Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2018, 07:54 AM   #61
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi everyone, Larsdangly.
I agree, and have seen your posts on the subject before.

I'm not sure if you want it to be a talent or an advantage. There might be a lesser version of the talent that allows spells to be learned but at a higher experience cost.

The thing I like most about your idea is that the COST of the talent can help distinguish one campaign from another. If the cost is trivial, then everyone has some talents and spells. If the cost is medium, most people are one way or another but a few people have a couple spells. And if the cost is high, then if you take a wizard, you go into spells in a big way, and everyone else leaves the spell casting to those specialists.

Changing one number will greatly change the style of the campaign.

Warm regards, Rick.

EDIT: I didn't comment much on your idea before because I was happy with how old TFT worked. Your idea was self evidently good, but nothing jumped out as worth of comment. But I think that it is a much more useful idea under the new TFT rules.

What were the costs you picked to allow someone to use magic? What are the details of your rules?

Rick
I played with the idea of having Magic Talent. It cost (I think) 5 IQ points and it reduced the cost of spells to 1/2 IQ point each. Without the Magic talent, spells cost 3 points.

Anyhow, it more or less replicated the hero/wizard distinction.

Then I asked myself - “what’s the point of changing a very simple and straightforward rule?” I decided that there was no point other than to show that I could needlessly complicate a simple rule. So I discarded it.

A lot of TFT modifications (including many of mine) fall into that category, IMHO.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 06-14-2018 at 07:59 AM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 07:59 AM   #62
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Experience Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
For some campaigns I think it works well to give XPs only for gold wasted, i.e. spent without practical benefit. That might mean fine wine, fast women, slow horses, adorable orphans, skilled pickpockets, unproductive family farms, parasitic friends, medicine for your sick mother, priestly indulgences for all the people you've killed, psychotherapy for your PTSD, whatever fits your character.
Agreed. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to rewarding xp for money spent. It could represent training, or as you note lifestyle choices that have little in-game utility (but that might add drama, enjoyment or offer adventure hooks). Such a system would need to be refined by each game master for his campaign to fit the kind of money levels his adventures will yield.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 09:16 AM   #63
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I played with the idea of having Magic Talent. It cost (I think) 5 IQ points and it reduced the cost of spells to 1/2 IQ point each. Without the Magic talent, spells cost 3 points.

Anyhow, it more or less replicated the hero/wizard distinction.

Then I asked myself - “what’s the point of changing a very simple and straightforward rule?” I decided that there was no point other than to show that I could needlessly complicate a simple rule. So I discarded it.

A lot of TFT modifications (including many of mine) fall into that category, IMHO.
Hi everyone, Ty.
I can see three reasons why something like this would be good:

-- If the rules specifically suggest that the GM can tune the cost of being able to use magic, then different campaign types will arise. Some will have a very strong class distinction, others will allow worlds where everyone can learn a spell or two. I believe more variety and an easy way for the GM to tweak his or her campaign is good.

-- It is looking like the current shape of the new TFT rules make wizards even stronger. (Steve admitted that advanced wizards are more powerful than advanced heroes, and the new rules make this considerably worse.) As I have said before, I like that there is a nice balance between wizards and heroes, and I was bothered that this balance was lost as the characters became more experienced. If you have to pay a steep cost up front, then wizards pay for this advantage.

-- It gets rid of several fussy rules. Fighters pay 3:1 for spells. Wizards pay 2:1 for talents (Why are these number different???). Wizards pay 1:1 for several talents. (Insert list to remember here.) One logical rules makes all this nonsense go away.

Apart from these arguments, I liked that TFT was a classless system. No D&D style Thieves, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Monks. I could grow into what ever type of character I wanted!

Except wizards. There was a class distinction between wizards and heroes. Oh, well. It sucks, but that was what was published.

However, with new TFT being created and with us having a chance to give some input on what will be there, I think that costing wizards logically could be cool.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 10:03 AM   #64
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi everyone, Ty.
I can see three reasons why something like this would be good:

-- If the rules specifically suggest that the GM can tune the cost of being able to use magic, then different campaign types will arise. Some will have a very strong class distinction, others will allow worlds where everyone can learn a spell or two. I believe more variety and an easy way for the GM to tweak his or her campaign is good.

-- It is looking like the current shape of the new TFT rules make wizards even stronger. (Steve admitted that advanced wizards are more powerful than advanced heroes, and the new rules make this considerably worse.) As I have said before, I like that there is a nice balance between wizards and heroes, and I was bothered that this balance was lost as the characters became more experienced. If you have to pay a steep cost up front, then wizards pay for this advantage.

-- It gets rid of several fussy rules. Fighters pay 3:1 for spells. Wizards pay 2:1 for talents (Why are these number different???). Wizards pay 1:1 for several talents. (Insert list to remember here.) One logical rules makes all this nonsense go away.

