From: Curtis Shenton (curtiss@netcom.com)
Date: Mon 21 Jun 1993 - 23:54:14 EEST
>
> There has been some talk about the scales of characteristics in
> RuneQuest. While this doesn't matter much for lots of purposes, when
> it does matter it can get pretty darn important. And it matters now,
> while we're arguing about Armor rules, Hit Points, etc.
I agree this needs to be decided on. And I think it's even more
important that Loren suggests. Depending on what the scale is supposed
to be it will also change the way skill bonuses are determained for
insatnce.
>
> My opinion on characteristic scales in RQ is that they are
> exponential. Every +8 in stat is x2 in ability. This is the scale
> suggested by the Size table. Since Strength presumably uses the same
> units as Size, it should also be exponential. Since Constitution is
> mixed up with Siz and Str in so many formulae, it must also be
> exponential. The resistance table suggests that all other stats are
> also exponential. So I'm pretty sure that the scales are already
> exponential.
I've had this argument with Loren before. And while I actualy agree with
Loren that the stats should be exponential I don't think they are now. I
agree SIZ is screwy. But if the stats were exponential then going from
dex 16 to 24 should give you 2x as big a bonus to your skills as going
from 8 to 16, and I don't think that's the way it works. Also damage
bonuses should increase exponentailly too and they don't. Also look at
something like FREE INT. If INT was exponentail then 18 INT should be 2x
as good as 10 INT right? But INT 18 can only hold 18 spells rather than
20. I have other examples too I could post if you'd like. So I don't
think the current system is exponential. And while I think it should be,
and SIZ should ve fixed one way or the other, this needs to be debated.
It will be a pretty big change.
>
> The problem is that this is never stated explicitly in the rules, and
> we have people going around with different assumptions. They think
> that someone with a score of 100 in an attribute is 10x as good as
> someone with 10, while I'd say they were 2^11.25 as good.
I'm curious to see what other people think about this. I've never met
anyone who agrees with Loren but it might just be I'm in somesort of RQ
ghetto. :)
>
>
> whoah,
> +++++++++++++++++++++++23
> Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
> "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.
>
-- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:00 EEST