Another issue with always requiring XP to learn talents/spells after play begins

[The Wyzard]

Originally Posted by JLV

And that comment strikes directly to the heart of a lot of the discussion over the whole XP award process earlier on these threads. Frankly, I liked the old way of awarding XP. Sure, I can see also awarding XP for non-combat things (like clever puzzle solving, spotting a carefully hidden trap or door, disarming a complex trap or picking a tough lock, and even good roleplaying when it conforms to the background and talents of the character being played (and I have done just that for decades, now), but I really dislike pulling the benefits from combat and just hand-waving the whole combat thing. To me, that change was throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Combat is so deadly in TFT, that I feel some kind of reward should be a part of winning one. And, as Skarg points out, now we'll have players purposely avoiding all combat since there's no real "payoff" for putting your hide on the line anymore.

Here's the error, I think:

From Wizard:

Note: This system allows a wizard to add one attribute point (on the
average) for every two duels. As long as you are only playing Wizard (and/
or Melee) as a game of duels, this will work quite fairly. However, if you
are using TFT: In The Labyrinth, and playing a campaign game, use the
experience point system given there, which allows characters to gain experience for things besides fghting, rather than the above system.

Emphasis mine. The version from Melee is shorter.

The point I'm making is that it looks like the original intention was to have a more detailed XP system in ITL. One that rewarded PCs for things besides fighting - so one might expect puzzle-solving, difficult skill checks, et cetera, to make an appearance. Instead, I dunno why, they switched to a flat/fiat award that doesn't take into account what the PCs have accomplished (or at least failed spectacularly at.)

[JLV]

Originally Posted by The Wyzard

Emphasis mine. The version from Melee is shorter.

The point I'm making is that it looks like the original intention was to have a more detailed XP system in ITL. One that rewarded PCs for things besides fighting - so one might expect puzzle-solving, difficult skill checks, et cetera, to make an appearance. Instead, I dunno why, they switched to a flat/fiat award that doesn't take into account what the PCs have accomplished (or at least failed spectacularly at.)

Yeah, I think that wording is simply a holdover from the original version of Melee -- and wasn't changed much when Steve re-did the experience system for the new ITL. The upshot is that the GM has wide latitude (and no real standards) for awarding XP now. I think adding some standards, even if you did de-emphasize combat by doing so, would have been a better approach, but that's just me.

I'll probably use the old Combat awards system (generally 1XP per hit, plus the opponent's DX in XP if you put in the killing blow, for all you people that don't own the original TFT rules), plus try to develop some standards for non-combat awards (like "succeeding on X number of dice is worth umpty-fratz XP"), and make sure that there is room in there to reward exceptional role-playing too, so that everyone feels like the XP awards both make logical sense and are fair to everyone.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'll probably use the old Combat awards system (generally 1XP per hit, plus the opponent's DX in XP if you put in the killing blow, for all you people that don't own the original TFT rules), plus try to develop some standards for non-combat awards (like "succeeding on X number of dice is worth umpty-fratz XP"), and make sure that there is room in there to reward exceptional role-playing too, so that everyone feels like the XP awards both make logical sense and are fair to everyone.

I also preferred the structure and consistency of the old system. Unfortunately though, the original method of awarding XP won't match up well with the increased cost of stat advancement, etc. in the revised ITL. A lot of things feel out-of-balance now, TBH.

[JLV]

Actually, I think it might work better with the new Stat costs -- if you do a lot of fighting, anyway. Heck, it might even put a spell or talent in reach sooner than everyone just getting 25 XP for showing up each session.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Actually, I think it might work better with the new Stat costs -- if you do a lot of fighting, anyway. Heck, it might even put a spell or talent in reach sooner than everyone just getting 25 XP for showing up each session.

That is another difference with the new suggestions for how to award XP - they're flat. Cooperating, solving puzzles and making players laugh probably gets you the same XP at 32 points or 40 points. In the old system, 32-point characters tended to only be able to earn so much EP at the start, but the more powerful characters might be able to earn a lot more because they could do a lot more.


No matter how you slice it though, the new curve for attributes hits the flat cost for talent/spell points slightly past the 36th attribute, and that's the comparison I think is pretty unfortunate.


As Jack O'All Trades wrote, the issue is the RAW experience for new players. (I know several ways to house rule it to taste (easiest-seeming-to-me being to just allow IQ to work to learn talents/spells as in old TFT, as well as allowing buying more with XP), but I mention it here hopefully for the attention of Steve & Guy and for the benefit of new players, because I can see the issues that will come up in play with RAW.)

