Talent System

[Jim Kane]

Ty, does this mean we can have you back now? Your attention and input has been sorely missed on other matters while you have been "engaged".

JK

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Ty, does this mean we can have you back now? Your attention and input has been sorely missed on other matters while you have been "engaged".

JK

Well thank you for the vote of confidence. I try - with marginal success - to recall the statement often attributed to the prominent U.S. foreign policy figure and Nobel laureate Henry Kissinger: Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

The same is true of gaming disputes.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I wouldn't take it personally. It's just the fickleness of variable attention on Internet forums.

Also, David is talking about what's necessary to somehow have to represent the minimum basic distinctions that clearly exist between skill levels in actual (or game/fictional) people, but he's not suggesting a specific game mechanic. And he's doing so as a point in the context of a thread about what's needed/wanted to satisfyingly run TFT.

In contrast, I don't remember where/when you posted your idea, and I agree just as much if you're saying those are the minimum distinctions for levels I'd want to see. Your specific suggestion though I think would want a thread of its own to figure out how to make it work smoothly and consistently with the existing system. i.e. What would you do to adapt the existing talents to use that, how would you determine who has what levels in what talents, and do we really think that the difference in those levels correctly corresponds to +0, +1, +2, +3?

Actually, after two or three years of fumbling around with each talent individually, and extensive feedback from my players, I realized that a "general rule" (i.e., each level of talent improves the probability of success by one point, except for level 0 which moves you from totally unfamiliar with the task (roll 4 dice) to basic familiarity with the task (roll 3 dice)) was simpler, easier for the players to remember, and more in keeping with the KISS principle behind almost all of the TFT mechanics. It also jibed with my experience as a Master Instructor in the USAF, and how technical instruction both functions and delivers results in the form of trained individuals who can meet various "levels" of skill sets, ranging from big "A" to big "D" in terms of knowledge and from "1" to "4" in terms of technical proficiency in task performance. I figured if the two systems (TFT and USAF Technical Instruction) agreed so well, there must be a fundamental truth there that would work in TFT -- and so it has, for me, over the past ten or so years.

It's simple, easy to remember, applies universally to any talent you'd care to name (except, of course for the things like Acute Hearing and Charisma, which arguably aren't technical skills at all, but instead innate advantages due to genetics -- and even there it does work in game terms), and doesn't kludge up the game...

[JLV]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Well thank you for the vote of confidence. I try - with marginal success - to recall the statement often attributed to the prominent U.S. foreign policy figure and Nobel laureate Henry Kissinger: Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

The same is true of gaming disputes.

You have my sympathy... ;-) Or do I mean "empathy?"

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

Actually, after two or three years of fumbling around with each talent individually, and extensive feedback from my players, I realized that a "general rule" (i.e., each level of talent improves the probability of success by one point, except for level 0 which moves you from totally unfamiliar with the task (roll 4 dice) to basic familiarity with the task (roll 3 dice)) was simpler, easier for the players to remember, and more in keeping with the KISS principle behind almost all of the TFT mechanics. It also jibed with my experience as a Master Instructor in the USAF, and how technical instruction both functions and delivers results in the form of trained individuals who can meet various "levels" of skill sets, ranging from big "A" to big "D" in terms of knowledge and from "1" to "4" in terms of technical proficiency in task performance. I figured if the two systems (TFT and USAF Technical Instruction) agreed so well, there must be a fundamental truth there that would work in TFT -- and so it has, for me, over the past ten or so years.

It's simple, easy to remember, applies universally to any talent you'd care to name (except, of course for the things like Acute Hearing and Charisma, which arguably aren't technical skills at all, but instead innate advantages due to genetics -- and even there it does work in game terms), and doesn't kludge up the game...

Actually, you more or less re-created the skill system in Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes. Each skill had a minimum IQ required and an IQ point cost, exactly like TFT. Each additional level costs the same and adds 1 to the success roll. Almost all skills cost 1 point. A few cost 2 points.

I really liked that game, though I had to dial down the lethality a lot. Average hit points around 10; an AR-15 does 4d damage; an FN-FAL does 9d+1. Yikes.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Actually, after two or three years of fumbling around with each talent individually, and extensive feedback from my players, I realized that a "general rule" (i.e., each level of talent improves the probability of success by one point, except for level 0 which moves you from totally unfamiliar with the task (roll 4 dice) to basic familiarity with the task (roll 3 dice)) was simpler, easier for the players to remember, and more in keeping with the KISS principle behind almost all of the TFT mechanics. It also jibed with my experience as a Master Instructor in the USAF, and how technical instruction both functions and delivers results in the form of trained individuals who can meet various "levels" of skill sets, ranging from big "A" to big "D" in terms of knowledge and from "1" to "4" in terms of technical proficiency in task performance. I figured if the two systems (TFT and USAF Technical Instruction) agreed so well, there must be a fundamental truth there that would work in TFT -- and so it has, for me, over the past ten or so years.

It's simple, easy to remember, applies universally to any talent you'd care to name (except, of course for the things like Acute Hearing and Charisma, which arguably aren't technical skills at all, but instead innate advantages due to genetics -- and even there it does work in game terms), and doesn't kludge up the game...

Sure, the broad categories make sense, and are about what's fairly easily understandable - someone either doesn't know how to do something, does know basically, knows it well, or is an expert.

In mapping to TFT (unless you play where DX & IQ are highly normalized - i.e. are almost always 8-12, usually 10), then highish DX or IQ will tend to overpower the differences between levels that only vary by +1 each.

[JLV]

Just another problem that can be chalked up to either Attribute Bloat, or the 3 die bell curve... ;-)

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by JLV

Just another problem that can be chalked up to either Attribute Bloat, or the 3 die bell curve... ;-)

That´s why I am not so keen on talent levels beyond the basics. If you want a good sword fighter, put your attributes into DX once you have Sword (2) talent.

It´s the attributes and the bell curve that really show what developing skill is like. Higher DX, for example, starts to have diminishing returns, just like in real life, but does allow for brilliant actions when crunch time comes, (represented in the game by challenging tasks and associated DX minuses) or the wearing of burdensome armour.

Same holds true for other skills, the difference between DX 18 and 15 is no where the same as between 13 and 10, but if you have to put a shot... right... there, it makes a difference.

And whether it be tennis or chemistry, it is the mark of a professional to pull something off when under duress, whereas most everyone with some skill can do a decent job most of the time under normal circumstances.

[Jim Kane]

It dawns on me that we all may be offering "solutions", specifically or conceptually, BUT we may not all be trying to solve for the SAME problem, and with the same end-goal in mind.

Perhaps we should see if we can properly state the problem in a manner which we can all collectively agree on FIRST - and then begin to present potential solution(s) SECOND.

What I "imagine" I understand so far:

1) Most people do not want "Global Attribute Bloat", some don't care.

2) Some people do not want a "Local Talent Level" system; and some do.

This creates a problem right away, as: "Levels" ARE the equalizer to "Bloat", and: Bloat is a direct effect of non-localized Levels.

And this basically leaves us in a quandary, where, "I say, I say, I say...Ya can't get no Eggs, if ya ain't got no Chicken... and ya can't get a Chicken if you ain't got no Eggs... that's the trouble with kids today, they think eggs just grow on trees... or come from dawgs!" - from: The Wisdom of Foghorn Leghorn

JK

[Kirk]

The three attribute system in TFT, based on 3 summed cubical dice, lends a simplicity I enjoy that allows adventuring and reasonable combative and interactive resolution. The talent/spell system allows "fairly" rapid character generation.

Do I think the system the way it is, was, is perfect? Nope.

But just like my wife of 30 years, it's been a good balance that I would be loathe to mess with. Making changes will set off a ripple effect that may direct the game towards other styles of play which I don't prefer, be it GURPS or Gamma World (not that the ideas in these games don't have merit, it is just the actual playability that deserves attention, IMO).

So for me, just a few tweaks on things like pole weapons, death, sleep, poisoned sha-ken, etc. etc. would be ideal, along with clarification on DX (faster or easier) and a few other things, but not an overhaul of the talent or weapons or combative system.

I've had to house rule things to make them fit a particular situation, probably every GM has, but it is usually for a particular problem that exists in a particular story that needn't dictate a permanent change to TFT.

As a quick for instance, i wrote a programmed module for the Fellowship's journey with the One Ring. When it came time to draw up the major characters in the story, TFT fell a little flat because even with 40 or 50 points it was near impossible to design someone like Aragorn, for instance.

His talents, skills, languages, age, everything blew the system parameters. So what I did is assign attributes, talents, spells, etc. within the system that essentially came *Free* with the character based on his legacy and genetic background. After those were known and assigned, the Players were left to design as usual using the system unchanged.