Keith, who just Spake As Homer Simpson:
> Can I say in my defence that I had forgotten how I had worked out the
> treasure adding bit, and had forgotten what I had been thinking (treasure
> like a lump sum, wealth like income so not entirely comparable). I will be
> sticking to my current relationship because it means the rich guys can afford
> to ignore treasure and I can be less worried about cheap stuff.
I'll grant there a distinction there, but if you're using a "wealth adding" table at all, you're rather smooshing over it, I'd have thought. One might instead give a penalty to "treasure", when attempting to convert it to "wealth". How do you 'invest' it in order to get a 'return', in effect. Maybe treasure should be about a tenth of "wealth" (if you'll forgive me substituting financial oversimplifications for mathematical ones...).
Equally, what about the case of combining two wealth values per se? (Combining two herds of cattle, say.) Or the case where the 'treasure' value is _higher_ than the permanent wealth? A rule (of thumb, at any rate) for inter-converting would be handy.
> << That's doubling every 10, though, rather than every mastery. (The former
> seems more reasonable, though, anyway.)>>
>
> I am using 10 as a mastery. Masteries remain equivalent, it was just the
> numbers in between that change.
Oh, of course. My bad, especially as I'd just posted in that thread too, and failed to make the connection...
> << Working that assumption through, though, we should get a table more like
> the following:
>
> X-Y =
> 0- 1: X+10
> 2- 3: X+9
> 4- 5: X+8
> 6- 8: X+7
> 9-11: X+6
> 12-14: X+5
> 15-18: X+4
> 19-24: X+3
> 25-31: X+2
> 32-48: X+1
> 49+ : X >>
>
>
> Which is a reasonably simple table but I wanted to avoid including stuff that
> was 4 masteries apart having much effect on each other.
Well as I suggested, if you make the table more "lumpy" by restricting it to +3, +5, etc, then one might truncate it at 20 or so...
Then again, maybe you'd get results more in line with your expectations, and some approximate equivalence with the HW notion of a mastery, if you considered +_5_ to be a doubling of effect? Then one'd get a table like:
X-Y=
0- 1 : X+5 2- 3 : X+4 4- 6 : X+3 7-10 : X+2 11-19 : X+1
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail