Why are Strength and Constitution never merged ?

[Raghar]

Shortly there is no one strength there are two.

Basically one type allow holding and carrying heavy stuff, the other allows to rip apart things or quickly throw a heavy things into the air.

This means while elves can use long swords and be excellent in melee, elves and heavy armor is anathema.

Endurance simply means how long can someone go until he drops. It doesn't depend on strength as people nearly without strength can do tasks for quite a while.

 

[Murk]

The terms we use to classify different game mechanics can often be used in a way that they overlap. Each system has, historically, either copied D&D's use or simply redefined each word in an operational manner that is fitting of the game's setting and rules.

And the latter, simply redefining terms as is fitting to your game, is honestly the best way to do it as it not only allows you to bypass any previously set conventions that may have fuck-all to do with your own game but also that it allows you to define your own conventions that are important.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Strength and Constitution are not the same thing at all.

The guys with the highest constitution in real life are actually smaller guys who do not have ridiculously high strength.

The elite special forces is typically made up of smaller guys, as the tests to get in are based on endurance and smaller guys actually have an advantage in terms of endurance.

Another thing to think about is women.

Women are much worse at strength than they are at endurance.

Additionally, as used in RPGs, constitution encompasses general health. Certain people just get sick far less than others, even if they're not particularly in shape.

The strongest guys on an American Football team actually have the LOWEST endurance. They might still have reasonably high HP though.

So overall this streamlining of stats would be very dumbed down and next gen.

If anything, constitution should be split into two sub stats, one encompassing athletic endurance and one encompassing resilience and/or toughness.

 

[Monocause]

Hey, never thought of rolling my char D&D-style (3.5 ed. rules):

TOM ANDERSEN, Human lvl.1 CG Townsman

STR 9
DEX 11
CON 10
INT 17
WIS 14
CHA 15

Skills:

Diplomacy 4
Bluff 4
Sense Motive 4
Concentration 4
Perform (Guitar) 1
Appraise 2
Use Technological Device 4

Feats:

- Smatterings
- Slender (1st level feat)
- Terrifying Rage

 

[Erebus]

If anything, constitution should be split into two sub stats, one encompassing athletic endurance and one encompassing resilience and/or toughness.

Yes, but if you want to be truly realistic, you'll need to give characters at least 20 or 30 stats, which would be absurdly complicated. A RPG simply does not need to be that close to real life.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, it would make sense to merge the two simply because most RPG characters will either have high scores in both Strength and Constitution or neither.

 

[ElectricOtter]

hmm...

STR 10 (drunken rage adds +2)
DEX 9
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 16 (hangover has a -2 penalty)
CHA 8 (drunkeness has a -2 penalty)

skills:

craft 2
jump 4
innuendo 4
disable device 2
detect butthurt 4

feats:

weapon focus: dong
point blank shot
improved unarmed strike

 

[Raghar]

Yes, but if you want to be truly realistic, you'll need to give characters at least 20 or 30 stats, which would be absurdly complicated. A RPG simply does not need to be that close to real life.

I made PnP RPG with only 8 stats:

Strength
Brutality (wrestlers calls it dynamic strength) *1

Speed
Agility

Intelligence
Strength of will

Livepotential
Endurance.

A RPG can be within 1/10 of Real live. As long as it saves a lot of unnecessary calculations, it's quite worthy to spend few weeks by doing regressive and factor analysis to create or verify some system.

*1 I looked and found this article. It's quite nasty stuff. http://www.jssm.org/vol7/n1/15/v7n1-15pdf.pdf

 

[Serus]

What's that stat system, Dire Roach?

Warhammer

Which is -> utter shit

Especially the new edition.

The newest edition IS shit - i agree with you. Otoh:
WFRP 2nd ed. >>> any D&D

My D&D stats:
STR 4
DEX 3
CON 5
INT 6
WIS 7
CHA -2
:D

 

[Panthera]

ST 10
DX 11
IQ 13
HT 11

Skills:
Computer Programming - 13
Computer Use - 15
History (Video Gaming) - 14
History (Military) - 12
Rapier - 14
Longsword - 12
Arming Sword - 10
Shield (Buckler and Cloak) - 11
Dagger - 10
Wrestling - 9
Sewing - 9
Art - Miniature Painting - 13
Hiking - 11
Bicycle - 12
Drive (Automobile) - 11
Drive (Motorcycle) - 11

 

[Jools]

The two are pretty close, yet RPG systems always make them separate abilities, even when they're otherwise trying to be simple.

Obviously, being strong and being resistant aren't quite the same thing, but it's hard to imagine someone's strength being much higher or much lower than his/her physical endurance. Either you're fit and muscled or you're not.

Besides, nobody cares when such diverse things as general coordination, suppleness, hand dexterity, reflexes and even precision are lumped together and called "dexterity" or "agility". So why is it such a big deal to distinguish between "strength" and "constitution" ?

I beg to differ on this: strength and constitution should not be merged, in my opinion.

Constitution could often be translated into "health" and/or "resistance" (sometimes in terms of "stamina", sometimes "endurance", sometimes "toughness"), whereas strength is usually just, well, mere strength.

For instance, a heavyweight lifter usually has loads of strength, but could have no resistance and no health. On the other hand, a marathon runner might find it hard to lift his own coffeecup (alright, alright, extreme examples, please forgive me).

If you add in the disgustingly generic (as you pointed out) dexterity/agility, things get extremely complicated.

I think that's why most games try to boil down stats to 5-6 of them. If you want something completely different, try Drakensang. You got like 20+ stats in that game, each affecting a different aspect.

IMHO.

