[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(TFT) Poison

I dislike weapons that allow the characters to be better by burning money.
Poison,  exploding gems and in extreme cases universal solvent are
examples. Gunpowder would be but it's not all that effective. Poisons you
extract from animals you kill aren't a problem if they aren't practically
salable.

IMO burning money every time you use something is more of a problem than
paying money up front to be better, which is a primary mechanism for TFT
characters to improve. It's hard to explain why but here's a stab at it:

If every character can be much stronger by burning money then every combat
becomes an exercise in, not just trying to win, but trying to show a net
profit. So if a fight is hard enough to be a challenge it's probably too
hard to break even on because toy will need to burn a lot of expensive
ammunition. Conversely the fights which the party can make a profit on are
fights where they are saying, "We could win this easy with exploding gems
but we're trying to do it on the cheap." So a lot of drama goes out of the
game - "can we win without expense?" is a lot less exciting than "are a
going to die?"

So I would probably try to keep the party from having any access to poison.

-------
David
 On May 23, 2012 11:11 PM, "TFT Digest" <tft-owner@brainiac.com> wrote:

>
> TFT Digest           Wednesday, May 23 2012           Volume 04 : Number
> 262
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sgt Hulka <hulkasgt@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) what Dark city modules have you played? Im thinking  of
> getting
>
> 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:04:16 -0500
> From: Mark Tapley <mtapley@swri.edu>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Aimed Shots
>
> At 0:09 -0400 5/22/12, TFT Joel wrote:
> >Ok. I took a breath.   You make some good points. What you are saying
> >essentially is to reward characters for their character designs, which I
> >agree with.
> >
> >I must say in the many years ive been playing this, I never considered
> >aimed shots.  I dont know why. I guess im not adventurous. I dont recall
> it
> >ever coming up. I guess I always thought that a -6 will never hit, mostly
> >because i tend to not min/max/munchkin my characters. I tend to build my
> >characters aesthetically. Maybe thats why they die young (and stay
> pretty)....
>
>        Well. Around here, the ongoing problem is MPNS hobbits
> (stands for Murderous Psycho Ninja Sniper). For a beginning hobbit,
> ST:4, DX:17, IQ:9, Thrown weapons, huge handfuls of sha-ken. Racial
> bonuses kick in, and pretty much every one of the sha-ken is likely
> to hit *and* every one does +1 damage. Unarmored opponents are
> shredded; if the hobbit backs off a few hexes to run up the distance
> adjDX penalty, half of the handful will miss the first target - and
> go on to take out the *next* target. For armored opponents, the
> head-shot rules still come in handy if the hobbit also carries a
> dagger. And then there's weapon poison...
>
>        Once, it was an amazing curiosity. Now, there's at least one
> every party. Sigh.
>
>        On the one hand, it was a board game first, and the MPNS
> hobbit players should be commended for finding a beneficial
> corner-case in the rules. Really high adjDX simply rocks.
>
>        On the other hand, I feel really bad for the guys that take
> the traditional sword and shield and get left in the dust on total
> kills, by a character that "...might have vanished ages ago if not
> for one thing: They are very likeable."  - but nevertheless spent
> much of his childhood learning to use stealthy-kill weapons.
>
>        er, yeah.
>
>        My favorite idea so far is, "use it, expect to fight it".
> That is, sooner or later my party is going to run into a nest of
> short, cuddly highwaymen sporting belts loaded with jingling pouches
> of sharp, pointy things. Can't wait to see the looks on their faces.
>
> At 0:09 -0400 5/22/12, Joel wrote:
> >Thats one of the things I appreciate about TFT. I have been trying really
> >hard to get the character to look at the talent list, so they can become
> >useful out of combat.
> >
> >Its  a hard push.
>
>        I find it to be a relatively easy *pull*.
>
> "Anyone have engineer? Too bad, the fascinating looking machine
> (CoughTrebuchetCough) isn't going to do you any good, then. How are
> you going to get up that wall with the orcs on top?"
>
> "There's a medium-sized rowboat on the bank. The river is slow here,
> but downstream you hear a muted thundering noise. How do you get to
> the other side?"
