The Woodsman Talent

[zot]

Originally Posted by Kirk

When I was introducing TFT to three 14 year olds, one of the comments I heard was "There are too many rules...".

Many teens these days are used to games doing the thinking for them, while they joystick their way through it. We don't want to dumb things down to that level, but for TFT to have a chance at taking hold with the iPhone generation care needs to be taken to avoid destroying what made TFT great in the first place, which is a quick but precise tactical system in a common-sense adventure world.

To complicate it with even more text is to risk losing that advantage.

There are plenty of children younger than 14 years old playing D&D 5e. Groups here in Israel use it to teach English. I've played RPGs with 9 year old kids and they've done just fine.

[philreed]

Originally Posted by guymc

Yes, I have to agree. TFT's simplicity is a hallmark of the game. I see no reason to get more detailed here.

For me, adding more detailed rules to the game to cover every little situation erases one of the game's strengths. Even character options -- talents and spells, for example -- added too frequently to the game would harm the line in the long run.

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

The proposed Artillerist skill is covered by Engineer, I now see.

Similarly, I suggested Navigate in the other thread, but at this level of granularity it should be a task covered by Captain.

And I agree, I'm happy with TFT at this level of detail.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by pyratejohn

Similarly, I suggested Navigate in the other thread, but at this level of granularity it should be a task covered by Captain.

At the point where I were detailing crew, I would think the "Captain" talent as described is more like what an officer and potential captain would have, but probably isn't IQ 12. An actual captain would need enough Leadership (no talent for that, only Charisma & New Followers) and crew management ability, Pilot and Navigation or something that also helps find your position on land (which is where it would mostly be used in my games) or while flying magic carpets.

If I were wanting to avoid "complexity", though, these distinctions could/would still exist in my game, but I might not bother to figure out the exact talents (actually, I would, but it's not strictly necessary to write them out). In fact, if there is a memory limit at IQ, captains would start getting into "you have to be a genius and/or not know anything else" territory if you break down the abilities. But the real point, to me, is that you want there to be different abilities possible, and not "well every expert seaman can be just as good a captain as everyone else, and can navigate".

But is seems to me I'd have:

* Expert Seamanship (like current captain)
* Leadership (no Charisma (being charming) needed) - useful on land and can also entitle one to lead followers, not just Charisma (or Charisma can have different flavors besides charming, and charming's more of a gift than learnable)
* Navigation - useful on land
* Pilot / Shiphandler (though maybe this can just be included/combined in Expert Seamanship)

Captain becomes a job not a talent, and would like people to have all of the above.

I'd also add (and did, and I suppose don't need to be listed in the book, but still):

* Teacher (lets you effectively teach/train people in spells and teachable talents you have)

* Scorpion, Catapult, Ballista, Battering Ram, etc (all 1-point combat talents) Because being an engineer means you can figure out such a machine, but it doesn't mean you've trained at hitting things with it.

* Various improved combat talents, but it sounds like that's not in the cards.

[JLV]

I like David Bofiger's position on this, but that's probably because I proposed the "Survival" talents in the first place. Still, I think his comments are germane, and I could easily live with his proposed idea on how to handle it.

I also think he made an important point regarding how fantary RPG playing has changed over the last 40 years -- people are much more into wilderness scenarios than they were back when "the wilderness" was just a hallway leading to the dungeon du jour. I think it would be wise to support that with somewhat more detail than was made available in the past. Heck you guys even did that with Dungeon Fantasy, and if there was ever a game that was all about dungeon crawls, it has to be Dungeon Fantasy!

Regarding actual rules for wilderness adventure, they don't HAVE to be as complex as GURPS, do they? As I said elsewhere, if it could be done in a couple of (small) pages in Barbarian Prince, it could be done in the same space for TFT, and provide some nice guidance to the GM on how to run wilderness adventures. And given the fact that you already have some guidance on wilderness activities, punching it up a bit with few paragraphs on things like foraging, exploring, getting un-lost, and finding water wouldn't be an excessively large burden in the rules, in my opinion.

Needless to say, at the end of the day, Steve and Guy will go with what they think is right, but I sincerely think you'll be missing a bet by not adding a bit more info in the wilderness adventure area.

[John Brinegar]

How about this? The TFT we get from the Kickstarter stays focused on underground adventures, as the original was (and as the title In The Labyrinth suggests), and we later get a wilderness splatbook. I think I would prefer that. I wonder what Guy thinks?

[David Bofinger]

I think it's useful to be able to describe a ship's officer or captain, and distinguish them from sailors (including expert sailors). I don't think it's necessary, at TFT's level of resolution, to distinguish officers from captains.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* Expert Seamanship (like current captain)

I think this is a mistake in the current rules. The officer isn't spending much time doing seamanship stuff, so he's not going to develop a high level of skill. The idea all captains came up the hawser is just wrong for most nautical cultures. Officers get a lot of practice at giving orders to people who know more about the subject at hand than they do.

* Leadership (no Charisma (being charming) needed) - useful on land

Agreed.

* Navigation - useful on land

I agree most ship's captains would know how to navigate.

* Pilot / Shiphandler (though maybe this can just be included/combined in Expert Seamanship)

I don't think we need this but maybe in a really naval-focused campaign you might want it.

Captain becomes a job not a talent, and would like people to have all of the above.

Agreed it's a talent. With the talents IMO being Seamanship, Expert Seamanship, Navigation and Command/Leadership, and the captain expected to have all but Expert Seamanship.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by John Brinegar

How about this? The TFT we get from the Kickstarter stays focused on underground adventures, as the original was (and as the title In The Labyrinth suggests), and we later get a wilderness splatbook. I think I would prefer that. I wonder what Guy thinks?

That sounds like an eminently suitable solution to the issue! (Though I hope at least some info on cross-country travel will still be in ITL -- after all, you have to get there before you can dungeon delve!)

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Agreed it's a talent. With the talents IMO being Seamanship, Expert Seamanship, Navigation and Command/Leadership, and the captain expected to have all but Expert Seamanship.

Many historical captains weren't navigators, but were combat leaders, leaving the navigation to the Navigator and Sailing Master. Especially merchant and pirate captains.

Some weren't even expert mariners, but merely the guy with the funds for the commission. (Which argues for a job without the talent requirements, but a cash-to-buy-in requirement.)

[JLV]

ak_aramis is correct. Most captains, even, back in the late renaissance to reformation period weren't actually navigators. Pilots/Sailing Masters were. However, having said that, there isn't necessarily any reason to play it that way on Cidri!

However, if you want to play it "historically" for some reason, I'd say "Captains" (whether on land or sea) should have leadership/command and some suitable skill for their chosen field of endeavor (seamanship, and/or expert seamanship and maybe gunnery, for a sailing ship, for example) since the Captain fought the ship when combat came up. On land, it might be "tactics" though frankly that skill means something entirely different than it does to military people -- so maybe it would be a new skill called "Mass Combat" or "Battlefield Tactics" or something, and then Strategy for higher level commanders...