[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(TFT) Skills and the poor Neanderthals
Well, I'm trying to run a "Tribes" campaign, but I don't know that
to get that detailed....
I agree. I'm leaning back towards my original idea, whilst varying the skill
rolls depending on the complexity of the project. That seems to be the best
compromise. Putting it down to IQ 7 seems reasonable. Still don't know
whether to make it cost 1 or 2 points.
True, but in TFT terms, IQ 12 is Spying, Master Thief and Assess
which seem a little more sosphisticated than the skill requires!
a "Mundane" talent for low tech societies really.
I don't think so - I see the talent's IQ requirement as not only a measure
of its complexity but of the self discipline required to learn it. The
higher Unarmed Combat talents are a good example of this: intellectually,
there isn't a lot. Each individual move can be taught to cretins. But to
have the discipline to concentrate on the moves and combine them into an
effective attack - that takes a fairly high intellect to pull off (but not
necessarily a high IQ, per se, a la Mensa). In the above, a skill like
Spying is hardly mundane - it requires a great deal of practice and
practical knowledge on how to avoid being detected - there's an awful lot to
learn. Only dedicated hunters would put in the effort to learn it. And
successful hunters would need a higher IQ, just to spot prey. Or avoid being
ambushed by a Sabre tooth tiger ...
I don't really think of TFT Intelligence that way. I don't really
x10" to get their Intelligence Quotient. Because IQ is covers the
sophistication and hard work involved in the skill, it seems to me
IQ rating is also a measure of how much oportunity there is to
skill. Any fool can be an Artist, but only if you in 3 Attribute
effort can be you 'talented' in it...
That's pretty much on target. But keep in mind that some skills really are
beyond the grasp of some people. Not everyone can learn to be a
neurosurgeon, for example. And even being an artist (in terms of quality
art, not the random splashes of paint that you find in so called "modern
art") does require a good understanding of proportions and so forth. To do a
convincing rendering of a human being requires a basic knowledge of human
anatomy in terms of skeletal structure and musculature. So while simply
doing a x10 and coming up with an IQ quoitient is not wholly right, it is
nevertheless at least a partially correct guideline.
I wonder if maybe they didn't have any good examples to learn
You're guess is as good as anyone elses. It is a little puzzling, since
simply flinging your spear is a straightforward concept. But all the
evidence strongly suggests that they just never "got it". It should be
pointed out, though, that Homo Sapiens Sapiens managed to develop bows and
slings from scratch without any examples to learn from (unless one
subscribes to some of the more bizarre theories about extraterrestrial
contacts way back when - sounds like the beginning of the X Files movie ...)
For some reason Neanderthals seemed to have a mental "block" regarding this.
The only thing I can think of is the tidbit about not being able to speak.
It could be that their communcation ability was limited, which would have
limited their abilities of abstract reasoning - hence not being able to see
what to us is a case of the blindingly obvious.
Of course, all of this may be overturned next week by a new discovery in a
forgotten cave in Europe or the Middle East, showing that Neanderthals had
invented crossbows and water wheels :-)
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body