Skarg's Experience Point house rule

[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