The Fantasy Trip

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by ecz

everyone can try [...]

Most talents represent professional level expertise. If I have Priest, that's enough to get me a job as a Priest. To be a thief requires the Thief talent, etc.

But it's often an important element of a character that they have a basic knowledge of something that other characters might lack. Suppose Groo the warrior and Sergio the Scholar go out in the woods together. This is something Sergio never does, whereas Groo is on campaign all the time. To represent this difference at the moment, Groo will need a decent IQ to buy Naturalist and Woodsman. But then Groo will be an expert in a way his player probably didn't envisage.

The question is whether the game would benefit from representing a level between professional expertise and total ignorance. I think it adds a great deal of texture to characters, particularly in small parties.

Applications include languages, Literacy, Physicker, Tactics, Bard, Swimming, Animal Handler ("I know dogs"), New Followers, weapon talents, lots of things.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

...
Suppose Groo the warrior and Sergio the Scholar go out in the woods together. This is something Sergio never does, whereas Groo is on campaign all the time. To represent this difference at the moment, Groo will need a decent IQ to buy Naturalist and Woodsman. But then Groo will be an expert in a way his player probably didn't envisage. ...

Hi David, all.
LOL, yes! Groo and Sergio! For those who don't know, Groo is a barbarian warrior like Conan, but, unlike Conan, he is butt stupid. Groo should NOT be smart enough to get Naturalist.

There are a number of very funny comic books about Groo.

Warm regards, Rick

p.s. I thought Sergio was an artist?

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Sounds like the difference is that I generally assume the talent in TFT is the middle of the three, and you seem to assume it's the lowest of the three. I actually think the game needs talents at the bottom every bit as much as talents at the top.

I really don’t. The current talents are fine for starting (32 point) characters.

I don’t run adventures with weaker characters (nor would I think that they’d be much fun). But if someone wanted a basic familiarity with a talent, I’d handle it on a case by case basis. And I can’t ever recall that being requested. But if someone wanted a basic level of (say) Sword, I’d let them apply 1 point to the Sword talent and have them hit with -2 DX (or somesuch). When they added another point to Sword, it would behave normally.

But in probably hundreds of TFT games, this has never come up.* Therefore, I’d be reticent to clutter the game up with an additional tier of talents. However, TFT does have issues at higher levels. So I have introduced the expert and master he and weapon talents - they roll 1d less to hit and add 1d to an opponent’s hit number. They were ok, but nothing earth shattering.

TFT always hit a sweet spot for me. I would only add detail if I thought it addressed a serious issue.

*I suppose a Wizard who desperately wanted to wield a sword might see some benefit in a 1 point basic Sword talent (which would cost him 2 points). But I really think that this can be handled with a short rule - “Talents costing 2+ points can be bought at a basic level. They cost 1 less IQ point and have a -2 to attribute rolls when using that talent. They can be brought up to full strength by spending an extra IQ point later.” Note that an average figure with a 10 in the talent’s applicable attribute would have a 25% chance of success with the basic talent and a 50% chance with the standard talent (assuming 3d rolls). That seems about right to me.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

.
I would only add detail if I thought it addressed a serious issue.
.

I absolutely agree; and I burn-incense while bowing deeply from the ankles in reverence to the wisdom before me.

Thank you for stating it so perfectly Ty

.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
A few comments on magic items. I'm happy with them, but have a few things that need a bit of polishing. I've mentioned a few of these before but I'm putting them in one place.

-- Some items are described as self powering and others require 1 fST per turn to power. Make it so virtually all items require 1 fST per turn. If a self powering item is wanted, then it is easy to multiply the cost by 10.

-- There is an error in the notes of the magic table. Notes D thru H are intended to allow the wizard to charge more to take into account his loss of pay for rolling auto-misses (which waste a week's work), and rolling an 18 (which destroys the enchantment being created). But note D should say, “Add 10% to the value of the current enchantment”. (This should replace the current “Add 10% to the value of the underlying item.) (See Appendix A below, for WHY it is wrong.)

-- Many items are really powerful. Weaker, less expensive versions would be welcome. e.g. an item that gives you +2 MA rather than Speed Movement which doubles your MA. A Haze ring that gives enemy –2 DX to attack you, rather than a Blur ring (–4 DX). A Slow Missiles rather than Reverse Missiles.

-- Remove attribute adders. Dull items which make attribute bloat significantly worse.

-- I think that Reverse Missiles, Speed Movement, and the +1 and +2 Charms are too cheap. The Charms in particular are far too inexpensive. I increased the price ten fold, and my players STILL buy them (when they get rich enough).

-- The cost for Wishes ($40,000) is far too low, given the current rules on gaining wishes.

-- The wizard's profit for making these items are all over the place. The number of weeks and cost of ingredients need to be fixed to allow the correct wizard's profit. There are lots of errors in this table.

-- Note that the B note in the magic item table was updated in the errata, to make thrown spell like items multiply their cost by the size of the creature to use the item. (So a Stone Flesh for a giant would cost 3 times as much since the giant is a 3 hex creature.) Update this in the main game.

I would love to see more spells and more magic items and potions in AW. Turning it into a 64 page supplement would be great!

-- Speaking of potions, we have healing potions (arguably too powerful), but why not add a potion that returns 3 fatigue? Useful and not too powerful.

*****

Appendix A: (From a post in the TFT forums at Brainiac.)

The cost of a silver ring or gold ring is insignificant compared to the cost of the enchantment. But let us think of the cost of enchanting two crystal balls. One was a solid diamond the other is glass.

To make this example concrete let us say that the glass ball has a cost of $500, and the diamond ball has a cost of $3,000,000.

A crystal ball is a G type enchantment, which adds 50% to the underlying value of the item to the cost of the enchantment. This enchantment costs $50,000.

So using the rules in AW, the cost of the enchantment on the glass ball is: $50,000 + 50%($500) = $50,250. Note that the cost of the enchantment has increased a bit, based on the value of the underlying item. That price does not include the cost of the glass ball, so the final cost is: $50,750.

But casting the spell on the diamond ball is: $50,000 + 50%($3,000,000) = $1,550,000. Including the cost of the diamond ball the total is: $4,550,000.

This seems totally wrong to me. The two costs of the enchantment (which I bolded above) should be the same.

I am pretty certain that what Steve Jackson intended is not what was written in the rules. I think that when this rule was written an 18 would destroy ALL enchantments in an item. When that rule changed (too harsh), this rule didn't get updated.

*****

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

(Why do posts about different topics like the above get put here? Seems like it makes it hard to find/follow threads.)

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- Some items are described as self powering and others require 1 fST per turn to power. Make it so virtually all items require 1 fST per turn. If a self powering item is wanted, then it is easy to multiply the cost by 10.

Could be good, depending on the item. We definitely found that self-powered items just started to be like super-powers for characters, and could really slant balance especially when it was something like a self-powered Stone/Iron Flesh ring. Our nerf was to add crunchy magic item breakdown rules and rules for busting magic items without killing the wearer (e.g. lightning side-effect) - fatigue costs would work too except of course that enough money can make the self-powered ones.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- Many items are really powerful. Weaker, less expensive versions would be welcome. e.g. an item that gives you +2 MA rather than Speed Movement which doubles your MA. A Haze ring that gives enemy –2 DX to attack you, rather than a Blue ring (–4 DX). A Slow Missiles rather than Reverse Missiles.

Yep. (Blue -> Blur) Could have Slow Missiles -> Deflect Missiles -> Reverse Missiles -> Control Missiles. Could also have Reverse Missile (singular).

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- Remove attribute adders. Dull items which make attribute bloat significantly worse.

Agree. We almost entirely avoided using those, as well as charms and curses and wishes, also because they just seem a bit too generically good and allow money to just give a bland advantage that ups the stakes of the "arms race" of powerful people. i.e. As GM, having to think about who would logically get those annoying items, and not really liking that whoever has them is just better, having no limits or downsides/tradeoffs, etc.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- I think that Reverse Missiles, Speed Movement, and the +1 and +2 Charms are too cheap. The Charms in particular are far too inexpensive. I increased the price ten fold, and my players STILL buy them (when they get rich enough).

Yeah.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- The cost for Wishes ($40,000) is far too low, given the current rules on gaining wishes.

Also who is going to sell one at a standard cash price like that? And if there is a market like that, are all the very wealthy/nobility and powerful wizards assumed to have regular access to them, tend to have jacked up their attributes with them, etc?

We tended to add house rules that made them more risky to get so very rarely attempted and only for good reasons other than general industrial buff-ification or earning money.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- Speaking of potions, we have healing potions (arguably too powerful), but why not add a potion that returns 3 fatigue? Useful and not too powerful.

Good idea.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
I've previously said that I'm not troubled by the complexity of magic items, but in this post I was going to go over which part I liked, and which parts I disliked.

THINGS I LIKED:
-- I really like the rule of 5. This limits how many items a character can get.

-- I like how successive enchantments on the same item cost twice as much for each new enchantment. x1, x2, x4, x8, x16. This makes it very, very expensive to get a 'full load-out' of 25 enchantments.

-- I liked how I could pay x10 and make a magic item self powering. This allowed customization. More ways to customize an item would be cool in the new TFT.

-- I liked how you had to have apprentices to make some enchantments. This was not a problem in a city, you just rent more from the guild. But a wizard in a tower in the wilderness, (with say two apprentices), is limited to only being able to make some items and not all. This limitation was neat.


THINGS I WAS INDIFFERENT ABOUT:
-- Many, many rolls to make a big enchantment. I assumed this was for 'realism' and didn't give it much thought, but the many rolls were not fun. Just something to get thru. Not a big problem because it didn't happen that often.

-- Starting items to begin enchantment. I saw the point, but it didn't come up much. If Steve is looking to simplify things, rather than needing a Basilisk Brain to start a 6 week enchantment, change it into 1/8 of a Basilisk Brain per week. (1/8 rather than 1/6 so you are not hooped if you miss a DX roll.) Dividing (one large) starting ingredient into (several) weekly ingredients simplifies calculations with NO COST as to how the game behaves.


THINGS I DISLIKED:
-- The only part of magic item creation that confused me for a while, was the purpose of notes D thru H. The purpose of these rules were not explained. I thought this was for the cost of security, but now I believe that they take into account the chance of failures (16 or 17 which waste a week's work) and disasters (an 18 which destroys the current work so far). This is a lot of complexity in order to allow lots of rolls. If a 20 week enchantment had ONE roll at the end, these notes could quietly go away. If Steve is planning to simplify magic, the thing that would give the most bang for the buck is to reduce 20 rolls to one.

-- The algorithm for calculating costs is not in the book. This system:

(Divide cost of item – Starting ingredients) / number of weeks to make = Weekly_Lab_Cost.

Weekly_Lab_Cost – $150 (for lab maintenance) – $50 (for lab rental) = Weekly_Cost_Plus_Profit.

Weekly _Cost_Plus_Profit – (Wizard's Weekly Profit) = Weekly_Cost.

--> Greater Magic Item Enchantment.............. Wiz's weekly profit = $300
--> Lesser Magic Item Enchantment................ Wiz's weekly profit = $200
--> Weapon Armor / Enchantment ................. Wiz's weekly profit = $120
// These profits are from the job table.

Weekly_Cost – $50 (for each apprentice needed) = Cost of common ingredients needed per week.


