Foundational Stone in Immovable,... you see my point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165287)
My argument is that the original "price" of ST in Melee/Wizard may not accurately reflect its actual utility/value.

Again, the price concept is not rule, nor stated anywhere as such, it is assumption through inference; agreed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165287)
Plus, the ITL additions to ST will increase the utility/value of ST. If ST was accurately priced in Melee/Wizard, this addition will render that pricing invalid.

Same answer here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165287)
Finally, I am asserting that splitting Power from ST will have no effect on the value of ST to heroes, which is a Good Thing.

Maybe so, but where did "Power" come from? There is ST, DX, and IQ; so what is the point-of-origin of "Power"?

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 05:11 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165300)
Okay, 2 things: 1) I have t answer this way - I do not see where in the rules it states anything about relative value of ST and DX, or the concept of any cost associated with the distribution of the 24 VERY FREE points everyone is allotted to distribute across the form of: [(a+b=b+a)]. I am answering you this way on purpose, as I am trying to get you into the perspective of the actual stated premise, and not how we have come to assume we understand the premise - so we can go deeper into the belly of this thing when we are on the same page.

Can we agree the notion of the concept of "cost" is not stated in the Melee rule-set; BUT that is a common interpretation of the rules as is an "assumption via inference" and not a rule, nor stated?

Which leads me directly to: 2) LOL! I suspect you and I both know the approximate quantized value of ST, DX, and IQ; but again, it is outside the scope of the treatise, so I dont want to answer it here and risk a Derail - so PM me, and I will give you my values there. Lets see how our numbers agree, but not here; okay?
Nope, but you were good about something being violated. The point is you can't take anything away anything, not from ST or DX without theoretically subtracting,.... and if you subtract to create,... you violate the Commutative Law of Addition which the premise is founded on.

You can only add. But you cant add by taking away,...because the whole thing is built on [(a+b)=(b+a)],.... which is Commutative, and the Arithmetic Law states that the Commutative Law of Addition does not work for Subtraction, and if you cannot subtract to add... where are you?,... round and round it goes.

That's why the Foundational Stone in Immovable,... you see my point?

Again, the price concept is not rule, nor stated anywhere as such, it is assumption through inference; agreed?


Same answer here.

Maybe so, but where did "Power" come from? There is ST, DX, and IQ; so what is the point-of-origin of "Power"?

Obviously I need to review the original post. Oh, and Power is my suggested 4th attribute. Itís used to power spells instead of ST. It would solve the Conan the Wizard problem without adversely affecting heroes. Ironically, I never found the Conan the Wizard issue to be a big deal in my games. BUT...we didnít have that many wizards as PCs in my campaigns.

Chris Rice 03-14-2018 05:14 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165265)
That's a good approach for you Chris, but you do realize that you are stating a whole new premise, yes?

Of course I do realise that Jim. And I think it's unlikely that it will be adopted for TFT2, whatever that becomes, but it's still my preferred methodology. At the moment....

What's been nice to see on these threads is the ideas from many long term players, some of which I'd never thought of before and may adopt myself in the future.

tbeard1999 03-14-2018 05:23 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rice (Post 2165318)
Of course I do realise that Jim. And I think it's unlikely that it will be adopted for TFT2, whatever that becomes, but it's still my preferred methodology. At the moment....

What's been nice to see on these threads is the ideas from many long term players, some of which I'd never thought of before and may adopt myself in the future.

Agreed. I havenít yet heard a suggestion that made me go ďthatís the dumbest thing Iíve read this week.Ē

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 08:25 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165317)
Obviously I need to review the original post. Oh, and Power is my suggested 4th attribute.

Okay, so if you want to considering adding a 4th attribute, first understand how the rules are expressed as the current 3 attributes of ST, DX, IQ = 32. I think most you might want to now how an engine works before they start modifying it, yes?

Well the premise is the Algebraic Engine which drives the TFT character creation. So we need to discover which engine you are going to modify.

Mathematically 3Attributes@32 could be expressed in three ways, it depends on if you think Wizard is an expansion to the Melee rules, or if Wizard restated Melee/Wizard, or if it was the Melee premise which was expanded, jsut as though IQ was there all along. Here how they look for what they really are:


The letters being variable values:

TFT as Melee Premise only [(a+b)=(b+a)] = 24

Now, here comes the addition of the IQ Attribute with Wizard/IQ

TFT as Melee Premise/Wizard expanding {[(a+b)+c]=[c+(b+a)]}=32 ?

or, is it,

TFT as Wizard Restates the WHOLE Premise [(a+b+c)=(c+b+a)]=32 ?

or, is it, {[(a)+(b)+(c)]=[(c)+(b)+(a)]}=32; like 3 independent reels on a slot machine that gives you a total pay-out?

So before you state a premise for 4 Attributes, you should know the which premise of 3 attributes you understand first; logical?

If NO, then just do whatever you want and simply slap that 4th Att on your character anywhere you like, and don't even worry about how it changes the math and the game; being the foundation of the design. Just have at it and have fun.

If YES, the first step you would need to do is to decide which of the three expressions of Melee/Wizard states how YOU understand the 3 ATT TFT premise when taken from a ST DX @24 premise and into a ST DX IQ @32 premise.

We will take it from there when you have decided if Melee is the base with IQ added on top to expand to 3 Atts, or, is it now a whole new base including both together.

Jim

Jim Kane 03-14-2018 08:29 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rice (Post 2165318)
Of course I do realise that Jim. And I think it's unlikely that it will be adopted for TFT2, whatever that becomes, but it's still my preferred methodology. At the moment....

What's been nice to see on these threads is the ideas from many long term players, some of which I'd never thought of before and may adopt myself in the future.

I wouldn't know about what they are doing, but we will find out. Everyone needs to do what they do. That's why in my post, I didn't suggest any solution; I stated the problem, then provided the analysis to the causation of the problem for consideration; so people can work out their own answer for themselves.

Jim Kane 03-15-2018 06:52 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Ty -

For additional comparison:

The algebraic formula for the character creation premise as stated in TFT:ITL could be written as:

32 = {[(8 ST)+(8 DX)+(8 IQ)] / 8}

Being the most up-to-date restatement of the premise.

"... starts with 8 ST, 8 DX, 8 IQ, and 8 EXTRA points to be allotted between any or all of these attributes, as the player chooses. Thus, each human figure begins with a total of 32 points." - Jackson, Steve. "Selecting Attributes." In The Fantasy Trip: In The Labyrinth, p7. Austin: Metagaming, 1980.

As the most recent, and the most specific in the verbiage used in all the previous permutations of the stated premise, I would presume this to be what is most accurate as to what the philosophical view is with regard to the nature of the disconnected/connected nature of the Basic Attributes as they are related/unrelated to each other beyond being variable sums within a shared total.

If the above statement is true, then, the Melee premise and the ITL premise are two different premises; ergo, two different games.

PS - that is as close as I can write the formula given the limitations of the keyboard characters to indicate 8 being distributed across the Basic Attributes accurately - but I think the picture serves as is.

vitruvian 03-15-2018 05:50 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165365)
Okay, so if you want to considering adding a 4th attribute, first understand how the rules are expressed as the current 3 attributes of ST, DX, IQ = 32. I think most you might want to now how an engine works before they start modifying it, yes?

Well the premise is the Algebraic Engine which drives the TFT character creation. So we need to discover which engine you are going to modify.

Mathematically 3Attributes@36 could be expressed in three ways, it depends on if you think Wizard is an expansion to the Melee rules, or if Wizard restated Melee/Wizard, or if it was the Melee premise which was expanded, jsut as though IQ was there all along. Here how they look for what they really are:


The letters being variable values:

TFT as Melee Premise only [(a+b)=(b+a)] = 24

Now, here comes the addition of the IQ Attribute with Wizard/IQ

TFT as Melee Premise/Wizard expanding {[(a+b)+c]=[c+(b+a)]}=36 ?

or, is it,

TFT as Wizard Restates the WHOLE Premise [(a+b+c)=(c+b+a)]=36 ?

or, is it, {[(a)+(b)+(c)]=[(c)+(b)+(a)]}=36; like 3 independent reels on a slot machine that gives you a total pay-out?

So before you state a premise for 4 Attributes, you should know the which premise of 3 attributes you understand first; logical?

If NO, then just do whatever you want and simply slap that 4th Att on your character anywhere you like, and don't even worry about how it changes the math and the game; being the foundation of the design. Just have at it and have fun.

If YES, the first step you would need to do is to decide which of the three expressions of Melee/Wizard states how YOU understand the 3 ATT TFT premise when taken from a ST DX @24 premise and into a ST DX IQ @36 premise.

We will take it from there when you have decided if Melee is the base with IQ added on top to expand to 3 Atts, or, is it now a whole new base including both together.

Jim

Unless you're going to enforce BOTH the Melee ST + DX = 24 AND the Wizard ST + DX + IQ = 32 (NOT 36!), then all the algebraic expressions you provide for (starting) attributes are equivalent and it really makes no difference which you use. We also have to reckon with the fact that ITL introduced the concept that it's NOT truly a completely fungible pool of attribute points, but that different races have different starting values for each attribute, humans starting with 8 in each of ST, DX, and IQ and having 8 additional points to add to any of the three.

Therefore, any proposals for adding fourth or further attributes should probably not start with some assumed a priori mathematical principle (e.g., going from Melee to Wizard they went from 24 with a mean over 2 of 12 to 32 with a mean over 3 of 10.67, so going to four attributes we'll have 40 total for a mean over 4 of 10, or whatever). Instead, depending on what the new attributes do, we would evaluate what their starting values should be for various types of figures (i.e., races, etc.) and whether any additional 'bonus' points are needed at all, on the basis of game balance (hopefully backed up by some actual playtesting).

For example, if the fourth attribute is Power (and it would be nice if it did something other than provide energy for spells - maybe it could have something to do with the potency of one's spells against countermagic or other resistance, or how powerful your spells can be as opposed to how many you can know), then presumably the intent is that wizards will buy up DX, IQ, and PW, leaving ST alone, while other characters will buy up DX, IQ, and ST, leaving PW alone - so 8 'bonus' points might well still be sufficient to spread around your attributes.

But the algebraic formulae upon which you're placing so much weight never really had any purpose other than getting (starting) characters to attribute levels where they could contend against each other pretty fairly.

Jim Kane 03-15-2018 08:37 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vitruvian (Post 2165553)
But the algebraic formulae upon which you're placing so much weight never really had any purpose other than getting (starting) characters to attribute levels where they could contend against each other pretty fairly.

Actually, the point-and-purpose of the dialog is to determine the philosophy behind the Desinger's Premise - expressed algebraically - from a perspective of game-design; so that postulated modifications to the rules-set can be evaluated to determine if they are in-concert with that same philosophy; all in an effort to preserve consistency of form, function, flow, fun, and feel.

Obviously one cannot do that, unless and until, that philosophical design question is answered.

In short, it's not a rules discussion - as your answer attempts to relate it with - but rather, it's a discussion of game-design premises and philosophies; and that might explain why you failed to understand why there is the existence of "so much weight" on the algebraic formula in question and under examination.

I hope I was able to make things clearer for you.

PS - Your Member Name is quite apropos to the topic we are "dissecting", eh? Also, consider this: Many times a man and woman get into a car, which "never really had any purpose other than" to take them to the drive-in movies,... BUT they come back with a baby, nonetheless. Consequence is often NOT the result of original intent, BUT it must must be dealt with AND defined - for the simple fact the "IT" exists.

JLV 03-15-2018 09:12 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Why not just ASK the designer?

Jim Kane 03-15-2018 09:55 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2165595)
Why not just ASK the designer?

I would love too, but it seems like he hasn't been on lately to ask. Besides, I am still waiting for an answer to another question I asked him sometime ago. I have a feeling he might be real busy with re-editing at this time. So, when the time is right, I shall indeed take it the source for the answer.

