Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

Fair enough and apologies for overreacting. 😁

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

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 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 ultimate 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 meant 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.

Heh...I like that. I was already wound up this morning over a difficult client and obviously found offense where none was intended. And I did mean what I said. TFT has one very odd quality for a “new” game - a small group of fanatics that have each spent DECADES with TFT. While we will likely not agree on specific mechanics, it’s interesting how much we agree on the major issues with TFT. My d20/polyhedral heresy notwithstanding, of course. That’s gotta be fairly unique.

[David Bofinger]

Jim, I don't think you have understood, and I'm not sure I have. You're using some fancy words whose normal English definitions I know but using them in ways that suggest they have contextual definitions I don't know.

But if I do understand what you've written you're describing much more what say Rick does with mIQ, or JLV was trying to do. Whereas in my draft proposal the link between numbers of talents and underlying attribute is retained, but broadened, changing a one-to-many relationship (IQ to talents) to a many-to-many relationship (attributes to talents) but definitely not abolishing the relationship altogether.

A motive for keeping the link intact is if you believe limiting access to talents leads to less capable characters but more interesting parties. I used to believe this was interesting but I'm starting to think it's the wrong approach.

I don't know what your definition of "fun" is, if you define it broadly then those two questions might be sufficient, if you define it more narrowly then there are things we get from e.g. sad movies that are worthwhile but not exactly fun so maybe there are more questions.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

No Worries at all KROMM.

I gave no notice to the perception of hostility being directed at me, which has been pointed-out to you by others on the web-site.

With regard to the obliquely-pointed "Nostalgia bits":

I didn't recognize it in the way Forum Members are perceiving your words; simply because as: postscript - in weight, if not in actual physical placement - it offered nothing of merit, nor of any gainful value in advancing the topic of conversation-at-hand, with which to warrant my attention in recognizing it's existence - except and purely, as a most curious aside - amongst the more beneficial and cogent contributions you provided to the conversation, and therefore; was summarily dismissed as such - and with very little fan-fair, nor was any weeping and moaning heard bellowing up from the masses - having absolutely no net-impact whatsoever.

As I felt nothing was intended, I frankly didn't sense a "tone"; as I was too focused attempting glean whatever useful insights might be included therein.

And,... if you did in point-of-fact have less-then-honorable intentions hidden deep within a foul, black-heart, fueled by poisonous bile; I might simply call you: "A very naughty boy", and then, further suggest, that in the future, you might try increasing the angle-of-incident of your aim. LOL!

All kidding aside, I will agree that:"Is it FUN?"; must always be the penultimate question in Game Design; but, you should in-turn recognize one cannot get there in TFT unless a thing qualifies AS TFT in FUNCTION, FORM, and, FEEL.

I would appreciate receiving your answer(s) to my response question(s) I left for you in the Post-in-Question; as I would appreciate learning your thoughts.

Jim
.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Jim, I don't think you have understood, and I'm not sure I have.

Well, if that is true, we are both in really deep trouble David LOL!

Okay, let me try it this way:

First, completely forgot the details of your system for a moment, or anything about TFT, any numbers, etc., just take all that out of your head for a minute; and, let us simply understand that in creating a integrated system, or any sub-system therein, or a general simulation of anything you need to represent with numbers, or tiddly-wink tokens, at the very base of what you are involved in is simply-stated as:

Solving a Problem.

Period.

Forget "writing rules for a game", you are Solving A Problem.

As an example:

Let us say you are seeking the "Solution" to the problem of: 'How to Travel Completely Around the World'; and, you are going to assume as true, the premise that the world is, in fact: Round.

You next begin to formulate a plan to SOLVE that PROBLEM.

In your "plan" you are working with the idea of traveling by heading: EAST, maintaining that heading, and that you will fully circumnavigate the Earth, and - in time - arrive right back at your point-of-origin.

Problem solved, right? Well, maybe. You said there were points in your system you are currently developing that you are not 100% ready to stand-pat with.

Okay, here is the good news:

In 1982 FASA - Guy McLimore (GrailQuest for TFT), Greg Poehlein, and David Tepool had to solve the same problem of how to create a system which does not produce: Conan-the-Scholar, nor Arnold-the-Wizard' for their STAR TREK RPG.

They found the solution to their problem, BUT, they did it by traveling: WEST

Your solution is different; going: EAST:, but the goal is the exact same.

Why not take a break from number-crunching and details-of-play, and go look over their answer in study. You may find that EAST - your current direction of travel - indeed is the correct answer for you, and you might improve your design along the way by studying their answer nonetheless - same end-goal after all David.

In the end, you may even find the BEST solution for your sub-system is to "GO NORTH" - being a composite of what they did, and what you are currently doing.

