05-22-2019, 11:18 AM | #21 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
Quote:
Or is your opinion that the flaw is so small it's just a quirk of an otherwise very good XP system so a house rule or errata isn't warranted. Or maybe your opinion is that perfectly balanced systems are boring, so it's actually the flaws that make it shine? And if some players don't read up on the rules it is their headache. Or maybe you don't really care for house rules or errata at all and would rather play with official rules even if they are partially flawed. Speaking for myself, I don't like asymmetry, especially if there are fixes that are in my view both better, simpler and more beautiful. I am not trying to be confrontational, I am genuinely curious. To me, it's like seeing the neighbor coming home with a brand new car, with a missing door. And when you point it out, he just says, "I know, no biggie, it's fine for me." :-D |
|
05-22-2019, 11:30 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
Quote:
|
|
05-22-2019, 12:25 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
TBH, I wouldn't characterize it as a 'flaw' either. It is a change that alters several of the default assumptions associated with the gameplay that many of us old-timers were used to (specifically around character progression) and which I personally don't care for, but many others like it and find it to be an improvement. TFT is a great system because of this fact... it is extremely adaptable to various gameplay styles and preferences.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
05-22-2019, 12:30 PM | #24 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
What I'm still wondering is, is there anyone who "doesn't see any problem" with the new system, who does feel there's a problem with also letting people learn talents/spells up to their IQ as in original TFT (spending time studying but not XP)?
(I have the feeling the answer is (almost) no one does, in which case, once again I may have spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain issues to people who just aren't bothered by such things one way or the other.) |
05-22-2019, 01:30 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
The difference between obtaining talents during character creation and through experience does not bother me; I do not consider it a 'flaw'. I don't really feel like I need to rationalize WHY it works this way, but if I did I might do so as follows:
1) Start by severing the connection between the maximum number of talents you are permitted to know and your IQ score - it is axiomatic in the game design that these don't have to depend on each other. 2) Now, sit down and start creating a character. When it comes time to populate your list of known talents you need some function that tells you how many a person has at the start of play. There are several reasonable answers to that question; the designer's answer was an amount you could purchase by multiplying 500XP times starting IQ. A house rule that was loosely in this range but different in detail would be equally good. 3) Start playing, and pay for any new talents you might get by expending XP. The end. I don't believe this is unbalanced; if anything it is more balanced than before because now it feels like there is a pressure to create heroes with somewhat higher IQ scores, such that the default character is something like 11-11-10 (or so) rather than the traditional 12-12-8. You asked if I would mind a house rule in which people automatically gain 500 XP worth of talents when their IQ goes up. I'm not sure how to answer; I would not do it myself because it feels like a form of 'grade inflation' over RAW and I think grade inflation is the most destructive things people do to games with their house rules, so I just push it down wherever it raises its head. But the idea doesn't offend me. If someone did it I wouldn't consider them crazy. Last edited by larsdangly; 05-22-2019 at 01:33 PM. |
05-22-2019, 02:45 PM | #26 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
Thanks for the answer Lars. You didn't owe me an explanation in any way, but I am grateful I got your reasoning. :-)
I guess the main issue is with the discrepancy of a set cost for talents at 500 and attributes that have an exponential cost. 500 at character creation and the early game is a huge deal, but later on its value is balanced by attribute cost, and in the late game it is the only realistic choice for heroes to improve. Even in the old rules, where an (IQ point + 1 talent) was considered equal to DX and ST, there was a considerable advantage to starting with a high IQ, since you could have more of the advanced talents. Starting at IQ 14 instead of 11 gave you 3 more talents, but also access to many more, instead of taking somewhat sub-par or second choice ones at IQ 11 and below. But maybe that inducement wasn't enough to make people go for the starting high IQ heroes. There was a problem for the guy that wanted an IQ 11 2p talent, but started at IQ 10, he had to raise his IQ to 12 unless he saved up a talent point, then +1 IQ would be enough. Being able to save talent points, or put them into a study talent that kicks in once the prereqs. are met would be one way of getting around some of the problems I see. Another reason for the 12/12/8-char was the XP gain. The better you were at killing stuff, the faster you would get XP. IQ didn't give much bonus in that department. But now we have a flat XP gain, as long as you survive, you should get more or less as much as the others. Do we really need more inducements to start with a higher IQ character? It is a valid argument, and there is a problem with the starting number of talents. I would argue though, that ST and DX still are as valuable as (IQ + 1 talent). So either disconnect them completely and make starting talents non-dependent on starting IQ, or keep them dependent on each other even after character start, with the option of buying extra later on if you want to (that cost could be 500 or anything, because sooner or later it would be worth it anyways with the IQ becoming exponentially more expensive). A tricky system, and I am not happy with it in its current state. I am starting a campaign soon and it would be nice to have it down on paper from the start since it might matter a lot. |
05-22-2019, 02:45 PM | #27 | |
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Seattle
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
Quote:
However, when I consider RAW, it does seem somewhat realistic, if unbalanced point-wise. Lives rarely take a straight path to a particular result; people grow organically. The other consideration in RAW not bothering me is that lack of balance was a feature of early RPGs. Wizards in OD&D were pretty frail and not very useful until they reached a certain level, while fighters linear progression would be eclipsed at higher levels by wizards.
__________________
Seven Kingdoms, MH (as yet unnamed), and my "pick-up" DF game war stories, characters, and other ruminations can be found here. |
|
05-22-2019, 07:30 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
Quote:
|
|
05-23-2019, 06:28 AM | #29 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
|
05-23-2019, 06:31 AM | #30 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|