hanataka Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadDomain Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Out of curiosity, does the progression stay the same or does it flatten after SIZE 90? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason D Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Noted, thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Yes, does the table flatted out (like RQ3 and most BRP games) or continue doubling (per Superworld). Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongjom Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joerg Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 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. Quote Telling how it is excessive verbis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soltakss Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 For human weight, I just assume that SIZ = weight in stones. Nice and easy, for those of us in the UK anyway. 3 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raleel Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trystero Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 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.) 1 Quote — “Self-discipline isn’t everything; look at Pol Pot.”—Helen Fielding, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongjom Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 (edited) 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soltakss Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) Replied to the wrong post ... Edited November 11, 2017 by soltakss 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.