How much XP per 'level'

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Yeah' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

IIRC, the rules also state that pushing should be permitted only in dramatically appropriate circumstances. Some games restrict pushing to truly heroic circumstances, based on the rules as written. Others allow it to put a trunk on a high shelf if you make an EGO roll and spend the END. If a group chooses to make pushing an everyday occurrence for PC's, I would suggest they are outside the intent of the rules to allow one to exceed one's limits only very occasionally, in moments which are truly dramatically appropriate.

 

But, again, this depends on whether one focuses on the mechanic only, or also on the words surrounding it. To me, the rules as a whole are "the rules". So, if you want to pick up your full lift, you stagger a few steps forward before dropping it. You can't heft it on your shoulders and run a marathon. If you want to do better than heft the object and stagger a few steps, you would need to push your STR (assuming that this is dramatically appropriate), which will preclude long-term action of this nature.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

As Hugh said, The Rules are ALL the words - not just the part that says "I can push my 10STR to lift 200kg."

 

And of course the Casual STR of Pushed 10STR = 8STR, which allows you to carry 80kg around easily, assuming you ignore the rest of the test that says "extraordinary situations only." And then of course you ARE using a great deal of END.

 

You have to house rule it becuase your players 1) don't read all the text 2) ignore the intent in favor of rigid interpretation. I would simply suggest they are quite possibly bad roleplayers and good wargamers.

[CTaylor]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

The problem with the description the rules gives is that they are at direct odds with the game mechanics. If you can barely stagger a few steps holding up x weight, then it needs to cost more than 1 END per phase to do so, because a normal person can carry their max weight ... well forever, because they'll recover all that END at post 12.

[Kristopher]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Yeah' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

It does if one is trying to:

 

A) determine the actual meaning of a particular STR score

determine the scaling of STR

C) compare a STR score against real-life examples

 

If an Olympic powerlifter is not allowed to push, he requires a higher STR to accomplish what he does in competition. If a character is supposed to be as strong as an Olympic weightlifter, then that question directly relates to player characters.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

The problem with the description the rules gives is that they are at direct odds with the game mechanics. If you can barely stagger a few steps holding up x weight' date=' then it needs to cost more than 1 END per phase to do so, because a normal person can carry their max weight ... well forever, because they'll recover all that END at post 12.[/quote']

 

Endurance is not the only factor in lifting heavy objects. In fact - it's a REALLY CRAPPY way to measure walking around with things.

 

The single most important factor is the simple ability of the lifting materials tensile strength.

 

Steel Beams have no END Stat, they have only STR. So obviously your methodologies for lifting and holding weight are severely flawed.

 

To put it in as simplest terms as possible: A STR10 Person lifting more than 100kg will tear their muscles right off their bones and cause massive tissue damage to tendons and ligaments. At 100kg you have reached the limit of your superstructures ability to properly handle the weight of the object.

 

Endurance just says HOW LONG you can carry weight you can lift, not WHAT you can lift.

[CTaylor]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Inanimate objects hold weight until they break, that's not exactly the same as a human lifting an item. If your standard for the limit of how much someone can lift is "when their bones shatter" you've got a pretty extreme standard!

 

And really, when you think about it, how long you can carry something is really related to lifting it. I mean... if you can't lift it... how are you going to carry it? Endurance is how tired you get carrying out a task.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

And really' date=' when you think about it, how long you can carry something is really related to lifting it. I mean... if you can't lift it... how are you going to carry it? Endurance is how tired you get carrying out a task.[/quote']

 

And since it states in the text "You can barely lift it" how are you going to carry it very far? You can barely get it off the ground, much less walk around with it.

[Kristopher]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

To put it in as simplest terms as possible: A STR10 Person lifting more than 100kg will tear their muscles right off their bones and cause massive tissue damage to tendons and ligaments. At 100kg you have reached the limit of your superstructures ability to properly handle the weight of the object.

 

Does this happen in real life? Do people who try to lift things heavier than they can actually life just rip themselves to ribbons?

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Does this happen in real life? Do people who try to lift things heavier than they can actually life just rip themselves to ribbons?

 

I know a few body ex-builders that have permanent injuries due to lifting beyond their capacity. A woman at work walks with a limp because she tore her knee apart while lifting.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Keep in mind how weight training actually works - when you go to increase muscle mass you want to lift close to your capacity, in the process you damage your muscle tissue, when it repairs itself it adds more mass (gets bigger) to prevent further damage.

