On August 15, 2007 11:49 am, Kevin McDonald wrote:
> Now, this is a house rule so I agree that there is a problem with the
> published advancement rules. It is a catch-22. If you allow ability
> ratings to increase in an uncontrolled manner then sample resistances
> are problematic. If you use sample resistances as benchmarks then the
> published character advancement rules are problematic. One or the
> other needs to change. I chose to change the advancement rules because
> it seems to me that otherwise (no benchmark sample resistances) that
> PC ability ratings become largely meaningless.
I happen to agree with Kevin about the benchmark vs advancement issues. But then I have always had a problem with the HQ advancement.
As for the issue here, I think that the published works should be published with a specific scale in mind. Now, HQ (and Questworlds) is very flexible and has all kinds of strengths and weaknesses because of that flexibility. That's fine and it does not need a fixed scale for the system. Add in that groups have differing views not only on advancement, but on augmenting, and a fixed scale is going to never be universally applicable.
Nonetheless, a consistent scale used by the books gives us a clean benchmark to understand what we are going for. We can learn how to adjust in relation to that, and it is a consistent shorthand for people to use. I'd probably recommend using the Hero Book scale since it is one that has been published. But really - as long as one is picked, and Glorantha products follow it, then we have something to work off of.
Just my 2 cents.
LC
Powered by hypermail