Skarg's Experience Point house rule

[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