Impressions of ITL

[larsdangly]

Many of us are focused on the copy editing before the deadline for revisions passes, but I thought it could be fun to start a parallel thread of more general discussion about the draft of ITL, which I consider to be the heart of the new project. Some of my initial impressions:

- There are lots of small but great 'grace notes' of new material - creatures, items, spells. I suspect this will only grow when the Companion is presented. These things really flesh out the setting, particularly the distinctive things not seen in other games (e.g., the various plants, bugs and slimes).

- I appreciate the new experience rules. Anyone who commits to the suggested advancement scale will have a campaign experience very different from the original edition, with characters saturating their stats relatively early in their growth and then focusing on talents and spells, and then just focusing on playing well. I'm not sure how committed the authors are to this idea, based on the large number of NPCs with high stats in the draft adventures, but I think if you treat those as anomalies rather than the real norm the campaign game will be much more interesting.

- The artwork is really fun (and will obviously only get better as they fill in all the holes in the layout)

- I've already got a million ideas for things I'd like to revise and distribute from my longstanding house rules. BUT, I am going to hold myself to a rigid rule, at least for a while, of working strictly within RAW when it comes to core rules. I.e., working up fun spells, critters, items, etc. and perhaps a few 'play aids' that flesh out how to approach travel or campaign play within the context of the RAW. The alternative (pitching significant house rulings) will just fragment the community and result in a bunch of material that almost no one finds useful.

[Shadekeep]

The main thing that as struck me so far in reading ITL afresh is just how individualistic a system it is. The base mechanics of it remained familiar, but it is all the little touches that had faded over time that now strike me again with how much character it has as a system. I think it stands up rather well in that light, and certainly retains more core playability than say original AD&D or Classic Traveller. Most of the tweaks are towards the positive side, too, with a few exceptions (*cough* new staff rules).

[larsdangly]

Agreed. The best thing SJ did with this project was to preserve the heart of the system, while putting in some new material that makes it feel 'freshened up' yet still the same. It really is a unique feeling game, even (strangely) when placed next to GURPS, which shares many of the basic stats and mechanics.

[Tenex]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

- I've already got a million ideas for things I'd like to revise and distribute from my longstanding house rules. BUT, I am going to hold myself to a rigid rule, at least for a while, of working strictly within RAW when it comes to core rules.

Please don't restrain yourself this way.

Originally Posted by larsdangly

The alternative (pitching significant house rulings) will just fragment the community and result in a bunch of material that almost no one finds useful.

I hardly think that's the case, and I would like to see your thoughts. I plan to heavily house rule my TFT campaign because I don't like a lot of the new canon and SJG didn't address many of what I consider to be significant problems in this new edition.

There is widespread consensus that the wizard's staff stuff is goofy and I can't imagine it surviving in many campaigns unaltered. The Explosive Gems spell didn't get sufficiently explained/nerfed. I could go on, but that's what the House Rules sub-forum is for.

Seriously, it's not like SJG is down on the concept. The publisher of the game actually sponsors a sub-forum titled "TFT: House Rules". Clearly the original author and current publisher of the game don't see this as fragmenting the community.

[larsdangly]

As I do a detailed read through of the spells in ITL, I have developed an irresistable urge to write up a wizard who only knows weird, obscure spells (Ferment, Scour, Erase Writing, etc.). I assure you I would find ways to use them on an adventure. I'm not saying it would be great, but something would happen.

[larsdangly]

Perhaps I haven't gotten to the relevant passage, but I'm confused about exactly how it works when you learn a spell that is an upgraded version of a lower IQ spell. If you acquire it on character creation is it assumed you have all the powers of the lower IQ version? If you gain it later, do you pay the normal experience point cost, as you would any other spell?

[Terquem]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

As I do a detailed read through of the spells in ITL, I have developed an irresistable urge to write up a wizard who only knows weird, obscure spells (Ferment, Scour, Erase Writing, etc.). I assure you I would find ways to use them on an adventure. I'm not saying it would be great, but something would happen.

I can see this guy or girl being the housekeeper (much maligned) of a powerful wizard

Living in a remote tower - the wizard is summoned for help, but has grown old and is mostly incapacitated, so this "housekeeper" answers the call determined to do their very best

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Perhaps I haven't gotten to the relevant passage, but I'm confused about exactly how it works when you learn a spell that is an upgraded version of a lower IQ spell. If you acquire it on character creation is it assumed you have all the powers of the lower IQ version? If you gain it later, do you pay the normal experience point cost, as you would any other spell?

The new ITL seems to have sadly lost the cool paragraphs from Advanced Wizard page 10 on what it takes to learn spells, which is what I would use to answer that question and others about learning spells. I'm hoping that was an oversight...


I also hope Steve meant to use his most recent forum post about the XP costs for attributes, which were:

100
300
700
1500
2700
4300
6300
9300

Instead the ones in ITL currently show:

100
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
6400
12800
25600

Which looks unfortunately shallow to me, especially in the mid-range, and then doubles into oblivion past 40, quickly becoming ridiculous. Mainly I think points 35-37 would be steeper, as I think my "sweet spot" I'd like to linger at longer rather than breeze through is 34-37.

I think it might be a mistake, because the talent/spell costs are still at 500 points per talent/spell/IQ point, which seems awfully steep compared to the cost of increasing the first few attributes. i.e. it it only at 37 attribute total before gaining an attribute costs more than adding even one talent/IQ point.

[larsdangly]

I'm good with the new experience progression, as it encourages that first few points of stat advancement and then turns your attention to talents, spells and limited wishes (and, perhaps, cash!). I suspect one consequence of this is that there will be a lot more experienced PC's who are heroes that know a half dozen spells (i.e., Grey Mouser types). They will have the reserves of XP to do it, and once you've bought all the talents you can really use given your IQ, why not?

Something I'm not stoked about is the way NPCs in the modules get a free pass from the new XP system. Given that wishes won't raise a stat above 14 and cost of stat advances once your total is in the mid 40's is literally in the hundreds of thousands to millions, those characters simply should not exist. They are there because of GM fiat. In a system where the 'on ramp' games (Melee/Wizard) are about competition and the whole thing is engineered around balance, it feels like a trick to stock the world with adversaries who are playing by different rules.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Something I'm not stoked about is the way NPCs in the modules get a free pass from the new XP system. Given that wishes won't raise a stat above 14 and cost of stat advances once your total is in the mid 40's is literally in the hundreds of thousands to millions, those characters simply should not exist. They are there because of GM fiat. In a system where the 'on ramp' games (Melee/Wizard) are about competition and the whole thing is engineered around balance, it feels like a trick to stock the world with adversaries who are playing by different rules.

This is pretty common among other games where the way stats are generated is changed, but the stats themselves have the same meanings. 6th edition HERO System in particular sees a lot of "versionitis" in its updated characters; all of the updated characters from previous editions have the same stats they always did, even when a new build would work them out differently.

What if you (or someone) were to work out the experience point totals for the original versions of those characters, and rewrite them to fit the new XP rules, and submit them to SJ in email?