From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU
Date: Tue 22 Jun 1993 - 21:35:36 EEST
Loren Miller writes:
> 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.
Curtis Shenton writes:
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.
My reply:
Well, I am of the opinion that the current stat system is
exponential. The SIZ equivalency chart in the RQ3 books clearly
shows that SIZ doubles every eight points except at lower values.
Since SIZ and CON combine symmetrically for hit points, this
implies that CON is exponential as well, and the same argument
can be made for STR from the Damage Bonus table. It's clear from
the way the resistance table works, as well, that POW is
exponential, since 20 is to 15 as 10 is to 5. That leaves INT.
Well, devising a metric is problematic for cognitive
psychologists, so the meaning of the INT score would be open to
debate in any case, but we can say that, since DEX and INT
contribute identically to the Manipulation modifier, INT must be
on the same sort of scale as DEX, e.g. an exponential one.
In answer to some of Curtis' objections: It's true that
going from 16 to 24 doesn't double the bonus one gets to DEX-
related skills. However, I think this is one of the strengths of
having an exponentially-scaled characteristic system. Speaking
for linearly-scaled stats, one tends to get diminishing returns
for further investment. That is, in a linear system, teh five
points from 15 to 20 aren't going to be as valuable as the five
points from 10 to 15. An exponential system has this factor
built in, saying each doubling of the characteristic adds the
same amount to various bonuses, so the points going from 5 to 10
in a linear system would be the same as the points from 10 to 20.
In an exponentially scaled system, each of these jumps would be
represented by an increase of some set number of points (in RQ3's
case, eight).
Curtis also objects that id SIZ and STR were truly
exponential, then the Damage Bonus table would increase
exponentially reather than linearly. Ah, but what does Damage
affect? Hit Points. And what determines Hit Points? CON and
SIZ. And so, if Con and SIZ are on an exponential scale, so too
are Hit Points, then so too is Damage, so the Damage Bonus table
is as we would expect it.
Consider, too, INT. It's true that 18 INT doesn't allow
you to memorize twice as many spells as 10 INT, or, more
dramatically, 26 INT doesn't allow memorization of twice as many
spells as 18 INT. Of course, this all assumes that memorizing
your 18th spell doesn't take any more effort than memorizing your
1st. If we can acknowledge that we get diminishing returns for
increased DEX for physical skills, then it's not much of a jump
to say that increased INT gives diminishing returns for
memorization of spells, and also that learning your latest spell
might require more effort than your first, since there's more
other stuff for it to get mixed up with.
Of course, any exponentially scaled system breaks down at
the lower levels, as the SIZ equivalency chart tacitly implies.
Otherwise, we would have oddities such as a SIZ 8 person being
twice as big as something SIZ 0, or a 4-point wound being twice
as dmaging as a -4 point wound. So, I think in order to leave
such oddities out of the player's view, I think it would probably
be best to leave the exponential nature of characteristics' scale
in the background. To be sure, it is important for anyone
messing around with the mechanics of the game to be aware of it
(us, for instance), but I hardly think it requires
acknowledgement in the actual rules.
-- gharris@jade.tufts.edu George W. Harris "He'd kill us if he had the chance." Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University The Conversation 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:03 EEST