Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost

[JLV]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I would like to see this table extended below 32 points, so that campaigns can if necessary start with very inexperienced 30-point farm boys who don't know what they're in for, or even less capable.

I also think most campaigns are going to house rule in progress above 40 points. It would probably be smart to say, "If you want to do that here are the costs we recommend," or something like that.

I've always liked those "zero-level funnel" type adventures! ;-)

And I think your second item is a good idea too. Perhaps something along the lines of; "If the GM and Players agree that they want to increase the attribute cap beyond 40, we recommend doubling the cost per Attribute Point above 40 (i.e., 6000 XP to reach 41, 12,000 XP to reach 42, etc.)."

[Steve Jackson]

Wonder if anybody wants to submit a short article for the TFT site about the low-level adventure?

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Wonder if anybody wants to submit a short article for the TFT site about the low-level adventure?

How low level? 32-points low? Or DCC funnel low?

[Steve Jackson]

Lower than 32. You could still have a fun adventure with low-low characers, if people got into it.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I would like to see this table extended below 32 points, so that campaigns can if necessary start with very inexperienced 30-point farm boys who don't know what they're in for, or even less capable.

I also think most campaigns are going to house rule in progress above 40 points. It would probably be smart to say, "If you want to do that here are the costs we recommend," or something like that.

In general, I agree with this sentiment and strongly suggest that the designer provide suggestions in *any* area likely to be house-ruled. In my miniature wargame rules, we there are a number of footnotes where we say "we did it this way because of blah blah blah. If you want a different approach, you might try blah blah blah. However, be advised that this will affect the such and such system, so you'll have to take that into account, etc."

As designers, we typically have a clearer view of how the game systems interact. Players proposing house rules often have a sort of myopia where they get so focused on addressing the "problematic" rule that they don't consider its secondary effects. We can sometimes help them avoid a lot of frustration.

In addition, we've very often tried and discarded the house rule in question.

I see no reason that this wouldn't be the case with TFT and Steve.

I'd add that game design decisions that improve speed of play or game balance seem particularly vulnerable to being houseruled. The designer's philosophy/reasoning can be invaluable for players who are tempted to modify such systems.