> I don't think anyone's saying that is important - its maintaining
> consistency within one's own games that's more the problem. The
> question, at root, seems to me to be:
>
> 1) How do I judge what the resistance should be?
> 2) How do I ensure that I am consistent in assigning the resistances?
>
> It might be that the new rulebook could answer these questions with a
> few paragraphs of advice, rather than a set of tables. (Personally, I
> have nothing against tables like the one on HQ p. 61, but I understand
> that some do). But they are important questions that the rulebook should
> address, since a number of people *are* asking them, and finding it a
> difficulty. It doesn't really matter if some other people don't find
> them a problem, so long as a significant number of people do. That's the
> purpose of having advice/rules explication in a book in the first place.
> Which I assume you weren't disputing :)
No no. I like those tables, I find them pretty sufficient for me
needs, to be honest. I think that some sort of table of that variety
could be usefully added in all the setting/region-specific books
somewhere so that you have guidelines for setting/region-specific
important contests (Astrogation resistances for sci-fi things;
Bureaucrat-impressing calligraphy resistances for Kralori; etc), but I
don't know how much expansion is needed? Even a chart with resistances
for movement over a given distance rapidly becomes complex when you
add in terrain, weather, etc etc. I don't know if I want more chart in
my books.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.