The Fourth Attribute...
 

OK, so you’ve just been made the Czar of All TFT. You decide to add one - and only one - attribute for the game. What is it?

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I’ll start. I think I’d add Perception (PC). Indeed, I think that “rolls to notice/see/hear/smell” are probably the most numerous rolls made in TFT besides “to hit/cast spell” and “damage”. I think that this argues for a specific attribute.

So PC would be used for rolls to notice/see/hear/smell/feel. And possibly for “to hit” rolls for missile weapons/spells and thrown weapons.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Hero Points; used either to affect die rolls or to cast spells. Does away with the need for attribute increase, which was the one part of the game I didn't like.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Interesting. Would they be lost when used, or would they regenerate? If the former, it would certainly enhance the resource allocation challenge that I maintain is a major reason dungeons are so compelling.

I like attribute increasing, but you could blend that with hero points by limiting attribute increases to (say) 1 or 2 points more than the starting attribute. From that point on, figures can only buy hero points.

Have you had much experience playtesting this?

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Yes, but it was some time ago, so the details are somewhat hazy and I'd already altered the base game somewhat to six attributes among other things. Instead of awarding experience points after adventures I gave "Hero points."

These could be used in a variety of ways. For Wizards and Clerics they could be exchanged into Magic points and Faith points respectively to fuel spells. They could also be used (at great cost) to increase attributes. Their main use however, was as an in-game device to modify dice rolls in favour of the characters. These points regenerated between encounters and became a sort of indicator of a character's power; so a level 6 Hero had 6 Hero points and so on.

We all liked the extra dynamic these added to play. In addition Marius the ST12, DX12, leather armoured fighter didn't have to become Marius the ST20, DX20, plate Mail armoured fighter. He could retain the same characteristics but become much more powerful through Hero points.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Unambiguous: Talent points as a thing separate from IQ, and used as your inventory of points for talents and spells.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Easy, peasy: HT (Health); it solves so many of the fundamental problems with the existing system in terms of fatigue versus hits, attribute bloat (it's far harder to get there when you're trying to up FOUR attributes), straightforward encumbrance rules, disease and poison effects, etc., etc., etc.

Of course this was originally proposed back when TFT was still being published in the early 80's and was so popular (and simple) a suggestion that it was incorporated by Steve into GURPS as an obvious step...

It doesn't solve many of the issues revolving around IQ, of course, but if you decouple Talents/Spells capacity from IQ (or significantly increase capacity by multiplying IQ by some number, as has been mentioned elsewhere), most of those difficulties fall away as well.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

of course HT (Health)!

I think these discussions are dangerous in the sense that Steve Jackson after reading our suggestions could decide he already made all changes necessary in GURPS and cancel the new TFT project ! :-D

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Each of the original three Attributes had two main functions:

ST governed both weapon use and ability to take damage (health/con).
DX governed hit chance and many skill checks.
IQ governed difficulty of skills to learn and number known.

The system was fairly balanced between the value of the three attributes. By splitting one (ST) into two parts by creating a Health attribute you devalue both ST and Health and imbalance the system. If you're going to split them, then it makes more sense to split all three, thus preserving the relative balance between the attributes.

Although this might seem more complex you're really just assigning a different name and number to an already existing function. As far as monsters go, it's not necessary under normal circumstances to split them, so they can be described just with the original three attributes.

This is a long winded way of saying I don't want a separate Health attribute, unless the other attributes are also split.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

the OP asked to name one, and only one, new attribute. I agree that TFT works as it is, and a fourth attribute could unbalance everything, but if I have to decide one, HT is obviusly the better choice.

and you? what you would add instead ?

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

As I mentioned above, I'd add Hero points (or Luck/Karma points, whatever you want to call them). This keeps the balance between the existing attributes, does away with Attribute bloat and adds an interesting dynamic during play, all in one easy mechanic.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

At the risk of mass condemnation, I agree with you. I don’t really think splitting ST is any more useful than splitting DX into agility and manual dexterity for instance. Personally, I think equating those two qualities is at least as much of an abstraction.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I suppose that “I’d add nothing” is a valid response. Personally, I haven’t added any attributes (other than a Defense rating, which is based on DX and is only used by high DX, lightly armored figures) in 4 decades of playing TFT. Sure, I’ve experimented from time to time, but none really stuck (other than defense).

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Health is definitely the way to go. In fact, if I were only allowed to make a SINGLE change to TFT, it would be to add the HT attribute. One solves so many major problems by doing so.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I'd add health. Fatigue goes off heath, damage off strength.

(Yes, I think it took 30 years for Steve Jackson to get that right.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Can someone explain to me why HT would be so useful? What are you trying to achieve with it?

It's useful in combat to keep a character up but it's most important attribute is preventing a character's sudden death. That means you're asking the player to trade off what they can get done as a member of the party, against their character's safety. If the GM dislikes killing PCs then the players will be tempted to keep the HT low and dare the GM to kill them. I don't think these are decisions that make for good adventures.

I'm guessing you're trying to make experienced characters harder to kill than inexperienced ones. You could achieve that by saying that characters only die when their ST gets to negative some function of their other attributes.

You could also have talents that make you reluctant to die.

If I were changing TFT attributes I would:

1. Detach (small movements) dexterity from (large movements) agility: the DX attribute, under whatever name, describes large movements and is good for combat, dodging rockfalls, etc. Meanwhile the small movements, which are basically only used for thievery anyway, aren't worth an attribute and we tell the good thieves from the bad thieves by what talents they have.
2. Separate perception and willpower, on the one hand, from intelligence and education on the other. Maybe both of these are attributes, I'm not sure.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

TFT (& GURPS 1–3) both suffer from "Conan the Spell Caster" syndrome.

That is, The best wizards are as strong as the best warriors. And as tough.

The HT as I would propose works thus:

ST and physical hit capacity remain as is - locked together - except possibly for some high-health talents.

Health maps to resistance to disease, fatigue, poison, and ability to power spells.

Better maps to the descriptions in most of the Sword and Sorcery, and to common sense - physical strength isn't tied to physical health and is often counter to endurance.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

So maybe TFT could use a “variable 4th attribute”. This would be dependent upon the campaign type. For instance, campaigns that want wizards to be weak and effete would have a “Mana” attribute to power spells. Campaigns that focus on rogues and thieves would add Manual Dexterity. Campaigns that are fighter intensive would add Health. High Tech campaigns might add Education (or talent points). Epic level games might add Hero Points. Etc.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I've been thinking more about this system. I think that TFT works very well, unmodified, through 38 points or so. But I don't personally have a problem with increasing attributes. So, here's a proposed variant based on your system.

Characters may only add six additional attribute points through accumulating EP. (Wizard spells of IQ 19-20 might need to be reduced to IQ 18. Also, need to figure out what to do with Lizardmen and characters that only earn half EP.)

After adding 6 attribute points, each additional point earned by EP will be converted into 2 talent points or X Karma points (KP). Karma starts out at 0 for all characters. Depending on the power level of the campaign, each attribute point will yield 1-4 Karma points. 2 is probably a reasonable average.

Karma is used up, but will be recovered by X hours of rest/meditation. I think it would be ok to allow characters to take Karma even if they haven't added six points. Anyhow, Karma is used to activate various abilities as you listed. Some ideas:

Add 1 to any attribute for 1 minute
Modify any of your rolls by up to 2 points*
Modify any opponent's rolls by up to 2 points*
Have a flash of inspiration
Remember to have brought something that you forgot
Make opponent fumble - 3/DX roll or he drops his weapon**
Make opponent stumble - 3/DX roll to remain standing**
Make opponent re-roll a damage or to hit roll
Make opponent re-roll any other roll
Re-roll a to hit roll, damage roll or any other roll
Add up to 2 ST to a spell
Add 2 to any attribute for 1 turn (When the bonus ends, your current attribute drops by 2 or to 0, whichever is better).
Quickdraw weapon - (i.e., ready it and use it in same turn)
'Tis but a Scratch - Once per adventure, spend 2 KP and convert one wound into 1 point of damage
I Got Better - heal 2 points of damage (limit this per day)

Etc...

KPs are allocated in reverse initiative order, if it matters.

I'd allow a figure to use (say) 2 KPs at one time. Or, this can also be keyed to the power level of the campaign. It may also be reasonable to limit the total number of KP that can be used in a given encounter. 3 sounds good to me.

*Means you have to declare that you're doing this before you roll. If you do it after you roll, the KP cost is doubled.

**This can only be done successfully to a figure once per combat.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

How about a few small rules tweaks to open the fourth attribute space up for something else.

First: the rules already make explicit that ST loss to spellcasting is fatigue, and recovers more quickly, even though a wizard can still die from it. I propose that a wizard's mana score is equal to their IQ.

Second: it makes sense that a fighter trains for two things: strength and fighting. I propose that a fighter's talent points is equal to their ST.

Then tweak the costs of Talents so that fighting and jock skills are less expensive for fighters, and wizard and nerdy stuff is less expensive for wizards.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Personally, I added them all! But it's not a bad idea to have a variable 4th attribute especially if we eventually have Sci-Fi or Modern variants, where ST won't be as important.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I was just thinking the same thing last night.

Having such an attribute would pretty much take care of Conan the Librarian and would not necessitate a change in the skill/talent lists. The IQ and prerequisite requires could remain as is, but instead of having to be a genius to acquire the talent combinations you desire, you just need to be really talented - i.e., have a lot of talent points to distribute.

I just don't know if it should be based off of initial IQ and "grow" from there, or if it should be a separate attribute starting at 8 or 10 points.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Talent points are the only addition I have seen that isn't either a second-order elaboration, or something that changes the game so much it needs a major think-through and playtest before taking seriously. But I think everyone who has played with something like a TP stat has liked it and found the game nearly unchanged.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

This is similar to my feeling too, though I think Karma points would be best as an optional rule system.

Mainly, this says to me that the "4th attribute" is something else to do with EP besides increase attributes. And the most natural thing that occurs to me is, learn more talents or spells, especially if there are a more talents to learn. For example, I'd rather see a character learn a talent that reduces armor DX penalty than just increase their DX to huge levels for all purposes. So the 4th attribute would be talent points, or not a 4th attribute but just the ability to spend EP to get talents in excess of IQ.

I've tried a few systems for limiting maximum attributes in TFT and GURPS, which are sort of akin to 38 max.

I also think optional rules for splitting attributes for some characters can work well, too.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

agreed... but, if I were to add a fifth, it might be just that.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I already proposed that -- nobody cared.

I already proposed that -- nobody cared.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Remember everyone who wants to split every attribute or add things that aren't attributes instead; the premise of this thread was;

"If you can add ONE extra Attribute, what would it be and why?"

Not anything else.

As far as why some of us want to add HT goes, I think all of us in favor of it have already explained the reasons for doing so. Asking the same question over and over again isn't going to change our answers. If you disagree, that's fine; but just because you don't personally agree with it doesn't invalidate the proposal.

This was always a highly hypothetical thread in any case, so a better approach would be to make your proposal and let it stand (or sink) on it's own merits instead of knocking down anyone else's proposal so yours can perch on the rubble.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I have one question for the folks who want a health attribute - is the primary reason to avoid the Conan the Wizard syndrome?

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I don't think we need a health attribute for that. Using the tweaks I mentioned above, that JLV has also proposed, we can avoid Conan the Wizard. They also more or less avoid the need for a Talent Points attribute.

My fourth attribute would be Presence (originally named Cool, but that doesn't really fit), which would be a combination of willpower and social ability. You'd roll against Presence to use or resist social talents or mental spells (or psionic abilities, if and when those are added). It would also be the primary attribute for clerical type characters, who would use it both for preaching and to represent their faith. In light of the above rules tweaks, it might be the talent point reserve used by clerics, psychics, and social characters, and provide the power reserve for the supernatural abilities of the first two.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

It avoids that, it gets rid of the weird "fST" concept, it spreads attributes out in general to avoid attribute bloat, it permits sensible encumbrance and strategic movement rules, it permits more effective accounting for things like disease and poison, it does a lot of things.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

For me, those are secondary, but still important, reasons.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I would object to HT as a new attribute because it devalues ST. Currently, high ST allows a figure to use bigger weapons and take more damage. If you make HT the measure of hit points, then it becomes much tougher on fighters.

If your main issue is the Conan the Wizard problem, why not add "Mana" instead to power spells? That doesn't devalue ST, yet provides a different mechanism for Wizards to power their spells with.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I proposed that way back at the beginning of January too -- no interest.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Perhaps you were just ahead of your time :D

Since I've never had a strong urge to add a HT stat, I really haven't thought about it too much until now.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I was talking about the mana proposal, just to clarify!

I think HT is an obvious choice for literally dozens of reasons; but there seems to be a lot of hostility over it for some reason -- possibly because I'm some nobody and also the one suggesting it. (Were Rick or yourself to make the suggestion, it would suddenly become totally the thing to do.) It makes a lot more sense (since it's much more fundamental to the character) than adding a "Charisma" (or "presence") attribute, or splitting IQ to gain a "perception" attribute (which only applies in limited circumstances) and so on.

Similarly converting XP to "character points" (which seems to me to be nothing more than renaming XP), or adding "talent points" (the effects of which could just as easily, and more simply, be obtained by doubling or trebling the number of talents/spells a character can learn by multiplying the number of IQ slots by two or three) seem pointless -- and aren't actually "attributes" at all, anyway.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

While almost no one can deny Rick, my influence is sadly nowhere near as great. :D

My issue with HT is that I don't want fighters to have to rely on 3 major attributes. Of course, Mana or Power avoids that.

Charisma can be handled with a talent (which it already is in TFT). Perception seems to be worth doing to me. BUT...Wizards were never very popular in my campaigns, so I didn't have to deal with the Conan the Wizard syndrome. If I did, and I only had one attribute to add, I'd probably go with Mana instead of Perception.

As an aside, it seems to me that several attributes in other games can be replaced by a talent. Charisma is already replaced by the talents Charisma and Sex Appeal. Perception is partially addressed by Alertness and Acute Hearing. Of course, TFT still bases the latter off IQ rolls.

Yeah, I've always been ambivalent about talent points. I used them in some campaigns, but they didn't really "stick". I always liked the way that TFT gave you just enough talent points to be a decent fighter, a decent thief etc. It allows the same kind of clear distinction between roles as classes do, while feeling more natural. Making it easier to get talents could blur those distinctions.

I've long held that every character should have a strongly defined role. I.e., he's the best in the party at *something* useful. I believe that this enhances player interest and party cohesion. Allowing too many "multiclass" characters can sabotage that. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I previously made the same point. If you split the Health aspect away from ST and put it in a new attribute then you've devalued both of them relative to DX and IQ. If you're going to do that then really you should split them all to maintain the parity between attributes. There's no "hostility" to the idea it's just clearly not a well balanced one.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Maybe because that's what GURPS did?
I added an Endurance attribute in my first TFT campaign, about 1983, because I was adding in Gamelords' Traveller "The Desert Environment" which used one, and it was clear that hiking endurance (physical condition) should not be the same as Strength (because there were plenty of characters without high ST who marched around a lot, and plenty of big strong guys who weren't in good shape). However I treated it as a status level that just went up and down with your physical conditioning (in play, mainly from hiking or inactivity or illness) and wasn't part of experience or attributes. It felt like a really clunky add-on, and was only used for certain outdoor travel situations, but it filled a need for that distinction.

Talent points aren't attributes but they're currently determined by IQ, and create a need for high IQ. In house rules where you can use experience to get talents above IQ instead of increasing IQ, it can tend to effectively counter IQ bloat, which to me is the main point, whether or not one considers it an attribute. They can also reduce DX bloat or even ST bloat, if there are talents which can improve things you'd otherwise have to buy up DX or ST for (e.g. to overcome armor DX penalties with great ST or higher DX - if there were talents that do that that cost less than great ST/DX, characters can get those instead of having extreme attributes).

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I think the wish for HT stems from two similar problems: Conan the Wizard and Conan, Ph.D. Wizards want high ST for the casting ability, and warriors want high IQ for the talents.

Adding HT, for fatigue/mana, gives us another attribute to deal with. But we don't really have anything for warriors to use fatigue for, and if we want to base a wizard's casting ability on their physical condition we can as easily do that by adding a separate trackable mana resource, and starting it equal to their ST. We end up with marathon running wizards with high HT.

Adding Talent Points to me seems like a better idea, but if it starts out equal to IQ then it's sort of masking the problem. Fighters have to start out pretty smart in order to be able to afford a decent amount of talents, and it's still a point sink. If it starts at 10, it would work okay, but I don't think quite ideal.

I'm going to reiterate my previous suggestion. We expect warriors to have high ST, and be good at fighting, but not so good at the nerdy pursuits. We expect wizards to have high IQ, and to be good at spells and the nerdy pursuits, but not so good at the fighting.

We can make the existing attributes do double duty. First, we make all the talents cost more in terms of talent points -- double them? Next, all characters choose an attribute at character creation; you have talent points to spend equal to that attribute. If you choose ST, you get a discount on the primarily fighting talents (the weapons-based ones, mainly, but also Warrior, Veteran, etc.; maybe things like Tactics as well). If you choose DX, you get a discount on the thief-type talents: Climbing, Stealth, Acrobatics, and so forth. If you choose IQ, you get a discount on the brainy talents (Literacy, any sciences, etc.) and also on spells and magic-related talents.

Characters' hit points are always equal to their ST. Those who cast spells have a mana value equal to their IQ. If a wizard runs out of mana, they can continue to cast or maintain spells by burning ST, but this represents actual wounds.

I can see at least one interesting new spell; call it Wizard's Shield. Cost is 3 to cast, 1 per turn to maintain, plus one point per point of damage stopped. For a wizard, essentially lets them turn their own mana into hit points. They can put it on a friend, though, and it protects them for the same cost.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Because Mana is pure dump stat to non-wizards. Utterly worthless.

Health, however, solves not just the Conan the Wizard issue, but also the scrawny guy who can drink Conan under the table but can't even pick up his sword.

Strong and Healthy are not synonyms, but TFT had them functionally so.

ST should stay HP.
HT takes fatigue use, not HP use. It also takes the resistance rolls.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

But it solves the most common complaint - the Conan the Wizard problem. And it doesn't *cost* the other character archetypes anything.

The problem, though is that you can make the same argument about all 3 TFT attributes - ST includes upper and lower body, strength, health, pain resistance, magical power, fatigue, etc. DX includes manual dexterity, agility, spellcasting facility and hand/eye coordination. IQ includes perception, intelligence, willpower, education, memory and breadth of knowledge.

Obviously, expanding the 3 TFT attributes to 6 or more attributes would fundamentally alter the game. It might still be fun to play, but it wouldn't be TFT.

You could probably add one more attribute without damaging TFT. BUT...you need to be careful about nerfing character archetypes when you do so. That is one of my problems with a HT attribute - assuming it's also used for hit points rather than ST. And I think it dubious to NOT base hit points on health, rather than ability to lift weights.

With only 8 points to add, players would find it much harder to build a decent beginning fighter. And I think one of TFT's strengths is that beginning characters are viable far more than in games like D&D.

So my question is - is HT the most *important* stat to add? If so, why? Personally, I'd rather add a Perception attribute or split DX into manual dexterity and agility. Of, for a modern/sci-fi campaign, perhaps an Education attribute.

At the end of the day, certain compromises will be required if you're gonna have three (or four) attributes.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Probably, but the real issue is that I think GURPS did that because of all the commotion over doing so with TFT!

But you ignored my main point -- which is you can solve the problem simply by saying that a character can have 2xIQ or 3xIQ talent/spell "slots" instead of creating an entirely new "attribute" to keep track of, and thus simultaneously eliminate the need to plus up IQ to 25+ point levels. If at IQ level 8, I can have 16 points of talents or spells, I don't have nearly as much need to plus up IQ quite as rapidly just for that purpose, and instead can do so simply to acquire the IQ necessary to learn a new talent, spell or language without having to sweat the slots nearly as much.

Regarding Mana -- again, it seems to me that it would be foolish to treat it as a separate attribute. Simply give the Wizard a number of Mana points equal to IQ (or IQ x2, or whatever) which he then uses INSTEAD of ST points to cast spells. No longer does he need to have muscles in his earlobes in order to cast spells... In fact, if you wanted to further differentiate Wizards from the common run of people, simply state that common folk have Mana equal to IQ/2, while Wizards have Mana equal to IQ x 2! Nobody needs to have a "dump stat" then (which doesn't make any sense at all, in TFT, by the way -- you either put points into a stat or you don't; that's your only two choices. Wasting points on a stat you can't use is the height of stupidity.). Mana is just another aspect of IQ.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

No, I don't see that expanding Attributes to 6 fundamentally alters the game at all as you're only dividing the existing functions of a single attribute into two.

It's not really necessary if you're playing just Melee/Wizard as one-off games but with TFT as an ongoing campaign game it has many advantages. For a start it allows a lot more variety in creating beginning characters; instead of 8 points to add to 3 attributes you now have 16 points to divide between 6 attributes.

Wizards are less inclined to assign points to ST as they need HT/CON to power spells. They are also less inclined to assign points to Agility as they cast Spells with Dexterity. Fighters are less likely to assign points to IQ as they need simpler Talents. They may also assign less to KN (Knowledge - the Talent point aspect of IQ) as they may only need a few combat talents. Other characters have more freedom to mix and match. I only ever played TFT this way and would never consider using only 3 attributes for campaign play.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Sad to say then, but you've never played TFT. I would think some experience playing TFT as-is would be a better basis for arguing for new rules than no experience whatsoever in playing actual TFT.

(I say this with absolutely no intention to be insulting or sound snarky -- I'm simply stating a fact. Likewise, never having worked on a jet engine, I don't think I'd have much basis for urging a "better" way to build one...)

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Oh, I imagine such a game could be very fun to play. But it ain’t TFT - or at least what I consider to be TFT. And what I consider most TFT players to be TFT. At best, it’s a lineal descendant of TFT, not unlike GURPS.

I also think it highly unlikely that the new version of TFT will have 6+ attributes.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I don’t think you’re being snarky. I think it’s a valid point to note that it’s hard to credibly critique a game you haven’t played. I do, however, commend Chris for being forthright about this and not pretending to have expertise he doesn’t.

At the end of the day, I’ve mused over zillions of changes to TFT. But when I got down to actually running campaigns, I ran it relatively straight up. I did make playability adjustments - nerfing boomerangs and certain other weapons. I amended certain talents to work more as I envisioned them. But most changes were minor modifications. I did add a defense attribute to one campaign to explicitly allow lightly armored swashbucklers to be viable. It worked fine, but I don’t think we used it in later campaigns.

And unlike some, I never saw any need for a HT stat. But as I disclosed, Wizards weren’t very popular in my campaigns for some reason. So I never ran into the Conan the Wizard problem.

Anyhow, my point (such as it is) is that we should probably try to help Steve improve TFT, not redesign it. Granted, the distinction between them can be blurry.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Agreed. I think what we are really looking at is minor adjustments, not complete re-design. However, the premise of adding a fourth Attribute does tend to cross more into the "re-design" category than remain in the minor adjustment range! ;-)

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

No question about it. I was genuinely curious as to why HT is the one that folks seem to demand the most. As noted, I can think of another attribute that I’d rather have (Perception), although I think TFT is fine without it.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

You can say you're trying not to sound snarky but that doesn't mean you've succeeded. To say I've never played TFT is simply ridiculous. I've not played it "pure" and "exactly to the original rules as contained in the published rule books" so I'd accept that, but only that.

I would consider articles and variants published in the Space Gamer as "official" and the 6 attribute system came from such an article and was not my own invention. Therefore I was using an officially sanctioned variant. Did you never read any of the magazines?

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

To many, if you've never played the Rules as Written, you've never played the game.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

If I were the game designer, I'd look at all this discussion and stick with the original. Basically, there is no consensus about what limited changes would be good or bad, and most suggestions quickly spin out of control to a bigger, different core system. I suspect you could 'fix' most of what people see as weaknesses by twiddling a bit with the rules for buying talents and leave us with a tight-as-a-drum system of 3 stats.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

To many, a visit to McDonalds is a gastronomic treat.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

It would do that, yes. I just think I prefer having to spend experience for talents after character generation (instead of getting them with raised IQ), because not only does it remove the need for high IQ to get more talents/spells, but it also gives something to spend experience on besides attributes, which I think could go a long way to reducing bloat issues in all three attributes, not just IQ.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Well, I'm sorry you've chosen to take it that way, but the fact of the matter is, your opinion on attribute bloat in a three-attribute (classic) TFT campaign, for example, is utterly worthless if you've only always played with six attributes. Playing "TFT" with six attributes is not playing TFT. I'm sure it's a wonderful game in it's own way, but it's just not TFT. It may be related to TFT, in much the same way that GURPS is related to TFT, but alas, it's a different game. This has nothing to do with being a rules purist or anything silly like that either; the point is that it's really hard to pass judgement on or effectively critique a game that you haven't actually played.

This is NOT to say, by the way, that your experience is entirely valueless; quite the reverse, actually. Since you've played in a way that was never used by quite a few of us, you undoubtedly have insights into, for example, how adding three new attributes works in actual play, and how it affects the rest of the rules; things that many of us have no way of knowing. Similarly, assuming you more or less used the combat rules as written, your insights there would remain totally valid.

No, I can't read, so naturally I never read any Space Gamers, or Interplays, or any of that stuff... Magazine articles contain a lot of variants along the way, most of them written to achieve or support one specific thing. Frankly, I don't consider every magazine article ever written as permanently changing the rules. Since so many of them contradict each other, that way lies madness.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Actually, I agree completely with you on exactly that point. Unfortunately, I was jumped on hard here in the various forum threads when I said exactly the same thing you just did.

I think talents should be purchased separately from attributes points and not tied to IQ by number of talents a person can have. Certainly IQ should dictate which talents the character can learn (don't have IQ10? can't learn IQ10 (or above) talents).

To my mind attributes clearly have their own specific advantages, and talents clearly have theirs; if a character chooses to spend his XP developing new skills instead of increasing his basic attributes, then I think he or she ought to be allowed to do precisely that. There isn't any need to hobble either of them by tying them together. Plus it solves attribute bloat/Conan the Wizard quite nicely.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

So you're saying TFT is the equivalent of "McDonalds" then?

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I suppose I was guilty of some inadvertent exaggeration when I said I never played TFT any other way. What I should have said was, "once I read the article in TSG and implemented the change to 6 attributes, we never played any other way going forward." Nevertheless, it's been amusing to see the Puritans come out of their foxholes. 😂😂😂

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

<Moderator>
Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath, and really dial back the snark.

Please keep it civil.

Thank you.
</Moderator>

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

In that case, I apologize for saying your opinion was worthless -- all I can do is respond to what you write, not what you *really* mean. If you played 3-characteristic TFT campaigns prior to that time, then you probably do have valuable input into the issue.

However, I will remind you that I have repeatedly stated it's not a question of "puritanism" in any form; instead simply being a question of whether or not someone who, by their own statement, has "never played a TFT campaign any other way" (meaning without using 6 attributes) can contribute meaningfully to a discussion about a specific issue based on only three attributes, and you continue to say that "puritanism" is my primary motivator. Perhaps you should consider that point going forward.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Thanks for telling me what I should consider.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

How very gracious of you. We're done here.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Nice of you to decide that.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

By all means, feel free to continue being as petty as you like; I am no longer going to waste my time responding. Fin.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

That's not a bad proposal for solving the underlying issues. Of course, my original response, and every (on topic) one that I've made since, has been predicated towards answering Tbeard's original question..."if you could add a fourth attribute, what would it be?" ;-)

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

The disadvantage of this is that characters may tend to become one-trick ponies. They get very good at casting one spell, and that gives them an incentive to keep casting that spell repeatedly, rather than casting a variety of spells.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

So why not let DX be good for certain Talents?
Warriors than no longer consider high IQ as useful.
Add the Mana or POW attribute for casting but let it help with resisting spells and its no longer a dump stat.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Now that's a good idea. Maybe talents should be broken up into ones which use ST, DX, and IQ as their baseline. Heck, you could even keep "slots" if you felt it added something to the game. I think this is a very interesting idea!

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I suggested exactly that in post 39 which Refplace was responding to. :)

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Because it is so fundamentally different as to overpower the roguish types.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

My apologies. I missed that, credit where credit is due! It's a great idea and could do a lot to solve the Conan the Wizard and Einstein the Barbarian issues.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I don't disagree with you here -- I'm very reluctant to actually add any additional attributes. Indeed, I answered this thread in the first place in the spirit in which Ty asked the question -- sort of tongue-in-cheek. (But if one was added, I'd still argue for HT for all the reasons I've stated above...) And I too feel that "luck" or "fate" points might be a useful addition, but not as an "attribute;" instead as a pool that the GM can refresh at his/her discretion. It's a bit "gamey," but it adds some real excitement to the game as players spend them to make miraculous saves!

(Heck, maybe that's the whole solution to the priest/theologian thing in the other thread! Maybe what Gods do is provide the occasional "Luck" point to the characters if they do something the God approves of!)

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Actually, that solution could kill two or more birds with one stone....

1) Allow purchase of additional Talents post-character creation at some appropriate amount of XP per IQ/Talent point required at creation. However, this is *not* a new attribute raising the XP costs for further improvements, to be clear. The correct XP cost per 'point' of new Talents would have to be extensively playtested.

2) For any other additional attributes we may find ourselves tempted by... additional energy for spellcasting, additional 'fST' usable only for handling fatigue from physical fatigue, luck, etc.... make up new Talents! E.g., 'Extra Mana' might be a leveled Talent with 1 extra energy per level; or 'Will-based Mana' might be a 3 'pt' Talent moving the base for your spell energy to IQ. And so on.

So, my answer to the OP question, technically, would be 'None'. I would not add a fourth attribute, but instead allow purchase of new Talents with XP rather than raised IQ and expand the Talent pool to accommodate anything else.

The idea brought up of basing certain talents on ST or DX even in character creation could also be useful, but would have to be carefully weighted not to bloat starting characters' 'skill' lists too much

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

ABSOLUTELY AGREE - "Six from Three,... or Leave it Be !"


However, to answer the OP's question:

If I had to "add one attribute" to TFT it would not be a Combat Stat at all, but rather a Game Stat reflecting your character's "Sphere of Influence" (expressed as miles from your fixed base of operations, based on reputation in larger-scale game terms; and as a "Stat" for Reaction Roll on the small scale). Operating as an amalgamated Presence/Charisma/Reputation Rating, reflecting the general impact on your existence upon the NPC game-world-at-large, and upon the reaction/response of everything else around you, TO YOU.

Why is this important in a campaign game? After all, this is not going to make you better at killing Trolls,...

Consider this, as you amass your treasure, construct your stronghold, and hire your men-at-arms, at what point do the NPC's of the game begin to take notice/offense to you?

How many days distant from your keep do others commonly begin hearing rumors about YOU at the tavern?

At what point do other NPC Adventure Parties go on a freebooting spree in the labyrinth under YOUR keep? OR, worse yet, at what point does the Goblin King hire a hit-squad to bring back YOUR head on a stick; and they can do it too, by tracking you through your "SI".

At what point does your "SI" grow so large that you attract a Dragon to your cache of plunder?

Isn't that exactly how the Dwarves in the Hobbit originally drew the attention of Smaug onto themselves and lost their mountain?

At what point does your "SI" become of political notice/threat, or better yet, eclipse and usurp the authority of the local governing ruler?

Isn't that the situation in Robert E. Howard's Conan-tale of: 'The Tower of the Elephant'? Wherein it is actually the evil Sorcerer Yara, who is the real controlling authority in the City-of-Theives, and not the drunkenly impotent and cowardly King Hadradnor?

And, wasn't it The Thorsz "SI" rating that caused you to hear about his "job offer", and caused you to respond, not once, BUT TWICE?!?

And if you feel TFT "gets wonky" at the higher-attribute level of play, consider being able to dump all those EP's into your "SI" stat, rather than spending them on "more brains for Conan, or more muscles for Merlin, or more grace for Gandalf".

Conversely, having a low "SI", isn't going to bother you any more than an IQ-8 Fighter AT LOW LEVELS; but think about when you being to amass that stolen gold,... you need to attract followers to hire, you need to influence other to co-operate with you, you need to be able to get things done on a Mega-mega-mega-megahex level; hence your "SI" rating - or lack thereof.

Having to feed an "SI" attribute will definitely slow down becoming a 3-Stat Superman; and propel your TFT Game to an Epic level of world-drama, and progressively upwards from the lowly bowels of the Melee training arena.

The Character "Sphere of Influence" stat is the springboard to TFT adventure!

So, if I was the "Tzar of TFT", THAT is the stat I would be adding, and exactly where I would be focusing my creative development efforts - in keeping the game strong, viable, dynamic, and ENJOYABLE.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

That's a really interesting idea 😊. I did add a new "fourth attribute", Hero Points, which I mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread. They were intended as an in-game currency to affect dice rolls. However, it never occurred to me that these points could also be used as a way of gauging the "fame" or reputation of a character. I may have to borrow this. Thank you.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

mi casa, su casa, Chris.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I'm late to the party, but this comment quoted above really caught my eye.

My group in the 80's implemented exactly this. We called it Mana Valence, or the MV attribute, and set it equal to the wizard's IQ. Spell costs were paid for out of MV instead of ST, and the MV used recovered as if it were fatigue. If a wizard increased IQ, their MV increased accordingly. We used this house rule for over a decade of heavy play, so consider it vetted. It resulted in no imbalance in the overall system.

De-coupling spell casting costs from the ST attribute largely removes the need for any kind of separate health attribute. Players' wizards began putting their EP on additional IQ instead of ST, which does indeed work out to be much more natural feeling, and eliminates the need/temptation to create muscle-bound mages. I owned one PC, a wizard of only ST 8 (but IQ 16) who represented an elderly widower gone off for adventures late in life, and he survived many hard battles and lived to retire gracefully.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I consider Muscle Wizards to be an explicit feature of the game. Of course doing magic requires good physical health. I think of a high IQ low ST wizard as being old and learned but withered and tired, and a low IQ high ST wizard to be a young and virile sorcerer or possibly even a monk type character. A high ST and IQ wizard is like Ganondorf, a paragon of the powers of mortals.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

Yeah, we did too. I think a lot of us did. This was long before GURPS hit the market with it's Mana rules too. I always thought Mana worked well conceptually, and basing it on IQ (which to us represented how effective the Wizard was at "mastering" the energies involved in using Mana to create magical effects) was perfect.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I've been toying with the idea of IQ fatigue as a way of handling this type of thing. IQ fatigue would recover as normal fatigue, but it will only recover while you are completely healthy, so it's definitely harder to recover than strength. It also renders your high IQ spells inert to be IQ fatigued below their requirements.

To combine your idea with mine, "double learning" a spell would allow you to fatigue your IQ as a way of powering that spell. You would be called a "Savant" in that spell. Triple learning a spell implies a sorcerous or demonic bloodline, and allows you to to power that spell with IQ fatigue at double efficiency.

I feel like this probably a fair mechanic as it is functionally identical to a powered down version of a Mana stat based on IQ. Instead of annihilating the normal way wizards work, it gives you expanded options.

Re: The Fourth Attribute...
 

I put my response in a new thread, "IQ to power spells", in the House Rules section with some suggestions for tweaking this. Click the arrow in the quote to see that: