Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7228992" data-attributes="member: 22779">But if you're using the wrong bell curve, then you aren't actually modeling anything.  And the 3-18 curve really is extremely poor at modeling population.  For one, the peak of that bell, in a pre-industrial civilization would be FAR below a 10.  Given the plethora of debilitating conditions starting from birth onwards, the notion that your population would peak at a 10 is ludicrous.  Add to that, things like poor nutrition and whatnot, and the notion that you are going to have just as many people on one side of the bell as the other is also a bad joke.  I would argue that if your model doesn't reflect anything close to a believable reality, then perhaps it's time to reject the model.  So, no, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I disagree that a poor model is better than no model at all.  Particularly when that poor model also comes part and parcel with all sorts of in game issues as well.  If the defense of die rolling is, "Well, it's better than nothing at modeling populations", well, that's sort of damning with faint praise no?And if the argument is that people like Olympians or Einstein or whatever are simply the result of years and years of training, then the point buy model works perfectly well here.  Einstein simply has a couple of ASI's which get him to that 20.  Poof, done.  Same with any Olympic athlete or whatnot.  It's not that they start with that much raw talent, its that their raw talent is developed through training.So, how does a character start with a 19 stat?  If Einstein can't, then, well, how is .25% of your population doing it?</blockquote>

Verification