Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

David Bofinger · 07-24-2018, 09:39 PM

I was doubtful when I started reading this but I've gradually warmed to the idea as I thought about it. But I think it's main interest to me lies in extensions you haven't made yet. I've discussed a few ideas below: I think the one I like best is to say that cheap lists should be smaller and characters should be expected to have more than one.

Thoughts on Breadth

These ideas affect the breadth of characters: can they do one thing well, or do they have a wide spread of abilities. Having schools of wizardry decreases it. Separating off e.g. scout talents from fighter talents decreases it.

If you're allowing characters to buy the right to a cheap list for just 3 then that dramatically increases potential breadth at high levels. 3 is pretty cheap, and seriously undercuts the impact of the rest of the rules. I'd look at making it more expensive, and scaling it with how many you have (cf. e.g. FFG Star Wars' handling of specialisations). So the first costs 0, the second 5, the third 10.

There's arguments both ways on breadth. If characters don't have breadth they can become boring to play, using the same hammer no matter what kind of nail they meet. On the other hand a lack of breadth within a character can create niches like being the group's thief. So adding breadth within a character can increase diversity of actions by that character, but decrease the diversity of characters within a party. To some extent it depends how large the party is: if it's small then you want lots of breadth within each character. On balance I think I'd like to see more breadth in TFT.

Miscellaneous Ideas

Replacing the "Must be taught by the Thieves' Guild," rule with a cheap list is probably a good thing: cleaner. What about Mechanician?

Thief could get Knife. Wizards could get Quarterstaff. Shield and Two-Handed Weapon could be cheap/free for fighters but cost other characters. Fighters could get First Aid.

More sophisticated (e.g. higher IQ) talents might have a large expensive to cheap ratio.

You could have a class like Druid, that gets spells and some wilderness talents cheap, but not the scholarly talents.

Different campaigns could make buying lists cheaper or more expensive. In some all lists might be free.

My Preferred Idea

You could make the lists smaller and expect characters to buy several lists. Maybe Fighter, Archer, Wilderness, Thief, Scholar, Merchant are all lists, and Wizard is several lists. So a hunter-gatherer culture character might buy Archer and Wilderness, or a druid might buy a wizard list and wilderness, or an assassin might buy Fighter and Thief, or a thief might buy Thief and Merchant. Maybe not all lists cost the same. Maybe we imagine that commoners have no lists.

Probably Dumb Ideas

You could also require characters to specify other elements of their background, e.g. country-vs-city. Country characters get Woodsman cheap, city characters have the option of e.g. Courtly Graces. Maybe this is unnecessary.

You could have more than two levels of cheapness. A wizard who specialises in certain kinds of spells might still be able to buy other spells cheaper than a fighter can. Or not.

07-24-2018, 09:39 PM	#3
David Bofinger Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Sydney, Australia	Re: Variant talent costs/mana I was doubtful when I started reading this but I've gradually warmed to the idea as I thought about it. But I think it's main interest to me lies in extensions you haven't made yet. I've discussed a few ideas below: I think the one I like best is to say that cheap lists should be smaller and characters should be expected to have more than one. Thoughts on Breadth These ideas affect the breadth of characters: can they do one thing well, or do they have a wide spread of abilities. Having schools of wizardry decreases it. Separating off e.g. scout talents from fighter talents decreases it. If you're allowing characters to buy the right to a cheap list for just 3 then that dramatically increases potential breadth at high levels. 3 is pretty cheap, and seriously undercuts the impact of the rest of the rules. I'd look at making it more expensive, and scaling it with how many you have (cf. e.g. FFG Star Wars' handling of specialisations). So the first costs 0, the second 5, the third 10. There's arguments both ways on breadth. If characters don't have breadth they can become boring to play, using the same hammer no matter what kind of nail they meet. On the other hand a lack of breadth within a character can create niches like being the group's thief. So adding breadth within a character can increase diversity of actions by that character, but decrease the diversity of characters within a party. To some extent it depends how large the party is: if it's small then you want lots of breadth within each character. On balance I think I'd like to see more breadth in TFT. Miscellaneous Ideas Replacing the "Must be taught by the Thieves' Guild," rule with a cheap list is probably a good thing: cleaner. What about Mechanician? Thief could get Knife. Wizards could get Quarterstaff. Shield and Two-Handed Weapon could be cheap/free for fighters but cost other characters. Fighters could get First Aid. More sophisticated (e.g. higher IQ) talents might have a large expensive to cheap ratio. You could have a class like Druid, that gets spells and some wilderness talents cheap, but not the scholarly talents. Different campaigns could make buying lists cheaper or more expensive. In some all lists might be free. My Preferred Idea You could make the lists smaller and expect characters to buy several lists. Maybe Fighter, Archer, Wilderness, Thief, Scholar, Merchant are all lists, and Wizard is several lists. So a hunter-gatherer culture character might buy Archer and Wilderness, or a druid might buy a wizard list and wilderness, or an assassin might buy Fighter and Thief, or a thief might buy Thief and Merchant. Maybe not all lists cost the same. Maybe we imagine that commoners have no lists. Probably Dumb Ideas You could also require characters to specify other elements of their background, e.g. country-vs-city. Country characters get Woodsman cheap, city characters have the option of e.g. Courtly Graces. Maybe this is unnecessary. You could have more than two levels of cheapness. A wizard who specialises in certain kinds of spells might still be able to buy other spells cheaper than a fighter can. Or not.