>
> "Those of you prisoners with useful skills will be spared for castle
> duty. The rest go to the mines, and should prepare your wills in
> advance. Now let's see, we need a beekeeper, a baker, 2 stableboys, a
> gardener, oh, and I don't suppose any of you scum can translate
> sindarin or transcribe maps or sing a decent ballad?"
>
>        If the campaign mostly rewards fighting - or if the campaign
> requires fighting, to the extent that anyone that can't fight won't
> survive long enough to exercise their other talents - then the
> players learn fast to load up on fighting skills. The converse is
> also true, as Neil's experience shows.
>        FWIW, watching Boy Scouts at a camp, trying to earn various
> merit badges, can be pretty instructive in this context. Someone
> without the skills in a given area can be amazingly helpless.
>        In our last game, the MPNS hobbit was also a cook, and ended
> up retiring to open a sushi restaurant.
>
>        Hope this helps!
> - --
>                                                - Mark     210-379-4635
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Large Asteroids headed toward planets
> inhabited by beings that don't have
> technology adequate to stop them:
>
>                                Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:50:39 -0500
> From: raito@raito.com
> Subject: Re: (TFT) How good is 32 points?
>
> > Thats one of the things I appreciate about TFT. I have been trying really
> > hard to get the character to look at the talent list, so they can become
> > useful out of combat.
> >
> > Its  a hard push.
>
> It doesn't have to be. It depends on the campaigns. As has been said, if
> it's all combat, that what the characters load up on.
>
> In the campaigns I ran and played in, combat was a knuckle-biting affair,
> and you just didn't do it unless you had an edge, or no other choice.
>
> They were also heavy on temporal power, as opposed to character sheet
> power. Sure, the characters went adventuring, but carefully, and only when
> it looked liek it was profitable.
>
> It's a huge difference between TFT and DND, and it's mostly because of the
> lack of healing and healing magic. It's easy to fight when no one really
> dies.
>
> In my campaign, I do let Physickers treat per wound. It seems reasonable,
> and goes along with things like the rules for armour/shield damage (which
> I also use). Get a bunch of 1ST cuts, and they can be healed pretty
> easily. Take that 6ST as 1 wound, and you'll be off your feet for a while,
> Physicker or no.
>
> There's some research out there that in the age of duelling with swords,
> 75% of the participants died. Combat is deadly.
>
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.com
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:02:32 -0700
> From: PvK <pvk@oz.net>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Aimed Shots
>
> Seems to me that the Halfling ranged weapon bonus was there in original
> Melee (before ITL and Talents were a concept) and so could (/should) be
> replaced with a description saying that Halflings tend to be good with
> throwing, and many of them learn Thrown Weapons or Missile Weapons, but
> they don't get an inherent bonus. Or for those who like racial bonuses,
> give them a discount on the IQ points required to study those talents, but
> no inherent bonus.
>
> Also GM's don't have to include sha-ken or make them available, especially
> not to Halflings.
>
> Although, I am imagining a funny scenario where you essentially copy the
> Krull plotline with the twist that the destined savior would be a halfling,
> and the "glaive"(tm) would be some enchanted sha-ken with Quiver of
> Replenishment and Weapon/Armor Enchantment. LOLz.
>
> PvK
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:43:18 -0500
> From: Mark Tapley <mtapley@swri.edu>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Aimed Shots
>
> At 0:09 -0400 5/22/12, TFT Joel wrote:
> >Ok. I took a breath.   You make some good points. What you are saying
> >essentially is to reward characters for their character designs, which I
> >agree with.
> >
> >I must say in the many years ive been playing this, I never considered
> >aimed shots.  I dont know why. I guess im not adventurous. I dont recall
> it
> >ever coming up. I guess I always thought that a -6 will never hit, mostly
> >because i tend to not min/max/munchkin my characters. I tend to build my
> >characters aesthetically. Maybe thats why they die young (and stay
> pretty)....
>
>        Well. Around here, the ongoing problem is MPNS hobbits
> (stands for Murderous Psycho Ninja Sniper). For a beginning hobbit,
> ST:4, DX:17, IQ:9, Thrown weapons, huge handfuls of sha-ken. Racial
> bonuses kick in, and pretty much every one of the sha-ken is likely
> to hit *and* every one does +1 damage. Unarmored opponents are
> shredded; if the hobbit backs off a few hexes to run up the distance
> adjDX penalty, half of the handful will miss the first target - and
> go on to take out the *next* target. For armored opponents, the
> head-shot rules still come in handy if the hobbit also carries a
> dagger. And then there's weapon poison...
>
>        Once, it was an amazing curiosity. Now, there's at least one
> every party. Sigh.
>
>        On the one hand, it was a board game first, and the MPNS
> hobbit players should be commended for finding a beneficial
> corner-case in the rules. Really high adjDX simply rocks.
>
>        On the other hand, I feel really bad for the guys that take
> the traditional sword and shield and get left in the dust on total
> kills, by a character that "...might have vanished ages ago if not
> for one thing: They are very likeable."  - but nevertheless spent
> much of his childhood learning to use stealthy-kill weapons.
>
>        er, yeah.
>
>        My favorite idea so far is, "use it, expect to fight it".
> That is, sooner or later my party is going to run into a nest of
> short, cuddly highwaymen sporting belts loaded with jingling pouches
> of sharp, pointy things. Can't wait to see the looks on their faces.
>
> At 0:09 -0400 5/22/12, Joel wrote:
> >Thats one of the things I appreciate about TFT. I have been trying really
> >hard to get the character to look at the talent list, so they can become
> >useful out of combat.
> >
> >Its  a hard push.
>
>        I find it to be a relatively easy *pull*.
>
> "Anyone have engineer? Too bad, the fascinating looking machine
> (CoughTrebuchetCough) isn't going to do you any good, then. How are
> you going to get up that wall with the orcs on top?"
>
> "There's a medium-sized rowboat on the bank. The river is slow here,
> but downstream you hear a muted thundering noise. How do you get to
> the other side?"
>
> "Those of you prisoners with useful skills will be spared for castle
> duty. The rest go to the mines, and should prepare your wills in
> advance. Now let's see, we need a beekeeper, a baker, 2 stableboys, a
> gardener, oh, and I don't suppose any of you scum can translate
> sindarin or transcribe maps or sing a decent ballad?"
>
>        If the campaign mostly rewards fighting - or if the campaign
> requires fighting, to the extent that anyone that can't fight won't
> survive long enough to exercise their other talents - then the
> players learn fast to load up on fighting skills. The converse is
> also true, as Neil's experience shows.
>        FWIW, watching Boy Scouts at a camp, trying to earn various
> merit badges, can be pretty instructive in this context. Someone
> without the skills in a given area can be amazingly helpless.
>        In our last game, the MPNS hobbit was also a cook, and ended
> up retiring to open a sushi restaurant.
>
>        Hope this helps!
> - --
>                                                - Mark     210-379-4635
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Large Asteroids headed toward planets
> inhabited by beings that don't have
> technology adequate to stop them:
>
>                                Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:16:24 -0400
> From: Joel BoardgameRpger <joel.siragher@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Archery/Missles/aimed shots
>
> Yeah, I guess I didnt read that right. But that seems to be a hoot.
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
>
> > I like the idea of a healing potion being more useful
> > to strong figures!
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-21-05 at 17:10 -0400, Joel BoardgameRpger wrote:
> > > ... Sample Potions:
> > >
> > > 1. Potion of Healing - Heals 1HP for every 3HP you have.
> > > ...
> >  =====
> > 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:18:46 -0400
> From: Joel BoardgameRpger <joel.siragher@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) what Dark city modules have you played? Im thinking of
> getting
>
> good point hulka.
>
> And thats the reason I came up with my spread sheet. I wanted to see what
> all the numbers looked like from different point total perspective.
>
> Ok, so I put about 20 hours into sheet, but That will save other people on
> research time.
>
> So aesthetic/altruistic :D
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Sgt Hulka <hulkasgt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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"
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:21:06 -0400
> From: Joel BoardgameRpger <joel.siragher@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) How good is 32 points?
>
> i think the physicker  per wound thing is pretty universal.
> Maybe my next game will have more skill based characters.
>
> I read on a TFT website, that I found in the waybackmachine.org, something
> about using experience points to buy talents.
>
> Does any one do that, currently?
>
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM, <raito@raito.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thats one of the things I appreciate about TFT. I have been trying
> really
> > > hard to get the character to look at the talent list, so they can
> become
> > > useful out of combat.
> > >
> > > Its  a hard push.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be. It depends on the campaigns. As has been said, if
> > it's all combat, that what the characters load up on.
> >
> > In the campaigns I ran and played in, combat was a knuckle-biting affair,
> > and you just didn't do it unless you had an edge, or no other choice.
> >
> > They were also heavy on temporal power, as opposed to character sheet
> > power. Sure, the characters went adventuring, but carefully, and only
> when
> > it looked liek it was profitable.
> >
> > It's a huge difference between TFT and DND, and it's mostly because of
> the
> > lack of healing and healing magic. It's easy to fight when no one really
> > dies.
> >
> > In my campaign, I do let Physickers treat per wound. It seems reasonable,
> > and goes along with things like the rules for armour/shield damage (which
> > I also use). Get a bunch of 1ST cuts, and they can be healed pretty
> > easily. Take that 6ST as 1 wound, and you'll be off your feet for a
> while,
> > Physicker or no.
> >
> > There's some research out there that in the age of duelling with swords,
> > 75% of the participants died. Combat is deadly.
> >
> > Neil Gilmore
> > raito@raito.com
> > =====
> > 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:08:07 -0700
> From: PvK <pvk@oz.net>
> Subject: (TFT) Experience for skills
>
> I think paying EP for Talents and being able to exceed IQ total that way,
> makes FAR more sense, than "running out of IQ space" to learn talents, and
> the option of going to the Wizard's Guild to pay someone to erase your
> memory of a talent, to make room for more (though it is certainly
> hilarious, and could be kept in as a TFT novelty even if it were a
> charlatan service).
>
> This was sort of in the house rules we were using in Thail when Rick was
> running that online TFT campaign, which I think is from house rules that
> are used by several others. It was done by paying EP for "superscripted"
> IQ, i.e. you could have a split IQ of 13/15, where your IQ is 13 for most
> purposes, but you can memorize 15 points worth of talents/spells. So when
> you spend EP, you could just increase your memory rather than both IQ and
> memory.
>
> I prefer GURPS to TFT though, where skills are bought with the same points
> used for attributes and other stuff, and it doesn't seem to be a balance
> issue at all, there. In fact, it seems to make more sense and be more
> balanced and realistic when the main result of experience is increased
> skills rather than having the nature of the character change (by bulging
> attributes). GURPS though also tracks skills by level so there is no limit
> to the amount of points you could put into skills (also because there are
> many more skills), and the TFT house rules Rick was using also have
> multiple levels of weapon skills which were sort of similar. In fact in
> those rules, the best fighters were the ones with the advanced weapon
> talents, which tended to make them far more deadly and survivable than
> someone without them even if they had higher attributes.
>
> PvK
>
> - --- joel.siragher@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >I read on a TFT website, that I found in the waybackmachine.org,
> something
> about using experience points to buy talents.
>
> >Does any one do that, currently?
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:39:05 -0400
> From: Joel BoardgameRpger <joel.siragher@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Experience for skills
>
> thanks for the info on paying for Talents with xp.
>
> Im an open minded person.  Can you think of a way to get rid of the 43
> steps of combat in gurps?
>
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM, PvK <pvk@oz.net> wrote:
>
> > I think paying EP for Talents and being able to exceed IQ total that way,
> > makes FAR more sense, than "running out of IQ space" to learn talents,
> and
> > the option of going to the Wizard's Guild to pay someone to erase your
> > memory of a talent, to make room for more (though it is certainly
> > hilarious, and could be kept in as a TFT novelty even if it were a
> > charlatan service).
