Re: (TFT) TFT Release -> Cheap talents

[Pasha and or Rick Smith <pnrsmith@istar.ca>]

Hi Everyone,

> >>>>>>  In summary, the single most common change
> >>>>>>to the TFT rules I've seen, is various ways to give 
> >>>>>>experienced figures more memory.  Thus my suggestion
> >>>>>>that if there was a single change to TFT, it is that the
> >>>>>>memory cost of most talents is reduced.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Rick

>Lightning is a GREAT deal for 2 IQ points. But you can't really get a job
>casting Lightning can you? For pure Area Combat then yes, it's unbalanced.
>But in terms of role-playing Lightning is not nearly as valuable as
>Horsemanship in the 'real' (fantasy) world. .

	Actually lightning costs 1 memory. I had mis-
written my example.  But the error makes your reply to 
my example stronger.

	The point is that many people in the historical
real world who were not vast intellectuals, had many 
more points than were possible in TFT.

>Well, in my opinion, there are no character classes like the 'standard'
>Theif/Assassin in fantasy. These are purely D&D constructs. Grey Mouser is
>perfectly possible in TFT for about 40-60 points. 

	I disagree.  It was explicitly stated in the
stories that the Grey Mouser and Fafird were the 
best swordsmen in Newhon.  They did not have
fine or enchanted blades.  Completely apart from
the mouser's thieving skills, how could he with 
his rapier beat a 60 attribute fighter with 
great sword and plate armor?

>I agree that an option for more memory is desired, but I dont agree that
>lowering the cost of Talents is the way to go. Lowering the cost of the
>existing talents GREATLY complicates building BEGINNING characters. 

	I can see your point here.  Especially 
with beginning PLAYERS, it is nice to be able to 
quickly pick a few talents and be off and running.

>Beginning characters are really just fine the way they are. The game is
>plently fun and plenty balanced right up until 36 points or thereabouts.  
>If it aint broken why fix it?

	Balanced up to 36 attributes?!?  I agree with your 
statement, but doesn't this sound wrong to you?  That is only 
4 attributes past a beginning character!  Assuming that people
can go up an attribute every two 4 to 6 hour game sessions, 
after only 8 sessions the rules are beginning to have problems.

>You said yourself that the problem is mostly occuring at high levels. So my
>proposed solution (this is just for fun of course - and to clog people's
>in-boxes) is to only 'cure' the problem at high levels. Let them trade a +1
>IQ/+1 talent point gain with simply a +2 Talent point gain but no change to
>their IQ Saving rolls. This is also mathematically easier to do than
>dividing the cost of all talents by half.

	I don't follow the above paragraph at all.

>This is something that would rarely be done at low levels. Would certainly
>be cost-effective at high levels without changing the balance of the game
>at low levels. 
>
>The problem with reducing Sword and Fencing to half-point cost is that now
>town guardsmen could afford to be expert fencers! This is not something I
>think makes sense or want to see happen in TFT! But logically, if the costs
>were all halved it SHOULD happen! 

	Assuming an average non-adventurer is 
a 30 attribute figure (see the last paragraph on page
7 of ITL for the reference) to get Fencing they 
would need an IQ 10, DX 14 which leaves them a 
6 ST.  However most town guards are picked so
that they have a certain amount of bulk in order to
intimidate their way out of fights.  If we assume 
that a guard has to have at least an 11 ST, then
these guards with fencing are 35 attribute figures.

>However, if the higher level characters can increase their memory total
>through expereince, it's a reasonable option that doesn't change the game
>for all the other npcs of the world! 

	I also agree with this.  For the last
8 years in my campaign, I've allow people to 
buy memory separately from IQ using my 
superscript rules (posted before on this list).
Despite the (I feel) many advantages to this 
system, the superscripts were roundly criticized 
because they were too complicated.  lowering
the memory costs of most talents is a MUCH
simpler way to handle the problem.

>It's like adding the Endurance stat to TFT because mice and elephants
>exists. There's no reason to change the basic rules for a warrior/wizard
>melee just becuase High-Level characters in the world need more
>differentiation.

	Many years ago I was known as
a killer GM, where PC's DIED quite regularly.
One advantage of being a killer GM is that the
players spent a lot of time at low attribute levels
where TFT works best.  However I've been
much more reluctant to kill PC's the last dozen
years or so, and most of my PC's have worked
up to high levels.  I think that TFT should be
adjusted so that it works at higher levels.

>PS: Sorry for those who have heard this debate before, but I enjoy writing
>with a intelligent conversationalist like Rick and I think it improves my
writing skills to summarize my ideas as succintly as possible!
Michael 

=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"