Fighting The Power Creep: Part The Second

Carrying on from my last Tunnels & Trolls post, where I set out to slay the power creep; an evil creature from the Mountains of Dice, and with attributes running into the thousands; I have created a couple of more house rules that can significantly help alter the tempo of game play..

I have also come to notice that what initially started out as a series of quick fixes is fast becoming / may well become its own rulebook!

AP scaling and the "Goldilocks Zone"

One of the biggest problems with the 7.x rules as they are written is the amount of AP it takes to raise any one attribute, a mere 10 times the current value of the attribute. This seems way too generous to me and, takes a lot of challenge out of the delving experience. Especially when you compare this to older editions, for example 5.5.

Example: A truly average character, Generic Erik has a score of 10 in each and every attribute. The 1000 AP that it would ordinarily take to raise one attribute under 5.x by at best two could equally raise five separate attributes by one point a piece using 7.x.

The other end of the scale that I have seen amongst the rulebooks (7.0 I believe), costs increasing any attribute at 100 times its current value in AP. This seems way too harsh to me. It bogs down character development, and can detract from fun and spontaneous play. Players need a measure of their progress and, their characters are it.

My solution would be to set the AP cost of increasing any given attribute by one at 50 times the current attribute value. You can of course set the value to whatever you wish but, I find that 50 works best for me. It keeps play moving, but doesn't remove the element of challenge from the game.

Whatever value decide to elect though should be carefully considered, as it will have a HUGE impact on your game.

Modified Modifiers
Not a big problem but, a common criticism of Tunnels & Trolls is how the modifiers massively effect play and, player choice. Let's face it, you'd have to be mad to play as a Human off the bat, especially in solo land where survival is the name of the game.

 

It's not that Humans are a bad choice (an extra Talent is nothing to be sneezed at) but, when the modifiers given to a Dwarf make them excellent Warriors, and Warriors are the only character Type that can play through most solo's, it's clear to see why most players pick them.

This also creates a problem with the way that level is measured in 7.x. Whilst it makes more sense to me to have level measured against your actual ability (your attributes), the scale used to measure your level is set to a "Human Average". So starting play as a Dwarf in 7.x can often mean that you roll up a second level character, which just doesn't "feel" right.

 

My solution, convert the multipliers in the rulebook into more manageable modifiers, akin to those in the "other game". Here's what I have for the Common Kindreds so far:

New Common Kindred Modifiers

Dwarf

CON: +3, LK: -1, STR: +3

Elf

CON: -1, CHR: +3, INT: +2, LK: +2, WIZ: +3

Fairy

CON: -3, CHR: +3, DEX: +3, LK: +3, STR: -3, WIZ: +3

Hobbit

CON: +3, DEX: +2, LK: +2, STR: -2

Leprechaun

DEX: +2, INT: +2, LK: +2, STR: -2

I'm still working on few further house rules to accompany the new system but  my current thoughts are that no attribute should ever drop below three at creation. If it does, it's value becomes three. The alternative to this is to say that if the modifier would drop an attribute to below three, that character cannot become that Kindred. Favoring freedom though, I much prefer the former.

I'm also considering a number of other options related to Kindred, including inherent powers, where for example a Minotaur may be better at charging his foe, whilst Skeletons take less damage from slashing weapons (but more from smashing ones). There's also the matter of drawing a line between "natural" and "created" Kindreds, along with any number of other loose ends..

Yup, there's a lot more in the power creep yet but, that's all for now folks.

Fighting The Power Creep: Part 1

My most recent Tunnels & Trolls post looking at different ways of handling
Personal Adds and Talents has given me food for thought. Primarily about Talents in general and, how they are handled in-game but, also how far can I "push" my new way of handling Personal Adds? How much of the game can it re-write?

Progressive Talents

In my original post, I wrote: 

My solution is to open up the option of weapon Talents, something that was also discussed in during the Talents conversation over at the Google+ group. Instead of rolling a dice for the bonus though, I would simply set the value of the bonus granted by the Talent to the number of character levels that the weapon has been continually wielded for plus one.

Example: Bobby the Barbarian takes a Weapon Talent in "Clubs" as he loves to bash things over the head and take their stuff. As Bobby is new to adventuring his bonus is +1, meaning that he'll roll an extra dice when wielding any sort of club in combat. The bonus only applies to one weapon, so even if he were wielding two clubs, he'd still only roll one extra dice.

For every level of his career that Bobby from the previous example uses a club predominantly as a weapon, he can boost his Clubs Talent by one as he increases in level (going from 2 to 3, 3 to 4 etc), in addition he still gets to pick a new Talent.

After further deliberation, I have come to think of this as an example of what I have termed a "Progressive Talent". Talents that only initially give a small bonus but, can improve with time and practice. Which made me think, isn't that EVERY talent?

People don't get better at something without practice, so why should characters? So my new take on Talents is that they should all be considered progressive, granting the delver an initial bonus of +1, which goes up as the character goes up in level, IF they effectively used the Talent at that level.

Example: Bobby the Barbarian has been adventuring for a while now, and as much as he loves his club, he has found that the two-handed sword that he recovered from the body of a fallen foe is much more effective in hacking and slashing his way to fame and glory. In fact, Bobby who is not far from advancing to level 3 has little else in combat of late.

Bobby's player realises this, and also that as he doesn't have a Talent relating to the two-handed sword. So when he advances in level shortly he will receive no bonus to his Clubs Talent and even if he took a Two-Handed Sword Talent it would only begin at +1.

As you can imagine, this massively down plays the power of Talents, which now all begin at the lowest possible result of a D6 roll (but do increase over time). I have given this thought though, and balanced it out with two other house rules.

Professionals

Calling back upon my previous idea of professionals within Tunnels & Trolls, it is my thought that they could be introduced here to help offset the power drain created by the introduction of Progressive Talents.

Instead of the +1 bonus normally granted by a Progressive Talent, Professionals begin with that same Talent at +2 but, only if it is a Talent that is within their stable. This represents foreknowledge of the skill at hand before actually bringing it into practice, so even if a Talent from that Professions stable is selected later on in the delvers career, it still begins at +2.

Knowledge

Also in my previous post looking at combat, I created a new system for handling Personal Adds.. Well, doing away with them completely, and replacing them with something that I felt better represented the effects of various attributes on combat:

Strength Adds: Each point of STR beyond 12 adds +1 to your combat total.
Dexterity Adds: Roll 1 extra dice in combat for every point of DEX you have beyond 12, and then drop that many.
Speed Adds: Each point of SPD beyond 12 grants you one hit of "natural armor".
Luck Adds: Re-roll up to 1 dice for every point of LK you have beyond 12, once per combat round. You must accept the second result.

Applying a similar logic to Intelligence, I have decided that the number of Talents a character begins with should be equal to their INT bonus (1 for every point of Intelligence beyond 12) plus their level, and that languages should be considered Talents (because being a skilled linguist certainly is a Talent). So a new 1st level character with an INT of 14 would begin with 3 Talents.

The big issue (problem) that I can see arising from the relation between Intelligence and Talents is that Kindreds with significant modifiers in that area could begin the game as walking, talking, encyclopedias. Which really isn't what I set out to achieve.. So I've had to house rule on this one too in my efforts to fight back the power curve.

More to follow...

Further Thoughts On Combat

Recently I looked into an alternative way of handling combat in Tunnels and
Trolls, which involved using saving rolls as the combat mechanic and, not just as a mechanic within combat.

Since then Dan over at The Lone Delver has really taken the idea (which was inspired by an earlier post of his) and, run with it. It's looking great too. So setting my original idea to one side (as too many cooks spoil the broth) I have been thinking about what else I can do with combat system to take it to new and interesting places, and I have a couple of ideas.

The first has sprung from the Talents conversation that I sparked over at the Tunnels and Trolls Google+ group, and seeks to address what I consider the dual-wield issue, where it is almost mandatory for a starting character to take two daggers as their initial weaponry.

It kind of bugs me if I'm honest but I can't deny the logic of it. On average two daggers are cheaper to buy and, more effective in combat than nearly any other weapon that a new character can realistically afford. Tunnels and Trolls doesn't penalise you for fighting with an off-hand weapon either, so why wouldn't you invest in a pair of daggers?

Maybe if there was an incentive not to. Notice I say incentive and not penalty, as the easy option would be simply cut down the dice and adds granted by your off-hand weapon.

My solution is to open up the option of weapon Talents, something that was also discussed in during the Talents conversation over at the Google+ group. Instead of rolling a dice for the bonus though, I would simply set the value of the bonus granted by the Talent to the number of character levels that the weapon has been continually wielded for plus one.

Example: Bobby the Barbarian takes a Weapon Talent in "Clubs" as he loves to bash things over the head and take their stuff. As Bobby is new to adventuring his bonus is +1, meaning that he'll roll an extra dice when wielding any sort of club in combat. The bonus only applies to one weapon, so even if he were wielding two clubs, he'd still only roll one extra dice.

For every level of his career that Bobby from the previous example uses a club predominantly as a weapon, he can boost his Clubs Talent by one as he increases in level (going from 2 to 3, 3 to 4 etc), in addition he still gets to pick a new Talent.

Whilst this may not seem to do a lot to offset the benefits of duel-wielding daggers from the word go, it does open up an interesting alternative. Now if a character instead chooses to invest in say your average Short Sword and a Short Sword Talent to go with it, they could be wielding the four dice normally granted by duel-daggers whilst leaving a hand free to take a shield into combat with them. Given that Warriors get to double the hits absorbed by armor that they are wearing, and a shield counts as armor, this is a good deal!

My second idea does away with Combat Adds completely (but not Missile Adds as of yet), replacing them with a more tangible alternative.

Whilst I like the simplicity of the Tunnels and Trolls combat system as it stands, I feel that Personal Adds could be so much more if you break them down, or as I have replace them completely with the following:

Strength Adds: Each point of STR beyond 12 adds +1 to your combat total.
Dexterity Adds: Roll 1 extra dice in combat for every point of DEX you have beyond 12, and then drop that many.
Speed Adds: Each point of SPD beyond 12 grants you one hit of "natural armor".
Luck Adds: Re-roll up to 1 dice for every point of LK you have beyond 12, once per combat round. You must accept the second result.

