tgcb Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 Does any version of Runequest or BRP have a chart explaining what the values of characteristics represent? Personally, I think it would be helpful to new players to better grasp what the numbers mean. What does a 3 DEX mean? Does an 18 INT mean I'm a genius? Does a 15 STR mean I can bench 300 pounds? Here is a terrible example for DEX: 3 4 Drunk GM 5 6 7 Drunk Player 8 9 10 11 Average human 12 13 14 15 Master Swordsman 16 Professional Gymnast 17 18 Ninja Master Quote
soltakss Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) I'd say the scale is off somewhat. 18 is the best a normal person can be, without training. 21 is the best with training. So, a Ninja Master would have DEX 21+, probably higher than 21 because of magical improvement, a Professional Gymnast would have a DEX of 19-21. Master Swordsmen don't necessarily have a high DEX, but it helps. My rough guide is as follows: INT = IQ / 10, so add a 0 to the end to get the IQ classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - it is as flawed as the IQ Test, but gives a rough guide, especially when using 3D6 INT. SIZ uses tables that are in the RQ2/RQ3 books for height and weight. Add in extra effects for body shape and you get an idea of what SIZ 15 means. However, a short fat man and a tall thin one could both be SIZ 15. STR allows you to pick up the equivalent SIZ, so STR 15 allows you to pick up a SIZ 15 person 50% of the time first go. Work out tjhe mass of the person and that shows how strong you are. CON is trickier, as it is a nebulous idea of health. I don't know houw you would scale this. POW is similar to CON. In one way it denotes luck, which I don't like at all - why are all magically powerful people lucky? It makes no sense to me. On the other hand, it denotes magical strength, for which we don't have a measure in the real world. APP is a measure of how attractive the person is. As this is subjective, the best way would be for 100 people to give a score between 3 and 18 for a person and take the average. CHA is a measure of personality rather than attractiveness. This is the intangible attribute that made Napoleon a leader of men and helped Rasputin seduce the Russian Court. [[[ Edited by the Moderator ]]] Edited July 22, 2013 by lawrence.whitaker Content Quote Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. www.soltakss.com/index.html Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here.
silent_bob Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) I'd say the scale is off somewhat. 18 is the best a normal person can be, without training. 21 is the best with training. So, a Ninja Master would have DEX 21+, probably higher than 21 because of magical improvement, a Professional Gymnast would have a DEX of 19-21. Master Swordsmen don't necessarily have a high DEX, but it helps. My rough guide is as follows: INT = IQ / 10, so add a 0 to the end to get the IQ classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - it is as flawed as the IQ Test, but gives a rough guide, especially when using 3D6 INT. SIZ uses tables that are in the RQ2/RQ3 books for height and weight. Add in extra effects for body shape and you get an idea of what SIZ 15 means. However, a short fat man and a tall thin one could both be SIZ 15. STR allows you to pick up the equivalent SIZ, so STR 15 allows you to pick up a SIZ 15 person 50% of the time first go. Work out tjhe mass of the person and that shows how strong you are. CON is trickier, as it is a nebulous idea of health. I don't know houw you would scale this. POW is similar to CON. In one way it denotes luck, which I don't like at all - why are all magically powerful people lucky? It makes no sense to me. On the other hand, it denotes magical strength, for which we don't have a measure in the real world. APP is a measure of how attractive the person is. As this is subjective, the best way would be for 100 people to give a score between 3 and 18 for a person and take the average. CHA is a measure of personality rather than attractiveness. This is the intangible attribute that made Napoleon a leader of men and helped Rasputin seduce the Russian Court. [[[ Edited by the Moderator ]]] Edited July 22, 2013 by lawrence.whitaker Content Quote
tgcb Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 We've got to get that chart into the new hardcover! Quote
lawrence.whitaker Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 We've got to get that chart into the new hardcover! I know you're joking but really, please, don't. That table is sexist. If it had been posted on RPGnet, there would be a shit-storm roundabout, oh, now, of immense proportions. Neither Pete nor I approve of that table - no matter how light-hearted or satirically intentioned. Believe me, its existence, even here, could cause all sorts of issues. For the record, it absolutely will not find its way into any book Design Mechanism publishes, and I find even a light hearted suggestion that it ought to go into RQ6 almost as offensive as the table is. And before anyone starts to snigger and moan about po-faced-can't-take-a-joke-Loz, I just hope some of you are aware of how things like this get so easily broadcast into other fora, seized-upon, and cause almighty flamewars that damage personal and professional reputations. Quote The Design Mechanism: Publishers of Mythras
lawrence.whitaker Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 In fact, to be on the safe side, I've removed the offending table in my capacity as moderator of this section of the Forum. Sorry, but its for the best. Quote The Design Mechanism: Publishers of Mythras
