The Woodsman Talent

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

... Agreed it's a talent. With the talents IMO being Seamanship, Expert Seamanship, Navigation and Command/Leadership, and the captain expected to have all but Expert Seamanship.

Thanks for the reply, David!
Just to clarify, when you wrote "Agreed it's a talent", I think you meant: "Agreed [Captain] is [not] a talent", yes?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

ak_aramis is correct. Most captains, even, back in the late renaissance to reformation period weren't actually navigators. Pilots/Sailing Masters were. However, having said that, there isn't necessarily any reason to play it that way on Cidri!

Since you mentioned that bold part, for those who don't relate to why I'd say there is a reason, for players like me, anyway...

The reasons I break out sailing skills when an RPG focus goes on a sailing ship, are:

* Raised on TFT, I like things to make sense and be somewhat like reality.

* It seems clear that swimming, boating, crewing a sailing ship, leading a crew, navigating, and tactics for boarding combat and sailing combat, are all different subjects that could be (and often were/are) learned without learning the others.

* There are interesting situations that arise for considering who on a ship knows or does not know which of these skills, especially when trying to form a crew, plotting mutinies, or figuring out what kind of trouble the ship is in after a combat has killed assorted crew.

* It's more interesting and consistent and believable and therefore to me more immersive and fun.

[JLV]

Allow me to point out that what I was saying is that if you want your "captain" character to have Nav skills (by taking the nav talent), there isn't any reason in the world why you shouldn't do so in TFT, despite the historical record here on Earth.

Naturally, if you want to put some kind of limit on who can learn navigation in your campaign, that's totally cool, and I wouldn't presume to criticize it -- after all, we play the game for fun, and if that's fun for you and your group, then go for it.

On the other hand, if some other group wants to do it differently, well vive la choice and all that...

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by JLV

Allow me to point out that what I was saying is that if you want your "captain" character to have Nav skills (by taking the nav talent), there isn't any reason in the world why you shouldn't do so in TFT, despite the historical record here on Earth.

Naturally, if you want to put some kind of limit on who can learn navigation in your campaign, that's totally cool, and I wouldn't presume to criticize it -- after all, we play the game for fun, and if that's fun for you and your group, then go for it.

On the other hand, if some other group wants to do it differently, well vive la choice and all that...

My issue is with having a Captain talent that requires Navigation and/or expert sailing. A Naval Captain talent should be the "Naval Tactics" skill, while a Merchant Captain talent would be essentially about optimizing routing and making better trade deals.

If there are to be sailing based talents, they should, IMO, correspond to the basic work areas - Rower, Topman, Deckhand, Navigator, Helmsman, Cook, and Gunner. These are also the various warrant officers (the term goes back a long way - 16th C or earlier)... Rowing Master, Sailing Master, Bosun/boatswain, Navigator, Quartermaster, Cook, and Master of Guns. Surgeons were also masters.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

My issue is with having a Captain talent that requires Navigation and/or expert sailing. A Naval Captain talent should be the "Naval Tactics" skill, while a Merchant Captain talent would be essentially about optimizing routing and making better trade deals.

If there are to be sailing based talents, they should, IMO, correspond to the basic work areas - Rower, Topman, Deckhand, Navigator, Helmsman, Cook, and Gunner. These are also the various warrant officers (the term goes back a long way - 16th C or earlier)... Rowing Master, Sailing Master, Bosun/boatswain, Navigator, Quartermaster, Cook, and Master of Guns. Surgeons were also masters.

Actually, I'm in agreement with you -- I don't think "captain" should be a talent -- it's more a job description, and to do it well, you would need a certain number of talents related to the task. My comments above were based entirely on that premise.

[guymc]

Originally Posted by John Brinegar

How about this? The TFT we get from the Kickstarter stays focused on underground adventures, as the original was (and as the title In The Labyrinth suggests), and we later get a wilderness splatbook. I think I would prefer that. I wonder what Guy thinks?

I had no trouble creating an entire overland adventure (GrailQuest) before ITL even existed. ITL as it stands wouldn’t restrict me too much, I think. I want to do overland adventures — big maps and lots of adventure hooks built in for campaigning — but I would probably be fairly satisfied with the level of detail we have now.

I’m by no means opposed to a wilderness rules expansion, but — now that I think of it — a short expansion with just a few tweaks and a bit more granularity could be a small one-page double-sided add on to a big-map adventure pack. I think that would be the way to go.

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

If there are to be sailing based talents, they should, IMO, correspond to the basic work areas - Rower, Topman, Deckhand, Navigator, Helmsman, Cook, and Gunner...

Getting into the weeds? I'd think TFT would take a different tack, but who can say what we will have to go and extrapolate from on until we actually see the new edition of the rules.

[guymc]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I don't want to sound like I am splitting hairs, but if a multilevel Woodsman talent is not already justified, why write rules to justify it?