Once I knew this, using the magic item tables was simple. I could make new magic items and properly make everything work. (I don't trust the tables in the back. They round values, and a slightly wrong value multiplied by many weeks is pretty far off.)

I think that the Wiz' profits are too high. Taxes, (or land rental), and the price of security could reduce the wizard's profit, if wanted.

*****

In summary, the current system is OK, tho it can use some polishing. A lot of values in the table are off (some items are far more profitable than others). However, if Steve does a massive revision, the things I most hope stay in TFT are the rule of 5 and the doubling costs for subsequent enchantments.

Comments welcome.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Bayarea]

My big 3 issues with Magic,

1 Attribute adders need to go.

2 Wishes shouldn't be to add attributes (make up a reason) they can heal or bring someone recently dead back to life though. And they should be really hard to get. Something like a 50/50 roll at the end to see if it worked no modifier or take X number of dice damage armor and magic flesh don't help. This get rid of "I'll just use one of my wishes"

3 Self powered magic items? Where does this power come from maybe it has a battery: Reverse missiles ring charged for 3 fST after that 1 fST/turn to keep going.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Bayarea

My big 3 issues with Magic, ...

2 Wishes shouldn't be to add attributes (make up a reason) they can heal or bring someone recently dead back to life though. And they should be really hard to get. Something like a 50/50 roll at the end to see if it worked no modifier or take X number of dice damage armor and magic flesh don't help. This get rid of "I'll just use one of my wishes" ...

Hi Bayarea, everyone.

Strangely I never thought of taking away Wishes power to give you an attribute. Good idea.

Altho, I would let wishes raise your maximum attribute limit by one. This way a giant with a wish could raise his maximum IQ. (He would still have to pay experience points to earn it tho.)

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

THINGS I WAS INDIFFERENT ABOUT:

-- Starting items to begin enchantment. I saw the point, but it didn't come up much. If Steve is looking to simplify things, rather than needing a Basilisk Brain to start a 6 week enchantment, change it into 1/8 of a Basilisk Brain per week. (1/8 rather than 1/6 so you are not hooped if you miss a DX roll.) Dividing (one large) starting ingredient into (several) weekly ingredients simplifies calculations with NO COST as to how the game behaves.

I always assumed that ingredients were there primarily as a "quest invoker," that is, if you wanted someone to make something for you, you had to go out and find the Gargoyle liver required for the purpose first (they don't have one lying around, or, at least, aren't interested in giving it to you (even for cash) since they might need it themselves for their own purposes).

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

THINGS I DISLIKED:
-- The only part of magic item creation that confused me for a while, was the purpose of notes D thru H. The purpose of these rules were not explained. I thought this was for the cost of security, but now I believe that they take into account the chance of failures (16 or 17 which waste a week's work) and disasters (an 18 which destroys the current work so far). This is a lot of complexity in order to allow lots of rolls. If a 20 week enchantment had ONE roll at the end, these notes could quietly go away. If Steve is planning to simplify magic, the thing that would give the most bang for the buck is to reduce 20 rolls to one.

This makes a lot of sense -- there's a certain amount of drudgery in the game doing all this rolling. At the very least, reduce it to monthly checks instead of weekly ones. Mind you, I'm not saying Steve's original rules weren't realistic or anything, but this is a game, not a calendar. I suspect the weekly rolls might have had something to do with the weekly job rolls ("everything is rolled for weekly"), which ALSO ought to be changed to monthly, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

In summary, the current system is OK, tho it can use some polishing. A lot of values in the table are off (some items are far more profitable than others). However, if Steve does a massive revision, the things I most hope stay in TFT are the rule of 5 and the doubling costs for subsequent enchantments.

I agree. The "Rule of Five" was a very nice touch, as well as being similar to a good many fantasy novels of the time (rules of three, and rules of five seemed to be quite popular there for a while), and put some limitations on the thing players could find and buy. And doubling the costs also limited the amount of magic easily available to the players; again a real plus to the game.