rust Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 ... I just hope some of you are aware of how things like this get so easily broadcast into other fora, seized-upon, and cause almighty flamewars that damage personal and professional reputations. Indeed. While it was certainly intended as just a joke, it was the kind of joke which can easily turn into a forum nuke, especially since there are lots of people out there who are actively looking for opportunities to start arguments. No need to offer food for such trolls. Quote "Mind like parachute, function only when open." (Charlie Chan)
tgcb Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 (Note that I didn't create the table-that-does-not-exist, and I used to work for lawyers so I can appreciate how "PC" a business needs to be). Now that we all agree that the table-that-shall-not-be-named was "offensive" and "inappropriate"...can we get back to how we get this type of information into a book? I know you're going to say "we don't care about Characteristics, we care about skills"....but try coming it at from a new player. You do want new players don't you? Right? If someone just picks up the book, get to the Characteristics section and gets a 14 POW, they may want to know what that means relatively speaking. Almost all games have players making Characteristics at near the beginning of character creation yet don't give a reference of what the numbers mean. Why is STR 18 the maximum? Well, lets show them a chart explaining approximately what the STR numbers mean. Oh, STR can lift about about 400 pounds...I cans see why that's the human maximum. So why is CON 18 the max? I have a 13 CHA what does that "mean"? Etc. etc. Anyway, I think it would help but what do I know? Quote
rust Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 The problem is that STR can be defined and measured quite well, while POW and CHA are difficult to define and impossible to measure. Besides, I suspect that most refe- rees could agree how to handle STR in their games, but comparatively few referees would agree how exactly to handle POW and CHA in all kinds of situations. So all the game designers probably can do is to tell their readers what an average POW or CHA is, and then leave it to them to come up with their own ideas what an unusual high or low POW or CHA could be like. Quote "Mind like parachute, function only when open." (Charlie Chan)
Baragei Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Maybe my mind is just so severely damaged from the long years of playing games, but I have little problem working with a numerical range of 3-18, where 10 represents an average human, 3 being an exeptionally below average human and 18 being the opposite. That said, the actual attributes of RQ are a bit annoying..once they're rolled or placed or however you do decide to do it, that's it. They don't really do anything else, they just sit there. The fact that your character might be the healthiest individual to ever grace the land with his CON 18, doesn't really matter unless he spends all his experience on getting his Endurance-skill up. Then again, I actually like the Resistance Table of BRP, so maybe I'm just weird. But this is a relatively minor quibble in an otherwise stellar game. Quote
tgcb Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 Maybe my mind is just so severely damaged from the long years of playing games, but I have little problem working with a numerical range of 3-18, where 10 represents an average human, 3 being an exeptionally below average human and 18 being the opposite. Again, I'm trying to get these games into new hands, not just us old-timer hands. Yes, we've all seen this stuff a million times so don't put much thought into it...but what about someone who is reading a RPG for the first time? And one may ask why are we having you generate numbers when we can't even tell you what the numbers mean. In any case, believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful. Sounds like I'll have to come up with charts myself and see how it goes. Quote
Baragei Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Again, I'm trying to get these games into new hands, not just us old-timer hands. Yes, we've all seen this stuff a million times so don't put much thought into it...but what about someone who is reading a RPG for the first time? And one may ask why are we having you generate numbers when we can't even tell you what the numbers mean. My honest opinion? Because that's how it's always been. Now, I don't want it to go away. I like my 3d6.. But I agree that RQ's attributes might have been a bit more fleshed out. With the removal of the Resistance Table, the core attributes lost a rather big bit of their functionality. In any case, believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful. I don't think you're posting here just to cause trouble. Not at all. If my reply indicates that I do, that was not my intention. Carry on:) Quote
SDLeary Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) My honest opinion? Because that's how it's always been. Now, I don't want it to go away. I like my 3d6.. But I agree that RQ's attributes might have been a bit more fleshed out. With the removal of the Resistance Table, the core attributes lost a rather big bit of their functionality. I don't think they lost a big bit of their functionality, but things did shift a bit. Its trivial to dump the Resistance Table back in, its formula, or use opposed rolls to recover their importance though. Remember, while RQ is more focused on Fantasy, it is a toolbox, like the BGB. Thats why you might notice some of the writing a bit open. The authors want you to tailor it to your game an style. SDLeary Edited July 23, 2013 by SDLeary Quote
