Skarg's Experience Point house rule

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

SKARG - Okay, but again, I think before we begin to get into the merits and specific details of your rules, can we address and answer the question regarding the value of IQ in combat first?

Sure. Though, I think I've already mentioned it several times above, and we did consider that back in 1985, and the above was what we came up with. It's based on having looked at the combat talents and decided that the rules of thumb used in the sytem above were fast and close enough, especially as the GM is expected to use discretional fudging including ad-hoc deductions for unused equipment or skills (i.e. if "Fighter w. Combat Talents TV 33" above doesn't USE his crossbow or Unarmed Combat, which is likely often going to happen, then he should have the same TV for an encounter as Fighter TV 26, and without his shield, TV 24...). And, the GM can also tweak the EP up or down for hard or easy circumstances or fights.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Unless we are going to ignore IQ and the value of combat talents for ease of play-abilty, which TFT:ITL does, I think it is most important that we have a method to accurately measure the total independent combat value of the whole combatant first, before we can begin to compare one combatant's relative EP value to another, regardless of the rules which guide us in doing so.

In order to do that, I feel we must answer the question of the IQ variable and the value of the associated combat talents contained therein first and foremost.

Ok, we can go over them in detail. I pretty well remember and even found our original notes on what we were thinking about the talents. They each are valuable in their own ways when used, and some are easy to evaluate (Warrior adds 1 hit stopped), but others not so much (Fencing, Running). We ended up deciding that 1 TV per memory point was roughly right, especially if the GM just tweaks the TV as he sees fit in each case, as opposed to having to consult a table to see Missile Weapons counts for 2.5 TV or something.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

The current TFT:ITL rules for factoring the EP value of a figure do not account for the IQ value and the associated combat talents contained therein, therefore, under the current TFT:ITL rules: A 45-point Character with ST-15 DX-15 IQ-15 and NO COMBAT TALENTS has a total EP value of 30; whereas, a 45-point Character with ST-15 DX-15 IQ-15 and MANY COMBAT TALENTS, also has the exact same total EP value of 30.

Do you agree these two figures are equivalent in potential combat effectiveness?
Do you agree these two figures present the same level of potential challenge in combat?
Do you agree these two figures should be worth the same EP award if defeated?

The current TFT:ITL EP rules for combat say they are.

No, no & no. If you study what I wrote above, you'll see I clearly agree with you and disagree with ITL EP about combat talents, as I already mentioned I agreed with you on that, the system I posted above does take combat talents into account, as shown in the example calculating the TV of the three characters you mentioned (fighter, fighter w. combat talents, wizard) shows.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

If you do NOT agree with the above, then I say we must address and resolve the value of IQ and the combat talents first - being the only variable between the two fighters - before we can examine the merits of any EP rules set which is designed to to address the problem of: "awards far too much EP for easy kills by superior fighters."

I think our approach works, which is to start with the ITL system as a basis, so the same EP is awarded as the starting point, and then modify for talents on the same scale.

Here's roughly what we thought:

IQ for its own sake usually is not worth anything unless Disbelieving is involved, or someone has a reason to make an important IQ roll. For the most part it has no effect so no effect on TV. (If someone somehow uses IQ to dominate someone, then that's a situation modifier and/or probably something to reward with EP anyway.)

Plain weapon talents (sword, ax/mace, etc) - the normal baseline expectation for a fighter, so it adjusts the value by zero. If someone DOESN'T have the talent for their weapon, the consequence is -4 DX, so that's worth the TV for that, i.e. -4 TV, but it's not about the talent, it's about the adjDX. TV is ST + adjDX + modifiers.

Peculiar weapon talents, as mentioned in the original post about the system, we didn't want to assess individually since they all offer some special thing or another that are apples & oranges and need to be nerfed anyway, and thought it was ok to just call them 1 TV per memory like the others. If you really wanted to rate the TV of someone abusing lassos and whips as written to be able to take out any character at range, they should be very valuable, maybe add your adjDX again as TV, with additional points for the other perks those tools give.

Warrior and Veteran, as mentioned, add TV equal to the value of the added hits/attack they stop. In practice they're better because they also have no weight, but that seemed more complex than we wanted and below the accuracy level we were going for.

Thrown Weapons we valued at 2 points because it gives +2 DX AND gives the unique ability to throw a weapon the same turn you ready it. In retrospect, maybe 1.5 points but again that's below the grain of our approximate TV system to come up with a perfect number.

Missile Weapons adds 3 DX but only for missile weapons, so might be thought to be worth less that 3 DX points. On the other hand, it tends to mean a dangerous missile user, which tends to be a strong fighter design, so seems worth 3 points anyway, especially since it just lets us write the rule as +1 TV per memory point.

Fencing actually seems worth a bit less than its 3 memory points, except when it pays offs. But people who have it tend to also be powerful anyway, and it makes thematic sense that fighting someone with great weapon skill should just be a better learning experience, so we let it be +3, the value of the memory points (again nicely seeming to be a rule we didn't need exceptions for).

Two Weapons seems usually not worth that much to me unless a powerful character is really taking advantage of it. However it also seems like it would be a good learning experience fighting someone using it, and naturally you wouldn't count it for someone not using the talent in the fight, so again we didn't think there was a reason to not have it be worth 3 TV. Especially since we explicitly mention that ineffective character designs can/should be rated lower TV by the GM.

Running and MA in general we did not give TV for, except in cases where someone wins a fight by running around someone due to higher MA, in which case we'd nudge the TV/EP a couple of points for someone who was getting an advantage due to higher MA.

Unarmed Combat I and II actually don't seem worth their memory unless you're actually using them. They higher ones sort of start to almost seem that value, but certainly are if actually used against other people in bare-hand & HTH situations. So we valued them at memory value for simplicity, but would tend to not count them in practice unless they were actually used in the fight in question.

Horsemanship talents similarly seemed worth about their memory points, but only when the combat was actually on horseback. Again it was pretty natural/easy for us to not count it in their TV except when used mounted, or note it as a separate TV(mounted).

Tactics and Strategist are another apples and oranges sort of thing. The side with an initiative disadvantage probably deserves to earn a few more difficulty EP regardless of who they're fighting, so I would actually give +0 TV to the leader with the talent, but tend to hand out a few extra EP to everyone winning a fight in the difficult circumstance of having an initiative adjustment for good enemy tactics, and/or for having their plans predicted by someone with Tactics.

