> - HW/HQ ratings seem to be me to be almost logarithmic in nature,
They *are* logarithmic.
> I think some of the numbers under the existing solution are a bit dodgy.
Yes, and so say all of us.
> - To use non-relative ability scores, you have to abandon the
> "everything starts around 13, and defaults to 6" plan, or else
> normalize the whole world to humans, and have many, many,
> exceptions for all other species.
Yes. The latter is the way the system was meant to work. If there weren't intended to be "many, many exceptions for all other species", there would be no need for species-specific stats in Anaxial's Rooster. (A cow's stats would be "Cow 13"; a dragon's "Dragon 13"; an enterprising narrator such as yourself would then fill in all the remaining details on the fly, improvising relative adjustments for the differences between species whenever necessary).
> - If you use "big 6" for humans, and assume people can have "big 13
> or even big 17" without being bigger than a horse...
*BUZZ* As nobody has recently suggested that the Anaxial's Rooster Big/Small scale works particularly well, it's a bit of a straw man to use its flaws as an argument against "normalised" non-relativistic ability scores.
> - The concept of me as a prominent poster alternately amuses and
> worries me.
Due to the length of your posts, and the excellence of your insights (though not in this case). But in all fairness, I was trying to implicate Greg as well, who has come out with a fair amount of nonsense in a similar vein.
Then again, "Gloranthans (and Greg) don't know the numbers."
Cheers, Nick
PS:
> people get treated far too seriously just because they can, and
> frequently do, string a few sentences together.
"A few"?!? You misunderestimate yourself!!
Powered by hypermail