the "outrageous attribute" problem

[Chris Goodwin]

One possibility, and this was a direction I was leaning toward with Warrior & Wizard, was that there were warrior talents, and wizard talents, and everyone else talents. Warrior talents (usually the weapons, but also things like Tactics) would cost 1 point for a warrior. Wizard talents, spells included, would cost 1 point for a wizard. Everything that was on your talent list cost 1, everything else cost a minimum of 2. That led me to a third character type -- "wanderer" for whom the "everything else" talents cost 1, and both the fighting and magical talents cost 2 or more. Some talents might be on all of the character types' lists.

A logical way to go would be to have fighters' talent points derive from ST and wizards' talent points derive from IQ. The wanderer's talents might derive from DX.

Another logical way might be to change the way stat minima work for talents in general. Fighter oriented talents wouldn't have an IQ minimum; they'd have a ST minimum instead, or maybe a DX minimum for the ones where DX should govern. Brainy talents would have an IQ minimum. Agility type talents would have a DX minimum. Those would hold regardless of which pool of points you were using to buy them.

This way lies down a rabbit hole, though.

Edit to add: Another idea. Add a "pseudo-attribute": Talent. It starts at 8, along with all of the others, and you get an additional 2 points to spend. Starting characters are now 40 points. The points you have to spend on talents are based on the new stat. If you want to add talents with experience, you'd spend XP on Talent just like any other attribute. Talents would otherwise be unchanged, or would be changed to whatever extent the GM (or author) wishes (i.e. some might have ST minima, some IQ, some DX).

Edit edit: Talent would start at a flat 10. Characters otherwise start at 8 in the other stats, and have 8 points to spend (so 32 points, like normal). You can spend XP on Talent the same way you would any attribute. At start, it costs 125 EP to increase Talent by 1. Talent is exceptional in two ways: it never counts against your attribute total for advancement purposes, and once you reach the 37-40 total attribute level the costs to increase Talent are one level less. (So: 125 EP to increase Talent up to 40 total; 250 at 41-45; 1000 at 46-50; and so on.) The only way to add additional talents, spells, etc., is to increase your Talent attribute; when you do, you have those additional points to spend on them. All the other rules still stand for buying new talents, including in regards to minimum IQ (or other stat), prerequisites, and so on.

[larsdangly]

This feels like another of those issues where we're talking about some sort of new TFT-derived game, not TFT itself. The original game was built from the ground up to have very little cruft in the core rules, and stuff like primary and secondary attributes, etc. feels to me like a level of elaboration that doesn't belong.

[Steve Jackson]

Originally Posted by Charles G.

.The problem is that IQ seems to conflate two related, but quite different things: intellectual/reasoning ability, and memory "capacity".

Exactly. And it's trying to do two different things game-mechanically: it's a target on a 3d6 roll, in which numbers above 16 are fairly pointless, and it's also a counter for spell and talent capacity, in which, depending on your view of magic, numbers below 20 are strictly for beginners.

From that POV it would make sense to split the IQ stat. I understand this . . .

But if we don't wish to introduce a new stat we could also say, frinstance, that your spell/talent learning points are some multiple of IQ, rather than flat IQ.

[larsdangly]

I have two levels of house rules I work with that address the general issue folks have with collapsing too many jobs onto one stat:

1) a 'four stat' version (which has been my standard house rule for many years), where everyone has ST, DX, IQ and 'talent points', where TP equal your IQ when a character is first created, but they advance separately afterwards, and gaining 1 TP costs have as many EXP as gaining 1 point in one of the three core attributes. Talent points are your 'counter' stat defining how many talents and/or spells you know. IQ is still used as the the threshold stat for deciding which talents or spells you are capable of learning (and is the target number for rolls).

