How much XP per 'level'

[CTaylor]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Well, I mean an average person is 0 points. They get an 8- PS, area knowledge, etc. That's a zero level character from where I sit.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

"Hangin's too good for him! Burnin's too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!"

 

Quote from the old Heavy Metal movie?

[Kristopher]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

I've always wondered where the idea that the average, normal person is 0 points came from. I guess, maybe 0 net points if you give them all NCM and some other Disad, but sheesh, most people have a lot more than a bunch of 8- everyman skills. Of course, I don't really agree with the idea that you can cram a person's entire career into 1 Professional Skill, either. I can't make many of the people I know on 0 net points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

I've always wondered where the idea that the average' date=' normal person is 0 points came from. I guess, maybe 0 net points if you give them all NCM and some other Disad, but sheesh, most people have a lot more than a bunch of 8- everyman skills. Of course, I don't really agree with the idea that you can cram a person's entire career into 1 Professional Skill, either. I can't make many of the people I know on 0 net points.[/quote']

 

This depends largely on how you interpret skills. I prefer the idea that an 11- skill is quite good, and that a familiarity is adequate to get the mundane jobs done. I also prefer the by the book concept that a single professional skill, at 8-, is sufficient to be competent (not an expert in his field, but perfectly capable of getting the usual tasks done) in a field of endeavour. That provides a pretty good basis for most normals to have a 0 point balance.

 

Also, consider that a "normal" has stats of 8. That's 23 points available for skills and abilities where the character exceeds the average. But I don't assume the people I know typically have stats of 13 - 15, nor that they have substantial numbers of skills in the 14- range. I assume a typical normal is exactly as portrayed in the Hero system, and that an 8- skill is enough to get by, and an 11- is capable of working without supervision for all but the most unusual and difficult tasks in the field. Different assumptions require different point totals.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Sigh. Here we go again. I should put this in my sig, I repeat it so often.

 

Practically everything in the HERO System is relative. It really doesnt matter if you run your games at 0 points or 1000 points per se -- all that really matters is how many points everything OTHER THAN the PC's have. The power of the PC's isnt measured by their points, its measured by their points relative to what their typical opposition and the average person have.

 

Just pick a latitude that lets characters buy an amount of abilities at a scale that works for the intended tone & feel of the campaign and is fun to play at, and use that as a stake in the ground to measure from to remain consistent throughout.

 

 

If you want unimportant NPC's to be 0 or subzero points and basically be almost totally incompetent and weak, very good. Even 50 point PC's will seem capable, and as long as they are facing equivalent opposition then fine and well. Of course, abilities will be weak and few, and characters will have to really specialize to standout, but on the other hand it doesn't take as much of an investment to count as being specialized. If it works for your game, go for it.

 

On the other hand if you prefer a "higher" game, and unimportant NPC's are at least basically competent if not wholly competent within their area of concern and are around, say, 75 points, then PC's need to be 100 - 150 points to feel "elite". Everything scales up from there.

 

And so on.

 

There really isn't any point to arguing about it or asserting one way as the one and only way because we are all wrong, and we are all right, all at the same time.

 

 

Also, on the subject of levels, its a very flawed concept to begin with. I've said it before, and I'll say it again as I want to be absolutely clear. I DO NOT ADVOCATE THE USE OF LEVELS, either in the HERO System or elsewhere. I present charts to CONVERT and / or COMPARE characters from class & level based games into the HERO System, and to provide players that are familiar with the other game a frame of reference, not to enforce or encourage the use of such a level structure in the HERO System. Having said that if a particular group is MORE COMFORTABLE with some kind of measuring stick and prefer to continue to use a level structure in the HERO System, then while I don't agree with it, I support their prerogative to do so in their own game. It's just one more tool in the toolkit, that I may not find a use for, but others might...kind of like a ball peen hammer.

 

 

Speaking specifically about D&D and the idiocy of a "0 level", I have a few things to say about that as well, most of which I've said before on earlier threads on the subject. The entire concept is a logical flaw inherent to ALL level based games, or for that matter any system that starts at an artificial "1" and then later discovers a need to represent things that are _less_ than that artificial floor. There are many permutations to ill effects of this, but the most notable is that everything sub-1 gets compressed down into a very narrow range. This was particularly noticeable in AD&D, and was one of the main flaws of the mechanics (and thats really saying something). D&D3e's approach was a bit better to instead have "NPC classes" that paralleled the PC classes but were just weaker. An imperfect approach but infinitely better. However they still managed to gaff it up a bit with the idea of sub 1 Hit Die creatures, since Hit Die is fairly tightly coupled to "level".

 

The entire idea has pretty much no meaning in the HERO System, and for the better. Basically, any thing that is using fewer points than the possible base + max disads for the campaign with no XP is quantifiable less capable than even a starting character that does fully utilize the base points and allowed disad limit. There you go...sub-starting PC, no 0 necessary. I think its a very common misconception that if the campaign is set at 75 Base + 75 Max Disads then every character is at least 150 points, for example. NPC's are designed to fulfill a need, and if that need only requires an NPC to have 15 points of abilities and no real disads then so be it. Similarly if an NPC needs a bunch of disads but doesnt use the points generated to do anything because its unnecessary to their purpose, then so be it as well. The NPC's are paint on the GM's pallette, no more, no less. They are designed to enrich the setting, and to enable the story. The points are just there to provide a frame of reference and keep things internally consistent. Fair and equitable accountancy is important to measure NPCs to ensure they are compatible with the PC's, but we are gamers not actuaries; the numbers are not their own ends, they are merely the means.

[CTaylor]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

You have to understand a skill roll is naked. No time taken, no special tools, no appropriate setting. 10 Strength is actually significantly more than most people have, I couldn't comfortably press 200 pounds over my head, could you? We'd have to push our strength to get that done. For a 10 strength character, that's a 1 END task.

[Spence]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Sigh. Here we go again. I should put this in my sig, I repeat it so often.

 

 

or a link to a blog

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

10 Strength is actually significantly more than most people have' date=' I couldn't comfortably press 200 pounds over my head, could you?[/quote']

But remember the 200 lbs (or rather 100 kg) is not the amount that a 10 STR character can "press over his head," but the amount he can barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop.

 

According to TUB, a 10 STR character can...

just barely lift 100 kg off the floor.

bench press 75 kg.

clean and jerk 50 kg. (Olympic-style weightlifting in two steps: 1. floor to shoulder height, 2. shoulders to over head)

snatch 40 kg. (from floor to over head in one smooth movement)

leg press 200 kg.

 

I would also estimate (partially based on these numbers, that such a person could carry about 200 kg on his back, assuming the weight is well-balanced and he didn't have to do it for too long, since the weight is carried mostly by the legs. Actually lifting such a weight onto one's back would be a somewhat difficult, multi-step operation, or may require assistance from others.

 

And of course, a "normal person" is really only 8 STR.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

But remember the 200 lbs (or rather 100 kg) is not the amount that a 10 STR character can "press over his head' date='" but the amount he can barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop.[/quote']

 

Only if you are using optional rules like encumbrance and a fair degree of handwavium.

 

As the rules actually stand, 10 STR/2 SPD means you can pick up 100 kg (using 2 END) and hold it up as long as you like, since you are not burning more end than you recover. You can also move at 1/3 speed (thus incurring no extra END loss, since you round down) for as long as you like. And again, without optional rules, your DCV and thus, presumably normal movement, is unhampered.

 

So I'd agree - 10 STR is far more than most people (even most people in good physical condition) actually have. Even 8's pretty generous. And just as people generally overestimate how much STR they actually have, they tend to overestimate their own skill levels too. For most non-specialist skills, I tend to think that 8- is fine.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

So I'd agree - 10 STR is far more than most people (even most people in good physical condition) actually have. Even 8's pretty generous. And just as people generally overestimate how much STR they actually have' date=' they tend to overestimate their own skill levels too. For most non-specialist skills, I tend to think that 8- is fine.[/quote']

 

BINGO. The issue I tend to see in inflated writeups is the assumption that you need a 14- skill to be good at a task.

 

We rarely look at the bonuses for routine skills and extra time. A Familiarity is good enough to accomplish the most difficult of Routine tasks (+3 to skill roll) with 62.5% success and no extra time. Bump the time two up the chart and we get an 83.8% success rate.

 

We assume a very short timeframe for accomplishing tasks, in part because modern technology (computers, manufacturing equipment) have made tasks easier (perfect equipment bonus) and faster (PSL's to offset extra time penalties). As an example, John Doe, with a W2 and a couple of common deductions [i'm in Canada so I'm translating this to US-Ese, but I do practice in the tax area] can prepare his tax return with the instructions in (say) 5 hours, and stand a reasonable chance of getting a basic tax return right. He has an 8- skill provided by the guidebooks, and his tax return is Routine (+5), making 13- [83.8% success rate]. But the need to gain the "skill" from the guidebooks adds extra time, so it takes 5 hours instead of an hour if he didn't need to look everything up. Tack on an off the shelf software package (better tools; +1 and +1 offsetting time penalties since the SW does the math) and he can drop down to an hour (it's -2 for one step down the chart, isn't it?) with no loss of success.

 

Frankly, a rookie preparer at an accounting firm isn't a lot better. However, they don't need the guidebook for routine matters. They probably start with an 8- (basic training = familiarity), but not needing the Guide to provide it, with the same or better tools (software and professional firm systems, say +2 and the same +1 vs time penalties), and still doing routine tasks (+4 or +5). That gives them a 14- to 15- with very routine tasks (they still get it done right 90% to 95% of the time) without extra time. Give the rookie a tougher job (maybe only +3 Routine or +2 - falling out of routine) and they'll make more mistakes. In an hour, they get it right on a 12- or 13-, 74% to 84% of the time. Bump them up to 5 hours, and they go back to 14- or 15- (90% to 95%). I see this in practice.

 

In reality, their files do get reviewed - and those reviews often result in corrections.

 

Make the files tougher. Let's prepare a pretty tough return, the kind a "layman" would not consider doing himself. An unusual schedule or two, self-employment or one or two other difficulties and complexities. This is a less routine task, so it requires an unmodified skill roll. Our rookie still has an 8-, and +2 for his software. It's 50/50 whether he'll get it right, and only 74% if he spends extra time. And that's about right in actual practice, frankly. In practice, we would balk at giving such a file to a raw rookie

 

But give it to a more experienced person (with a 9- or 10- skill - that nebulous middle ground), and they have a better probability of success. The computer bumps them up to 62.5% to 74% success, and extra time will move them up to 84% to 90%. Again, probably about right in practice.

 

Let's give it to a newly designated professional. He should have that 11- roll (based on INT, but he's not spectacularly smart - he's still a Normal). If he takes 5 hours, he'll get it right 95% of the time - the same frequency with which our raw rookie was getting his very routine projects done right. And, again, about right in practice. Really, he can do the job right 84% of the time in an hour, and any errors get caught in review.

 

What if she's a little smarter or more experienced? Now she has a 13- skill and can do the same file in an hour with a 95% success chance. Rush her, and she can kick it loose in 20 minutes with a 90% success rate (-2 for accelerating, +1 for that SW). And I see that in practice as well.

 

But she's too good for these files. She gets the toughest files - the ones with several unusual schedules, complicated self-employment or investment transactions and/or other difficulties and complexities. These are hard - maybe they impose a -3 on the skill roll. With 13-, +2 for the good computer SW, she can still get these right 74% of the time, but will spend extra time (5 hours) and get back up to 90%. And the file still gets reviewed.

 

What if our person is a real expert? Combined INT and Skill bonuses give him a 15-, +2 for good equipment. He can do that fairly complex job right, in an hour, 90% of the time. If he pokes over it for 5 hours, failure's less than 2% likely. He can whip the job out in 20 minutes, but the success rate's down to 84%. But he doesn't often prepare these any more. Instead, he addresses the most difficult areas (complementary skill roll for the more junior practitioners) and reviews files (since he can spot the errors in much reduced time).

 

This probably falls apart at the high end. Even a 2% failure rate is very high. But the system is designed for cinematic reality, where we only really check for the tasks that are difficult to accomplish. Add on a provision that, if the roll is 16-, we don't check for failure under any but the most adverse circumstances and we're probably OK. Alternatively, that failed roll may indicate something less than utter disaster. There's a small error, a possibility overlooked, but not a huge disaster. That's definitely consistent with reality.

 

The system doesn't really need this level of detail for these skills, however. It would be a fine addition for Medical Practice Hero, CPA Hero or Corporate Law Hero, but I don't see people being overly excited at the prospect of role playing the preparation of personal tax returns, so we just gloss over it. And the system does so by noting an 8- familiarity is good enough to do a job, an 11- is good enough to practice on your own and a 14- or 15- is pretty spectacular.

 

But we extrapolate from the fact that, when we make rolls for our skills in the game, it's under adverse conditions, with limited time and less than perfect tools, but by guys who are highly skilled, and we want to say that our jobs are just as complicated. They aren't - they're primarily routine tasks, and only very rarely tasks so complex they impose penalties - for which we assign teams and/or specialists with extra time. And we don't need 13+ skill rolls to do our jobs competently, unless we really are specialists in the area, not typical of the performers of those jobs.

 

Those player characters are larger than life. They are, by definition, much more skilled than we are.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Only if you are using optional rules like encumbrance and a fair degree of handwavium.

 

As the rules actually stand, 10 STR/2 SPD means you can pick up 100 kg (using 2 END) and hold it up as long as you like, since you are not burning more end than you recover. You can also move at 1/3 speed (thus incurring no extra END loss, since you round down) for as long as you like. And again, without optional rules, your DCV and thus, presumably normal movement, is unhampered.

Uh, no. It's right there on the Strength Table in the rulebook. At least it is in FREd, I would be surprised if this was changed in 5ER.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Only if you are using optional rules like encumbrance and a fair degree of handwavium.

 

As the rules actually stand, 10 STR/2 SPD means you can pick up 100 kg (using 2 END) and hold it up as long as you like, since you are not burning more end than you recover. You can also move at 1/3 speed (thus incurring no extra END loss, since you round down) for as long as you like. And again, without optional rules, your DCV and thus, presumably normal movement, is unhampered.

 

So I'd agree - 10 STR is far more than most people (even most people in good physical condition) actually have. Even 8's pretty generous. And just as people generally overestimate how much STR they actually have, they tend to overestimate their own skill levels too. For most non-specialist skills, I tend to think that 8- is fine.

 

cheers, Mark

 

This is wrong.

 

Phil has the right of it.

 

With No Optional Rules in place:

5ER p34

A character's lifting capacity represents the maximum amount of weight he can just manage to lift off the ground' date=' stagger for a step or two, then drop. He can easily carry or lift the weight which he can pick up with his Casual Strength.[/quote']

 

This is on the list of most often misinterpreted or unknown point in the rules. STR does not represent how much you can pick up and wander around with.

 

An 8STR Normal Person can walk around with about 40kg with little trouble.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Uh' date=' no. It's right there on the Strength Table in the rulebook. At least it is in FREd, I would be surprised if this was changed in 5ER.[/quote']

 

Uh, yep. I know what it says, but that's not how the rules work.

 

The text is a simple add-on that Steve put in, when people pointed out how unrealistic it was. But apart from the GM saying "you have to put it down now" or "You can't lift it over your head" there are no mechanisms to enforce that (although the optional encumbrance rules do alot of this).

 

By the rules as written, a 10 STR/2 SPD character can pick up 100 kg and never get tired unless they are burning END for something else, their DCV is not reduced, etc. Any actual in-game effects depend on GM fiat or optional rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Uh' date=' yep. I know what it [b']says[/b], but that's not how the rules work.

Yes, that is how the rules work, because it is in fact a rule. There's more to lifting than just having the END available. You are of course, entitled to ignore that rule for your games, but officially, it is a rule.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Uh' date=' yep. I know what it [b']says[/b], but that's not how the rules work.

 

The text is a simple add-on that Steve put in, when people pointed out how unrealistic it was. But apart from the GM saying "you have to put it down now" or "You can't lift it over your head" there are no mechanisms to enforce that (although the optional encumbrance rules do alot of this).

 

By the rules as written, a 10 STR/2 SPD character can pick up 100 kg and never get tired unless they are burning END for something else, their DCV is not reduced, etc. Any actual in-game effects depend on GM fiat or optional rules.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Do you always just randomly ignore text in the rules? Or is this a special case?

 

There's more to lifting than Endurance.

 

Well, since you ignore the book all I can say is WHATEVER.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Do you always just randomly ignore text in the rules? Or is this a special case?

 

There's more to lifting than Endurance.

 

Well, since you ignore the book all I can say is WHATEVER.