[Jim Kane]

SKARG I am glad we have agreed on that cornerstone first, as all to often I read long detailed discussions here about rule-variations, and in the end - because those discussing a rule did not first agree on the exact rule in question, b) state the exact problem with the rule - you stated both of these perfectly - and c) come to an mutual agreement about where everyone is philosophically first - the whole conversation just ends up as so much fruitless typing, which goes nowhere towards a real solution.

NOW that we are sure we are on the same page, and we are actually seeing things through the same microscope, we can dig in. ;-)

Originally Posted by Skarg

Here's roughly what we thought:[/B]

IQ for its own sake usually is not worth anything unless Disbelieving is involved, or someone has a reason to make an important IQ roll. For the most part it has no effect so no effect on TV. (If someone somehow uses IQ to dominate someone, then that's a situation modifier and/or probably something to reward with EP anyway.)

Agreed that "IQ for it's own sake is usually not worth very much". Not many high-IQ NPC Jewelers or Latin Scholars will normally make for formidable melee opponents; therefore I will ask if we can consider a stated qualifier on IQ, such as: "The IQ Attribute as a stated numerical value is only worth considering for Combat EP Value inasmuch as the actual IQ Attribute value only reflects the POTENTIAL for containing a number of valuable combat talents, which WILL effect the Combat EP Value; but has no direct contributing value of its own; and has no bearing on the final Combat EP Value otherwise."?

Additionally, can we hold-off on the topic of Disbelieving until we - later down the road - bring-in the topic of magic and IQ, and keep our focus tight?

Originally Posted by Skarg

Plain weapon talents (sword, ax/mace, etc) - the normal baseline expectation for a fighter, so it adjusts the value by zero. If someone DOESN'T have the talent for their weapon, the consequence is -4 DX, so that's worth the TV for that, i.e. -4 TV, but it's not about the talent, it's about the adjDX. TV is ST + adjDX + modifiers.

There are assumptions and factors here, along with a presumed alteration to the existing Combat EP Valuation method provided by TFT:ITL, which I feel should not be included AT THIS TIME in the dialog. Primarily, as we have not fully defined our own baseline yet; and we should refrain from projecting the effect on the sum as a net modifier at this point-in-time - Agreed?

Although I have read your whole post in it's entirety, I would like to ask if we can truncate and hold the rest in reserve, so that we can keep the conversation on a point-by-point basis, as we seek out the baseline.

I see where you are heading and with many other prospective rules, while you offer sound rational why you feel a specific talent should be worth X, and another talent is worth Y, I would like to explore another route which may also be available to us in our endeavor.

If you have read my other posts regarding my general philosophy on altering the TFT rules, or creating enhancements to those rules, you know that I am a staunch adherent to working outwards from the established rules as a base, and naturally growing outwards from there - rather than trying to superimpose an external rules-set into a per-existing TFT rule base. I want to reiterate, my highest goal is not to impose my own ideas into the system, but rather to create enhancements to the existing TFT rules, and introducing as little alien material as possible, specifically to preserve, while creating a pastiche of the original rules-set laid-down by SJ.

Again, withholding discussion of what and why your rules feel a specific talent is worth what it is to the Combat EP Value, can we first look at the values that the TFT:ITL Talents ALREADY offer us as canonical values?

Following that philosophy, the existing TFT Talent rules already inform us of specific values for each and every combat talent available; AND, if we methodically apply those same values - without arbitrary alteration - to the existing Combat EP Value, we would automatically generate the samples as shown below:

As we agree: IQ by itself offers no direct inherent value to the Combat EP Value; therefore, a "No Combat Talent" figure would be rendered as:

ST-12 DX-12 IQ-8
NO COMBAT TALENTS
Combat EP Value: 24

If we give the same figure the knife talent - reflecting the most base degree of weapon skill and proficiency - the figure would be rendered as:

ST-12 DX-12 IQ-8
KNIFE (1)
Combat EP Value: 25

And, if we flesh-out the figure with more training and talents, we get:

ST-12 DX-12 IQ-8
KNIFE/SWORD (2)
BOW (2)
SHIELD (1)
THROWN WEAPONS (2)
Combat EP Value: 31

THEREFORE, as a start:

1) Why can't we simply use the listed costs of the combat talents as informed by the existing TFT:ITL rules as the specific values added in calculating the total Independent Combat Value of a given enemy combatant?

2) Would this method generate a simple base system with which to achieve that goal, while working from the established rules base outwards?

3) Does this method in any way violate the feel, form, flow, flavor, or function of what makes TFT, TFT?

Survey Sez?

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Additionally, can we hold-off on the topic of Disbelieving until we - later down the road - bring-in the topic of magic and IQ, and keep our focus tight?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

There are assumptions and factors here, along with a presumed alteration to the existing Combat EP Valuation method provided by TFT:ITL, which I feel should not be included AT THIS TIME in the dialog. Primarily, as we have not fully defined our own baseline yet; and we should refrain from projecting the effect on the sum as a net modifier at this point-in-time - Agreed?

Ok.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Although I have read your whole post in it's entirety, I would like to ask if we can truncate and hold the rest in reserve, so that we can keep the conversation on a point-by-point basis, as we seek out the baseline.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I see where you are heading and with many other prospective rules, while you offer sound rational why you feel a specific talent should be worth X, and another talent is worth Y, I would like to explore another route which may also be available to us in our endeavor.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

If you have read my other posts regarding my general philosophy on altering the TFT rules, or creating enhancements to those rules, you know that I am a staunch adherent to working outwards from the established rules as a base, and naturally growing outwards from there - rather than trying to superimpose an external rules-set into a per-existing TFT rule base. I want to reiterate, my highest goal is not to impose my own ideas into the system, but rather to create enhancements to the existing TFT rules, and introducing as little alien material as possible, specifically to preserve, while creating a pastiche of the original rules-set laid-down by SJ.

Ok. I would add that despite all the lines I wrote about it, the house rules I posted are essentially a one-line change plus some notes on how to assess TV (i.e. Combat EP Value). Basically the rule is just that you adjust the ITL EP formula for EP from defeating a figure, by adding/subtracting the difference between the values of the victor and the defeated figure. The rest is just how to calculate that: use adjDX, take into account armor and weapon damage, etc.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Again, withholding discussion of what and why your rules feel a specific talent is worth what it is to the Combat EP Value, can we first look at the values that the TFT:ITL Talents ALREADY offer us as canonical values?

