the "outrageous attribute" problem

[Chris Goodwin]

If outrageously high attributes are a problem, give characters things to spend XP on besides attributes.

If fighters with too-high IQ is a problem, give them ways besides increasing IQ to buy more talents.

If wizards with too-high ST is a problem, give them ways besides increasing ST to cast more spells.

If wizards with too-high IQ is a problem, give them ways besides increasing IQ to buy more spells.

If fighters with too-high ST is a problem, give them ways to buy more hit points without increasing ST.

If you're running into a mental divide between "realism" and overly high values in ST or IQ, decide on whether you want the game to be "realistic" or not.

If you're worried about TFT turning into GURPS, then maybe it's time for a thread about what TFT is that GURPS is not and vice versa.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Chris Goodwin

If outrageously high attributes are a problem, give characters things to spend XP on besides attributes.

A simple fix for "too high" attributes is to have the player specify his or her "prime attribute" when creating a character. That attribute can be raised to any number.

Option 1: It costs two attribute points to raise other attributes.

Example - Tom the Thief has DX as his prime attribute. He earns enough EP to get an attribute point. He can raise DX by one point, or apply the attribute point to ST or IQ. He'll need to apply another attribute point to raise ST or IQ by 1.

Option 2: Non-prime attributes can only be raised by (say) 2 points.


So assume that a player chooses IQ as the "prime attribute" for Mike the Mage. Mike starts with ST 10, DX 11, IQ 13. His maximum ST is 12 and his maximum DX is 13. He has no maximum IQ.


To avoid some odd incentives, I'd require that the prime attribute be at least 1 over the racial average when the character is created. For humans, that's 11 for ST, DX or IQ. For Dwarves, it would be ST 13, DX 9 and IQ 11. Etc...

(optional) To your point, you may want to let characters buy some of the benefits of attributes, once they've been maxed out. This will complicate the character generation system a bit, though.

Once you've maxed IQ out, you can use 1 attribute point to buy 1 talent point, spell or language, any number of times. (You can let the character buy 2 talent points, but I blow hot and cold on whether that's too generous.) Or you can spend 1 attribute point to get a +1 IQ on perception rolls.

Once you've maxed ST out, you can spend an attribute point to buy the ability to use a higher ST weapon (one point higher) OR the an additional hit point.

Once you've maxed DX out, you can spend an attribute point to improve your manual dexterity by 1 point. This gives you +1 DX when picking locks or casting spells (maybe). Or you can spend an attribute point to improve your agility by 1 point. This gives you +1 DX for agility-based rolls (jumping over a pit; using Acrobatics, etc). I would NOT allow the purchase of a DX bonus for wearing armor or "to hit" rolls, unless some kind of defense mechanic is implemented.

Option 3: Non-prime attributes can only be raised to a certain level - say, 12. I don't like this option very much, but it is an option.

[ecz]

my poor English strikes again! :-)

thanks to everyone responding here but I have tried to ask if and how is possible in your CGs heroes reach an "outrageous" attribute level.

I never asked how to resolve the problem, if any. I do not need (and nobody probably does) a suggestion to avoid characters reach 55-60 points assuming someone dislikes this.

It seems that I got just a pair of answers to my OP question.

That's fine, since it seems, as I suspected, that 50+ points can be reached only through years of (real time) adventures and hundreds of sessions, excellent playing style, luck with dice and an intensive use of the Job Table bordering its abuse, all things that never happened (and will never happen) in my CGs!

So, at least for me, the "outrageous attribute" problem is not a problem at all.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by ecz

my poor English strikes again! :-)

That's fine, since it seems, as I suspected, that 50+ points can be reached only through years of (real time) adventures and hundreds of sessions, excellent playing style, luck with dice and an intensive use of the Job Table bordering its abuse, all things that never happened (and will never happen) in my CGs!

So, at least for me, the "outrageous attribute" problem is not a problem at all.

It was never a problem in my campaigns. However, in several 2 year campaigns I don't think anyone got over 42 points or so.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

It was never a problem in my campaigns. However, in several 2 year campaigns I don't think anyone got over 42 points or so.

It's a little ironic we're even having this discussion, given that your typical TFT character should count their lucky stars just for surviving a fight!

[JLV]

Well, I'm glad you've all solved that problem to your satisfaction!

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

It was never a problem in my campaigns. However, in several 2 year campaigns I don't think anyone got over 42 points or so.

My experience was the same. Perhaps I was a parsimonious GM, but I don't think any of our characters ever got much beyond 45 points in a years-long game. They died. I should point out, however, that my experience was limited to the original microgames, Death Test 1 & 2, Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, and In the Labyrinth. I did have access to things like Tolenkar's Lair. If I had, perhaps I might have been more liberal with experience points.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Charles G.

Of all of the realism concerns my least worry is ST or DX. Particularly ST, after watching the movie "American Sniper" where the actor (and, presumably, the person he was portraying, Chris Kyle) went from a fit, but wiry fellow to a VERY buff, massively muscled individual. That wasn't FX, that was real bulking up. Yeah, a ST of 30 is hard to swallow, when the average is around 10, but I can squint past it and live with it. Ditto for DX, I suppose.

It's IQ that bothers me. Not so much the number values, but rather what the stat represents in the game. The problem is that IQ seems to conflate two related, but quite different things: intellectual/reasoning ability, and memory "capacity" (for lack of a better term). The problem arises that the highest IQ talents (14) in some cases require an intellect that an average person really wouldn't be able to grasp. But since I can raise my IQ to such levels just in the process of learning a reasonable set of talents, by default I am able to learn such things as Alchemy, etc. In reality, an average person, while not necessarily stupid, might never really understand, say, Quantum Physics or similar esotery. Or become a medical researcher or doctor, etc.

Thus, having an Orc with a starting IQ of 8 eventually be able to learn Mathematician and similar talents merely from cleaving numerous foes in battle strikes me as... weird. And that is what I find to be a Bridge Too Far when it comes to accepting high stats.

That's a darn good point. It's almost like each attribute really needs a different way to earn XP towards it -- one doesn't suddenly master nuclear physics by taking up gymnastics, nor does being a rocket scientist translate into having exceptional muscle mass.

And, as I've said elsewhere, the roleplaying aspect takes a bit of hit too -- especially with IQ. How DOES one play a supergenius character when one is not, oneself, a super genius? The answer, of course, is that one often doesn't and instead of roleplaying the character, the player wants (and the GM frequently assents) to roll the dice to determine if he figures out the puzzle, solves the conundrum, masters the esoteric knowledge, or whatever; because, after all, his supergenious character would KNOW that, wouldn't he, even if the player himself can't reliably add two plus two? And so, we go from roleplaying to simply roll-playing...

[ecz]

Originally Posted by Charles G.

(...)

Thus, having an Orc with a starting IQ of 8 eventually be able to learn Mathematician and similar talents merely from cleaving numerous foes in battle strikes me as... weird. And that is what I find to be a Bridge Too Far when it comes to accepting high stats.

And here is where the GM should forbid to add such a talent automatically unless they have it "in study" from enough time. Usually one or two talents at time can be held "in study", not more.
When heroes gain the experience necessary they can add only one of the talents they have in study and only if they have "studied" it by a reasonable time. Of course during this time the hero must have had the chance to spend the time to learn the skill, find a teacher, a trainer, a Guild, someone that - realistacally - could permit the Character to learn the knowledge through study and/or exercise.

In your example a Orc can learn Mathematician, but as GM I would require six months with a teacher or in a "college" (no adventures allowed but a pair of days per week available for other activities) . Or even one full year if there is someone able to teach him part time or the Orc cannot be assiduous.

Of course the Orc learning the Mathematican skill is a case somewhat exceptional but you get what I mean.

A little of good sense from GM and players can avoid any weird effect.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Charles G.

It's IQ that bothers me. Not so much the number values, but rather what the stat represents in the game. The problem is that IQ seems to conflate two related, but quite different things: intellectual/reasoning ability, and memory "capacity" (for lack of a better term). The problem arises that the highest IQ talents (14) in some cases require an intellect that an average person really wouldn't be able to grasp. But since I can raise my IQ to such levels just in the process of learning a reasonable set of talents, by default I am able to learn such things as Alchemy, etc. In reality, an average person, while not necessarily stupid, might never really understand, say, Quantum Physics or similar esotery. Or become a medical researcher or doctor, etc.

Thus, having an Orc with a starting IQ of 8 eventually be able to learn Mathematician and similar talents merely from cleaving numerous foes in battle strikes me as... weird. And that is what I find to be a Bridge Too Far when it comes to accepting high stats.

One serious challenge with game design is that good rules for typical cases often don't work so well for extreme cases. (In the law, we say "hard cases make bad law"). The reverse is often true as well - rules that handle extreme and unlikely cases often work poorly for typical cases. (See the old Space Gamer "Murphy's Rules" feature that highlighted this exact issue. Most of the games mentioned were generally considered to be very good games.)

There's a related challenge that I ran into a lot working on the various versions of A Fistful of TOWs - "writing rules by anecdote".

How likely is it that a player will create an IQ 8 character, then spend 6 of his hard-earned attribute points on IQ? All to learn Mathematics (or whatever)? I played TFT a LOT for 8+ years and never saw anything like that.

If this kinda thing is as rare as my experience suggests, is it really a good use of the designer's time to write rules to handle such an improbable occurrence?