Leveling up skills

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Yes. It is an unfortunate result of attribute prerequisites; get rid of those and the uniformity disappears.

In as much as that may refer to ST and DX prerequisites, I wholly agree. Learning how to do something you aren't (yet) going to be physically very good at makes its own kind of sense, and the exclusion of the choice has always struck me as gamey. For myself I'd usually if not always want to, say, raise my DX first and take the Talent second, but if someone else feels like gambling by taking those advancements in reverse order, I think they should be entitled to try it. If that strategy is not meat to work out, then it won't work out -- problem solved.

But IQ prerequisites still seem necessary. First because one's starting IQ is the de facto prerequisite for beginning with n number of talents and spells. Secondly because setting minimum IQs for talents provides the mechanism (design mechanism) for placing very advanced talents out of the reach of starting and inexperienced characters. Unfortunately I don't think TFT has done it's best at implementing that strategy, since there are expert level talents still set at IQ levels in fairly easy reach of starting characters.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

In as much as that may refer to ST and DX prerequisites, I wholly agree. Learning how to do something you aren't (yet) going to be physically very good at makes its own kind of sense, and the exclusion of the choice has always struck me as gamey. For myself I'd usually if not always want to, say, raise my DX first and take the Talent second, but if someone else feels like gambling by taking those advancements in reverse order, I think they should be entitled to try it. If that strategy is not meat to work out, then it won't work out -- problem solved.

But IQ prerequisites still seem necessary. First because one's starting IQ is the de facto prerequisite for beginning with n number of talents and spells. Secondly because setting minimum IQs for talents provides the mechanism (design mechanism) for placing very advanced talents out of the reach of starting and inexperienced characters. Unfortunately I don't think TFT has done it's best at implementing that strategy, since there are expert level talents still set at IQ levels in fairly easy reach of starting characters.

One serious problem with attribute prerequisites is that they often give a bonus to tasks with rolls against the same attribute. For instance, Acrobatics has a 12 DX prerequisite, and it lets acrobats roll 1 fewer dice when avoiding falls and such--and these rolls are against DX. A better way of keeping certain talents out of reach of 32-point characters is to have an attribute TOTAL prerequisite.

[TippetsTX]

I've found that using TAP-based prerequisites (i.e. tiers) dodges some of these issues though a true 2e should take a hard look at many talents as well as their associated actions. There's a bit too much subjectivity in how to add/remove dice before talent benefits are added to the equation IMO.

We're straying into new tangents here, but it's all good stuff.


P.S. In my experience, TFT's lack of the class-paradigm is one of the easier arguments to win against D&D-like systems. Once players see how simple and flexible (and player-driven) character creation is, they will rarely want to tie themselves down to a set of rigid class-directed abilities and skills again. Getting younger players to embrace the game's deadliness and general lack of super-heroics, however... that's where the challenge more typically lies based on my own player conversion attempts.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

One serious problem with attribute prerequisites is that they often give a bonus to tasks with rolls against the same attribute. For instance, Acrobatics has a 12 DX prerequisite, and it lets acrobats roll 1 fewer dice when avoiding falls and such--and these rolls are against DX.

I forgot to mention that one, and it's the one that annoys me most! It subverts the usual mechanism so characteristic of the rest of TFT, where everything is a trade-off between less of one thing to have more of a different thing. Increasing an attribute to effectively enjoy having even more of the same attribute doesn't have the right flavor for TFT.

Originally Posted by Shostak

A better way of keeping certain talents out of reach of 32-point characters is to have an attribute TOTAL prerequisite.

Oh I like that!

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

IQ prerequisites still seem necessary. First because one's starting IQ is the de facto prerequisite for beginning with n number of talents and spells.

I don't really see why that makes IQ prerequisites necessary. They seem like quite separate ideas.

Also it's far from clear a TFT 2.0 would want to keep that idea. It might prefer to completely separate attributes from skills, the way GURPS and most modern games do.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Secondly because setting minimum IQs for talents provides the mechanism (design mechanism) for placing very advanced talents out of the reach of starting and inexperienced characters.

One could say the same about ST and DX prerequisites: not many starting characters can have Toughness II, for instance.

The main difference is that high IQ is less likely to be useful for other things.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Unfortunately I don't think TFT has done it's best at implementing that strategy, since there are expert level talents still set at IQ levels in fairly easy reach of starting characters.

I'm not sure it has, but I'm not sure it was trying. What Legacy TFT has done is make it impractical to acquire them after generation, thus forcing anyone who wants them to acquire them early. Kind of the opposite of what it sounds you want.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I don't really see why that makes IQ prerequisites necessary. They seem like quite separate ideas.

Not necessary, but I would say desirable. IQ capping (at least) starting characters' Talents was surely a deliberate parallel to the capping of knowable Spells first introduced in Wizard. Not handling those two things the same way introduces more rules, which runs counter to the original premise of keeping TFT as simple and streamlined as possible.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

What Legacy TFT has done is make it impractical to acquire them after generation, thus forcing anyone who wants them to acquire them early. Kind of the opposite of what it sounds you want.

That's an accurate inference indeed. Character self-determination through experience and advancement is a lynchpin of TFT, setting it well apart from games such as D&D that lock you into a character class from the start. Making it impractical to get certain Talents unless taken at character generation opposes that freedom.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

IQ capping (at least) starting characters' Talents was surely a deliberate parallel to the capping of knowable Spells first introduced in Wizard. Not handling those two things the same way introduces more rules, which runs counter to the original premise of keeping TFT as simple and streamlined as possible.

Sure, spells and talents are expressions of the same idea and should work the same way. But they don't need to work the way they do now. In particular, the link between IQ and points of spells and talents doesn't need to be kept.

I don't know why Wizard characters have a number of spells equal to their IQ, it might have just seemed a good idea at the time.

Character self-determination through experience and advancement is a lynchpin of TFT, setting it well apart from games such as D&D that lock you into a character class from the start. Making it impractical to get certain Talents unless taken at character generation opposes that freedom.

Agreed. But I don't think that was intentional, rather I think the experience system was changed at the last minute based on very specific ideas SJ had of what a campaign was like, and didn't get the analysis or testing it deserved.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Sure, spells and talents are expressions of the same idea and should work the same way. But they don't need to work the way they do now.

My feelings exactly.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

In particular, the link between IQ and points of spells and talents doesn't need to be kept.

I have argued and suggested, even long before Legacy, point costs for spells and talents would be better divorced into two separate memory tracks. Adding talents shouldn't cost a wizard spells, and learning a spell shouldn't cost anyone an entire skill (or the "memory points" towards a talent). In both Classic and Legacy it has always worked as if learning to cook means you can't know as many recipes. We wouldn't say being a Bard lessens the number of songs or epics one could memorize. Now maybe the "gate keeper" for how many of each a figure could have shouldn't be IQ, but short of introducing a new attribute (which I'd hope we never need) I can't think of a better stat than what we already have.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I don't know why Wizard characters have a number of spells equal to their IQ, it might have just seemed a good idea at the time.

Because... it was 1978?! :)

Melee didn't even have an IQ attribute at the time. Spell knowledge for the upcoming Wizard had to be limited by something, and SJ invented IQ to do it -- it was perfect at the time.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Agreed. But I don't think that was intentional, rather I think the experience system was changed at the last minute based on very specific ideas SJ had of what a campaign was like, and didn't get the analysis or testing it deserved.

Yeah, the Classic rules had decades of playtesting by a few thousand people, but the tweaks introduced in Legacy had only a couple years testing at best, and then only in-house while SJ and staff had to still work on the rest of the company's product line. It was a monumental task to revive TFT, and while a few new bugs got introduced they can't be faulted for anything. If it was perfect we wouldn't be having all this fun talking about house rules!

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I have argued and suggested, even long before Legacy, point costs for spells and talents would be better divorced into two separate memory tracks. Adding talents shouldn't cost a wizard spells, and learning a spell shouldn't cost anyone an entire skill (or the "memory points" towards a talent). In both Classic and Legacy it has always worked as if learning to cook means you can't know as many recipes. We wouldn't say being a Bard lessens the number of songs or epics one could memorize. Now maybe the "gate keeper" for how many of each a figure could have shouldn't be IQ, but short of introducing a new attribute (which I'd hope we never need) I can't think of a better stat than what we already have.

I'm not sure your BARD analogy works, though. Learning 'songs' or 'recipes' isn't at all comparable to learning how manipulate reality in a specific way. TFT puts no limit on incremental learning of new procedural knowledge.

More importantly, creating separate memory tracks runs contrary to one of TFT's core strengths IMO... players must choose between different character abilities and it can't be a real choice if they don't come out of the same resource pool. To that end, I believe the aspect of IQ as a cap (beyond character creation) on acquired talents/spells needs to be restored to the game. That's more important to me than the attribute's use as a qualifier or prerequisite.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

creating separate memory tracks runs contrary to one of TFT's core strengths IMO... players must choose between different character abilities and it can't be a real choice if they don't come out of the same resource pool. To that end, I believe the aspect of IQ as a cap (beyond character creation) on acquired talents/spells needs to be restored to the game. That's more important to me than the attribute's use as a qualifier or prerequisite.

I would use this argument, or one very like it, to draw exactly the opposite conclusion. In RAW IQ has many different uses - providing talents and spells, helping with academic rolls, limiting the choice of spells and talents, willpower tasks, perception tasks. If, as I think you say, we want the different character abilities to be independently purchased with the same game currency, then we should give serious thought to separating these applications.

One way in which this could be done, which I'm fond of proposing is a separation of intelligence into academic intelligence and cunning, since many fictional and real characters have one and not the other.

But another way would be to detach the number of spells and talents, having them be separately purchased. (And combining the two systems, as Legacy does, is inelegant.)