Post by Dilvish on Sept 22, 2009 14:55:31 GMT -5
Not quite sure where to put this, because it's not strictly a Powers thought.
I was pondering the four attributes when it hit me that only one of the four could really be measured accurately.
* Strength - Can be measured by a few simple lifts.
* Psyche - Hard to quantify since we don't have a real measure for ESP. You could use IQ as a measure, but it wouldn't really fit Erick's ADRP parameters.
* Warfare - Hard to quantify since it is inclusive of reaction time, tactics, swordplay, and so on. I guess you could measure reaction time by itself. You could use chess as a measure of tactics. You could test someone in fencing, but it's more subjective. I just don't see that you can really measure this.
* Endurance - Maybe you could have someone run a marathon or something to see how many miles they go before they pass out, but that doesn't take general health or the ability to absorb damage.
Bottom line is that Strength seems different because we could measure it directly, whereas the others are more vague. Perhaps that's why so many GMs like to use sub-attributes.
Thoughts?
I was pondering the four attributes when it hit me that only one of the four could really be measured accurately.
* Strength - Can be measured by a few simple lifts.
* Psyche - Hard to quantify since we don't have a real measure for ESP. You could use IQ as a measure, but it wouldn't really fit Erick's ADRP parameters.
* Warfare - Hard to quantify since it is inclusive of reaction time, tactics, swordplay, and so on. I guess you could measure reaction time by itself. You could use chess as a measure of tactics. You could test someone in fencing, but it's more subjective. I just don't see that you can really measure this.
* Endurance - Maybe you could have someone run a marathon or something to see how many miles they go before they pass out, but that doesn't take general health or the ability to absorb damage.
Bottom line is that Strength seems different because we could measure it directly, whereas the others are more vague. Perhaps that's why so many GMs like to use sub-attributes.
Thoughts?
