I wish I could forget this game.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:13 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:see, I was actually rolling with it all, in a subjective "morality" kind of way until I got the part where a c cup makes a character better at sex...

That doesn't hold true at all, trust me.

Also if you're going to roll for measurements, there needs to be some kind of racial bases and ranges. 9c is iffy for even a halfling.
I'm trying to wrap my head around someone with a 9" ribcage with a bust line of 15". It's making my brain hurt.

forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't a 9c be a 9" ribcage with a bustline of 12"?

EDIT: WOOT! TOP OF THE PAGE

Zeezy · Post by **Zeezy** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:14 pm

Princess wrote:May be she had D-size? It'll explain almost everything.

I... Honestly can't remember what she looks like off the top of my head. It's been a few weeks. I doubt she's a D-cup, though.

norms29 wrote:forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't a 9c be a 9" ribcage with a bustline of 12"?

No. A 9C would have a 6" ribcage. Thus, my character (8C-25-40) had a 5" ribcage. I did not exaggerate when I called her a pine tree.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:09 am

What the fuck? Okay, those measurement triplets are circumference, right? A new-born infant has a wider chest than that. You can't fit in a single vital organ. That right there should either tell her that her system is bullshit, or that she should at least adjust her constraints a bit.

One thing I liked about the 3E way of rolling height/weight compared to earlier methods is your weight is partially determined by your height. There's still a lot of randomness in there, but at least it cuts down on the outliers.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:52 am

Zeezy wrote: No. A 9C would have a 6" ribcage. Thus, my character (8C-25-40) had a 5" ribcage. I did not exaggerate when I called her a pine tree.

ok, this is just wrong,you don't subtract the cupsize from the number. I don't know what gave you that idea. unless you're just knocking 3 inches off band size to account for vanity sizing

the number is the band size (the band is the bottom of the bra, it goes all the way around) , which is where we get the diameter of the of the ribcage, the letter is the increase in circumference at the the bustline as compared to the band.

the number is supposed to be the bandsize in inches. while it a fairly common practice for some manufactures to vanity size, (adding 5-6 extra inches more then the number suggests to make the buyer feel like she's getting a smaller size) I highly doubt that these gygaxian clusterfucks took that into account.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:00 pm

In [US] bra sizes, the band size is always even.

norms29 wrote:the number is supposed to be the bandsize in inches. while it a fairly common practice for some manufactures to vanity size, (adding 5-6 extra inches more then the number suggests to make the buyer feel like she's getting a smaller size) I highly doubt that these gygaxian clusterfucks took that into account.

I'm not sure how you can say it's vanity sizing - you're supposed to measure under the bust, and then add five, resulting in a larger size, not a smaller one.

Regardless, some people can get away with wearing a bandsize that's the same as their under-the-bust measurement (I sure as hell can't).

RobbyPants wrote:A new-born infant has a wider chest than that.

My son sure did. If I recall correctly (and there's a good chance that I might not) his torso was 15 inches around (21.5 inches long, just under 9 pounds).

Currently, he is 36 inches tall and 20 inches around.