lawrence.whitaker Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 I know you're going to say "we don't care about Characteristics, we care about skills' We've never said this. Characteristics are fundamental to character creation. They form the basis of attributes and skills. Skills are used more frequently and more flexibly during play, but this is very different to saying we don't care about characteristics. However, we simply don't feel that a chart showing subjective interpretations of characteristics is really going to add value. It might be in some other games, but we don't feel it is in RQ. Each characteristic gets a good paragraph of descriptive text anyway, that defines what it represents. A chart that goes from, say, 3 = Puny to 18 = Super Strong is simply a list of adjectives that, all too frequently, become set-in-stone descriptors. Plus, there'd need to be different tables, or modified tables, to show the same for non-human characters. STR 20 might be 'Charles Atlas' level for a human, but merely average for a troll (which, by the way, it is). We believe we've given very good guidance, in the descriptive text of each characteristic, in the advice on rolling for (or choosing) characteristics, and Anathaym's Saga. Its that simple. It is true that we've de-emphasized characteristics as a resolution mechanism: either through opposition using the resistance table, or as the basis for a multiplier such as POW x3 for Luck or DEX x3 for Dodge. The emphasis has gone towards skills which have a flexibility not always present in characteristic-based resolution systems. The opposed roll system we use replaces the need for the Resistance table while building-in level of success granularity. Translating traditional BRP characteristic rolls like STR x3, CON x3 and POW x3 in Brawn, Endurance and Willpower respectively, allows them to... 1. Form part of skill considerations for cultures and professions 2. Make them improvable without the need to increase the raw characteristic Now we know that tastes vary. That's fine. Its not difficult to make Brawn, Endurance and Willpower (and Evade, too, if you like) static %ages based on a multiplier of the key characteristic. You won't break RQ's mechanics as a result. But you will lose a certain degree of flexibility that we believe enhances the system, rather than detracts from it. And, if you're going to argue that RQ6's characteristics do very little, then you also need to consider that, in previous versions of RQ, and some BRP variants, they did even less. Do we want new players? Of course we do: but a lack of a characteristic chart isn't a deal-breaker. It may cause some players to scratch their heads, but honestly? Just taking a scan through some of the games on my shelf: BRP BGB, Elric!, Cthulhu 2nd Ed, Traveller (Mongoose and Classic), Paranoia 2nd Ed... none of them carry characteristic descriptions charts. So unless there's a huge problem across lots of games, I'm really not convinced there's much of an issue here at all. I don't think its quite the entry deterrent you believe it might be. Quote The Design Mechanism: Publishers of Mythras
tgcb Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 Again, not trying to argue. I just personally would like the information and perhaps others may as well. Also, in an industry that is losing players every year, I'm not sure that doing what everyone else does is the best strategy..... Quote
lawrence.whitaker Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Also, in an industry that is losing players every year, I'm not sure that doing what everyone else does is the best strategy..... That's an entirely separate thread, and characteristic value charts are a tiny, tiny part of it. The reason the hobby is contracting is because times and tastes change. It used to be that trainspotting, stamp collecting and CCGs were all the rage. All hobbies diminish as their enthusiasts age, technology alters, and so on. I'm sure there's a ton of stuff that could be done to attract new roleplayers, or players from other systems: but it requires a very dedicated strategy and, probably, far more money than we've got. Again, not trying to argue. I just personally would like the information and perhaps others may as well. I know. But, as a game designer and publisher, I'm forever balancing wants, needs, likes and must haves against page counts, budgets, deadlines and sales... YMMV :-) Quote The Design Mechanism: Publishers of Mythras
tgcb Posted July 23, 2013 Author Posted July 23, 2013 Imaginary topic for the next Design Mechanism Board Meeting: How to get that moron TGCB off our forum. * Send him a copy of Savage Worlds and hope he likes it? * move forum to new name and "forget" to tell him where we moved to? * straight-up assassination??? Quote
threedeesix Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) Imaginary topic for the next Design Mechanism Board Meeting: How to get that moron TGCB off our forum. Tell him the tables he wants are planned for version 3.5. Edit: 6.5? Rod Edited July 23, 2013 by threedeesix Quote Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info "D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"
soltakss Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Although light-hearted and not meant to be offensive, it is difficult to quantify a characteristic such as APP without referring to relative values. Is there any way to quantify a characteristic such as APP in a manner that offends nobody? Quote Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. www.soltakss.com/index.html Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here.
Baragei Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Malformed - Ugly - Plain - Decent - Good-looking - Striking - Beautyful? Granted, none of these are specially objective, but APP is more than facial features. Do you slouch? That's a step down. Maybe your facial features are of the chiseled kind, but is sabotaged by your deadly halitosis. Do you dress well? Limp handshake? Etc. If you consistantly make a good first impression, chances are your APP/CHA is above average. BRP adresses this. RQ does not. But it is kind of implied. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.