I don't see the need. I also tried drafting a Survival skill for multiple terrains, and then went back and looked at Woodsman, and found that I had only made it more fiddly. This may be time to repeat the "This is not GURPS" mantra.In GURPS I could create a whole party of "rangers" and make them all different. TFT is not that crunchy. (My goal for TFT is about a 2.5 on a ten-point scale of crunchiness, where GURPS is a solid 8+.)

Agreed. SO much of the stuff I see in the forums is just adding complexity to a game that was never intended for that level of detail. I don’t object to YOU adding whatever crunchiness to TFT that you need to tell the story you want to tell. I just don’t want it to become more stuff that EVERYONE has to carry on their backs, whether they need it or not.

Not surprisingly, Steve and I sometimes do have different ideas on developing and adding on to TFT. If we didn’t he wouldn’t have hired me. He already HAS Steve Jackson on the payroll and doesn’t need to pay to hear from another guy who only says the same things. But this is one thing where I think the whole creative team on the line is in sync. TFT doesn’t need a lot more rules as part of the core games.

I just deleted several more paragraphs about this because I realized that it speaks to my personal philosophy and desires regarding TFT, and I think I’d rather that go in a separate thread, where I can share a bit of what TFT means to me. Later for that.

I’ll just say for now that I’ll happily talk cool rules expansions all day. I’m a game designer, and that’s all kinds of fun. But as a Line Editor, I share Steve’s philosophy that TFT needs to present a simple, fast-paced and EASY TO LEARN system.

I have already talked to a number of people whose eyes glaze over when they pick up ITL/AM/AW now, and a few who even rated Melee as tl;dr. I want them playing too, which means we have to keep the entry position rules-light. (I wonder if you could recognizably do TFT-compatible play with 2 pages of rules, front and back. An interesting challenge for a “nanogame” version someday, maybe. But I digress again...)

Melee proved that rules-light doesn’t mean you give up depth, realism and versatility. I defy any set of RPG rules to give you a more realistic combat experience with a similar word count.

There will likely be spinoffs where more granularity is offered for the sake of a particular kind of setting or style of game, but they won’t be part of core TFT, and that isn’t where we are going right now.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I think ending Woodsman with the paragraph below does give some of what is being asked for, though.

"Normally, the knowledge of the Woodsman works automatically to protect the party. In very difficult situations, the GM can require a 3/IQ or harder roll from the Woodsman character, to see if they actually know what to do."

That’s more of the sort of enhancement I’d have in mind as Steve revises ITL. Something simple that makes the game easier to play while allowing more complicated situations to be directed by the GM in a consistent fashion. A party in the wilderness with a Woodsman doesn’t need to roll to avoid eating poisonous mushrooms or knowing whether a sound in the night is the mating call of a bullfrog or the subtle growl of an apex predator about to spring. He’ll naturally guide them through the mundane stuff.

Put the group in a position where they’re lost in a frozen mountain location for two weeks without supplies, though, and the woodsman’s daily roll to try and find some food may be the difference between a hale and hearty party and a group of adventurers who end up weak from hunger.

[guymc]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

If there are to be sailing based talents, they should, IMO, correspond to the basic work areas - Rower, Topman, Deckhand, Navigator, Helmsman, Cook, and Gunner. These are also the various warrant officers (the term goes back a long way - 16th C or earlier)... Rowing Master, Sailing Master, Bosun/boatswain, Navigator, Quartermaster, Cook, and Master of Guns. Surgeons were also masters.

I’m sorry, my friend, but that’s exactly what I do not want to do with TFT. Seven Talents (plus second-level Talents for some of those), devoted to sailing? Realistic, but just not appropriate for TFT core. At most, we need a way to say “this character knows the sea” and perhaps “this character knows how to command at sea”. It is likely to be a part of a character’s background that offers a chance for related adventure hooks and interesting relationships to come back and affect play.

If we ever did a TFT-based game that centered on high-seas piracy, with megahex deck plans, cutlassry, diving and drowning, ship’s justice, planks and keelhauling — that game would probably include a bit more granularity as suited the setting. But it would be intended for the people playing that game, and would not be necessary complexity for 99% of TFT players.

I appreciate the enthusiasm for all kinds of settings and adventuring, but it is not core TFT, and that’s what we have to build (and sell) before we can even consider that sort of depth in the line.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

Actually, I'm in agreement with you -- I don't think "captain" should be a talent -- it's more a job description ...

Hi all, JLV.
I agree with you. This thread has gone astray from the Woodsman focus, perhaps we would want to make a new Seamanship Talent thread?

But I think that the "Captain" talent should be called "Naval Officer" talent. The Captain would take that, navigation, and hopefully at least basic Seamanship. Then he would be ready to roll.

Warm regards, Rick.