Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Reimdall
Hi Sergio - too bad ERP's not your cup of tea; maybe we'll come up with something that suits your tastes better in the future!
|
It's not exactly that it is not my cup of tea. I could not say that without reading Epic, a review is not enough. It's just that I have been consistently buying games and still I have a stack of games to acquire that just keeps growing. I suppose it is to be expected at the rate games are published these days. What I meant was that the info I got from the reviews of Epic was not enough to make me move it up the list. (Yes, the game is in the list as the last entrant.)
Quote:
I did check out your recent Stat Scales column and agree regarding large sets of personal statistics not being viable for roleplaying purposes. We attempted to address that idea, though not an earth-shattering revelation  , by using a bell curve for our vital attributes (which run from 1 to 10, which seemed to be an easily grokkable number). On a percentile roll between 12 and 89, characters land squarely in the middle (from 4 to 7) between what seems similar to your "Below Average" and "Above Average," with the more rarified dwarfism and giantism folks becoming radically less common, with the outer edges of the scale - 1 and 10 - obtaining only with a 01 or 00 roll, respectively. I think it allows for a pretty wide range of normal human size, but allowing for those freaks of nature that add even more interest to story.
|
Indeed. In any case, most games (yes, it's me using this expressioon, go get it) with large scales - and for me 3 to 18 is large - end converting those scales into smaller sets. That's what happens with D&D, RuneQuest and several more. The smaller sets end being the ones that actually matter while playing.