Strength and dexterity in RPGs

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

If your "bigger" gun is 16" naval gun you don't really have to hit.

 

[Doktor Best]

Dexterty is actually an artificial value that is determined by the effectiveness of your muscular structure and of how well single muscles complement eachother(which again is built by training small connecting musclegroups) as well as cognitive abilities such as hand eye coordination and recalling conditioned movementpaterns in a precise and fast way.

So it all kinda blurrs into eachother anyways. A good fighter has to be strong and smart, in the right kind of way, that makes him agile and precise.

 

[Mustawd]

D - Olympic fencers use techniques typical for all that pointy-stabby rapiers, or more precisely Épée and other similar weapons

Yes, because that's what they use. But a lot of the skills, like quickness and reaction time, is what tend to cross over well. I'll try and find a HUMA video of a longsword competition to illustrate. One of the competitors was previously trained in Olympic fencing. The athleticism, as well as confident sword thrusts and swipes, was clear. Every other competitor he faced in the entire competition did not move as confident or as quickly as he did. Skill and agility matter quite a bit.

 

[Mustawd]

So it all kinda blurrs into eachother anyways. A good fighter has to be strong and smart, in the right kind of way, that makes him agile and precise.

Yes, but in RPGs, strength is normally the main stat that determines how much damage/armor piercing you do (excluding weapon stats of course). Which is really what we're debating right? Is that kind of abstraction even a valid one?

EDIT: Never mind. That actually sounded pretty dumb once I read it a few times.

 

[Mustawd]

If your "bigger" gun is 16" naval gun you don't really have to hit.

On a relative scale, fine. One humongous, The Big Show, type guy can completely obliterate, say a short Mexican bus boy type size. How typical is that though?

 

[SymbolicFrank]

The chances of surviving such a fight that only lasts seconds, is about 50%.

The people who won many fights weren't the big brawlers. They were the cunning backstabbers.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Interestingly enough, if you research the Great Heroes, like the WWI Red Baron, who has still the most kills of any fighter pilot, you discover that they always played it safe and never took any risk if they could prevent it. Stay out of sight, sneak up on them and go for their throat.

Or, in case of the Red Baron: always stay in the sun, pick a target that is to the rear/side, dive behind and below, let the guns rip and run like the wind!

 

[Harpsichord]

I don't disagree with the central premise, but the Red Baron doesn't have anywhere close to the most aerial victories of any fighter pilot.

 

[Mustawd]

Interestingly enough, if you research the Great Heroes, like the WWI Red Baron, who has still the most kills of any fighter pilot, you discover that they always played it safe and never took any risk if they could prevent it. Stay out of sight, sneak up on them and go for their throat.

Or, in case of the Red Baron: always stay in the sun, pick a target that is to the rear/side, dive behind and below, let the guns rip and run like the wind!

That's not even counting the fact that most celebrated military heroes are usually generals or leaders of a unit. Not necessarily on the front lines themselves.

Robert E Lee
Alexander the Great
Hannibal
etc

 

[J1M]

Impressive autism.

Neither really matters much, and particularly not in pitched battles where you are shoulder-to-shoulder with others and no room to dodge exists. However, strength corresponds somewhat weakly to the real determinant in fights.

Body mass. Whoever has the most weight, generally does win, barring greatly outmatched skill and overall conditioning. This is the reality that imposes weight classes in sports. To the extent that a lighter man can win a fight against heavier opponents, he either throws his lesser weight into his strikes much better than the heavier guy, or deflects the bodyweight behind the opponent's hit rather than tanking it himself, or uses holds to gain biomechanical leverage over the heavier man put into a weak position.

CON improving melee damage would make it more useful.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Btw, I agree with Mangoose, that even for "dumb" fighters, intelligence is probably the most important attribute. Like with most everything.

Then again, it's also probably the best reason to get stabbed in your back by just about anyone. I have a lot of experience with that.

The best thing you can do if you're very intelligent is never to show it and die average.

 

[Mustawd]

Then again, it's also probably the best reason to get stabbed in your back by just about anyone. I have a lot of experience with that.

Wut?

The best thing you can do if you're very intelligent is never to show it and die average.

I actually truly believe that staying in the middle (albeit the top middle) of society leads to a happier life.

 

[Azrael the cat]

In medieval times skill was a huge difference when you were a noble/knight (which meant you got tons of training at a young age) or some big bodied peasant who probably only picked up a weapon a handful of times and didn't know how to properly fight worth a crap.

Big-bodied yeomen did stout service with their bill-hooks at Crecy and Agincourt against supposedly elite knights. All of the medieval and ancient world was a time when men fought each other as a generally accepted feature of society. Every red-blooded and rough-handed peasant lad was familiar with dishing out the knocks on a rude neighbour or the rival suitor of a comely lass, and murder was often defined as unfair or cowardly killings, not two yeomen deciding to settle their quarrel with quarterstaves or other common farm implements that, oddly enough, resembled the bill-hooks and glaives to which they could be repurposed in war-time. Peasants were not push-overs in the "fighting and brawling their whole lives" department.

Yes. This is also demonstrated by how goddamn strict some places were with not allowing peasants to have swords (and in regulating farm equipment in terms of making sure it wasn't TOO conveniently converted into a training weapon) - France, Japan, parts of England, they were always shit scared of peasant revolts, it's just that (a) they knew that if they were too loud about it then that would give future rebels greater confidence; better to just play down their existence and talk about how awesome-sauce the nobles were at fighting, and (b) the peasants weren't total idiots, and were as afraid of anarchy as anyone else, and feudal system at least resisted the slide to anarchy.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

I actually truly believe that staying in the middle (albeit the top middle) of society leads to a happier life.

I wish it was that simple.

People think they all have an IQ over 100, while that is the average, and that they are very smart. So, if someone says something they cannot comprehend, they tell him he is stupid.

If you are very smart, just about everyone will tell you, very often, that you are very stupid.

And the definition of being crazy is, that you cannot communicate with most other people.

Ergo, if just about everyone (and especially your father) tells you every day that you are a stupid cunt who doesn't understands anything, you either believe it or are crazy.

Story of my life.


But, whatever. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[baturinsky]

Problem lies within dexterity=agility assumption.

 

[Mustawd]

Problem lies within dexterity=agility assumption.

What do you think the comparison should be? Dexterity equals skill with precise movements?

 

[Ninjerk]

I actually truly believe that staying in the middle (albeit the top middle) of society leads to a happier life.

I wish it was that simple.

People think they all have an IQ over 100, while that is the average, and that they are very smart. So, if someone says something they cannot comprehend, they tell him he is stupid.

If you are very smart, just about everyone will tell you, very often, that you are very stupid.

And the definition of being crazy is, that you cannot communicate with most other people.

Ergo, if just about everyone (and especially your father) tells you every day that you are a stupid cunt who doesn't understands anything, you either believe it or are crazy.

Story of my life.


But, whatever. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

I've always thought that Strength and Dexterity should fluctuate over time. So strength, for example, would increase as your character does physical activity that works his muscles. But if he over exerts himself he could do damage. Make stats into an algorythm that simulates the body (in, obviously, a simplified manner) and, as such, fluctuate depending on use. This would be an interesting experiment over the linear progression model that has dominated RPGs since forever.

 

[Mustawd]

wouldn't that just lead to rest spamming or complaints over too much detail in terms of resting?

I mean I like the idea, but how fun would it be for 90% of players? I mean for people who enjoy the old Realm of Arkania games, this fits right in. Just not sure if enough people would appreciate it.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

wouldn't that just lead to rest spamming or complaints over too much detail in terms of resting?

I mean I like the idea, but how fun would it be for 90% of players? I mean for people who enjoy the old Realm of Arkania games, this fits right in. Just not sure if enough people would appreciate it.

YEah, well it would turn stats into almost an economy of resources that you'd have to constantly manage. People would probably hate that. I think it would work in a stat heavy RPG that leans toward being a strategy game, where you have lots of characters who you can swap out. Probably wouldn't be fun in something like "The Witcher," though.

 

[Mangoose]

Dexterty is actually an artificial value that is determined by the effectiveness of your muscular structure and of how well single muscles complement eachother(which again is built by training small connecting musclegroups) as well as cognitive abilities such as hand eye coordination and recalling conditioned movementpaterns in a precise and fast way.

So it all kinda blurrs into eachother anyways. A good fighter has to be strong and smart, in the right kind of way, that makes him agile and precise.

Agreed.

Though luck is maybe #1 haha.

 

[Mustawd]

Yes, the idea of swapping out characters almost reminds me of FIFA soccer strategy. In which substitutions are crucial due to fatigue. Maybe works in a big SRPG?

Dunno why, but Blackguards comes to mind..as wel as the Expidition Conquistador game.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

That's interesting. I don't like sports games, but have always wanted to try FIFA. Mainly because soccer is the only sport I know anything about (I played it in highschool) and it sounds more like a management strategy game than a sports game.

 

[Mustawd]

Last FIFA game I played was 2013, so Im going off memory. I also played in high school. Defensive midfield ftw. Plus points for being left footed.

Anyways, the point is that the strategy is important to balance skill and fatigue. Obviously your starters are your front line. But some get burnt out faster than the rest. So it becomes an interesting game of "I have plan A but how long do I push it before I switch to plan B". Then there's the complexity where some people (who I'll call "counterpunchers", actually start with plan B, hold pff the other team's plan A just enough, and then counter with their own plan A. And that's one situation. The strategic options can be quite complex if you translate to a small scale SRPG.

The challenge is to not turn it into a full on Strategy game.

 

[Mustawd]

To add to my previous post, so many, if not all rpgs, assume that your initial plan should always succeed. Otherwose, jist reload right?

Really, only X-Com gave you the idea that "hey, dudes 1-7 died cuz your plan sucked; make sure dudes 8-12 either get away or can finish the mission"