New Skills

[Steve Jackson]

Languages – Hmm. Having anything that costs less than 1 point add complexity. I suppose we might say “For a half-point, you can learn a language well enough to read it if you are Literate, and speak it well, but with an accent. For a full point, you sound like a native.” But that leaves a loose half-point floating around. Kind of GURPSy.

Mimic – yes, I agree that should be cut down in cost. Done.

Monster Followers – I have wondered how much those get used. They definitely have no basis in reality. Should I consider deleting them and using the space for other things, and possibly doing a whole splatbook, or section of a monster book, about it? Discuss, please.

Two Weapons – I can see cutting that cost to 2. Heck, I fought with two weapons in the SCA, modestly well, and it did not fry my brain. I think it’s too powerful, mechanically, to cut to 1.

Boating – Rick, are you suggesting it is too trivial, in the game world, to be a talent?

Remember, “memory” is also taking in continued training time.

Reduce IQ prereqs for UC talents – Maybe. They require dedicated training but not genius. Discussion?

I have also cut Expert Naturalist to 2 since it has to stack on top of Naturalist.

First Aid – Does the first aid that you know take up 10% of your memory? I think that from the game standpoint I’d rather push them to spend the points on Physicker. And first aid as I learned it in the Scouts does not heal wounds, even a little – it just stabilizes the victim while the EMTs are on the way. TFT deliberately has no “bleeding out” rules, so “real” first aid is not needed anyhow.

Jeff Lord – Interesting idea.

[Kirk]

Hmmm, it's hard to keep track of what is actually going on with this Talents thing, but I certainly hope we're not moving away from how this game works.

Each attribute limits/contributes about two things, as we all know.

ST is how much damage you can take and deliver, DX is when you act and how successfully, and IQ is what level and how many talents you can have based on their costs.

Dinking around with some of the costs or prereqs. based on 40 years of this game being played is perhaps justified, but I certainly hope the way all three attributes balance each other out isn't changed by changing how talents are counted up or allocated.

Just as an aside, from my own personal experience in relation to UC skills, I don't necessarily think it is currently broken by requiring higher IQ levels for the higher level skills. In all of my competing, training, and teaching I have generally seen that more moderate levels of intelligence limit the ability to reach high levels of understanding and consequently skills in martial arts. My best students and most highly skilled have almost without a doubt been in the gifted to superior levels of IQ.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Hmmm, it's hard to keep track of what is actually going on with this Talents thing, but I certainly hope we're not moving away from how this game works.

Each attribute limits/contributes about two things, as we all know.

ST is how much damage you can take and deliver, DX is when you act and how successfully, and IQ is what level and how many talents you can have based on their costs.

Dinking around with some of the costs or prereqs. based on 40 years of this game being played is perhaps justified, but I certainly hope the way all three attributes balance each other out isn't changed by changing how talents are counted up or allocated.

Just as an aside, from my own personal experience in relation to UC skills, I don't necessarily think it is currently broken by requiring higher IQ levels for the higher level skills. In all of my competing, training, and teaching I have generally seen that more moderate levels of intelligence limit the ability to reach high levels of understanding and consequently skills in martial arts. My best students and most highly skilled have almost without a doubt been in the gifted to superior levels of IQ.

Well said. I think that's pretty much in line with my own views. As regards UC, I've already made the point that I'm happy with high level skill being related to higher IQ. I know not all agree, but I'm happy with things as they stand.

[ColBosch]

First Aid: I'd rather that not be a Skill. As SJ said, TFT has no "bleeding out" rules, so I've always felt that it's an assumed ability. Adventures just bandage each other up as needed, but healing takes real care.

[ColBosch]

I really do not like constructions like "mIQ" or "fST." If memory or fatigue really need to be truncated, I'd prefer it was done in regular English rather than inventing more game terms.

I also do not like half-points.

[ColBosch]

Thinking further on this, I don't really want any skills - even if they already exist in the game - that fall into one of these two broad categories:

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE: Running, First Aid, Cooking, etc. These are things any adventurer in TFT should know, and don't need to appear on character sheets.

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE: Seamanship, Accounting, Administration, etc. If a character has a job, then anything related to that job that has no general use in combat should be assumed as being known.

Basically, I don't want to see characters being hobbled by having to take skills that have no important game effect.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by ColBosch

I really do not like constructions like "mIQ" or "fST." If memory or fatigue really need to be truncated, I'd prefer it was done in regular English rather than inventing more game terms.

I also do not like half-points.

Hi ColBosch,
The word 'memory' has a lot of meaning and connotations in English, but when I use mIQ, I am speaking specifically to the TFT game idea that you have your IQ worth of memory slots to use for your character. Thus the terminology is precise and it needs only 3 characters to convey that idea.

(I've used mIQ for years in my campaign so it looks natural to me.) So I won't stop using it, but if it is any consolation to you, I doubt it will be used in the new TFT.

I think that the price of talents are too high. Most TFT campaigns have some rule or other that allows people to 'cheat' a bit (or a lot) on talents. Now if Steve really does not want to have 1/2 point talents, he could get rid of a few (maybe move Boating into Seamanship for example). But that will only get him so far.

Unless he wants to do some pretty major revisions to how he handles lower memory cost talents, I think this is something he has to consider.

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Languages – Hmm. Having anything that costs less than 1 point add complexity. I suppose we might say “For a half-point, you can learn a language well enough to read it if you are Literate, and speak it well, but with an accent. For a full point, you sound like a native.” But that leaves a loose half-point floating around. Kind of GURPSy.

Perhaps what we need is a different approach to languages, writing/reading (literacy) and so on. Perhaps it shouldn't be tied to talents in the same way as everything else is. Maybe, instead of IQ levels and points, it should simply cost XP to learn a new language, and more XP to learn how to read and write that language. After all, even people of less than standard intelligence can learn to speak a native tongue, and several that I have known personally could speak more than one language, even if they were "illiterate" in the language. This would also allow you to differentiate the languages by type -- so learning to be literate in Mandarin Chinese might cost substantially more than learning to be literate in Russian would (for example). If you DO want to keep it tied to IQ in general terms, make learning to SPEAK a language an IQ 7 or 8 task, and LITERACY (by language) an IQ 9 or 10 task. Then, just vary the language/lieracy cost in XP based on the difficulty of the language (e.g., Sorcerer's Tongue is harder to learn than Common Speech is, and literacy for Sorcerer's Tongue is harder than literacy for Common as well).

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Monster Followers – I have wondered how much those get used. They definitely have no basis in reality. Should I consider deleting them and using the space for other things, and possibly doing a whole splatbook, or section of a monster book, about it? Discuss, please.

YES. Frankly I don't believe I've EVER had a player take Monster Followers (and I think, in the past 38 years, only one has taken New Followers). I think part of the problem is that no one was sure how to play them or wanted to devote the time to figuring it out (as opposed to fighting and casting spells). I think putting it together in either a Bestiary or in an entirely separate splat book would be a GREAT idea -- since it would both better explain the skills, allow you the opportunity to provide various examples of the talents in use, and tie them directly into a series of creatures who could be best associated with the skills. So, from my perspective, removing them from ITL and replacing them with other, more user-friendly things, and then bringing them back either within a Bestiary or their own splat-book would be an ideal solution.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Two Weapons – I can see cutting that cost to 2. Heck, I fought with two weapons in the SCA, modestly well, and it did not fry my brain. I think it’s too powerful, mechanically, to cut to 1.

I do want to hastily offer a somewhat different perspective on this as food for thought; believe it or not, there ARE people out there who literally CANNOT handle two weapons simultaneously, no matter how much training they receive. I'm one of them. I simply cannot wrap my head around using my off hand independently of my dominant hand. It just doesn't work for me. I have excellent hand-eye coordination, and extremely fast reflexes (heck, I flew search and rescue helicopters for a living), but I still can't use two weapons properly under any circumstances -- and believe me, I tried to learn how to do this in both fencing and martial arts. I don't know if this in any way would modify your thoughts on this, but I offer it up as a point for consideration.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Reduce IQ prereqs for UC talents – Maybe. They require dedicated training but not genius. Discussion?

Hmm. Part of the problem here is that learning a martial art isn't a straightforward training process the way learning how to box, or learning how to fence is. It's more a process of internalizing a mind-set than purely a process of learning moves by rote until they become "instinctual." I'm not saying that you have to accept the "philosophy" behind a martial art in order to properly use that martial art, but you do have to wrap your mind around a subtly different approach to the problem of combat than is common in western styles of fighting. Because of that, there IS a bit more to them than simply training your muscles to move in the proper fashion. On the other hand, you certainly don't have to be an Einstein to learn them; even quite average people have the capacity to learn them.

Again, maybe this is an area where varying the XP required to learn them is a more effective approach than placing them in the upper reaches of IQ -- maybe UC-V is an IQ 11 or 12 skill, but it takes five times as many XP to learn as would be indicated by its normal number of "talent points." I think something like that would be a better reflection of what actually goes on, than simply requiring someone to be a genius to learn the skills -- it takes time, not brain cells.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Languages – Hmm. Having anything that costs less than 1 point add complexity. I suppose we might say “For a half-point, you can learn a language well enough to read it if you are Literate, and speak it well, but with an accent. For a full point, you sound like a native.” But that leaves a loose half-point floating around. Kind of GURPSy.

[HOWITZER]
The more I think about characters adding talents, the less I want my own games to use either memory point limits or EP-purchase for them, and languages are a good example. Languages are not something you can learn quickly like swimming or knife-throwing. Maybe for starting characters they can trade things to get another language, but after, how about you actually have to spend years learning it from people who know it, and then eventually you get it? Maybe facility learning languages is the sort of thing you can buy during character creation.