Personally I feel that this better represents the effects of the various attributes than the catch all, Personal Adds. Strength inflicts greater wounds, Dexterity allows you aim your blows with greater accuracy, Speed lets you dodge out of the way and, if you're going to rely on Luck, you'd better be lucky!

Both are just works in progress at the moment but I do think they show promise, if I do say so myself.

Let Me Thrill You With Tales Of Mundane Adventure

Let me thrill you with tales of mundane adventure.. Said no GM ever.

That's because there is a lot of onus on the GM to weave an intricate and engaging story that leaves their players crying out for more. They have to be original, but what of the players?

There is no real pressure on the players to create  fresh and original characters. Obviously those that do get a lot of enjoyment out of the new opportunities that they open up to themselves but by and large it's a lot easier just to stick to the familiar archetypes. The rules are geared that way, so why would you do anything different? Well, because it just doesn't make sense.

I mean, think about it. Your warrior has just spent days risking life and limb to haul back that sack of gold, and what does he do with it? He spends it on weapons and armor like some kind of survival nut. In real world terms that is the equivalent of someone who works to work, which in my opinion a rather joyless existence but why would the player do anything but? They need those weapons. They need that armor.

Back to putting the onus on the GM.

So what to do? Well if you're players are the kind that fixate on draining every last copper piece for all that it's worth, I would recommend introducing what I loosely refer to as hobbies and obsessions.

It's only a work in progress at the moment but, essentially what you are creating is a means of spending gold and time between adventures that helps flesh out the character a little more. Quite how I would implement this I'm not sure as of yet but I would suggest relating the reward given for the activity to the cost, availability and, legality of the hobby in question.

For example, Olaf The Drunk likes ale. He LOVES ale! So every GP's worth of ale he consumes (which is a fair bit given how cheap it is) gains him 1AP, because his particular is vice cheap, readily available and, generally legal. It's also only a hobby, not an obsession, so Olaf can go without if more pressing needs present themselves.. He just wouldn't be happy about it.

This is only a quick example of a common activity, turned hobby but it already adds more dimension to the character. No matter the quest at hand he has a reason to delve and, the impairing effects of alcohol gives the GM something to play with in return.

Saving Throws AS Combat, Not Just In Combat: Revisited

Following on from my previous post, where I looked at the possibility of long since been picked to the post by Dan over at the Lone Delver.
introducing SR's as a combat mechanic, and not just a mechanic within combat, I soon found that I found that I had

Despite my being massively behind the times, unearthing the topic has heralded some interesting things as Dan has begun to explore the topic once more, progressing his earlier work and, creating something very functional that has also been described as pulling missile weapons into a much more even playing field.

Personally, I like it. Combat becomes a lot more deadly and, especially so if you're not a Warrior. Which makes perfect sense to me. It's still a work in progress, I feel but, one well worth checking out. :0).

Loot-O-Matic: A Couple Of Tweaks, And More To Come

Loot-O-Matic: Try new Magic Zero

With all of my recent work on Talents within Tunnels and Trolls it seems that I
"may" have got a little distracted and, put the Loot-O-Matic on the back burner. I've not forgotten it though. In fact I have had a few more thoughts on it and, how I'd like to tweak it even further.

My first thought is to create two standard initial tables. Both set to the silver standard, one offering magical treasure, one not. The reasoning behind this is that whilst a solitaire player may want the opportunity to loot the occasional magical item from fallen foes, a GM using a random generator probably doesn't want to distribute magical objects willy-nilly. Of course the GM could just ignore any magical treasure rolled up but, that tips the balance of the table as I have written it. It just wouldn't be fair.

So, the idea that I am working with at the moment will increase the general value of non-magical treasure rolled (on the non-magical table), whilst maintaining balance if magical treasure is a possibility. It's still a work in progress but I should have something to post up soon enough.

Secondly I have been giving some consideration to the coins used in the game world. More accurately who mints them? There are guidelines in the original treasure generator as to who uses what but, I am thinking more along the lines of the real world issues surrounding currency. I mean, you can't spend Dollars in the UK anymore than you can spend GBP's in the US. Now when dealing with valuable metals this is less of a concern but it's unlikely that Elves will be all that interested in a handful of Iron coins when the standard that they deal in is Silver pieces.

To this ends I am generating a series of mint tables (one for each type of coin) that you can roll on optionally to determine the coins origin. When spending the coin with the Kindred that minted it, say Iron coins with Orcs, it is worth it's face value. When spending the same coin with a Kindred that didn't mint it but do use it, say Goblins, it is worth 3/4 it's face value. If you try to spend that same coin with a Kindred that neither minted it or generally uses it, it'll only be worth half it's face value.

This is all still very much at the drawing board stage however, but updated tables for the type of treasure being generated (replacements for the 7.5 initial treasure table) shouldn't be too far away, replacing the the replacement that I originally posted here.

We also now have a Loot-O-Matic tag that'll make finding posts on this subject much easier.. Which I should have done a lot sooner.

Saving Throws AS Combat, Not Just In Combat

It came to me in a dream (quite literally a T&T themed dream that I had last
night / this morning). In the dream I played Tunnels and Trolls but, the combat mechanic that I happened to be using was the SR.

The dream itself was also prophetic as I can remember how the system worked, which means I can make it happen, thus play it and fulfill the prophecy.. A person can go mad thinking of such things though, so without a further ado, down to business.

The system was quite simple. Every combat round consisted of two phases, which could be likened to the "to hit" and, "roll for damage" steps in D&D. The to hit roll was a SR with the target number being the monsters MR, followed by a roll for damage (Weapon dice + Adds) if you were successful.

Looking at this system objectively in the cold light of day, I really do think it has legs but, I know it's going to need work before it's ready for practical usage. For one, I think that Combat Adds would have to serve a dual purpose with this system. They could either be used to increase the chance of a hit (before rolling), maybe on a 1:1 basis. So you drop 1 point of potential damage and in return you gain +1 to your SR, or you simply take your Combat Adds as a bonus on the "damage roll".

Other matters that need consideration are whether or not to reinstate the "death spiral" effect that was removed with 7.x, and the viability of this system outside of 7.x (the AP increase granted by more frequent SR's offsets the generally high nature of MR rated monsters but, 5.x requires a lot more AP to increase attributes).

It's on these matters that I could really use some input and some feedback. What do you think to the idea guys? How might you tweak it to make it work for you and your group?

Swordplay You Say? The Debate Continues

Following up on my recent post, the debate continues over at the Tunnels and Trolls Google+ group with much division on the subject.

Check out the latest update below or, if you've only just come across this blog you can catch up with the debate to date here, along with the original question, here:

Mat Fowler: My game is all about story telling, and anything that helps nudge that along is a bonus. Talents are meant to be ambiguous to give your imagination wiggle room to use them. Some talent examples from my players are 'breaking things', 'magical detective', 'golden tongue', 'annoying', 'distraction' and 'nine lives'. They have been used for a wide variety of situations, all requiring some skill to convince me that they would work. They havebeen used in combat but normally as a way to create a situation or escape route rather than to kill. I try not have sessions become long periods of hit damage attrition, but find it more fun to solve interactions in a fresh way each time - when possible. If it sounds good I go with it. If you want balance then T&T may make that difficult as people 10 times stronger than others is common place - how do you explain that other than 'its a magical world'? That works for me. Scrawny young farm hands can become muscle bound heros, given enough Adventure Points.

Geoff Sears: I feel that Talents offer a few avenues for exploration. I am ambivalent about improving combat since the example provided to me violates that notion, and in the long run the +1-6 benefit does not equate to a huge benefit, especially combined with a 1 in 12 change of a talent test coming up "3" and automatically failing, with I would assume some significant downside for the attempting PC.

I think the main intention of talents is to provide for some backstory, and a way to distinguish one Warrior, Rogue, Wizard from another. When I asked one of my kids what did they want their "Vampire Wizard" to be talented at doing, she surprisingly said something which got boiled down into Carpentry. She wanted him to be able to make boxes I think was the gist. When she and her sister started talking about Vampires turning into mist, it dawned on me that talents were a way to capture special abilities as well, so... "Turns to Mist" came up as a Talent based in her case on WIZ.

The other imagined utility of Talents was to make sense of the Saving roll mechanic which was left intentionally ambiguous from previous editions. Everyone I have read seems to use SR's differently in combat, and by having specified Talents, you are in effect predefining those mechanics for your character, and throwing a benny their way. Is your trademark move tumbling behind your opponent to strike from behind, then Tumbing (Dex) is your friend, and if I was running it, I would give them a one turn bonus based on how much they made the test by on their Hit Point Total for that round. I'd set the difficulty based on either the level of their opponent, or perceived difficulty in getting past them, etc...

I am hot/cold on the changes made in 7th edition. When I flirt with running a T&T game again, I waver between the streamlined effectiveness of 5th edition, and the more pragmatic advancement scheme of 7th edition. I think the original rules through 5th edition were responding to a different set of expectations on the part of players, than 7th edition is. While I can relate to those expectations, I think there is some benefit to changes like Talents. 

Me: I think that works quite well in group play but my view point is more that of a solitaire player. I do like the idea that a Talent can be just about anything you like but, I would like to see them become more functional in respect of their application when it comes to the lone player.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that combat is the begin all and, end all of solitaire play (or play in general) but, it is certainly a BIG part of the game (just look how much of the rulebook contains rules on combat, weapons, armor, combat magic etc). Instead of just looking at +X adds in combat though, maybe some spell-like abilities as Talents would help.

Nothing beyond low-level magic, and nothing that causes direct-damage (so no TTYF!).

So as well as Talents within combat, how do we feel about spell-like abilities as Talents?

Mat Fowler: For no other reason other than I worked out our in my session yesterday, i want to mention that the chance of getting a 1 and a 2 on two d6 is 1:18, or just over 5 percent.