> >
> > This was sort of in the house rules we were using in Thail when Rick was
> > running that online TFT campaign, which I think is from house rules that
> > are used by several others. It was done by paying EP for "superscripted"
> > IQ, i.e. you could have a split IQ of 13/15, where your IQ is 13 for most
> > purposes, but you can memorize 15 points worth of talents/spells. So when
> > you spend EP, you could just increase your memory rather than both IQ and
> > memory.
> >
> > I prefer GURPS to TFT though, where skills are bought with the same
> points
> > used for attributes and other stuff, and it doesn't seem to be a balance
> > issue at all, there. In fact, it seems to make more sense and be more
> > balanced and realistic when the main result of experience is increased
> > skills rather than having the nature of the character change (by bulging
> > attributes). GURPS though also tracks skills by level so there is no
> limit
> > to the amount of points you could put into skills (also because there are
> > many more skills), and the TFT house rules Rick was using also have
> > multiple levels of weapon skills which were sort of similar. In fact in
> > those rules, the best fighters were the ones with the advanced weapon
> > talents, which tended to make them far more deadly and survivable than
> > someone without them even if they had higher attributes.
> >
> > PvK
> >
> > --- joel.siragher@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >I read on a TFT website, that I found in the waybackmachine.org,
> > something
> > about using experience points to buy talents.
> >
> > >Does any one do that, currently?
> > =====
> > 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:57:14 -0700
> From: PvK <pvk@oz.net>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Experience for skills
>
> 43 steps? You mean, that there are so many rules scattered everywhere?
>
> I make it easy to play by memorizing the rules and translating it for
> players who don't know them. Since I am a pretty analytical/mathematical
> wargamer/programmer type person and I've played them for many years, on top
> of having played TFT and complex wargames for many years, it's not hard for
> me and I can do most of it in my head quickly without talking about
> anything. Most of the possible details don't apply to most situations, so
> it's not like I need to run down a long list of considerations every turn.
> I just think about what is happening, and know what rules apply, and there
> aren't that many of them for any particular situation. It ends up being not
> much more work than running TFT for me, and I like it much more since it is
> more detailed and there are so many more options, and the combat details
> tend to be more vivid and wild.
>
> Reading this email list and playing in Rick's TFT game though have shown
> me that it's not for everyone and that even long-time veteran players may
> prefer TFT. Certainly GURPS does have many details that can end up being
> irrelevant wastes of most of the time, if you let them. But an experienced
> GM doesn't need to waste time with them.
>
> The exception would be creating detailed characters with all of their
> skills and so on. That does take longer than in TFT, because there are many
> more choices and most of them have levels as well as have/don't-have. Hmm,
> exactly how good _is_ this character with a knife? Has he practiced
> throwing a knife? With an axe? Axe throwing? With running? With swimming?
> Horsemanship? First aid? etc. Though having done a lot of that means I can
> improvise probable/balanced values for characters I'm inventing on the spot
> as a GM, too.
>
> PvK
>
> - --- joel.siragher@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Im an open minded person.  Can you think of a way to get rid of the 43
> steps of combat in gurps?
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 22:59:56 -0700
> From: Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Aimed Shots - MPNS hobbits are slow...
>
> I thought hobbits were too good so I gave them an
> 8 MA for short legs.  Dwarves too, but they got
> beefed up with other rules.
>
> Rick
>
> On Tue, 2012-22-05 at 09:04 -0500, Mark Tapley wrote:
>
> >       Well. Around here, the ongoing problem is MPNS hobbits
> > (stands for Murderous Psycho Ninja Sniper). ...
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:11:01 -0400
> From: Joel BoardgameRpger <joel.siragher@gmail.com>
> Subject: (TFT) Whats your poison: Poison on claws, weaps etc.
>
> Whats your poison: Poison on claws, weaps etc.
>
> Weap poison seems to be good for edged weapons, but as far as arrows and
> clows what do you think we could do.
>
> My initial reaction was to say no
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TFT Digest V4 #262
> *************************
>
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft-digest"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"