GURPS Realm Management

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Don't feel bad. I don't recall it either. I'll go digging in emails when I have some time.

I wish there were more under the hood pieces as to how one got to the values given. For example, for speed and distance, I find it is easier just to plug in the longest length into the 6 x log (Sum of Distance and Speed in Yards) -2 equation than using the table especially when you get to something way outside the table.

I might add with interstellar realms planets may be regarded as resources not places to live on especially as the Realm gets closer to K2 status.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by maximara

Just out of curiosity what equation did you use? I ask because I assume we are rounding to the nearest integer as with Size.

Right now I an figuring out the middle points as being the 12th root of 100 per half step. Is this correct?

X = (EXP(LN(10)/6)^2)^Size
Round to one decimal for Size < 7, zero decimals for 7+.

That's X ≈ 2.15^Size

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

X = (EXP(LN(10)/6)^2)^Size
Round to one decimal for Size < 7, zero decimals for 7+.

That's X ≈ 2.15^Size

So we have the scientific notation (EXP) of the natural Log (LN) divided by 6 all taken to the second power, correct?

I might at at TL10+ the ability to create huge space structures people live on sends Size into orbit (pun intended).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by maximara

So we have the scientific notation (EXP) of the natural Log (LN) divided by 6 all taken to the second power, correct?

I might at at TL10+ the ability to create huge space structures people live on sends Size into orbit (pun intended).

Exp here does not mean scientific notation (in fact, it's not the usual notation for that; more usual is, for example, 9.86E1, or formally 9.86 x 10^1). Exp means "raise e to the power of the following value," where e is the base of natural logarithms (that is, it undoes the Ln operation). That is, you're moving into the logarithmic domain and then moving back out to the domain of the original values.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by maximara

I wish there were more under the hood pieces as to how one got to the values given.

You have no idea how hard it was to squeeze everything into this book. It went through 11 revisions from the first draft. I did the best I could with the word allotment I was given. I literally excised a chapter from the original manuscript so that I could fit everything folks needed to make realms and there were still things I was forced to leave out. Squeezing in more under the hood bits would have required removing other bits for play and I banked on buyers preferring the latter than the former.

This is not me being defensive, but rather explaining why there isn't more under the hood bits in the book. TL;DR - there just wasn't room.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

You have no idea how hard it was to squeeze everything into this book. It went through 11 revisions from the first draft.

I'd like to hear how this makes sense from a business standpoint. Obviously, if a book is going to be printed, it makes sense to cut it down to a given size to ensure that manufacturing costs are manageable, but I very much doubt there are any plans for this book to see a print run. I understand that editing a longer work takes more time and effort than editing a short work, but I would have thought that condensing a naturally longer work into a shorter one would also be an effort-intense endeavor- or do they push that stage of the project entirely onto the author and only give it to paid editors afterwards?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

I'd like to hear how this makes sense from a business standpoint. Obviously, if a book is going to be printed, it makes sense to cut it down to a given size to ensure that manufacturing costs are manageable, but I very much doubt there are any plans for this book to see a print run. I understand that editing a longer work takes more time and effort than editing a short work, but I would have thought that condensing a naturally longer work into a shorter one would also be an effort-intense endeavor- or do they push that stage of the project entirely onto the author and only give it to paid editors afterwards?

When I say it went through multiple revisions I meant pretty much on my part. There were things I wanted to make sure got in the final draft and that meant I had to condense, squeeze, and ease to get them in. Even with some extra space I barely fit everything I felt needed to be in. You have to hit your wordcount goals - that's literally part of the contract. You can't just go in and decide to up your supplement 10 pages and thousands of words because you to (obviously). Worse, this book was full and more when the first draft was finally done and I realized I had to kill a chapter because going through the playtest and editing process was going to add MORE words.

Kromm did some heavy lifting on this one too so I don't know what he did in this case. I do know I did checks on the "final" production PDF and still found some stuff that was off. Heck, I found a few errata after it was published (along with some kind folks who were looking too).

[maximara]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Exp here does not mean scientific notation (in fact, it's not the usual notation for that; more usual is, for example, 9.86E1, or formally 9.86 x 10^1). Exp means "raise e to the power of the following value," where e is the base of natural logarithms (that is, it undoes the Ln operation). That is, you're moving into the logarithmic domain and then moving back out to the domain of the original values.

So (EXP(LN(10)/6)^2)^Size actually means (e^(ln(10)/6)^2)^Size with X ≈ 2.15^Size?

But when I plug 3 into that I get 1.555 not the 5.0 area for that value and if I assume it is area (5.0) I get 2.0883 not the 3 one should get with rounding. What am I missing?

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by maximara

So (EXP(LN(10)/6)^2)^Size actually means (e^(ln(10)/6)^2)^Size with X ≈ 2.15^Size?

But when I plug 3 into that I get 1.555 not the 5.0 area for that value and if I assume it is area (5.0) I get 2.0883 not the 3 one should get with rounding. What am I missing?

I'm not sure what you are missing but here is everything in tiny nibbles:

Variables:
S1 = e^(ln(10)/6) (There was a leading open parenthesis that didn't belong.)
S2 = S1^2
X = S2^Size

Numbers:
e = 2.718281828
ln(10) = 2.302585093
2.302585093 / 6 = 0.383764182

Results:
therefore S1 = 1.467799268 (which should be familiar from the SSR table)
and S2 = 2.15443469

Final example:
If Size = 3 you should get X = S2^Size = 2.15443469^3 = 10.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

I'm not sure what you are missing but here is everything in tiny nibbles:

Variables:
S1 = e^(ln(10)/6) (There was a leading open parenthesis that didn't belong.)

This is what was throwing me off. And the leading open parenthesis does belong ; its the ending parenthesis that was in the wrong place.

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

S2 = S1^2
X = S2^Size

Numbers:
e = 2.718281828
ln(10) = 2.302585093
2.302585093 / 6 = 0.383764182

Results:
therefore S1 = 1.467799268 (which should be familiar from the SSR table)
and S2 = 2.15443469

Final example:
If Size = 3 you should get X = S2^Size = 2.15443469^3 = 10.

Based on this the equation is (e^(ln(10)/6))^2)^size and I realized what the problem is.

I was looking for the equation where one can shove in the area in one end and get the size via rounding to the nearest integer out the other. Basically Formula (Area) = Size (rounded to nearest integer)

Sort of like these:

Speed/Range formula: 2 - 6*log(Distance in Yards)

Size formula: 6*log(length in yards) - 2

I know that y = u^x becomes log y = x log u, or x = (log y)/(log u) but I don't have anywhere to plug in the area.