Leveling up skills

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Removing the connection between IQ increases and the acquisition of new talents is one of the few LE changes that I have embraced.

The bizarre thing about Legacy is that it has such a link during character generation, but not during experience. I think it should work the same before game start as after, and that's more important than which model it follows.

using the 'classic' model, a talent like HORSEMANSHIP has a variable (potentially drastically so) cost depending on when in the character’s lifecycle it is purchased

I can understand the cost being constant or the cost increasing, but it's weird that attributes increase and talents don't. Especially it's weird that immediately after character generation and for a long time after attributes are so cheap relative to talents that buying a talent is just about out of the question.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but sometimes you have to love your little mind's hobgoblins.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

The bizarre thing about Legacy is that it has such a link during character generation, but not during experience. I think it should work the same before game start as after, and that's more important than which model it follows.

Exceedingly well put, and my sentiments exactly.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

And this can go back to "How Do I Envision The Character?"
If the player says "I see Kurt as a Merchant. Average ST, Average DX, Above Average IQ, then ST=10, DX=10, IQ=12 would start him out.
If you never envision Kurt being strong, you won't have his ST go above 11.

This is so important, but often is an aspect of playing a character that gets overlooked or set aside in the quest for power and survivability.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

And this can go back to "How Do I Envision The Character?"
If the player says "I see Kurt as a Merchant. Average ST, Average DX, Above Average IQ, then ST=10, DX=10, IQ=12 would start him out.
If you never envision Kurt being strong, you won't have his ST go above 11. If you envision that he could dance pretty well, you might have his DX go to 11. You might even consider his becoming bright enough to reach IQ 13. You might start with raising Kurt's IQ to 13, buy some more Merchanting worthy talents, socializing talents, then possibly put a point into ST to help him survive an extra point of damage. And if Kurt was going to learn a spell or two, that would go under the category of XP=1500.

Sure, there may be life-changing events, both good or bad for the character that would change "his" envisioning, so there can be alterations to this viewpoint.

The characters don't have to be worked up into graceful tanks.

Originally Posted by Shostak

This is so important, but often is an aspect of playing a character that gets overlooked or set aside in the quest for power and survivability.

I concur but the "reality" of developing a TFT character finds its way to rear its ugly head.

I start most characters with such a vision for them. As they play, gain experience, and discover shortfalls that need to be mitigated, the initial Envisioning of their character gives way to more immediate needs. These immediate needs end up causing problems for full development that, by current Legacy game design, seems to hit a wall at 39 or 40 total attribute points. Hopefully, I have alleviated that wall in my game although it's a slow path even with a less draconian XP to attribute cost.

Part of what has gotten in my way is creating a character with a vision for his development while my mind was still wrapped in Classic TFT. A perfect example is Dean Raptor, a Reptile Man that has a crossbow and is on a Unarmed Combat path. First, the Legacy NERFing of the Reptile Man stifled the start point at UC1 as opposed to UC2 or UC3. He will probably not be able to achieve any higher than UC3 no matter how you plan his development. He has turned out to be a decent character but there is no way that he has a path to UC5 under Legacy RAW.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

This is so important, but often is an aspect of playing a character that gets overlooked or set aside in the quest for power and survivability.

Here the perspective of a player is going to be different from that of the GM. In the final analysis, it's a game, and games bring out the competitive side of those playing them. Speaking as a player only, if my character needs another point of DX because I've been rolling badly and it keeps missing, I'll look to up the DX. If it's had too many close calls or never does enough damage, I'll look to up ST. Even though the character's personal goal is to add a certain talent, they can't get there if they die first! When I'm on the GM side of the table I definitely want things to go one way, but when I'm on the player's side of the table I play to win, even if I do feel slightly conflicted about it. But only slightly. I've lost a couple notable characters I invested a lot in by trying to channel them into the destiny I had in mind for them instead of doing the more practical thing.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

The bizarre thing about Legacy is that it has such a link during character generation, but not during experience. I think it should work the same before game start as after, and that's more important than which model it follows.

I really don't understand that concern, TBH. Would it be nice if there was parity between the mechanics for character creation and play-based development? Sure, but it's hardly a deal breaker. Pre vs post-play progression approaches can be different. Plenty of systems have specific rules and assumptions that only apply during character creation.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I can understand the cost being constant or the cost increasing, but it's weird that attributes increase and talents don't. Especially it's weird that immediately after character generation and for a long time after attributes are so cheap relative to talents that buying a talent is just about out of the question.

I love the mix of fixed and variable costs. I see that as one of the few true innovations introduced by the LE ruleset. I think the implementation is off, but the concept is not only sound, but a much better reflection of real-world skill development vs. personal physical and mental progression IMO. Why should BOATING cost me more XP if I learn it later in my career?

As far as escalating costs go, that still exists, just in a different form. The idea that basic RUNNING requires the same investment of experiential(?) capital for the 'novice' and 'veteran' makes sense to me, but if there was an EXPERT RUNNING talent (not a bad idea), I would expect that to cost more than the base skill. And it also makes sense that moving up each notch on the stat scale gets progressively more difficult. Building one's endurance should require more effort the more proficient you get. Both schemes follow the same logic of "getting better gets harder the better you get" just expressed differently. It's quite inspired IMO.

I definitely agree with David that "immediately after character generation and for a long time after attributes are so cheap relative to talents that buying a talent is just about out of the question" is a problem, though. Hence, many of my revisions to the progression scheme.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Here the perspective of a player is going to be different from that of the GM. In the final analysis, it's a game, and games bring out the competitive side of those playing them. Speaking as a player only, if my character needs another point of DX because I've been rolling badly and it keeps missing, I'll look to up the DX. If it's had too many close calls or never does enough damage, I'll look to up ST. Even though the character's personal goal is to add a certain talent, they can't get there if they die first! When I'm on the GM side of the table I definitely want things to go one way, but when I'm on the player's side of the table I play to win, even if I do feel slightly conflicted about it. But only slightly. I've lost a couple notable characters I invested a lot in by trying to channel them into the destiny I had in mind for them instead of doing the more practical thing.

Trust me when I say that Shostak the player never lets survival considerations interfere with his cockamamie plans for his characters. In fact, I'm not sure he thinks of survival as a net plus.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Trust me when I say that Shostak the player never lets survival considerations interfere with his cockamamie plans for his characters. In fact, I'm not sure he thinks of survival as a net plus.

I concur. LOL!

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

There is a solution to this 'everything goes into Attributes before it goes into talents'. When you create your character, don't give them any weapons talents. It guarantees that the first thing you spend your XP on is a weapon.

Not guaranteed at all, I think. Most principal weapon talents (e.g. Knife + Sword, Axe/Mace, Pole Weapons) cost 2. That's 4 attribute points and change. Buying the attributes and using a maul is just better, whether it's after 100, 200, 400, etc. XP.

And this can go back to "How Do I Envision The Character?"
If the player says "I see Kurt as a Merchant. Average ST, Average DX, Above Average IQ, then ST=10, DX=10, IQ=12 would start him out.

The problem starts when the player says, "I imagine Kurt as a demigod, above average ST and DX, genius IQ, ..." and you have to tell them no.

My theory of character design is:
1. defining talents, e.g. "He's a merchant."
2. IQ, determined from Step 1
3. ST and DX, using whatever points are left
4. Other talents.

The game kind of implies doing 2 & 3 first, then 1 and 4, and this is broken.

The characters don't have to be worked up into graceful tanks.

Most characters get pushed into the combatant role because the campaign they are in is mostly about combat, and whether they live or die depends in large part on their grace and tankishness.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I really don't understand that concern, TBH. Would it be nice if there was parity between the mechanics for character creation and play-based development? Sure, but it's hardly a deal breaker.

As soon as the mechanics differ between periods, players are pushed into optimising by choosing abilities during the period when they are cheapest. So RAW characters get their IQ during generation then load up on DX and maybe ST afterwards.

Also the inelegance offends me.

Pre vs post-play progression approaches can be different. Plenty of systems have specific rules and assumptions that only apply during character creation.

And in a few games it might make sense. If all characters are ordinary children in our world, and at game start they get thrown through a mystic portal to a secondary world and start acquiring new skills, then it makes a lot of sense to use different mechanics in the two phases.

But TFT generally isn't like that. It's trying to handle a wider range of stories and for many characters there shouldn't be such a divide. Maybe you imagine them having done adventurous and exciting things for a while, working for their mysterious mentor. Maybe the adventuring is quasi-military and looks a lot like the fighting they supposedly did in the army.

Why should BOATING cost me more XP if I learn it later in my career?

The way I see this is that when you are inexperienced most of your effort goes into acquiring new abilities. As you get more experienced more of your effort goes into keeping up your old ones. So progress comes from a shrinking portion of your XP income and this is represented by making the price of progress higher. This argument applies to attributes and talents.

if there was an EXPERT RUNNING talent (not a bad idea), I would expect that to cost more than the base skill.

Or it's the same cost and gives you MA +1.

I definitely agree with David that "immediately after character generation and for a long time after attributes are so cheap relative to talents that buying a talent is just about out of the question" is a problem, though.

It's a consequence of constant talent cost and rapidly rising attribute cost, and hard to fix unless you decide to hate at least one of those two.