Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Strength and dexterity in RPGs

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
That only makes sense in a world with nothing but humans though. The whole point of having str and dex work the way they do is that it can model a housecat or a giant crab or an earth elemental just as well as a player character.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
One of the most pernicious myths is that it is even possible to be agile without being strong. Physics is clear on this point F=MA. In order to be agile, that is, in order to accelerate quickly, you must generate a large amount of force: You must be strong. It is possible to reduce the amount of Force required by reducing Mass, but humans only have so much variation in mass. Conversely, to be strong, you will necessarily be quick, because again: F=MA. If you can generate a lot of force, you can accelerate your mass quickly. Unless you are dragging around a lot of extra M, that is, you are grossly obese, the ability to generate force means quick acceleration.

Big = Slow is one of the most enduring myths that constantly makes itself into games. The Big Guy is always slower than the Little Guy. This simply isn't true.
This is an oversimplification, because there's also a correlation between force and mass, and you don't need to be obese for that mass to have a very notable effect. Acceleration in any given situation is also affected by numerous other factors like in which muscles all that strength actually is, or how the different muscle groups work together to perform a specific action. A weightlifter that rarely bothers with any other leg workout is fairly certainly "strong", but all that muscle mass isn't necessarily going to do him any favors if he, say, wants to sprint very quickly, or perform a quick turn when running at full speed. While muscle mass does contribute to your ability to perform fast and explosive movements, more mass does also mean more resistance to your movements — triceps and biceps, for example, work in opposite directions, and having huge triceps may slow the biceps down, and vice versa. Boxers generally don't want to be the size of a mountain, because building the muscles at your back may be counterproductive if you want to be able to punch really fast, and so on.

The whole strength/agility dichotomy is of course an imperfect abstraction, as there is a relation between the two, as has been established in this thread, but considering how shallow RPG mechanics tend to be, in most cases those two stats are a pretty adequate way to present the differences between different body types and muscle builds, with strength being related to pushing, pulling, lifting and other such physical feats, whereas agility/dexterity is more about movement. (I'll go with sports examples as those are by far the easiest to come up with.) A high jumper certainly has a lot of power in his body, but a lot of that is in the legs, because having a lot of upper-body strength would be counterproductive for that particular action, which could be represented by medium strength and high agility. An example of low strength and high agility might be something like a female figure skater, who tend to be very slim and small but most certainly agile. A gymnast or a circus acrobat has to be both agile and strong, most likely not as strong as a weightlifter but certainly a lot more agile.

It's also hard to not see the difference between strength and agility when simply watching a single match of football: It is likely that the centre-backs in each team are tall and strong but fairly sluggish compared to wing players, who are a lot smaller and largely have to rely on their pace and movement because in physical battles they'll be outmatched by the bigger defenders. While even the big centre backs may be able to achieve a high top speed eventually, on a twenty yard sprint you'd bet on the little man every single time. You do have some players with outstanding physique, like Cristiano Ronaldo or Zlatan Ibrahimović, who are not only tall and strong but also quicker than most, but they form a very small minority, and even Messi, the very best player of his generation, has to constantly compensate for his lack of strength and size with his superb movement. Historically it has also been very common for teams to play two strikers up front in a classic "big man, little man" pairing, which consists of a tall, strong and often fairly strong target man and a smaller, quicker striker, which aim to work in tandem, with the former utilizing his size and strength to create space so that the latter can utilize his speed.

Because of these kind of things it maybe isn't all that surprising that sports games often put RPGs to shame when it comes to simulating physical stats.
 
Last edited:

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
It's also hard to not see the difference between strength and agility when simply watching a single match of football: It is likely that the centre-backs in each team are tall and strong but fairly sluggish compared to wing players, who are a lot smaller and largely have to rely on their pace and movement because in physical battles they'll be outmatched by the bigger defenders. While even the big centre backs may be able to achieve a high top speed eventually, on a twenty yard sprint you'd bet on the little man every single time. You do have some players with outstanding physique, like Cristiano Ronaldo or Zlatan Ibrahimović, who are not only tall and strong but also quicker than most, but they form a very small minority, and even Messi, the very best player of his generation, has to constantly compensate for his lack of strength and size with his superb movement. Historically it has also been very common for teams to play two strikers up front in a classic "big man, little man" pairing, which consists of a tall, strong and often fairly strong target man and a smaller, quicker striker, which aim to work in tandem, with the former utilizing his size and strength to create space so that the latter can utilize his speed.

Because of these kind of things it maybe isn't all that surprising that sports games often put RPGs to shame when it comes to simulating physical stats.

I agree with everything and indeed FIFA and PES came to mind when explaining my reason.

Also I consider FIFA and PES games "become a legend"/career mode to be RPGs. dat choice and consequence when shooting on goal and failing as opposed to assiting that perfectly placed teammate
 
Unwanted

Bustamonte

Unwanted
Shitposter
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
691
Everything on your list is either arguable or plain wrong.

In most RPGs you need lots of strength if you want to be able to hit someone in melee, while you need a lot of dexterity and/or agility to be able to use a bow or a firearm.

In reality, the primary thing you need to effectively use a bow is strength. Great strength for longbows and composite bows. About 50 kg on average for a bow used in war. And you need to be able to keep it drawn for a bit, so you can aim.
Absolutely false.

Strength is extremely helpful in fencing. And to penetrate armor in a war situation, which is the whole point of DnD giving to hit bonuses for strength.

You also don't need all that much strength for a longbow and outside of a military situation you don't ever hold a drawn bowstring long, which ruins it. You need basically zero for a composite bow, that's the whole point!

And while you don't need to be strong to fire a gun, strength is still the most important stat for effective gun use in war, as your strength determines how good you can aim, how fast you can re-acquire a target and how effectively you can use sub-machine guns and automatic rifles.
Have you ever even fired a gun? :lol:

In the real world strength is super important, but only for carrying stuff.

For the effective use of swords, you primarily need a lot of dexterity and agility.

What are those things even and how do they relate to sword usage? You need strength for swords. You use set patterns, you don't make shit up on the fly.

That is the case with gymnastics, too. You need strength more than anything else.

Swords aren't all that heavy, they weigh between one and two kilograms. And, while they have a cutting edge, that only works against unarmored enemies.
Not really true, many opponents have been sfound liced and diced wearing plate. Like Richard III for example.

In general, they are used to pierce the weak points, lightning fast.
Definitely not true. You beat down your opponent with sheer force, often breaking arms and legs. Then once he's down finish him with a dirk.

And agility helps to prevent getting stabbed yourself.

The only melee weapon that requires strength is a maul. A hit is surely very destructive, but you leave yourself wide open to counterattack during the (comparatively) long, slow swing. I cannot think of any other melee weapon that requires strength to improve the chance of scoring a hit.
None of this is really true either. Anything truly slow is worthless.

Pole-arm users would mildly benefit from strength for endurance in long-lasting battles. But as individual battles lasted mere seconds and even in large battles with many combatants the actual fighting tended to be over in minutes, that wasn't a concern very often.
Where do you get your information? Endurance was the most important thing.


Interestingly enough, the same goes for the use of heavy armor as well. A full suit of plate mail weighs less than the backpack of a current infantry soldier, and is distributed around your body. Again, strength is mainly useful to improve the endurance, not during the actual fighting, where dexterity and agility rule.

And last but not least: light armor is often heavily padded boiled leather, which tends to be more stiff and bulky than full plate, and certainly chain mail.

Your cardiovascular conditioning is basically the most important thing, just like in any exercise intensive thing. Moreso here because of extra weight and obstructed breathing.

In DnD that is rolled in with strength.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
All in the monster manual champ
Cease your babbling or I'll sic duckbunnies on you.
+M
I'm trying to determine what would make sense and be logically consistent, not what what was cooked up by Wizards of The Co(a)st.

And you won't live anywhere near dragon lifespan or even dragon adulthood if you're dumb when you're rumoured to have a pile of bling.
Not because someone will challenge and off you face-to-face obviously.

Additionally, a dragon will not only have a better start in terms of magic, but far longer track records in regards to any learning experience.
All dragons are very clumsy, about as graceful as a peasant.
That's scaling for you.
Their understanding of human psychology is about as indepth as their understanding of the rest of the world, remarkably wise creatures as a rule, but nothing beyond human capabilities either, if they even bother to study them, most of the dont, for the same reason most humans dont study sheeps or ants.
The difference is that you don't typically have to deal with unusually crafty ants trying to murder you.
Sure, unless specifically interested in it or interacting with humanoids a lot, a dragon will probably remain rather oblivious to a lot of humanoid psychology and culture, but how humanoids go about killing stuff will be a matter those that survive without staying in complete isolation will understand and attempt to exploit.

