(TFT) Warp War

["Dave Seagraves" <dseagraves@austin.rr.com>]

Rick writes . . .

> I also have kept playing with the WarpWar rules to try to build a
> fun campaign game out of it.

   Warp War is a really nice little game.  Did you actually write up your WW
campaign rules?  Anything in electronic form that you can email our way?

> I've seen or heard of about 12 or 15 TFT campaigns since
> Metagaming's demise where the GM's found one way or another
> to give the players more 'memory' to buy more talents.  I
> suggested that rather than all of these complicated systems,
> the easiest fix would be to lower the cost of most of the
> talents (by about 1/2 of their original cost).

   I disagree.  The optional adjIQ/IQ superscript rule proposed
independently by myself and another poster is an easier and more elegant
solution to the "problem" of lack of IQ points.
   Take this test: Without looking in ITL, what are the IQ point costs of
the following talents: Fencing, Pole Weapons, Thief, Scholar, Literacy,
Naturalist?  I'm sure the average TFT player knows every single one by
heart.  With most (but not all) of the talents halved in cost, you have to
learn the cost of many talents all over again, e.g.:

   "Is Fencing halved or still normal price?" ::looks up new price in
campaign's ground rules::

   The other bad part is that it's a basic change to the rules of the game,
which players /must/ pay attention to during character creation and
enhancement.  Very annoying.
   The adjIQ/superscript rule is /less/ complicated.  Players have the
option of buying 2 more IQ points for 1 attribute point.  Because it's not a
basic change to the rules (i.e. it's a "plug-in" rule) players can ignore it
(and not use it) if they like.  Very simple.

> I have added many new talents for 2 basic reasons.  First to
> allow new adventure hooks.  (Talents such as Ship's Captain
> and Admiral.)

   Post 'em!  8^)

> Everyone seems to like new talents, and several dozen have been
> suggested.  (How many are you up to now Michael?)  If any signi-
> ficant number of new talents are added this will place even more
> pressure on the character's demand for memory.

   Not necessarily a bad thing.  Several characters in my campaign have
learned some of these new talents and made their characters more distinctive
(instead of continuing to raise their ST and DX).  Of course they used the
adjIQ rule to get more IQ points for them (instead of being forced to raise
their IQ's to rediculous levels).

> I feel that the value for talents is much less per memory point
> than what wizards get for their memory.  Contrast what a competent
> fighter gets for 2 memory: Sword (no -4 DX penalty using a sword),
> or Mimic (can make animal noises and talk without an accent), to
> what a competent wizard gets for 2 memory:  Lightning, or Summon
> 4 hex Dragon.

   Sounds fair to me.  Those spells are nice, but wizards effectively have
to spend /hit points/ (i.e. fatigue) to power spells!  (At least in the
unmodified rules.)

> Finally there are some character classes (like the standard Thief
> / Assassin of fantasy) which take up a huge amount of memory.  How
> they are supposed to have all those talents and then disguised
> themselves as even a half decent fighter I have no idea?

   Well . . .  you really can't unless you get cheesey and really load him
down with handicaps.  Start small and work your way up.


Thorn writes . . .

> The rules as they stand are fine.  If you will accept that
> peasants can't be trained in less than a year (the time to
> forget Farming, Driver, and whatever), or that when your
> son returns home from the war, he has gained the six IQ
> needed to learn Pole, Shield, and whatever.

   I think very few peasants (if not medieval folk in general) have used all
of their IQ points, which could be representative of their poor education.
(I use "Education" as a temporary attribute when randomly generating talents
and spells for NPC's.)  Put them in basic training and they'll spend them on
combat talents fast enough, possibly to the point of increasing their adjIQ
past their actual IQ.

> Your Mileage May Vary, but for me, the cost of Talents is fine, or
> so close as to be 'not broken'.

   Agreed.  Leave 'em alone, I say.


Micheal writes . . .

> So many that I dont even bother to count them anymore.

   Hey Mike, I think you left out many of the talents and spells that I've
posted on the list.  Don't you like them?  Don't you like /me?/  ::sniff::
;^(. . .


Dan writes . . .

> In contrast, a table would not only be easier to construct
> but would make it easier to introduce new talents.

   An IQ points table would be almost as easy to use as adjIQ, but there's
less flexibility for players (and players /hate/ that).  Less flex' for GM's
as well (who's NPC's really should be playing by the same rules if he's
being fair).  With a table system you're just delaying the "lack of memory
problem" until later on down experience table.

Dave Seagraves
Seagraves Mutual Fund   dseagraves@austin.rr.com   1 (512) 255-2760
Current fund value: $1.82 per share.


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