Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Yes, a well-defined and unilaterally fair and honest formula will work too, and additionally there is - and I am too lazy to look the citation up right now... middle-age, don't you know, I am sensing an impending nap coming on soon ;-) - which paraphrases as: "Players will come up with all manner of ways to exploit the EP system, such as having the group's Wizard cast illusions for the Fighters to chop up; and as a GM you should compliment the players on their ingenuity - and promptly disallow such schemes." - or something like that.

So, I simply apply the same philosophy to the situation which you cite above.

While the "as written" EP award system may figure the total EP available for distribution is valued at x, I will "discount" or "inflate" the actual EP award points proportionately to reflect the perceived level of the challenge or threat for THAT group of players - as I see and feel it to be worth as the Referee.

Of course, this requires that the players respect and trust you as their GM; or otherwise a Prootwaddle mass-protest may be triggered. ;-)

SKARG, can you share your formula with us here? I for one would be very interested in reviewing it; as these things, when done well - and I have faith in your skill - often make the factoring and bookkeeping jobs of the GM much easier, smoother, and more consistent across the board - and with much less impromptu brain-effort.

JK

PS - I guess that's why I still philosophically embrace the Original '74-era D&D term of: Referee, as it implies a wholly neutral and disassociated overview perspective from which to judge the action for the benefit of all other parties concerned, as opposed to _____ Master, which to some players (and some GM's) connotes an implicate heavy-handed "GM fiat decree vs Players protest" mentality or atmosphere.

One should always "rule" fairly, yet firmly - like an iron-hand in a velvet glove.

JK

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

I think everyone enjoys that style of play once in awhile (or maybe only once) just to see what it's like to be able to drop-kick a kobold across the arena; otherwise we wouldn't have games like Munchkin themed on it! ;-)

However, having said that, my experience had shown that the "Monty Haul" effect is usually less intentional than it is an indicator of a lack of GM experience, and can be corrected quickly in play. Unless of course the players really want that (and my experience also indicates that such campaigns fold in a matter of a couple of dozen sessions at most).

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Hi all, JLV.
I agree, I never intended to be a Monty Hall GM, but when I first started game mastering (using just melee, wizard and what I could learn from the DM Guide for D&D), I often would give out a decent magic item every 2 or 3 sessions. It didn't take too long to realize how quickly the power of the players would build up after they got a few of those.

Later, I was much more stingy about magic items. When ITL and AW came out, I gave a lot of enemy magic items the Limit / Expunge combo. That lets the NPC's have a few non-lootable magic items.

(I really like the Limit / Expunge enchantments btw.)

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Any magic style items in my campaigns tend to mirror life, i.e. Lady Luck and Miss Fortune make a pair.

So a sword that allows more damage with a lower ST requirement might lower your IQ or DX, or a Lens of Translation might cause vision blurring for a period after use.

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

I am trying to locate some sort of "thumbs up" icon, and I can't find it. Again, so critical and spot-on.

After he had stolen some gems, later, when he was able to look into his loot-bag, Conan found the gems had magically turned to dust. Using 'The Ring' comes with all manner of consequence. REH and JRRT understood this too.

JK

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

If a GM is running a logical game world, where 30 points is average so most NPCs would be in the 28-36 point range (as in almost any published TFT advenuter ever), how would you suggest they avoid "allowing" 40+ point PCs to face characters in that range?

Unless a GM warps their game world, or the PCs are non-violent or manage to live by a code of honor where they only ever fight equals, they're going to fight weaker opponents, and the ITL EP system will still give inappropriate rewards unless the GM uses his discretion (or a house rule) to adjust the EP awarded.

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Sure, that's a great and necessary rule and gives license to what you did. Though it's also not a player abuse, as a normal and almost unavoidable player activity (fighting lesser opponents will happen even if the PCs don't go out of their way to hunt them for EP). It's a failing of the EP calculation.

Yes, I agree. We just did it by modifying the rules rather than applying GM discretion.


Yep. As I said, it worked well for us, but as I know there are gamers who balk at math, I'm sure those players won't like it much.

I just laid out all my old TFT stuff for re-organization, and I saw it recently. I'll post it here shortly.

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Good man SKARG, I will be anxious to see what you have.

While the TFT EP award-valuation method is relatively Static, the amount of required total EPs for one point of Attribute Increase is Dynamic; therefore, while the EP points may come easier the further a figure grows from a 32-point base, the larger the total number of those easy-to-win points are needed. So, if I am understanding you correctly SKARG, your formula could provide us with a Dynamic/Dynamic system.

Sounds promising.

JK

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Yes, it does. The problem with ITL system is it doesn't take into account relative combat ability, and it over-values weak combatants over powerful ones. So Sir Lancelot will get piles of EP for wiping out zero-threat hobgoblins while wearing fine plate and wielding Excallibur, and much less EP for defeating his own doppelganger, or even multiple characters that are better than he is at the same time.

The system we came up with isn't perfect and still wants some GM discretion (and math-averse players may just want to approximate the calculations, or try some examples and then just give out 0-2 EP for slaughtering easy foes, and more for defeating difficult ones by pulling numbers out of their GM Discrimination.

I DID find a write-up, even in computer format. (I also found lots of hand-written (and some typed) notes from our attempts to improve TFT before we found GURPS... and piles of other TFT stuff.) I'll post it in it's own post below:

Re: the "outrageous attribute" problem
 

Detailed Experience house rules for TFT
=======================================

Each combatant has a calculated Threat Value (TV) determined during character creation (see formula below).

Experience points for defeating an opponent in combat is equal to the twice the TV of the opponent, minus the TV of the character receiving the experience, perhaps with a minimum of 1 or 2 EP.

Therefore:
* If two figures with the same TV fight, the winner receives EP equal to that TV.
* If your TV is less than your opponent's TV, you receive EP equal to the enemy's TV, plus the difference in TV.
* If your TV is more than your opponent's TV, you receive EP equal to the enemy's TV, minus the difference in TV.
* If your TV is double or more your opponent's TV, you receive the minimum EP for defeating them.

Experience for partial damage done or shared can be pro-rated either by math or GM discretion as to fairness.

Threat Value (TV) is calculated as the sum of:
* ST
* AdjDX
* Hits stopped x 2
* Weapon Damage above or below normal for a weapon of your ST (e.g. from magic, fine weapons, etc)
* + 3 for pole weapons
* 1 per spell known
* points spent in special combat talents, i.e.:
Thrown Weapons, Missile Weapons, Fencing, Two Weapons, Unarmed Combat, exotic weapon talents (e.g. Lasso, Whip, Boomerang)
but NOT: Warrior/Veteran, regular weapon talents
* GM may assess TV without using math, in whole or in part.

Examples:
* Two warriors with the same ST + DX fight each other with standard weapons and no armor. The winner will EP equal to ST + DX, as in ITL.
* A fighter has Iron Flesh cast on him, gaining 6 hits stopped per attack. His TV goes up by 12 during the spell.
* Someone using a weapon he doesn't have the talent for is at -4 DX. His TV is at -4 while at that penalty.

Extra explanation:

* Basically every character has a TV. A typical unarmored Melee opponent has TV = (ST + DX) = 24.

* EP = loser's TV x 2, minus victor's TV.

* This gives the same EP as ITL, except it's adjusted by the difference in TV.

* Note that this system gives more EP for the more difficult situations. And it actually nicely gives players a reason not to always use all their magic to overpower opponents.

* Note that it does NOT take into account the difficulty of being outnumbered - the GM may want to apply discretion for all factors that make a situation easier or harder.

* Warrior and Veteran actually do increase TV, but it's taken into account in hits stopped. Ordinary weapon talents are similarly taken into account because if you didn't have them, your AdjDX would be -4.

* Exotic weapon talents do count, because those weapons often have some intangible benefit that otherwise would not be taken into account. In cases where it doesn't, the GM can just assess an adjustment. Similarly, the GM might assess adjustments for bad designs. E.g., someone with DX 8 wearing chainmail might be given a lower TV because his equipment choice is fairly dumb. Adjustments can also be made for circumstances.

* In practice, GM's may want to only do all the math for PC's and special NPCs. Other NPC's may just be given an estimate of TV, if the GM doesn't like doing the detailed math. Basically TV for most fighters is simply ST + DX + armor x 2. It may seem complicated looking at the above list, but it's actually usually very easy to calculate once you get used to it, especially if you do it at the same time you make the character.