Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 8039816" data-attributes="member: 1465">But then your still have to convert it from miles each time.If you start with time, at most you have to convert sometimes.It's more intuitive and immediately useful to say that from Cambridge to Oxford the distance is 2 hours by car, than saying it's 100 miles. It already takes into accounts all the terrain/road details. Time is a resource, distance isn't.If you have different means of transportation possible, it's still easier to use multipliers. For example, with horse being the standard, you could say that carriage takes 2x and caravans take 4x time (to account for lower speed and extra delays). It's still easier than having mph speeds for each of them.Waterborne and aerial vehicles take different routes than roads, so you have to calculate using different speeds AND distances. Why not just say how many hours in the first place?I am thinking about published adventures here... I think it's just easier to read travel times directly, because they already take into accounts things like elevation, terrain, obstacles etc.  as well as different routes (the only remaining variable would be weather).</blockquote>