 

No, I'm not trolling. I do however, ignore the "rule", which isn't terribly useful. I use quotation marks because it isn't a rule - it's a mechanics-free description - the difference between saying "A ordinary door can be broken in by hitting it violently" and "An ordinary door has DEF 2, BOD 2"

 

I actually noticed the the disconect between the description and how the rules actually work initially, because it has in fact come up multiple times in games. When I as a GM I say "You can't carry X all the way back to the village. It's too heavy" It has often been met with : "Whaddaya mean, too heavy? I'm not even burning any END carrying it!" (meaning it's light enough that they are not getting "tired" - that's what END simulates, no?)

 

Likewise when running away carrying heavy loot, an attempt to say - "You have to drop the sacks, otherwise he'll catch you" has been met with "OK, I'll drop one sack - how fast can I move now?"

 

So tell me then, where can I find the official rules for the in-game effects of carrying your full or partial STR load on DCV, DEX rolls, movement speed and similar functions?

 

And if your full STR is what you can pick up and stagger with, and casual STR is what you easily carry, how much can you lift over your head? How much can you run with, albeit with difficulty? Can you indicate where the rules for this are?

 

Oh, that's right, there aren't any. We're back to the optional encumbrance rules - which are rather punitive - or handwavium: which is what I use.

 

To be fair, from what you two write it does sound like these issues might be covered in the Ultimate Brick, but I've never seen a copy of that. There's certainly nothing equivalent in the core rules.

 

Let's see:

just manage to lift off the ground, stagger for a step or two, then drop.

Lift how far off the ground? Stagger how far? At what movement speed? What's your DCV when doing this? Can you then pick it up and move it exactly the same way next phase and keep this up for hours? The description suggests not, but there's no mechanism to decide lhow long you can keep this up - the description also sounds like this should be tiring, but mechanics-wise it doesn't seem to actually tire you out. If a fight started after 6 hours of lift-stagger-drop does the player start with the same END as if they had just arisen from a refereshing night of sleep?

 

In short, the STR/weight thing is a relic of the early days of Champions, when the baseline for everyone was 100 Kg in weight and 2 metres in height and had 10 for all Stat.s - and could in fact lift 100 kg and run off with it. The description came much later as an attempt to rationalise the rules as they already stood.

 

It's not a big deal: the GM can always handwave it, and in fact, I do. But the original statement that the description doesn't match the game mechanics, still stands, as far as I can see. I wrote

apart from the GM saying "you have to put it down now" or "You can't lift it over your head" there are no mechanisms to enforce that

and that still seems to be true.

 

Now I appreciate having the sentence in the book, since it gives me something to show tetchy players who want to cart the giant gilded idol out of the temple, but the decision on what and and how fast they can move things is the same as before that descriptor was added - it remains a GM call, based on common sense.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

If your players think carting things around is simply a matter of Endurance I would say THAT is your problem.

 

Not the rules.

 

And the Encumbrance Rules (optional or otherwise) do in fact cover all this, so it's not like they're not there. Some games don't want to be hampered by them, some games want to include them.

 

There Are Rules For This. So yeah, I think you are trolling at this point.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

If your players think carting things around is simply a matter of Endurance I would say THAT is your problem.

 

Not the rules.

 

So you think that players should be able to carry heavy loads, without getting tired?

 

Or that I as a GM should just decide by fiat when they get tired?

GM: "You are too tired to go any further and look for a place to sleep, but you are not too tired to climb up to the old ruins"

Players: "That's a very specific kind of tired"

 

And the Encumbrance Rules (optional or otherwise) do in fact cover all this, so it's not like they're not there. Some games don't want to be hampered by them, some games want to include them.

 

There Are Rules For This. So yeah, I think you are trolling at this point.

 

Ah, but if you read the encumbrance rules, you'll find they directly contradict the description of how much you can carry, given in the STR description (as do the rules posted from TUB, incidentally). If you use the encumbrance rules as written, carrying your casual STR allows actually significantly encumbers you. That's not actually unrealistic - but it highlights some of the issues we've dealt with.

 

So yeah, There Are Rules For This, and those rules contradict each other and don't play well with the actual mechanics: which pretty much brings us back to the starting point of the discussion - as a GM, you have to make the call.

 

I'm sorry you think I'm trolling. I'm not, in fact. Indeed, I'm not the only one to have noticed this. The discussion about the disconnect between what ordinary people in game can potentially lift/carry and reality has been around for a long time - I first came across it on the original hero discussion boards back on AOL, 15 or 16 years ago. IIRC, the text added in 5th came about as a result of one of those discussions. The STR/carrying capacity issue even generated a Murphy's Rules cartoon, many years ago.