[larsdangly]

I've been playing pretty often the last few weeks, and have fallen into a pattern of handing out about 50 XP per hour of high-intensity action and half that when the players are basically dinking around. It feels about right. I was critical of the loosey goosey approach suggested in the new edition when it first appeared, but honestly it has been sort of a blessing to ignore XP during the actual play and just hand it out at the end. Of course this requires that the GM has some understanding of the rate of progression that will work in their campaign (and the corresponding levels of risk the players face).

Re the OP of this thread, I am not concerned about the new rule that after character generation your talents known are independent of your IQ score rise. I actually like it, as it contributes to slowing things down. Also, I think when this rule is combined with the new stat advancement rates it means players are going to transition pretty quickly from stats to talents as the main focus of their XP expenditures. Ironically, I think this has increased the importance of those first couple of IQ point investments, as you really want to reach an IQ score where you can access the stratum of talents that most interest you. Anyway, I'm cool with it and wouldn't want to see it modified.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by JLV

And that comment strikes directly to the heart of a lot of the discussion over the whole XP award process earlier on these threads. Frankly, I liked the old way of awarding XP. Sure, I can see also awarding XP for non-combat things (like clever puzzle solving, spotting a carefully hidden trap or door, disarming a complex trap or picking a tough lock, and even good roleplaying when it conforms to the background and talents of the character being played (and I have done just that for decades, now), but I really dislike pulling the benefits from combat and just hand-waving the whole combat thing. To me, that change was throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Combat is so deadly in TFT, that I feel some kind of reward should be a part of winning one. And, as Skarg points out, now we'll have players purposely avoiding all combat since there's no real "payoff" for putting your hide on the line anymore.

IIRC, new ITL doesn't tell you NOT to grant XP for surviving combats. It says not to grant XP mechanically. Like, don't give XP for every check passed or critical success or foe slain. It still gives you very wide latitude as to what can be rewarded with XP. Surviving or emerging victorious from a combat absolutely should be rewarded with XP. How much is up to you. I think that's great. Steve left it up to you. But he suggested around 60XP per character per session, IIRC.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by The Wyzard

Here's the error, I think:

From Wizard:


Emphasis mine. The version from Melee is shorter.

The point I'm making is that it looks like the original intention was to have a more detailed XP system in ITL. One that rewarded PCs for things besides fighting - so one might expect puzzle-solving, difficult skill checks, et cetera, to make an appearance. Instead, I dunno why, they switched to a flat/fiat award that doesn't take into account what the PCs have accomplished (or at least failed spectacularly at.)

It looks to me like the original intention was to provide XP for things besides (in addition to) fighting. There's is no implication of a "detailed XP system" in that sentence.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I've been playing pretty often the last few weeks, and have fallen into a pattern of handing out about 50 XP per hour of high-intensity action and half that when the players are basically dinking around. It feels about right. I was critical of the loosey goosey approach suggested in the new edition when it first appeared, but honestly it has been sort of a blessing to ignore XP during the actual play and just hand it out at the end. Of course this requires that the GM has some understanding of the rate of progression that will work in their campaign (and the corresponding levels of risk the players face).

Re the OP of this thread, I am not concerned about the new rule that after character generation your talents known are independent of your IQ score rise. I actually like it, as it contributes to slowing things down. Also, I think when this rule is combined with the new stat advancement rates it means players are going to transition pretty quickly from stats to talents as the main focus of their XP expenditures. Ironically, I think this has increased the importance of those first couple of IQ point investments, as you really want to reach an IQ score where you can access the stratum of talents that most interest you. Anyway, I'm cool with it and wouldn't want to see it modified.

Same here. The detachment of IQ from the number of talents/spells known doesn't bother me at all. If I had my druthers, I'd remove that attachment during character creations as well.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

As Jack O'All Trades wrote, the issue is the RAW experience for new players. (I know several ways to house rule it to taste (easiest-seeming-to-me being to just allow IQ to work to learn talents/spells as in old TFT, as well as allowing buying more with XP), but I mention it here hopefully for the attention of Steve & Guy and for the benefit of new players, because I can see the issues that will come up in play with RAW.)

I started a thread with "FOR STEVE:" in the title. Please do go and chime-in there.