Talent System

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Yes, normal.

I earned a B.S. in Chemistry but have spent the last 20 years selling life insurance. Do I have the Chemist talent? Can I make the chemical potions in Advanced Wizard? What's the roll?

Yes, normal. (TFT has no rules for degrading skills unless you want to 'free up the memory'. If you have not replaced the talent you can still use it.)

I am a Chemical Engineer and work full-time as such. Do I have the Chemist talent? Can I make the chemical potions in Advanced Wizard? What's the roll?

And that is our fundamental disagreement. I think that a TFT talent represents what you can do (and at what level of competence) RIGHT NOW.

You seem to think that TFT talents represent skills that you have had at any point in your life, regardless of how much and how recently you've used them.

If I'm characterizing your opinion correctly, then no wonder you find the TFT limit on talents restricting. As we get older, the number of things that we've learned *something* about continually increases. Particularly if we've jumped from career to career.

But is it that position really reasonable? I can say with utter certainty that I am nowhere near as good at Tae Kwon Do as I was 30 years ago. I can also say with certainty that because I do it full time, I'm a far better lawyer than I would be if I'd stopped practicing law a couple of years after graduating.

I also think we disagree as to what level of expertise a talent represents.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

I would rather play a better TFT. I have spend a lot of time on this forum because I hope that the new TFT _IS_ better.

Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that "better" is (mostly) subjective? And if there's a product that already gives you all of the subtlety that you seem to want, can you see why some of us might not want to change TFT in that direction?

I'm not allowed to look at a character in fiction or a person in real life and say, "I think that they should have these talents?" Really??? Well that certainly patches a big weak spot in YOUR argument.

Uh...I don't think that I either said or implied that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I said I could imagine campaigns where expanded talent availability would be desirable. Either to enable smaller parties without hordes of hirelings or to fit certain settings.

Interestingly, I seem to be far more tolerant of your opinion than you are of mine.

So let us say that I have the rights to write a game supplement on Terry Goodman's book, "Wizard's First Rule". I have to be an expert on sword fighting, government, detective-ing, Naturalist / Woodsman, 3 types of magic use, and every other skill every characters has, before I can assign talents to the characters which I am writing up?

That's a strawman, I think, since no RPG can perfectly simulate every fantasy setting. If you set out to simulate a certain setting, then OF COURSE you'll have to modify the base rules.

In addition, in a novel, we can generally take the author's word for whether a character is an expert. We also can typically read the character's mind, see his situations more or less objectively, etc.

However, I am not competent to assess whether a REAL person is as skilled as a professional chemist. I am not particularly knowledgeable about chemistry. Even if I were, I have not had the opportunity to evaluate him nor do I have the tools to do so. Indeed, I haven't even had the opportunity to observe him doing his job for an extended period of time.

So my *opinion* that he has the same level of competency as a professional chemist lacks much credibility.

"Knowing more than I do" does not equate to "a professional level of skill".

Far from writing up characters being based on people in fiction or real life, being some exotic skill which should require intensive training - perhaps a university degree? - this is a skill I think that everyone who knows the game system should be able to do. Game players have been doing this for decades. They are wrong??? If we accept your preposterous assertion, then yes, I am not properly qualified to argue with you by giving counter examples, where the current TFT rules do not work well.

I've made no such assertions and I don't think that this is a reasonable inference.

I gave detailed reasons for my opinion about the relative costs of talents. I based them on personal experience - caveats acknowledged - and tried to be as objective as possible. <shrug> I'm not sure what else I can do.

Oh, come on! Art worked for years as a Chemist. You are comparing that as a 'google search'? Really??? Lots of Art's talents which you dismiss are FAR beyond the 'google search' level, which is why I chose them as examples.

OK, I don't know Art. I don't know how much YOU are qualified to assess HIS competencies. I don't know if YOU even have a realistic view of HIS competencies. Although, as it happens, I do represent several chemical engineers. So I am somewhat familiar with the job requirements.

In any case, I wasn't talking about Art with the Google comment - because I don't know him. My point - which seems very clear to me - is that surface level familiarity with something does not equate to a professional level of expertise. And therefore it doesn't merit a talent - if you agree with me that talents more or less represent professional levels of competence.

OK, but we are discussing TFT as written, not TFT as modified by the GM's house rules.]

Doesn't that apply equally to your request that talent availability be expanded? I am simply offering a straightforward solution that is hardly unprecedented in RPGs.

I addressed this in a previous post. Since my campaign works, and does not suffer from the evils you mention, there is at least ONE way to allow the new TFT to have heroes which have more skills and still have the game remain fun.

This point would be relevant if I'd argued otherwise. I simply listed the reasons I prefer fewer talents. I'm delighted that you haven't found them to be a problem; can you perhaps concede that reasonable people may differ on this however?

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I did not dismiss his skill. I merely assert that while it may be impressive to a layman, it likely isn't to a professional.



You misunderstand my point, which is that it is dubious to grant someone a talent just because they did it at a high level at some point in the past. ...

The $50 question is "how well do they do it NOW?"

Also, as an aside, we are both ignoring the fact that modern educational techniques ...

My point is that I'm skeptical that one can simultaneously perform multiple, complex *professions* at a professional level of competence due to the effort required to maintain them.


No, I'm illustrating what I think talents actually mean in TFT. I believe that a 1 point talent in TFT represents roughly 7 hours per week of time (350-400 hours per year) invested to maintain the talent. ...

Obviously, there's some abstraction since physical talents and mental talents may well differ in how they're acquired and maintained. (tae kwon do vs law in my case).

OK... I take from this that you find my example of me knowing Swimming even after some years and little maintaining of the skill to be a strong argument? But you draw the line at Intellectual skills? Muscle memory is forever, but 4 years of knowledge gained at a university is fragile?

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

If I am correct, then there are a lot of "familiarities" that do not require such an investment of time ...

The TFT guns talent grants a +4 DX and ...

Guns does not give +4 DX. Or are you talking about not getting the -4 DX penalty for not having the talent? A total newb would be at -4 DX, but after 5 hours of instruction, maybe 10 hours of instruction he would be able to fire the gun competently. Further that basic competency will last him a long time, even if he does not spend 10% of his waking hours maintaining that skill. Or only the snipers who have made a career out of guns should be able to avoid the -4 DX, total newb penalty?

I think you said that you were better than 95% of the people when it comes to guns. So you would give YOURSELF the -4 DX total newb penalty? Really???

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

... Ah, I can see that this conversation is about to derail. So I'll withdraw with the final observation that I did not impute bad faith to you, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy. I clearly stated the reasons that I considered the talents to cost nothing. You may disagree with those reasons but it is unreasonable to imply that I was rigging the analysis.

You have said to me:
-- I'm incompetent to assess skills in TFT.
-- That I, along with many gamers, are incompetent about addressing skill levels of people in general. We are VERY impressed with modest skill levels.

-- But when I point out a pretty big logical flaw in your own examples, then I am just being mean.

I don't want to be mean, so I won't refer to your examples again, but you sure set the bar high for people who disagree with you, or point out flaws in your arguments.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

OK... I take from this that you find my example of me knowing Swimming even after some years and little maintaining of the skill to be a strong argument? But you draw the line at Intellectual skills? Muscle memory is forever, but 4 years of knowledge gained at a university is fragile?

Actually, I think that's fairly true. At least in my experience. My guess is that this is due to the way we learn and to the fundamental difference between physical skills and intellectual skills. To learn a physical skill, you have to DO IT. Usually a lot. And any time you DO SOMETHING, you dramatically increase your likelihood of retention. I don't think it's possible for me to forget how to do a roundhouse kick. But I am certain that I can't do it today with anything like the competence I could when I was spending 15 hours a week practicing.

However you can learn an intellectual skill by simply reading about it. Unless you then apply that skill a number of times, you can pretty easily forget it. Not literally, as in it completely disappears from your mind. But you can pretty easily forget enough that you can't exercise the skill competently.

Law School tries to combat this problem by using the Socratic Method. Law students don't learn (for instance) that a contract requires (1) offer; (2) acceptance; and (3) consideration. Instead, they read actual cases and extract the requirements for a valid contract and what the requirements of an "offer" are. I can still recall many cases I studied. But I have forgotten most of the things that I learned in college lectures.

Guns does not give +4 DX.

Page 24, AM: "...anyone who has the GUNS talent can have a +4 DX..." Of course, that should've been repeated in ITL as well.

I think you said that you were better than 95% of the people when it comes to guns. So you would give YOURSELF the -4 DX total newb penalty? Really???

Uh, no. I said I think I know more about guns than 95% of the population. I am a decidedly mediocre marksman.

I also think that it is unreasonable to impose a -4 DX for someone using a modern gun, unless they are utterly inexperienced and unfamiliar with it. They are far easier to use than medieval arquebusses.

You have said to me:
-- I'm incompetent to assess skills in TFT.

No, I said that you are incompetent to assess Art's skill level in Chemistry, unless you are a qualified chemist and have actually observed and assessed him. So am I, by the way.

-- That I, along with many gamers, are incompetent about addressing skill levels of people in general. We are VERY impressed with modest skill levels.

As I said, I have heard a lot of skill-boasting in my 40 years as a gamer. I don't think I'd say gamers are incompetent; rather I think they overrate modest skill levels and underrate professional skill levels. I certainly did before I became a professional.

-- But when I point out a pretty big logical flaw in your own examples, then I am just being mean.

I don't want to be mean, so I won't refer to your examples again, but you sure set the bar high for people who disagree with you, or point out flaws in your arguments.

<smiles> Well, you can choose whether to believe me or not when I discuss my own credentials.

Some can be verified - the State Bar of Texas will confirm that I am a licensed Texas attorney. Somewhere in the bowels of the Texas government, there's verification that I was a certified secondary education teacher (social studies). My history degree is documented in both sources as well, I think.

My law firm website shows me as Senior Partner and founder, so, assuming I am not willing to risk my law license by publicly lying about my credentials, those points can be confirmed. It can be verified that I have a talent for scoring well on pointless, standardized, abstract IQ tests.

My Tae Kwon Do/Moo Duk Kwan experience can't be verified with public information. I can send you photos, I suppose, but they could be faked. My original black belt is on the credenza behind my desk, but it could be a fake as well. Also, it has shrunk...a lot.

You'll have to take my word for the fact that I'm a mediocre marksman and that I grew up in a first generation family business (grocery stores).

And of course, my experiences are not necessarily representative, so they are certainly not conclusive evidence for my opinions.

The best I can do is state what I believe, why I believe it and what experiences/knowledge support that belief. I think I've done that.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all, Ty.
The argument between us boils down to what do the talents mean. Some skills in TFT are more troublesome to your way of looking at talents than others.

If we were talking about the Unarmed Combat skills, there is a big difference between the newb and the expert. (5 levels of talents.)

If we are talking about Pole Weapons, Charisma, Running, Climbing, or the other talents where there is one level, your arguments are very strained.

Most talents have two levels (Sword & Fencing), (Physicker and Master Physicker). Then your argument is strained, but not as bad as those talents where there is only a single level of competency.

Let me explain what I mean by the above.

I see the first level of the talent as "no longer make newb mistakes". With Swimming, I know about relaxing, inflating my lungs to maintain positive buoyancy, the basic strokes, the basic strategies in the water, and the confidence to avoid panicking. I do not get the -7 DX penalty for total ignorance. (Most skills give a -4 penalty for newbs. Swimming is less forgiving, 4vsDX for non-swimmers, 2vsDX for swimmers, so effectively -7 DX to newbs.)

When you were saying that I have to be at 'competition level' before I have a talent, your argument sounded pretty strained, when I was talking about 'competition level' of Running or Climbing. There is only one step between a total newb with no skill at climbing, and a 'competition climber' who free climbs mountains?

With swimming, your argument sounded a little bit less forced. Maybe a little bit of training will give you Swimming talent, (and thus avoiding the newb penalty), but the 'competition swimmers' needs Diving talent as well?

This suggests that if there were two levels (or more), to Pole Weapons, Climbing, or the other '1 step' talents you would not have to be argue so hard that the basics are equivalent to a sniper who has spent years professionally on a talent.

You have said:
> Originally Posted by tbeard1999
> 6. I believe that TFT talents represent a professional level of competence.
> If so, then I believe that their current cost is defensible (though I don't
> mind a more systematic approach with basic-expert-master levels of
> competence or somesuch).

I also would like to see more talents to better distinguish the newb from the expert. Or David suggests talents allow you to spend more memory to distinguish the apprentice from the journeyman or master. (His idea keeps the number of talents low, which is nice.). However, more talents also has its advantages. If you have Bow 3 in my campaign, and a VERY high speed, you can fire 3 times per turn with a bow. These sorts of cool rules would likely be lost if you had Bow (1), Bow(2) and Bow(4), with a generic bonus for basic, professional, master levels modifier rules for all talents.

***************

Now it seems to me, that TFT has set the number of talents that people can get very low. Certainly FAR lower than most RPGs. And in the real world there are lots of people who have MANY basic competencies as well as a few highly skilled abilities. Read some biographies of interesting people for examples.


Now it _IS_ possible to make this work in a game. All you have to do is say...

1) People who don't use a talent for a year or several rapidly decay back to zero ability in that skill. My example with Swimming, suggests this is ridiculous. Saying that Art has forgotten years of training as a Chemist is also preposterous. If he were to go back into Chemistry, would he have to brush up? Sure. Would he have to retake high school and university Chemistry? Of course not. But when you argue that his skill has gone from 2 memory points to zero, that is what you are saying.

2) People with 'not a newb' levels of skills, are required to be hugely competent. Can I put a small amount of effort in and improve my climbing ability? Sure! But I must be a competition climber! Can people get good enough at Guns to not have -4 DX and avoid newb mistakes. Sure! If they are a professional sniper!

3) To make the above two concepts sound a little less mad, you have added the idea that ANY TFT talent must be maintained with hours of work a week, to keep any level of that skill. Since people have only so many hours in the week, then the number of skills WILL BE tightly constrained. But do I really have to spend hours a week practicing swimming, to avoid panicking and dying, if I jump in the water?

***************

OK, I admit that if you REALLY want to tightly limit the number of talents, the above three ideas will do the job. But in some cases, they seem pretty far removed from reality.

***************

The next question is, is the new TFT best served by tightly restraining talents? I do not think so. My players LIKE being able to improve their competencies by taking cool, hard to get talents. I think that TFT would be greatly improved if a dozen or two new talents were introduced, including some cool, powerful ones.

I found that in basic TFT all the swordsmen felt the same. They all had Sword, Shield, and Fencing. A while ago, once in a rare while, someone would drop shield, and take two weapons, but losing that armour was a pretty big loss. After some experiments, the shieldless swordsman died away.

Is this lack of variety a good thing in the game? I think not.


But as for what we prefer, let us agree to disagree. You can take consolation that Steve Jackson seems to agree that the number of talents, and the mIQ costs of the talents, are just fine.

Warm Regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

...

Page 24, AM: "...anyone who has the GUNS talent can have a +4 DX..."

...

I stand corrected! Of all the weapon talents, GUNS allows you to avoid the -4 DX newb penalty for having the talent, AND get a +4 DX bonus with the Arquebus. (But not the Blunderbuss seemingly.)

I wonder what Steve Jackson was thinking when he wrote this?

See my last post for the other points you brought up in this message.

Warm regards, Rick.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi all, Ty.
The argument between us boils down to what do the talents mean. Some skills in TFT are more troublesome to your way of looking at talents than others.

If we were talking about the Unarmed Combat skills, there is a big difference between the newb and the expert. (5 levels of talents.)

Fair point.

If we are talking about Pole Weapons, Charisma, Running, Climbing, or the other talents where there is one level, your arguments are very strained.

We may not be as far apart as you think.

I don't object to having familiarity-level talents. One easy one would be to allow a 1 point "basic" version of any 2 point talent. Specific versions can be tailored, but the general approach would be that it halves whatever penalty (or bonus) is applied to characters without the primary talent and it will only cost one more IQ point to get the primary talent. If someone without the primary talent is simply not allowed to do it, then it is allowed at a (say) -2 to the success rolls.

So...basic physicker will allow 1 point of healing and cost 1 talent point.

Basic polearm would allow use of polearms at -2 DX instead of -4.

Basic chemistry allows the figure to make potions, but at -2 to the weekly DX roll.


Basic swimming would allow dog paddling (i.e., you can tread water in calm waters) and other swimming actions at 1/2 the normal penalty.

I don't think I'd allow it for talents that cost 3 IQ points. I think an apprentice alchemist would be a danger to himself or anyone else. But I can be persuaded otherwise.

Most talents have two levels (Sword & Fencing), (Physicker and Master Physicker). Then your argument is strained, but not as bad as those talents where there is only a single level of competency.

When you were saying that I have to be at 'competition level' before I have a talent, your argument sounded pretty strained, when I was talking about 'competition level' of Running or Climbing. There is only one step between a total newb with no skill at climbing, and a 'competition climber' who free climbs mountains?

Personally, I would substitute normal ST or DX rolls for familiarity level skills. But see above for the fix I propose.

I also would like to see more talents to better distinguish the newb from the expert. Or David suggests talents allow you to spend more memory to distinguish the apprentice from the journeyman or master.

I think he and I may agree. I'd prefer basic level talents rather than adding advanced level talents (especially with combat talents).

Now it _IS_ possible to make this work in a game. All you have to do is say...

1) People who don't use a talent for a year or several rapidly decay back to zero ability in that skill.

Well, I'm not lobbying for such a system. I've only noted that the professional level skills I'm familiar with require regular use to maintain that high level of competency.

My example with Swimming, suggests this is ridiculous. Saying that Art has forgotten years of training as a Chemist is also preposterous. If he were to go back into Chemistry, would he have to brush up? Sure. Would he have to retake high school and university Chemistry? Of course not. But when you argue that his skill has gone from 2 memory points to zero, that is what you are saying.

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure I said that you wouldn't lose all knowledge.

3) To make the above two concepts sound a little less mad, you have added the idea that ANY TFT talent must be maintained with hours of work a week, to keep any level of that skill. Since people have only so many hours in the week, then the number of skills WILL BE tightly constrained. But do I really have to spend hours a week practicing swimming, to avoid panicking and dying, if I jump in the water?

Of course not. The fact that the swimming rules in TFT may be dubious doesn't invalidate my point about talents representing high levels of skill.

I simply think that the base level of skill can be simulated better with (a) default attribute rolls and/or (b) low-level talents.

My concern isn't that PCs might be familiar with multiple skills. I don't want them being experts at too many skills.

If you adapted the base talent proposal above, someone with the base talent would have to be significantly superior in the relevant attribute to compete with someone who has the full talent. I'm okay with that.

The next question is, is the new TFT best served by tightly restraining talents? I do not think so. My players LIKE being able to improve their competencies by taking cool, hard to get talents. I think that TFT would be greatly improved if a dozen or two new talents were introduced, including some cool, powerful ones.

It's just never been a big deal in my campaigns, so I don't know what to tell you. But adding multiple "cool" talents will slow character generation down a bit and (much more importantly) create all kinds of opportunities for design glitches. Note how much trouble the peculiar weapons have created and they were actually playtested.

Nor do I want TFT to become feat-happy ala D&D 3rd.

I found that in basic TFT all the swordsmen felt the same. They all had Sword, Shield, and Fencing. A while ago, once in a rare while, someone would drop shield, and take two weapons, but losing that armour was a pretty big loss. After some experiments, the shieldless swordsman died away.

Even assuming that this is a widespread problem, there are other, less intrusive, ways to solve the problem. My own "defense" rules, for instance, were created to enable unarmored swashbucklers to be viable and did so quite well. That is a very specific purpose, of course, but it worked well. We had both tanks and swashbucklers in our campaigns and neither seemed to overpower the other. I have serious doubts as to how realistic the rule is, but it WORKED and was low footprint - i.e., you applied a DX modifier to an opponent's roll in melee. Simple and easy to tweak.

When you add multiple talents and make talents easier to get, you exponentially increase the possibility of breaking the system. So my inclination is to favor the least complicated and intrusive solution.

But as for what we prefer, let us agree to disagree. You can take consolation that Steve Jackson seems to agree that the number of talents, and the mIQ costs of the talents, are just fine.

Warm Regards, Rick.

Fair enough. But I don't think you've heard me - I don't disagree with making talents more available IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. Small parties, certain settings, epic level campaigns, etc. I just don't feel like the default settings need to be changed.

[tbeard1999]

For those who want a "base" talents, I offer the following:

General Rule. Most 2 point talents can be bought at a 1 point "base" level. Unless otherwise stated below, a base talent halves whatever penalty is applied when figures completely lack the full talent. Or, it halves any bonus applied to the full talent.

If the full talent simply grants a success roll (i.e., Thief) add 1 die to the success roll.

It will only cost one more IQ point to get the full talent later.

Base talents require the same IQ level as the full talent.

Base talents are NOT sufficient to fulfill talent requirements for jobs, nor do they satisfy prerequisites for advanced talents.

Talents available at base level are below. Most are covered by the base rule above, but I'm showing the effect for clarity. Talents with a base level can be indicated with a (b) or somesuch.

Sword: -2 DX.
Ax/Mace: -2 DX.
Pole Weapons: -2 DX
Bow: -2 DX
Guns: No bonus to hit, but no penalty either.
Thrown Weapons: +1 DX; cannot ready and throw in one turn though.
Running: +1 MA; when determining half movement allowance, round fractions up.
Priest: Basic familiarity with religious rites and doctrines, but not enough to regularly lead a congregation.
Bard: +1 die for all success rolls; -2 from roll if you also have Sex Appeal; -1 if you have base Sex Appeal.
Detect Traps: Roll 1 fewer die instead of 2 dice to detect traps; converts to full Detect Traps if you also have Alertness.
Animal Handler: +1 die for all success rolls.
Naturalist: 3/IQ to identify creatures; +1 die for other success rolls.
Thief: +1 die for all success rolls.
Mechanician: +1 die for all success rolls; includes base Remove Traps
Physicker: heal 1 point with physicker's kit.
Detection of Lies: +1 die for all success rolls.
Ventriloquist: +1 die for all success rolls.
Disguise: +1 die for all success rolls.

You can extend this rule to 1 point talents, but I'm ambivalent about that. I'd at least limit that to the talents below. The base versions cost 1/2 IQ point.

Base talents with -2 DX: crossbow, knife, shield,
Base talents with +1 die for all success rolls: Sex Appeal, Tracking,
Horsemanship: -2 DX but no DX roll required to stay mounted.
Swimming: 3d if you fall in water
Climbing: takes twice as long as someone with Climbing skill; 3/DX roll every 5 minutes to avoid a problem. +1 die for any success rolls.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all, Ty.
I've been quite careful about when I talk about basic TFT and when I talk about possible changes. In the discussion on buying talents, the only time I mixed them was when I gave Art "First Aid (1)" talent, and I called out that I was doing so.

In basic TFT, you either have a talent or not. If you have to learn Chemist (2) it takes X amount of time. (6 months in my campaign, but the minimum time to learn is undefined in basic TFT.) If you learn Chemist, and then forget it and then want to learn it again, you have to spend the full amount of time.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure I said that you wouldn't lose all knowledge.

That is what I mean when I said you required people to learn it from scratch. You are defending TFT as written. If YOU want to add a house rule that if I learn chemist, forget it, and relearn it, then it is easier / faster... well that is fine.

But you can't do so AND defend TFT as written. You admit that you think it should be modified.

I've made various arguments that prove that TFT as written leads to a bunch of behaviours that don't make sense in the real world. "Art has to relearn Chemistry from scratch???" You say, no-no, you ought to be able to relearn it faster. OK. But now we both agree with my point, and the discussion moves to how to fix the TFT talents.

Either defend the TFT rules as written, or admit that they need to be fixed. If the latter, then we can discuss how they should be fixed.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

... Of course not. The fact that the swimming rules in TFT may be dubious doesn't invalidate my point about talents representing high levels of skill. ...

The saying, "the exception proves the rule" has not aged well. 'Proved' used to mean, 'test'. So a better translation is, "the exception tests the rule."

I think LOTS of talents make sense when you look at them as the basic talent is fairly easy to learn. But it is only good enough to give you basic competency. Why did I concentrate on Swimming rather than, say, Diplomacy talent?

Because it is clear what basic competency means in Swimming. In Swimming, basic competency means not panicking and drowning.

In basic TFT all talents work the same. It does not have some skills must be forgotten if you don't use them for a while. It does not have that some skills must have 10% of your time spent to maintain them. It does not have that the first level of some skills means basic competency, just enough to remove newb penalties, and other skills give you a high degree of competence.

If you want to defend a house rule version of TFT that is fine. But then your argument that the current TFT is just fine, no changes required, all is logical, has been abandoned.

Either Swimming should be forgotten like all the other talents (if I don't use it for a while), or the whole concept that people forget talents enmass when they learn something new has been called into question. If it has been called into question, than the many examples of people having lots of talents (at the basic competency), and a couple or several high skill, professional talents is not so easy to dismiss.

You can't have it both ways: Under the current TFT rules, the idea that I have to forget Swimming to make room for Dance is true, or it is not. My argument is that this is a silly rule.

Now other games have lots of talents. Call of Cthulhu, gives everyone the same list of talents, rated from 0 to 100%. As you learn skills and use them, these percentages increase. Others give you a certain number of talents per level. GURPS allows you to buy skills for character points.

TFT says that the limit is mIQ = IQ. Which is fine unless you want to model real people or heroes from fiction, in which case you run into problems. I think that the easiest way to fix this is to make talents cost less. If the typical talent cost 1/2 as much memory than it does now, you could model real people and fictional heroes easier than using the current TFT rules.

If you make that change, then it becomes pretty easy to multi-class where you know everything there is to know about swords (Sword and Fencing) AND know everything there is to know about healing (Phys. and M. Phys.) But if you added some hard to get high competency talents, you tend to find people know everything there is to know about swords (Sword and 4 other talents), and a bit of cross training in healing (2 talents which is not all of them).

So people still are specialists, but it is far more likely that everyone in the party has basic Silent Movement, which is handy when the party wants to use some stealth.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

... When you add multiple talents and make talents easier to get, you exponentially increase the possibility of breaking the system. So my inclination is to favor the least complicated and intrusive solution.

That is why I've been paid the big bucks as a professional game designer.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Fair enough. But I don't think you've heard me - I don't disagree with making talents more available IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. Small parties, certain settings, epic level campaigns, etc. I just don't feel like the default settings need to be changed.

I have heard this. However, I think that the BASIC talents are broken. Saying that we want to leave them the same, but perhaps making little adjustments in special circumstances, I don't agree with.

If they are broken enough to want to change if the party size is 3 people rather than 4 or 5, they are probably broken enough that they should just be fixed.

Warm regards, Rick.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi all, Ty.
That is what I mean when I said you required people to learn it from scratch. You are defending TFT as written. If YOU want to add a house rule that if I learn chemist, forget it, and relearn it, then it is easier / faster... well that is fine.

But you can't do so AND defend TFT as written. You admit that you think it should be modified.

I am defending the current number of talent points given to figures (i.e., equal to IQ). Since I've discussed all kinds of options (including your opinion that there should be more talent points available), OF COURSE I'm suggesting modifications.

I never claimed to be defending TFT completely as-is and I don't think that's a very reasonable inference.

I've made various arguments that prove that TFT as written leads to a bunch of behaviours that don't make sense in the real world. "Art has to relearn Chemistry from scratch???" You say, no-no, you ought to be able to relearn it faster. OK. But now we both agree with my point, and the discussion moves to how to fix the TFT talents.

Either defend the TFT rules as written, or admit that they need to be fixed. If the latter, then we can discuss how they should be fixed.

Here's a thought - stop building straw men and making unreasonable and irrational inferences from my statements.

Good grief. We're done.