Final tweaks on talents

[larsdangly]

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable ruling, though it is contrary to the one concrete piece of guidance the talent descriptions give us. The original ITL states that Detect Traps and Alertness don't stack. You could question the decision (or house rule differently) but that case is clear. What isn't clear is how Alertness should interact with the dozen or so other talents that give you a capacity to notice something. E.g., Tracking, Acute Hearing, Naturalist, etc. Those don't say anything either way.

The simplest ruling would be that Alertness never stacks with another talent being used for detection (following the example already provided for Detect Traps). The second simplest ruling would be that Alertness stacks with everything similar (your ruling for Detect Traps). The most complicated would be a mix of rules that work one way with one talent and another way with another.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

I 100% disagree. :-) Learning to speak a language is huge compared to learning how to write it. I can't even imagine trying to learn a language without learning letters, symbols, etc, if I already know how to read that is.

Your privilege. And maybe you need to stretch your imagination a bit.

So you were born knowing how to read and write your milk-tongue were you? And you think you can just master Chinese ideograms right out of the chute with a couple of weeks of practice? Oh my.

My point, which was fairly clear, is that if you already know the symbology system for the language you are learning (that is, you are "literate" in that system), then learning a new language which uses the same symbology system should provide you with literacy in that language too. On the other hand, if you have to learn a new symbology system, then literacy is NOT automatic -- you have to learn the new symbology system. Some of them would be relatively easy (learning the Cyrillic alphabet is pretty easy), while others might be a lot harder (Chinese Ideograms or other symbology systems based on sounds or accents more than letters).

Your experience in learning languages was undoubtedly in a modern school system of some kind. I submit that learning languages in Cidri probably doesn't happen in a nice classroom with plenty of electronic videos and teaching aids, and therefore might be a more difficult process than you seem to think.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

The more alien the language the harder it is and that includes the written version of it. Sure you could divide it into several groups, but why? This is TFT. You basically know 5 things when you start a career and you want more than one to be literacy? Do you know anyone that can read their own language well, and knows how to speak another language and don't know that literacy system?

Yes, I do. I know a couple of folks that are fairly fluent in various foreign languages (who picked them up "on the streets") and never learned to read or write them. Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Persian are several of them.

And where do you get this "five things" from? I haven't seen what the starting character gets to know written down anywhere, so I'm not seeing this odd little restriction anywhere.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

I would rather go the other way and include more in the language bit. Like language, common native current culture knowledge, literacy and maybe cultural history thrown in for 1 talent point. Enhanced if you are a scholar of course. :-)

Feel free.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

Nah, leave different alphabets and symbols for systems that have a higher granularity. If a new dialect cost 1, a new sibling language cost 3 a strange language cost 6 and an alien language cost 10 points. Then it might be worth it to add 1 for a new alphabet, and 2 for a new symbol system and maybe 3 for a symbol systems that is completely alien to us. KISS.

Again, I'm confused. Where do you get these "costs" from? Under the new system we are talking XP to learn things and the costs are in the tens and hundreds of XP, not 1, 3, or 6.

[larsdangly]

A more subtle issue, related to that for Alertness and various perception rolls, is Charisma and various social interaction and reaction rolls. The question is, is the intent to have bonuses from all relevant talents stack, or should we think of these more narrowly, where you use the best relevant bonus to which you have access? I can understand cases being made either way, but it is something I would want to state explicitly if I were the lead author.

[Jim Kane]

Sadly, the culprit which make it impossible for a designer to explain each specific case and combination in detail for the reader is the limitation of the page-count.

And while I personally do not stack Detect Traps with Awareness, and yet i do stack things like Charisma and Courtly Graces, etc, (in cases where I feel they are logically related) regardless of what the rules inform, each GM must, in the end, decide what makes the most sense for them in their own campaign at home - even when the designer has spelled out their idea in no uncertain terms.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Looks to me like you could die in TFT when you lose 2 ST upon snapping out of a berserk state... if you had been at exactly 2 ST before that.

