Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip > The Fantasy Trip: House Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-29-2020, 05:48 PM   #21
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Classless play

Yes; it effectively lets you treat the information required to cast spells as its own category of magic item.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2020, 11:03 PM   #22
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Classless play

I don't see why you'd require literacy to be a wizard, as it seems like a separate ability to me. I've made and seen quite a few illiterate wizards, and literacy is its own reward - it doesn't make sense to me to require it, or to count it as part of the supposed cost of learning to be a wizard.

I also don't think 2-4 or even 6 points of talent learning is the equivalent of learning to be a wizard. The math for the number of spells certainly doesn't work, and certainly there are many non-wizard character designs that took talents, who would be tempted instead to become a wizard rather than say, Alertness and Thrown Weapons. Seems to be like:

1) an apples/oranges comparison
2) not enough comparative effort from several perspectives
3) not an equivalent thing
4) penalizes dedicated wizards compared to what spells they can have for the same effort RAW

I can see wanting to define what wizards are, or what it would take to become a wizard, but I don't think having it be a talent works very well without some other adjustments.

Seems to me like it's a combination of some natural aptitude, and also years of development. And I think defining it that way helps limit both PCs and NPC populations and reasons for why characters are how they are.

If learning to be a wizard is only as hard as learning a few talents, then some training regimes could train large numbers of spellcasters, and many heroes who earn the ability to add talents may instead choose to "just decide to also become a wizard". I get that there's a whole spectrum of what different games want, but that's generally off the part of the scale I want.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2020, 03:12 AM   #23
Steve Plambeck
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Default Re: Classless play

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
I also don't think 2-4 or even 6 points of talent learning is the equivalent of learning to be a wizard. The math for the number of spells certainly doesn't work.....

.....I can see wanting to define what wizards are, or what it would take to become a wizard, but I don't think having it be a talent works very well without some other adjustments.

Seems to me like it's a combination of some natural aptitude, and also years of development....
I recall the original impetus for my group to adopt a "Wizardry" talent was just something pragmatic: the 1st edition of ITL had just appeared, talents had just been introduced for the first time, and we all disliked having two different talent costs for the same talent depending on who (wizard or non-wizard) was taking that talent. Maybe if all talents had cost double for wizards we might have accepted it, but right from the start ITL introduced exceptions to that rule, making the first talent system both awkward and flawed from the start. A very simple workaround, while preserving the spirit of the RAW, was to limit the mundane talents a wizard might take, even though they'd only cost as much as they would for everyone else, by tying up approximately half their talent points in becoming a wizard in the first place.

We never once in 20 years of continuous play had a non-wizard PC decide to start learning our Wizardry talent as a change in careers. Under the classic rules, no PC would survive putting all their XP on IQ to eventually afford that talent years down the road. Nor would a player build a character but not take a bunch of useful talents they could have from the beginning just to leave room for one big talent later; it only made sense to take the big expensive talent from the beginning.

The new Legacy edition rules, letting PCs learn talents with XP instead of an attribute increase, rocks that boat. Now it's not as impossible for a PC to acquire an expensive talent in mid-life. But if the GM wants to use a wizardry talent in their world, they can just as easily rule it is only available at character creation, or that it takes 12 years to learn regardless of its point cost, or anything that keeps the lid on it. Just say if the PC neglected their natural aptitude growing up, it's atrophied and wasted away.

As to the spell math. In Wizard, an IQ 12 wizard could know 12 spells. In classic ITL, an IQ 12 wizard could still learn 12 spells provided they took no talents at all (not practical, but still possible). That same wizard, having spent (for example) 6 IQ points to learn an expensive wizardry talent would only be able to know 6 spells, right? Of course we wouldn't want a wizard to be less of a wizard for having studied wizardry! But the original Wizardry Talent as I proposed it and my group used it also functioned as a "gatekeeper" talent to regulate the cost of learning spells. If you had the Talent, by writ, it gave the PC the ability to know as many spells as they had IQ points, completely separate from talents. Voila! Now the IQ 12 wizard is back to having 12 spells, exactly as it started under the Wizard RAW. And, after paying for the 6 point Wizardry Talent, she has 6 points left to spend on other talents at 1 point each, which works out to be the same as if she had 12 points but was spending 2 points each, exactly the same as it started under the ITL RAW.