Ok, except I've already thought about it and already explained why that is actually what we chose, except that it doesn't make sense for talents that just avoid a -4DX penalty, which using adjDX already takes into account automatically.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Following that philosophy, the existing TFT Talent rules already inform us of specific values for each and every combat talent available; AND, if we methodically apply those same values - without arbitrary alteration - to the existing Combat EP Value, we would automatically generate the samples as shown below:

As we agree: IQ by itself offers no direct inherent value to the Combat EP Value; therefore, a "No Combat Talent" figure would be rendered as:

ST-12 DX-12 IQ-8
NO COMBAT TALENTS
Combat EP Value: 24

Yes.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

If we give the same figure the knife talent - reflecting the most base degree of weapon skill and proficiency - the figure would be rendered as:

ST-12 DX-12 IQ-8
KNIFE (1)
Combat EP Value: 25

And, if we flesh-out the figure with more training and talents, we get:

ST-12 DX-12 IQ-8
KNIFE/SWORD (2)
BOW (2)
SHIELD (1)
THROWN WEAPONS (2)
Combat EP Value: 31

Not looking so good to me.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

THEREFORE, as a start:

1) Why can't we simply use the listed costs of the combat talents as informed by the existing TFT:ITL rules as the specific values added in calculating the total Independent Combat Value of a given enemy combatant?

Because of what the different talents do, or do not do. As you've read, we do actually end up using the memory points as the point value for combat talents, but only the ones that actually improve a character's fighting ability, and only when they use that ability in the combat you're assigning EP for. Basic weapon talents just let you use your DX without a -4 penalty. That effect is nicely taken into account very accurately by just using the adjDX of the fighter to calculate Combat EP Value instead of their base DX (which has no direct effect on combat - fighting someone with no weapon talent is almost identical to fighting someone with the talent but who has 4 less DX, so why give the value a +2 instead for Ax/Mace talent?

Note that you've also already created a change to the effect of the ITL EP rule, which you said you wanted to change as little as possible. Now if a character with only basic weapon talents fights another, they get more EP than ITL would give, and the character with more basic weapon talents is worth more, even though it doesn't particularally increase how well they'll perform.

i.e.:

Chuck
ST 13 Halberd 2d
DX 11
IQ 8
Pole Weapons (2)
Your Combat EP Value: 26

is going to be valued 6 points (23%) less EP-worthy than:

Vince
ST 13 Halberd 2d
DX 11
IQ 8
Pole Weapons (2)
Ax/Mace (2)
Sword (2)
Shiled (1)
Knife (1)
Your Combat EP Value: 32

Main problem: These characters will usually perform the same, but one's valued more, and/or you have more work to do to adjust for all the talents that don't get used.

Another problem: EP inflation for beginning-point characters.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

2) Would this method generate a simple base system with which to achieve that goal, while working from the established rules base outwards?

Well, you've got me to explain some of the reasons why we didn't do this, and why this is already further from the effect of the ITL rules than the system I posted is. ;-)

I much prefer a starting point where only talents which add something to a character's ability get counted on top of points from attributes. The goal should be to measure actual Threat Value, and not points that do nothing. I submit that counting basic weapon talents as 0, and the effect of using weapons without them by their -4 effect on adjDX, you get a quite accurate effect. It also balances with monsters that have no listed talents, but attack with their DX.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

3) Does this method in any way violate the feel, form, flow, flavor, or function of what makes TFT, TFT?

Yes. To me, the "feel, form, flow, flavor, [and] function of what makes TFT, TFT" to me, is that stuff makes sense and works well. That's why I want to change the ITL EP formula in the first place. This suggestion adds stuff that doesn't make sense and doesn't have reasons for being the way it is, actually making the problem worse by giving more EP, and for things that mostly won't have any effect, and in a way that doesn't balance with monsters who have/need no talents. Thrown Weapons gives +2 adj DX for thrown weapons (so worth a little less than +2 DX for all purposes) but also the fast-draw ability (which is worth at least 1 point), so it's good at about +2. Including basic weapon talents just introduces error and increases EP rewards for nothing.

[Jim Kane]

Right SKARG, I got you. I just wanted to reiterate to you where I was coming from philosophically; as so many of these rules-discussion degenerate into one guy trying to jam his "argument" and "system" down the other guys throat while being wholly dismissive of his "victim's" point of view. If you have noted, I do not "engage" in these "+2DX, -2DX type-arguments"; as I seek to find a collective agreement on conceptual things mostly. I think the conceptually-based TFT rules, when reached, are the best TFT rules - and I am enjoying going through this with you. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Ok, except I've already thought about it and already explained why that is actually what we chose, except that it doesn't make sense for talents that just avoid a -4DX penalty, which using adjDX already takes into account automatically.

Understood, and we may very well end up right there, and for that very reason; but, we have to BUILD into that rational, proving it step-by-step, as we go, we just can't jump to it as an assumption - as correct as it may seem at first-blush. It's still a theory, and I believe we really should prove it out in development.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Not looking so good to me.

It's not a final value, just a pre-calculation only - we have to wait for that. It is only the first factor, one of many such factors we may add and consider, as we build. We may add many, many more such factors - depending on the level of complexity we feel is desirable, and in the end, we may very well cut that BIG final factored total in half, or by a third, or fourth, to scale it properly. So, I am NOT saying that those sample fighters with combat talents - once actually armed and armored, etc - are worth those specific totals; what I am asking is: Can we agree that the values of 24, 25, and 31 are correct if we only add the prescribed talent cost to the base, AS A START to developing the method towards finding a final value? And, that this is a reasonable thing - and MAY NOT be the ONLY thing - to account for, in finding that final value?

You know SKARG, it's interesting, there has been a lot of talk of LEGO's on the board lately, and all we have here so far is 2 LEGO pieces joined together for consideration at this stage of building toward a potential new Combat EP Award Rule; but it's not THE RULE - yet.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Because of what the different talents do, or do not do.

Again, "Too far, Too fast". Before we can properly account for what value a specific combat talent adds in function during play, can we agree that we should FIRST account for the value a combat talent adds by merely existing within a figure in the first place?

Originally Posted by Skarg

but only the ones that actually improve a character's fighting ability

Agreed, we are considering "Combat Talents" only.

Originally Posted by Skarg

and only when they use that ability in the combat you're assigning EP for.

Okay, here we may have a different points-of-view. I will take the position that it is enough that the character has the POTENTIAL to use any combat talent he possesses, even if he doesn't actually use that talent in a specific melee; as he COULD use it, or MAY use it - who's to say - but the fact that he perhaps didn't use it in a specific melee, does not - in my mind - make the figure worth less as a kill in factoring the Combat EP Value.

So, if I am understanding you POV, you think ACTUAL is the way to go, and I think POTENTIAL is the way to go. Your thoughts on this at this point, please.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Basic weapon talents just let you use your DX without a -4 penalty. That effect is nicely taken into account very accurately by just using the adjDX of the fighter to calculate Combat EP Value instead of their base DX (which has no direct effect on combat - fighting someone with no weapon talent is almost identical to fighting someone with the talent but who has 4 less DX, so why give the value a +2 instead for Ax/Mace talent?

My reasoning is: Because the adj.DX of a figure is dynamic, not static; and the value of a figure's specific combat talent - if we follow the same values which are listed cost - is fixed, quantifiable, and consistent; and that should aid in making easier and consistent calculations as an overall method. Your thoughts on that, please. As an aside, I must point out, that I do not feel it is accurate to say that "base DX has no direct effect on combat", as base DX, by definition is: Skill with tasks; especially involving the hands - with combat generally being a thing one does with the hands.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Note that you've also already created a change to the effect of the ITL EP rule, which you said you wanted to change as little as possible.

Changing the rule as to how the Combat EP Value is calculated and awarded is the point-and-purpose of what we are exploring as our goal, is it not? While we may end up doing a great many things to discover a rule worthy of stating, we actually haven't stated any "New Rule" yet. What we are doing here, at this stage of building, are pre-calculations - which, if we do a good, clean job - most of which, the player should never be aware of, or how we arrived at the rule; once one is actually stated.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Now if a character with only basic weapon talents fights another, they get more EP than ITL would give, and the character with more basic weapon talents is worth more, even though it doesn't particularally increase how well they'll perform.

Again, "too far, too fast", we have only begun to build into a final calculable value. Hang on, we will get there; I promise.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Chuck
ST 13 Halberd 2d
DX 11
IQ 8
Pole Weapons (2)
Your Combat EP Value: 26

Not correct. You have additionally armed the figure with an added weapon, and we have not come to the stage of adding an agreed value for the actual weapons an armed figure possesses. Slooooow down my brother, sloooow down. Details, details ;-)

Originally Posted by Skarg

Main problem: These characters will usually perform the same, but one's valued more, and/or you have more work to do to adjust for all the talents that don't get used.

Again, we are back to our POTENTIAL vs ACTUAL philosophy difference. (q.v.) We are going to have to come to an agreed decision on that, or we will risk getting stuck in development.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Another problem: EP inflation for beginning-point characters.

Yes, but to be discussed later in the dialog. Too many irons presented to the fire already. We need to come back to this; agreed?

Originally Posted by Skarg

I much prefer a starting point where only talents which add something to a character's ability get counted on top of attributes

I understood we were in agreement that only Combat Talents will be counted on top of ST and DX values; and the main point regarding those are, we need to address the question of Potential vs Actual; am I in error?

Originally Posted by Skarg

The goal should be to measure actual Threat Value, and not points that do nothing.

Okay, "Threat Value", or, "Combat Value". I think we may need to define our terms to each other and check that we are saying the same thing. Also, I think this is just another way we are stating our different POVs on POTENTIAL vs ACTUAL, but as a term, as opposed to a narrative; yes?

Originally Posted by Skarg

I submit that counting basic weapon talents as 0, and the effect of using weapons without them by their -4 effect on adjDX, you get a quite accurate effect. It also balances with monsters that have no listed talents, but attack with their DX.

I maintain the first part of your statement may very well be true, and then again, it may not, depending on one's POV - let us reserve judgement at this time, and find out for sure in the future part of our explorations; agreed?

Regarding the second part of your statement about "Monsters who attack with their DX and have no listed Combat Talents." THIS is a VERY interesting difference, and opens up a whole aspect to consider - and one I think will be quite exciting and fascinating to run-down when trying to balance for a game system which uses both methods (i.e. figures which attack with just DX, and figures which attack with DX+Talents), but let's get our basic figures down first, yes?

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes. To me, the "feel, form, flow, flavor, [and] function of what makes TFT, TFT" to me, is that stuff makes sense and works well. That's why I want to change the ITL EP formula in the first place. This suggestion adds stuff that doesn't make sense and doesn't have reasons for being the way it is, actually making the problem worse by giving more EP

Again, we are far from our final destination yet. We haven't changed or awarded anything; we are in pre-calcualtions only. "Too Far, Too Fast" - I think I will have that printed on a T-shirt for you, and send it too you as a gag-gift after we meet our goal ;-D

Originally Posted by Skarg

and for things that mostly won't have any effect,

POV, at play. We really need to come to an agreement on this sticking-point and alleviate it. In considering my POTENTIAL perspective, I am thinking that an empty gun can still threaten as well as a loaded one; and that, a fighter who is skilled in the Kicking, Punching, Trapping, and Grappling Ranges of Combat, is still a larger POTENTIAL threat, even if the fight never bridges into Trapping and Grappling ranges, or if they are going at it with rakes and shovels. But I will be anxious to learn where we end up on this point.

Okay, your turn ;-)

JK

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think our approach works, which is to start with the ITL system as a basis, so the same EP is awarded as the starting point, and then modify for talents on the same scale.

Here's roughly what we thought:

IQ for its own sake usually is not worth anything unless Disbelieving is involved, or someone has a reason to make an important IQ roll..

Hi Everyone, Skarg.
Sorry I've not replied for so long Skarg. I agreed with you, but wanted to say something more substantial than 'you rock'.

Your basic system is great, and QUICK TO CALCULATE, which is key. I'm not sure that it is worthwhile to make a lot of adjustments for talents, most of the time, the small adjustments for talents on one side will be within a few points of canceling out the talents on the other side.

As for IQ adjustments... talents cost so much more memory (mIQ), than spells, and generally give a much lower bang for the buck than spells, that I would suggest that you simply give a bonus for the IQ of wizards. High IQ wizards in particular are powerful force multipliers.

Perhaps, for wizards, subtract 4 from their IQ and add the remainder to the Threat Value (TV).

