Basic Level Talents - A Proposal

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I'm not keen on this idea of "watering-down" Talents at all. To me, one of the uniquely attractive features of TFT Talents is that they represent a substantial level of experience and competence in a skill or ability, something that clearly separates a character from others.

...

This is the way that I understand and love the TFT Talent system and I don't want that to change.

Oh I agree. The current system is fine with me. But if you think that characters need more talents, this offers a way to do it without increasing the number of talent points available. My objection to doing that is simply that I think (a) most people can do only one major thing at an expert, professional level at a time; and (b) that campaigns work best when each character is the best in the party at one very important thing.

In TFT, a starting character can be a pretty good thief or a pretty good warrior. If you make too many talent points available, he can be pretty good at both. So I like the current talent system just fine. Of course, I also prefer 1 player to play 1 character and don't care for hirelings. So if I ran a campaign with (say) 2 or 3 characters, I'd probably increase the talent points.

With base talents, a character can be familiar with more talents, but inferior to others who take the full talents.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I've said elsewhere that I think four levels are needed. As an example, look at four characters' qualifications in Woodsman:

• Myopia: a young alchemy student who's never left her home city and can get lost in a nature strip.
• Grimdark the Blue: A typical adventurer, used to tramping through woods among other environments.
• Sylvia of the Glade: The party's scout, hired because she knew the woods.
• Mick Dundee: justly famed as one of the finest bushmen in the region.

i think every one of those levels is needed in a role-playing game. If you disagree, tell me which one you'd let go.

Well, I disagree.

Every talent is not created equal, nor is every talent particularly important to a fantasy RPG campaign. TFT was produced in a time when page layout was very expensive and time consuming. This required rules to be lean and focused.

That is an approach that I like; time is my most limited resource. I'm getting sick and tired of bloated, 500-800 page RPGs that, at the end of the day, are no better than (and often inferior to) their 1980s predecessors.

And a classically lean approach might even help distinguish TFT from other current rules sets.

If TFT is gonna stay with that approach, the designer will need to ruthlessly cut unnecessary rules.

Also, quadrupling or tripling the number of talents will slow character creation (a genuine strength of TFT).

I'm concerned too that you're re-creating GURPS at some point.

There's also the problem that a 3d6 bell curve is very sensitive to modifiers. Adding 2-3 levels to a bunch of talents exponentially increases the chance of game-breaking issues arising. The only way to mitigate this will be very extensive playtesting, which delays the deployment of the game. And frankly, I'd rather Steve use his time on more useful things like additional monsters, a genuine healing spell, revising certain unbalancing combat system rules, and resolving the glitches, contradictions and ambiguities in the current rules set.

So I would stay with the current TFT treatment of talents. I could be persuaded that axe/mace might deserve an equivalent talent to Fencing. Pole Weapons are already quite overpowered in my opinion and need no further help. Missile and thrown weapons have the Missile Weapons and Thrown Weapons talents. Sword has Fencing, which is really an "advanced sword" talent. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other talents that really need expert levels.

I'd be very opposed to adding a bunch of additional talents mainly out of a compulsion to have uniform treatment. I prefer that the designer spend his time on the things that will be the most useful to TFT players and GMs.

I should have stated in the original post that I don't really think basic level skills are necessary. This is just how I'd do it if I did want them.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

THIS to me is essentially the correct interpretation of the basic frame-work of the established TFT Talent-System.

LARS had previously in another post summed it up quite nicely, which I will paraphrase as: "an On/Off switch for an ability". As CHRIS is also stating here, it goes from: OFF, to ON, to even more ON (if you will).

While I admire all the thought so many put into attempting to refine the Talent-system, as I have said before, taking us from this "Binary - On/Off" basic format, by trying to interpolate a "gradient" system, while admirable, takes us further and further away from the original and inspired "feel, form, and flow", of what make TFT, TFT; into something else.
JK

Yeah, what you said.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

...and (b) that campaigns work best when each character is the best in the party at one very important thing.

WOW This is such a critical concept in drama and literature, I would need to work-up an outline first to even do this one justice and make a substantive comment. Suffice it to say, anyone who has ever run an adventure party where there is one "Dudly Do-All" character, and he is supported by what is basically a handful of cannon-fodder minions, it is just booooring from a stand-point of dramatic focus and story tension.

The classic "team of specialists" dynamic is so critical to drama and action/adventure.

I always felt (in my mind, anyway) that it was so perfect that the entry-hexes on the Melee Map had four stars: one for the talented Leader, one for the Human-Tank, one for the hot-shot energy-projector, and one for the brains/gadgeteer/specialist/unique/healer.

Or, look at the basic STAR TREK essential personnel: a) Alpha Leader, b)Brains/Unique, c) Healer/Philosopher, and d) Gadgeteer/Specialist - (read as: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty).

Speaking of Party Balance, and the critical importance of having each character serve a specific function in the story AND the game:

Back in the day, Gene L. Coon (2nd season Line Editor for STAR TREK, after Roddenberry stepped-back into "Exec Prod" status) was rumored to send-back story-pitches, with a single note attracted, address to the rejected would-be author, which simply read: "We are not currently producing:The Mister Spock Show. Please familiarize yourself with our writer's guide and format. While we appreciate your interest in STAR TREK, your story submission does not meet our needs at this time."

This is such a critical element to adventure design and story, it really should be it's own thread; but usually these analysis topic threads don't seem to get the traction that other topics do. So I will just stop here on the topic as Sidebar Commentary.

Anyway, I am glad you brought it out TY

JK

PS - Yes, it is very true that Robert E. Howard's: Conan, and Edgar Rice Burroughs': Tarzan are two of my three all-time favorite literary characters; and yes, they are both essentially classic Ubermensch archetypes. TRUE. However, from a writer/adventure-designer stand-point, these Ubermensch characters will dictate the type and style of story/adventures you will be forced into composing as a GM. These same adventures do not play so well for a GROUP of people wanting to play TFT. After all, everyone else but the Ubermensch character gets stuck playing the collective 2nd Bananas through the entire campaign - not a very appealing prospect when compared to the Team-of-Specialists form TY was pointing to.

JK

[Kirk]

Great comment, Jim, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say about TFT.

Being good at one thing, and maybe fair at a few others, is a good way to view TFT. The every-so-tiny stars in the original Melee board that we had given up on finding (though we eventually did) had the same effect on us.

The key being, each Player got to pick a role, a fundamental role, that the other Players could look to when needed. It immediately set the stage for camaraderie and inclusion that a superhero doesn't engender.

But really, the way I think about it is that every character *isn't* good at something critical. For me, it's the knowledge by each Player of the lacking in his character that is the real glue for a Party. The thing that develops respect for another character is someone who can do something you *can't*, as opposed to admiration for the thing they can do.

It's a fine point, but seems to be the psychology of Players I have experience with.

[Jim Kane]

Thanks KIRK you are very kind to say so... and obviously brilliantly insightful in your measured assessments LOL! All kidding aside, I love when we all come together and grok a thing collectively in all matters TFT; however, we all must also be comfortable in challenging each other, in order to keep each other "honest", and keep the TFT true and pure. I am really proud to serve in this ad-hoc think-tank we have going on here with so many brilliant TFT-brothers.

Your post was excellent, and it causes me to feel the need to add one last thing off of something you pointed to - and then I want to get off the subject, as I do not want to de-rail the actual topic of TY's thread by my yammering on.

When you play the balanced party of specialists, where each person fulfills a special role, and each member is the team-expert in a specific thing, DEATH of one member of the party becomes much more critical to the other members, who absolutely NEED so-and-so because he is the only one in the party who can really _______ when it is needed most.

There is no stronger literary device used in Action/Adventure with which to heighten the tension of a situation/story than the protection of life, via the threat of death of a key character. And this is only surpassed by the device of raising the level of Drama of a situation by imposing a dilemma on a key character wherein the right or wrong decision effects the group as a whole.

Therefore if ALL members of a party are key is some specific way, as TY pointed out, this allows the GM so many more options, targets, and ploys to vex and challenge a group with by setting up character-specific encounters; and yet, forces the group to feel the tension collectively.

So for a GM who must design and compose TFT adventures which truly entertain, it actually becomes harder to write compelling and pulse-pounding dilemmas when one of the party is the Ubermensch, and his fellows are ill-defined straw-men. If the Ubermensh dies, well, so goes the campaign; and if one of the straw-men dies,... you just replace him with another at the next Crossroads Inn the party comes to.

Ho-hum.

The Ubermensch formula only works for REH and ERB because Conan and Tarzan do not - cannot - die. TFT does not come with such literary immunization from death; if it does, it will be dull. Another reason why the threat of death at ST=0 is a GOOD THING from a dramatic story-telling perspective within the game.

JK

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kirk

*Any* changes of consequence need to be undertaken as if it were an engineering project or moon shot

Spoken like a steely-eyed Missile-Man!

KIRK's statement seriously needs to be adopted as the Mantra-at-Large; and evoked with all the serious of a heart-attack.

JK

[Kirk]

Yep, Jim, your assessment of what makes TFT adventuring exciting and interesting is spot on, and those concepts seem to elude younger/less experienced/less mature gamers. Everyone having a superhero does not necessarily make for a better gaming experience! Less is often more.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Yep, Jim, your assessment of what makes TFT adventuring exciting and interesting is spot on, and those concepts seem to elude younger/less experienced/less mature gamers. Everyone having a superhero does not necessarily make for a better gaming experience! Less is often more.

I have added a bunch of new talents to my campaign, and the players are hardly super heroes. So the one does not prove the other.

And how does this address the main point of the original poster? Allowing people to gain basic levels of a talent, hardly makes them super heroes. It does allow more nuanced character creation.

Finally, those who disagree with you, are not necessarily, "younger", "less experienced" nor "less mature", and I think such slanders are beneath the dignity of this forum. In past posts, I have given multiple reasons why it is desirable to have better ways to distinguish someone who is starting to learn a talent and someone who is very, very skilled. Do my arguments, make me "less mature"? Do I have "less experience" playing TFT than the average TFT player?

Is David (the original poster), an immature, inexperienced, kid? From my knowledge of him from a long running pbem campaign I think NONE of these slanders are true. I strongly suggest, that rather than belittling others, you back up your opinions with evidence, or well reasoned arguments.

Rick.

[JLV]

Well said, Rick.