Design Principle Attribute trade-off

Nils_Lindeberg · 07-26-2018, 02:25 PM

I haven't seen it mentioned that often on these boards, but one of my major selling points with TFT is the attribute trade-off.

It is pretty much unique for TFT.

I would be even happier if almost every talent and spell mentioned the trade-off in some way. Since ST is also Endurance, most talents should benefit from it.

Take Physicker for instance. Explain how IQ will allow you to take the talent, then how IQ test could help you decide on a cure or help with diagnosis. DX is also speed, so being able to quickly staunch bleeding in a first aid situation or delicately perform surgery or just do stiches is also obvious. But on a battlefield, working as a bone saw for hours on end, stamina might be really important, as will disease and infection resistance, and the ability to carry and move people around. Maybe carrying people in a firemans carry sideways on your back is a skill only physickers has trained and how fast you can get people to safety is the test being rolled for.

I'm not saying that all attributes should be equally important at all times, but it would be nice if all three attributes have an obvious use. A very strong physicians apprentice might be holding people down, or keeping the mentally insane from hurting themselves or do a Forrest Gump and save everyone by carrying them to safety. Or maybe the physician talent gives a bonus to HTH and pinning moves, or it is a prerequisite for nerve strike or gives a bonus to it. Maybe Physicker gives a smaller penalty when you try to know people out to subdue them.

I can see the scholar with incredible stamina, staying up night after night until he finds what he was researching for. Or the IQ guy that figures out that we should swim with the waves instead of against them, or is smart enough to avoid the riptide.

If I have a strong or never-give-up sort of a doctor, or a smart bookish type or a dextrous and quick surgeon should make a difference. And they should all be viable in the right campaign, but play differently.

In many games, there are a limited set of attributes that you can mix and match with the actual skills. I like that, but in TFT that is more or less implicit in the rules, but not that often explicitly stated. On most talents there are only one or two die rolls as examples of how they work. Usually for the same attribute. Sex appeal is an exception I think.

The same goes for other talents, even weapon talents could have a special maneuver or two governed by other attributes, even though they are pretty much by definition balanced: IQ to get the talent, DX to hit and ST for damage.

Spells are also mostly built up on all three attributes. Keep this. Don't allow too many spells that either doesn't need a DX roll or ST cost is so low it doesn't matter.

Let's avoid any steps towards the D&D problem of choosing a class, and then the main attribute comes from that and then all the skills that go with that attribute and then the next player take the next class and attribute and skills that go with that. Every Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue will look the same system wise. It is boring, keep the diversity and the tough choices.

And personally, I am no great fan of prerequisites, unless they are talents or spells in a straight progression. Change it to bonuses instead. If you have this or that, you get a +1 or +2. And prerequisites like Fencing of 14 adjDX is also kind of strange. Why can't I fence badly with DX12? If you want fencers to be lightly armored, don't forbid them armor, or set a DX prerequisite. Make high DX a good thing. Like double damage not on a 7 or better, but on DX/2 or better. Or give a small bonus for every fencer, and a bigger one if you have DX14. Otherwise, almost all fencers will have exactly adjDX14 and that is boring.

Just a few random thoughts.

Chris Rice · 07-26-2018, 03:00 PM

Interesting points, but another key feature of TFT is that it's fairly rules light, so I don't want lots of rules for these things.

If it's important to the story that the scholar has to stay up for nights searching for a key piece of information, I might consider his ST in that. Or I might not.

If it's interesting that the Physician should be able to stitch someone up in a hurry, I might consider a roll against DX. Or I might not.

Like I said, the point you make is an excellent one, and a good GM can use that understanding of the underlying principle to make the game more interesting.

Chris Rice · 07-26-2018, 03:05 PM

Oh, and I do like prerequisites. I don't think I want DX 8 fencers in my game, or IQ 8 Alchemist for that matter, unless they've been badly injured and can no longer function at their previous level. They still have the knowledge/training but can no longer perform as they once did.

