But if you're looking at normal people, NPCs you meet in the street (or just non-weird PCs), then a 40 year old is better than a 16 year old, at just about anything.
> Plus, how old is a "Starting character"? This isn't RQ, where
> you're assumed
> to be 16 and your starting skills are in the 25% range. HQ
> was written so
> your character could be any age and still be "on a par" with
> the rest of the party.
And very silly results it gives too, as a result. Joe Humakti has a backstory saying he's been a mercenary for the last ten years - Fred Orlanthi was initiated last week and wants to be a warrior. And they've both got the same sword skill. Right...
No, John's right, we need something.
> > What do people think? Or is ANY single formula going to be too
> > simplistic?
> A single simple formula would be... a formuale would need to
> allow a fast
> rise in the early years, then taper off as the character gets
> older. You
> need Algebra, rather than simple Mathematics, probably
> something like a square- or cube-root function.
I've given up on a formula of any sort, just assign numbers to match the "standard resistance" table. Keyword ratings around the 10W mark for the average competent adult, say.
If you want to go the Numbers route, you might consider a gradually increasing negative augment on all physical skills, to kick in at about 30-35 or so, that's aimed to more or less cancel out key-word rises by the time the character can be considered decrepit. That leaves them very knowledgable, but not a fighter. I'm not up to sorting out numbers, but it may help.
And yes, a curved graph for keyword increase in the first place, not a straight line. Possibly with a maximum built in. In fact, if you take a look at the increase rate you get as a result of the RQ Tick system, that'll be pretty close.
Powered by hypermail