Who knows, maybe you see a whole new path, and that: SOUTH, is the answer.

"AH! EUREKA!!!" - Archimedes

This might be worth your time-investment to review past solutions to the same problem, even if you don't like one iota of their answer; it can still speed your refinements - because now you know more of exactly what you do not want to do; and that puts you many design-steps closer towards having a finished answer in-hand;

Clearer?

In any event, I hope that might be of help to you. Keep up the good work.

[David Bofinger]

I thought about this the other day and it seems to me the problem is that you need too high an IQ to make enough IQ talent points for an experienced character. So what if the rules were something like this:

• Each talent requires one or more talent points of one or more types: ST, DX and IQ.
• The character's ST talent points are equal to its ST less 6.
• The character's DX talent points are equal to its DX less 6.
• The character's IQ talent points are equal to IQ, less 7, tripled.

and maybe also:

• Instead of a ST talent point a character can spend two DX talent points.
• Instead of a DX talent point a character can spend two ST talent points.

Then running through my examples:

• The ST13/DX11/IQ8 swordsman has spent 7-3-2 talent points of an allocation of 7-5-3. So still OK.
• The experienced thief can be generated on ST8/DX14/IQ10 which is perhaps a little generous but not absurd.
• The Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherer can be built on ST8/DX12/IQ10 which doesn't seem absurd, he'll need more ST than that to use some of his weapons and maybe the minimum DX is a little high but it's not crazy. Using the optional rules he might be ST11/DX11/IQ10 which sounds fine.
• Conan the Cimmerian can be built on ST 25/DX 21/IQ 16 which sounds pretty reasonable.
• A rough stab at Fafhrd - Ax/Mace (200), Knife (010), Sword (110), Boating (100), Horsemanship (001), Literacy (001), Seamanship (100), Sex Appeal (101), Swimming (100), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Charisma (111), Climbing (100), Missile Weapons (021), Recognize Value (001), Warrior (110), Veteran (120), Fencing (021), Naturalist (002), Tracking (001), Unarmed Combat I (200), Expert Horseman (002), Woodsman (001), Unarmed Combat II (110) - comes out at ST20/DX17/IQ13. This seems reasonable.
• A rough stab at Grey Mouser - Bow (120), Knife (010), Sword (110), Languages (001), Literacy (001), Running (200), Sex Appeal (101), Swimming (100), Acute Hearing (003), Alertness (002), Charisma (111), Detect Traps (002), Missile Weapons (021), Recognize Value (001), Silent Movement (020), Warrior (110), Veteran (120), Acrobatics (120), Fencing (021), Remove Traps (010), Sleight of Hand(020), Thief (020), Unarmed Combat I (200), Courtly Graces (001), Master Thief (011), a couple of spells (002) - comes out ST18/DX28/IQ14. That's too high, but some of the talents are debatable.

All in all this seems to work reasonably well. I think it would require play-testing to know if it was fun.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I thought about this the other day and it seems to me the problem is that you need too high an IQ to make enough IQ talent points for an experienced character. So what if the rules were something like this:

• Each talent requires one or more talent points of one or more types: ST, DX and IQ.
• The character's ST talent points are equal to its ST less 6.
• The character's DX talent points are equal to its DX less 6.
• The character's IQ talent points are equal to IQ, less 7, tripled.

and maybe also:

• Instead of a ST talent point a character can spend two DX talent points.
• Instead of a DX talent point a character can spend two ST talent points.

...

All in all this seems to work reasonably well. I think it would require play-testing to know if it was fun.

Hi David,
I have not thought about this deeply, but ST-6, DX-6, (IQ-7)x3 is just too complex. The core rules need to be simple, more marginal, (or less often used), rules can be more complex.

How about, the talent points you get are: ST, DX and IQ. But adjust the costs for the talents so that 32 points of talents (in 3 categories), works?

Warm regards, Rick.

[Terquem]

I think Rick has got the solution in a nutshell

[Skarg]

What would a ST Talent be and how would it make sense that you get them based on your ST?

[Melichor]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

I have not thought about this deeply, but ST-6, DX-6, (IQ-7)x3 is just too complex. The core rules need to be simple, more marginal, (or less often used), rules can be more complex.

How about, the talent points you get are: ST, DX and IQ. But adjust the costs for the talents so that 32 points of talents (in 3 categories), works?

What if at character creation the player selects one of the three Attributes to gain Talent Points from? Once set it stays with the character throughout their life.

A warrior could select ST to gain Talent Points, shifty characters DX and wizards IQ. Increasing their ability in their chosen Attribute increases their ability to gain Talents.

Talents would still have minimum IQ requirements, just as weapons have minimum ST requirements.