If I was to use your system, it would have to be simple and fast to use. I agree that the fine adjustments you suggest make it more ACCURATE. However if it is too slow to use, it likely won't get USED much.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

Thanks Rick. Yes you could just use IQ-4 or something for wizards, and it'd be about the same. We were really interested in the fighters more than the wizards because it was clear that wizards were another kettle of fish and we'd have little hope of making a simple system with real accuracy for them. Also, we were interested in the system making sense in a vaguely simulationist sort of way, and so while a powerful wizard is certainly a massive threat, a warrior might not really stand to learn that much that would improve their fighting abilities by killing a wizard. From that point of view, the threat value of a wizard might be considered irrelevant for EP purposes unless they do things to you that you can learn from, and summons and illusions already count as fighters.

On speed, it got to be fast for us, and we realized TV was always an estimate so these were guidelines that help a GM learn a consistent way to assign EP value, rather than a task that the GM needed to be meticulously consistent about. In practice it's just ST + adjDX + (armor x 2) plus nudges for anything else that's relevant.

I think it does a good job of being essentially the ITL EP system but with logical corrections, and being simple enough for us. We liked it.

I don't think it's perfect or an entirely accurate measurement of a character's threat value. I could think of ways to make more accurate ratings, but it might be tricky to make it as simple or as similar to the existing system.

I think an equally valid solution would also be to use GM discretion instead... but I think I'd want some sort of a system to have consistent guidelines for what those awards should be.

JK, thanks for the reply - I haven't the time or awakeness to respond in detail tonight but I mean to get to it soon.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... I am enjoying going through this with you. Thanks.

Sure. :-)

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Understood, and we may very well end up right there, and for that very reason; but, we have to BUILD into that rational, proving it step-by-step, as we go, we just can't jump to it as an assumption - as correct as it may seem at first-blush. It's still a theory, and I believe we really should prove it out in development.

Ok, I can do that, though it's old ground for me. I went through that sort of process with the friend I wrote that EP house rule with about 33 years ago, I've discussed it several times with others since then, designed something similar into other game systems since then. I remember the reasoning well, have the notes pile, we played with it through many battles, etc. On the other hand, it's been 33 years and I've mostly been playing GURPS not TFT since then, I have some different ideas now, etc.

I still think what we came up with was a really good system that addresses the main problem we saw with EP rewards, and is simple (though probably a pain for GMs who don't like doing subtraction during play) and based on the ITL EP system.

If I were to design my own ideal system for my own use now, or wanted to emphasize accuracy of the actual combat value of a fighter character, however, I think I would actually do it at least somewhat differently, as I don't care so much now about trying to match the ITL EP system. For example, I'd probably use a computer to do some analysis.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

It's not a final value, just a pre-calculation only - we have to wait for that. It is only the first factor, one of many such factors we may add and consider, as we build. We may add many, many more such factors - depending on the level of complexity we feel is desirable, and in the end, we may very well cut that BIG final factored total in half, or by a third, or fourth, to scale it properly. So, I am NOT saying that those sample fighters with combat talents - once actually armed and armored, etc - are worth those specific totals; what I am asking is: Can we agree that the values of 24, 25, and 31 are correct if we only add the prescribed talent cost to the base, AS A START to developing the method towards finding a final value? And, that this is a reasonable thing - and MAY NOT be the ONLY thing - to account for, in finding that final value?

No, we don't agree. I think even without considering the system I developed, that it is clear that while ST and DX (actually, adjDX) have an actual impact on how formidable an opponent is, that the memory points put into most combat talents has no clear relation to how formidable someone is, and it certainly isn't the same as points in ST and DX (so doing so would introduce an error).

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... Again, "Too far, Too fast". Before we can properly account for what value a specific combat talent adds in function during play, can we agree that we should FIRST account for the value a combat talent adds by merely existing within a figure in the first place?

I don't think we can account for the value of a combat talent without looking at what it does, and how that relates to other things we're assigning a value to. I mean, we can agree that a character spent X memory points on talents, and you can add those to ST + DX if you like, but I see reasons those values are liable not to be very useful for accurately assessing how effective a fighter is.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Okay, here we may have a different points-of-view. I will take the position that it is enough that the character has the POTENTIAL to use any combat talent he possesses, even if he doesn't actually use that talent in a specific melee; as he COULD use it, or MAY use it - who's to say - but the fact that he perhaps didn't use it in a specific melee, does not - in my mind - make the figure worth less as a kill in factoring the Combat EP Value.

Having various extra weapon talents might possibly be useful (like if your weapon breaks, and a dropped weapon of a different type is lying around - in that case, sure, you took advantage of redundant weapon talents and avoided a -4 DX penalty late in the fight, so sure maybe that's worth +2 in that rare case). However unless you're an Octopus there is usually a limit of using one weapon per turn, and usually a turn required to ready a different weapon, so it almost never gives a linearly additive advantage to have more than one basic weapon talent, so its a mistake to simply add the memory points of all combat talents together as if having several basic weapon talents makes you the same amount more formidable as adding more levels of ST or DX, or getting talents that work at the same time as a weapon talent (which are going to almost always be more effective).

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

So, if I am understanding you POV, you think ACTUAL is the way to go, and I think POTENTIAL is the way to go. Your thoughts on this at this point, please.

Yes. I want EP to represent more what a character learns from what actually happened, and not so much what might have happened. I don't want to award a bunch of EP for killing someone who has various talents he didn't use at all - i.e. talents and situations that the victor did not experience.

I think it might be useful to say what you want your EP amounts to represent. The system I listed had two things in mind: 1) The threat level of the opponent - objectively how hard it is to defeat that opponent as the character is actually encountered in play. 2) How much can the victor be expected to have learned / developed from facing and defeating that opponent as the character is actually encountered in play.

Also, the system I mentioned is a "patch" on the existing system. We were acutely aware of a major malfuction in the published system, and devised a system that addresses that while being a relatively simple modification to the existing system that does not question the baseline that attribute totals approximate the EP value of defeating someone.

Having thought lots more about character improvement from experience in RPGs in last 33 years, I now actually have different ideas about what I'd ideally want, though I still think that system is rather good at what it does (i.e. simply patch the problem with weaker foes giving far more EP than their threat, compared to stronger foes.)

Ideally, what I'd really want (which is very different from the system I posted) is instead, 3) How much a character should learn and develop their own abilities from the fighting they do in play against the opponents they face, whether they beat them or not. (That's a harder problem which I've also worked on, but don't have a ready tested solution for for TFT.)

It sounds like you have may some different ideas about what you'd think the amount of EP given should represent. I'd be very interested to hear what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

My reasoning is: Because the adj.DX of a figure is dynamic, not static; and the value of a figure's specific combat talent - if we follow the same values which are listed cost - is fixed, quantifiable, and consistent; and that should aid in making easier and consistent calculations as an overall method. Your thoughts on that, please.

I would say that although the memory cost of combat talents is fixed, quantifiable and consistent, its effect on how dangerous a fighter is clearly not directly proportional to that cost, not equal to the value of the same number of points of increased ST or DX, has no effect at all when not used, has no combat effect other than to avoid a -4 adjDX for basic weapon talents, and that even if we find the perfect value for each talent, the effect of different combos of them on one character isn't additive, especially not if it's more weapon talents than you'll use in a fight. I think that's all easily demonstrable by considering a rating system as a point-buy situation. What would you rather have? Sword and Warrior, or Sword and Ax/Mace? How about Sword and +2 DX, or Sword and Ax/Mace? Clearly having two basic weapon talents rarely if ever increases the danger of fighting an armed foe, but Warrior and +2 DX both have strong concrete effects.

I suggest that combat talents and the memory points put into them themselves are actually worth nothing - what's worth something is the effects they have in terms of things that determine what happens in combat; DX adjustments, inflicting or stopping more damage, etc.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

As an aside, I must point out, that I do not feel it is accurate to say that "base DX has no direct effect on combat", as base DX, by definition is: Skill with tasks; especially involving the hands - with combat generally being a thing one does with the hands.

I think maybe it wasn't clear what I meant. I'm just saying the actual adjDX used is what determines how dangerous someone is in practice.

Fighting someone with -4 DX due to a Clumsiness spell is the same as fighting someone with -4 DX due to using a weapon they lack the talent for (with some error for DX uses that don't involve that weapon).

Maybe a better example is: fighting someone with DX 13 in cloth armor with a Stone Flesh spell on him (armor 5, -1 DX for adj DX 12) is effectively the same situation & difficulty (except for MA and encumbrance level) as fighting someone with DX 18 wearing plate armor without a spell (armor 5, adj DX 12).

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

...On the other hand, it's been 33 years and I've mostly been playing GURPS not TFT since then, I have some different ideas now, etc.

Yes, and that is exactly the reason why - aside from your elegant prose-style, overt brilliance, charm, good looks, and reputation as an international philanthropist and man-about-town - I was interested in re-examining your old rules-set with you. I too have some different ideas on game-design after all these years, though the changes in my thinking have more to do with analysis, trouble-shooting, logic and reasoning, and arithmetic relationships. So my thinking - besides that we communicate well together in the past and I respect a lot of what you comment on in the forum- we might add both our experience and perspectives together, and achieve a synergistic answer to the EP problem - superior to what either of us could come up with otherwise.

Originally Posted by Skarg

...I don't care so much now about trying to match the ITL EP system...

Well, see that will make for a real "design-team" philosophy-compatibility issue; as I am all about preserving and building-off of the original rule-set as much as possible.

It comes down to a distinct differences in the approach and the goal of Restoration vs. Renovation vs Replacement. I am married to the philosophy of a "Restorative Renovation" approach for TFT first and foremost; and Replacement as an absolute "last-ditch, heroic-measures" solution - once all other schemes have been examined and exhausted.

SKARG, I feel we are both wanting to head to the same general destination on this one, but the end-condition we find ourselves in, when we do get there, is something were we do not appear to be on the same page.

So what are we going to do about that?

Originally Posted by Skarg

I don't think we can account for the value of a combat talent without looking at what it does, and how that relates to other things we're assigning a value to.

Right, TOTAL AGREEMENT; HOWEVER, I am of the opinion that "an empty gun can effectively threaten as well as a loaded gun"; and therefore, I am not understanding why we should not account for BOTH the raw talent AND the it's effect when used - separately factored as a pre-calculation as 2 different stated values, which ONLY sum together when the actual skill is employed in combat - yet the talent is ever-present, and therefore should be valued and accounted for regardless.

I hold this opinion because: 1) if two identical brother are going to have a fight, but the 2nd Brother has all manner of martial and psychological knowledge in his head - even if he can't use most of those talents and knowledge in a specific melee - I feel he should still "get minimum credit" for his enhanced knowledge and background in making him the greater threat of the two; hence my reasoning for awarding the base talent cost to the Combat EP Award calculation. Also, 2) if both brothers, now being Wizards, are fighting with identical staves, and they both possess: Staff, yet the 2nd brother has also studied: 3-Sectional Staff (a peculiar Chinese weapon), and Pole-Weapons, he has more combat knowledge over brother number one, and therefore posses the greater intrinsic threat - by my reasoning.

Where am I off-base here?

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think it might be useful to say what you want your EP amounts to represent...It sounds like you have may some different ideas about what you'd think the amount of EP given should represent. I'd be very interested to hear what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent.

I think this is a great idea !

Although we both agree on the end goal, as far as all the things I think the Combat EP Award should include, I cannot give you an absolute answer at this time, as I feel we have only scratch the surface. So, I can only answer based on the work we have done so far, and that would be summarized as:

• IQ Att value by itself has no direct valuation on the Combat EP Award - We Agree - Cannon
• ST + DX are valued at their Attribute Value as per the existing rules - Cannon
• Combat Talents are valued at the same rate as their stated cost, and added as a factor; even if unused actively in a Melee.
• Primary Ready Weapons are given a value - larger weapons being assigned larger values - are stated with a value (i.e. all things being equal, a Hvy. Crossbowman, ready to fire, offers a greater threat than an archer with a horse bow ready to fire), but only added as a factor when used in a Melee.

Ideally, in the end, I would like to see a 45 point ST15 DX15 IQ15 French Pastry Chef, No Longer Be Worth The Exact Same EP Award. if he is killed by a ST-15 DX-15 IQ-15 Samurai Blade Master, even if he is only armed with a rusty apple-coring knife. and more if he uses his Katana; and visa-versa.

That is where I am at this point of development in our discussion. If we could agree on the subject of Combat Talents being valued at their base cost, as a means to gauge the overall value of a fighter and his combat knowledge overall, we could move forward to assigning specific values for weapons actually used in Melee.

