Re: Conversion tables and scales (tricky situations)

From: nichughes2001 <nicolas.h_at_...>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:59:42 -0000

>
> Implying that people won't be smart enough to use these guidelines in a
> intelligent way is either patronizing or trying to find arguments where
> there isn't any.
>

My point is that there is no need to define just how broken the terrain is ahead of time. Saying "its a good long way over what looks like difficult terrain, only a good runner would be able to make it by nightfall" is plenty enough detail. Then let the contest outcome put more detail on it. The problems is that coming from sim games some people will tend to start out by looking up the distance difficulty and then try to modify it for hills, forests, streams and other details that never really needed to be defined in advance. A 10km run in half a day could be anywhere between too easy to justify a contest and pretty much humanly impossible depending on the terrain and conditions - so what actual benefit is there to any value that might be printed on a table?

Think of it in cinematic terms. We have the heroes standing on a hill looking across to the fort in the distance - the intervening ground looks wild and undulating but we do not see it in detail. Then when the heroes set out we see a few glimpses of the challenges they face. If a runner and a rider both set out perhaps we see the runner scrambling up slopes and the rider galloping around obstacles trying to find an open route. The detail of the challenge is only revealed when the challenge takes place, so we narrate it as part of narrating the outcome.

--
Nic

Powered by hypermail