JLV 03-15-2018 10:04 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
I will virtually guarantee he reads everything on here. He certainly did on the Ogre forum when that was in the works...even if he didn't interject much.

I think he likes to see how all the foam settles out on a lot of these discussions, and figures if he says anything he might inadvertently shut down the conversation -- which he doesn't want to do as long as there is a chance he can learn something from it.

Jim Kane 03-15-2018 10:17 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2165615)
I will virtually guarantee he reads everything on here. He certainly did on the Ogre forum when that was in the works...even if he didn't interject much.

I think he likes to see how all the foam settles out on a lot of these discussions, and figures if he says anything he might inadvertently shut down the conversation -- which he doesn't want to do as long as there is a chance he can learn something from it.

Sound very Logical, and what I would likewise do in the same position.

Jackal 03-16-2018 11:57 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Two thoughts:

1) I seriously doubt Mr. Jackson had arithmetic laws in mind when devising ST & DX, as interesting as Jim's analysis is.

2) Some of us have WAAAAAY too much free time on our hands!

Cheers!

JLV 03-16-2018 12:42 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 2165733)
Two thoughts:

1) I seriously doubt Mr. Jackson had arithmetic laws in mind when devising ST & DX, as interesting as Jim's analysis is.

2) Some of us have WAAAAAY too much free time on our hands!

Cheers!

LOL! I have to agree here. I can't imagine him sitting down and working out obscure mathematical formulae for something that appears to be quite clearly based on an intense desire to organize the D&D random generation method and give players some choices.

(In fact, I'm willing to bet that he originally based the Melee game concept on ST and DX because he felt these were the only two D&D characteristics that mattered in a fight and were therefore the only two he needed to deal with -- the other attributes would just sort of sit there and not interfere. Remember, he stated that the game originated with a desire to make D&D combat more satisfying...)

Jim Kane 03-16-2018 12:52 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 2165733)
Two thoughts:

1) I seriously doubt Mr. Jackson had arithmetic laws in mind when devising ST & DX, as interesting as Jim's analysis is.

2) Some of us have WAAAAAY too much free time on our hands!

Cheers!

Only he could say. But his educational background is not only in Probability and Statistics, but also Law - that a fairly high-level of mental training; I would be more surprised if he wasn't using it.

Speaking of Law School, did you ever notice how "lawerly" TFT reads compared to other rules-sets?

LOL!! Jack - You must not be aware that I am an exceptionally fast typist, and i have been thinking about these things we discuss here for 40 years,... that's a LOT of time in building up Fred Flinstone traction LOL!

Jim Kane 03-16-2018 12:57 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2165749)
LOL! I have to agree here. I can't imagine him sitting down and working out obscure mathematical formulae for something that appears to be quite clearly based on an intense desire to organize the D&D random generation method and give players some choices.

(In fact, I'm willing to bet that he originally based the Melee game concept on ST and DX because he felt these were the only two D&D characteristics that mattered in a fight and were therefore the only two he needed to deal with -- the other attributes would just sort of sit there and not interfere. Remember, he stated that the game originated with a desire to make D&D combat more satisfying...)

LOL!! You guys are killing me here LOL!

I would bet that your bet is a good bet to make JVL.

After all Melee was an after-market "Patch" for D&D's combat system. So I suppose the idea was, just like dropping into Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival for the overland adventuring, one would drop-into Melee for the combats - pre-Holmes Blue Book D&D

JLV 03-17-2018 01:18 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165755)
I would bet that your bet is a good bet to make JVL.

Erm...just for the record, it's "JLV"... ;-)

Jim Kane 03-17-2018 03:27 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2165877)
Erm...just for the record, it's "JLV"... ;-)

Right, sorry there JLV,

miJ

tbeard1999 03-17-2018 07:02 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2165877)
Erm...just for the record, it's "JLV"... ;-)

Uh, .38, .39, whatever it took.

(Classical Reference).

Jim Kane 03-17-2018 07:47 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165905)
Uh, .38, .39, whatever it took.

(Classical Reference).

Hey now! I resemble that comment! LOL!

tbeard1999 03-17-2018 12:59 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165753)
Speaking of Law School, did you ever notice how "lawerly" TFT reads compares to other rules-sets?