2) A 'seven stat, no talent' version (which I've only play tested for a few tens of hours, but really like a lot). This is probably too much of a stretch from core TFT to consider seriously in this discussion, but might be of interest to some people. Each character has the three existing stats (ST, DX, IQ), which are determined and largely operate using the standard rules, and four additional attributes: Status (determined with a random roll), and three attributes that have to do with personality or behavior: Valor, Piety and Charisma (these three are determined by point allocation, in a fashion similar to the core stats, but you can only trade points among these three - i.e., you can't trade Piety for ST, etc.). There are NO talents; all actions requiring a die roll to adjudicate are made vs. one of these 7 numbers, and there are various specialized rules concerned with each (combat is basically standard TFT combat, though Valor appears; Piety is used for miraculous sorts of magic; Status, Charisma, Valor and IQ for the various social interactions; Jobs are organized by Status, though other stats can be pre requisites; etc.). This mega-house-ruled game started as an attempt to create a game based on Melee and Wizard that is suitable for all sorts of campaign play, but stays true to the idea that a character is completely described by a few simple numbers, without any system for skills, classes, talents, etc.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Charles G.

Ty, my lad! You are really working overtime to go out of your way to misunderstand the simple point I'm making! Let's not mindlessly fixate on the simplistic, illustrative example I came up with, and presume that it is the totality of the point I'm making!

OK, got it. Ignore what you wrote and divine what you meant. <grin, not serious, smiley emoticon, etc.>

Actually, being a lawyer, I never have to try to misunderstand someone. It just comes naturally... :D

I should also point out that I never insisted that the designer solve anything; I merely pointed out that IQ is the one stat I had trouble accepting the as-written implementation of.

Fair enough. I'm sure each of us can name things that we don't like about TFT.

Proceeding from the simplest view, would it improve your understanding and be easier to wrap your mind around if you were to substitute IQ 14 "Master Physicker" for Mathematician, the former of which even a brutal orc warrior might want to know, if only to patch himself up after a fight? So I ask again, now that it is a relevant possibility, does it make sense for a low IQ figure to be able to learn a high intellect type of talent, merely by hewing heads off of foemen?

Probably not. But...

1. That seems a different point that what I was responding to. Even so, I still think it highly improbable that a player whose character starts with IQ 8 will spend a significant number of attribute points on IQ. Possible, of course. But unlikely. In any case, the problem is very easy to address if you consider it an issue - simply limit the number of extra points that can be applied to attributes. Earlier in this thread, I listed three approaches that came to mind. Or, rationalize it with one of the options listed below. I guess my problem is that I don't consider it a problem. Real life will always have aberrations and I just don't think that game designers should expend energy solving for wildly improbable events, particularly if the solution might create other problems.

2. Wouldn't the experience points argument apply to virtually all RPGs that use generic "experience points", though?

3. To what degree are we simulating fantasy rather than reality? It's a serious question, not an attempt to handwave illogical rules by saying "it's fantasy". (I hate that). Maybe the question is more of a high fantasy (allow odd, miraculous things to happen) vs. low fantasy (more grounded in reality).

Let's try a different tack. Strength and Dexterity (and conflated/associated qualities such as agility or endurance) are physical attributes that are amenable to improvement via working out, practice, etc. IQ, however, has two aspects that are very dissimilar. One part, memory "capacity" or, perhaps, better referred to as "muscle memory" (yes, a misnomer, but a commonly used term) can in fact be improved with practice and/or experience, much like ST and DX. But the other aspect of IQ, what I'll call abstract reasoning/cognition, is something else altogether, and is pretty much a fixed thing at birth. Yes, environment can play a small part, but if you are born a genius, you'll grow up pretty smart no matter what, and if you're born dumb then you ain't gonna get much brighter.

I'm not sure I agree that the science is as settled. But I'm not a clinical psychologist, so arguing about the science is pointless.

However, if I needed a rationalization, the following come to mind:

sudden genius syndrome
not-so-sudden genius syndrome
divine intervention/miracle
fundamental life change (i.e., the character decided to stop acting like an idiot and start using his brains)
A character decided to start applying himself (similar to the above; he's actually very smart, but was lazy)
brain damage that actually helped (surely the average TFT character can be assumed to have gotten hit a lot)
mysterious forces that Man Was Not Meant to Understand
possession by a benign entity that left the character smarter
maybe the IQ8 was caused by mental illness that got better

Etc., etc.

