The Fantasy Trip

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

This is a totally confusing rebuttal since you have yet to explain how mIQ actually works. As an example it fails on multiple accounts because you make across the board statements about mIQ without actually describing how you got there. You need to take a deep breath and write that summary explanation of your system for those of us who have never been exposed to it. Until that happens, all this appears to be to me is a "strident put-down" on my comment.

This is not an explanation of how my system works. I was talking about regular TFT.

***********************************
I wrote:
Most of the debate between you and David is because your description of your system left out the rule, that buying more talents does not increase your attribute total. If you review what was written, I think you would find that if David knew that from the beginning, then the posts back and forth between you would be much shorter.
***********************************

It was clear to me that when David was asking about your system, he was wanting to know how the characters who had bought a lot of talents with experience would know what their attribute totals were, so they would know how much exp they had to spend to buy new attributes. You had never explained that gaining more talents DOES NOT contribute to your attribute total, which is why he was confused.


***********************************
You then wrote:
I'm a tad confused by your point here -- buying more talents has NEVER increased your attribute points. It's always been necessary to increase your attributes PRIOR to gaining any more talents/spells. All my "system" does is regulate the costs of talents and eliminate the necessity of buffing your character to the point he becomes Conan the Magician.
***********************************

OK, in this comment you are clearly talking about old TFT. "Old TFT has NEVER increased your attribute points."


***********************************
I wrote:
Let us say that I have a character with IQ 12 who has bought 14 spells with that 12 mIQ. Or let's say that a different character also has IQ 12 and has bought 5 talents with that 12 mIQ.

If that figure wants to get more talents, his or her attribute total will increase. It has always worked that way in TFT. It also works that way in my campaign and in every variation of TFT I've seen over the years.

What is gained by making the petty distinction that the attribute is bought before the talent is gained? If I'm going to add more talents, the attribute total WILL increase.
***********************************

So I'm also talking about old TFT here.


***********************************
You wrote:
This is a totally confusing rebuttal since you have yet to explain how mIQ actually works. As an example it fails on multiple accounts because you make across the board statements about mIQ without actually describing how you got there. You need to take a deep breath and write that summary explanation of your system for those of us who have never been exposed to it. Until that happens, all this appears to be to me is a "strident put-down" on my comment.
***********************************

Nothing in this thread has been about my system. It was began by David asking about your system. From that point on, it was talking about your system and comparing it to original TFT.


Note that the very first time you asked me to explain how my rules worked I gave you the link.

The very first time you asked me why I wrote my rules the way I did, I replied.


A theme in these last few posts is that you have been trying very hard to understand my system and I've never explained it. All you had to do was ask.

Rick

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

... This turns out not to be the case. While I'm on Brainiac, my participation there is not a constant, ... And the "DX variant" comment was a total shot in the dark, since if you've gone to the trouble of creating mIQ and fST, then you probably also created something similar for DX (what's it called, btw?). The assumption of "adding three attributes" followed logically from that shot in the dark, which you never replied to.

You fooled me, certainly.

I split DX into accuracy and speed. Speed is abbreviated sDX. It is used to determine turn order (so if you are writing rules and you only care about who attacks first, then you can refer to sDX). It is also used anytime someone wants to do more than one thing per turn (such as a talent that lets you draw a weapon and attack in the same turn, or firing a bow more than once per turn).

Originally Posted by JLV

THANK YOU! This will go a long way to help me understand what you're really proposing on these threads. Again, I think we've both been making assumptions about what the other knows and thinks, and this should help pierce the fog...at least for me. I hope, that you will ask me questions for clarification on my suggestions (where they are apparently confusing) in the future as well.

I have not proposed these rules, in fact. I AM proud of them... half a page of rules (not counting examples) have fixed all of TFT's major flaws in my opinion. But I'm sure that Steve Jackson is not looking for this big a change.

Originally Posted by JLV

It was and is my intention to do so. Maybe now I can. "Pithy little sayings" do work both ways though, so if you're going to sum up my often extensive posts that way, then I sincerely hope you'll apply the same standards to your own comments in the future. And maybe we can avoid this sort of thing from now on...

Very good. That said, I can not recall ever summarizing your rules. I have reservations about them, but I believe I've always given your rules the benefit of the doubt. And even intelligently suggested how they could be made to work better.

Regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

...
Certainly. And if it seems a bit low, then let's do it this way; let's say that a talent or spell costs 15 times it's IQ level, ...

The bottom line is that if we can just establish a relatively reasonable cost for talents/spells in terms of XP, we can completely do away with the slots limitation while still ensuring that it takes a while to gain new skills/spells. ...

Note that a positive side-effect of the proposal is to drastically slow attribute bloat ...

Hi JLV, everyone.
My rules are short, but they have had a LOT of testing. In particular, I've played around with the cost for talents, the cost of superscripts and how strongly these affect your attribute total.

-- When I first started with my superscripts, they did not raise your attribute total (much as you are suggesting for talents now).

-- Later I said that they cost a full attribute, but only added 1/3 of an attribute onto your attribute total.

-- Later I said that they cost 1/2 an attribute, but add 1/2 an attribute on to your attribute total. This is the current official system.

-- Lately, I am leaning towards 1/3 and 1/3. I might make that my official recommendation for the campaigns using my rules. I'm using this in my pbem campaign.

*****
Anyway, I bring this up because I've found out a few things. At least in my campaign, I found the following to be true:

-- If you are going to err towards too many attributes or too many talents, go with too many talents. (Now I've added a lot of talents, but reduced their cost, so that may affect my results. Keep this in mind.)

-- If you allow players to buy something that does not increase their attribute total, you will see a lot of that something in the player's characters. When the superscripts were expensive, but they didn't raise your attribute totals, my players bought a HUGE number of superscripts.

-- You want to (or at least I want to) price things so that there is not distinct 'eras' of character development. You want the decision "do I buy attributes now, or talents now", to not be easy. You would like them to buy both in the early stages of character development and buy both in the late stages.

For example: If talents cost a flat amount, then people will buy a lot of attributes first. Then when characters are kick ass and well developed, and their advanced characters are getting exp quickly, then buying talents is cheap. So they go from attribute improving, to skill improving.

If talents cost some multiple of an attribute (say 1/2 of an attribute for a very low IQ talent), then people will be driven to buy lots of talents early (getting them cheap and not making future attributes more expensive).

A more complex system might work better. Let us say that the cost of a talent is 1/2 of an attribute + (IQ of talent * 10 exp * mIQ multiplier).

Example 1: Grognard the barbarian needs 250 exp to go up to his next attribute. He want to buy Running (2 mIQ) (an IQ 8 talent). This would cost him: 125 + ( 8 * 10 * 2 ) = 285 exp.

Example 2: Exactly like above but now Grognard needs 1,000 ex to go up to his next attribute. Buying Running now costs, 660 exp.

Between our two examples the price for the talent has gone from more than an attribute, to less than one. But the huge advantage to buying talents early or late is mitigated.

*****

I'm not suggesting this system specifically. But I am saying, from experience, that a change this big to character development needs careful testing. I think it would be very 'gamey' if all character pretty much bought all their attributes first, and an endless series of talents later. Avoiding this will take some clever design, and a lot of testing.

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

Actually, it sounds like we're in violent agreement on both the desired effects and generally how to get there. You just prefer your own notation, as do I. That, plus my confusion about your system to begin with, has led to some regrettable and unnecessary hostility. I apologize for my part (inadvertent, I assure you) in creating that environment.

I'm sorry to say I think we've about exhausted the possibilities of this discussion at this point, since we're basically saying the same thing in two different ways. It will be very interesting to see what Steve actually does with talents in the new edition!

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

If you check my previous posts, I have argued that talents cost too much memory. I did indeed suggest that the cost of talents be reduced by about half, and that talents that cost 0.5 memory should be introduced.

To make talents cheaper, why not just makes mIQ cheaper to buy? Doesn't that lead to the same effect? I suppose spells get affected too.

But in fact I'm generally against making talents cheaper, certainly I'm against Rick's philosophy of having talents that are cheap to buy but can only be purchased once you've fulfilled arduous prerequisites in terms of attributes.

This is an email I sent to Rick, putting forward my argument, edited for typos and clarity. "Sword 2 & 3, Shield 2 & 3, Fencing 1 & 2" are mentioned specifically because in Rick's system they'e kind of awesome for a melee character.

To understand why I like higher mIQ and lower prerequistes consider the two extremes: (A) a game where are no prerequisites and mIQ is expensive, (B) a game where prequisites are expensive, several talents have similar prerequisites and mIQ is free.

In game A people choose which talents they want. They are free to specialise in offense, or defence, or in-battle mobility, or whatever.

In game B people buy the prerequisites and then get all the talents for that prerequisite for free. Talents always come in groups: a character who has one will have the other with the same prerequisites.

I think A leads to much more interesting characters than B. In particular there are more interesting decisions to be made - decisions where what you want and how you see the character are important, rather than decisions based on what will make you the most effective character. And the variety of characters is larger.

Whereas B is basically a level system like Dungeons and Dragons: as you get better you get new abilities, but they're the same for any member of your class and you don't get to choose.

Real TFT rules lie on a spectrum between these. Your rules tend toward the B end of the spectrum, certainly they are closer to it than regular TFT rules, because more talents have prerequisites than in standard TFT, because the different talents tend to have similar prerequisites (e.g. DX 14 to 16 for Sword 2 & 3, Shield 2 & 3, Fencing 1 & 2) and because the mIQ costs are often reduced relative to standard TFT.

As an example, I think the ST and DX prerequisites for the talents above are generally a bad idea. From a belief point of view: if I have two characters with DX 10 who know sword at a basic level, and one decides to learn more about sword fighting to get better, is his only average DX going to make it impossible for him to get better? Impossible to get as good as someone of the same level of skill with better DX, sure. But I think he should be able to get better. And letting him learn Sword 2 while keeping his average DX achieves exactly that. What's more, it allows a player to say, "I see this guy as being older, he's not particularly fast any more, but still skilled," and the game allows him to do that.

You've said one of the drivers for the extra talents was to have something to spend on that wasn't attributes. So why require people to spend on attributes before buying them?

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by JLV

What? This doesn't apply when you generate your character. Do you use some other system for generating characters than what is given in ITL?

The question isn't how I generate a character, it's how it's done in your system. I was under the impression that in your system talents were disconnected from IQ, so you don't get free talents because you have IQ, instead you buy them with experience points. And I assumed this was also how it was done in character generation, that starting characters would be given experience points so they can buy talents. If you have one system for character generation and then switch to a completely different one for afterwards then I think that's probably a bad idea.

Perhaps you mean "after I generate my 32 point character?"

The same argument applies, pretty much. One of the following pretty much has to be true:

1. Attributes don't get more expensive as the character gets more experienced.
2. Talents get more expensive as the character gets more experienced, as in Rick's mIQ system.
3. Talents are really expensive compared with attributes when the characters are inexperienced, so nobody buys them.
4. Talents are really cheap compared with attributes when the characters are experienced, so they're pretty much free.

Now you didn't say you were changing 1 so I assume it's more or less like standard TFT, and if you are changing it the world ends in a deluge of 100-point characters. You've explicitly ruled out 2. Either 3 or 4 is, IMO, a problem, partly because the decision on whether to buy a talent stops being interesting, partly because it leads to strange characters. So somewhere here I think you have a problem, even if it's unclear where.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

The question isn't how I generate a character, it's how it's done in your system. I was under the impression that in your system talents were disconnected from IQ, so you don't get free talents because you have IQ, instead you buy them with experience points. And I assumed this was also how it was done in character generation, that starting characters would be given experience points so they can buy talents. If you have one system for character generation and then switch to a completely different one for afterwards then I think that's probably a bad idea.

No, my "system" (and again, it's not really a "system;" it's an idea) assumes characters are created normally, though if you do away with the IQ slots, then I presume you'd have to impose some arbitrary limit on the number of spells/talents a starting character could begin with...perhaps four or five or six or some other agreeable number.

