From: Steve Perrin (steve@perrinworlds.com)
Date: Sat 15 Dec 2001 - 21:21:39 EET
There's a book called Flight of Dragons that lays out the whole theory. I'm not convinced by it, but no less an author than Barbara Hambly used it as her dragons in her first series. However, I was just figuring that a flying creature needs less weight per volume in any case. This is not to say they are still not huge (do you know how much a jet fighter weighs? It's a lot.) and well armored, though the armor is probably more similar to the modern composite armors than battleship plate.
And current theories about the Hindenburg say that it was probably the rather inflammable paint that had been layered onto it and not the hydrogen that went up. After the disaster, the Germans repainted their other dirigibles with a non-inflammatory paint.
Steve Perrin
----- Original Message -----
From: J and/or Ellen
To: rq-rules@crashbox.com
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Wonky Dragon Math
Twenty-something years ago, I read an article in Omni magazine that speculated about possible anatomy of dragons. It answered both the how-could-something-ever-breathe-fire and the how-could-it-get-off-the-ground issues by assuming that the source of its firebreathing was hydrogen. Thus, as Steve says, a dragon could be waaaaay less dense than a giant. (And possibly a Hindenburg when defeated in combat.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Perrin
To: rq-rules@crashbox.com
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Wonky Dragon Math
Check your Superworld Companion, which I believe you have, for the table on SIZ as weight. As I recall it also worked for RQ. SIZ as height was always more nebulous. All it can do is provide a very loose fit. Dragons are probably bigger than Giants with the same SIZ, for instance, because they are airborne and are probably less dense per cubic foot than a giant is.
Best I can do for you.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: MurfNMurf@aol.com
To: rq-rules@crashbox.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: [RQ-Rules] Wonky Dragon Math
Hey gang,
Maybe as some sort of _block_ left over from my encounter with the mind-numbing plethora of differing Dragon-types you see in D&D, I've always prettymuch stayed clear of the things myself; both in D&D, and since making the switch to RQ many, many moons ago.
Anyhow, thanks to a couple of conversations and the recounting of a few Adventure Tales among our gaming group, I've recently gotten to thinking about Dragons in RQ.
Wondering, and with a _somewhat_ firm grasp of the square cube law (acquired during skylarking on this list some time back concerning the Jolanti), I started looking up Dragon stats in the BRP-related stuff I owned. My idea was to get an idea of the the thing's dimensions, then push the square cube law both up & down to see what could be done. The only Dragons with notes concerning _any_ sorts of dimensions are the Stormbringer Dragon, with a wingspan of 30' across, and a length of 40', and the Wyvern, which is apparently about the size of a horse.
Well, I didn't let the lack of _actual_ measurable stats stand in my way, and ended up using the RQ3 rulebook-provided Dragon with its SIZ of 20D6. Which works out to be a range of 20-120, with an average of 70 at "X" dimensions (_whatever_ they might be).
Since for every doubling of linear measurements, volume, and thus weight, increases 8 times, I assumed that this worked backwards as well; so every halfing of linear measurements, volume, and thus weight, would have the weight being divided by 8.
Working under this premise, a Dragon that is 1/2 "X" dimensions would have a SIZ range of 4-74, with an average of 46. And a halfing of _that_ Dragon's dimensions would result in a Dragon with a SIZ range of 1-50, with an average of 23.
Anyone have any idea what "X" should be? Steve Perrin? You were there. Fill us in :)
-Ken-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:47 EEST