Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ

[David Bofinger]

IQ has a privileged place among TFT attributes because it's the basis of the talent system. This is a major driver of the Conan the genius problem: the only way to describe a character with lots of manual skills is to make them smart. And it feels odd because a lot of the talents aren't about book learning.

So what if talents weren't necessarily based on IQ? JLV proposed making them things you bought independently but here's another idea: have *all* attributes contribute a different kind of talent point, and different talents require the talent points from different attributes. Ax/Mace is a strength-like talent, it requires two ST worth of talents. Acrobatics requires 1 ST (for the strength moves) and two DX, Alertness requires two IQ. It turns out there's a lot more DX-like and IQ-like talents than ST-like talents.

This has, in principle, some interesting characteristics. A character who has more DX and less IQ will also know a lot of DX-like things and not many IQ-like things. Characters can't learn everything - that might be intentional in TFT, I don't know. But the limits are more likely to be what a player wants than they are in standard TFT. And characters get forced to buy some things they might otherwise not look at.

I grabbed a list of talents and assigned them to attributes. This didn't always go smoothly: what attribute should Sex Appeal have, for instance? But it mostly worked. I had to decide how many talent points everyone should have, I figured it should be a bit more than you have in regular TFT (because you have less choice now, and I'd made a few talents more expensive) so I gave a number of talent points equal to the attribute minus six.

I generated some characters to see how they worked and they kind of did and kind of didn't. A character like the Roman in Melee, who burns a lot of his DX on armour, is going to have lots of DX-like talents which might not make much sense - but then, playing a weak dextrous character so you can wear armour always was one of TFT's odder features. It looked like high ST characters would run out of ST-talents they really wanted, though ST talents are often in demand for starting characters.

Examples: Talents are priced (xyz) where x is ST, y is DX, z is IQ.

Swordsman: ST 13, DX 11, IQ 8: Crossbow (010), Knife (010), Shield (100), Sword (110), Horsemanship (001), Running (200), Sex appeal (101), Unarmed Combat I (200): Talent cost (732) of (752), he could add Fast Draw (020) or save the rest.

Thief: I tried generating a non-starting thief with a good mix of thief-like talents. Knife (010), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Climbing (100), Detect Traps (002), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Acrobatics (120), Remove Traps (010), Thief (020). The total cost is (288) so we're looking at ST 8, DX 14, IQ 14. The last one is a real problem, I think.

I thought I'd try a hunter-gatherer, loosely based on an Australian Aboriginal concept. Knife (010), Pole weapons (110), Boomerang (010), Spear thrower (010), Alertness (002), Silent movement (020), Mimic (011), Naturalist (002), Tracking (001), Woodsman (001) for a total cost (168) so again he has to be IQ 13. It doesn't really work, he's got too many IQ demands and not enough ST demands, but maybe it wouldn't in regular TFT either and maybe it can be fixed and maybe it's just because being a guy like this implies being pretty good at perception rolls.

OK, let's try the big one: Conan the Cimmerian. I'm not an expert on the stories so some of the talents are guesses. Ax/Mace (200), Knife (010), Pole Weapons (110), Shield (100), Sword (110), Quarterstaff (100), Horsemanship (001), Languages (001), Literacy (001), Running (200), Seamanship (100), Sex Appeal (101), Swimming (100), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Charisma (111), Climbing (100), Detect Traps (002), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Warrior (110), Veteran (120), Fencing (021), New Followers (002), Tracking (001), Unarmed Combat I (200), Expert Horseman (002), Tactics(001), Unarmed Combat II (110), Strategist (002), Ambush/Assassination (020), Unarmed Combat III (101), Unarmed Combat IV (011). The price tag is (19 15 26) in other words to buy all this he needs ST 25, DX 21, IQ 32. The IQ aspect is still broken, just not as badly broken as standard TFT. Giving him three languages didn't help, lots of perception and willpower skills like Acute Hearing and Horsemanship.

I don't think this idea works, quite. But it's sort of close. And it's very much in the spirit of TFT, starting from the same basic idea but two paths diverge in a forest. If anyone has any ideas I'm listening.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

IQ has a privileged place among TFT attributes because it's the basis of the talent system. This is a major driver of the Conan the genius problem: the only way to describe a character with lots of manual skills is to make them smart. And it feels odd because a lot of the talents aren't about book learning.

So what if talents weren't necessarily based on IQ? JLV proposed making them things you bought independently but here's another idea: have *all* attributes contribute a different kind of talent point, and different talents require the talent points from different attributes. Ax/Mace is a strength-like talent, it requires two ST worth of talents. Acrobatics requires 1 ST (for the strength moves) and two DX, Alertness requires two IQ. It turns out there's a lot more DX-like and IQ-like talents than ST-like talents.

This has, in principle, some interesting characteristics. A character who has more DX and less IQ will also know a lot of DX-like things and not many IQ-like things. Characters can't learn everything - that might be intentional in TFT, I don't know. But the limits are more likely to be what a player wants than they are in standard TFT. And characters get forced to buy some things they might otherwise not look at.

I grabbed a list of talents and assigned them to attributes. This didn't always go smoothly: what attribute should Sex Appeal have, for instance? But it mostly worked. I had to decide how many talent points everyone should have, I figured it should be a bit more than you have in regular TFT (because you have less choice now, and I'd made a few talents more expensive) so I gave a number of talent points equal to the attribute minus six.

I generated some characters to see how they worked and they kind of did and kind of didn't. A character like the Roman in Melee, who burns a lot of his DX on armour, is going to have lots of DX-like talents which might not make much sense - but then, playing a weak dextrous character so you can wear armour always was one of TFT's odder features. It looked like high ST characters would run out of ST-talents they really wanted, though ST talents are often in demand for starting characters.

Examples: Talents are priced (xyz) where x is ST, y is DX, z is IQ.

Swordsman: ST 13, DX 11, IQ 8: Crossbow (010), Knife (010), Shield (100), Sword (110), Horsemanship (001), Running (200), Sex appeal (101), Unarmed Combat I (200): Talent cost (732) of (752), he could add Fast Draw (020) or save the rest.

Thief: I tried generating a non-starting thief with a good mix of thief-like talents. Knife (010), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Climbing (100), Detect Traps (002), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Acrobatics (120), Remove Traps (010), Thief (020). The total cost is (288) so we're looking at ST 8, DX 14, IQ 14. The last one is a real problem, I think.

I thought I'd try a hunter-gatherer, loosely based on an Australian Aboriginal concept. Knife (010), Pole weapons (110), Boomerang (010), Spear thrower (010), Alertness (002), Silent movement (020), Mimic (011), Naturalist (002), Tracking (001), Woodsman (001) for a total cost (168) so again he has to be IQ 13. It doesn't really work, he's got too many IQ demands and not enough ST demands, but maybe it wouldn't in regular TFT either and maybe it can be fixed and maybe it's just because being a guy like this implies being pretty good at perception rolls.

OK, let's try the big one: Conan the Cimmerian. I'm not an expert on the stories so some of the talents are guesses. Ax/Mace (200), Knife (010), Pole Weapons (110), Shield (100), Sword (110), Quarterstaff (100), Horsemanship (001), Languages (001), Literacy (001), Running (200), Seamanship (100), Sex Appeal (101), Swimming (100), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Charisma (111), Climbing (100), Detect Traps (002), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Warrior (110), Veteran (120), Fencing (021), New Followers (002), Tracking (001), Unarmed Combat I (200), Expert Horseman (002), Tactics(001), Unarmed Combat II (110), Strategist (002), Ambush/Assassination (020), Unarmed Combat III (101), Unarmed Combat IV (011). The price tag is (19 15 26) in other words to buy all this he needs ST 25, DX 21, IQ 32. The IQ aspect is still broken, just not as badly broken as standard TFT. Giving him three languages didn't help, lots of perception and willpower skills like Acute Hearing and Horsemanship.

I don't think this idea works, quite. But it's sort of close. And it's very much in the spirit of TFT, starting from the same basic idea but two paths diverge in a forest. If anyone has any ideas I'm listening.

The other design work-around to what you want to achieve is list-out all the talents, Chinese Menu-Style, and assign a variable value/score to each Skill/Talent that is active for the character.

This bifurcates the raw ST from the developed Skill/Talent during the growth of the character; and eliminates the Conan-the-Genius effect.

This was the FASA STAR TREK RPG design concept.

Your approach, and the FASA design both have merit.

But, in terms of FORM and FEEL, The Key Question Remains:

Is it TFT?


P.S. - That was a very nice presentation Dave.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

But, in terms of FORM and FEEL, The Key Question Remains:

Is it TFT?

