Frequency house rules

[Henchman99942]

Did anyone calculate the point values for non-standard frequency of appearance?

"6 or less (quite rarely)"
"9 or less (fairly often)"
"12 or less (quite often)"
"15 or less (almost always)"

Suppose I want:

"5 or less (extremely rare)"

Did anyone already do this?

I searched the forum for variations with frequency and other search terms but could not find any thread that covered this.

If it already exists and you know where, just point to it for me. Thanks.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Henchman99942

Did anyone calculate the point values for non-standard frequency of appearance?

"6 or less (quite rarely)"
"9 or less (fairly often)"
"12 or less (quite often)"
"15 or less (almost always)"

Suppose I want:

"5 or less (extremely rare)"

Did anyone already do this?

I searched the forum for variations with frequency and other search terms but could not find any thread that covered this.

If it already exists and you know where, just point to it for me. Thanks.

I've been using the below as my extended frequency of appearance values:
x0.15: "3 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.125)
x0.25: "4 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.25)
x0.40: "5 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.375)
x0.50: "6 or less" ... (Official Value)
x0.70: "7 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.66~)
x0.85: "8 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.83~)
x1.00: "9 or less" ... (Official Value)
x1.35: "10 or less" ... (Precise Value: x1.33~)
x1.70: "11 or less" ... (Precise Value: x1.66~)
x2.00: "12 or less" ... (Official Value)
x2.35: "13 or less" ... (Precise Value: x2.33~)
x2.70: "14 or less" ... (Precise Value: x2.66~)
x3.00: "15 or less" ... (Official Value)
x3.50: "16 or less" ... (Precise Value: x3.50)
x4.00: "Constantly" ... (Official Value)

[gilbertocarlos]

Assuming for disadvantages:
6: *2
9: *1.5
12: *1
15: *0.5

We could have
3: 2.5
4: 2.333
5: 2.16667
6: 2
7: 1.83333
8: 1.6667
9: 1.5
10: 1.3333
11: 1.16667
12: 1
13: 0.8333
14: 0.66667
15: 0.5
16: 0.333
17: 0.1667

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

We could have
3: 2.5
4: 2.333
5: 2.16667

A slight nitpick, N/A is *2.5, so I think for those numbers;

3: 2.375
4: 2.25
5: 2.125

but otherwise looks good.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

A slight nitpick, N/A is *2.5, so I think for those numbers;

3: 2.375
4: 2.25
5: 2.125

but otherwise looks good.

I use it because it is a linear scale for every 1 it decreases by 0.166667.

[Henchman99942]

I am VERY grateful for your responses. I figured someone had done this already. Thanks.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

I've been using the below as my extended frequency of appearance values:
x0.15: "3 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.125)
x0.25: "4 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.25)
x0.40: "5 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.375)
x0.50: "6 or less" ... (Official Value)
x0.70: "7 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.66~)
x0.85: "8 or less" ... (Precise Value: x0.83~)
x1.00: "9 or less" ... (Official Value)
x1.35: "10 or less" ... (Precise Value: x1.33~)
x1.70: "11 or less" ... (Precise Value: x1.66~)
x2.00: "12 or less" ... (Official Value)
x2.35: "13 or less" ... (Precise Value: x2.33~)
x2.70: "14 or less" ... (Precise Value: x2.66~)
x3.00: "15 or less" ... (Official Value)
x3.50: "16 or less" ... (Precise Value: x3.50)
x4.00: "Constantly" ... (Official Value)

My house rules are almost identical, with just the following changes:

3 or less is x0.2,
7 or less is x0.65,
16 or less x3.35,
17 or less x3.7, and
18 or less x4

Reasons for difference: I don't think anything should ever be less than x0.2 (or x1/5), thus that was my starting point for a 3 or less. And brought it up to 18 for the "constantly", so expanded the "16 or less" and "17 or less" accordingly.

Not saying either is better or worse, just stating my rules are slightly different.

[Henchman99942]

So... any thoughts on labels? Short Names?


"5 or less (extremely rare)"

"4 or less (Honest politician rare)"

"3 or less (Lawyer still in possession of their soul rare)"

???

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Henchman99942

So... any thoughts on labels? Short Names?

I'm pretty sure (5-) is an adequately descriptive and compact short name.

[The Benj]

Yeah, I don't think they're really in need of names, as such.

What's the intent of having finer gradations? Point shaving? Gradually buying things off?