My discussions to date have ALL revolved around the idea of how someone gains NEW skills/spells AFTER they have accumulated XP, not before.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

The same argument applies, pretty much. One of the following pretty much has to be true:

1. Attributes don't get more expensive as the character gets more experienced.
2. Talents get more expensive as the character gets more experienced, as in Rick's mIQ system.
3. Talents are really expensive compared with attributes when the characters are inexperienced, so nobody buys them.
4. Talents are really cheap compared with attributes when the characters are experienced, so they're pretty much free.

Now you didn't say you were changing 1 so I assume it's more or less like standard TFT, and if you are changing it the world ends in a deluge of 100-point characters. You've explicitly ruled out 2. Either 3 or 4 is, IMO, a problem, partly because the decision on whether to buy a talent stops being interesting, partly because it leads to strange characters. So somewhere here I think you have a problem, even if it's unclear where.

See my response to Rick earlier. I clarify a lot of what you seem to be confused by there.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

To make talents cheaper, why not just makes mIQ cheaper to buy? Doesn't that lead to the same effect? I suppose spells get affected too.

Cheaper talents allow heroes to catch up to wizards, yes. But only my campaign and the TFT campaigns based on my rules use my mIQ superscripts, so it is extra important for the newTFT.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

But in fact I'm generally against making talents cheaper, certainly I'm against Rick's philosophy of having talents that are cheap to buy but can only be purchased once you've fulfilled arduous prerequisites in terms of attributes.

I actually agree with you here, but sDX is important because some of my new talents require a minimum speed. Speed is nicely balanced now, and I don't want to debuff it too much. BUT... the next time I go thru my talents list and do a big revision, I'll tone down some of the high attribute prerequisites.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

You've said one of the drivers for the extra talents was to have something to spend on that wasn't attributes. So why require people to spend on attributes before buying them?

Because the main reason was more talents allow heroes to differentiate themselves from each other better and become better specialists (if they want to).

Because my mIQ is cheaper than IQ, so you get more talents per attributes put into it. (Attributes spend on mIQ do not go into wholesale attribute increases which was my goal.)

And because anything else would change TFT more than I want to.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

The question isn't how I generate a character, it's how it's done in your system. I was under the impression that in your system talents were disconnected from IQ, so you don't get free talents because you have IQ, instead you buy them with experience points. And I assumed this was also how it was done in character generation, that starting characters would be given experience points so they can buy talents. If you have one system for character generation and then switch to a completely different one for afterwards ...

hi David, everyone.
This is what Jeff is suggesting. For example, if I wanted to make a healer / fighter character I might do this in his suggested system:

ST 9, DX 12, IQ 11. New characters can buy 5 mIQ worth of talents, so...

Literacy* (1), Physicker (2), Knife (1), Sword (1). (Sword costs 1 mIQ because of Knife.)

You get fewer starting talents, but talents can be bought without penalty from that time on. Eventually you will end up with experienced figures with lots of talents.

I actually think JLV's system will work perfectly well to stop attribute bloat and allow people to gain more talents. (It solves 2 of the 3 problems that my superscript rules handles, and arguably does a better job on attribute bloat.) EDIT: Actually 2 of 4. My system gives more variety in advanced characters.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

Actually, it sounds like we're in violent agreement on both the desired effects and generally how to get there. You just prefer your own notation, as do I. That, plus my confusion about your system to begin with, has led to some regrettable and unnecessary hostility. I apologize for my part (inadvertent, I assure you) in creating that environment.

I'm sorry to say I think we've about exhausted the possibilities of this discussion at this point, since we're basically saying the same thing in two different ways. It will be very interesting to see what Steve actually does with talents in the new edition!

Hi JLV,
Heh! I like the phrase 'violent agreement'. Sorry for getting so touchy. I've got a bad habit to overreact sometimes in internet arguments.

I agree, we both want to fix some long standing problems in TFT, but just have different ideas on how to do so. As you say, I'm looking forward to what SJ actually does. I do hope that he makes some big changes tho.

I was reading a discussion on rpg geek and some guys were dismissing TFT out of hand, because of the attribute bloat problem. I wanted to jump in and say, "No! Lots of people have made house rules to fix it! It IS a good game!" But I likely did the smart thing, and just saved my time.

Warm regards, Rick.