What if PCs started with 36 points or so, but you could choose to spend up to 6 on gifts that can't be learned, such as Charisma, Acute Hearing, Beauty, Toughness, wizardry, gifted fighter/marksman, language-facility... Maybe that's getting GURPSy (?) but it seems like it'd solve some of the problems I keep thinking of with TFT talents.
[/HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Monster Followers – I have wondered how much those get used. They definitely have no basis in reality. Should I consider deleting them and using the space for other things, and possibly doing a whole splatbook, or section of a monster book, about it? Discuss, please.

I thought both New Followers & Monster Followers had weird names, a weird concept, not the way I thought they should work, and ignored & never used it. Looking at New Followers now, I'm slightly fascinated to finally actually try to play a character (or run a campaign) that uses it more or less as written, but as a GM, I don't usually really want my NPCs and monsters to be susceptible to 4-die mechanical control attacks... though I've been biased about it and not giving it a chance since I first saw it at age 11 or 12, and I've become vastly less controlling as a GM. Now, I'd just want the mechanic to be more crunchy (the target PC's nature other than race isn't taken into account at all ("Hey Duke, we should be friends! Hi Revoreesh, how about I roll 4/IQ to take you into my stable of characters?"), and no limits are specified as to what you can have them do) or mention more GM discretion as to arbitrary resistance and effects and limits.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Reduce IQ prereqs for UC talents – Maybe. They require dedicated training but not genius. Discussion?

Yes.

[guymc]

Wow, this flowed along fast! Hard to keep up.

A few of my takes:

** Half-points - yuck.

** I really like the idea of having talent “slots” equal to your (ST+DX+IQ)/2. Starting talents are limited by starting IQ, with multi-point talents costing more. The nomenclature is getting confusing, though. How about this:

You have Talent/Spell SLOTS equal to your basic ST + DX + IQ / 2.
No matter how it is purchased, a Talent or Spell takes up 1 Talent/Spell SLOT.

At character creation you have a STARTING POOL of Talent/Spell POINTS equal to your IQ stat. You may spend these POINTS as you choose, spending:
For Wizards 1 POINT per Spell or 2x the Talent COST in POINTS per Talent
For Heroes 3 POINTS per Spell or 1x the Talent COST in POINTS per Talent

Once your STARTING POOL of Talent/Spell POINTS is all spent, you may not have any more Talents/Spells with which to start.

After character creation you may buy additional Talent/Spell POINTS at a flat 100 XP per POINT. They are spent the same as the POINTS from your initial POOL.

Does that make sense? Is it easy to remember the difference between Talent/Spell SLOTS (how many you can have) and Talent/Spell POINTS (used to purchase Talents & Spells)

**Pull languages out of Talents entirely. You have language SLOTS equal to your IQ. You may start with your native tongue (spoken, oddly enough, like a native) and perhaps a common or trade tongue (spoken with a discernible accent), each filling a slot. Multi-cultural characters can start with TWO “native” tongues plus a trade/common tongue, but you speak all three with an accent. After character creation, you may buy additional languages with XP. It costs 100 XP to learn to read and speak a language, built you’ll not be mistaken for a native by a real native speaker. Spending an additional 100 XP on a language means you’ll be taken for a native, even among natives. You can only learn languages until you fill up your language slots. (A language fills only one slot, whether or not you speak like a native.) If you possess the Linguist Talent, you have IQx2 slots and an expenditure of 100 XP lets you speak like a native. If you choose that Talent at character creation, you can start with a number of starting languages up to 1/2 your IQ, each filling one available slot.

**I would not miss the two “Followers” Talents if they go away. That’s not really a Talent.

**I think a character should be assumed to have Literacy (in his known languages) and basic mundane abilities like cooking, etc. As an option, a character can start WITHOUT Literacy. Such a character gets only one native language which he can speak but not read or write. The character also gets one EXTRA starting Talent/Spell Point in their Pool. They may later BUY Literacy for *200 XP* if they wish, and it takes up a Talent slot of they do. (Those who start with Literacy don’t use up a slot for it.) You cannot “give up” Literacy to free up a slot after you already have it. And the GM should STRICTLY require an illiterate character to play the handicap. No reading of signs, books, papers, scrolls, etc. No writing except for making symbols in the nature of a game of Pictionary.

**Professional Knowledge could be purchased in packets like Talents, taking the same slots as Talents do. They have minimum IQ levels, and may be stackable requiring higher levels of knowledge to be bought atop lower ones. Some Professions may have only one level, others may have more depending on the depth of knowledge required. However many levels you buy, it all goes in a single Slot. For the most complex professional subjects, you might have a level for a lay enthusiast or student, another for a practicing professional or teacher, a third for a recognized expert or theoretician, and even a fourth for that renowned person who is at the top of their field and on the cutting edge. This, however, is approaching the “too darn much trouble” level. We might not need it at all.