Re: (TFT) what Dark city modules have you played? Im thinking of getting

[Sgt Hulka <hulkasgt@yahoo.com>]

Everyone seems to be concluding the same thing, but coming to those conclusions from a slightly different angle. To come at it from yet another...

A 32-point character can carry a spear (ST 11) and wear leather armor and a light shield (Dex 13) and still be effective in combat, hitting on an 11- (AdjDex 11). That's a pretty good fighter, but it's not quite the level of dark ages household warrior or medieval knight, who would need to be able to do the same with at least a broadsword (ST 12), chainmail and large shield (Dex 15, AdjDex 11). 

So I've concluded that a 32 point character is the equivelant of a bondi or yeoman type...a farmer trained in war...or a roman rank and file soldier. Not a leader or a hero, who would require at least 34 or 35 points.

Keep in mind this assumes an 8 IQ, which I actually don't think means the character is stupid. It just means the character is more focused on warfare than on other pursuits. A 32-point shop keeper would be a less capable fighter.

--- On Sat, 5/19/12, Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) what Dark city modules have you played? Im thinking  of getting
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Date: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 7:44 AM
> On May 19, 2012, at 4:47 AM, Jay
> Carlisle wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Joel BoardgameRpger
> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Sewers is suggested at *ADVANCED: 38 point
> characters*
> >> 
> > 
> > ???
> > As I recall DCG has its own system that translates into
> TFT simply.
> > So I'm not trying to get into that directly but I am a
> bit curious as to
> > how folks view the ideas of attribute points and levels
> in TFT.
> 
> I believe we've had some discussions of this before, and it
> is all relative to the other characters in the campaign
> (including all the NPCs in the world).
> > 
> > In the view I use starting 32pt Figures are fresh out
> of high school so to
> > speak, a bit more talented than Joe Average at 30pts
> but not prodigy's.
> > Were they american football players they would be well
> recruited standouts
> > on their high school teams but redshirt recruits at top
> level university
> > programs.
> 
> I always viewed it as being more like:
> 30: Inexperienced/lacking in any real talent. People who are
> 30's rarely go much higher. Most people are not 30's, but
> they are a large minority. Not "average" but "low average."
> 32: This is more like average. Many attain this level of
> ability at one point in their lives or another.
> 
> Stats are flexible over time, of course, but if you see a
> random person from the age of 18 to 35, he's probably
> somewhere between 30 and 36, with the median being 32.
> 
> > College level standouts move into the 40 to 60ish
> attribute points level
> > which is a rough average at the professional level.
> 
> Thats a massive jump. What about 36? 38?
> I don't think I've ever had a 60 point character in my
> games.
> There is enough difference (a fairly large difference, that
> is) between a 36 pointer and a 32 pointer in my opinion.
> 
> 40 starts to represent the elite.... a 40 pt soldier is one
> of the better soldiers in his unit, or perhaps a knight
> trained from birth to fight. If he is a scholar then he is a
> professor... highly knowledgeable on many subjects (note
> that assuming he is average, 11, in DX and ST, then his IQ
> is 18-- genius level according to TFT, though I'd note that
> 'genius' does not mean 'einstein,' it just means 'very
> smart.')
> 
> By 50, in my game worlds, you're dealing with literally the
> best of the best. The best fighter in the kingdom, the best
> archer in the kingdom, the head wizard, etc.
> 
> I know this isn't reflected that well by the employment
> experience bonuses but I tend to assume that those would
> work differently for a non-PC and I also tend to tone those
> down for PCs... they are a little too much in the long run.
> I usually just reduce the rolls from once a week to once a
> month and multiply the salary by 4.
> 
> > Assuming that human maximums are around 30 in a
> attribute (only directly
> > suggested for ST but not too big a leap perhaps) then
> the statistical
> > maximum for humans is approaching 100 in a 'realistic'
> campaign.
> > Sure the attribute points get expensive in experience
> points, something
> > like 2.5 million exp per from 95 to 100 I think, but at
> that level of
> > attribute points it's not unimaginable to see
> situations where a Figure
> > might muster enough to get some mighty big chunks of
> exp quickly.
> > I'm thinking of the Dark Lord leading a small army of
> apprentices with Aid
> > and a mess of ST batteries mustering a nuke-like
> Fireball on a city.
> > And of course 6500 exp gets a Figure to 29 in an
> attribute at minimum and
> > 46 total points is still under 10,000 exp.
> 
> I've never had a character like that (my games are slightly
> more mundane than the dark lord leading the army of
> minions...) but I could see it being the most powerful
> individual human around. Totally fantasy-- how many people
> do you know are the strongest (herculean, in fact, so pure
> mythology), most dexterous, and intelligent people in the
> entire world all at once, and to the point where they are
> the best in all categories that the world has ever seen?
> 
> Might make for an interesting ubermensch big bad, if the
> characters have enough allies, but its not what I'd consider
> the 'normal' maximum for a human... its a level only
> attainable by nearly god-like (in the greek "hero" sense)
> beings, and even then it doesn't come naturally... they need
> to train to reach that level.
> 
> I have had characters approaching 30 in individual stats,
> however... if you're around 50, the best in the kingdom at
> something, you can easily be a 30 ST hercules-type hero. Or
> a total genius wizard. Or a great enough archer to easily
> split others' arrows. That said, you will be much more
> average in other ways.
> 
> > There also seems to be an assumption that Joe Average
> pretty much stays
> > static at 30 pts over the course of their lives even
> though the Job Lists
> > suggest otherwise for at least some Joe's.
> 
> Yeah, the job lists are clearly broken for basing the entire
> world around. Hence, I adjust them for PCs and almost
> entirely ignore them for NPCs.
> On one hand people do evolve over their life time, but
> Traveller got it right-- basically people learn their stuff
> when they're pretty young, and the rest of their lives
> they're mostly just using what they know.... they learn more
> about the world and become more experienced but their
> capabilities are actually fairly static.  Maybe a new
> skill every couple of years if you really focus on it.
> 
> > I also think about stuff like The Princess Bride or The
> Bridge of Birds
> > where the concept of the best in the world at something
> is strongly
> > featured in areas of the overall story often as driving
> reasons to quest.
> > What's stopping a Figure with New Followers from
> questing for the strongest
> > man in the world or similar?
> 
> Nothing, I like the idea and have used it before... its just
> that those characters (the strongest or whatever) tend to be
> somewhat limited in other ways.... not ridiculously so, but
> he's not going to be a super genius too.
> 
> > Another thought, if 30pts is considered an average in a
> medieval (ish)
> > setting what might the average be for a modern "first
> world" Joe?
> 
> I'd imagine they are roughly equivalent. The big change will
> be in Talents.
> I've read some stuff that suggests that very ancient man
> (pre-civilization hunter gatherer types) were at about
> olympic levels for us... some think that hunters could run
> at speeds approaching Ursain Bolt. (that said I think most
> people can, for a short period, probably do something
> similar if they are desperate enough... its just that on a
> track with no danger of death chasing after you, people
> don't have the burst, so its impressive that guys like Bolt
> can run like that 'casually')
> 
> However, by the time that people were farming and living in
> villages (3000 BC, say), that had changed... and honestly
> I'm doubtful of those archeologists who think that the above
> is true, because, honestly, look at hunter gatherers today.
> Sure, they aren't living on the best land, usually, and they
> are somewhat restricted in where they can go by the modern
> world, but ultimately that doesn't make up for the
> difference between "fairly average guy who might be
> considered fit and relatively experienced in
> spearing/archery or whatever compared to a 'modern' man" and
> "better than anyone alive today."
> 
> Anyway. Medieval-ish. Ever went to a museum and stood by a
> suit of armor? Knights were very short.
> 
> I'd say that a modern person is still around 30-34 on
> average. Strength really hasn't changed that much (people
> probably put more points in intelligence and DX and less in
> ST but its ultimately averaging out). DX has arguably gone
> up as people have better nutrition so keep their eyesight
> better for longer. IQ is probably about the same (little
> higher?) but people get more IQ-y talents and less fighting
> and farming talents.
> 
> The base line for some talents changed. No longer does
> mathematics mean "can do any math at all" as everyone can do
> math, its more like "knows post-calculus math well and uses
> it."
> 
> > I consider that statistical maximums are pretty much
> inevitable at some
> > point in a campaign game.
> > This doesn't mean that there's a bunch of Figures on
> the high end of the
> > statistical bell and in a setup with a strong fixed
> class society where 80
> > or 90 percent of the total population are peasants the
> few near the
> > maximums are most likely peasants who may never be
> considered for
> > knighthood or otherwise excluded from most
> consideration but even then an
> > occasional Faraday or Ramanujan trickles through the
> cracks.
> > Or maybe I'm completely off base...
> > It's something like 25 million exp to get to 100
> attribute points.
> > At 20 exp per Joe Average it's around one and a quarter
> million Joe's to
> > max a Figure statistically.
> > Rome was probably near that population in her height
> and perhaps a few
> > other ancient cities were knocking on that door
> population wise.
> > Nothing says the Dark Lord gets exp for nuking a city
> but nothing says he
> > wouldn't get anything for it either.
> > Oddness abounds...
> 
> One definitely cannot reach those levels by fighting alone.
> > 
> > "Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like
> wet tissue paper,
> > tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand
> pounds."
> > =====
> > Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> > Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com
> with the message body
> > "unsubscribe tft"
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com
> with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"