 

[crufty]

The two are pretty close, yet RPG systems always make them separate abilities, even when they're otherwise trying to be simple.

str* is an attack bonus
con** is a defense bonus

should attack = defense bonus?

*and a bonus for bend bars/pull gates!
**and a raise dead limit

 

[denizsi]

^Why is str an attack bonus? How does being stronger make you more likely to score a hit? Ok, it may do in some situations, but not always, not as the primary factor.

Likewise, how is con a "defense" bonus?

If we are to follow a realistic/simulationist approach, my preference is

Strength: Bone and muscle mass. The potential to exert force and the body's physical resistance to muscle & bone damage. Primary factor in how easily and deeply cuts will wound. Strong, developed body = bigger muscles and denser bones = bigger physical resistance.

Endurance: Pain and energy threshold of the body, eg. how long it could maintain exertion before tiring out and how fast it can recover. Fitness. Stamina.

Constitution: Metabolism. Chemical balance. Body's ability to recover and process or fight agents.

Thinking about this reminds me of The Riddle of Steel. The relevant attributes in TRoS are below:

Physical Attributes:
Strength: Physical power
Toughness: Physical resistance of body.
Endurance: Corresponds to my Endurance
Health: Corresponds to my Constitution
(+ there's Agility)

Mental Attributes:
Willpower: Mental endurance and personal determination to force self through trying situations.
(+ there are Wit, Mental Aptitude, Social and Perception)

 

[crufty]

^Why is str an attack bonus? How does being stronger make you more likely to score a hit? Ok, it may do in some situations, but not always, not as the primary factor.

Likewise, how is con a "defense" bonus?

think in terms of chainmail / warhammer fantasy battle etc.

just saying why they are different stats, not saying it is the ideal.

in terms of stats, i think strength / toughness is better.

i also think intelligence and wisdom should not be stats.

 

[denizsi]

There are neither in TRoS. Neither Mental Aptitude or Wit account for intelligence/stupidity; those are up to the player, but they handle whether a character is more academic/theoretic/analytical or more practical/'seasoned".

 

[crufty]

Nice. TRoS does sound pretty legit.

 

[denizsi]

It is a crime that no CRPG has been made using TRoS.

 

[crufty]

yes...that and HackMaster! HM is the holy grail of roll play. A bit like the nethack of the pnp world.

 

[denizsi]

I must satisfy my curiosity. Is it available by not removing from the inventory?

 

[PorkaMorka]

STR makes you more likely to score a hit because attacks that fail to penetrate armor/natural armor are misses.

So a guy with 18/00 Strength can take his poleaxe and cleave right through chain armor

But a guy with 12 str cannot, the armor will stop his swing, causing a "miss"

That's the game reasoning for a dice game, yes it's abstracted and could be improved upon in a computer simulation... could be

 

[denizsi]

STR makes you more likely to score a hit because attacks that fail to penetrate armor/natural armor are misses.

So a guy with 18/00 Strength can take his poleaxe and cleave right through chain armor

But a guy with 12 str cannot, the armor will stop his swing, causing a "miss"

That's the game reasoning for a dice game, yes it's abstracted and could be improved upon in a computer simulation... could be

That's sketchy, though. Using weapons suited to penetrate mail, it should take skill and momentum, ie. proper application of biomechanics, to penetrate. Strength would only be a secondary to minor factor.

Well, I don't like DnD and derivatives anyway.

 

[crufty]

Well, I don't like DnD and derivatives anyway.

yeah...DnD really betrays its wargame roots sometimes (well, first/second eds did). But that is part of the fun, the meta-game. This is my favorite part of HackMaster, it makes no bones about the meta-game being the game almost as much as the game itself. Roguelikes are another instance of the meta-game being as much fun as the game itself--in fact, metagaming is essential to survival.

I want to get the latest edition to see what changes have been made.

 

[deuxhero]

Mount and Blade does merge the 2. Strength is the governing attribute (can't increase skill beyond 1/3 the attribute level) of the skill that increases your health and gives you 1 extra HP per point put into it.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It is a crime that no CRPG has been made using TRoS.

 

[Jim Profit]

I'd like to see games where strength, if it exists at all, should improve melee AND increase inventory space. (Though it defies rationality that even a strongman wouldn't want to lug around a bunch of crap)

And anyway, I took some 100+ questioned test of my stats, I swear to God, this was me and my wife.


Jim Profit (Level 2, Human, Chaotic Evil Wizard)
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 9
Constitution: 16
Intelligence: 15
Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 15

Samantha (Level 2, Human, Neutral Good Bard)
Strength: 11
Dexterity: 10
Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 11
Charisma: 11



To be fair, being a wizard is only good if you have a nice DM. Otherwise it's a liability. In fourth edition (which noone plays...) not so much. But in fourth edition, everyone is pretty much equal besides state differences and dice rolls ingame.


As far as how I view personally about stats. My opinion is "whatever works". I don't care if you want to stick them into very narrowly defined skillbased terms to in broad, all encompassing umbrella stat terms. As long as it gets the job done of being mechanically balanced. I prefer broad so that it has more likelyhood of being balanced, sure.


But then for that matter the stats should be

Strength (Strength+Constitution sometimes)
Stealth (Dexterity+Wisdom sometimes)
Resisiliance (Constitution most of the time+Charisma/wisdom sometimes)
Personality (Charisma most of the time)
Intillect (Intelligence, sometimes wisdom)



If anything, wisdom is the ultra vague whore. But then, its supposed to be willpower AND the five basic senses. Thats two completely different spectrums of ability... Will saves should be charisma or intelligence based. (But I'd imagine charisma based cause of the force of personality, though I don't see particularly smart people being very suspetable to mind alterations)