As with all games, The Key Question is really: "Is it fun?"

Over the course of three decades in the GURPS-sphere, we've learned that staying true to The Old Ways is good for backward compatibility – for continuity – but that on occasion it's necessary to break new ground in the name of ease of use, evocativeness, and game balance . . . all of which are definitions of fun for various people. Nostalgia in itself is fun for a minority! To sell an RPG to a broader constituency, though, you need good answers to "Is this game straightforward to play?", "Does this game provoke interesting adventures and campaigns?", and "Does this game have built-in defenses against player abuse?"

Personally, I see the proposed change as making the game less straightforward, more evocative, and probably more balanced – a net win. The big factor that drove the gamers I hung out with in the late 1970s through mid 1980s away from TFT and toward GURPS in 1985-1986 was "Wow, all the attributes matter equally!" I wouldn't overlook that as a selling point, even if you want to keep my GURPS out of your TFT.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As with all games, The Key Question is really: "Is it fun?"

Over the course of three decades in the GURPS-sphere, we've learned that staying true to The Old Ways is good for backward compatibility – for continuity – but that on occasion it's necessary to break new ground in the name of ease of use, evocativeness, and game balance . . . all of which are definitions of fun for various people. Nostalgia in itself is fun for a minority!TFT.

I don't think that nostalgia is driving the resistance. I don't care for David's solution either, for reasons that have little to do with nostalgia. (It *is* an interesting concept; I just don't care for it as a TFT solution).

I think it's also a tad condescending to presume that nostalgia is driving the critique. Mr. Kane has made numerous detailed and thoughtful TFT posts here. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, it does him (and others here) a disservice to dismiss their critiques as mere nostalgia. I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to be condescending; but it kinda came off that way to me.

Anyhow, I don't care for this solution for the simple reason that its proposed benefits don't outweigh the likely costs (all in my opinion of course).

Benefit - It solves a problem. One that I personally consider to be minor, but other longtime TFT players disagree. So I'll assume arguendo that it's a serious TFT problem.

Costs -

1. It's a fiddly mechanic that will slow character creation down (a TFT strength), as players agonize over the exact right mix of ST, DX and IQ talents.

2. It represents a significant and jarring change from TFT.

3. There are several less complex alternatives which solve the problem better in my opinion.

4. I don't really buy into the rationale. I think that the number of things you can do well is mostly a function of how good your mind is. Yes, high ST will make you a better axeman...but that's already reflected in weapon damage. High DX will make you a better acrobat - but that's already reflected by the DX based success roll.

I can probably think of other cons, but these are the major ones. The others are likely to be quibbles.

At best, only #2 could be characterized as "nostalgia" (and then only partially so). And that is probably the least important issue to me. For me, the most devastating critique is that there are better - as I subjectively define the term - ways to solve the "Conan the Wizard" problem than introducing a complete replacement of the TFT talent system.

Again, it's an interesting concept that might work well. I just don't think it's a good fit for TFT.

I'd add that I have replaced the 3d6 roll in TFT with a d20 for years. I also converted weapon damage to polyhedrals - solving the "some weapons do no damage" and "some use a bell curve and some don't for damage" issues that bug me (and apparently almost no one else).

I don't flog those solutions here - except in jest - because while I like them a lot, they just ain't TFT. Though I do think the title "TFT20" is catchy.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to be condescending; but it kinda came off that way to me.

If so, I apologize! I definitely didn't intend to be condescending. I was simply trying to share (1) experience with actual gaming since the 1970s (~39 years), and (2) experience managing GURPS since 1995 (~23 years). The mention of "nostalgia" was almost a postscript, and not of central importance to my desire to share.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

IQ has a privileged place among TFT attributes because it's the basis of the talent system. This is a major driver of the Conan the genius problem: the only way to describe a character with lots of manual skills is to make them smart. And it feels odd because a lot of the talents aren't about book learning.

So what if talents weren't necessarily based on IQ? JLV proposed making them things you bought independently but here's another idea: have *all* attributes contribute a different kind of talent point, and different talents require the talent points from different attributes. Ax/Mace is a strength-like talent, it requires two ST worth of talents. Acrobatics requires 1 ST (for the strength moves) and two DX, Alertness requires two IQ. It turns out there's a lot more DX-like and IQ-like talents than ST-like talents.

