Kept away from this so far, but I'd like to comment.
First of all, Greg's comment that HQ is a narrativist game is one that I generally agree with ; except, it's an RPG, and therefore has some simulationist and gamist elements as part of the background system.
There's NO problem with the gamist elements. ;-)
But what's the best way to handle the necessary simulationist elements of a narrativist RPG ? IMO, it's to make sure that all of simulationist or quasi-simulationist numbers and other crunchy bits are as perfect as possible, so that HQ GMs no longer have to think about them, ever !
Obviously, the numbers given in pre- TR, ST, BA, & OiD HW publications fail in this respect.
What's needed is that HQ numbers follow a clear, functional, and systematic logarithmic structure ; in fact, the exact same structure that Robin Laws devised in the basic rules system.
Unfortunately, those of us who have in the past advocated this (viz. Wealth thread passim) have AFAICS not been listened to.
Greg and others seem to feel that sensible logarithmy is "simulationist" and constitutes a misunderstanding of the game, and game system. I can assure them that this is not the case.
In fact, a vital element of all narrativism is the suspension of disbelief, suspension that cannot be helped if the GM has to fudge all numbers from scratch, and from a "simulationist" vacuum. Narratives, from a non-simulationist POV, demand that all elements of those narratives be *consistent*. It is a big mistake IMO that the numbers of HW have no internal consistency to speak of. Anyone can see that HQ isn't a simulationist game, but this is something that IMO impedes a properly narrativist approach.
Anyways, Toksickburn :
> I tried another attempt for a table.This time i researched the
> internet for speed and mass of animals(using the zoo-website of
> hannover as my primary source).
Good first step, but from the numbers given below, it seems you've failed to realise that HQ TNs are actually hyper-logarithmic, and not merely logarithmic like the numbers of RQ, D&D, RulesMaster, etc.
That's why your scale is so awkward.
> Next step, i tried to
> find thresholds, that relate to the masterymeaning.The worldrecord for
> sprinting is somewhat about 9m/sec, roughly 30km/h-so i decided that
> to be 5W3 (higher rating possible).
Far too high, and anyway, you're approaching it from the wrong direction, mathematically.
The correct approach is to realise that TNs 5-6 represent the normal, human average (how fast you or I run to catch the bus), that 10 represents normal human best (ie how fast an ordinary man can run on a good day), 15 represents fast running, 20 represents normal performance by specialists, 5W excellent performance by specialists, etc.
You should also realise, that from a purely linear POV (such as numbers of coins, of people, and anything else that can be counted using ordinary numbers), each 5 points of HQ TNs represents a doubling, so that 10 is twice as many as 5, 15 twice as many as 10, 12W twice as many as 7W, etc.
However, as compared to the scales of other RPGs such as RQ (which are already logarithmic), every +10 points represents a doubling of standard RPG quanta (so that a man with Strength 15 is twice as strong as one with Strength 5, 12W twice that of 2W, Sprint 19 twice as good as Sprint 9). Note that being twice as strong as another character actually means that you can normally carry (2* 2* = 4 times) as many items as the weaker character, run 4 times the distance, 4 times as quickly, etc, because Strength is itself a logarithmic quantity in a normal RPG environment !
Please look at the House Rules on my website for practical applications of this as Mass Effects rules, and a variant set of Wealth rules.
> Sprint(km/h):
Removing the Mouse ;-), I'd say (given that humans are actually very good sprinters) :
20-Pig-Sprint 10 24-Reindeer-Sprint 15 30-Whale,Human-Sprint 18 40-Elephant-Sprint 20 48-Emu,Orang Utang,Hippo-Sprint 1W 50-Dromedary,Giraffe,Bison,Rhino,Brownbear-Sprint 2W 60-Zebra,Gazelle,Wolf-Sprint 4W 65-Icebear,Ostrich-Sprint 4W 70-Horse-Sprint 5W 75-Lion-Sprint 6W 80-Kangaroo,Antelope-Sprint 7W
Although, given these are comparative values, it might be more consistent with the game system to give these same values as a list of Bonuses to the basic TN of the animals in question :
Pig Fast -8
Reindeer Fast -3
Whale,Human
Elephant Fast +2
Emu,Orang Utang,Hippo Fast +3
Dromedary,Giraffe,Bison,Rhino,Brownbear Fast +4
Zebra,Gazelle,Wolf fast +6
Icebear,Ostrich Fast +6
Horse Fast +7
Lion fast +8
Kangaroo,Antelope fast +9
Cheetah Fast +11
These could be used either as automatic Bonuses during contests ("The Cheetah makes its first attack, or can attempt to flee, with an automatic bonus of +11"), or as a means of generating an appropriate TN for a Fast Ability from a basic TN (ie an Elephant 4W2 would have Fast 6W2, or an automatic bonus of +2 when charging, for example, whichever felt more appropriate at the time). I realise that the above Bonuses could be reverse-engineered into TNs (Cheetah, with an automatic "Fast" bonus of +11 *must* have a Fast ability of about 10W5), but this would IMO be a mistake, and to misunderstand the rather exquisite maths of the game system.
IMO the Narrativist approach should know when to make _use_ of Simulationaist methods, for better, easier Narrativism ; not hobble itself following those methods.
> Large/Mass(kg):
Etc : the following numbers are IMO completely wrong.
> 65-Cheetah,Lepard-Small2
> 70-Kangaroo,Chimpanzee-Small1
> 75-Human-no Rating
> 155-Lama,Ostrich -Large15W2
> 210-Gorilla-Large 18W2
> 260-Lion-Large5W3
> 280-Tiger-Large6W3
> 315-Zebra -Large10W3
> 500-Cattle-Large2W4
> 780-Brownbear-Large15W4
> 800-Bison-Large15W4
> 1000-Camel,Icebear-Large18W4
> 1930-Giraffe-Large5W5
> 2000-Rhino-Large5W5
> 3200-Hippopotamus-Large7W5
> 5000-Elephant-Large5W6
> 13500-Whale-Large5W8(?)
cheers,
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail