New RuneQuest SIZ and Kg table.

[hanataka]

I found errors in SIZ table (page 34 and 105) of new RuneQuest GenCon Preview.
This is a very minor error, most people might not care about it.

New RuneQuest SIZ table is based on RQ3 (not RQ2).
It is mathematically well-formed.
  Kg = 50 * exp(2, (SIZ - 8)/8)  (if SIZ is 8 or greater)
But the new one has calculation error.

        Preview    RQ3(should)
16   100-108
17   109-120    109-118
18   121-129    119-129
19   130-142    130-140
20   143-155    141-153
21   156-168    154-167
22   169-184    168-182
23   185-201    183-199
24   202-219    200-217
25   218-237

I noticed this because SIZ 24 and SIZ 25 include same range.

[DreadDomain]

Out of curiosity, does the progression stay the same or does it flatten after SIZE 90?

[Jason D]

Noted, thanks! 

 

[Atgxtg]

Yes, does the table flatted out (like RQ3 and most BRP games) or continue doubling (per Superworld).

[jongjom]

The RQ SIZ tables have always been slightly suspect.

As is currently written, the average "Bronze Age " RQG Adventurer / Gloranthan is slightly heavier and taller than the average modern North American and European (unless RQG only considers males). This feels just wrong. 

As you go up the scale toward SIZ 18, the height and weight 'gain' becomes more significant.

At SIZ 16 (191-195cm) the height is already equal to the top 3% of the population for modern Europeans and North Americans (mathematically the top 3% should be represented by SIZ 18+). At SIZ 18 a human is 203cm tall, and already 5cm (2 inches) taller than an average SIZ 18-19 male dark troll (GtG has them at 198cm on average). 

The weight issue is probably best compared to height (Body Mass Index: kg/m2). tl;dr All SIZ 18 RQG adventurers are overweight to obese. Even using the lightest (119kg) and tallest (205cm) options for this SIZ ends up with an adventurer 13.5Kg (29.8 lbs) overweight. To be healthy you have to be SIZ 18 height but SIZ 16 weight.

Or you could tweak the scale to work better. 

My suggestion would be:

SIZ	Kg	cm
8	50-54	151-156
9	55-58	157-162
10	59-64	163-166
11	65-70	167-170
12	71-75	171-174
13	76-80	175-178
14	81-85	179-182
15	86-90	183-186
16	91-95	187-190
17	96-100	191-194
18	101-115	195-198
19	116-130	199-202
20	131-145	203-206
21	146-160	207-210

This narrows but does not close the overweight issue to 2.6kg using the above min-weight/max-height metric. But at least it is more believable and still works for SIZ 18-19 dark trolls too (who as would be expected have to pick height and weight from different SIZ categories due to their species stature)! 

Edited November 5, 2017 by jongjom
Typos

[Joerg]

As a size 19 person according to that table (quite a long time for height, and now unfortunately for weight, too), I feel a bit left out.

The lower size range doesn't allow for Roman Empire average sizes, but caters to Migration Age middle- and northern European sizes.

Observations have shown a dietary effect on height that may account for 25 cm in a genetic group depending on a switch to a diet richer in meat (and possibly dairy). This does add to ancestral predispositions, creating populations with different means and standard deviation.

SIZ is an abstraction that is used in ways that aren't part of the specification. In RQ3, SIZ did not convert well into Encumbrance when one wanted to carry a wounded ally out of a battle. Getting less specific would be better than given distinct ranges of concrete measurements.

[soltakss]

For human weight, I just assume that SIZ = weight in stones. Nice and easy, for those of us in the UK anyway. 

[Raleel]

5 hours ago, soltakss said:

For human weight, I just assume that SIZ = weight in stones. Nice and easy, for those of us in the UK anyway. 

that... that almost seems intentional by the original designers. thats way too easy.

[trystero]

20 hours ago, jongjom said:

The weight issue is probably best compared to height (Body Mass Index: kg/m2). tl;dr All SIZ 18 RQG adventurers are overweight to obese. Even using the lightest (119kg) and tallest (205cm) options for this SIZ ends up with an adventurer 13.5Kg (29.8 lbs) overweight. To be healthy you have to be SIZ 18 height but SIZ 16 weight.

That's more indicative of how terrible a measure of health BMI is than of a problem with the SIZ table. BMI doesn't account for bone and muscle mass being denser than fat, squares height instead of cubing it for no explicable reason, and is basically junk science; see, for instance, this NPR article which points out, among other things, that BMI inventor Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet explicitly stated that his formula “could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual”.

(There's also this article pointing out that the average Denver Broncos player is obese according to the BMI, and that many athletes rate as overweight or obese.)

[jongjom]

2 hours ago, trystero said:

That's more indicative of how terrible a measure of health BMI is than of a problem with the SIZ table. BMI doesn't account for bone and muscle mass being denser than fat, squares height instead of cubing it for no explicable reason, and is basically junk science; see, for instance, this NPR article which points out, among other things, that BMI inventor Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet explicitly stated that his formula “could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual”.

(There's also this article pointing out that the average Denver Broncos player is obese according to the BMI, and that many athletes rate as overweight or obese.)

I generally agree, I was trying to use a rough and ready measure without getting too technical.

However, whichever way you measure it the 195cm+ and 100Kg+ categories are going to be bigger than is expected, especially dealing with a Bronze Age setting rather exceptional athletes of certain sports in the modern setting (even Olympic precipitants of all sports are not of this category). 

Edited November 6, 2017 by jongjom
clarification

[soltakss]

Replied to the wrong post ... 

Edited November 11, 2017 by soltakss