10-19-2010, 11:35 PM | #1 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
|
[Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
There seems to be some discrepancy between the statistics give in High-Tech and in Low-Tech concerning clothing. High-Tech states that it’s rules elaborate on what’s in basic set. The stats given for Summer/Ordinary clothes match basic, and it gives new stats for Winter Clothes which seems to follow the same progression.
High-Tech also states: Quote:
High-Tech also has a handy-dandy table for adjusting the weight of clothing based on TL (Clothing Technology Table, HT.65). This table indicates that the weight of TL5 & TL6 outfits should be doubled. OK, makes sense. High-Tech also introduces a new type of clothing set, Artic Clothing. It has a cost of 50% cost-of-living & a weight of 15 pounds… multiplied by 1.5 at TL5-6, for a total of 22.5lbs. (not including the weight of shoes). But the we have Low-Tech… it has a few problems.
Quote:
The difference in weight isn’t trivial, compare:
This also becomes a problem when trying to extrapolate the weights for things in Low-Tech such as Silk, Furs and Light Leather. -------------- I would appreciate if these inconsistencies could be cleared up… Last edited by Trachmyr; 10-20-2010 at 06:24 AM. |
||
10-20-2010, 02:53 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
It should be noted that there is already errata which relates to this.
Don't know to what degree it deals with your problem, though.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
10-20-2010, 03:44 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: in your pocket, stealing all your change
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
There are discrepancies with Basic too.
I'd place my bets on Low-Tech, since weight revision was an issue that was specially looked into, as there was a lot of uproar that current GURPS weights for armor, especially, were a little out of whack. GURPS Low-Tech weights are consistent with reality. We have very hot summers here (over 30°C) and decently harsh winters (as low as -5°C), and the weight for summer clothing and winter clothing is spot on. And on account of tradition, we still have historical clothing and attire that was worn in TL4-5. There's stuff that probably weighs less than what Low-Tech presents, 1lb for sandals is a good average... 2.5lbs seems excessive, that's more than a kilogram. Think rope, wicker and... cloth. Not heavy stuff, maybe High-Tech was picturing leather? We have winter clothing here, and we also buy from Uruguay and Argentina that have harsher winters (I live in the very south of Brazil, it's not all tropical, you know). Hot clothing is not nececarily heavy clothing. Wool keeps you warm by retaining hot air within it's fibers. Parkas are pretty good stuff. Wool shirts are also very hot, if a bit heavier. Besides the discrepancies, do you have real life examples of clothing that diverge so significantly from what Low-Tech presents? To me it's the weights on HT that seem off... |
10-20-2010, 04:13 AM | #4 | ||||||
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
@ Ulzgoroth: I did see the errata thread after I posted this thread (forgot it was in the e23 forum). It covers the issue with footwear/handwear weights being included in the clothing cost, so at least one part of the issue is addressed.
No, as far as I can tell concerning clothing, HT and Basic agree fully. HT just clarifies a that footwear weight is not included, and provides a table to adjust weight by TL. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
10-20-2010, 07:12 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
Quote:
Certainly, during the playtest, I noted the clothing section only as a copy-paste job from High-Tech, mutatis mutandis, and assumed that the numbers there were correct.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
10-20-2010, 10:59 AM | #6 |
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Germany
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
|
10-20-2010, 12:16 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boston, Hub of the Universe!
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Clothing Stats: HT vs. LT
UT has the suitspray, swarmwear, and clothing belt (pages 39-40), which are about as lightweight as is physically possible (the carried weight/encumbrance of swarmwear is exactly zero). Suitspray is basically the lightest real clothing you can get (and incidentally, spray-on clothing is already being developed in the real world). For protection against rain, sun, and cold, you need some physical barrier, and to make it sufficiently practical for everyday use you end up with a weight quite close to the best we have to offer today. Where you see improvements is in the material's properties (easier to clean, built-in computers, one-size-fits-most), which is covered by the options on pages 38-39.
I find it mostly reasonable that UT didn't continue the clothing-weight-by-TL progression. The one area where it could have mentioned was clothes that adjust their insulation and thermal reflectivity to optimize the wearer's comfort; this tech is presumably used in environmental suits and the space skinsuit, but it would have been nice to see that one outfit could be sufficient for light-, normal-, and winter-wear (like the Star Trek fleet uniforms).
__________________
Demi Benson |
Tags |
clothing, high tech, high-tech, low tech, low-tech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|