 

The issue could be solved at a stroke by saying ordinary modern adults are STR5, and can lift heavier weights by pushing their STR, but that's a step too drastic to take, IMO.

 

It's not a big deal: as I said, I simply handwave it as a GM, and if players insist on carrying heavy loads for long, I penalise them with LTE loss. But I recognize that that's my house rule - albeit a sensible one.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kristopher]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

If your players think carting things around is simply a matter of Endurance I would say THAT is your problem.

 

Not the rules.

 

And the Encumbrance Rules (optional or otherwise) do in fact cover all this, so it's not like they're not there. Some games don't want to be hampered by them, some games want to include them.

 

There Are Rules For This. So yeah, I think you are trolling at this point.

 

That word you keep saying. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Let's save the accusations of trolling for people who are trolling, and not for people you have a disagreement with over rules and their implications and interpretations. Hmmm? Pretty please?

[CTaylor]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

But remember the 200 lbs (or rather 100 kg) is not the amount that a 10 STR character can "press over his head," but the amount he can barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop.

 

Yeah, except that describes someone pushing their strength, not using 1 END a phase to hold an object. Which sort of puts that description to lie. Pushing your strength lets a normal person "barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop" 400 pounds.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

But remember the 200 lbs (or rather 100 kg) is not the amount that a 10 STR character can "press over his head' date='" but the amount he can barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop.[/i']

 

Yeah, except that describes someone pushing their strength, not using 1 END a phase to hold an object. Which sort of puts that description to lie. Pushing your strength lets a normal person "barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop" 400 pounds.

 

Yep, that's pretty much my interpretation too. That's why someone (Greg Lloyd? I don't actually remember any more, it was so long ago...) suggested that normals should have a STR stat of 5, with 10 being "cinematic action hero".

 

I can see why that idea flopped - the sytem was built around the idea of a 10 point base line and altering that alters a whole raft of mechanistic assumptions.

 

For my own FH game, I flirted with the idea of stating that STR 10 gave you 50 kg lifting capacity instead of 100 and that you needed to push, if you wanted to lift more. That brings you to the "barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop" level at 100kg/225 lbs and allows you to use END use to define how far and fast you can carry a heavy object. It's also relatively realistic and gives the GM a basemark to work LTE loss off if people want to do this for a long time.

 

In the end, though, I didn't bother: I was happy enough to houserule what could and could not be reasonably carried and the players trust me enough to accept those rulings. In general, I don't care to make houserules unless there's a real game issue at hand.

 

As it stands though, my players still have the idea fixed somewhere in their heads that 10 STR means you can pick up ad move 100 kg without too many problems

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

So you think that players should be able to carry heavy loads, without getting tired?

 

Or that I as a GM should just decide by fiat when they get tired?

GM: "You are too tired to go any further and look for a place to sleep, but you are not too tired to climb up to the old ruins"

Players: "That's a very specific kind of tired"

 

 

 

Ah, but if you read the encumbrance rules, you'll find they directly contradict the description of how much you can carry, given in the STR description (as do the rules posted from TUB, incidentally). If you use the encumbrance rules as written, carrying your casual STR allows actually significantly encumbers you. That's not actually unrealistic - but it highlights some of the issues we've dealt with.

 

So yeah, There Are Rules For This, and those rules contradict each other and don't play well with the actual mechanics: which pretty much brings us back to the starting point of the discussion - as a GM, you have to make the call.

 

I'm sorry you think I'm trolling. I'm not, in fact. Indeed, I'm not the only one to have noticed this. The discussion about the disconnect between what ordinary people in game can potentially lift/carry and reality has been around for a long time - I first came across it on the original hero discussion boards back on AOL, 15 or 16 years ago. IIRC, the text added in 5th came about as a result of one of those discussions. The STR/carrying capacity issue even generated a Murphy's Rules cartoon, many years ago.

 

The issue could be solved at a stroke by saying ordinary modern adults are STR5, and can lift heavier weights by pushing their STR, but that's a step too drastic to take, IMO.

 

It's not a big deal: as I said, I simply handwave it as a GM, and if players insist on carrying heavy loads for long, I penalise them with LTE loss. But I recognize that that's my house rule - albeit a sensible one.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Long Term Endurance is exactly what carrying heavy loads around for long periods of time for. Or a use of them anyways. Not a house rule by any means.