If you mean that the rules were written pretty concisely and specifically (by 1981 RPG standards) I agree. However, I'd give the prize for legalistic writing to SPI's Dragonquest.

Jim Kane 03-17-2018 05:08 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165962)
If you mean that the rules were written pretty concisely and specifically (by 1981 RPG standards) I agree. However, I'd give the prize for legalistic writing to SPI's Dragonquest.

Yes, concise and specific. That is exactly how I mean it. There is a particular mind-set with which the concepts of law are written in an attempt to avoid ambiguity as much as possible, while addressing consequence as a residual effect of action and inaction accounted for. I think that, in addition to SJ's writing-style, is a large part of why the rules-set is a pleasure to read for the mind AND the mind's-eye.

JLV 03-18-2018 12:22 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165888)
Right, sorry there JLV,

miJ

I see what you did there! ;-)

JLV 03-18-2018 12:28 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165962)
If you mean that the rules were written pretty concisely and specifically (by 1981 RPG standards) I agree. However, I'd give the prize for legalistic writing to SPI's Dragonquest.

Yes, but they were a wargame company, and used a very rigid standard rules set (I remember them talking about having the rules basically loaded on a computer, and you could just select what kind of Zone of Control (for example) you wanted (from "rigid" to almost none) and the rule would automatically be downloaded onto the page...in fact, if you ever saw Strategy I, they basically did it that way in that game). Their system was a probable over-reaction to the sort of infamous rules writing that included such gems as "Supply -- pick any supply rule," that appeared in one wargame back in the day...

They tended to be thorough and legalistic in their writing because of all the "rules lawyers" out there who contributed to things like the "warring clubs" era back in the early 60's -- a history of which Simonsen and Dunnigan were all too well aware. Plus, it tended to cut down the amount of time the staff spent answering rules questions mailed in by all of us gamers.

They were actually experimenting with more effective rules writing in places like Ares and S&T at just about the time they went tango uniform thanks to Jim Dunnigan's poor business skills.

Jim Kane 03-18-2018 01:02 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2166088)
Yes, but they were a wargame company, and used a very rigid standard rules set (I remember them talking about having the rules basically loaded on a computer, and you could just select what kind of Zone of Control (for example) you wanted (from "rigid" to almost none) and the rule would automatically be downloaded onto the page...in fact, if you ever saw Strategy I, they basically did it that way in that game). Their system was a probable over-reaction to the sort of infamous rules writing that included such gems as "Supply -- pick any supply rule," that appeared in one wargame back in the day...

They tended to be thorough and legalistic in their writing because of all the "rules lawyers" out there who contributed to things like the "warring clubs" era back in the early 60's -- a history of which Simonsen and Dunnigan were all too well aware. Plus, it tended to cut down the amount of time the staff spent answering rules questions mailed in by all of us gamers.

They were actually experimenting with more effective rules writing in places like Ares and S&T at just about the time they went tango uniform thanks to Jim Dunnigan's poor business skills.

Well see, you are hitting it right on the head. There is a HUGE difference between rules written in LEAGALESE, and what SJ does; which is informing the rules with a style that has a Lawerly-logic imbued into it for clarity, specificity, and contingency accounted for in it's content and presentation.

vitruvian 03-18-2018 11:13 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165582)
Actually, the point-and-purpose of the dialog is to determine the philosophy behind the Desinger's Premise - expressed algebraically - from a perspective of game-design; so that postulated modifications to the rules-set can be evaluated to determine if they are in-concert with that same philosophy; all in an effort to preserve consistency of form, function, flow, fun, and feel.

Obviously one cannot do that, unless and until, that philosophical design question is answered.

In short, it's not a rules discussion - as your answer attempts to relate it with - but rather, it's a discussion of game-design premises and philosophies; and that might explain why you failed to understand why there is the existence of "so much weight" on the algebraic formula in question and under examination.

I hope I was able to make things clearer for you.

PS - Your Member Name is quite apropos to the topic we are "dissecting", eh? Also, consider this: Many times a man and woman get into a car, which "never really had any purpose other than" to take them to the drive-in movies,... BUT they come back with a baby, nonetheless. Consequence is often NOT the result of original intent, BUT it must must be dealt with AND defined - for the simple fact the "IT" exists.

Okay, but even in terms of the starting philosophy, since ITL is part of TFT and ITL includes experience, attribute increases, and races with a different starting sum of attributes, I would say that your algebraic formulae are just one special case within a plethora of available options, and it's not actually the case that ST + DX always equals 24 or ST + DX + IQ always equals 32. Therefore, they are neither immovable nor the foundation stone of TFT, but simply a means to balance the game mechanical effects defined for ST, DX, and eventually IQ.

And my point about your multiple ways of denoting them being algebraically equivalent still stands, too... ;-)

vitruvian 03-18-2018 11:14 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2165365)
Okay, so if you want to considering adding a 4th attribute, first understand how the rules are expressed as the current 3 attributes of ST, DX, IQ = 32. I think most you might want to now how an engine works before they start modifying it, yes?

Well the premise is the Algebraic Engine which drives the TFT character creation. So we need to discover which engine you are going to modify.

Mathematically 3Attributes@32 could be expressed in three ways, it depends on if you think Wizard is an expansion to the Melee rules, or if Wizard restated Melee/Wizard, or if it was the Melee premise which was expanded, jsut as though IQ was there all along. Here how they look for what they really are:


The letters being variable values:

TFT as Melee Premise only [(a+b)=(b+a)] = 24

Now, here comes the addition of the IQ Attribute with Wizard/IQ

TFT as Melee Premise/Wizard expanding {[(a+b)+c]=[c+(b+a)]}=32 ?

or, is it,

TFT as Wizard Restates the WHOLE Premise [(a+b+c)=(c+b+a)]=32 ?

or, is it, {[(a)+(b)+(c)]=[(c)+(b)+(a)]}=32; like 3 independent reels on a slot machine that gives you a total pay-out?

So before you state a premise for 4 Attributes, you should know the which premise of 3 attributes you understand first; logical?

If NO, then just do whatever you want and simply slap that 4th Att on your character anywhere you like, and don't even worry about how it changes the math and the game; being the foundation of the design. Just have at it and have fun.

If YES, the first step you would need to do is to decide which of the three expressions of Melee/Wizard states how YOU understand the 3 ATT TFT premise when taken from a ST DX @24 premise and into a ST DX IQ @32 premise.

We will take it from there when you have decided if Melee is the base with IQ added on top to expand to 3 Atts, or, is it now a whole new base including both together.

Jim

ITL is part of TFT as well, so it's not always 24 or 32.

Jim Kane 03-18-2018 12:43 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vitruvian (Post 2166131)
ITL is part of TFT as well, so it's not always 24 or 32.

That is actually the point. As a TFT figure is not static, but dynamic - after acquiring EP and thereby increasing the value of a given attribute. In order to properly channel the expression of the root-power in back of a figure THROUGH the channels we call Attribute, we must understand the specific mathematical relations from a commutative, associative, and distributive perspective.

For if not, we will continue to suffer break-down in the form of distortion (i.e. Conan-the-Scholar) at the higher-levels.

The key is in the revelation that the attribute itself is NOT the source of the power over the trait it governs, but rather, attribute is only a CHANNEL for the root-power to manifest as a specific trait - which in turn only serves to describe and put a mathematical value on the root-power when channeled through attribute to an end source for expression in game-terms (i.e. Power in Combat as ST).

Your da Vinci Avatar and Member Name has caused me to undertake an even deeper pondering on the matter since your first post to me - and acted as a catalyst.

Therefore, I am in-process of composing a completely "non-math" oriented treatise; in which I will attempt to convey - through purely narrative means - the reason why we can never satisfactorily solve for Conan-the-Scholar, unless and until we can first define the underline algebraic premise - which may then reveal the proper routing algorithm for a TFT figure - without a total game-system overhaul... and maybe finally solve for Conan-the-Scholar; AT LAST!

The piece is to be entitled:The Vitruvian Melee Man. I thank you for your interest in my post, as your interaction has served as a potent catalyst in advancing my hypothesis.

I hope you will stand-by for the piece in the interim; and then, join me therein with your most welcome comments and criticisms at that time.

Thanks.

JK

David Bofinger 03-19-2018 07:02 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 2165275)
First, a strong argument can be made that for heroes, DX is more useful than ST, up to a certain point. 2 additional points of ST will allow you to take 2 additional points of damage - once. 2 additional points of DX will allow you to take leather armor, which allows you to take 2 additional points of damage in every attack.

Of course, ST does govern the size weapon you can use. But I'd have a hard time agreeing that 2 additional points of damage done offsets the advantage of wearing leather armor.

In a duel it absolutely does. Consider a duel between
  • 13-11-8 bastard sword, small shield, no armour: damage 2+1, hits stopped 0+1: against opponent below, attacks with DX 11 and does 2-2, MA 10.
  • 11-13-8 short sword, small shield, leather armour: damage 2-1, hits stopped 3: against opponent above attacks with DX 11 and does 2-2, MA 8.
The guy with the extra ST is just better than the one with the extra DX: more hit points, more MA. And the slope of damage versus ST is actually a bit more than 1 so the example is arguably generous.

One reason armour is attractive is that most fights in an RPG involve the heroes winning with tolerable damage. Having armour tends to slow the fight down and minimise the chance it will suddenly get out of hand in a freak event, like a PC death. Also, it's a way to use attributes after the benefits of ST and adj DX have plateaued.

Kirk 03-19-2018 10:11 AM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Bofinger (Post 2166285)
In a duel it absolutely does. Consider a duel between
  • 13-11-8 bastard sword, small shield, no armour: damage 2+1, hits stopped 0+1: against opponent below, attacks with DX 11 and does 2-2, MA 10.
  • 11-13-8 short sword, small shield, leather armour: damage 2-1, hits stopped 3: against opponent above attacks with DX 11 and does 2-2, MA 8.
The guy with the extra ST is just better than the one with the extra DX: more hit points, more MA. And the slope of damage versus ST is actually a bit more than 1 so the example is arguably generous.

One reason armour is attractive is that most fights in an RPG involve the heroes winning with tolerable damage. Having armour tends to slow the fight down and minimise the chance it will suddenly get out of hand in a freak event, like a PC death. Also, it's a way to use attributes after the benefits of ST and adj DX have plateaued.

Other considerations should be projectiles, small creature attacks, swimming, etc. Against a couple of archers with small bows, for instance, the armored character might have the advantage, as with insects, rats, spiders, fire, etc.
Swimming might be disadvantageous.

When choosing a bow to use, the unarmoured character might be at a disadvantage in this little duel, taking a crossbow doing effectively 2-3 every other turn vs. the armoured character's longbow at 1+1 every turn.

The guy with the bastard sword has the option to reduce his armour by dropping his shield and increase his attack to 3-5. The armoured guy can, depending on the situation, strip off his armour to increase his DX for whatever mission might need it.

My point is that the interesting aspect of TFT is that one can do a pure mathematical analysis of weapons, etc. but there are enough variables and game elements that blur what is the "better" character construction. :)

JLV 03-19-2018 12:24 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Which, I think, is EXACTLY the sweet spot Steve Jackson was aiming for when he designed the game. That he achieved it so economically (in terms of both rules and word count) speaks volumes for his skill as a designer...

Kirk 03-19-2018 01:25 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2166367)
Which, I think, is EXACTLY the sweet spot Steve Jackson was aiming for when he designed the game. That he achieved it so economically (in terms of both rules and word count) speaks volumes for his skill as a designer...

Yes, it is why I love TFT so much. And one could game up a ST-11 DX-13 character with only a shield, for instance. He can choose to disengage whenever he wants vs. both DX-11 guys, and the to hit is about 83% vs. 62% for the stronger armourless or similarly armed but armoured guys, quite a significant difference in avg. hits per attack.