This has, in principle, some interesting characteristics. A character who has more DX and less IQ will also know a lot of DX-like things and not many IQ-like things. Characters can't learn everything - that might be intentional in TFT, I don't know. But the limits are more likely to be what a player wants than they are in standard TFT. And characters get forced to buy some things they might otherwise not look at.

I grabbed a list of talents and assigned them to attributes. This didn't always go smoothly: what attribute should Sex Appeal have, for instance? But it mostly worked. I had to decide how many talent points everyone should have, I figured it should be a bit more than you have in regular TFT (because you have less choice now, and I'd made a few talents more expensive) so I gave a number of talent points equal to the attribute minus six.

I generated some characters to see how they worked and they kind of did and kind of didn't. A character like the Roman in Melee, who burns a lot of his DX on armour, is going to have lots of DX-like talents which might not make much sense - but then, playing a weak dextrous character so you can wear armour always was one of TFT's odder features. It looked like high ST characters would run out of ST-talents they really wanted, though ST talents are often in demand for starting characters.

Examples: Talents are priced (xyz) where x is ST, y is DX, z is IQ.

Swordsman: ST 13, DX 11, IQ 8: Crossbow (010), Knife (010), Shield (100), Sword (110), Horsemanship (001), Running (200), Sex appeal (101), Unarmed Combat I (200): Talent cost (732) of (752), he could add Fast Draw (020) or save the rest.

Thief: I tried generating a non-starting thief with a good mix of thief-like talents. Knife (010), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Climbing (100), Detect Traps (002), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Acrobatics (120), Remove Traps (010), Thief (020). The total cost is (288) so we're looking at ST 8, DX 14, IQ 14. The last one is a real problem, I think.

I thought I'd try a hunter-gatherer, loosely based on an Australian Aboriginal concept. Knife (010), Pole weapons (110), Boomerang (010), Spear thrower (010), Alertness (002), Silent movement (020), Mimic (011), Naturalist (002), Tracking (001), Woodsman (001) for a total cost (168) so again he has to be IQ 13. It doesn't really work, he's got too many IQ demands and not enough ST demands, but maybe it wouldn't in regular TFT either and maybe it can be fixed and maybe it's just because being a guy like this implies being pretty good at perception rolls.

OK, let's try the big one: Conan the Cimmerian. I'm not an expert on the stories so some of the talents are guesses. Ax/Mace (200), Knife (010), Pole Weapons (110), Shield (100), Sword (110), Quarterstaff (100), Horsemanship (001), Languages (001), Literacy (001), Running (200), Seamanship (100), Sex Appeal (101), Swimming (100), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Charisma (111), Climbing (100), Detect Traps (002), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Warrior (110), Veteran (120), Fencing (021), New Followers (002), Tracking (001), Unarmed Combat I (200), Expert Horseman (002), Tactics(001), Unarmed Combat II (110), Strategist (002), Ambush/Assassination (020), Unarmed Combat III (101), Unarmed Combat IV (011). The price tag is (19 15 26) in other words to buy all this he needs ST 25, DX 21, IQ 32. The IQ aspect is still broken, just not as badly broken as standard TFT. Giving him three languages didn't help, lots of perception and willpower skills like Acute Hearing and Horsemanship.

I don't think this idea works, quite. But it's sort of close. And it's very much in the spirit of TFT, starting from the same basic idea but two paths diverge in a forest. If anyone has any ideas I'm listening.

Something along these lines has enormous potential, I think. The only advantage to my idea is that NO attribute is driven up by Talents (other than the need to increase IQ to the level required to learn the talent in the first place, but that's okay, since the max required IQ is 16 under the current rules...). Still, it seems to be an "extreme" solution for many people even though it actually REDUCES the rules required for learning new talents. However, spreading the "cost" among the attributes like this de-emphasizes IQ quite a bit (though Spells will still drive IQ up -- which is fine, since they're egg-headed Wizard types anyway), but I like the basic concept here. It still doesn't feel quite right, but as you say, you're very close to an elegant potential solution, I think.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As with all games, The Key Question is really: "Is it fun?"

True. Would you agree, in this case, both questions need a "Yes, it is."?

Originally Posted by Kromm

Over the course of three decades in the GURPS-sphere, we've learned that staying true to The Old Ways is good for backward compatibility – for continuity – but that on occasion it's necessary to break new ground in the name of ease of use, evocativeness, and game balance . . . all of which are definitions of fun for various people.

Wasn't that the core-rational behind not re-doing TFT "as was" in '86 in favor of the GURPS/Mtm platform in the first-place?

Originally Posted by Kromm

Nostalgia in itself is fun for a minority! To sell an RPG to a broader constituency, though, you need good answers to "Is this game straightforward to play?"

In my experience, TFT is very straight-foward; it's one of it's key-feature/benefits; IMO.

Originally Posted by Kromm

"Does this game provoke interesting adventures and campaigns?"

Over the span of 40 years worth for me, and still stimulating the imagination.

Originally Posted by Kromm

and "Does this game have built-in defenses against player abuse?"

It is a matter which hopefully the revision will improve upon for TFT. Though in the final-analysis barring the existence of a mostly 'abuse-proof' Rules-Set, it IS the governance of each GM to curtail player-abuse within their private game-world; even if such anomalies exist; if they choose to.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Personally, I see the proposed change as making the game less straightforward

Agreed; provided your definition of "straightforward": A clean rules-set that is easy for new players to pick-up, and expandable to satisfy experienced players also.

Originally Posted by Kromm

more evocative

Would only be revealed through direct experience in actual Play-Test, and being quite subjective.

Originally Posted by Kromm

, and probably more balanced – a net win.

Maybe Yes; Maybe No. Time will tell the tale.

Originally Posted by Kromm

, even if you want to keep my GURPS out of your TFT.

Sound's just like the tag-line to the old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup ad: "Who put their chocolate in my peanut butter?!?" - Ah, memories!

.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

The other design work-around to what you want to achieve is list-out all the talents, Chinese Menu-Style, and assign a variable value/score to each Skill/Talent that is active for the character. This bifurcates the raw ST from the developed Skill/Talent during the growth of the character

I don't know what this means. I don't think I ever played FASA's Star Trek.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I don't know what this means. I don't think I ever played FASA's Star Trek.

Sorry if I was not as clear as I could have been David.

If I understand the hypothesis and end-goal of your proposed design/solution correctly as stated in your post, it is to:

1) Bifurcate and Stay: RAW STATS from that of the individually-quantized Talents (being: sub-Stats) of which they are thereonto arithmetically associated,

2) Allowing for the dynamic adjustment to specific Individual Talents (be them of the: weapon, advantage, or mundane classification); while creating no direct affect upon the associated RAW STAT VALUE as a by-product, when tuning either; as stated from a mathematical commutative property perspective,

3) So as to avoid as a default: Conan-the-Scholar Effect, as the acuity with the expression of secondary Talent Values are increased dynamically, yet, the governing RAW STAT - in this spefic case, under: IQ - remains static and constant.

Unless I have misinterpreted and misstated your hypothesis and goal David, then you are solving for the same problem which FASA solved for, albeit with different design/solution. However, while both solutions have merit, as I stated previously, the questions of: "Is this TFT?", and then: "Is this FUN?" (as I was properly reminded of by Kromm ) remains as the Key Questions on the table at all times. As you state you have no reference, one might want to look into FASA's solution for study and research benefits in order to gain an additional and different perspective of approach in solving for the same basic problem.

Keep up the good work David.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I think it's also a tad condescending to presume that nostalgia is driving the critique. Mr. Kane has made numerous detailed and thoughtful TFT posts here. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, it does him (and others here) a disservice to dismiss their critiques as mere nostalgia. I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to be condescending; but it kinda came off that way to me.

I really appreciated your post, and I thank you for appreciating my contributions to the forum - also I am pleased you do not agree with everything I postulate or share of myself on here; how boring would that be! - and moreover, for taking up a defense and offering up a salvo in return, though I gave him the complete benefit-of-the doubt, I honestly don't think he meant anything as hostile as it might have read to the other people on here.

Besides, what could possibly be his motivation or rational?

There is none; at least none that I can see, So, you have to cut a wide-berth here.

Interpretation is wholly subjective after all; AND his point about: "Is it FUN?", really is the penultimate question in Game Design; although you have answer the "Is it TFT?" also; as BOTH MUST APPLY.

So regardless of the delivery, the net-benefit was positive in sum.

AND, if he did mean it that way, all I have to say to that is: "ROLL FOR INITIAVE!!" LOL!

Seriously, No Worries ;-)

Nice to know TFT'ers still cover each other's side-hexes.