 

This is why it is very important to rotate what muscle groups you work out when training. You work one muscle group to long without break you start to cause permanent damage.

 

So yes, lifting things at, or near, your maximum capacity does physical damage to your muscle tissue. Oddhat could explain it better than I mostly likely - I've only been weight training for a year or so (and not intensely or heavily), he's been doing it much longer.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Does this happen in real life? Do people who try to lift things heavier than they can actually life just rip themselves to ribbons?

 

Yeah, it happens. There was a clip from the olympics a while ago where a power lifter broke his arm lifting too much.

 

On a lesser scale, working out w/ too much weight is dangerous. Personally, I tore some of the muscles between my ribs on the right side doing fly's with too much weight about 4 years ago. Still sensitive years later. And don't get me started on the various weight training related hernia's I've had over the years

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

The problem with the description the rules gives is that they are at direct odds with the game mechanics. If you can barely stagger a few steps holding up x weight' date=' then it needs to cost more than 1 END per phase to do so, because a normal person can carry their max weight ... well forever, because they'll recover all that END at post 12.[/quote']

 

I can "lift and stagger" a weight, then drop it because my muscles can't hold up, without being exhausted and needing to spend the next minute puffing and panting to catch my breath. The muscles used to lift may be tired and strained, but overall, I'm not near the point of needing a minute to catch my breath (nor a good night's sleep to recover the long term END I blew by pushing my STR).

 

Reality is very complex, and games have to go for broad strokes. Filling in the entirety of reality in mechanical terms would make 5er look like a pamphlet, even before we get to the "unreality" parts of the game. The mechanics are that 10 STR allows you to heft 100 kg off the ground and stagger a little. That costs 1 END. It doesn't allow you to heft 100kg over your shoulder and sprint. That requires greater STR.

[eternal_sage]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

As Hugh said, The Rules are ALL the words - not just the part that says "I can push my 10STR to lift 200kg."

 

And of course the Casual STR of Pushed 10STR = 8STR, which allows you to carry 80kg around easily, assuming you ignore the rest of the test that says "extraordinary situations only." And then of course you ARE using a great deal of END.

 

You have to house rule it becuase your players 1) don't read all the text 2) ignore the intent in favor of rigid interpretation. I would simply suggest they are quite possibly bad roleplayers and good wargamers.

 

 

first of all, i do not think it is good roleplaying to ignore the internally inconsistant aspects of the rules. just like, if real life were d20 modern, it would be exceedingly weird to see someone be hit with a sledgehammer several good times without breaking anything or dying, just because he had a high HP, but takes a single "called shot: head" with a wrench and he's down for the count, its also kinda weird to think of characters who can lift that much without exerting themselves (what END measures and represents, as i recall) but yet are exerting themselves (by the words in/with the STR chart). that is internal inconsistancy that can be bothersome to some (Mardoc and myself) but not to others (ghost angel and Hugh Neilson) it is not a big deal and can be glossed over by going with their view.

 

oh, and this is the basis of my idea the END is the energy you expend to do things like hard word. note it is also qouted directly from the book.

 

"Endurance represents the energy a character expends to act, exert himself, and use his powers — the more END he has, the longer he can keep doing things."

 

so it obviously is a major factor in your ability to continue ANY action, not just lifting and carrying, but even making toast, in reality. END is a measure of energy expended to do something. since no energy (or very little) is expended, and even that is naturally recuperated in a quick fashion, it is safe to say that, by the rules, very little strain was actually put on the character.

 

now, the encumberance rules (which on a quick referernce are not tagged as optional, i might add, at least not that i noticed, if anyone knows where i can find the bit about being optional, please point me in the right direction) help this somewhat, but they directly disagree with the normal rules. normally you can easily carry your causal STR (50 kg in our example):

"He can easily carry or lift the weight which he can pick up with his Casual STR"

-and-

"Every character has a Casual STR equal to half of his STR. Casual STR is the STR the character can exert without conscious effort or taking an Action — in other words, when using it as a Zero Phase Action."

however, carrying 50% of your max gives you a -3 DEX roll, -2 movement, 2 END per phase (5r pg379). this does not seem as effortless as the previous rules indicate, since it hampers your mobility, AND costs extra END. and a 100% encumberance (max load) you have a -8 movement and 4 END per phase. so unless you have extra movement, you can't even take the couple of steps given by the STR chart rules. and you STILL don't pay a crazy amount of END, as 4 REC is pretty standard, so you still recover END as fast as you put it out (not taking into account movement, if you can)

 

so, by simply reading the rules as is, there is still internal inconsistancy in the way this functions. and this is what Markdoc is referring to. He chose his way of removing the inconsistancy, i simply don't use END in heroic games, because i feel it is the weakest link in the whole equation (as opposed to STR). so, that is my arguement, and i think Markdoc's as well, although if it isn't, i'm sorry to have assumed and put words in your mouth. it seems to me fairly easy to follow the train of logic, and, using the assumption of "looking at and using all the rules" that was given by ghost angel and others and a fairly complete look at all normal rules involved in this arguement.

 

and to throw around what amounts of insults just because someone disagrees with your particular view of what level of unreality is ok in a game seems to be extreme in my view, and more confrontational than is strictly neccessary or helpful to the discussion at hand. some people just like to cling closer to reality than others, at least in some aspects of their games that they are well versed/familar with. this is no more wrong than the inverse assumption that modeling reality is not really the point of the game, and should be overlooked if possible.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

now' date=' the encumberance rules (which on a quick referernce are not tagged as optional, i might add, at least not that i noticed, if anyone knows where i can find the bit about being optional, please point me in the right direction) help this somewhat, but they directly disagree with the normal rules.[/quote']

 

Heh... then those stating the rules don't cover lifting heavy objects have even less of an argument, because at 100% you're at -8" Movement, for a normal person that's NOT MOVING AT ALL.

 

As for that Endurance part.....

 

During a 1 hour workout set I can fatigue specific muscles fairly easily. But my overall energy levels actually tend to go up. I cannot, for instance, workout within 3 hours of trying to go to sleep because I will not be tired - just the opposite. I may work my arms to the point where I don't really want to move them, but my overall condition will be Very Awake. It takes a few hours to unwind from the activity and finally feel tired.

 

So does working out Aid my END?

 

On the other hand, when I worked road crew slinging asphalt all day for 6-8 hours I came home dang tired. But that involved more than merely lifting and walking around. . .

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Heh... then those stating the rules don't cover lifting heavy objects have even less of an argument' date=' because at 100% you're at -8" Movement, for a normal person that's NOT MOVING AT ALL.[/quote']

 

No, it's a part of the argument - the optional encumbrance rules do cover some of the problems (I noted that myself, initially), however, they introduce NEW problems because they directly contradict the STR rules, as well as introducing new problems of their own.

 

This has been stated repeatedly, and I'm not quite sure why it's so hard to grasp, but (sigh) here we go again.

 

Core rules

1. It is stated that the listed weight is "What you can barely lift and stagger with". This seems rather odd, because it implies a major effort (effort being explicitly what's measured as END use) but it costs a normal hardly any END. OK, that's odd, but let's go with it.

2. The rules further state that casual STR (half your STR) is what you can apply apply without conscious effort

3. Now, the encumbrance rules, if you use them address some of these issues - at 100% of carrying capacity, your movement and CV is reduced, which makes sense (although it does contradict the "barely lift and stagger a few steps" part, since a normal lifting his full weight apparently can't move at all). However, the contradictions become more overt when using casual STR - if using the encumbrance rules, a normal using casual STR has a DCV of -1, making him effectively a sitting duck, cuts his movemen by a third and increases END use by 50% - thus directly contradicting #2 above and making it plain that actually using your casual STR is a major effort.

 

Which once again leaves us where we were: that the rules as written directly contradict themselves. If you use the encumbrance rules, using casual STR to lift things becomes a major issue - if NOT using the encumbrance rules (which is the default for superheroic games), then using all your STR to lift things becomes a minor issue - and in addition, has an odd disconnect from the END rules. I can't see that it can be laid out plainer than that.

 

cheers, Mark

[CTaylor]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

That's partly why I changed the encumbrance rules to be less penalizing and have rules for well-distributed items (like armor) being less encumbering.

 

Perhaps some rules for continuous strength use as an option would make sense: you can use a burst of your strength for 1 END per 10, but holding an item costs more?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

No' date=' it's a part of the argument - the optional encumbrance rules do cover some of the problems (I noted that myself, initially), however, they introduce NEW problems because they directly contradict the STR rules, as well as introducing new problems of their own.[/quote']

 

I'm not convinced the encumbrance rules "directly contradict" the STR rules. The point has already been made that they do not appear to be "optional" (at least any more than any rule is "optional").

 

You can use casual STR of 5 and heft 50 kg over your head effortlessly. This is the STR rules. Maintaining that load while moving, however, takes a toll over the long term in that you spend a bit of END every turn, which will gradually exhaust you, albeit under the more clearly optional Long Term End rules. If you don't use the LTE rules, and you permit pushing at the character's discretion, you can find much greater unrealities without looking too hard. Eventually, that 10 STR normal can, by Pushing, break objects with 7 DEF (15 DEF if you let him Haymaker), since he can Push, punch and rest for as long as he wants. How many objects have a 16+ DEF? Of those that don't, what percentage can a normal person realistically break by beating on them with his bare hands for an indefinite period?

 

Core rules

1. It is stated that the listed weight is "What you can barely lift and stagger with". This seems rather odd, because it implies a major effort (effort being explicitly what's measured as END use) but it costs a normal hardly any END. OK, that's odd, but let's go with it.

 

I think the issue of whether a short heft & stagger exhausts the person has been discussed enough. If you try to lift something and fail, are you generally bedridden with exhaustion? Trying and succeeding, albeit only briefly, is not significantly different. This is what the STR and END rules simulate.

 

Get the maximum you can stagger along with strapped to your back, and I suggest you will wear out over time, which is simulated by encumbrance and long term END.

 

2. The rules further state that casual STR (half your STR) is what you can apply apply without conscious effort

3. Now, the encumbrance rules, if you use them address some of these issues - at 100% of carrying capacity, your movement and CV is reduced, which makes sense (although it does contradict the "barely lift and stagger a few steps" part, since a normal lifting his full weight apparently can't move at all).

 

Is 0" movement "can't move at all" or "can't move appreciably"? Between his phases, a character can't travel (movement of 0), but he can presumably dodge, turn and otherwise change his position within a hex. "Staggering a few steps" might perhaps better be listed as "stagger, but not move an appreciable distance, so he remains in the same hex".

 

I do, however, agree that it would be better to apply a percentage reduction in movement, rather than a flat -8". A character with a higher running speed can "stagger" pretty quickly.

 

However' date=' the contradictions become more overt when using casual STR - if using the encumbrance rules, a normal using casual STR has a DCV of -1, making him effectively a sitting duck, cuts his movemen by a third and increases END use by 50% - thus directly contradicting #2 above and making it plain that actually using your casual STR is a major effort.[/quote']

 

Why is a DCV reduced by 1 point a "sitting duck"? As to the other issues, I return to the difference between "heft the weight" and "carry the weight on a continuous basis". Casual STR use is a quick exertion, not a sustained usage. The encumbrance and LTE rules address that sustained usage for carrying.

 

Which once again leaves us where we were: that the rules as written directly contradict themselves. If you use the encumbrance rules' date=' using casual STR to lift things becomes a major issue - if NOT using the encumbrance rules (which is the default for superheroic games), then using all your STR to lift things becomes a minor issue - and in addition, has an odd disconnect from the END rules. I can't see that it can be laid out plainer than that.[/quote']

 

I think there is a minor disconnect in the casual STR range, where the continuous exertion takes at least a minor toll. However, using all your STR to lift things is only a "minor issue" if you ignore the plain statement that you can lift that maximum only briefly, and not for a sustained period, and cannot move while lifting the object. If you want to support it long-term, you will need a higher STR, which means either you can't do it, or you must push your STR, in which case you can do it, but will quickly become exhausted.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

What Hugh said.

 

There's a difference between just lifting, and walking around with weight.

[eternal_sage]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

true enough, ga, but i doubt your routine workout involves going at your max STR the entire time, if at all (depending on the purpose of your working out of course). i'm saying that going at your maximum lift ability for an hour is going to leave you winded, if you even could. basically we're talking about picking up a fit, tall person weighing around 225 lbs (100 kg approx), knocking him out (so he's dead weight and not hanging on to help you), slinging him over a shoulder a doing stuff for an hour. if thats your normal workout (and you are approx STR 10, of course) and you feel refreshed, then you, sir, redefine hardass in my book, because i'd be ready for a nap or at least a good sit down and breathe.

