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

Re: (TFT) Re: adjIQ, adjST, adjDX, and adjMAL

Gadda, Charles A wrote:
> > Charles states,
> >
> > <Especially since the high IQ
> > trivializes a lot of spot check type of rolls, among others.>
> >
> > Charles this is just to throw a sabot in the machinery.  Couldn't that IQ
> > 20
> > that you mentioned be experience rather than true IQ?  Intelligence comes
> > from many things: learning, experience, perception, sensory, just to name
> > a
> > few.
> >
> Well, no and yes. The key to remember is that the experience must be
> relevant. Just because you are the world's greatest tap dancer with years
> and years of experience does not qualify you to be a neuro-surgeon. On a
> less obtuse note, there probably are limits to what some people can learn in
> terms of complexity. Being a doctor, for example, requires more than just a
> knowledge of anatomy and the types of diseases out there - you have to be
> able to integrate that knowlege to figure out your patient's symptoms,
> diagnose the condition, and prescribe a course of treatment to cure the
> patient. Not easy. In other words, you may have a broad base of knowledge of
> anatomy and so forth but not be able to integrate it meaningfully to be a
> doctor.
> While I don't buy into the idea that IQ should be fixed, at the same time I
> balk at people gaining a full spread of talents only by expanding their IQ
> to astronomical levels. Having a 20 IQ, for example, means you can often
> ignore most traps and spot secret doors merely by walking past them. Clues
> or secrets that require an IQ check have a good chance of being decyphered.
> In game terms the character sees all and knows all - yet all of his talents
> may be low level ones, for the most part. Does a broad base of experience
> ***Really*** help that much? I don't think so. It does help, but not to that
> degree. I mean, just because you have a lot of skills doesn't mean you're
> ability to spot hidden objects is going to improve by that degree. I could
> see a little increase, depending on what exactly one's "broad base of
> experience is" but to an IQ of 20? Doubt it. Much better, I think, to
> encourage more use of AdjIQ or the like - if only from the standpoint of
> game balance.
Hey heres some thoughts- First, Unless the character got to level twenty
iq in a quick amount of character lifetime, his ability to see all and
do all should be fairly brief. The lifetime needed to amass that kind of
iq should take a charatcer into the age bracket where he's/she's startin
to lose attributes do to old age. This is unless of course, the GM was
WAY TO LOOSE IN AWARDING EXP POINTS. Be stingy!!! Thats one way of
keeping characters under control. Most of my players were actually
thankful that I didn't go the heavy handed fantasy route with my
campaigns.  That way they had to work harder to get those exp points,
and spend more time on getting to know there characters. Just a thought.
 Also setting a top iq, while not a favoured one, is an option. Think of
it this way, humans just like every other animal do have a limit on
there comprehension of things. You can't teach a dog quantum mechanics,
but you can teach him a fair number of tricks. OK I KNOW ITS NOT THE
BEST ANALOGY , so sue me. But I think if you sit back fer a sec before
you vehemently attack the analogy, that the notion is acceptable for
game play. 
to who ever put it up!!!!
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"