Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2018, 07:19 PM   #561
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: Forgetting Talents --> Very gamey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
OK, that is quite different to mIQ. So buying a talent is expensive in attribute points early on but cheap as chips for an experienced character? That's going to encourage the one-talent starting halberdier and its ilk. How much does it cost to buy a talent, and how many experience points does a 32 point character start with?
I would put it differently; that easy talents are cheap, and that more difficult ones are expensive. As I've repeatedly stated, the IQ required to LEARN a talent or spell (as opposed to the 'slots') would remain unchanged. If you need IQ 10 to learn something, you would STILL need an IQ of 10 to learn it. So that right there will drive the expense of the more difficult talents up. Then, if you increase the BASIC cost of a given talent for it's IQ level, you solve the very problem you are raising. So, for example, learning an IQ 8 talent might take, oh, let's say just for argument's sake, 800 XP. An IQ 9 talent might then require 900 XP, and so on. Eventually, an IQ 16 talent winds up costing you 1600 points. Or, if you don't like a simple scale, make it a more complex one instead by saying the cost of a talent is some multiple of the IQ required x100. It's also why I mentioned the possibility of multiplying the cost of the talent by the number of "slots" it would have taken up under the original system; thus, a "three-slot" talent at IQ 10 would actually cost 3000 XP, instead of merely 1000 XP (which is what a "one-slot" talent would cost under this system) But that's hardly the only answer here; there are lots of different potential solutions to that problem.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 07:38 PM   #562
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: You do know that my system has not been proposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
In my posts I've used the terminology mIQ as an abbreviation for memory and fST for an abbreviation for fatigue strength. I think that is a useful addition to new TFT. It will make the rules clearer. For example, when you lose 2 ST after berserking... is it damage or fST lost? I honestly do not know what was intended. If my nomenclature was used, the answer would be obvious.
It seems quite clear what was intended. After berserking, you take two additional ST as lost. It's the exact same system used everywhere but in magic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
You will notice I have not suggested my superscript system for consideration in the new TFT, despite many posts by myself on how to improve new TFT. I think that the chances of my system being used are zero. For that matter, I think that the chances of your system being used, are also zero.
I'm quite sure you're right. I'm also quite sure that Steve will only change things that actually NEED changing, despite everything all us geniuses out here have to say! ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Steve Jackson has said that he is going to publish TFT as it was, with some minor tweaks. I've suggested the mIQ cost of talents might be halved. THAT is a minor tweak which I think is unlikely to happen, but is barely possible.
But since mIQ is not an issue, what do you mean when you say "mIQ cost of talents might be halved"? Are you actually saying that talent costs might be halved?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Most of the debate between you and David is because your description of your system left out the rule, that buying more talents does not increase your attribute total. If you review what was written, I think you would find that if David knew that from the beginning, then the posts back and forth between you would be much shorter.
I'm a tad confused by your point here -- buying more talents has NEVER increased your attribute points. It's always been necessary to increase your attributes PRIOR to gaining any more talents/spells. All my "system" does is regulate the costs of talents and eliminate the necessity of buffing your character to the point he becomes Conan the Magician.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Anyway, you are of course welcome to continue your strident put downs of my work, but I gently remind you that I've not proposed them for new TFT.
I'm not "stridently putting down your work;" but rather simply asking the obvious questions. For example; why take the long road around the mountain when all you have to do is apply Occam's Razor? And if mIQ, for example, is somehow different from IQ, how does it get that way? Do you spend XP points to increase it separately from regular IQ? If so, does that not make it a separate attribute? Mind you, you've never actually explained here how exactly your superscripts work, but apparently that just means I'm attacking you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
I admit I would be happier if your 'summary' of them was more accurate.

Regards, Rick.
Here's an idea; instead of assuming my motives, maybe you can take the time to explain it so that those of us who have never used it can understand it better. Frankly, even if I disagree with your approach, that doesn't mean I have no desire to understand what it is. Who knows; with more information, I might even wind up agreeing. I've never said your system was "bad," and in fact have been trying to get someone to better explain it to me so I can understand why you think it's better. Put another way, if you think my "summary" is wrong, perhaps you can better explain the system, instead of assuming I'm attacking you.

I have absolutely no problem with your work. I prefer to use something simpler, based on my current understanding of how your system works, but you can do it however you want. As can I.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 09:52 PM   #563
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: A Wizard's staff with Quarterstaff talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi Skarg,
In my campaign if you include shields, most people who are fighting for a living have at least 3 points of armor. So the +1 die for the staff is pretty marginal. (I would say the most common armor is leather armor and large shield for 4 points, but 3 points is common, and you do see 2 (or 5) points of armor fairly often.) But in my campaign, it is very rare to see people running around without protection.

But sometimes you will come across some wolves (stops 1) or a wizard with only two points of armor, so the combo is occasionally more useful.

By the way, in my campaign small shields are fairly rare. If a person is going to give up an entire hand for a shield, they want it to stop more than one hit. I suspect that what ever combo is optimum depends a bit on the campaign's 'group think' about what makes sense for weapons and armor.

***

However, you have overlooked the strongest argument for my system. It is LOGICAL. If a Staff spell adds a die of damage to a stick, it ALSO adds a die of damage to a staff & quarterstaff or to a staff & club. My system uses the spell as written, but has an extra rule that kicks in when the staff is added to a wooden weapon. To me, keeping that +1 die of damage is pretty basic to what the spell is supposed to do.
Hi Rick,

I didn't overlook the logic of shifting the Staff spell effect to add 1d of separate damage. My comment even started by saying it made sense. I think it's great for making sense. I just think it becomes about 2 points more powerful than the typical 32-point fighter, at least in an unmodified game with the usual weapon damages and armor DX penalties and all that. I know you have quite a few house rules including a reworked weapon table that gives more damage to two-handed weapons, and other weapon talents, and I see if even low-level people had 3-5 points of armor that 1d + 1d+2 would not be so good as 2d+2. I'm curious whether your house-rule armor lowers the DX penalty for armor?
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 01:25 AM   #564
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Forgetting Talents --> Very gamey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
an IQ 8 talent might take, oh, let's say just for argument's sake, 800 XP.
Either I've misunderstood, or when I generate my 32 point character, if I have 800 XP to spend, I have a choice between an IQ 8 talent and 5 attribute points, and nobody sane is going to choose the first.
David Bofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 01:27 AM   #565
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Cantrips, spells and ritual magic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shostak View Post
Two thumbs up here. Please, nothing even resembling cantrips! Spells are spells are spells; there is no need to make it any more complicated. As a famous artist once told me, "Sometimes, simple is better."
In TFT terms a cantrip is a spell with zero ST cost. You could add those to the game very easily, without changing the system at all. In fact we already have a spell like that: Disbelieve.

It might be fun to have wizards using magic to light their pipes, or putting out candles, or making lights flicker up and down their fingers, without thinking about it. And if they had sufficient IQ, without needing words or gestures.

Some of my prootwaddle spells were sufficiently anaemic they could be repurposed as cantrips.
David Bofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 06:00 AM   #566
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Does Berserking cause you damage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
It seems quite clear what was intended. After berserking, you take two additional ST as lost. It's the exact same system used everywhere but in magic.
I do not think that this is clear since I've seen different TFT GM's do it different ways. I started thinking that it did damage to you, but have since come around to thinking that going berserk makes you exhausted.

Rick
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 06:09 AM   #567
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default I have suggested that the mIQ cost of talents be halved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
But since mIQ is not an issue, what do you mean when you say "mIQ cost of talents might be halved"? Are you actually saying that talent costs might be halved?
Hi JLV,
You say: "memory is not an issue"... I DO think it is an very serious issue.

If you check my previous posts, I have argued that talents cost too much memory. I did indeed suggest that the cost of talents be reduced by about half, and that talents that cost 0.5 memory should be introduced.

I gave this a strong recommendation (and I think I've only made 2 or 3 strong recommendations to Steve).

Please read my previous posts as for why I've written this.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 06:19 AM   #568
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Cost of buying talents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
I'm a tad confused by your point here -- buying more talents has NEVER increased your attribute points. It's always been necessary to increase your attributes PRIOR to gaining any more talents/spells. ...
Let us say that I have a character with IQ 12 who has bought 14 spells with that 12 mIQ. Or let's say that a different character also has IQ 12 and has bought 5 talents with that 12 mIQ.

If that figure wants to get more talents, his or her attribute total will increase. It has always worked that way in TFT. It also works that way in my campaign and in every variation of TFT I've seen over the years.

What is gained by making the petty distinction that the attribute is bought before the talent is gained? If I'm going to add more talents, the attribute total WILL increase.

Rick
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 09:17 AM   #569
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default My Superscript system is not being proposed.

Hi JLV,
Before replying to this post, I spent the time to go back thru the last 8 or so pages of this forum and re-read everything that has been written, to refresh my memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
I'm not "stridently putting down your work;" but rather simply asking the obvious questions. For example; why take the long road around the mountain when all you have to do is apply Occam's Razor?
These are the reasons:

-- Gives more variety in characters so that not all high exp characters (with attribute bloat) have similar attributes.
-- Allows wizards to have more fatigue (fST) to power spells with out beefing up like Conan.
-- Allows heroes to have a realistic amount of talents compared to heroes of fiction and many people in real life.
-- Reduces the problem of attribute bloat, since you have more ways to spend experience.

One subsystem that solves ALL of the above problems actually seems fairly parsimonious design.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
And if mIQ, for example, is somehow different from IQ, how does it get that way? Do you spend XP points to increase it separately from regular IQ? If so, does that not make it a separate attribute? Mind you, you've never actually explained here how exactly your superscripts work, but apparently that just means I'm attacking you...
My rules were published and discussed on Brainiac's site for years now, and you referred to these rules by name so I assumed that you were familiar with them. You referred to the 'DX variant' which was never discussed on this forum, and mentioned my system 'added 3 attributes' (which again was never mentioned on this forum). Also you were quick to simplify / summarize them and I assumed that you would not do so unless you knew them. So when I replied, I had thought you knew of these rules.

I didn't think you were an expert, but it seemed obvious that you had a passing familiarity with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Here's an idea; instead of assuming my motives, maybe you can take the time to explain it so that those of us who have never used it can understand it better.
The rules linked to below is my way of fixing the TFT system. I thought carefully about suggesting these rules, but I decided that Steve Jackson is unlikely to want to make a major change to TFT. If not, then they didn't belong in the 'what we would like to see in the new TFT thread', so I didn't suggest them.

So here are the rules if anyone is curious. (Including examples they are under a page long.) I am NOT suggesting that these rules are used in the new TFT.

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/Ch...rtVersion.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Frankly, even if I disagree with your approach, that doesn't mean I have no desire to understand what it is. Who knows; with more information, I might even wind up agreeing. I've never said your system was "bad," and in fact have been trying to get someone to better explain it to me so I can understand why you think it's better. Put another way, if you think my "summary" is wrong, perhaps you can better explain the system, instead of assuming I'm attacking you.

I have absolutely no problem with your work. I prefer to use something simpler, based on my current understanding of how your system works, but you can do it however you want. As can I.
Fair enough.

My apologies. I had assumed that you were familiar with my work and your several posts where you were saying 'why do this' and 'this is just adding more attributes' seemed less like a question and more like a rhetorical device.

After a while I got impatient. And as I said, if you are going to sum up my rules in a pithy little saying, at least have the courtesy to do so accurately.

Regards, Rick
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 09:23 AM   #570
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Price of buying talents with experience

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
Either I've misunderstood, or when I generate my 32 point character, if I have 800 XP to spend, I have a choice between an IQ 8 talent and 5 attribute points, and nobody sane is going to choose the first.
Hi David, everyone.
If the IQ 8 talent was Running (which costs 2 mIQ), then the experience price would double to something like 7 or 8 attributes. (Assuming attributes get more expensive as you go up.)

I think that JLV has not playtested these rules, he was giving an example of how they might work, off the top of his head.

If we reduced the price for learning an IQ 8 talent to 80 exp, then Running would cost 160 experience, which seems a bit low, but is obviously more reasonable.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
in the labyrinth, melee, roleplaying, the fantasy trip, wizard

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.