 

 

The rules are not a rigid Codex. They are not a Law to be strictly followed. No high power will pass judgment on your use of them. They cannot and should not anticipate every possibly permutation. They are not a Physics Text Book or Pure Reality Simulation System. If you cannot, or will not, adjust them to suit your own needs and your own groups needs . . . I cannot help you and nothing I say, or any rules I point out, or any interpretation I put forth will help you in any way.

 

The discussion is moot. I shall be on my way, suffer as you will.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Long Term Endurance is exactly what carrying heavy loads around for long periods of time for. Or a use of them anyways. Not a house rule by any means.

 

Except that loss of LTE is based off how much END you are using up - if you are not using up any appreciable END, then the GM has to houserule the LTE rules, too. Sigh. Back to square 1.

 

These are all pretty simple solutions - they've all come up over the years that this issue has been in discussion. It remains an issue, because none of them actually fit very well and because many of them (the decription of how STR works, how it actualy works, the encumbrance rules and now the third suggestion in TUB) all directly contradict each other.

 

The problem is not with the basic rules themselves (which work fine) but with the recent attempt to "make them more realistic" at the low end, without changing the mechanics. It's what Sean would called "reasoning from special effect", I think: the idea of what STR 10 does is based on two concepts: "STR 10 is normal" and "In the real world, this is what a normal can lift". It's not a mechanistic approach ("STR 10 lets you lift 100 kg"), which is why it fails. If you tell a reasonably bright player with STR 10 (not that there are many of those! ) that 100 kg "is as much as they can barely lift and stagger a few steps with", they'll point out that actually, by pushing, they can lift 200kg, so lifting 100 kg up onto the shelf shouldn't be a problem. And of course, by the rules as written, they're right.

 

The rules are not a rigid Codex. They are not a Law to be strictly followed. No high power will pass judgment on your use of them. They cannot and should not anticipate every possibly permutation. They are not a Physics Text Book or Pure Reality Simulation System. If you cannot' date=' or will not, adjust them to suit your own needs and your own groups needs . . . I cannot help you and nothing I say, or any rules I point out, or any interpretation I put forth will help you in any way.[/quote']

 

Absolutely: I've aready stated that I houserule it and I don't have any in-game problems. But I have to houserule it because the description of the power and mechanical affects of the power don't actually match.

 

I've also mentioned that it's not a big deal - but it is an issue that's come up with pretty much every group of Hero noobs I've taught and there is no real "rules-legal" answer - as you say, houserules are the way to go. It's a minor irritant - but as I noted when starting this side thread, the mechanics involved gives people the impression that with STR 10 you can lift really heavy objects - because, as I indicated above - you actually can.

 

I should also note in passing that this is really only an issue in heroic games - when you have a character who can lift a tank, no-one is fussed if he carries it around - disbelief is already suspended. It's only a problem when you are dealing with "normal humans" in the 10-20 STR range because the amount that the rules say you can lift are outside the "normal range" that we know from real life. Steve added the description that it's "as much as you can barely lift" to try and cover that - but of course, I don't know anybody who actually plays like that. In every game I've been in, players routinely carry away bodies or try to catch falling comrades and indulge in any manner of activities that involve hoisting up and moving around with 100 kg (or more) - and as a GM I'm fine with that.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

But remember the 200 lbs (or rather 100 kg) is not the amount that a 10 STR character can "press over his head' date='" but the amount he can barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop.[/i']

 

Yeah, except that describes someone pushing their strength, not using 1 END a phase to hold an object. Which sort of puts that description to lie. Pushing your strength lets a normal person "barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop" 400 pounds.

 

If you go back and read the Pushing rules, you will find that normals are not permitted to push. Not even an Olympic weightlifter competing for the Gold Medal. Pushing is, by the rules as written, restricted to a select few, under conditions where they can truly push themselves beyond the limits of the human body. The classic example is the mother lifting a car off her trapped child's body. She could not do that again under controlled laboratory conditions.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

If you go back and read the Pushing rules' date=' you will find that normals are not permitted to push. [/quote']

 

Yeah, I know - but player characters ARE permitted to push, and they're the ones we generally deal with, so that doesn't make much difference.

 

cheers, Mark