Originally Posted by Skarg

What would you rather have? Sword and Warrior, or Sword and Ax/Mace? How about Sword and +2 DX, or Sword and Ax/Mace? Clearly having two basic weapon talents rarely if ever increases the danger of fighting an armed foe, but Warrior and +2 DX both have strong concrete effects.

I would say this question is unfair, and is "begging the question", as it based on a fixed perspective; and we have agreed - I think - that we are looking through two different lenses; one based on ACTUAL and one based on POTENTIAL.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I suggest that combat talents and the memory points put into them themselves are actually worth nothing

I have to stand firm on "An empty gun threatens as much as a loaded gun" at this point in time.

Originally Posted by Skarg

what's worth something is the effects they have in terms of things that determine what happens in combat; DX adjustments, inflicting or stopping more damage, etc.

AGREED 100%, I just feel combat knowledge is worth something too in defining the total fighter and threat.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Maybe a better example is: fighting someone with DX 13 in cloth armor with a Stone Flesh spell on him (armor 5, -1 DX for adj DX 12) is effectively the same situation & difficulty (except for MA and encumbrance level) as fighting someone with DX 18 wearing plate armor without a spell (armor 5, adj DX 12).

Mechanically perhaps, but I think they should present differently, and be factored differently; but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Are we any closer to agreeing that combat talents - used or unused - represents enhanced combat knowledge and creates more threatening figthers?

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Well, see that will make for a real "design-team" philosophy-compatibility issue; as I am all about preserving and building-off of the original rule-set as much as possible.

It comes down to a distinct differences in the approach and the goal of Restoration vs. Renovation vs Replacement. I am married to the philosophy of a "Restorative Renovation" approach for TFT first and foremost; and Replacement as an absolute "last-ditch, heroic-measures" solution - once all other schemes have been examined and exhausted.

SKARG, I feel we are both wanting to head to the same general destination on this one, but the end-condition we find ourselves in, when we do get there, is something were we do not appear to be on the same page.

So what are we going to do about that?

Just because my ideal now would not be to match the ITL EP system, I'm still interested in systems that do.

It seems to me that the system I posted at the top (which I still quite like and is what I'd choose to use for TFT unless/until I invent something else) is very much a "restoration" effort. It's basically just some adjustments on top of the ITL EP system.

I'm willing to agree to talk about what sort of EP system you want to work on, as long as we can define what what that is, and I can relate to it enough to be interesting to me.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Right, TOTAL AGREEMENT; HOWEVER, I am of the opinion that "an empty gun can effectively threaten as well as a loaded gun"; and therefore, I am not understanding why we should not account for BOTH the raw talent AND the it's effect when used - separately factored as a pre-calculation as 2 different stated values, which ONLY sum together when the actual skill is employed in combat - yet the talent is ever-present, and therefore should be valued and accounted for regardless.

I hold this opinion because: 1) if two identical brother are going to have a fight, but the 2nd Brother has all manner of martial and psychological knowledge in his head - even if he can't use most of those talents and knowledge in a specific melee - I feel he should still "get minimum credit" for his enhanced knowledge and background in making him the greater threat of the two; hence my reasoning for awarding the base talent cost to the Combat EP Award calculation. Also, 2) if both brothers, now being Wizards, are fighting with identical staves, and they both possess: Staff, yet the 2nd brother has also studied: 3-Sectional Staff (a peculiar Chinese weapon), and Pole-Weapons, he has more combat knowledge over brother number one, and therefore posses the greater intrinsic threat - by my reasoning.

Where am I off-base here?

It sounds to me from the above and other examples you've written, that you would like to build an EP system with what I might call a broader "scope" than TFT usually uses.

By "scope", I mean that when I think of various RPG character improvement systems, one could break them down by the precision of the character actions that result in improvements or points towards improvement. You were calling it Actual versus Potential, but I'm thinking it's also perhaps a bit like the scale ranging from systems where EP/improvement is awarded for individual acts (mostly what TFT does, I would say) to systems where awards are for certain challenges/opponents overcome or rewards attained, on up to systems with even broader scope for assessing rewards, such as per session/adventure/quest/milestone, or just per GM gut feeling.

Looking at ITL (page 10) Experience Points rules, we see experience is "do[ing] something "well"" and for actions, each point of damage done in combat, killing foes, using fatigue casting spells under pressure, making 4-die or harder saving rolls against danger or when putting talents "to good use" ... So far, all of those are for specific actions so small/narrow in scope, and what you called Actual. Then there's also time spent in play (which we very rarely used because it seemed OOC and could instead fall under GM discretion) and GM Discretion.

I'm curious whether you'd agree, but it seems to me that what you're talking about with giving more EP for beating someone with more Potential threat, is what I'd call a higher-scope perspective. Meaning that the award isn't assessed based on what you actually did under what actual conditions (as I would say most/all of the TFT awards are aimed at, even if they're so simple they're often not very proportional to danger), such as a few rounds of actual combat, but rather, you'd like a system that awards EP based on the larger-scale conflict, such as the heroes come into the domain of some foes, and anything could happen, including who notices whom first, what they all do between fights, and so on.

If that's what you mean, then I might be more inclined to agree with the idea that a wide range of combat talents might be thought to all be relevant to the difficulty of defeating someone. Because you're talking about the difficulty of defeating an opponent who lives a day away, and the whole adventure of being in the same world as that foe and all the circumstances that lead up to you defeating them or not. With that broader scope, sure in a sense the foe is more dangerous if they have multiple weapon skills, because you might in theory be more likely to meet them in situations where there is a weapon they know how to use nearby.

But I'm afraid I'm still going to complain about just adding up memory points, because when you do face someone, they generally can only use one weapon at a time against you, and the majority of the thousands and thousands of TFT fighters I've seen die in play, only made use of one or two weapons, and it seems to me that the value of redundant weapon talents in play is just almost always far less than +1 attribute, or having a talent that does tend to end up affecting something during play. So even if we agree the Potential added danger of a foe with extra weapon talents is non-zero and relevant to the scope of the EP system even when unused, I don't think the actual value I would assign to having more than one weapon talent would even amount to +1 in most cases.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I think this is a great idea !

Although we both agree on the end goal, as far as all the things I think the Combat EP Award should include, I cannot give you an absolute answer at this time, as I feel we have only scratch the surface. So, I can only answer based on the work we have done so far, and that would be summarized as:

• IQ Att value by itself has no direct valuation on the Combat EP Award - We Agree - Cannon
• ST + DX are valued at their Attribute Value as per the existing rules - Cannon
• Combat Talents are valued at the same rate as their stated cost, and added as a factor; even if unused actively in a Melee.
• Primary Ready Weapons are given a value - larger weapons being assigned larger values - are stated with a value (i.e. all things being equal, a Hvy. Crossbowman, ready to fire, offers a greater threat than an archer with a horse bow ready to fire), but only added as a factor when used in a Melee.

Ideally, in the end, I would like to see a 45 point ST15 DX15 IQ15 French Pastry Chef, No Longer Be Worth The Exact Same EP Award. if he is killed by a ST-15 DX-15 IQ-15 Samurai Blade Master, even if he is only armed with a rusty apple-coring knife. and more if he uses his Katana; and visa-versa.

I'd like to ask not just what the formula or desired sort of EP amount you'd want, but literally what I asked, i.e. "what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent." By "represent", I mean, what in the way things work in the game universe is it that has the victor gain an amount of useful experience by defeating someone?

(For example, I might say that there is the experience of being in deadly combat, and the experience of fighting someone trying to kill you using various strength, abilities, and equipment, and the more formidable that is, the more you learn what it is like to fight someone at that level and what you can do about it and details of techniques they use and so on. It trains your muscle memory, reflexes/reactions, and how you do what you do when you fight, and the more capable the opponent relative to your own ability, the more you're liable to learn and improve if you survive.)

I'm interested in how you'd answer that, if materially different from what I wrote?

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Just because my ideal now would not be to match the ITL EP system, I'm still interested in systems that do.

That's great SKARG as I think you have some "good meat" in the philosophy in-back of your old system, and I would like to work to see if we can't take some "filet" out of there, and mix it in our perspectives on TFT as we view it today, and see if we see how close we can get it to retro-fit in the 1980 rules-set; retaining that all-important: TFT Form, Feel, Flow, Flavor, and Function I am forever on about.

Originally Posted by Skarg

It seems to me that the system I posted at the top (which I still quite like and is what I'd choose to use for TFT unless/until I invent something else) is very much a "restoration" effort. It's basically just some adjustments on top of the ITL EP system.

It is good, to be sure; I would just like to buck for something which mirrors the actual system a bit more closely - but you know, perspectives change through dialog too.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'm willing to agree to talk about what sort of EP system you want to work on, as long as we can define what what that is, and I can relate to it enough to be interesting to me.

Fair enough my friend; I will be pleased to work on this one with you, until we meet our goal, or you say: quit.

Originally Posted by Skarg

It sounds to me from the above and other examples you've written, that you would like to build an EP system with what I might call a broader "scope" than TFT usually uses.

And I would say that your statement and your explanation is a very accurate assessment.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Looking at ITL (page 10) Experience Points rules, we see experience is "do[ing] something "well"" and for actions, each point of damage done in combat, killing foes, using fatigue casting spells under pressure, making 4-die or harder saving rolls against danger or when putting talents "to good use" ... So far, all of those are for specific actions so small/narrow in scope, and what you called Actual. Then there's also time spent in play (which we very rarely used because it seemed OOC and could instead fall under GM discretion) and GM Discretion.

Spot-on, and an excellent analysis. However, you and I seem mostly to agree that this concept of THREAT is, or should, also be accounted for in defining a figure when calculating more precisely for the inequity between combatants - and the current system does not account for this.

So, we both know what we want an enhanced Combat EP Award system to do; it seems we just need to agree on WHAT goes into that AND what does not, and then, it is down to the processes of HOW to balance the thing, and HOW we are going to state it as a simple formula.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'm curious whether you'd agree, but it seems to me that what you're talking about with giving more EP for beating someone with more Potential threat, is what I'd call a higher-scope perspective.

Correct. I am talking about accounting for BOTH, not being of equal-value, but BOTH, the POTENTIAL and the ACTUAL. I do agree that the potential should not be worth the same as the actual; but i do not feel we should wholly dismiss it either, as the rules do now.

Originally Posted by Skarg

...If that's what you mean, then I might be more inclined to agree with the idea that a wide range of combat talents might be thought to all be relevant to the difficulty of defeating someone. Because you're talking about the difficulty of defeating an opponent who lives a day away, and the whole adventure of being in the same world as that foe and all the circumstances that lead up to you defeating them or not. With that broader scope, sure in a sense the foe is more dangerous if they have multiple weapon skills, because you might in theory be more likely to meet them in situations where there is a weapon they know how to use nearby.

Yes, THAT is the idea. When you defeat a man in combat, you just don't beat his Strength, Dexterity, and Weapon, you must defeat the totality of his being.

Bruce Lee had a saying: "The enemy has only images and illusions, behind which he hides his true motives, destroy the image (POTENTIAL THREAT), and you will break the enemy (ACTUAL THREAT).

Originally Posted by Skarg

But I'm afraid I'm still going to complain about just adding up memory points, because when you do face someone, they generally can only use one weapon at a time against you,,,

Yes, and I would complain about that also! LOL! That is not the sole factor, and as said in my last post about the "two brothers" in combat, the potential of the brother with more combat talents - expressed as total internalized combat knowledge - needs to be accounted for because it is omni-present; however, what talents and weapons you ACTUALLY use in combat, should have a greater value - but BOTH make up the TOTALITY of your enemy.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'd like to ask not just what the formula or desired sort of EP amount you'd want, but literally what I asked, i.e. "what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent." By "represent", I mean, what in the way things work in the game universe is it that has the victor gain an amount of useful experience by defeating someone?

(For example, I might say that there is the experience of being in deadly combat, and the experience of fighting someone trying to kill you using various strength, abilities, and equipment, and the more formidable that is, the more you learn what it is like to fight someone at that level and what you can do about it and details of techniques they use and so on. It trains your muscle memory, reflexes/reactions, and how you do what you do when you fight, and the more capable the opponent relative to your own ability, the more you're liable to learn and improve if you survive.)

I'm interested in how you'd answer that, if materially different from what I wrote?

I think I understand what you are looking for here SKARG, but I want to take some time to sleep on the question, so I feel confident in what you are asking me, and that I can provide you a quality answer. So, more to follow tomorrow night my friend,

JK