All that interesting development option without having to deal with super details of armouring one wrist but not the other, slicing vs. smashing vs. bashing vs. crunching damage, and on.

It someone like more "realistic" fighting engagements, that's fine, but the well-done "wargamey" nature of encounters works just right, while still allowing progress in an adventure beyond the fight.

JLV 03-19-2018 05:31 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
I totally agree. It hit my RPG sweetspot exactly. It was challenging enough tactically without being mind-numbingly detail oriented, and it allowed us to get right on with the roleplaying parts while still feeling the combat was exciting enough to be enjoyable (and not bogging us down in an hour-long combat that actually would occur in about 8 minutes of real time).

All in all, a triumph of designing for effect!

Jim Kane 03-20-2018 12:22 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2166483)
I totally agree. It hit my RPG sweetspot exactly. It was challenging enough tactically without being mind-numbingly detail oriented, and it allowed us to get right on with the roleplaying parts while still feeling the combat was exciting enough to be enjoyable (and not bogging us down in an hour-long combat that actually would occur in about 8 minutes of real time).

All in all, a triumph of designing for effect!

Well said, JLV. I hesitate to think where I would have landed in terms of a suitable FRPG for my style of expression had it not been for that $2.95 tactical-combat game that came in a little plastic baggie.

JK

vitruvian 03-20-2018 12:33 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kane (Post 2166144)
The key is in the revelation that the attribute itself is NOT the source of the power over the trait it governs, but rather, attribute is only a CHANNEL for the root-power to manifest as a specific trait - which in turn only serves to describe and put a mathematical value on the root-power when channeled through attribute to an end source for expression in game-terms (i.e. Power in Combat as ST).

See, that's the exact opposite of what the rules seem to say to me. A certain level of DX can do certain things, same for ST, completely regardless of how that level was generated. It could be by GM fiat as to what those levels should be for a certain encountered creature, monster, or person, it could be by generating a gargoyle thief using the ITL character generation rules, it could be by some other means... but it makes no difference to the effects of the attribute level in the game, according to the game's rules.

Jim Kane 03-20-2018 02:55 PM

Re: The Immovable Foundation-Stone on which TFT Characters are Built
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vitruvian (Post 2166680)
See, that's the exact opposite of what the rules seem to say to me. A certain level of DX can do certain things, same for ST, completely regardless of how that level was generated. It could be by GM fiat as to what those levels should be for a certain encountered creature, monster, or person, it could be by generating a gargoyle thief using the ITL character generation rules, it could be by some other means... but it makes no difference to the effects of the attribute level in the game, according to the game's rules.

I understand what you are saying, and I understand where you are coming from.

As they say: "Been there."

As I stated in my previous response (see above), I will state my full hypothesis in "non-math" terms my forthcoming Trieste: The Vitruvian Melee Man.

In the meantime, here are the basic assumptions I went on:

1) SJ is an exceeding bright man and careful designer; and not likely to use words, terms, and phrases indiscriminately as misnomers - especially with the legal, statistical, and editorial training he acquired before and after attending Rice.

2) The dictionary definition of Attribute is as a noun: n. a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something; and as a verb: v. a piece of information that determines the properties.

3) The dictionary definition of Dexterity is as a noun: n. skill in performing tasks, especially with the hands.

4) The dictionary definition of Strength is as a noun: n. the quality or state of being strong, in particular physical power and energy.

5) The dictionary definition of Intelligence is, as a noun: n. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Think those over for a while, and perhaps it will give you a glimpse into "Where we are going" with regard to what I have shared with you thus far.

Also, you may find it beneficial to bounce what we assume by inference of the rules, against what the rules specifically state in print and the accurate definitions as applied to the terms SJ employed in informing the rules; then take all that, and re-read my original post at the top of the thread.

You may sense your paradigm shifting well before I can post The Vitruvian Melee Man.

I'll hope to see you there, and I will anticipate receiving and fully addressing your comments at that time.

Thanks again for being a catalyst in advancing my hypothesis. As your Member Name served to fill-in the missing factor in completing my hypothesis - which you may, or may not, agree with in the end; and that's okay too.

JK


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.