Geoff Sears: stand corrected. I had transposed numbers in my head incorrectly. They point is that the change of fumble is there, and for something used with great regularity, there is a consequent chance of "bad things" happening such as not contributing at all to rounds HPT, (just like the chance a spell doesn't get off)

Chris Palmer: On the topic of solo adventures, I do wonder if having a list of 'standard' talents would help with some of this.  I know that one author has done this (used the same list of talents for a couple of solo's and provided that list at the front) and I liked it a lot.  Unfortunately I just flipped through a bunch of solo adventures and can't remember or locate that author.

Talents are so free-form right now that's unlikely you'll see the same one used in two different solo adventures so they end up mostly being background narrative for solo gamers.  It's not uncommon for solo authors to add in combat stunts to their games, and I could see talents coming into play pretty well there.

I could put together another page and let authors collaborate on common talents there, I suppose.  But my experience has been that not many authors would use it.

Me: I believe that the author you are referring to is Stuart Lloyd, and I have to agree that having a standard list of solos at the  beginning of an adventure does help you. It gives your character more of a sporting chance. There is of course the downfall that as not all solos are using the same list, some of the Talents you pick may not be the most useful later in play.. That could be said of any Talent though.

Chris Palmer: Yes!  You're right, it's Lloyd.  I do think a more standard list of some core talents would help alleviate their uselessness in solos and make their lack of direct combat influence less of an issue.  But I also don't have an issue with someone taking Archery as a talent and having that be applicable to their to-hit SR's.  That seems perfectly reasonable, especially if missile adds aren't being used.

Me: I got to thinking about standardised Talents last night after reading your post Chris and remembered that someone had done just what you proposed. Well sort of. Thinking about the matter at hand I recalled a pre 7.x web page that converted the MS&PE Skill list for Tunnels & Trolls use. It's pretty good and, can be found here:

http://aramis.hostman.us/tandt/tandt_whr5.html

However in Googling for that page I also came across these two which set out to much of the same but, look as if they have been written since the advent of 7.x:

http://www.geocities.com/~athorne/trolls/talents.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/co3/talonfire/docs/T_TSkills.htm

Toxic Talents

Continuing on with my current theme of Talents within Tunnels & Trolls, I've
had another brainwave that I thought was worth sharing partially inspired by the Dungeons & Dragons supplement, Complete Scoundrel and, partially by the fact that I have never (ever EVER) like the poison rules as they are written for Tunnels & Trolls.

As presented in the rules all poisons are pretty much instantaneous in producing their effects and, most of the effects only cause additional damage.. Which is pretty dull, not to mention inaccurate. Most poisons take time to take effect and the actual effects of poisons, venoms and, toxins varies greatly.

How does this tie into our Talents theme though?

Well inspired by Complete Scoundrel, a Talent that I thought might be fun to play with would be Poison Master. Which is the same name as a Feat in the supplement but, my implementation is quite different. In the original supplement the Feat simply makes the poisons that you brew more deadly, where I envision the Talent being much more wide-reaching. Allowing you to both create your own toxins, and affording you a degree of resistance against poisoning due to your extended exposure to hazardous materials.

So for me, Poison Master looks something like this: Poison Master (CON / INT). To really work though, I need to change the nature of how poisons are handled. Given that I have never been too happy with poisons as is though, this really isn't an issue.

So what's the plan for poisons?

It'll take sometime to re-write all of the various toxins present in the 7.5 rulebook, but the plan is that every poison will be statted out something like this:

Name: The name of the item in question.
Type: Venom (generally naturally occurring and delivered through injection or contact), Toxin (venoms can be considered toxins by definition but this classification will be used to cover ailments such as diseases that can be delivered through open wounds or by ingestion), and Poisons (Almost exclusively consumed to be effective).
Cost: The cost of the materials needed to prepare one unit (one dose) of this poison.
Craft: The level of the INT SR required to manufacture one unit of this poison safely.
Save: The level of the CON SR that needs to be made by someone exposed to this poison to resist it's effects.
Failure: If you fail to safely manufacture the poison you suffer this effect unless you make a CON SR at the poisons level (the "Save" value of the poison).
Critical Failure: If you roll a fumble when preparing the poison or trying to resist it's effects you suffer this effect with no further SR allowed.
Effect: This is the effect of the poison when successfully delivered.

I'm also hoping to create more diverse poisons too, moving away from the purely vanilla nature of poisons causing a few more hits in combat. Effects such as nausea, hallucinations etc. Before I get too involved though I really do need to playtest the idea to see how well in pans out under scrutiny.

Swordplay You Say?: The Feedback So Far

When I threw this question out there yesterday, it wasn't just here that I Tunnels & Trolls Google+ group that I joined a few months ago. I haven't been too active in the group since joining but, wanting to get more involved I have been posting there more frequently and, the more viewpoints that I can get regarding the question at hand, the better.

decided to ask. I also shared the exact same post over at the

So here's the feedback from the group. It's not vast but there are some good points raised, both for and against Talents having a direct bearing on combat:

Tiefling Swashbuckler by D MAC

Andreas Davour: I think that there are problems, bigger and smaller, with most of the rules introduced as new in 7th ed. I have some hopes that Liz can iron out those oddities with her significant skills latest shown in 5th ed. Talents have potential, but like you write, some questions marks are left.

I actually let it be said in my game that Talents were all different from magic and combat, since we already had rules for that, and Talents were everything else.

If that feels like a cop out, which I can see why you would feel, maybe use the character level for something? Add that much as a bonus to one roll per adventure/session or something along those lines? Then it could get applied to combat/magic if you wanted.

Me: That's an interesting take. As you can guess, I had considered using Talents for combat and, more recently, even Talents as spell-like abilities (with limitations) but, I hadn't considered working level into it, which is an interesting idea.

The only problem that I can see there is that a Talent gained later will get bigger bonus instantly if I allow character level to be added instantly to certain Talents. So less experience but being just as good seems a little wonky. As I say though, I still think it's a good idea.

I think maybe that I'd say upon every level increase you add +1 to all Talents you already have in addition to aquiring a new one. It'd also offer an incentive for players not to hold back on their Talents.

Joshua Macy: I like Talents as a catch-all for things that aren't relevant to combat; there are enough ways to get combat adds, I don't see anything gained by having an arms-race of Talents... and I do foresee pressure not to "waste" Talents on things that can't help in combat. 

Andreas Davour: I'll confess that I'm mostly channelling Ken here, throwing odd ideas out there and see what happens. :)

That being said, I think levels, as far as they should be there in the first place, should be used for something. I have never had any problem with getting a big bonus from the get go if you pick up a Talent at high level. But, your suggestion +Tom Grimshaw with the +1 sounds workable. 

Me: I am inclined to agree that I wouldn't want to see all Talents going into combat abilities but, by the same token I don't think that they should be excluded. Being a predominantly a solitaire player and, with most solos being geared towards Warriors, it seems a little off that Warriors wouldn't have at least one or two combat abilities. Especially when you see the arsenal of spells Wizards get with 7.x.

Andreas Davour: Good points all. The question as I see it, is how to make it something more than just a +2 extra adds, which feels kind of bland an effect.

Naturally, special effects like disarms and suchlike (which feels like something you do a SR for, and a Talent could help with) are notoriously hard to handle in a solitaire situation. I'll have to think a bit, for once.

Professionals

Continuing with my current theme of Talents, I figured I would post up an idea that I have toying with for a while now. It's had several incarnations, but it's most recent (and current) is that of the professional.

It runs along the lines of when you're selecting your type, you may also select a profession. Your profession is representative of how you have been spending your time up until the point you set out on a career as a delver. Typically this will be a job title but it's also conceivable that your character has spent years in study (if they're a Wizard for example) or, made a living from crime. This are the details that I am still ironing out.

Whilst being a professional will offer your character no immediate bonuses, years of training won't go to waste, and each profession will come with a list of associated Talents. Should your character select one of these Talents from the word go or, when leveling up they instead get to roll 2D6 (DARO) to determine the bonus granted by the Talent instead of the standard 1D6. A BIG bonus but, limited to their field of knowledge and their experiences to date.

I would be the first to admit that this idea still needs a fair bit of work and, is a long way from completion but I do think it has legs. It's a new way of playing with the existing rules that leads to more rounded characters (a sticking point of 7.x amongst a lot of Tunnels and Trolls players).

Swordplay You Say?

Talents are one of the few big tweaks that came with Tunnels and Trolls 7.x. There was also obviously a couple of new attributes thrown into the mix and, the way you measured character level changed significantly. Experience points were spent as well as earned but all of this was pretty black and white.

Talents however where left (quite intentionally it would seem) ambiguous. They could be pretty much anything you wanted them to be and, you don't even have to declare them from the get go. Which is all well and good but, I'd be lying if I didn't say that the vague nature of the official ruling didn't bug me just a little.

It's all well and good when you're constructing a vanilla Talent, such as Climbing say. It's bonus applies when you're climbing, but what of Talents with a combat or magical focus. You know a player will want to take one eventually. Just how do you handle it?

If you're playing it by the rulebook Talents don't do anything for improving how well you fight, which I frankly don't agree with. In the example given in the rulebook Fang uses his Swordplay Talent to disarm an opponent when he is outnumbered, which logically suggests that he is armed with a sword of some description. Yet his Talent affords him no bonus directly to his combat total.. Which just doesn't add up to me.

He should get a bonus, but what exactly? The value of his Talent (not his Talent plus his Attribute) in adds? In dice? Something else completely?

Dungeons & Conversions

Do you know the great thing about D&D 3.5?

It's a great source of inspiration. Whilst I have no great interest in ever running any of the material as it is written, nor the system that it was written for if I can ever help it again, many of the supplements do have a lot to offer to the budding homebrewer.

A great example would be Complete Scoundrel. I recently picked up a copy of this because I was thinking to myself "Well, they've done Warrior World, how about Rogue World?", which is in itself a whole other matter, but keeping on topic, inside Complete Scoundrel I did find a lot of great material. Where they list Skills and Feats, I see Talents, likewise Prestige Classes can easily be broken down into the Talents that make them up. Equipment is a little trickier to convert but not impossible with a little common sense. The same goes for spells. Honestly, this book is a goldmine!

Then the matter of "Rogue World". I picked up this book expecting it to be rather "theif-centric".. Okay I made that word up but, I'm pretty sure that it communicates my point. I expected a world full of assassins, pick-pockets and, cat-burgulars. That's what I expected as that's pretty much how the D&D world views the rogue. What I got however was quite to the contrary as it turns out even Paladins can go rogue with this supplement..

So for the purposes of conversion, this particular book was a bit of a mixed bag of mostly good things. The Skills are good, as are the Feats, and equipment. I also like the idea of being able to flesh out the roguish nature naturally inherent in delvers into other classes but, given my previous example of the Paladin, doesn't always work in my opinion.

All-in-all though a good solid resource for adding some spice to your game.. Once you remove the "other game" that is. ;0).

Predators, Tribbles And, The Fett

A recent discussion over at the Peryton Publishing Facebook page, in which we
conjured an alternate universe populated solely by science-fiction parodies (Shatner's Toupee meets a Tribble meets the Brain Slug's of Futurama anyone) has set me thinking.

The original topic matter was who would come out on top in a death match between Boba Fett and The Predator? This combined with the tangent that we traversed inspired Tom to want to pay homage to The Predator within his gaming world and, has set me wondering just how a Predator would shape up in Tunnels and Trolls terms.

What modifiers should the Kindred receive and, how should it's vast arsenal be statted out?

Whilst I am far away from reaching any definitive answers, I have found some great resources after a dig on-line, covering not only The Predator (which is apparently a "Yautja") and his weapons locker but, also a great fan-written supplement for the "other game" covering the usage of sci-fi weaponry in a fantasy setting.

+1 More Blog For The Feed

Something that I have taken to doing (or more accurately something that I have been doing for a while but had yet to blog about), is perusing the blogs that others are following. It's how I find great new reads. So if I am following you, I'll also take a look over your reading list to see what's peaked your interest.

A lot of the time you do find that you are mostly just running around in circles because I may be following A, who follows B, who follows me, but I still find this an enjoyable and worthwhile exercise. You never know what you'll find.

One that I have found over the past couple of days is The Rat's Digs, a Tunnels and Trolls blog that despite looking quite new, and not have been updated for a month or so shows a lot of promise. The content that is there is pretty good and the author has also been nice enough to post a list of useful links at the foot of the page.

This will be an interesting one to keep an eye on, so it's definitely going in the feed. :0).

A Few Good Reads

From talking about my blog to taking the time to talk about the blogs of others and, some of the fine posts (in no particular order) that have been entertaining me of late. If you have a moment, they are well worth checking out.

Adventures in the Wilderlands: A good write up by Ken Harrison of his most recent GURPS session told from the point of view of his Dwarven Fighter. I don't know nearly ehough about GURPS to say too much other than that it made for an entertaining read and, as a reader, surely that's all that should really matter.

The Adventure of Ulthor the Conjurer: Next up is another play through but one that strikes a little closer to home for me because not only is through a Tunnels and Trolls solo but, one that I happen to own and are yet to best.. Which is a fair description of anything beyond Buffalo Castle. Lol. At any rate it is an interesting insight into the Specialist Mage type and, how little being a Specialist Mage differs from being a Wizard in many respects early in your characters career (you're still likely to be turned into worm-food).

The adventure that Dan has chosen is an interesting one and, has left me itching to break out my copy again and give it a bash. Maybe with a Wizard of my very own. If the read through peaks your interest, you can pick up a copy yourself here.

A Brief History of GMing: Last but by no means least is Jerry Teleha's post over at The Delving Dwarf that takes you on a journey through his personal experiences as a GM. What worked, what didn't. Jerry is a very eloquent writer so you won't go far wrong with any of the stuff that he has posted, this particular entry however I felt was noteworthy.

Loot-O-Matic: Coins Of Different Kinds

Following on from my previous post where I set out to "fix" the 7.5 random treasure generator issue of spitting wealth at you like a broken ATM, I have got as far as tweaking the coinage. Here's what I have so far:

Money Table (2D6, DARO)

2-9: Iron (Worth 0.01SP each)

10-16: Steel (Worth 0.1SP each)

17-22: Copper (Worth 0.1SP each)

23-27: Orichalum (Worth 0.2SP each)

28-31: Bronze (Worth 0.5SP each)

32-34: Silver (Worth 1SP each)

35-36: Gold (Worth 10SP each)

37+: Mithril (Worth 100SP each)

When rolling for the amount of coins, roll 3D6, TARO.
All coins weigh 1WU each.

Anyone with the original 7.5 rulebook will notice that I have made some considerable changes. I have altered the value of the coins, how many coins you get, as well as removing some completely.

I like the idea of the monsters in Trollworld running under a seperate currency, so I kept the Iron and Steel pieces but the idea of Elven Silver and Trollish Gold seemed a little too specific to me. I was also at a loss as to why they were worth so much on the original table. What can you actually do to silver to increase its value by a factor of 50!? I've also recast the role of Orichalum, which is now the new "2 Copper Piece" instead of the extremely rare mythical metal of Atlantis. I just figured that with Mithril being available, do I really need another thin on the ground resource? Mithril's cool enough. :0).

