Attribute Bloat 'Re-Deux'

[TippetsTX]

I know this topic has been addressed in great detail in several threads during the pre-Legacy development phase, but when I saw it pop up in the 'Cloth Armor' thread I figured I would move it here to prevent that thread from straying too far off-topic and in case anyone wanted to continue the discussion.

Originally Posted by larsdangly

The real 'failure modes' of the new TFT are going to be house-ruled attribute bloat and/or over reliance on magic items. My prediction is that groups that do these things will end up unhappy with their campaigns, but it is a lot to ask most people to exercise the discipline required to run a bunch of 38-40 pt characters without prospect of gaining another few stat points some day. It's a little like level limits in 1E and B/X - games that are definitely more fun to play when everyone is under 10'th level, yet somehow most long term groups end up with 30th level characters.

Originally Posted by JLV

I agree, but you can solve both issues by allowing them to gain stats in excess of 40 -- just double the cost in XP for each additional Attribute point -- it allows them to work towards that goal, but it will take FOREVER after an extra point or two and they'll be much more likely to work on skills/spells instead...

This provides them with the illusion of possible advancement (indeed, even the reality if they are remarkably lucky -- and disciplined in retaining XP for long periods of time without spending them on a handy skill or spell), but at the same time ensures you won't see much attribute bloat at all.

The magic items thing is always a danger of course -- especially with new GMs. The specter of the Monte Haul dungeon always crops up in those cases. (I was guilty of it too when I was a teenager!)

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Perhaps you don't have the Legacy edition yet? Doubling costs per point is how it works. The issue is that this quickly spirals to a point where your stats are probably not worth raising above 38 or so (because the points would be better spent elsewhere), and are never going over 40-42 (because the player will die of old age before the character earns enough XP).

To be clear, I think this is fantastic - TFT is at its most exciting and characters are most interesting at these sorts of attribute totals. Anyone just getting into the game is well advised to stick strictly to these constraints.

My main worry is that the publishers have already telegraphed that they don't take the XP rules very seriously when it comes to designing adventures and powerful NPCs.

And go...!

[TippetsTX]

So I think it is clear, whether it became an issue in your game or not, that 'attribute bloat' is definitely an element of the original TFT rules, but as Lars alluded to, it is not an issue unique to TFT. Many RPGs struggle with the transition from mid to high-level characters and in managing in-game challenges effectively. Difficulty needs to scale with character advancement but at the same time, it is also appropriate that low-level tasks become easier, even routine, for more experienced heroes or villians.

[larsdangly]

This is a general problem in fantasy rpgs. And it is compounded by a related problem, that highly experienced characters tend to converge on a narrow range of properties that are found to be advantageous. An example that comes to mind is the phenomenon of most original Runequest PC's ending up as Runelords with iron plate and double iron bastard swords. They were basically everywhere, both in my campaign and in published setting materials. And they were all basically the same, and did the same things every encounter.

Most experienced original-TFT players will agree there wasn't a clear 'best build' for beginning PCs, even when your metric is only arena combat effectiveness. So there has long been a diversity of basic 'types' at the start of campaigns. But there did used to be a convergence of capabilities and tactics among experienced PCs. If you play legacy edition RAW, that's gone. You need to decide what you're going to be really good at and just accept that you will be o.k. to crummy at some other stuff.

As an extreme case, Wizard PC's will be motivated to have a really high IQ so they get access to the best spells. But they can't get there if their ST and DX total to more than about 20, because then they can't reach high IQ without a stat total over 40, and that isn't going to happen without cheating. Whereas the ideal wizard used to be ST 20, DX 20, IQ 20, now that person can't exist and the ideal wizard might be ST 8, DX 11, IQ 20. Or maybe you recognize that such a person will get his or her butt handed to them in a fight with a wizard more like ST 10, DX 15, IQ 15, so perhaps that's the best wizard. If you assume major wishes are flying around like fall leaves you might white-room some way for such a character to eventually get to high values of all three stats, but if you resist these sorts of short cuts you end up with a greater range of character types, all with strengths and weaknesses.

[hcobb]

Uber (human) wizard: ST 8 DX 11(14) IQ 20 Mana 40
Flaming +5 Staff(yow) with 50 point powerstone, +5 leather armor(7), Iron flesh ring(6), +5 DX ring, Spell shield ring
etc.

[larsdangly]

I don't know how to have these kinds of discussion when the examples have tons of maxed out magic items or 20,000 XP worth of Mana points. Every character seems extraordinary when you load them up like that.

[hcobb]

What is your expectation for an NPC?

Is it the Cobbian 49 year old with 2900 XP and $14,500?

With that budget we get 38 attribute points and one skill point
ST 8 DX 13 IQ 17
Staff-2h (1d/1d+2) with 9 point powerstone, Stone Flesh ring(4), $500 of potions
Staff I to V, and 12 IQ 16 or less spells and talent points.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by hcobb

What is your expectation for an NPC?

Is it the Cobbian 49 year old with 2900 XP and $14,500?

With that budget we get 38 attribute points and one skill point
ST 8 DX 13 IQ 17
Staff-2h (1d/1d+2) with 9 point powerstone, Stone Flesh ring(4), $500 of potions
Staff I to V, and 12 IQ 16 or less spells and talent points.

As I've said before, one solution to TFTs attribute bloat problem is to have more attributes. So for instance, if you split Strength into two (Strength and Constitution) you have more character differentiation and more things to spend EXP on. A character can be strong, but not necessarily resilient, or vice-versa.

I believe there will be an article outlining this in the Companion and I'm a fan of this approach.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

As I've said before, one solution to TFTs attribute bloat problem is to have more attributes.

My fourth attribute is size and it slots nicely into TFT. This is because all the playable characters are already specified as S,M,L,2-hex,3-hex

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

As I've said before, one solution to TFTs attribute bloat problem is to have more attributes. So for instance, if you split Strength into two (Strength and Constitution) you have more character differentiation and more things to spend EXP on. A character can be strong, but not necessarily resilient, or vice-versa.

I believe there will be an article outlining this in the Companion and I'm a fan of this approach.

Back in that pre-Legacy Edition Kickstarter question on "what your 'fourth attribute' would be," this is exactly what I advocated -- call it CN or HT or whatever, it was one of the earliest solutions to the dreaded Attribute Bloat problem (I remember hearing it discussed as early as 1983), and was an inherent part of GURPS from the beginning -- possibly for that very reason. Plus, it just made a heck of a lot more sense once you started thinking about things like ability to take damage versus raw strength and how things like Fatigue worked.

Size, Appearance, Charisma, whatever -- all that stuff can be handled in other ways, but really HT/CN versus ST almost demands either considerable rules clarification or separate Attributes. Just sayin'.

[Chris Rice]

The ST - CN split was an example. I wouldn't advocate splitting just one attribute as it imbalances the Attributes relative to one another. If you split all three, you maintain the balance and relative value of the attributes, whilst allowing more scope for advancement and more varied characters.

This is what I do:

Strength split into; ST strength and CN constitution.
It's probably obvious what this split entails so I won't Labour it.

Dexterity split into; DX dexterity and AG agility.
I use DX for anything the character manipulates with their hands; weapons, tools etc. AG represents the characters ability to move their own body so I use it for saving throws and it also replaces MA. Both are affected by armour.

Intelligence split into; IN intelligence and KN knowledge.
IN is used for the level of Talent or spell that can be known. KN is the number of Spells and Talents that can be known.

This approach solves numerous problems that cropped up with advancement. One example is the infamous "Conan the Wizard". The Wizard now fuels spells with CN so will not be carrying a battleaxe etc, wrestling with Ogres etc. A Wizard will naturally gravitate towards IN and KN, plus CN to fuel spells and DX to cast them. They'll probably largely ignore ST and AG.

For monsters, it's fine to stick to the 3 originals, unless there's a special foe that you feel benefits from more differentiation.

I felt no need for an attribute cap playing this way.