> Of course, I'm sure the authors of such an article would
> prefer the problems were not there at all, and were dealt with before
> the game hit print, but publishing a constructive article about how to
> fix them seems preferable to ignoring them and hoping no one outside
> this list notices them!
> Face it - if HQ stands or falls on the mathematical gamist
> soundness of its rules, and its appeal to those who care about such
> things, its already failed.
Actually, to prepare a forthcoming game (yay!), I've gone over all of the current tables et cetera.
Conclusions :
The Range and Duration Charts are imperfect, but unimprovable.
In order to make them more "accurate", you'd have to quadruple the number of entries on each of the charts, with all sorts of fine detail, frex
Ranges
Up to 50 meters 0
to 60 meters +1 to 70 meters +2 to 80 meters +3 to 90 meters +4 to 100 meters +5
(and logarithmic from 100 meters onwards)
etc ...
... which *isn't* 100% logarithmically accurate, is _theoretically_ playable, but **in practice** is simply not worth the extra effort.
The Multiple Targets Chart is IMO broken, and I think this is the one most people are talking about.
This "brokenness" is a result of the game design, where each 20 points of a given Mastery level equals a level of magnitude in the game reality, so that the relationship between 1W3 and 20W3 is of the same order as the difference betwen 5% and 100% in RQ, but at a higher level.
But the thing that most armchair analysts fail
to consider, IMO, is that the logarithmic relationship
goes both ways, and the difference between 5W4
and 6W4 is far far greater than the difference
between 5 and 6, which leads to the dry
conclusion that while a strict logarithmic system
would suggest +1 as a mathematically correct flat Bonus
for all augmentations, the game system itself would suggest
a more generous +1 per 20.
But I agree with Issaries that +1 per 10, especially with normal rounding, is far more satisfying from the gaming POV.
OTOH +1 per 5, would be a logarithmic absurdity IMO.
Augmentations rules are a separate issue, but +1 per 10 would seem to naturally suggest a Resistance of 10 per +n, not 5 as is currently the case, so that attempting to get a +4 would have a Resistance of 20W. Rolled Augmentations and Automatic ones would then be consistent with the overall mathematical structure of the game system, if that kind of accuracy happened to be your cup of tea.
Sandy's suggestion that +1 and similar bonuses aren't worth bothering about is only true because of 25 years' plus worth of Big Numbers Powergamers' efforts to have bigger numbers in RPG systems... ;-)
I've tweaked the Community Participation table for my house rules, but frankly it's the HW:RiG Support rules that suck, not the table as such.
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail