[Ar-list] Hello All

[Carter T. Butts]

iko at chem.ucla.edu wrote:
> Hello Everyone,

Welcome!

> 
> I first encounted AR about 2 or 3 years ago and thought it was a interesting 
> idea.  However, my gaming group disappeared around that time, and real life 
> became busy.

I think that we know that feeling....

> 
> Last week a friend of mine and I were talking about all the things we hate 
> about various systems and I remember AR.  
> 
> It took me about a weeks time to catch up on the archive, and I found that I 
> still think that you have something here, and I'd like to be a part of it if 
> I can.

Thanks!  Well, one way to do that is to maintain the discussion -- work 
proceeds more quickly when prodded.  To that end, I should mention that 
a preliminary draft of the 2.0 test system is currently being reviewed 
by Karim, and after he finishes with comments, I'll update it and put it 
on the web site for perusal.  I redoubled my efforts on it, after the 
last round of posts....  (BTW, Karim would be posting here, but 
apparently is having some sort of mail problem with respect to the list....)

> 
> The last post I've seen asked the question about lifting.  I think it brings 
> up a good point as there is no lift chart.  Has anyone thought about what 
> the penalty per unit mass to give when making a lifting test?  
> Also, what is the weight at which an ‘average’ man (STR 0) can lift 50% of 
> the time (without putting effort)?

These are very good questions, and getting even somewhat marginal data 
would be helpful for purposes of calibration.  If you (or anyone else) 
has such information, I'd like to see it.  (Posting to the list would be 
ideal, provided that large data files aren't involved.)  This is 
_particularly_ true given the opportunities for using version 2.0 to 
correct limitations of the current system....

> [BTW, I personally don’t think a task with a 50% failure rate as ‘easy’]

Quite right -- the standard task is _not_ easy, by any stretch of the 
imagination.  It is "standard" in that it represents a reference point 
against which other tasks can be measured, but this should not be taken 
to imply that such a task is trivial....

-Carter