It was the rare case of a house rule fulfilling the exact intent of the RAW by using less rules, and no exceptions to memorize.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right."
Steve Plambeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2020, 08:26 AM   #24
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Classless play

Presumably everyone is assuming that the 'wizardry' talents you have in mind (whatever you call them) are also the gate-keeper abilities for things that only wizards can do RAW (read scrolls; cast spells from books; learn and use the Staff spells)?
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2020, 01:05 AM   #25
Steve Plambeck
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Default Re: Classless play

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
Presumably everyone is assuming that the 'wizardry' talents you have in mind (whatever you call them) are also the gate-keeper abilities for things that only wizards can do RAW (read scrolls; cast spells from books; learn and use the Staff spells)?
Oh absolutely. My group never allowed anyone to learn or cast any spells at all if they weren't a wizard. Nope, not even for triple cost to learn, nor by accepting a DX penalty, no exceptions. A non-wizard could technically read a spell book, if they were literate and knew the language it was written in; maybe they could just sound it out phonetically too without even knowing what the words meant. Such a person could read it aloud, sing it, or chant it all the merry day, but nothing would ever happen. Because they weren't wizards.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right."
Steve Plambeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2020, 06:12 AM   #26
Shostak
 
Shostak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
Default Re: Classless play

I have run campaigns in which there was no point cost difference for wizards and heroes. We did not see everyone learning magic. If spells or combat talents suited their character concepts, they learned those. If not, they didn't. We did tend to see more scholar-wizards and physicker-wizards, but the folks who just wanted to slash and stab pretty much just did that. Everyone had fun.
Shostak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2020, 08:55 AM   #27
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Classless play

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck View Post
Oh absolutely. My group never allowed anyone to learn or cast any spells at all if they weren't a wizard. Nope, not even for triple cost to learn, nor by accepting a DX penalty, no exceptions. A non-wizard could technically read a spell book, if they were literate and knew the language it was written in; maybe they could just sound it out phonetically too without even knowing what the words meant. Such a person could read it aloud, sing it, or chant it all the merry day, but nothing would ever happen. Because they weren't wizards.
This illustrates how one or two very straightforward house rules can redefine the boundaries between magicians and others, in this case going in the other direction from most of the discussion in this thread. To my mind it is just as good as RAW or any of the variants that have been mentioned - it is just what works for you in the campaign you have in mind.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2020, 11:31 AM   #28
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Classless play

Yes, if all the characters are made by people who are limiting their characters to types everyone thinks is reasonable and fine, then there's no problem.

There are also no problems with any rule systems until something someone thinks is a problem comes up during play.

Style of play also limits which problems ever come up in play. So does the types of characters people make, the talents and equipment and tactics they use, and what they do between adventures, etc. New Followers didn't need a house rule until someone thinks to use it to get a 3/IQ roll to claim the king as his PC. It's possible to play for years and years without ever running into a lasso, whip, bolas, PCs making potions or enchantments or summoning demons or astral projecting, etc etc etc.

TFT though is mostly pretty good at providing rules that mostly limit the problems in consistent ways, which is nice.

There are different places where there are problems for different people, which is where house rules come in.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2020, 12:47 PM   #29
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Classless play

Everyone should play at least once with whatever is the opposite end of the extreme they think they prefer; i.e., if you dig niche protection then let everyone buy spells and talents at base costs; or if you love wildly distributed magic then play a few sessions with a group of 'heroes' who have no access to magic of any kind but have to deal with a mysterious supernatural foe.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.