Final tweaks on talents
 

It sounds like the next couple of weeks is the last chance to make any corrections/clarifications to the core rules, so I thought this would be a good time to point out any specific places that seem like rough spots. I was re-reading the talents recently and had a couple of thoughts:

1) Monster Followers is patterned after New Followers, but it isn't totally clear whether or not it requires Charisma as a prereq. New Followers clearly does; on the other hand, MF functions like NF, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has the same prereqs as NF, and the Charisma talent itself works in ways that seem directly related to NF but would not function on the targets of MF. So, it strikes me as an ambiguity that should be tidied up.

2) I really like the rules for taking temporary ST damage when you travel in harsh environments without a guide who has the Woodsman talent (as well as the complementary rules on getting lost). But its pretty confusing that the core rules on overland travel describe getting lost but the Woodsman talent does not, whereas the Woodsman talent describes how people take temporary damage during travel but the core rules do not. You have to be pretty observant to figure out how this is all supposed to work together.

p.s., the intended point of this thread is the sort of stuff an editor would pick up, not big changes to the list of talents or how they are supposed to work.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Honestly, I think we could stand to see this concept of "durable fatigue" more widely adapted. Seems like a good alternative to straight-up damage, good for modeling effects of different poisons, diseases, etc.

Types of damage.
 

Hi Anomylous,
The old TFT had 4 types of damage.

-- Normal damage. Heals 1 pt / two days.
-- Fatigue damage from spell casting or exhaustion. Heals 1 pt / 15 minutes.
-- Non-Lethal damage. (In my campaign I call this subdual damage and this heals at 4 pt / two days. Bar fights, flats of blades, short falls do this.)
-- Exposure damage. (Won't heal until you are out of the weather, then heals at the normal damage rate.)

I am happy with these 4 types, but it would be nice if they were all described in one place. One big question is does fatigue ST (fST) damage make it easier that you die.

For example, you have a ST 10 and race up a hill in chainmail (3 points of fST), be in a long exhausting fight (2 more fST lost), then power a Blur ring (1 more fST spent). Does it take 10 hits to kill you, or 4? I've seen TFT played both ways.

But it seem to me exhaustion makes it easier to fall unconscious but not to die, so we play that damage + exhaustion can knock you out, but only damage can kill you.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Hi Rick,

Correct me if I'm missing something, but it seems clear that as written (e.g. the Death rule section in Advanced Melee), figures die at ST 0 due to any cause.

Also, it seems to be the way the Taking Prisoners rule is written is that such attacks won't reduce ST to 0 (except on a double or triple damage hit), but that the damage itself is not considered any different from other injuries.

I like both the house rules you mention and have enjoyed & preferred playing with similar ones, but I think they are both house rules unless/until the new version changes it.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Hi Skarg,
I did say "In my campaign" so I felt it was clear that this was a house rule.

As for the question, "Is non-lethal damage different from lethal damage?" I always assumed they were different. The rules don't spell this out. (And they likely won't in the new TFT. SJ dislikes writing rules that tightly.. it takes up too much space and reads like a law book.)

As for exhaustion not killing you, I did mention that I've seen it played both ways. As well as exhaustion not killing you being more logical, it is also, by far, more often played that way that exhaustion + damage kills you. (And I've seen a lot of TFT campaigns over the years.)

But anyway, that was part of a discussion saying that there are two common ways to play it. But that was outside the 4 types of damage in old TFT.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I always used "sum of Damage and Fatigue ≥ ST = KO, Damage ≥ ST = dead"...

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

As a figure is *immediately* rendered unconscious at ST 1, a figure which goes unconscious can no loner incur fatigue which would theoretically push them to ST 0; and death. Fatigue hits which would push a figure beyond ST 1 are simply ignored, as the state of unconscious has already been reached.

Therefore, logically, it should be impossible to literally "work yourself to death", or, "drop dead from exhaustion" in TFT.

Though real humans on Earth have claimed this exact thing has happened to them multiple times during their own life; I have always found that claim spurious at best. ;-)

JK

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

That's the way we always did it too. It just seemed logical and what the apparent intent of the RAW was.

Jim makes a valid point too though. The RAW pretty clearly prevent you from fatiguing yourself to death... On the other hand, it's a common trope in fantasy novels, where a Wizard over-exerts himself and hovers on the brink of death for days, weeks, or months. Think Belgarath in the Belgarion, as they escape from the raid on Rak Cthol, or how exhausted Gandalf is after trying to hold the door against the Balrog on the staircase behind the chamber of Mazarbul.

I wonder if there's some way we could tie a contest result to how much fatigue is expended by the participants -- especially if it were a magical contest. (Thinking here of the Gandalf versus the Balrog on the stairs thing; Gandalf casts LOCK on the door, and the Balrog casts KNOCK on the door -- and then they have a contest and the results of that contest dictate how much fatigue each is required to expend on the task, with the winner (presumably Gandalf in the book) either permanently shutting or permanently opening the door.)

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

The fantasy I read tends not to include powerful casters. In fact, most of it is bordering on, or is, sci-fi (eg: Pern, Dune, the John Carter of Mars series), or are traditional mythologicals (such as the Mabinogion or LeMorte d'Artur)
Or, if it does, they're ritual casters. (RE Howard.)

The big exception being LeGuin's Earthsea.

My taste in fantasy films/shows is likewise similar - How to Train Your Dragon, Ladyhawk, Princess Bride, Xena, Hercules, Pseudo-tolkien Middle Earth movies (I prefer the Rankin-Bass, thank-you), Conan (even if they do take the Carter and deCamp shirtless muscleman instead of the whipcord muscles and suitable clothing of Howard), John Carter, the RDJ Sherlock Holmes.


Note also - Gandalf isn't human; none of the Wizards in Middle Earth are - I don't recall him being tired - just pushing the limits of his angelic powers to hold off a demon - not capable of actually holding it off, just delaying it, so he takes it down in a way that he expects not to survive - but then reincarnates as Gandalf the White.

So the idea of casting oneself to death seems alien, but casting oneself into a stupor (which is present in several versions of the Arthuriana) is.

Edit to add: In Wizard and Melee - it doesn't matter whether one's dead or KO'd, as the game is over at that point, and if it's actually a hostile situation, one's defeat is defeat - death if desired by the attacker is automatic once KO'd.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

So...my examples stand. Gandalf himself, during the escape from Moria, says that he's exhausted by the struggle with the Balrog (who, by the way, is another Maia in a different form than Gandalf's) and needs to get his breath back (sorry I can't give you the actual page; I no longer have a copy of LotR at this time). I note, in the Silmarillion, when the origins of the Istari are discussed, it is mentioned that their powers are purposely limited by Manwe so that they cannot "rule" in Middle Earth, but must instead seek to persuade. Of note, that is presumably to limit their power so that they don't go all Sauron on the place, like another Maia did long before: Gorthaur the Cruel (aka Sauron).

And, the rules in Melee and Wizard are explicitly supposed to be Arena combat and (as Steve stated elsewhere) the difference between death and unconsciousness is irrelevant since the fight is over one way or the other...whereas in ITL, the difference is much more important and dictates whether your party leaves your cold meat on the floor (after presumably looting you body, of course), or struggles to get you someplace safe where you can heal.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

To my reading, there are only 3 types of damage in old TFT that need to be tracked separately: wounds, fatigue, and exposure (and exposure damage becomes normal wounds once you are out of the wilderness). The damage inflicted using the "Taking Prisoners" rules appears to be normal wounds -- I don't see any indication that the damage recovers differently from normal wounds.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

In an effort to nudge this thread back on track, I offer another case where I think some tidying up is called for: Alertness.

The Alertness talent has a simple description and function - it sounds like you get a 1 die advantage for pretty much all attempts to notice things. Yet the Detect Traps talent specifies that Alertness does not 'stack' with it - rather, Detect Traps is a kind of focused version of Alertness, specifically for traps. In my mind, this raises the question of whether Alertness stacks with other things, like the Naturalists' roll to notice ambushes or the Acute Hearing roll to detect things that are not seen. So, setting aside the question of how you might recommend these things work together, I think the talent should be re-written so it is concretely clear how it interacts with all other talents of the same general type.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I know many people play such that it takes wounds (not fatigue + wounds) greater than or equal to ST to kill someone.

I think that's a logical and good thing, and would love to see it explained as such in the new rules. However I also think it's very clear that is not what the rules say. I'd be happy if they did, but now would be the time to have several people suggest that to SJ on the main thread, or else I expect it may be just as it always has been. (That's why I'm taking the time to point this out.)

e.g.

Wizard page 2 says that while spell fatigue represents something other than injury, it has exactly the same effect as injury.

The combat example says Krait (ST 8) dies from a 3-point wound on top of 6 fatigue.

Advanced Melee page 22 says "A figure dies when its ST is reduced to 0 or less, by wounds or by any other means."

(A couple of places make an odd point about how you'd probably want to distinguish fatigue from injury when you note it during combat. Probably? That always seemed like a strange thing to have to suggest (since clearly they're different, and recover very differently), but it would be especially weird if it made a huge difference to whether someone was dead or just wounded.)

Does anyone see any published rule suggesting that fatigue doesn't contribute to death?

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Looks to me like you could die in TFT when you lose 2 ST upon snapping out of a berserk state... if you had been at exactly 2 ST before that.


It is more important in ITL.

But the distinction between death & unconsciousness is quite important in basic Melee & Wizard, unless you are only playing "one-off" arena combats. Surviving to continue to later combats and gain experience adds an interesting and compelling layer of play to those games. Only the "to the death" arena matches allow killing unconscious opponents (unless they knocked themselves out by casting a spell), and if there are multiple figures on a side, the defeated side likely wouldn't even have that opportunity.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

This is all very interesting, but could you please bring it somewhere else? The discussion of wound and recovery rules is totally orthogonal to the purpose and other posts in this thread, and its hard to see us having a useful discussion if everyone who comes here finds a different conversation going on.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Another Talent that I find ambiguous is Literacy. It's either too much or too little. As it currently stands, it seems more an IQ point waster than anything else and the Talent as written makes no sense whatsoever.

In real life, Literacy is based on two different issues -- one is knowing the words of the language, and the other is knowing the alphabet (or other symbology) of the language. At a minimum, Literacy should be required for EACH language separately. As it is currently written, it can be read either way, but most people seem to think that learning Literacy gives them Literacy in ALL languages.

If we presume that every language, everywhere on Cidri, all use the same alphabet or symbology system, that would be a good ruling. However, if any language has it's own symbol system (say Mandarin, or Arabic, or Runes), then Literacy would then have to be taken for each symbol system separately.

So really, what I'm saying is that half the language system (the symbol system used by a particular language) is left out of the game, and Literacy should be required for EACH symbol system, not each Language.

Then, in order to actually be "literate" in a language, the character must know both the language itself, AND be Literate in the symbol system used by that language.

Of course, that may be much more detail than Steve wants to get into, but perhaps there is some elegant way to make it work that escapes me at this point. Or maybe he just needs to clarify that to be Literate in a language, the character must first learn the language and then learn Literacy for that language (it's technically wrong, but it's more correct than learning Literacy makes you literate in every language).

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I agree with that. I think literacy should provide you with the ability to read and write any language you KNOW, and that there should be some additional mechanism for spending talent points to learn languages, perhaps with one or more provided for free when your character is created.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

JLV - From the talent description: "LITERACY (1): Ability to *read and write* all the languages *that you know*. An illiterate figure can't read or draw any but the simplest maps, and an illiterate wizard can't use scrolls or magic books! This talent costs only 1 IQ point for either a hero or a wizard." - TFT:ITL, page 12; under IQ 8 Talents.

I interprete the phrase: [I]*Read and Write*[I] to mean spoken and symbolic. Also the phrase: *that you know* to mean a character must take the Literacy Talent one time for each language they wish to be fluent with; with each specific language listed on their character sheet.

Therefore, by my long-held interpretation, a Character who wishes to be Literate in 3 specific languages (both spoken and written), such as: 1. Common Human Tongue, 2. Orcish, and 3. Dwarvish, would pay a total of: 3 x (1) = 3 IQ to have these three languages at their disposal, both in the spoken word and with symbolic writing of those languages.

Perhaps I am just so used to that methodology from so many other games of the day, so perhaps that is why I am not seeing the ambiguity in the text which you are seeing, or the improperly-scaled benefit, or, have I missed your point completely?

JK

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I 100% disagree. :-) Learning to speak a language is huge compared to learning how to write it. I can't even imagine trying to learn a language without learning letters, symbols, etc, if I already know how to read that is.

The more alien the language the harder it is and that includes the written version of it. Sure you could divide it into several groups, but why? This is TFT. You basically know 5 things when you start a career and you want more than one to be literacy? Do you know anyone that can read their own language well, and knows how to speak another language and don't know that literacy system?

I would rather go the other way and include more in the language bit. Like language, common native current culture knowledge, literacy and maybe cultural history thrown in for 1 talent point. Enhanced if you are a scholar of course. :-)

Nah, leave different alphabets and symbols for systems that have a higher granularity. If a new dialect cost 1, a new sibling language cost 3 a strange language cost 6 and an alien language cost 10 points. Then it might be worth it to add 1 for a new alphabet, and 2 for a new symbol system and maybe 3 for a symbol systems that is completely alien to us. KISS.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Hi Larsdangly,
In my campaign, Alertness helps you find traps. If you have Detect Traps, they stack together. It only seemed sensible.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable ruling, though it is contrary to the one concrete piece of guidance the talent descriptions give us. The original ITL states that Detect Traps and Alertness don't stack. You could question the decision (or house rule differently) but that case is clear. What isn't clear is how Alertness should interact with the dozen or so other talents that give you a capacity to notice something. E.g., Tracking, Acute Hearing, Naturalist, etc. Those don't say anything either way.

The simplest ruling would be that Alertness never stacks with another talent being used for detection (following the example already provided for Detect Traps). The second simplest ruling would be that Alertness stacks with everything similar (your ruling for Detect Traps). The most complicated would be a mix of rules that work one way with one talent and another way with another.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Your privilege. And maybe you need to stretch your imagination a bit.

So you were born knowing how to read and write your milk-tongue were you? And you think you can just master Chinese ideograms right out of the chute with a couple of weeks of practice? Oh my.

My point, which was fairly clear, is that if you already know the symbology system for the language you are learning (that is, you are "literate" in that system), then learning a new language which uses the same symbology system should provide you with literacy in that language too. On the other hand, if you have to learn a new symbology system, then literacy is NOT automatic -- you have to learn the new symbology system. Some of them would be relatively easy (learning the Cyrillic alphabet is pretty easy), while others might be a lot harder (Chinese Ideograms or other symbology systems based on sounds or accents more than letters).

Your experience in learning languages was undoubtedly in a modern school system of some kind. I submit that learning languages in Cidri probably doesn't happen in a nice classroom with plenty of electronic videos and teaching aids, and therefore might be a more difficult process than you seem to think.

Yes, I do. I know a couple of folks that are fairly fluent in various foreign languages (who picked them up "on the streets") and never learned to read or write them. Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Persian are several of them.

And where do you get this "five things" from? I haven't seen what the starting character gets to know written down anywhere, so I'm not seeing this odd little restriction anywhere.

Feel free.

Again, I'm confused. Where do you get these "costs" from? Under the new system we are talking XP to learn things and the costs are in the tens and hundreds of XP, not 1, 3, or 6.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

A more subtle issue, related to that for Alertness and various perception rolls, is Charisma and various social interaction and reaction rolls. The question is, is the intent to have bonuses from all relevant talents stack, or should we think of these more narrowly, where you use the best relevant bonus to which you have access? I can understand cases being made either way, but it is something I would want to state explicitly if I were the lead author.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Sadly, the culprit which make it impossible for a designer to explain each specific case and combination in detail for the reader is the limitation of the page-count.

And while I personally do not stack Detect Traps with Awareness, and yet i do stack things like Charisma and Courtly Graces, etc, (in cases where I feel they are logically related) regardless of what the rules inform, each GM must, in the end, decide what makes the most sense for them in their own campaign at home - even when the designer has spelled out their idea in no uncertain terms.

Okay, I'll bite... why?

Btw, An unencumbered elf with the running talent who goes into a Berserker Rage would have an adjMA of 16 - woah, LOL!

JK

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

You're exactly right. Social interactions is a big deal; and they addressed it in GURPS with several books on Social Engineering, in addition to their much more effective (though very lengthy) rules on reactions and reaction rolls in GURPS itself. I hope that some extra time and word-count is taken to clarify and codify the rules on this subject in the new TFT.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Of course it is my privilege. But we are here to discuss suggestions for the new rule set, so it is kind of a common thing.

No I was not. I explicitly said if you have literacy. So no need to be snide when you are making straw man arguments. And I wouldn't assume it would take a couple of weeks. But it takes years to learn a completely different language well and if you are a literate person you probably will look at the alphabet or ideograms at the same time. The other way around is also true, once you can "read" it you pretty much can speak it too.

Yes you were kind of clear, not about the Cyrillic or even half way different ways of writing. But I still don't agree with you. I am not saying it is not harder to learn Chinese Ideograms than the Cyrillic alphabet. I am saying it is harder to learn new languages the more different they are. And that difference is way more important and bigger than the literate bit (if you are already literate in another language). And as long as we don't change the cost for different languages depending on how hard they are to learn, then different literacy system are even less important.

I agree, but then again literacy doesn't happen either. It is only for the select few who get an education in fantasy medieval like worlds. So if you have gotten such an education and learned Literacy, then it is likely that if you learn another language well you would look at the literacy system at the same time.

So would you say they can speak like a native? Since language learning in TFT is binary. Either you have it or you don't. So there will always be a few exceptions. Learned enough to get by, but not enough to understand subtleties in poetry and such. Can read signs but not yet good enough to write a book with the second language. Where do you draw the line?

On average you have about 5 talents. Start at IQ 10 and talents cost from 1-4. It is not a written rule just what most TFT characters usually have. But if you define your whole characters knowledge with 3-8ish talents, should three of them be, Can read, have a second language, can also read and write in the second language? It is just too detailed for my view of the TFT system that is simple and fast.

We are talking about talent points in TFT. They are very coarse. For 2 talent points you can have a profession. So 1 talent point for a language is a lot. I think it should include more, like Language, literacy in that language if you already have literacy for another language and maybe some culture since it is hard to learn a language without picking up some culture to go with it.
You want that talent point to include less, by making people pay another point for each literacy system as well. It is the opposite of my view.

The points were examples from a fictive system that had 10 points per language instead of TFT's 1. Then you have greater detail and could adjust the costs depending on what language you already know, and add literacy as part of the deal depending on how different it is and what language group it is. That is where the points comes from. But we can't use 0.6 points for the language since it is fairly close to your other languages and then .2 for the literacy system and then pay 0.8 talent points. Not unless you want to pay XP directly for languages, but why not have that system for all talents if that is the case. Many system do, but they are more crunchy.

If that happens (the granularity of points and XP changes) I might be willing to switch to a more detailed system for languages, but I wouldn't want to see different weapon skills cost slightly different XP amounts. It would also be hard to scale the XP cost. Now you scale the XP cost for buying talent points, but 1 point is always 1 point. Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was a fictive cost system like so many other RPG systems out there with a more detailed approach.

And it would be easy to include an exotic written symbolic system that is so complex so it compares to learning the whole language again. And then add an extra Literacy(XXXX) talent for it. But it should be a house rule or maybe an optional rule, not the standard rule. Just in the same way that you could set the cost of a new language to two talent points if it is weird enough and it makes sense for your campaign world. But keep it as optional or house rules.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Which completely missed my point -- that literacy isn't some "universal reading potion" you can take and just automatically assume you can read every language in the world. Take a look at an Arabic newspaper one of these days and let me know how that works out for you.

Dude, you've been the prince of "snide" on here several times, so "don't start none, won't be none." And on the subject of "strawman arguments," don't get me started (though you might want to take some time to look up the definition there, just sayin').

You need to look up some facts about Chinese one of these days. There are people who have spoken Chinese from the cradle and are only marginally literate in the language because there are literally thousands of ideograms in the written form.

No, I was quite clear, and even more so when I provided examples of what I was speaking about. And while I understand your point, how did you put it? I "100% disagree." It's like saying that Sword or Axe automatically includes Shield. The two skills are related, but quite different. But even there, if you bother to re-read my original post, I suggested that the rule just be clarified to make it obvious. So all your angst and anger over this issue seem a bit...misplaced?

Given how cheap the cost to learn a language is (it took me CONSIDERABLY longer to learn to speak Russian than it did to learn to fence), I believe that Literacy as an extra cost is simply a way to better reflect the reality of the learning process. And, of course you learn literacy in a new tongue at the same time you learn the language, but there isn't any learning system in place in this game that permits that, is there?

According to the natives we spoke with, they did. Of course some of that might have been mere politeness, but in each case we were involved in a war, and politeness tends to go out as your time and need for communication compress, so maybe they really did. And they couldn't read the signs. That was my whole point.

I'd say that depends entirely on what kind of game you're going to play. My Sage character might find that distribution of talents very appropriate, don't you think?

But, as I already pointed out, the last we heard from Steve, those requirements would no longer exist in TFT -- it was pure XP to learn a talent. Why? Because if you cap the Attribute Points, you effectively cap the IQ, and a capped IQ means you can no longer expand your knowledge in any way under the old rules (note the word "expand;" that's different from "forget and replace"). So your argument is, as they say, noncupatory.

I certainly have no argument with your method if Steve decides to leave the rules as they are; I house rule all the time anyway. But my point all along here (and, indeed, the point of this entire thread) is to suggest areas that people want Steve to look at for consideration in the Talents section. I see no need for you to act as the "gatekeeper" on this process and tell us what constitutes "good" ideas or "bad" ideas. I certainly haven't slapped you around over some of your proposals in other threads (several of which I've considered as inane as you apparently feel this one is). Why? Because if it's a point someone raised, Steve ought to be at some liberty to consider it without interference from me.

Now, I consider this done, and will not respond to further argument about it. We have different priorities and issues, and that's just fine by me. So let's just let it lay.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Let's agree to disagree. I understand your rules addition/suggestion perfectly. There is nothing really new in your system that doesn't exist in many other more detailed systems. So I don't disagree with the mechanic itself. What I disagree with, still 100%, is that you want MORE detail and a HIGHER cost of language and literacy. I want the opposite.

I think the current detail level is fine for TFT and I want to include MORE in a language point (not only literacy if you have it but also culture). I tried to point out that I don't disagree with your system as a representation for reality, just that for me it is not the right level of abstraction for TFT. KISS (as in keep it simple Steve) is the way to go.

Sure you can learn a language without learning the culture, but usually they go together. You can probably find a 100 examples of how this can differs, but I stand by my point. USUALLY they go together. If we had a system with on average 100 talent points form the start and a language cost from 5-10 or some such, I would go with a system like yours. But that is not TFT for me.

I am not acting like a Gate keeper. You suggested something that was the opposite of what I might suggest. So I pointed it out and then the discussion turned into some sort of reality discussion which is a hopeless proposition to begin with. How do you know math in a binary way for exactly 3 talent points?!? How do you judge a profession skill like Farming in a binary system and compare it to reality? One charm of TFT is the binary system and sometimes you have expert level talents and maybe can use Study of a talent. But still we are talking about a few levels of competency. I like that. It works for a simple and speedy game, not so much for reality simulation.

And if you disagree with some of my other suggestions, point it out and let's discuss. :-) That is why we have the forum. Better to have the discussion now than after the rules are printed. Is it not? Some of my ideas are well thought through, others are spur of the moment things that needs to be shot down for the good of everyone. And if you don't think they are TFTish enough, point it out too. I want to keep the old nostalgic feel, the TFT speed and lightness and still get rid of the out dated smell. :-) I think that is what most people want so let's hash it out and let Steve sort it out. :-)

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Nils, exactly which parts of the TFT rules-set are you referring to as out-dated and smelly ?

JK

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

Probably most things people have felt the need to make house rules for? It is incomplete in many areas. It lacks a working cleric system. The wizard spells have long durations or knock people out too easy. There is very little back up for people instantly dying, sometimes without any error on their part. Fidgety in some areas, but glossing over other areas. Old layout without an index. Still have a big focus on paragraph CYOA games and solo play (I know many love these, but that whole genre is smelly and mostly computerized these days). The list goes on. I grew up with the system. I love it. But compared to every other system out there that either died, developed or mutated, TFT is still in use - even though it has a musty smell to it by now. There are a lots of trends that reflects the last 35+ years of gaming best practices that TFT has not been updated with. I hope the KS can get the ball rolling once again.

So in short there are a 100 small things and a few big things that I would like to change. But I, like so many others, are afraid that an updated and "modern" version of TFT would not be TFT anymore.

But still there are a few good things about TFT that even today are really good. Some are awesome in fact. And those things I definitely want to keep and see more of. TFT was way ahead of the times back then. And I am thinking of things like, a good working grid system that is fast, the triangle balance of the attributes making all of them important for all types of characters, Magic Item creation system that not only makes sense there is actually an explanation of how it ties in to the job system. And the job system, characters actually having a life out side the dungeon! Amazing balance for fights around a real 3d6 bell curve. Reaction system. Rules for leadership and followers. Skills that are binary. Study list of talents. Long recuperation times after wounds. And the list goes on. :-)

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I'm perfectly happy with the Literacy Talent as is it and never felt the need to add detail to it. There is already an advanced level (in a way) with the Scholar Talent.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I agree about these points. I think Animal Handler should be a prereq for Monster Followers. I don't think Charisma should play a part.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I see Alertness as applicable to a broad range of visual perception checks. I would not allow it to stack with any other Talent that describes a knack for detecting specific things as these are more focused and specialized perception checks. However, I would allow the Alertness to be used in an either/or fashion for the purposes of Detect Traps. Despite explicitly saying that Alertness does not stack with Detect Traps, old ITL does imply a relationship between Detect Traps and Alertness by stating that Detect Traps only costs 1 talent slot if Alertness is already known. I think this is why the took the space to explicitly state that they do not stack. It should be assumed that Talents do not stack unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

It doesn't seem sensible to me. Alertness lets you use ONE less die when detecting traps. Detect Traps lets you use TWO less die. The Detect Trap talent costs less to learn if you already know Alertness. I think that's a fair and balanced relationship between the two.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I agree it should be stated more explicitly but my interpretation and preference is that Talents do not stack unless explicitly stated that they do. However there are many instances where a GM may decide that a Talent can be used in place of another Talent if the PCs don't have access to the first Talent. This should be GMs prerogative, but the stacking should not.

Re: Final tweaks on talents
 

I agree and don't see how there is any room for intepretation in the way language rules were written in old ITL or in the way Literacy was EXPLICITLY defined:
From a narrative perspective, when a PC decides to become literate he will endeavor to become literate in all of the languages he already knows. Afterward, when he learns a new language (spoken) he will also endeavor to become literate in that language.