Okay, I'll bite... why?

Btw, An unencumbered elf with the running talent who goes into a Berserker Rage would have an adjMA of 16 - woah, LOL!

JK

[JLV]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A more subtle issue, related to that for Alertness and various perception rolls, is Charisma and various social interaction and reaction rolls. The question is, is the intent to have bonuses from all relevant talents stack, or should we think of these more narrowly, where you use the best relevant bonus to which you have access? I can understand cases being made either way, but it is something I would want to state explicitly if I were the lead author.

You're exactly right. Social interactions is a big deal; and they addressed it in GURPS with several books on Social Engineering, in addition to their much more effective (though very lengthy) rules on reactions and reaction rolls in GURPS itself. I hope that some extra time and word-count is taken to clarify and codify the rules on this subject in the new TFT.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Your privilege. And maybe you need to stretch your imagination a bit.

Of course it is my privilege. But we are here to discuss suggestions for the new rule set, so it is kind of a common thing.

Originally Posted by JLV

So you were born knowing how to read and write your milk-tongue were you? And you think you can just master Chinese ideograms right out of the chute with a couple of weeks of practice? Oh my.

No I was not. I explicitly said if you have literacy. So no need to be snide when you are making straw man arguments. And I wouldn't assume it would take a couple of weeks. But it takes years to learn a completely different language well and if you are a literate person you probably will look at the alphabet or ideograms at the same time. The other way around is also true, once you can "read" it you pretty much can speak it too.

Originally Posted by JLV

My point, which was fairly clear, is that if you already know the symbology system for the language you are learning (that is, you are "literate" in that system), then learning a new language which uses the same symbology system should provide you with literacy in that language too. On the other hand, if you have to learn a new symbology system, then literacy is NOT automatic -- you have to learn the new symbology system. Some of them would be relatively easy (learning the Cyrillic alphabet is pretty easy), while others might be a lot harder (Chinese Ideograms or other symbology systems based on sounds or accents more than letters).

Yes you were kind of clear, not about the Cyrillic or even half way different ways of writing. But I still don't agree with you. I am not saying it is not harder to learn Chinese Ideograms than the Cyrillic alphabet. I am saying it is harder to learn new languages the more different they are. And that difference is way more important and bigger than the literate bit (if you are already literate in another language). And as long as we don't change the cost for different languages depending on how hard they are to learn, then different literacy system are even less important.

Originally Posted by JLV

Your experience in learning languages was undoubtedly in a modern school system of some kind. I submit that learning languages in Cidri probably doesn't happen in a nice classroom with plenty of electronic videos and teaching aids, and therefore might be a more difficult process than you seem to think.

I agree, but then again literacy doesn't happen either. It is only for the select few who get an education in fantasy medieval like worlds. So if you have gotten such an education and learned Literacy, then it is likely that if you learn another language well you would look at the literacy system at the same time.

Originally Posted by JLV

Yes, I do. I know a couple of folks that are fairly fluent in various foreign languages (who picked them up "on the streets") and never learned to read or write them. Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Persian are several of them.

So would you say they can speak like a native? Since language learning in TFT is binary. Either you have it or you don't. So there will always be a few exceptions. Learned enough to get by, but not enough to understand subtleties in poetry and such. Can read signs but not yet good enough to write a book with the second language. Where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by JLV

And where do you get this "five things" from? I haven't seen what the starting character gets to know written down anywhere, so I'm not seeing this odd little restriction anywhere.

On average you have about 5 talents. Start at IQ 10 and talents cost from 1-4. It is not a written rule just what most TFT characters usually have. But if you define your whole characters knowledge with 3-8ish talents, should three of them be, Can read, have a second language, can also read and write in the second language? It is just too detailed for my view of the TFT system that is simple and fast.

Originally Posted by JLV

Again, I'm confused. Where do you get these "costs" from? Under the new system we are talking XP to learn things and the costs are in the tens and hundreds of XP, not 1, 3, or 6.

We are talking about talent points in TFT. They are very coarse. For 2 talent points you can have a profession. So 1 talent point for a language is a lot. I think it should include more, like Language, literacy in that language if you already have literacy for another language and maybe some culture since it is hard to learn a language without picking up some culture to go with it.
You want that talent point to include less, by making people pay another point for each literacy system as well. It is the opposite of my view.

The points were examples from a fictive system that had 10 points per language instead of TFT's 1. Then you have greater detail and could adjust the costs depending on what language you already know, and add literacy as part of the deal depending on how different it is and what language group it is. That is where the points comes from. But we can't use 0.6 points for the language since it is fairly close to your other languages and then .2 for the literacy system and then pay 0.8 talent points. Not unless you want to pay XP directly for languages, but why not have that system for all talents if that is the case. Many system do, but they are more crunchy.

If that happens (the granularity of points and XP changes) I might be willing to switch to a more detailed system for languages, but I wouldn't want to see different weapon skills cost slightly different XP amounts. It would also be hard to scale the XP cost. Now you scale the XP cost for buying talent points, but 1 point is always 1 point. Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was a fictive cost system like so many other RPG systems out there with a more detailed approach.

And it would be easy to include an exotic written symbolic system that is so complex so it compares to learning the whole language again. And then add an extra Literacy(XXXX) talent for it. But it should be a house rule or maybe an optional rule, not the standard rule. Just in the same way that you could set the cost of a new language to two talent points if it is weird enough and it makes sense for your campaign world. But keep it as optional or house rules.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

No I was not. I explicitly said if you have literacy.

Which completely missed my point -- that literacy isn't some "universal reading potion" you can take and just automatically assume you can read every language in the world. Take a look at an Arabic newspaper one of these days and let me know how that works out for you.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

So no need to be snide when you are making straw man arguments.

Dude, you've been the prince of "snide" on here several times, so "don't start none, won't be none." And on the subject of "strawman arguments," don't get me started (though you might want to take some time to look up the definition there, just sayin').

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

And I wouldn't assume it would take a couple of weeks. But it takes years to learn a completely different language well and if you are a literate person you probably will look at the alphabet or ideograms at the same time. The other way around is also true, once you can "read" it you pretty much can speak it too.

You need to look up some facts about Chinese one of these days. There are people who have spoken Chinese from the cradle and are only marginally literate in the language because there are literally thousands of ideograms in the written form.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

Yes you were kind of clear, not about the Cyrillic or even half way different ways of writing. But I still don't agree with you. I am not saying it is not harder to learn Chinese Ideograms than the Cyrillic alphabet. I am saying it is harder to learn new languages the more different they are. And that difference is way more important and bigger than the literate bit (if you are already literate in another language). And as long as we don't change the cost for different languages depending on how hard they are to learn, then different literacy system are even less important.

No, I was quite clear, and even more so when I provided examples of what I was speaking about. And while I understand your point, how did you put it? I "100% disagree." It's like saying that Sword or Axe automatically includes Shield. The two skills are related, but quite different. But even there, if you bother to re-read my original post, I suggested that the rule just be clarified to make it obvious. So all your angst and anger over this issue seem a bit...misplaced?

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

I agree, but then again literacy doesn't happen either. It is only for the select few who get an education in fantasy medieval like worlds. So if you have gotten such an education and learned Literacy, then it is likely that if you learn another language well you would look at the literacy system at the same time.

Given how cheap the cost to learn a language is (it took me CONSIDERABLY longer to learn to speak Russian than it did to learn to fence), I believe that Literacy as an extra cost is simply a way to better reflect the reality of the learning process. And, of course you learn literacy in a new tongue at the same time you learn the language, but there isn't any learning system in place in this game that permits that, is there?

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

So would you say they can speak like a native? Since language learning in TFT is binary. Either you have it or you don't. So there will always be a few exceptions. Learned enough to get by, but not enough to understand subtleties in poetry and such. Can read signs but not yet good enough to write a book with the second language. Where do you draw the line?

According to the natives we spoke with, they did. Of course some of that might have been mere politeness, but in each case we were involved in a war, and politeness tends to go out as your time and need for communication compress, so maybe they really did. And they couldn't read the signs. That was my whole point.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

On average you have about 5 talents. Start at IQ 10 and talents cost from 1-4. It is not a written rule just what most TFT characters usually have. But if you define your whole characters knowledge with 3-8ish talents, should three of them be, Can read, have a second language, can also read and write in the second language? It is just too detailed for my view of the TFT system that is simple and fast.

I'd say that depends entirely on what kind of game you're going to play. My Sage character might find that distribution of talents very appropriate, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

We are talking about talent points in TFT. They are very coarse. For 2 talent points you can have a profession. So 1 talent point for a language is a lot. I think it should include more, like Language, literacy in that language if you already have literacy for another language and maybe some culture since it is hard to learn a language without picking up some culture to go with it.
You want that talent point to include less, by making people pay another point for each literacy system as well. It is the opposite of my view.

But, as I already pointed out, the last we heard from Steve, those requirements would no longer exist in TFT -- it was pure XP to learn a talent. Why? Because if you cap the Attribute Points, you effectively cap the IQ, and a capped IQ means you can no longer expand your knowledge in any way under the old rules (note the word "expand;" that's different from "forget and replace"). So your argument is, as they say, noncupatory.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

The points were examples from a fictive system that had 10 points per language instead of TFT's 1. Then you have greater detail and could adjust the costs depending on what language you already know, and add literacy as part of the deal depending on how different it is and what language group it is. That is where the points comes from. But we can't use 0.6 points for the language since it is fairly close to your other languages and then .2 for the literacy system and then pay 0.8 talent points. Not unless you want to pay XP directly for languages, but why not have that system for all talents if that is the case. Many system do, but they are more crunchy.

If that happens (the granularity of points and XP changes) I might be willing to switch to a more detailed system for languages, but I wouldn't want to see different weapon skills cost slightly different XP amounts. It would also be hard to scale the XP cost. Now you scale the XP cost for buying talent points, but 1 point is always 1 point. Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was a fictive cost system like so many other RPG systems out there with a more detailed approach.

And it would be easy to include an exotic written symbolic system that is so complex so it compares to learning the whole language again. And then add an extra Literacy(XXXX) talent for it. But it should be a house rule or maybe an optional rule, not the standard rule. Just in the same way that you could set the cost of a new language to two talent points if it is weird enough and it makes sense for your campaign world. But keep it as optional or house rules.

I certainly have no argument with your method if Steve decides to leave the rules as they are; I house rule all the time anyway. But my point all along here (and, indeed, the point of this entire thread) is to suggest areas that people want Steve to look at for consideration in the Talents section. I see no need for you to act as the "gatekeeper" on this process and tell us what constitutes "good" ideas or "bad" ideas. I certainly haven't slapped you around over some of your proposals in other threads (several of which I've considered as inane as you apparently feel this one is). Why? Because if it's a point someone raised, Steve ought to be at some liberty to consider it without interference from me.

Now, I consider this done, and will not respond to further argument about it. We have different priorities and issues, and that's just fine by me. So let's just let it lay.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by JLV

I certainly have no argument with your method if Steve decides to leave the rules as they are; I house rule all the time anyway. But my point all along here (and, indeed, the point of this entire thread) is to suggest areas that people want Steve to look at for consideration in the Talents section. I see no need for you to act as the "gatekeeper" on this process and tell us what constitutes "good" ideas or "bad" ideas. I certainly haven't slapped you around over some of your proposals in other threads (several of which I've considered as inane as you apparently feel this one is). Why? Because if it's a point someone raised, Steve ought to be at some liberty to consider it without interference from me.

Now, I consider this done, and will not respond to further argument about it. We have different priorities and issues, and that's just fine by me. So let's just let it lay.

Let's agree to disagree. I understand your rules addition/suggestion perfectly. There is nothing really new in your system that doesn't exist in many other more detailed systems. So I don't disagree with the mechanic itself. What I disagree with, still 100%, is that you want MORE detail and a HIGHER cost of language and literacy. I want the opposite.

I think the current detail level is fine for TFT and I want to include MORE in a language point (not only literacy if you have it but also culture). I tried to point out that I don't disagree with your system as a representation for reality, just that for me it is not the right level of abstraction for TFT. KISS (as in keep it simple Steve) is the way to go.

Sure you can learn a language without learning the culture, but usually they go together. You can probably find a 100 examples of how this can differs, but I stand by my point. USUALLY they go together. If we had a system with on average 100 talent points form the start and a language cost from 5-10 or some such, I would go with a system like yours. But that is not TFT for me.

I am not acting like a Gate keeper. You suggested something that was the opposite of what I might suggest. So I pointed it out and then the discussion turned into some sort of reality discussion which is a hopeless proposition to begin with. How do you know math in a binary way for exactly 3 talent points?!? How do you judge a profession skill like Farming in a binary system and compare it to reality? One charm of TFT is the binary system and sometimes you have expert level talents and maybe can use Study of a talent. But still we are talking about a few levels of competency. I like that. It works for a simple and speedy game, not so much for reality simulation.

And if you disagree with some of my other suggestions, point it out and let's discuss. :-) That is why we have the forum. Better to have the discussion now than after the rules are printed. Is it not? Some of my ideas are well thought through, others are spur of the moment things that needs to be shot down for the good of everyone. And if you don't think they are TFTish enough, point it out too. I want to keep the old nostalgic feel, the TFT speed and lightness and still get rid of the out dated smell. :-) I think that is what most people want so let's hash it out and let Steve sort it out. :-)

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

...I want to keep the old nostalgic feel, the TFT speed and lightness and still get rid of the out dated smell...

Nils, exactly which parts of the TFT rules-set are you referring to as out-dated and smelly ?

JK

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Nils, exactly which parts of the TFT rules-set are you referring to as out-dated and smelly ?

JK

Probably most things people have felt the need to make house rules for? It is incomplete in many areas. It lacks a working cleric system. The wizard spells have long durations or knock people out too easy. There is very little back up for people instantly dying, sometimes without any error on their part. Fidgety in some areas, but glossing over other areas. Old layout without an index. Still have a big focus on paragraph CYOA games and solo play (I know many love these, but that whole genre is smelly and mostly computerized these days). The list goes on. I grew up with the system. I love it. But compared to every other system out there that either died, developed or mutated, TFT is still in use - even though it has a musty smell to it by now. There are a lots of trends that reflects the last 35+ years of gaming best practices that TFT has not been updated with. I hope the KS can get the ball rolling once again.

So in short there are a 100 small things and a few big things that I would like to change. But I, like so many others, are afraid that an updated and "modern" version of TFT would not be TFT anymore.

But still there are a few good things about TFT that even today are really good. Some are awesome in fact. And those things I definitely want to keep and see more of. TFT was way ahead of the times back then. And I am thinking of things like, a good working grid system that is fast, the triangle balance of the attributes making all of them important for all types of characters, Magic Item creation system that not only makes sense there is actually an explanation of how it ties in to the job system. And the job system, characters actually having a life out side the dungeon! Amazing balance for fights around a real 3d6 bell curve. Reaction system. Rules for leadership and followers. Skills that are binary. Study list of talents. Long recuperation times after wounds. And the list goes on. :-)