At this point I should probably point out that whilst the treasure may seem to have gone from one extreme to another (bountiful to pitiful), this table and the one in my previous post were created with a method of treasure generation slightly different from the norm in mind.

Players now roll 1D6 for every 10 MR that their opponent had (or fraction of 10) and, any D6 that rolls within the monsters "range" allows one roll on the random treasure generator. So a MR 40 beastie might allow up to 4 rolls on the generator! (Possibly 5 if that were 41).

The only problem with the "range" idea is that beyond Buffalo Castle, I can't think of any solo that uses the range mechanic. Of course I could be wrong. Either way it's not a problem for three reasons:

1 - I plan to work my way through every solo I can lay my hands on and assign ranges, posting them up here.

2 - I also plan to create a generic list of all monsters commonly found in Trollworld; adding ranges; which should cover most of what I miss with point one.

3 - A new feature I'm working on called the Wandering Monster Stable will give you themed wandering monster tables; including ranges; that you can insert into any solo you already happen to own that uses the wandering monster mechanic. The idea being that you can season your solo's to taste. :0).

Loot-O-Matic

The Loot-O-Matic from Grimtooth Industries

Some people ponder the big questions. Why are we here? Where are we going?
What would happen if I taped a piece of toast to a cats back butter-side up and dropped it? Not me though, I'm pondering how my solitaire adventures through Trollworld compare to other peoples and, given a choice which random treasure generator would you use?

There are a lot of fine choices out there. From the bog standard generators that come with the rules (which we'll be focusing on in this post), on-line generators, generators from other systems that you can convert to Tunnels and Trolls, your own homebrew creations that best represent your own vision of Trollworld and, of course the fine generators that can be found in Elder Tunnels.

Personally given a choice between 5.5 and 7.5, I prefer the generator in the latter. Not that there's anything wrong with the 5.5 generator.. It's just not as interesting. It produces coins, jewels and, jeweled items. That's it!

7.5 however can produce all of that (in greater variation) plus weapons, armor, potions and, other magical bits and bobs. Which sounds great, in theory. The only problem is that it can go a bit (and for a bit, read WAY) overboard in the net worth of the treasure it dishes out, in one case handing a 1st level character a necklace worth in excess of 23,000... Yeah.. Just a "bit" overboard.

Other than it's Mad Hatter nature though, it's a good generator, so what to do? Enter homebrewing to fix an error that should have frankly been glaringly obvious from the word get go, the first table.

The first table in the 7.5 rulebook makes it just as likely that you'll roll jewels as coins, with a separate entry for jeweled items, meaning that it is now four times more likely that you'll find jewels of some description when compared to 5.5 and, twice as likely that you'll find jewels instead of coins.. Which common sense would tell you just isn't right.

My solution

Replace the first table in the book with the following one:

2D6 DARO

2-7: Money [See Money Table]

8-12: Weapon [See Weapon Table]

13-16: Armor [See Armor Table]

17-19: Jewels [See Jewels Table]

20-21: Jewelry [See Jewelery Table]

22+: Potion [See Potion Table]

Admittedly it's only a start but it I feel it goes a long way towards "fixing" the generator. Given time I will probably end up modifying all of the 7.5 tables along the same lines and, maybe introduce a few other McGuffins such as mundane items and a more robust et of tables for generating magical items.

Sources Of Power

Almost forgot to mention. In my ongoing, massive re-write of the Tunnels and Trolls spell book, I'm drawing upon all of these resources:

• Tunnels and Trolls 7.5 Rulebook
• Codex Incantatem
• Codex Incantatem II
• Tunnels and Trolls HQ
• Dungeons & Dragons: Complete Arcane
• Sword & Sorcery: Advanced Players Guide
• GURPS: Magic (thanks to Tim Shorts for the heads up on this one)
• Dragon Warriors
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

If there's a good one I've missed, I'd sure appreciate a point in the right direction. :0).

It's Bigger.. What Do You Know!?

Ever have one of those moments of realisation.. That comes way too late.

When I decided that I wanted to give the spell book for Tunnels and Trolls a bit of a sort, I figured piece of cake. All I had in mind after all was a re-classification of the spells already in the rulebook into new "classes". Then it struck me. Like a bolt of lightning it struck me!

Dividing the spells from 4 classes up into 17 new and different classes, whilst limiting new characters to having access to only two of these classes at creation is going to massively devalue the Wizard type. They'd only have a couple of spells.. At best!

This is suffice to say a problem. I either ditch the plan, cut down the number of classifications (which would kinda defeat the purpose) or, go with plan B: Add lots of new spells.

So if I tell you I have spent the better part of the evening after work sifting through Tunnels and Trolls 7.5 AND Dungeons and Dragons: Complete Arcane, I'm sure you can pretty much guess which route I've decided to take.

Which posses another question. All told, how many spells would you expect to find in a grouping and, what level should they run to?..

Okay that's two questions. ;0).