I used to argue for benchmarks for HQ1 because the numbers were all over the place. The numbers for Barbarian Adventures were different from Anaxials Roster, etc. I think there was an attempt with the HeroBook to offer a benchmark scale (different from earlier ones) that might have been adopted as "official". So I get where you are coming from. But in some ways, all that is saying is "I want a description of how these characters are relative to the benchmark" - which is relative resistance, isn't it? From what I can tell, HQ says "the benchmark is your PCs". I do recall a game system involving virtual worlds you adventured in that had a sort of sliding numerical scale directly incorporated, so all stats had to be shifted numerically.
Now, it could be that some standard language for "this person should be hard - this one should be easy" would be needed. I'm not sure that's true, but I could see it. Would you be happy with some kind of relative numbers? (Lancelot - Best Knight in Realms +2W)
I think this is one of those philosophical things that just isn't going to get settled, of course, especially because I think what HQ2 is saying is that whether a contest is hard or not probably depends on the moment as well, so even that sort of relative notation would be unhelpful.
LC
Tim Ellis wrote:
>Add a sentence or two at the start of the adventure "The Statistics
>in this adventure are based on a benchmark of nWx. GM's may prefer
>to use relative resistances and the Pass/Fail Cycle in some or all
>instances, whether or not their adventurers are within this range."
Powered by hypermail