[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(TFT) TFT: Even More AdjIQ
Dan writes . . .
>Well, lets not go overboard :) Talents in TFT are things that a
>character knows how to do WELL. Everyone has a number of mundane
>talents associated with the society in which they live - Driving
>is an excellent example. You don't really need to get a Driving
>talent unless you want to drive professionally, get an edge in
>the weekend racing events or become a full fledged race car driver.
>Area Knowledge is more than knowing where things are, its more
>along the lines of a local historian. Just because you don't have
>a talent for something doesnt mean you can't do it at all.
I disagree with two of these points . . .
Having a talent doesn't necessarily mean a figure can do it well.
Success with a talent is also dependent on whatever attribute is rolled
against for typical tasks. (Of course, this is a slight weakness in the
rules (reality-wise) that we've all learned to live with.)
Nowhere in ITL does it allow characters to have talents for free just
because a particular talent is associated with the society in which they
live. For example, the average medieval society in a campaign world is an
agrarian one, with many people knowing Farming (a talent associated with the
society in which they live); but nowhere in the rules does it say they
should get it for free. Note the many mundane talents listed in ITL, p.
13 -- each one with an IQ point cost.
For your modern example: I would expect a character to pay 1 IQ point for
Driving if he wants to be an average competant driver, even if he were not a
/professional/ driver (such as a taxi driver). There's no such thing as
"Everyman Skills" like in Hero System.
I agree with everything else.
>Under this measurement, AdjIQ doesnt fit well as a plug-in either because
>those characters who don't use it are at a disadvantage.
>Therefore, all characters are "forced" to use it in order to keep
You think so? Mmmm . . . In six months I've noticed no problems with
play balance between characters. Only half of my solitaire characters use
the AdjIQ Rule, and about half of the characters in my Sunday campaign do
so, but they all seem to be keeping up with the people who /don't/ use it.
None of my players have ever expressed any displeasure about it. Those who
do not use adjIQ simply instead spend their attribute points on ST, DX, or
(When I first proposed adjIQ to one of my players, I originally thought 3
IQ points per attribute point was fair, but he suggested trying 2:1 at
first. IMO, playtesting has shown this ratio to be right on the money.)
Michael writes . . .
>This part I don't understand. I thought with adjIQ, you merely used 2
>"talent slots" *instead* of an IQ point and therefore didn't have any
>advantage over someone who simply took the IQ instead?
Each attribute point spent on "adjIQ" increases a figure's total IQ
points by 2. So a figure with an IQ of 10 (and thus 10 IQ points) can spend
1 attribute point for another 2 IQ points, giving him 12 IQ points to spend
on talents, etc. His actual IQ remains 10. The IQ point costs for talents,
spells, and languages do not change.
I thought this was described pretty clearly, but I'll take another look
at it. I think maybe it could be written a bit better.
Warren writes . . .
>Elegance? It's the lack of elegance in terminology that causes me to
>adjIQ in this usage.
It felt like an elegant term to me because if one were to come up with a
rule that described something called "adjIQ" then this optional rule would
be it. But perhaps "IQ Points" would be even better -- it describes exactly
what has been modified, and the term is already in wide use and defined in
Seagraves Computers email@example.com 1 (512) 255-2760
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body