 

however, even at 4 END/phase the average person is going to be fresh and ready after an entire day of doing that. of course, its meant to be heroic like Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, not down and gritty realism, but still, considering that the normal PC has a 4-8 REC even in said down a gritty games, it seems sort of outlandish to me.

 

and need i say that -8 to Movement is also a direct contridiction to the "few steps" part of the much argued rules clause, since even a few steps will get you a hex of movement (with a little hand waving and rounding) considering a smaller step for me is probably around 1-2 feet in length, where as a full stride is closer to a half a hex.

 

oh, and i will add that i understand that there is a difference between "lift and movement" and "just lift", as well as "sustained lift" to "short burst lift"

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

true enough, ga, but i doubt your routine workout involves going at your max STR the entire time, if at all (depending on the purpose of your working out of course). i'm saying that going at your maximum lift ability for an hour is going to leave you winded, if you even could. basically we're talking about picking up a fit, tall person weighing around 225 lbs (100 kg approx), knocking him out (so he's dead weight and not hanging on to help you), slinging him over a shoulder a doing stuff for an hour. if thats your normal workout (and you are approx STR 10, of course) and you feel refreshed, then you, sir, redefine hardass in my book, because i'd be ready for a nap or at least a good sit down and breathe.

 

however, even at 4 END/phase the average person is going to be fresh and ready after an entire day of doing that. of course, its meant to be heroic like Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, not down and gritty realism, but still, considering that the normal PC has a 4-8 REC even in said down a gritty games, it seems sort of outlandish to me.

 

and need i say that -8 to Movement is also a direct contridiction to the "few steps" part of the much argued rules clause, since even a few steps will get you a hex of movement (with a little hand waving and rounding) considering a smaller step for me is probably around 1-2 feet in length, where as a full stride is closer to a half a hex.

 

oh, and i will add that i understand that there is a difference between "lift and movement" and "just lift", as well as "sustained lift" to "short burst lift"

 

You're actually agreeing with me -

 

My capacity to Lift (STR) a heavy weight and Carry (END) a heavy weight are very different. Were I to pick up my usual overhead press weight and carry it around I would invoke ENCUMBRANCE RULES because I am CARRYING the weight, not just LIFTING IT OFF THE GROUND.

 

It take relatively low levels of energy for me to grab the weight and get it off the ground than it does to walk around with it.

 

For example, I grab the 75lb bar for curls - carrying from the rack to where I will perform the routine costs me more energy than simply standing in place and performing the routine (which involves holding the weight in place and lifting it using only my arm muscle groups).

 

Lift Off Ground = Strength

Lift Off Ground + Walk Around = Encumbrance Rules

 

Part of this discussion started with the statement "STR does no properly model lifting, my players routinely state they only expend 1 END to lift 100kg at their maximum capacity, which is wrong." When pointed out Encumbrance Rules model the actual walking around part the initial point changed little.

 

Yeah - it does only cost me 1 END to get my maximum weight off the ground. Costs me a lot more to move it though. Now what could possibly model that... OH WAIT I KNOW - ENCUMBRANCE.

 

Seems to be the Rules handle it just fine.

The levels suggested in the Encumbrance Rules may be up for debate - but the rules themselves model the issue; which was the initial complains: they didn't. Which is wrong.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Here's my issue:

 

It was repeatedly stated the Rules did not handle lifting and/or carrying heavy weights.

 

I was repeatedly pointed out they do, in fact, handle just such things.

They may not do it to your liking, but they do actually handle it.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

I'm not convinced the encumbrance rules "directly contradict" the STR rules. The point has already been made that they do not appear to be "optional" (at least any more than any rule is "optional").

 

They are optional in that they are explicitly recommended not for use in Superheroic games - meaning they will be in use in some games and not in others. Or does the concept that the rules are all the words written in the description not apply in this case?

 

You can use casual STR of 5 and heft 50 kg over your head effortlessly. This is the STR rules.

 

True - however, the encumbrance rules say nothing about movement being required for extra END use of DCV penalties - even while standing still it costs him extra END and also reduces his DCV to have a heavy weight in his arms (which makes sense: it's not like an object only has weight if you move). So it's not actually effortless (unless you define "effortless" as "involving significant impairment"). And we'll skip over the slightly bizarre image you have painted that it's easier to hold a weight over your head than carry it on your back. Together with the amusing image of someone shattering their bones and tearing their muscles by lifting 100 kg, I think you guys are reaching the point where your arguments are starting to trip over each other in a desperate attempt not to actually adress the rules.

 

Maintaining that load while moving' date=' however, takes a toll over the long term in that you spend a bit of END every turn, which will gradually exhaust you, albeit under the more clearly optional Long Term End rules. If you don't use the LTE rules, and you permit pushing at the character's discretion, you can find much greater unrealities without looking too hard. [/quote']

 

I don't think anyone's suggested "pushing at player's discretion". I agree that if it were allowed, it can lead to some bizarre outcomes. I merely pointed out that the fact that NPCs can't push has little to no relevance to a discussion about what PCs can do.

 

I think the issue of whether a short heft & stagger exhausts the person has been discussed enough. If you try to lift something and fail' date=' are you generally bedridden with exhaustion? Trying and succeeding, albeit only briefly, is not significantly different. This is what the STR and END rules simulate.[/quote']

 

Well apart from the fact that they don't, sure. We'll ignore the bedridden part, since no-one's suggesting anything of the kind (except you).

 

Let's actually go through the rules.

 

As stated by the rules (p. 286 in 5th) people only lose LTE if they are passing the 1:2 threshold of END use to REC. In a superheroic game our prototypical normal can pick up a 100 kg object, stagger with it as long as he is allowed (a few steps? However far that is: presumably somewhere between 1" and 6") and then rest for 6 seconds. He uses 1 END and has a REC of 4 - he can keep this up all day and lose no LTE. In a heroic game, as written, he can't move it all, since his move is reduced by -8".

 

If we go down to 50 kg (casual STR), again in a superheroic game, the normal can carry it without any penalty all day at normal speed, while in a heroic game, he'd be able to go 20 minutes at 2/3rds speed before collapsing from utter exhaustion and being unable to do much without burning STUN for the next hour (or 5 hours depending on how you prorate recovery). The math is simple - he's using 2 END due to encumbrance (50 kg) and 1 END to lift the object - 3 END vs 4 REC puts him in the 1/min LTE loss category, so he's used up all his END in 20 min.

 

And he has a DCV of 0, implying he's staggering along. Hardly "without conscious effort", now is it?

 

Get the maximum you can stagger along with strapped to your back' date=' and I suggest you will wear out over time, which is simulated by encumbrance and long term END.[/quote']

 

Yeah, and for a fit, strong man in good condition you're suggesting that that 100 kg on your back will reduce you to utter exhaustion in 4 minutes (in which you have covered no distance). With 75 kilos, you'd still collapse in 4 minutes, but at least you'd almost have covered 200 metres.

 

Can you see the problem now? I'd suggest you actually read the rules on STR, encumbrance and LTE, because it seems fairly plain that you have not. This kind of problem is exactly why I started by pointing out that your choices (with rules as written) is to ignore the encumbrance rules (which leads to unrealistic results that poorly match the description of STR) or to use them - which leads to unrealistically punitive results that poorly match the description of STR.

 

Is 0" movement "can't move at all" or "can't move appreciably"? Between his phases, a character can't travel (movement of 0), but he can presumably dodge, turn and otherwise change his position within a hex. "Staggering a few steps" might perhaps better be listed as "stagger, but not move an appreciable distance, so he remains in the same hex".

 

I do, however, agree that it would be better to apply a percentage reduction in movement, rather than a flat -8". A character with a higher running speed can "stagger" pretty quickly.

 

Agreed - this is one of the problems with the encumbramce rules I didn't bother to note - but in answer to the statement above that one, "can't move at all" and "can't move out of the hex" come to the same thing when trying to actually move things over more than a single phase (and a total move of -2" would certainly imply to me "can't move at all")

 

 

Why is a DCV reduced by 1 point a "sitting duck"?

 

It isn't - but then that's neither what I wrote, nor what the rules state. A normal lifting 50kg has his DCV reduced by three to a total DCV of -1 (and yes, I know he can't actually go below 0, so maybe I should have written DCV 0 - either way, he remains a sitting duck)

 

As to the other issues' date=' I return to the difference between "heft the weight" and "carry the weight on a continuous basis". Casual STR use is a quick exertion, not a sustained usage. The encumbrance and LTE rules address that sustained usage for carrying.[/quote']

 

And do so so poorly, as noted, that house rules are all but mandatory, even if we accept the assertion that lifting an object over your head is easier than bearing the same object on your back - an assertion I do not in fact, accept.

 

I think there is a minor disconnect in the casual STR range' date=' where the continuous exertion takes at least a minor toll. However, using all your STR to lift things is only a "minor issue" if you ignore the plain statement that you can lift that maximum only briefly, and not for a sustained period, and cannot move while lifting the object. If you want to support it long-term, you will need a higher STR, which means either you can't do it, or you must push your STR, in which case you can do it, but will quickly become exhausted.[/quote']

 

The problem with the statement you keep referring to is that there's no definition of "briefly" or "a few steps" (note - nothing anywhere in the rules says you cannot move while lifting the the object, though for a normal human in a heroic setting, that would be implied by the encumbrance rules)

 

As noted above if you actually use the encumbrance rules provided, even casual STR use will quickly exhaust you while moving heavy objects is essentially impossible. If you don't use them, moving medium size weights is effortless and moving your maximum load relatively trivial.

 

So yeah, I'd agree there's a disconnect.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Few Steps:

 

Take one step forward.

Take a second step forward.

 

A few steps. Seems clear to me.

[Markdoc]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

It take relatively low levels of energy for me to grab the weight and get it off the ground than it does to walk around with it.

 

For example, I grab the 75lb bar for curls - carrying from the rack to where I will perform the routine costs me more energy than simply standing in place and performing the routine (which involves holding the weight in place and lifting it using only my arm muscle groups).

 

Lift Off Ground = Strength

Lift Off Ground + Walk Around = Encumbrance Rules

 

Heh - I used to work in a warehouse and I move weights when needed in the gym. My experience is the exact opposite. Getting a 70 kg roll of linoleum up onto my shoulder required far more effort than walking with it once it was actually up there. Same for weights - getting them up and balanced on my should requires more effort than walking away with them once there.

 

Part of this discussion started with the statement "STR does no properly model lifting' date=' my players routinely state they only expend 1 END to lift 100kg at their maximum capacity, which is wrong." When pointed out Encumbrance Rules model the actual walking around part the initial point changed little.[/quote']

 

Not even close. The original post said (and here it is word for word)

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.

 

followed by

 

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.

 

Which, according to what you are writing now, is 100% true, since you are staying that the encumbrance rules only kick when you are moving. Of course, of you take this approach, someone carrying a heavy load can improve their DCV massively by, uuhh, stopping moving. Isn't that kind of weird?

 

Yeah - it does only cost me 1 END to get my maximum weight off the ground. Costs me a lot more to move it though. Now what could possibly model that... OH WAIT I KNOW - ENCUMBRANCE.

 

Seems to be the Rules handle it just fine.

The levels suggested in the Encumbrance Rules may be up for debate - but the rules themselves model the issue; which was the initial complains: they didn't. Which is wrong.

 

No, the original post stated - and I've quoted it above - that as it stands, a normal can pick up and hold - essentially for as long as he likes (even if you use the optional LTE rules) - 100 kg. You have just agreed with that and said as long as he doesn't move, that's fine, since hey, encumbrance only kicks in when he moves.

 

So the original comment that "that's not how the rules work" appears to be accurate.

 

If you are using the encumbrance rules then the ability to hold up heavy weights for ever changes. They would rapidly force a person just holding his maximum weight to drop it, and if you add the optional LTE rules he'll get exhausted. Trouble is, if you use those rules, even people using casual STR rapidly become exhausted. And as I did to Hugh, I'd suggest you read them, because there's nothing in there about them only applying if you move: the only place moving is mentioned is in the section on effect of encumbrance on movement: not on END use, not on OCV/DCV/DEX rolls.

 

Now as noted, you can get around these problems and contradictions by houseruling the encumbrance rules which - surprise, surprise - is what I originally suggested.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: How much XP per 'level'

 

Your original post, to which I am referring since I agree with Phil's original post:

 

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

 

Which is rules wrong.

Encumbrance Rules are not optional (as was first thought by even myself).

AND in later posts you asserted the Text was essentially meaningless.

 

I don't have a problem with the idea that you don't like the specific penalties Encumbrance imposes.

 

But the fact of the matter remains... The rules do take into account this idea of both lifting and carrying very heavy loads.