Attribute Bloat 'Re-Deux'

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A single really high stat - even up to 30 - isn't really game breaking. Advances above 16 are useful but with diminishing returns and increasing costs. The thing I really didn't like about 1st edition attribute bloat is the fact that everyone understands what I just wrote, and so every character ends up having three identically high stats and is capable of everything. It's like playing D+D where everyone plays Fighter/Magic User/Thief characters. Add in a bunch of magic items and the whole thing is just not worth the bother. This is why I haven't regretted a minute of our campaign under the new XP rules, which really put a lid on all that stuff.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating a return to the state where individual stats in the mid to high 20s (or 30s) was possible. In my own games, I'm going to draw the line around 48 total points before XP costs get ridiculously expensive.

TBH, it seems to me that there are better options for managing 'high-level' characters than limiting their attribute potential. Skarg and others have mentioned a few, but I haven't seen anyone suggest what seems to me the most effective control... namely increasing challenge difficulty by adding dice to player rolls, not arbitrarily, but as an organic result of doing harder things. For example, you could introduce opponents with advanced defensive abilities or magic resistance. Maybe effecting a demon with your thrown 'Hammertouch' spell requires a 4 or 5 die roll instead of 3. Or create new maneuvers that a DX 17 character can do with the 'Acrobatics' talent (4 dice to run up a 10 ft wall or 5 dice to do a flip over that octopus warrior). I think it makes a lot of sense to extend a mechanic that the system already supports in order to manage characters with high stats.

[larsdangly]

This is what I did in my house ruled version of 'TFT classic'. The addition of extra dice for difficulty follows obvious rules or lots of things; in combat, I did it by permitting people who take the 'step and attack' option to perform two or more sub-actions (attack/parry/dodge), where each sub action beyond the first adds another die to your rolls for all sub actions performed that turn. It's a basically open ended system that lets you reap the rewards of investment in DX, where the only question is how much risk of failed rolls you want to take on.

[warhorse11h]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

This is what I did in my house ruled version of 'TFT classic'. The addition of extra dice for difficulty follows obvious rules or lots of things; in combat, I did it by permitting people who take the 'step and attack' option to perform two or more sub-actions (attack/parry/dodge), where each sub action beyond the first adds another die to your rolls for all sub actions performed that turn. It's a basically open ended system that lets you reap the rewards of investment in DX, where the only question is how much risk of failed rolls you want to take on.

For clarification, the above could allow two or even three melee attacks in a turn, provided one was willing to accept making all the to hit rolls on 4 or even 5 dice? I'm asking because I remember doing something similar with very high DX figures in the old days. I just can't remember the details. Must be the effects of advancing maturity.

[hcobb]

Four attack Larry the lizard wizard.

ST 12 DX 14 IQ 17
Two very fine silver broadswords(2d+4), right hand one is the Staff (additional 1d+2 attack at +3 DX that ignores armor), tail(1d)
Weapon Mastery - Sword, Two Weapons, Staff V, etc.

Once he saves up enough he'll get enchantments for his swords.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Four attack Larry the lizard wizard.

ST 12 DX 14 IQ 17
Two very fine silver broadswords(2d+4), right hand one is the Staff (additional 1d+2 attack at +3 DX that ignores armor), tail(1d)
Weapon Mastery - Sword, Two Weapons, Staff V, etc.

Once he saves up enough he'll get enchantments for his swords.

That's cool. I have to admit that some of your suggested 'builds' leave me scratching my head, but the only issue with this one is that it would take about 80k XP to create such a character. Unless something funny is going on at your table, that's probably 20 years of play.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating a return to the state where individual stats in the mid to high 20s (or 30s) was possible. In my own games, I'm going to draw the line around 48 total points before XP costs get ridiculously expensive.

That seems like one reasonable way/place to do it.

Our PCs that made it to 42-46 points were only just seeming to have got to about the point where they'd start to feel more like comic-book super-heroes than the people I'd been imagining them being. In particular with ST, if I have a mental picture of someone, I have a hard time having people I see as not big or bulky getting quite high ST.

That's a big part of why I like adding some concept of what a character's natural gifts are like.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

TBH, it seems to me that there are better options for managing 'high-level' characters than limiting their attribute potential. Skarg and others have mentioned a few, but I haven't seen anyone suggest what seems to me the most effective control... namely increasing challenge difficulty by adding dice to player rolls, not arbitrarily, but as an organic result of doing harder things. For example, you could introduce opponents with advanced defensive abilities or magic resistance. Maybe effecting a demon with your thrown 'Hammertouch' spell requires a 4 or 5 die roll instead of 3. Or create new maneuvers that a DX 17 character can do with the 'Acrobatics' talent (4 dice to run up a 10 ft wall or 5 dice to do a flip over that octopus warrior). I think it makes a lot of sense to extend a mechanic that the system already supports in order to manage characters with high stats.

In theory I think that's a very good idea. In practice the GM needs to choose in what ways to do that, and doing that well can take careful development or else there can be issues with those things.

My attempts when I was a young TFT GM (fairly common high-level opponents, some rare advanced talents such as Defensive Quickness from Interplay, hard adventures with lots of combat with strong opponents and very dangerous traps and tactical situations, opponents with magic, etc) sort of worked but eventually I wasn't really satisfied with what I'd chosen

I think the approaches that I'm most happy with are the ones that involve more dangerous situations. In particular, I like to think about what power exists in my game worlds. Who are the rulers, guildmasters, underworld figures and other powerful people, and what are their armies, guards, wealth, influence, abilities, advisors, allies, enemies, like? What power games are they playing? Then if the PCs get noticed becoming powerful, I have a sense for who might notice and react to that in what ways.

But I think there are still some places where the TFT rules tend to lead to situations I don't like at certain power levels, and I think the game tends to be most interesting to me when almost all human figures are in the 26-36 point range. So I welcome some limits on attribute bloat, though I'd let the max be a bit higher than 40-42, and want the 35th and 36th points to start getting notably more expensive than 31-34, in order to try to keep more play in that sweet spot.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

But I think there are still some places where the TFT rules tend to lead to situations I don't like at certain power levels, and I think the game tends to be most interesting to me when almost all human figures are in the 26-36 point range. So I welcome some limits on attribute bloat, though I'd let the max be a bit higher than 40-42, and want the 35th and 36th points to start getting notably more expensive than 31-34, in order to try to keep more play in that sweet spot.

I'm right there with you... in principle. We just draw the line in different places and that's OK. For me, the sweet-spot for gameplay is in the 'veteran' range between 37 and 42 points. It should take time and effort to get there, but it should be reasonably achievable as well.

Besides, as hcobb illustrates, characters can get much more interesting after 40 points. ;)

[hcobb]

It ain't the attribute points.

By the time your goblin sorceress has gotten to Mana 40 (You must have a spellcaster this short to enter the labyrinth), your average hero is going to have 16 additional talent points. (Three of which go to Aid so she don't drain you.)

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by hcobb

It ain't the attribute points.

By the time your goblin sorceress has gotten to Mana 40 (You must have a spellcaster this short to enter the labyrinth), your average hero is going to have 16 additional talent points. (Three of which go to Aid so she don't drain you.)

I was referring to your Lizard Wizard, but OK.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Besides, as hcobb illustrates, characters can get much more interesting after 40 points. ;)

Well, at least more extreme in their abilities... and I think it's good that there should be some people with extreme abilities, and that it should be possible to get there in some form at least in theory with play.

After all, we do want some exceptionally capable people in our worlds, but I think it works better when they're the exceptions, as seen in the rareness and difficulty of getting there.