03-09-2018, 07:47 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2018, 07:53 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2018, 08:27 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Jim, I don't think you have understood, and I'm not sure I have. You're using some fancy words whose normal English definitions I know but using them in ways that suggest they have contextual definitions I don't know.
But if I do understand what you've written you're describing much more what say Rick does with mIQ, or JLV was trying to do. Whereas in my draft proposal the link between numbers of talents and underlying attribute is retained, but broadened, changing a one-to-many relationship (IQ to talents) to a many-to-many relationship (attributes to talents) but definitely not abolishing the relationship altogether. A motive for keeping the link intact is if you believe limiting access to talents leads to less capable characters but more interesting parties. I used to believe this was interesting but I'm starting to think it's the wrong approach. I don't know what your definition of "fun" is, if you define it broadly then those two questions might be sufficient, if you define it more narrowly then there are things we get from e.g. sad movies that are worthwhile but not exactly fun so maybe there are more questions. |
03-09-2018, 08:32 PM | #14 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Quote:
I gave no notice to the perception of hostility being directed at me, which has been pointed-out to you by others on the web-site. With regard to the obliquely-pointed "Nostalgia bits": I didn't recognize it in the way Forum Members are perceiving your words; simply because as: postscript - in weight, if not in actual physical placement - it offered nothing of merit, nor of any gainful value in advancing the topic of conversation-at-hand, with which to warrant my attention in recognizing it's existence - except and purely, as a most curious aside - amongst the more beneficial and cogent contributions you provided to the conversation, and therefore; was summarily dismissed as such - and with very little fan-fair, nor was any weeping and moaning heard bellowing up from the masses - having absolutely no net-impact whatsoever. As I felt nothing was intended, I frankly didn't sense a "tone"; as I was too focused attempting glean whatever useful insights might be included therein. And,... if you did in point-of-fact have less-then-honorable intentions hidden deep within a foul, black-heart, fueled by poisonous bile; I might simply call you: "A very naughty boy", and then, further suggest, that in the future, you might try increasing the angle-of-incident of your aim. LOL! All kidding aside, I will agree that:"Is it FUN?"; must always be the penultimate question in Game Design; but, you should in-turn recognize one cannot get there in TFT unless a thing qualifies AS TFT in FUNCTION, FORM, and, FEEL. I would appreciate receiving your answer(s) to my response question(s) I left for you in the Post-in-Question; as I would appreciate learning your thoughts. Jim . Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-09-2018 at 11:29 PM. |
|
03-09-2018, 10:41 PM | #15 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Quote:
Okay, let me try it this way: First, completely forgot the details of your system for a moment, or anything about TFT, any numbers, etc., just take all that out of your head for a minute; and, let us simply understand that in creating a integrated system, or any sub-system therein, or a general simulation of anything you need to represent with numbers, or tiddly-wink tokens, at the very base of what you are involved in is simply-stated as: Solving a Problem. Period. Forget "writing rules for a game", you are Solving A Problem. As an example: Let us say you are seeking the "Solution" to the problem of: 'How to Travel Completely Around the World'; and, you are going to assume as true, the premise that the world is, in fact: Round. You next begin to formulate a plan to SOLVE that PROBLEM. In your "plan" you are working with the idea of traveling by heading: EAST, maintaining that heading, and that you will fully circumnavigate the Earth, and - in time - arrive right back at your point-of-origin. Problem solved, right? Well, maybe. You said there were points in your system you are currently developing that you are not 100% ready to stand-pat with. Okay, here is the good news: In 1982 FASA - Guy McLimore (GrailQuest for TFT), Greg Poehlein, and David Tepool had to solve the same problem of how to create a system which does not produce: Conan-the-Scholar, nor Arnold-the-Wizard' for their STAR TREK RPG. They found the solution to their problem, BUT, they did it by traveling: WEST Your solution is different; going: EAST:, but the goal is the exact same. Why not take a break from number-crunching and details-of-play, and go look over their answer in study. You may find that EAST - your current direction of travel - indeed is the correct answer for you, and you might improve your design along the way by studying their answer nonetheless - same end-goal after all David. In the end, you may even find the BEST solution for your sub-system is to "GO NORTH" - being a composite of what they did, and what you are currently doing. Who knows, maybe you see a whole new path, and that: SOUTH, is the answer. "AH! EUREKA!!!" - Archimedes This might be worth your time-investment to review past solutions to the same problem, even if you don't like one iota of their answer; it can still speed your refinements - because now you know more of exactly what you do not want to do; and that puts you many design-steps closer towards having a finished answer in-hand; Clearer? In any event, I hope that might be of help to you. Keep up the good work. Last edited by Jim Kane; 03-10-2018 at 10:41 PM. |
|
05-01-2018, 05:03 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
I thought about this the other day and it seems to me the problem is that you need too high an IQ to make enough IQ talent points for an experienced character. So what if the rules were something like this:
Then running through my examples:
All in all this seems to work reasonably well. I think it would require play-testing to know if it was fun. |
05-01-2018, 06:16 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Quote:
I have not thought about this deeply, but ST-6, DX-6, (IQ-7)x3 is just too complex. The core rules need to be simple, more marginal, (or less often used), rules can be more complex. How about, the talent points you get are: ST, DX and IQ. But adjust the costs for the talents so that 32 points of talents (in 3 categories), works? Warm regards, Rick. |
|
05-01-2018, 10:08 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Idaho Falls
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
I think Rick has got the solution in a nutshell
|
05-01-2018, 03:23 PM | #19 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
What would a ST Talent be and how would it make sense that you get them based on your ST?
|
05-02-2018, 04:52 PM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jul 2005
|
Re: Talents from Attributes Other Than IQ
Quote:
A warrior could select ST to gain Talent Points, shifty characters DX and wizards IQ. Increasing their ability in their chosen Attribute increases their ability to gain Talents. Talents would still have minimum IQ requirements, just as weapons have minimum ST requirements. |
|
|
|