Given some of the wildly improbable things that happen in fantasy and mythology (and Real Life for that matter), is it really so unbelievable that a stupid person might become a genius?

I just haven't had the problems with IQ that you have. And I generally don't worry too much about (what I think) are highly improbable occurrences <shrug>. If it ever does happen in my TFT campaign, and I feel a need to rationalize it, I'd chalk it up to one of those causes.

And if I thought it was a problem, I've proposed 3 ways to address it in another post.

<snip>Not sure how, or even if, the problem should be solved, but I do present it as something that should be thought about, at least.

I'm pretty sure I haven't called for the Thought Police to arrest you <grin>. Besides, I have engaged in blasphemy, heresy and apostasy here and my hypocrisy only goes so far...

My concern is simply that I don't want TFT to be turned into a fundamentally different system. Particularly when there's already a far more detailed, similar system available (GURPS).

No system can do everything well. Those that have tried invariably suck. In my opinion, of course.

This is why I have (barely) resisted the urge to add attributes to TFT in my campaigns. After all, ST can be easily split into strength, health and mana. DX into agility, manual dexterity and hand-eye-coordination. IQ into reasoning, education, and perception. Judgment/wisdom could be added (my life experience has convinced me that wisdom and IQ are not only very different attributes, but at some point possibly negatively correlated). And of course, Luck.

Such a game might be fun - but it wouldn't be TFT.

I think that you have to accept certain compromises if you're gonna have 3 attributes and a very simple character generation system.

[Bayarea]

As long as your GM is just giving away EP, this shouldn't be a problem. It takes a boatload of points to get to 60 attributes Even if you played every day that would take years. And with the Job Roles limited to 1000 EP (per Steve Jackson Space Gamer 29) the Roll Your Way to Hero is out as well.

Now Jeffrey has a point for his campaign that Attribute Bloat is a problem however in Rick Smith's campaign running for 20 plus years he hasn't had anyone over 70 points and only 1 over 60. That speaks to my experience as well as Ty Beard's and most others from the Brainiac list that was the torch that kept TFT alive for the last 20 plus years (list started in 98).

I respect JVL's opinion and think at higher levels the bloat is a real thing, he and I only disagree at what point it becomes a problem. Generally that means when it becomes Roll Play versus Role Play. The "I have a 20 IQ so I should know the answer right!" mentality.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Bayarea

As long as your GM is just giving away EP, this shouldn't be a problem. It takes a boatload of points to get to 60 attributes Even if you played every day that would take years. And with the Job Roles limited to 1000 EP (per Steve Jackson Space Gamer 29) the Roll Your Way to Hero is out as well.

Now Jeffrey has a point for his campaign that Attribute Bloat is a problem however in Rick Smith's campaign running for 20 plus years he hasn't had anyone over 70 points and only 1 over 60. That speaks to my experience as well as Ty Beard's and most others from the Brainiac list that was the torch that kept TFT alive for the last 20 plus years (list started in 98).

I respect JVL's opinion and think at higher levels the bloat is a real thing, he and I only disagree at what point it becomes a problem. Generally that means when it becomes Roll Play versus Role Play. The "I have a 20 IQ so I should know the answer right!" mentality.

Well, yes, precisely. And, of course, in a basic 3 die bell-curve simulation, once you start exceeding 18 points in any attribute, you'll start seeing bleeding edge situations that derail the basic game mechanics.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

Well, yes, precisely. And, of course, in a basic 3 die bell-curve simulation, once you start exceeding 18 points in any attribute, you'll start seeing bleeding edge situations that derail the basic game mechanics.

Yeah, the reason I'm not a big fan of the 3d6 bell curve is that there's a relatively narrow range of useful ratings. A 14 grants a 91% chance of success; that's not meaningfully different from an 18 (particularly when automatic failures are considered).

The HERO system came up with a solution - the roll is 3d6, but the target number is NOT the attribute. It's 9 + (attribute/5). So a DX of 18 would have a success roll of 13.

You can tweak the base number and denominator, but the concept is the same. I'd start by trying 5 + (attribute/2) so that an average attribute has a 50% chance of success.

My blasphemous d20 mechanic addresses attribute bloat by nearly doubling the number of meaningful attribute steps (i.e. a TFT20 DX of 18 gives the same success probability as a TFT DX of 14). That's why I like it; a TFT 42 point character with 14 in all attributes would be a 54 point TFT20 character.

[tbeard1999]

Using the EP table on page 11 of ITL, I assessed the EP total required for various attribute totals (assuming a character starts at 32 points):

36 pts - 500
40 pts - 1500
45 pts - 6500
50 pts - 21,500
55 pts - 46,500

Consider that a ST 12, DX 12 warrior is worth 24 EP total. A 7 hex dragon is worth 74 EP total. A ST 12 wizard who exhausts himself will earn 11 EP. A character in a 3 hour session will earn 15 EP.

So...if characters average (say) 100 EP per game session, and if the game sessions are weekly, it will take 5 weeks to get to 36 points, 15 weeks to get to 40 points, 65 weeks to get to 45 points and 215 weeks (!) to get to 50 points.

Now, I don't really know when "attribute bloat" becomes a problem. But if it happens at (say) 45 points, then I'm not overly concerned. How many campaigns (a) meet weekly for 16 months; and (b) have such low attrition that characters routinely survive that long?

And if attribute bloat happens at 50 points, then I am utterly unconcerned. Assuming that the GM doesn't hand EP out like candy, you'd need to play every week for 4 YEARS (and survive) to get to that level.

And in my opinion, allowing massive attribute increases from job rolls is indistinguishable from Monty Haul style gaming. And if job rolls are the reason for attribute bloat, then the obvious (and ridiculously simple) solution is to eliminate the +1 attribute for a successful job roll. It is completely unnecessary to rewire the entire TFT system.

As an aside, I recall that to advance in Bushido (?), you had to kill X men per level. Applying that to TFT, you'd have to kill 895 32 point warriors to get to 50 points.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Using the EP table on page 11 of ITL, I assessed the EP total required for various attribute totals (assuming a character starts at 32 points):

36 pts - 500
40 pts - 1500
45 pts - 6500
50 pts - 21,500
55 pts - 46,500

Consider that a ST 12, DX 12 warrior is worth 24 EP total. A 7 hex dragon is worth 74 EP total. A ST 12 wizard who exhausts himself will earn 11 EP. A character in a 3 hour session will earn 15 EP.

So...if characters average (say) 100 EP per game session, and if the game sessions are weekly, it will take 5 weeks to get to 36 points, 15 weeks to get to 40 points, 65 weeks to get to 45 points and 215 weeks (!) to get to 50 points.

Now, I don't really know when "attribute bloat" becomes a problem. But if it happens at (say) 45 points, then I'm not overly concerned. How many campaigns (a) meet weekly for 16 months; and (b) have such low attrition that characters routinely survive that long?

And if attribute bloat happens at 50 points, then I am utterly unconcerned. Assuming that the GM doesn't hand EP out like candy, you'd need to play every week for 4 YEARS (and survive) to get to that level.

And in my opinion, allowing massive attribute increases from job rolls is indistinguishable from Monty Haul style gaming. And if job rolls are the reason for attribute bloat, then the obvious (and ridiculously simple) solution is to eliminate the +1 attribute for a successful job roll. It is completely unnecessary to rewire the entire TFT system.

As an aside, I recall that to advance in Bushido (?), you had to kill X men per level. Applying that to TFT, you'd have to kill 895 32 point warriors to get to 50 points.

Yep, we played sometimes for several years and usually something happens to a character before even 50 points is earned. If it was something cheesy, like making potions in a lab, then the Player died of boredom before his character aged out! ;)