07-16-2018, 04:19 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Quote:
|
|
07-16-2018, 05:12 PM | #12 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Something like this will be required so that characters continue to evolve over the time scales of long campaigns. But it will be a bit tricky for two reasons: 1) If a 'typical' experienced hero has 10-15 talents, the game will start to take on the complexity of GURPS, which I think everyone agrees would damage TFT's unique feel. And, as the system of talents expands and folds in new, less play tested ideas, it becomes increasingly likely that you accidentally include an 'ideal build' to which all characters drift. This is a problem in many complex games. Your instincts in this regard are obviously pretty good, but as characters become more and more defined by their talents rather than their stats, it will become more and more important that those talents conform to a well defined 'trade space', such that any special advantage you get is in exchange for some opportunity cost of a similarly valuable advantage you didn't get. The concept is simple but there are tons of games that can't stick to it as characters become more complex.
So, short version: I think the decision to limit characters to 40 attribute points makes it absolutely necessary that talents provide a 'release valve' for character development. But don't make the release valve too big or all the gas will go out of the games tires! If I were in your shoes I'd be thinking about an additional ~2-3 dozen talents total, with few that 'stack' or progress to power levels much greater than equivalent to 2-3 stat points. That way a super experienced character might have a great diversity of interesting abilities, but can't just walk all over everyone else. |
07-16-2018, 05:47 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Hi larsdangly,
I get your concept. However, while I don't think it materially affects what you're saying, I think you greatly overstated this detail: Quote:
* 10 - 15 talents for an experienced interesting person in no way seems complex or excessive to me. In fact, I think it's needed to have characters who are both quite skilled AND also have some room for individual background/hobbies/whatever. * The complexity of GURPS is hardly just the difference of possibly having 5-10 more talents on some experienced characters. * I actually don't mind adding some more complexity to TFT at all, especially if it extends in interestingness of higher-level play without making basic starting situations more complex. In fact, the reasons I and my friends stopped playing TFT and lovingly embraced GURPS was because we had played TFT to the point we knew it every which way, and were grasping for ways to make it interesting and satisfying, particularly with more developed characters. |
|
07-16-2018, 06:24 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
This looks exciting, with Guy's suggestions. Being able to reach that Legendary level would be as impressive as it is improbable, but at least it would be possible. Even with a flat rate, it would be improbable--at least in the games I was in--due to the lethality of combat.
|
07-16-2018, 08:18 PM | #15 |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Already more complex than I care for for what will be a "Pickups and Solos" game for me most of the time.
|
07-16-2018, 09:05 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Quote:
|
|
07-16-2018, 09:14 PM | #17 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Quote:
Last edited by John Brinegar; 07-16-2018 at 09:15 PM. Reason: Fix typo |
|
07-16-2018, 09:18 PM | #18 | |
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Quote:
I think that this is a great idea! But the numbers seem way off to me. Let us say I write up a starting character with an IQ of 10 and begin with 10 memory worth of talents. Using your formula, if I want to buy Running (2), it would cost me... XP needed for the next talent = # of talents I know now x WAG XP x Difficulty # XP needed for Running = 10 x 400 XP x 2 = 8,000 XP. This is far to high. I think it should be around 1/20 or 1/25 of that value. CONCLUSION: You might consider making the WAG number 20 rather than 400. Even a WAG of 15 might work. EDIT: Is "the number of talents you know now" equal to (the total difficulty number), or is it equal to (the flat number of talents)? If the latter, then it punishes people who buy cheap talents. I would rather have the former and a lower WAG number to compensate. Warm regards, Rick. Last edited by Rick_Smith; 07-16-2018 at 11:59 PM. Reason: Added question at the bottom. |
|
07-16-2018, 11:53 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Quote:
You don't want house-ruling XP to be the only practical way to get to play legendary characters. They may be one in a million in the world but you don't want them to be one in a million for players. Otherwise, the stories about playing legendary characters won't come from people who play the game as written. Last edited by zot; 07-17-2018 at 12:46 AM. Reason: elaboration |
|
07-17-2018, 12:26 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
I think that this idea (including Guy's suggestions) could work very easily, and still keep to the spirit of TFT.
As far as cut-offs go, somebody mentioned that the number of talents available in the old TFT was 196 or so. Perhaps that tells us where the cut-off should be. While almost no one would have any desire to get all 196 talents, maybe after 30 or so talents and spells, the character would move up to the "notable" level, and after 60 to the "legendary" level. Just throwing a number out to kind of start the discussion. However, I also agree with John Brinegar, I don't like the erasure of the difference between Warriors and Wizards and think the progression should still reflect the differing costs for Spells and Talents between the two. |
|
|