Your typical dragon is lazy, proud and overindulgent, on top of having a remarkably high life expectancy, what they achieve in 100 years a disciplined human can achieve in kist a few. They just start further ahead and have a natural talent for it, which further feeds into their overbloated egos. Add to this the boundless greed that afflicts most of them and they spend too much time trying to get valuables and setting up defenses that they dont have time for much else but their ever important long naps.
Don't forget having those defenses tested and improving them.
Plus I wouldn't expect you to show much humility towards what from your POV amounts to a species of talking field mice either.

Also a dragons wings are the first thing you should take care of, they are brittle, fragile and too much of a tactical advantage to be left alone.
And dragon is aware of that. Like I said, you need a lot of fiendishly clever (because said dragon did best to anticipate it, as helped by substantial experience in this matter) manoeuvring to eliminate all or most of dragon's overwhelming advantages for such battle to not be autosplat.

For the record, much less than a dragon should be fully sufficient for a nearly autosplat battle if player goes with a simple frontal attack.

Why be so extreme? you can merely reposition. Its not either stand your ground or flee bro. battles have a bit more depth than that. You can often chose to fight the battle on your own terms, youll live longer if you do.
You can't win the battle by repositioning alone and if the enemy can simply exhaust your resources, then you can't win at all. If you have five spells and I have six guys (make it eleven if you have charm and the like), then at worst (for me) the last guy stabs you in the dick.

Which is why you set the world state and let the
...game not know what the fuck to do with it unless it's given precise rules regarding how to proceed.

Bows should have hard strength and dexterity requirements.
Why hard dexterity reqs? The rest of your post seems ok.

Physics is clear on this point F=MA. In order to be agile, that is, in order to accelerate quickly, you must generate a large amount of force: You must be strong. It is possible to reduce the amount of Force required by reducing Mass, but humans only have so much variation in mass. Conversely, to be strong, you will necessarily be quick, because again: F=MA. If you can generate a lot of force, you can accelerate your mass quickly. Unless you are dragging around a lot of extra M, that is, you are grossly obese, the ability to generate force means quick acceleration.
Your strength increases with square of your size, your mass with cube.
It might not matter that much with what little variation there is between individuals. Small guys might be harder to hit (and spot) and a bit better at dodging. OTOH they are almost guaranteed to have worse ground speed.

Everything on your list is either arguable or plain wrong.
...
This will be interesting.
:avatard:
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
I have read the last few pages about strength / weight being the most important thing. And, it probably is, in a fair fight, all else being equal.

The problem with that is, that your chances of living through such a fight are about 50%, on average. When both combatants play it fair.

If you want to live, you use any dirty trick you can imagine. And try to kill your opponent even before the actual fighting starts.

And, if in doubt: RUN AWAY!

Living is the important part, not winning.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
The problem with that is, that your chances of living through such a fight are about 50%, on average. When both combatants play it fair.
When both combatants intend to stick with their decision and fight to the end it's actually much less.
There *is* such thing as killing each other.

If you want to live, you use any dirty trick you can imagine. And try to kill your opponent even before the actual fighting starts.
:salute:

And, if in doubt: RUN AWAY!

Living is the important part, not winning.
:hearnoevil:
WHY ARE THERE ENCOUNTERS I CANT WIN THIS GAME SUCKS LEARN BY DYING IS BAD DESIGN.
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
DraQ, I think the main problem is, that they have no idea whatsoever how you could abstract that and turn it into RPG rules.

For starters, it would completely break the Warrior archetype. The Big Bruiser, who runs head-on into any fight, and has himself gutted like a pig in the first one, most likely.


The only reason large-scale medieval battles are possible at all, is because the front line couldn't run away. And the Romans even made sure that it was a reasonably safe place to be. But that's not what we're discussing here. There are no large armies in RPG's. You're commanding a few opportunistic thieves and cutthroats.

So, the problem is in the presentation. Because, players want to be shining heroes, by and large. Yes, even the evil ones. They might be "Bad to the Bone!", but in the mind of the player, they're still doing the Right Thing. Like, they might be just opportunistic egoists without any empathy, but, hey!, that's what you have to do to succeed in life! Successful businessmen are psychopaths!

So, they might be too timid in real life to be such a psychopath, but at least they can play one!


But what you cannot sell is the player commanding just a few psychopathic, opportunistic cutthroats. While that is essentially what you do in RPG's. It causes them to doubt themselves, and bad dreams.
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
And, it probably is, in a fair fight, all else being equal.
In an unfair fight you better have the longest pointy stick, and be clad in armor and shield.

So you better have strength to carry all that around, as well as a backpack with useful things like,food or rope.

Armor only helps against enemy attacks. Which means you are too late, because that enemy is still alive and attacking you! RUN AWAY!

And keep on running or sneak back to make sure he won't ever be able to attack you again.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
I'm trying to determine what would make sense and be logically consistent, not what what was cooked up by Wizards of The Co(a)st.
What would make sense and be logically consistent is that their lizard brains would place them right at the intelectual level of an iguana.

And you won't live anywhere near dragon lifespan or even dragon adulthood if you're dumb when you're rumoured to have a pile of bling.
Whatsabling?

Additionally, a dragon will not only have a better start in terms of magic, but far longer track records in regards to any learning experience.
Maybe? i never heard of dragon schools or dragon adventuring parties. They learn on their own and they try to keep safe, so i dont see them having a great growth over a short period of time.

That's scaling for you.
Is it tho? never saw a dragon dance ballet.

The difference is that you don't typically have to deal with unusually crafty ants trying to murder you.
Yeah, so?

Sure, unless specifically interested in it or interacting with humanoids a lot, a dragon will probably remain rather oblivious to a lot of humanoid psychology and culture, but how humanoids go about killing stuff will be a matter those that survive without staying in complete isolation will understand and attempt to exploit.
Maybe for some. Usually dragons that are featured in fiction are an exception of their race, actually interested in mortals.

Don't forget having those defenses tested and improving them.
Well, they only need to fail once i guess.

Plus I wouldn't expect you to show much humility towards what from your POV amounts to a species of talking field mice either.
Exactly.

And dragon is aware of that.
Sure, but theres nothing he can do short of getting rid of them.

Like I said, you need a lot of fiendishly clever (because said dragon did best to anticipate it, as helped by substantial experience in this matter) manoeuvring to eliminate all or most of dragon's overwhelming advantages for such battle to not be autosplat.
I guess? Play it like that and the npcs are gonna wise up and bring their own 18 INT npc to deal with those traps. Making this a battle of DM metagame vs DM metagame.
Plus intelligence isnt that important to make good traps, you only need common sense and experience.
As for their "auto splat", depends, the dragon has to actually hit, and i wouldnt bring down my claw on someone that has a big point sword if i were a dragon, would hate for it to get stuck on my claw, and the dude under it would probably survive if he knew what he was doing.
Of course if you asume the petty human is going to stand there staring in awe as you murder it, then yeah, go right ahead, but someday someone might surprise you. Unless you metagame that too.

For the record, much less than a dragon should be fully sufficient for a nearly autosplat battle if player goes with a simple frontal attack.
Depends on the character i guess. A level 1 warrior of any kind? sure.

You can't win the battle by repositioning alone
Hah, sometimes thats all it takes.

and if the enemy can simply exhaust your resources
Asuming that they are not exhausting theirs.
If you have five spells and I have six guys (make it eleven if you have charm and the like), then at worst (for me) the last guy stabs you in the dick.
Sure i guess, but sometimes you only need 1 spell. Heck, given the right circumstances this is more often the case.

...game not know what the fuck to do with it unless it's given precise rules regarding how to proceed.
Well, you have to have a starting point.

Everything on your list is either arguable or plain wrong.
...
This will be interesting.
:avatard:
He does make fair points tho.
 
Last edited:

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
DraQ, for future reference when someone mentions the fantasy genre, the default setting they are talking about is The Forgotten Realms, not your head-cannon.
 

Orobis

Arcane
Sychophantic Noob
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,066
Talkin wi me mate whos a right chubby chaser about strength today at gym, an he says to me, "Aye tha might be stronger than me on bench, but i've ad an eighteen stone minga on end o me dick! Thats what tha calls strength." Cunt argue wi bloke, then again not someat i'd wanna do.
:lol::lol:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom