the "outrageous attribute" problem

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes...



Though this is a different technical method, it's a similar effect to solve a similar problem with using the EP system as written. We used a house rule involving math. You used GM discretion. Both of us noticed the formula in ITL for EP for defeating opponents gives really skewed results especially for stronger characters wiping out easy opponents.

And GMs who constantly allow their players to face such weak opposition are indistinguishable from other Monty Haul GMs who hand out rewards like candy. <shrug> I can’t hide a certain contempt for that style of play, though I concede it may be attractive to some. But TFT, like most 1st gen RPGs, was simply not designed for such a style of play. So it seems dubious to criticize it for failing to enable that playing style.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

And GMs who constantly allow their players to face such weak opposition are indistinguishable from other Monty Haul GMs who hand out rewards like candy. <shrug> I can’t hide a certain contempt for that style of play, though I concede it may be attractive to some. But TFT, like most 1st gen RPGs, was simply not designed for such a style of play. So it seems dubious to criticize it for failing to enable that playing style.

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

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

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

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

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

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

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

Warm regards, Rick.

[Kirk]

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

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

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kirk

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

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

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

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

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

And GMs who constantly allow their players to face such weak opposition are indistinguishable from other Monty Haul GMs who hand out rewards like candy <shrug> I can’t hide a certain contempt for that style of play, though I concede it may be attractive to some. But TFT, like most 1st gen RPGs, was simply not designed for such a style of play. So it seems dubious to criticize it for failing to enable that playing style.

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

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