Apart from these arguments, I liked that TFT was a classless system. No D&D style Thieves, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Monks. I could grow into what ever type of character I wanted!

Except wizards. There was a class distinction between wizards and heroes. Oh, well. It sucks, but that was what was published.

However, with new TFT being created and with us having a chance to give some input on what will be there, I think that costing wizards logically could be cool.

Warm regards, Rick.
I also did away with the Wizard/Hero "class distinction and had Wizard simply as another Talent. You paid 5 INT for the Talent. This gave you a book of basic spells; Staff, Detect Magic and 3 others of your choice. You could learn further spells at 1 point per spell. Those without the Talent paid 2 for each spell. This made more sense to me as I saw TFT as essentially a "classless" system with the Wizard/Hero distinction being an artificial and unnecessary mechanism.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 10:10 AM   #65
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi everyone, Ty.
One logical rules makes all this nonsense go away.
This "logical rule" doesn't exactly replicate the original system unless it has comparably fiddly components. <shrug> I still see no useful purpose in it.

That said, if you want to alter the TFT default rules, then of course special rules may be required. My comments were in the context of using the default rules. I see no benefit in replacing the default rules.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 10:13 AM   #66
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
I also did away with the Wizard/Hero "class distinction and had Wizard simply as another Talent. You paid 5 INT for the Talent. This gave you a book of basic spells; Staff, Detect Magic and 3 others of your choice. You could learn further spells at 1 point per spell. Those without the Talent paid 2 for each spell. This made more sense to me as I saw TFT as essentially a "classless" system with the Wizard/Hero distinction being an artificial and unnecessary mechanism.
As I noted to Rick, if you're going to change the default TFT system, special rules and altered rules will likely be necessary. My point is that I don't see any advantage to these kinds of rules if you're merely replicating the default TFT system. "Wizards pay double for talents except Alchemy; heroes pay 3 points for spells and cast a -4 DX." is a pretty simple rule and hard to improve on.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 12:39 PM   #67
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
As I noted to Rick, if you're going to change the default TFT system, special rules and altered rules will likely be necessary. My point is that I don't see any advantage to these kinds of rules if you're merely replicating the default TFT system. "Wizards pay double for talents except Alchemy; heroes pay 3 points for spells and cast a -4 DX." is a pretty simple rule and hard to improve on.
It is, and I like the idea of a 1:300 or so ratio of people who are wizards to non-wizards in the population.

If being a wizard were just a matter of putting in 500 EP, then certainly everyone would want to be one. But if being a wizard has a significant cost/disadvantage of some other sort, it could address the "every PC wants to be a wizard because why not?" issue - there may want to be more of an answer to "why not?" than double or maybe (?) even triple EP cost for talents. I haven't yet studied the situation enough to see what the size/shape of a good answer might be.

I think the new system wants something to limit some talents to be innate traits about the character rather than just things you can learn. Things like Charisma, Alertness, and Acute Hearing, and being a full wizard, don't seem like everyone would be able to learn them the same way many talents can be learned.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 01:50 PM   #68
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
As I noted to Rick, if you're going to change the default TFT system, special rules and altered rules will likely be necessary. My point is that I don't see any advantage to these kinds of rules if you're merely replicating the default TFT system. "Wizards pay double for talents except Alchemy; heroes pay 3 points for spells and cast a -4 DX." is a pretty simple rule and hard to improve on.
Hi Ty, everyone.
First, some corrections: the underlined section above is 3 rules, not 1. Also Wizards don't pay double for Alchemy, AND Mathematics AND Literacy.
One of my arguments earlier was that you had to remember a list of talents that cost normal rather than double. When you incorrectly stated that there was one talent which was an exception, you trivialized my argument.

***
The 'default' TFT system HAS changed... a huge amount. Wizards are far more powerful than they used to be.

Now some of us are troubled by that and we are playing around with ideas on what the new TFT might do to mitigate some of the issues we are concerned with. If you don't perceive these to be problems, then repeating (several times) that our new system does not EXACTLY replicate the old does not move us, (or at least me), very much.

Note the texted bolded above. Exactly replicating the default TFT system is VERY LOW on my list of priorities. If you read the thread, you will notice that I see problems with the current system which I think that the new TFT will exacerbate. To some extent, the people debating these ideas want to preserve some aspects of the old TFT. But not all!!!

When you claim that we are tying to exactly preserve the old TFT while making changes, you are making a straw man argument. We are NOT trying to exactly preserve the old TFT - which is precisely why we are playing with ideas on how it could be changed.

***

On a tangental subject, I note you are not saying, "I don't see that this is a problem," and moving on. But instead, you are trying very, very hard to trivialize our discussion. "If all we are trying to do is exactly reproduce what is there, why bother changing anything?" and "<shrug> I still see no useful purpose in it."

Well in my post to you, a little ways back, I gave 3 arguments (and a personal preference), as to why these changes were suggested.

You could direct your discussion to those reasons! Those 3 arguments (and a personal preference) ARE the useful purpose that prompted the discussion. (For me at least.)

When you ignore 75% of my post and trivialize the remaining 25%, it feels less like I am having a discussion with you, and more like you are using debating tricks to push an agenda.

Now having an agenda is fine. I've been clear about mine. I think that the new TFT could be improved in a lot of ways and I'm not shy about suggesting ways to make it better. If I may speak for you, I think you're are pretty happy with how TFT is now, and don't want to change very much.

I love arguing. But if I make an argument, simply ignoring it seems pretty rude. When I give several reasons why we should change TFT and you shrug and say you can't see any reason to change anything, I wonder if you have even READ what I've written.

I'm not saying you mean to do this, but it feels like you are effectively saying that 75% of my argument is so trivial, that you in your loftiness, can not be even bothered to acknowledge it.

To give another example, in an earlier thread we were debating how many talents people should know. Several times you would argue basic TFT is fine because of "insert new rule that is not in basic TFT here".

That is assuming facts not in evidence.

When I called you on this and said if you want to defend basic TFT, please do it using only basic TFT rules, you said I was constructing a straw man argument and terminated the discussion. I don't think so. If you have to invent new rules to shore up your defence of existing rules, then your argument is weak, and I was simply pointing this out.

Anyway, I'm willing to debate and argue with you at length, that is the fun! But I would prefer if we directed the arguments to what the other person said. If you think some of my arguments are strong, acknowledge that and then say, "But THIS OTHER argument is weak BECAUSE..." Ignoring them and treating them as if they had never been said, might fool the rubes, but does not actually advance the debate. It just tempts me to bring up the ignored argument again and again, which is boring.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 01:53 PM   #69
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi Ty, everyone.
Anyway, I'm willing to debate and argue with you at length, that is the fun!
I'm not.

I don't see any great advantage in changing the system; it seems to me like changing the system just to change it. <shrug> Your mileage may vary, of course.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2018, 11:38 AM   #70
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.

Not debating but commenting on your points:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
I can see three reasons why something like this would be good:

-- If the rules specifically suggest that the GM can tune the cost of being able to use magic, then different campaign types will arise. Some will have a very strong class distinction, others will allow worlds where everyone can learn a spell or two. I believe more variety and an easy way for the GM to tweak his or her campaign is good.
Yes... though it can also be done with a few lines of notes about how it can be done differently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
-- It is looking like the current shape of the new TFT rules make wizards even stronger. (Steve admitted that advanced wizards are more powerful than advanced heroes, and the new rules make this considerably worse.) As I have said before, I like that there is a nice balance between wizards and heroes, and I was bothered that this balance was lost as the characters became more experienced. If you have to pay a steep cost up front, then wizards pay for this advantage.
Yes, though it's not as simple as one being more or less powerful. They're different. Higher ST, DX, weapons and armor can be duplicated by magic but only at a rapid/high cost in fatigue. In an ongoing action situation that doesn't leave time for rest, wizards who use their power don't have time to recover it, and then they become exhausted non-fighters.

The aspect I worry about the new system is that maybe many more people will start taking spells, blurring some of this difference and making even warriors foolish not to take at least a spell or three.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
-- It gets rid of several fussy rules. Fighters pay 3:1 for spells. Wizards pay 2:1 for talents (Why are these number different???). Wizards pay 1:1 for several talents. (Insert list to remember here.) One logical rules makes all this nonsense go away.
Making them the same would be slightly simpler and more symmetrical. But I tend to think there is a logical feel to the existing system, so I wouldn't call it nonsense. It makes sense to me that there might be a few people whose genius is with magic, so it's much easier for them to learn that. I don't think it follows that that means they'd be equally terrible at learning most other human talents, and the exceptions seem to have appropriate thematic reasons. Languages and especially literacy are things wizards would tend to use probably more than almost all non-wizards, and magical alchemy might logically be easier for a wizard than a non-wizard, and having it be harder (especially three times harder) seems wrong to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Apart from these arguments, I liked that TFT was a classless system. No D&D style Thieves, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Monks. I could grow into what ever type of character I wanted!
Yes, I definitely agree there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Except wizards. There was a class distinction between wizards and heroes. Oh, well. It sucks, but that was what was published.

However, with new TFT being created and with us having a chance to give some input on what will be there, I think that costing wizards logically could be cool.
I wouldn't say the class distinction sucked (I think it does it's job fairly well, and remains the bar a proposal needs to beat), but yeah, it was an exception and I might say it felt imperfect or less than ideal. It could be nice to remove the exception and have it be entirely classless, but I'd want the new method to be an improvement and not introduce more problems than it solves. A 5-point or 500 EP talent to be a wizard seems like a non-starter, but I'd be very interested to see more suggestions on what might replace the class distinction, especially if it works better with the new EP system.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.