[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by joppeknol

In the end this is boring and unfunny (for me).

???

But you're fine with it if the 5 skills all line up perfectly with what the Player wants and they just happen to be 'thematic'?


For instance I once played a street-savy fast-talking con artist. The GM laid down the rules upfront, 200 character point at start (plus -50 in Disads, -5 Quirks), Attributes were capped at 14, Talents could only be taken at game start, skills had to be bought up with time and exp, but Attributes could be raised at any time between games with enough exp.


So I started with an IQ 10 and bought 4 levels each in Cultural Chameleon, Empath, Impersonator, Street-Smart, Talker, and Tough Guy (every single Talent was thematically appropriate and what I wanted from a Talent for the Character).

The GM grunted but relented as I was clearly in the rules as he established them... also I was nowhere near stepping on any other niche as I'd walked into the chargen session saying "I'm playing the Face" and everyone agreed.

The value of a talent should imho be more something that describes the character, than that it is the 'better' choice.

We clearly disagree. I think both are fine.

Also... you do realize I can spin a backstory to make any set of Talents or Talent builds into something that 'describes the Character'? I've done this before, and I'll do it again...

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Which choice serves to eviscerate the concept of a talent and to enable the resulting point crock.

But 'thematically related' wasn't the original concept either.

So which is it? Is it in line with the "concept of Talents" or does it destroy the "concept of Talents"?

Originally Posted by Hide

I thought it was not allowed buying talents for combat skills. Or was this always possible?

It was never disallowed, it was merely vaguely discouraged in a single sentence at the end of the Talent write up in Basic:

"For instance, Sports Talent might make sense – some athletes really do seem to have a gift – but the GM ought to forbid Ninja Talent or Weapon Talent (but see Weapon Master, p. 99)."

There has never been anything in a published work saying "Do not put combat skills into talents". For instance 'Pickaxe Penchant', 'Strangler', and 'Mr. Smash' would all immediately give lie to that notion.

Further I've always considered this sentence from Power-Ups 3 Talents to be incredibly ill-thought out:

"Finally, he has the right to reject a proposed Talent that doesn’t seem like a believable inborn knack given the character’s race and the campaign’s realism level, genre, etc.; he should definitely do so for one that’s nothing but a way to save points on skills whose only relationship is “skills I plan to learn” (although that’s sometimes acceptable when using Talents as Training, p. 25)."

So... it's okay if my Character takes 'Talker' or 'Born Soldier' when all the skills are ones I plan to buy and wish to save points on and fits the theme of the Character (a Face or soldier), but not okay if I write up say "Mugger" which has Intimidation, Streetwise, Shadowing, Stealth, and Knife? Because they are all skills I plan to buy and wish to save points on, but the Character is not yet a 'mugger'? I mean who knows, maybe mugging is in his destiny?

I agree with eevee.

I suddenly feel mega cute.

On the other hand, I think it is better having PCs buy up to 4 levels of (say) a 5 point talent, than having them buy attributes. For example, while the approach of boosting many skills trough DX is nice, this often leads to a team of generalists (in my groups).

My problem with high stats in a nutshell. In DF where the niche skills are semi-protected by said Character in said niche continuously raising them and staying ahead of the default curve of the group... once your 'core PCs' hit say 400+ points a newby Character's best skills might be only a few points above various older PCs defaults. And can be a problem (mostly for Thief, the most maligned Profession)...

On the other hand, character design wise, buying DX to improve lots of (unrelated) skills/defaults is less enticing than a talent which focuses on the characters' role.

Depends on whom you are talking to (less enticing to the GM almost always).

I built a JoAT Sage in a DF game... so... to me buying up IQ will eventually be 'core' to the Character's role. Being good at everything that defaults from IQ, Per, and Will.

And that may end up being a problem...