Nils_Lindeberg · 07-26-2018, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Oh, and I do like prerequisites. I don't think I want DX 8 fencers in my game, or IQ 8 Alchemist for that matter, unless they've been badly injured and can no longer function at their previous level. They still have the knowledge/training but can no longer perform as they once did.

I kind of like prerequisites in that high-level spells need higher IQ. So for an Alchemist, there might be low IQ recipes just like there are low IQ spells for a stupid wizard or for basic spells.

And when it comes to Fencing. I can accept that the talent requires IQ to learn and keep fresh and up to date, but I don't see much difference between being disabled and having a low DX, being encumbered with armor and having a low DX or just being fat/clumsy or something and have a low DX. The low DX in itself will limit that character. Most moves won't work, but now and again he gets in a nice technique or a proper sidestep. He should be better off with the talent than without it if he has a blade in his hand.

But since double damage on 7 or better is a static bonus that doesn't really scale with DX, I can see your point. But if we made the advantage bigger or smaller by scaling it with DX, the prerequisite would not be needed. You would essentially have a tiered talent with many adjDX prerequisites giving a bigger and bigger advantage. Because adjDX of 16 should be better than adjDX of 14, right? Just like spell casting is scaled with IQ and Alchemy could be with an IQ for each recipe. Today you can be a "bad" wizard, but not a bad alchemist.

But in general, I like choices, both for the variety and to help me create the character I want to play. So the choice of either being really good at something and not knowing anything about it is very black and white. A third choice would be nice. Knowing about it, but not really being good at it yet would be a valid third option. Should I wait and raise my attribute first, or should I spend the XP on the talent first?

JLV · 07-26-2018, 04:03 PM

I'm with Chris on this -- a lot of what Nils proposes strikes me more as a GM ruling rather than a game rule. All things considered, I think each GM should feel free to create the level of extra complexity that they and their players are comfortable with, but I don't think it needs to be imposed in the rules themselves...

JLV · 07-26-2018, 04:08 PM

I'm with Chris on this -- a lot of what Nils proposes strikes me more as a GM ruling rather than a game rule. All things considered, I think each GM should feel free to create the level of extra complexity that they and their players are comfortable with, but I don't think it needs to be imposed in the rules themselves...

Nils_Lindeberg · 07-26-2018, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Interesting points, but another key feature of TFT is that it's fairly rules light, so I don't want lots of rules for these things.

If it's important to the story that the scholar has to stay up for nights searching for a key piece of information, I might consider his ST in that. Or I might not.

If it's interesting that the Physician should be able to stitch someone up in a hurry, I might consider a roll against DX. Or I might not.

Like I said, the point you make is an excellent one, and a good GM can use that understanding of the underlying principle to make the game more interesting.

I agree completely. Rules light is the way to go. That is why I want fewer hard rules and more examples and soft suggestions on how to apply the rules. Maybe it is enough to start the talent section with a paragraph on the subject.

And when it comes to how and when different suggestions should be applied is of course up to the GM. But if your campaign includes a Physician with a surprisingly high ST, then the challenges should reflect that if possible. Just like a player choosing to play a bard specialized in poetry might get himself into poetry contests, poetry research and performing scenes where poetry is appreciated. At least if the GM makes custom adventures for his players.

But for all those players used to the fact that each talent has one and only one attribute connected to it, it might be worth it to point out that TFT is different. There is a trade-off and all three of the attributes can come into play. :-)

07-26-2018, 02:25 PM	#1
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Design Principle Attribute trade-off I haven't seen it mentioned that often on these boards, but one of my major selling points with TFT is the attribute trade-off. It is pretty much unique for TFT. I would be even happier if almost every talent and spell mentioned the trade-off in some way. Since ST is also Endurance, most talents should benefit from it. Take Physicker for instance. Explain how IQ will allow you to take the talent, then how IQ test could help you decide on a cure or help with diagnosis. DX is also speed, so being able to quickly staunch bleeding in a first aid situation or delicately perform surgery or just do stiches is also obvious. But on a battlefield, working as a bone saw for hours on end, stamina might be really important, as will disease and infection resistance, and the ability to carry and move people around. Maybe carrying people in a firemans carry sideways on your back is a skill only physickers has trained and how fast you can get people to safety is the test being rolled for. I'm not saying that all attributes should be equally important at all times, but it would be nice if all three attributes have an obvious use. A very strong physicians apprentice might be holding people down, or keeping the mentally insane from hurting themselves or do a Forrest Gump and save everyone by carrying them to safety. Or maybe the physician talent gives a bonus to HTH and pinning moves, or it is a prerequisite for nerve strike or gives a bonus to it. Maybe Physicker gives a smaller penalty when you try to know people out to subdue them. I can see the scholar with incredible stamina, staying up night after night until he finds what he was researching for. Or the IQ guy that figures out that we should swim with the waves instead of against them, or is smart enough to avoid the riptide. If I have a strong or never-give-up sort of a doctor, or a smart bookish type or a dextrous and quick surgeon should make a difference. And they should all be viable in the right campaign, but play differently. In many games, there are a limited set of attributes that you can mix and match with the actual skills. I like that, but in TFT that is more or less implicit in the rules, but not that often explicitly stated. On most talents there are only one or two die rolls as examples of how they work. Usually for the same attribute. Sex appeal is an exception I think. The same goes for other talents, even weapon talents could have a special maneuver or two governed by other attributes, even though they are pretty much by definition balanced: IQ to get the talent, DX to hit and ST for damage. Spells are also mostly built up on all three attributes. Keep this. Don't allow too many spells that either doesn't need a DX roll or ST cost is so low it doesn't matter. Let's avoid any steps towards the D&D problem of choosing a class, and then the main attribute comes from that and then all the skills that go with that attribute and then the next player take the next class and attribute and skills that go with that. Every Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue will look the same system wise. It is boring, keep the diversity and the tough choices. And personally, I am no great fan of prerequisites, unless they are talents or spells in a straight progression. Change it to bonuses instead. If you have this or that, you get a +1 or +2. And prerequisites like Fencing of 14 adjDX is also kind of strange. Why can't I fence badly with DX12? If you want fencers to be lightly armored, don't forbid them armor, or set a DX prerequisite. Make high DX a good thing. Like double damage not on a 7 or better, but on DX/2 or better. Or give a small bonus for every fencer, and a bigger one if you have DX14. Otherwise, almost all fencers will have exactly adjDX14 and that is boring. Just a few random thoughts.

07-26-2018, 03:00 PM	#2
Chris Rice Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland	Re: Design Principle Attribute trade-off Interesting points, but another key feature of TFT is that it's fairly rules light, so I don't want lots of rules for these things. If it's important to the story that the scholar has to stay up for nights searching for a key piece of information, I might consider his ST in that. Or I might not. If it's interesting that the Physician should be able to stitch someone up in a hurry, I might consider a roll against DX. Or I might not. Like I said, the point you make is an excellent one, and a good GM can use that understanding of the underlying principle to make the game more interesting.

07-26-2018, 03:05 PM	#3
Chris Rice Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland	Re: Design Principle Attribute trade-off Oh, and I do like prerequisites. I don't think I want DX 8 fencers in my game, or IQ 8 Alchemist for that matter, unless they've been badly injured and can no longer function at their previous level. They still have the knowledge/training but can no longer perform as they once did.

07-26-2018, 04:03 PM	#5
JLV Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Arizona	Re: Design Principle Attribute trade-off I'm with Chris on this -- a lot of what Nils proposes strikes me more as a GM ruling rather than a game rule. All things considered, I think each GM should feel free to create the level of extra complexity that they and their players are comfortable with, but I don't think it needs to be imposed in the rules themselves...

07-26-2018, 04:08 PM	#6
JLV Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Arizona	Re: Design Principle Attribute trade-off I'm with Chris on this -- a lot of what Nils proposes strikes me more as a GM ruling rather than a game rule. All things considered, I think each GM should feel free to create the level of extra complexity that they and their players are comfortable with, but I don't think it needs to be imposed in the rules themselves...