L is for Limits

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

L is for Limits...and believe it or not, we really, really like limits in our Dungeons & Dragons game.

Limits are what makes a game a game...at least a game worthy of play. When you play basketball with your friends, you don't score a point just for touching the ball...to score a point you must put the ball through an elevated hoop, suspended higher than (most) people can jump. It is a simple game, but it is a challenging game, and the challenge is a large part of what compels people to play and enjoy it.

AD&D has LOTS of limits built into its rules. There are limits to what classes a given species can play. There are limits to what level a given class-species combination can achieve. There are limits to ability scores based on species and gender (we'll talk about that one in a second). There are limits to how a character may advance and how experience points are acquired. There are limits to what may be carried, limits to resources (arrows, oil, torches, potions, spells). Limits to the number of hit points of damage a character may sustain before winding up dead-dead-dead. Heck, there are even limits to WHICH characters are eligible to be raised from death by magic (sorry to all the elves and orcs!).

All these limits provide boundaries that shape the look and feel and play of the game. They all provide challenges to the participants' desire to do "anything they want," despite ad copy claims to the contrary ("...a game of limitless imagination!"). 

And challenge is what makes it a game worth playing.

FOR EXAMPLE: the character is the player's tool and vehicle for exploring the game world; however, that "tool" is only as effective as the limits of its level. A 1st level character is VERY limited in effectiveness, compared to a 10th level character...even if the two were equipped in similar fashion (equipment and magic items tend to act as a "force multiplier;" they do not (usually) "make" the character). Advancing in level requires the player to earn experience points. Experience points are earned through finding and recovering treasure (these are adventurous treasure-hunters, after all) OR...more minimally...by defeating opponents in combat (valid, given that much of a character's effectiveness is measured in combat ability).  However, engaging opponents in combat COSTS RESOURCES...players lose time, lose hit points, lose consumable equipment, lose spells...and this cost must be weighed against the potential gain.  Because depletion of resources means a reduction in the RANGE at which the player can operate.

[if I spend an hour of my four-hour game session locked in a large combat, I'm using up a quarter of my real world game time in a single encounter, leaving LESS time for more exploration/adventuring. If I lose a large amount of hit points (or fellow player characters) or spells and resources in this large encounter, that leaves me with a decreased amount for further exploration/adventuring. The question becomes: was the battle WORTH it? If pursing this large combat resulted in a large treasure, or opened access to a large treasure, or provided a clue for finding a large treasure...then, maybe. If not, that large combat may end up being a Pyrrhic victory. Assuming it results in victory at all]

But that is the challenge of game play...it is what makes AD&D the game it is. In the present D&D culture, it is a common practice to NOT award experience points but simply to "level up" players at arbitrary chosen places as a reward for accomplishing story goals set by the DM. This is pretty much the opposite of "player agency." Players must jump through the hoops specified by their DM in order to get their cookie. And since the award is subjective and arbitrary (the DM can choose to award a level whenever they "feel like it") nothing the players actually DO or accomplish in the game matters in the slightest. It only matters how generous the DM is feeling on a particular day (which may ranged from "overly generous" to "downright stingy").

Some of us prefer our actions to matter. Some of us prefer to have agency.

HOW ABOUT ANOTHER EXAMPLE: when creating their character in the game, players are LIMITED by two factors: 1) the ability scores they roll, and 2) the class-race combinations that are allowed. Since ability scores are randomly determined, this tends to create a broader swath of "humanity" (including demi-humanity) among the players in some semblance (verisimilitude...again!) of "real life." Not everyone has what it takes to be a paladin, or a ranger, or a monk, or a bard. And so those classes appear with less frequency than simple fighters and clerics and magic-users and thieves...as they should. Likewise, not every species trains the same type of profession. Elves are not particularly religious (perhaps because they cannot be raised from the dead?) and there are no adventuring clerics among their number (their priests are all "stay-at-home" types and limited to NPCs)...this is implied world/setting material as well as a LIMIT on what players can choose.

While the non-humans have limits of choice when it comes to their profession, they also have limits to their maximum achievable effectiveness. 8th level might seem to be an impossibly lofty rank to low-level sloggers of OSR "lite" games, but it's barely more than "mid" for an AD&D campaign...my players can hit 8th pretty easily within a year of play (even with level draining undead). As one might expect, this means the bulk of long-term characters...especially fighter types...are going to end up as humans (who have no level restrictions). The trade-off? Humans gain none of the special abilities of the non-human species (and there's a LOT, especially for dwarves, elves, and halflings), nor do humans have the ability to multi-class (advance in two classes simultaneously) which is a decided advantage of the non-humans, especially at the low-mid levels of play.

Again, we can contrast this with present day (5E) game culture where any character can be any species-class and can achieve any level. Without boundaries, there is no particular challenge save, perhaps the challenge of playing something "original" in a world where all is permitted. However, that by itself (for me) breaks any semblance of verisimilitude as such a world of half-orc bards and halfling paladins, where the greatest fighter in the land can be a gnome and the greatest wizard a dwarf, is just a little too "gonzo" for my taste. I like my fantasy grounded in an accessible world of SOME naturalism, not the cartoon anti-logic of the wildest anime-come-to-screen. There are other RPGs for anime play.

ONE FINAL EXAMPLE: and here I'll talk about the ability score discrepancies between males and females. AD&D places limits on ability scores based on species and that is fine...I have no issue with one species being less agile than another, or less educated, or not built as robustly as another. These are issues of culture (setting/world building) and fantasy physiology. However, with regard to the STRENGTH ability score, AD&D places limits based on female strength in comparison to male strength for each individual species. It looks like this:

• Halfling (M/F)       Max: 17 / 14      +1/+1 or 0/0
• Gnome (M/D)        Max: 18(50) / 15     +1/+3 or 0/0
• Elf (M/F)               Max:  18(75) / 16    +2/+3 or 0/+1
• Half-Elf (M/F)       Max: 18(90) / 17    +2/+4 or +1/+1
• Dwarf (M/F)          Max: 18(99) / 17    +2/+5 or +1/+1
• Half-Orc (M/F)      Max: 18(99) / 18(75)   +2/+5 or +2/+3
• Human (M/F)         Max: 18(00) / 18(50)   +3/+6 or +1/+3

For those who are new to AD&D, understand that the strength ability score goes from 3 to 18, but fighters (including rangers and paladins) with an 18 score roll percentile dice to achieve a "bonus" score of 01 to 00 ("100"). High strength scores provide a bonus to melee combat (very important for sword-swinging fantasy, doubly important for fighter types), as well as a +10% bonus to experience points for fighters with a score of 16+ in strength. Consequently, even though the a max STR male halfling is only getting a +1/+1 to attack/damage rolls versus his female counterpart, the female halfling will be earning less x.p. (as a fighter) because her STR is capped at 14. With this in mind, female gnomes and halflings should probably not even consider fighter as a class.

In my youth, we just rolled with these, as is. Our group included two girls (one my co-DM), both of whom played fighters, and it was never an issue (as in, it simply never came up). There may have been one or two complaints from BOYS in our group (who occasionally played female characters), but we'd simply say "them's the rules, fella." Any player was allowed to play any gender, and we stuck by the rules as written. These days, I'm of a different mind. 

For one thing, while combat issues the major part of STR, in AD&D the issue only starts to get crazy with fighter percentiles...all non-fighters are limited to a max 18 STR, and that's never giving you more bonus than +1/+2. In other words, not much bonus. However, the real issue for me is the added weight allowance, in which any character with STR greater than 11 gets additional carrying capacity. ENCUMBERANCE is one of the limits we LOVE, as it keeps the game firmly grounded in pseudo-reality, rather than the "Minecraft mentality" of unlimited inventory.

Real world carrying capacity is tied to BODY WEIGHT. Yes, men (on average) have a more upper body strength than women, but their ability to carry loads over distance is pretty much the same percentages: 20-30% of body weight for sustainable load over distance; 10-20% of body weight is optimal for speed and endurance, 30-35% sharp drop off in pace with fatigue/injury risk...this latter amount would be a military-style "heavy" load. Military and trekking studies show that women can average 15-25% of their body weight for sustained movement, while men average 20-30% and that fitness and experience matter more than gender for carrying capacity.

It's a fascinating thing to study...and once you do you start seeing the STR chart in the PHB is INSANE. A +300# weight allowance? Even the +100# of a woman limited to 18/50 STR seems outrageous...unless these were additions to the maximum encumbered (staggering around) load. However, it is explicit that this amount is added to the unencumbered rate of movement. Probably because it's a fantasy game and some rules are written for the sake of expedience.

And if it's a fantasy game, then it doesn't matter to me whether the the women-folk are equally strong as the men-folk. As such, in my campaign all members of a species (male, female, and...I suppose...non-binary) use the same maximum STR score (i.e. they all use the number listed for the "male" of their species). 

I guess we only really, really like MOST limits.

; )

Round and Round We Go

I plan on getting back to the Karameikos subject this week; this is just an interlude.

Over the last ten years I've been posting to this blog, there are some subjects that I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. One of my main areas of speculation/musing has been combat rules, specifically as they relate to the B/X system, and my various ideas, proposals, and thoughts on how best to tinker them to better model what I'd like to see.

Mm. Mm-mm-mm.

This post is a "placeholder" of sorts, so that when I am (once-again-sometime-in-the-future) wondering about my past thoughts on the subject and going through this blog by "tag," this particular post will come up FIRST and save me a bit of time. Here goes:

I like the B/X encounter ("combat") rules as written. For the most part, they model exactly what I want.

Variable combat damage by weapon? Yes, exactly as written. Two-handed weapons losing initiative? Yes (though among the missile weapons this only applying to crossbows, not bows). Armor class and ability score adjustments? Yes. Shields? Yeah, with some liberal interpretation of the "cover rules" when it applies to shield walls. Initiative and surprise? Yep. Hit dice and hit points and healing? Yes, though I reserve the right to change the way monsters heal damage, should the issue ever arise in play.

After all the "thought experiments," "practice runs," and actual table play, I am fine and dandy with the way the rules model the basics of combat. Every variation or adjustment I've made has all ended up being for naught....the simple, abstract system as it exists perfectly replicates the way I want my combats to run, right down to ten second beats (rounds).

Now this doesn't mean there aren't some existing "holes" in the system; there are, and they could sure stand to be plugged. Here are things that will (probably, eventually) need to be worked out and adjudicated in the long run, as they aren't found in the B/X system:

• Disarming
• Grappling
• Long-term injuries, maiming, scarring
• Partial or piecemeal armor
• Required space for maneuvering (long weapons)
• Stunning, knockouts
• Take-downs (overbearing, tripping, etc.)
• Weapon breakages

I'd also like to add some simple rules for multiple attacks (for fighters only) as B/X proper does not include any of the other editions' options. I can also see limiting the damage of a "normal sword" to 1d6 unless it is used with two hands...but probably not. Much more likely is simply giving a +1 bonus to attack rolls when using any melee weapon two-handed but...again...probably not (I don't want to be giving a low-strength character an advantage for using a heavy, two-handed weapon).

But other than "plugging holes," I have come to terms with all aspects of the Encounter rules (Chapter 5) of the B/X rulebooks. Other aspects of the game (evil clerics, alignment language, equipment costs) still need some adjustment, and I will almost certainly fiddle with monsters and magic items (if only to make the game a bit more interesting and campaign specific). But as far as combat goes, I'm just going to consider the matter SETTLED. It functions...both practically speaking and as a model. And after nearly a decade of tuning it, I am satisfied. Finally.

The ultimate justification for 18 strength receiving
a damage bonus is B/X...

Street Level Heroes

This is more about TV.

I'm writing this Friday night around 11pm; the house is quiet, the kids are asleep, the wife's out of town. I plan on putting on a little Netflix (Jessica Jones) and catching an episode or two, but I wanted to blog a couple things while I'm thinking about it...even though I don't plan on posting this for a couple days.

I received a notification from Netflix that the new season of Daredevil is coming out March 18th. Readers of this blog know how much I dig the man in the red suit. The main question, of course, is will the second season be as good as the first? Well, it's going to introduce Elektra, and the first episode (per IMDB) has Daredevil facing off against Frank Castle (AKA the Punisher) so comic fans should be prepared to totally geek out. For me, I have to say that the highlight of watching the trailer was actually seeing Murdoch and Foggy interact...as I blogged before, Elden Henson is a breath of fresh air; I forgot how good the chemistry between these actors is, and I found myself (emotionally) moved in just a few second clip. Rosario Dawson again makes an appearance, based on the series trailer, and Deborah Woll (Karen Page) gets 2nd billing in every episode, so I assume she remains prominent, despite the introduction of ex-flame Elektra.

Not Greek.

Elektra appears to retain her Greek-ish heritage (last name "Natchios") but will be played by Elodie Yung, a French woman of mixed French and Cambodian ancestry. Which I find fascinating for all sorts of reasons. It won't be the first time a non-Greek person will have played the popular anti-hero (see Jennifer Garner), but I wonder about the insistence of keeping a character's ethnic identity. I suppose I'm just being picky.

Or am I? There's been quite a brouhaha over the casting of Finn Jones to play Danny Rand in the upcoming Iron Fist series...appears more than a few people were hoping that Marvel and Netflix would take a step outside comic book cannon and cast an Asian-American in the role (you can do your own Google search for "Iron Fist controversy"...you'll find several articles). I mean, he IS a martial arts master, right?

Oh, boy.

Not Asian.

I can understand why Iron Fist is a troublesome character. He's got the whole "cultural appropriation" thing going on, plus you know, the "white guy reigns supreme" thing (kicking the ass of Asian martial artists as he takes on the championship mantle from the mystical Asian kingdom dimension). Of course, even making him Asian is problematic because, well, then you get the whole stereotype of "all Asians know karate" thing. Look, I grew up in Seattle and had a lot of friends of Asian ancestry...not a single one did martial arts, and many of them (especially my Filipino buddies) absolutely HATED that stereotype.

Come to think of it, in all the years I practiced martial arts (about a decade of tae kwon do and hwa rang do plus a single, abbreviated foray into chung moo do) all the practitioners I knew were caucasian. Hell, I only ever met one instructor that was Korean, and she'd only started practicing because she was married to her (caucasian) husband who was an instructor and had met her in Korea.

[I did work with a man of mixed Hawaiian and Japanese ancestry who taught aikido, but all the folks I knew who studied aikido...four guys and a girl...were white]

But that's the Seattle experience, and we have a legacy left from Bruce Lee who lived there and ran a school for a number of years before going to Hong Kong to make movies.

Not even American.

So Iron Fist is a problematic figure. The thing is (*sigh*) I LOVE Iron Fist. I've been waiting with bated breath for his series since it was announced years ago. When I was a kid playing Marvel Superheroes, my character was based on Iron Fist (his look, not his powers). The recent series for the character, the "Living Weapon" stuff, is great. I really dug the whole Daredevil-Iron Fist switcheroo (which made perfect sense when you think about it). I love his relationship with Luke Cage...the black-white buddy thing. I love his off-again-on-again relationship with Misty Knight (probably my second favorite female superhero after Batgirl...it's the cyborg thing). I love that he's stupid about a lot of things. I love that he's smart about things that are truly important. I love that he got rid of his wealth rather than sitting on it (like Bruce Wayne or Oliver Queen). I love that he runs a tiny dojo for inner city kids. He is a very urban superhero (like Cage, like Misty)...he reminds me of real people I've known...good people who are involved with their community and who don't allow themselves to be stereotyped by what they do, regardless of the color of their skin.

For me, the problem isn't that Iron Fist is a white dude. The problem is there's an under-representation of Asian and Asian-American superheroes. Well, male ones anyway...there've been several prominent females, and even some re-skins (if you'll pardon the pun), like the Wasp in Marvel's Ultimate imprint. But male heroes? In Marvel (with which I'm more familiar) you've got Sunfire and Shang-Chi and in DC you've got...what? Samurai from the Super-Friends?

As far as I know, Shang-Chi is the only one who ever had his own title: Master of Kung-Fu. Now there's a walking Asian stereotype for you! Shang-Chi was first published in 1973 (before Iron Fist) and his series ran into the mid-1980s. I mean, if folks really want to see an Asian martial artist superhero, that's the guy you want to bring to the screen...but no one wants to see that. We've got plenty of Hong Kong action films with Asian actors doing martial arts already.

Black Panther?

How about if we make Black Panther Malaysian instead of African? As I wrote before, in a cursory study of diversity in the Marvel universe (among prominent superheroes), black males are over-represented considering their percentage of the American population. And having a black dude named "Black Panther" is right on the same level as having a Chinese guy known as "the Master of Kung-Fu." Black panthers (the animal) are common in the equatorial rain forests of Malaysia (per Ye Old Wikipedia) as well as southwestern China and Nepal. I know Marvel plans on coming out with a Black Panther film...why not cast it with Malaysian actor Zahiril Adzim (the kick-boxer in the critically acclaimed drama Bunohan)? Wouldn't that be a better choice than the (often sad-sack) karate-dude Iron Fist?

[haha. Just joking...I know they've already cast Chadwick Boseman who was great as Jackie Robinson in 42]

The point is, there are a lot of better options for re-imagining characters as non-white heroes than the guy with the dragon tattoo on his chest. Dr. Strange would have been a fine choice (a third generation Asian-American who travels to Tibet and faces culture shock?). Daniel Dae Kim would have made a great Hawkeye (leader of the West Coast Avengers). Probably not Tony Stark (looking at his origin story), but certainly Rhodey/War Machine. Ghost Rider. Any of the X-Men when you think about it (maybe not Thunder Bird). Ant-Man (though I really did enjoy Paul Rudd as Scott Lang). Any of the Fantastic Four could have been east Asian (though having orange rocky skin kind of renders the whole ethnicity thing moot). Spider-Man (isn't he due for a new reboot anyway?).

Yes, I know I'm irritating people on both sides. The point is, it ain't the 1960s. Filmmakers aren't making real CANNON stories anyway...people are driving Teslas and using cell phones and the internet. You don't need to go with "cannon" for race if the rest of the story is getting a facelift. But Iron Fist is a poor choice for a re-skin, in my not-so-humble opinion. Have him get his ass kicked by Asian martial artists if the cultural appropriation thing is too galling for you, and then have his bacon saved by Luke and Misty and Colleen. Heck, that's always been the real strength of his character: his friends and teammates.

[by the way, why does Wolverine get a pass on the cultural appropriation thing?]

*glug*glug*glug*

Ugh, still haven't talked about Jessica Jones. She really deserves her own post, but I really just want to go watch an episode. Okay, let me just (briefly) say this: Jessica Jones is a good show. It is a HARD show to watch...there's quite a bit of button-pushing that goes on in it: issues like racism and severe abuse and substance dependency and mental illness and other unsavories. It's quite a bit more intense than watching Daredevil beat up human traffickers, and it brings up all sorts of "icky" feelings. But it's well done, and the cast is terrific, especially the leads (Krysten Ritter and Mike Colter as Luke Cage). Ritter especially...she's just so unapologetic as a train wreck of a superhero that you can't help but root for her. And David Tennant as the Purple Man is really slimy...unlike Donofrio's Kingpin, there is absolutely no sympathy for this particular psychopath.

Yeah, Jessica Jones really needs its own post.

Alcoholics really shouldn't date bar owners.

I will say that, with regard to issues of strength, Ms. Jones seems to be right on par with my calculations. In doing my research into superheroes' weights the other day, I came across this article taking Marvel to task for making women who were too skinny for their height and build (kind of a "Barbie doll" syndrome for comics). I haven't researched that, as most of the characters the author cites are superhero women who don't possess "superhuman strength" (the subject of my research), but after reading it, I was wondering how Jones would hold up.

Turns out pretty well. Her official stats have her listed as 5'7", 124# which isn't all that far off from the measurements of the actor who plays the character (5'9", 127#). By my calcs, a super-strong character of 124# with "good" (13-15) physical strength has a Carry/Throw of 3.2 tons. Marvel doesn't list an official limit to Jessica's strength, though it notes that she is able to throw a two-ton police car with ease. Looks about right to me.

[plus, her full strength punch is enough to kill a normal human (oops! spoiler!). That's the same whether you can bench six tons or sixty, folks]

Okay, that's enough superhero talk for one night. Later, folks.

Strength

I'm sure some folks are wondering what I've been working on lately. I mean, this week. Instead of talking about my B/X project like I promised I would (sorry).

Superheroes. Most of it related to modeling strength.

Rather than post some big-ass essay, I'll give you some highlights. Here's a real life individual who's a good example of a person with a (B/X style) strength of 18:

He's smiling at your puny muscles.

In case you don't recognize him, that's Bruce Lee, a guy who stood under 5'8" and weighed less than 140 pounds his entire adult life. A guy who was a fanatic about fitness, nutrition, and weight training. Anyone who can knock a dude fifteen feet with a punch has some phenomenal explosive power. But Lee had plenty of fantastic feats of strength (as told by people who know him)...here's a good list if you're interested.

For a B/X-based game, where a strength of 13+ indicates a damage bonus, I think it's fair to consider that bonus based on training, explosive speed, and the ability to add extra injury with the occasional mixed-in, non-weapon blow (an elbow, kick, shield-bash, etc.).  A lot of stuff can happen in a ten second round, you know?

But that actually has little to do with the superhero game (because the system is different from "straight B/X")...it's just the precursor that led me to the line of thought for my super heroic strength modeling.

See, most superhero RPGs have some way to model "super strength" (a staple of comic book super powers, since, oh Superman; i.e. a long-ass time), and the usual route is to do some sort of quantitative method in a ranking system. For example, the original Marvel Superheroes did the RM, IN, AM, MN, UN, etc. ranks that measured superhuman strength in terms of tonnage (1, 10, 50, 75, 100, respectively). Aberrant had a one-five point "mega-attribute" system (also in tons: 1, 10, 25, 50, 100). Supers! does the same thing with dice (the more dice, the more tonnage), while Heroes Unlimited categorizes strength into four different tiers (normal, exceptional, superhuman, and supernatural) with each tier determining the exact amount that can be moved based on the character's Physical Strength attribute (exceptionally granular, in a way that makes Mutants & Masterminds look almost abstract).

But I'm not going that route. You see, I figured something out: when it comes to lifting heavy objects, strength, for most individuals (comic books individuals) is mainly tied to one's physical mass. After training, of course.

Look at the weights that are lifted by Olympic weight lifters. Male or female, you can see that the limits of what can be snatched, cleaned, and jerked is limited to a bit more than twice a person's physical mass...and there's a rate of diminishing returns for adding more muscle. A larger human has the potential to lift a larger amount of weight, but the overall percentage becomes smaller the bigger the human. The world record for a clean and jerk lift for a 53kg woman is 134kg: 253% of her body mass. The record for a 105kg man is 246kg...only 234% of his body mass. By the way, these kinds of numbers hold true for power-lifting MMA fighters who are as much concerned with speed and stamina (if not more so) than with physical power.

Of course, we're talking about people who power lift as a profession. Most of us don't. Most of us don't have 18 strength either. But we can still get an idea of peoples' ability to lift and carry. I find several references to minimum body weight requirements of 150 pounds for firefighters. Full kit for a firefighter (who is presumably in good condition) is a bit more than 70 pounds...half their weight (which they're required to lug up and down flights of stairs in rather perilous situations). So using our abstract B/X strength (STR) ladder, I've come up with the following range of measurements:

Avg. STR/Fitness (9-12) Carry/Throw 25% of body mass
Good STR/Fitness (13-15) Carry/Throw 50% of body mass
Excellent STR/Fitness (16-17) Carry/Throw 75% of mass
Peak STR/Fitness (18) Carry/Throw 100% of body mass

Oh, yeah...there's also an "Awesome" strength category for individuals of obviously non-human proportion...dudes like the Thing or members of the Hulk family. They go up to 125% but their overall body mass is doubled, which increases their weight.

For benching, or just lifting one's maximum weight, those numbers are doubled but a good dice roll will allow you to pick up a little more (helping folks meet those Olympic level numbers).

Anyway, that's the basic calculation for "heavy lifting" based on one's fitness level and mass. Now, if your character has "super strength" as a power you simply multiply your lift capacity by 100. That's it, end of story. You're a hundred times stronger than a normal person of your mass and fitness level if you possess superhuman strength.

Surprisingly, it models fairly well for most comic book characters. Spider-Man's official weight is 167 pounds, which gives him a lift/bench press of 12.5 tons with an excellent (16-17) strength/fitness level. Luke Cage with his dense bone structure and the same fitness level as Spidey is listed at 450 pounds giving him a 34 ton range, also very close to his comic book strength level. Thing has a listed weight of 500 pounds (he has a rocky flesh, but he's not solid rock...he bleeds) a 62.5 ton range. Meanwhile, the savage She-Hulk with her 650 pound frame could lift 48.8 tons when she was "excellent" (16-17) and and 65 tons after improving to "peak" (18) with a lot of work-outs on the Fantastic Four's Thing-based exercise equipment. This models well on the old Marvel character (who had an Amazing 50 strength that then increased to the Monstrous 75 range).

Little old Captain America only weighs 220 pounds so would have a 440 pound maximum, which seems a bit low considering the world records in the category. But the guy who set a record in bench press at 440 pounds was a professional strongman named Doug Hepburn who weighed 300 pounds at the time...I think this is just a matter of Steve Rogers getting the most out of his (smaller) frame.

It's not perfect. Mighty Thor, even at a listed weight of 640 pounds, tops out a little low, and Marvel's Hercules, listed at only 325 pounds, is only about a third as strong as he should be. Oh, yeah...DC's heavy hitters like Superman (225 pounds) and Wonder Woman (165 pounds) are about one-tenth or one-twentieth as strong, but I'm working on some workarounds for the truly titanic champions of the comic book world.

Anyhoo...that's what I've been working on lately.

I Blame Captain America...

One thing I absolutely love about Heroes Unlimited (sorry, folks...just gotta' keep talking about this) is it's three tier system for physical strength. In HU, there are three distinct levels of "strength" a character can possess: human, superhuman, and supernatural.

Human strength...physical strength that is un-augmented and limited by the frailties of the normal human body...has an absolute limit of 40. It includes characters who have lifted weights and 'roided themselves up, as well as the strength of bionic characters that still possess some fleshy parts (and thus have to be wary of the strain on their puny, human systems). Human strength can be divided further into "normal" (P.S. up to 16), "strong" (P.S. over 16), or "extraordinary" (which is for those folks with bionics or high levels derived from certain superpowers).

Superhuman strength is just that: strength greater than the capabilities of a human. Robotic strength, alien life forms, super-powered strength, and that unrestricted by the human form (for example, characters that can turn their bodies into rock or metal) all are capable of superhuman strength. Superhuman strength has no maximum limit to it, and is considerably stronger in terms of lifting/carrying capacity. Spider-Man may be a skinny guy but he has superhuman strength.

Supernatural strength is unnatural...in comic book terms this is the might of Thor or Hercules or the Hulk in what would otherwise be considered a "human-sized package." Thor can bench press 100 tons, even though he is physically on-par with Luke Cage or so. Supernatural strength does exceptionally more damage than human and superhuman strength, and the carrying capacity is much greater as well...though for truly comic book level strength still requires some house rule adjustment.

But we'll get to the criticism in a second; first thing is to give credit where credit is due. This multiple tier approach to strength is great, and my favorite approach to the subject in any superhero game I own (and I own a LOT). White Wolf's Aberrant was pretty good with its physical strength of plus mega-strength power (not a two tier system, per se, but two separate systems that operate in tandem together. The Thing and Cage might both have Strength scores of 5, but different Mega-Strength scores, whereas Spider-Man and Cage have the same Mega-Strength but two different starting Strength scores). Unfortunately, Aberrant fails to mimic comic convention weirdness, doesn't do Iron Man, and has a tough time with granular, street level heroics (like The Cape).

[mmm...as I type this, the Steelers have managed to take the lead over the Ravens despite being completely shown up and dominated by Baltimore in the first half. Looks like my feverish ranting had some merit]

Most superhero games simply equate physical strength to being a single scale...perhaps, it goes from 1 to 100, but it is absolute in its measure. Cage is stronger than Hawkeye by a lot, but hasn't a chance in hell against the Thing, who will eventually succumb to Thor in a battle of physical might. The problem with this is when one ties the strength score to melee attack effectiveness...for example, Super World or Villains & Vigilantes. Mutants & Masterminds avoids this, but is such a wuss when it comes to super strength anyway (a starting character with STR 10 and the ability to live 50 tons does no more damage than the STR 20 bruiser that can only lift 6 tons...and spends a heckuva' lot more "power points" for the privilege) that it hardly bears mention.

But all is not rosy in the HU world of superhero strength, and I put the blame squarely on Captain America.

I find Captain America to be a fascinating character, admittedly more so with the Marvel Ultimates imprint. Here's a character, whose only real superpower is his ability to be the perfect human fighting machine...he is cited as being at the absolute peak of human potential in strength, agility, endurance, and durability. In game terms, I take this to mean "max human stats;" after all, if another human had the possibility of achieving a higher level of ability, well, then that would show Cap had NOT actually met the maximum human potential, right?

So what is the maximum human potential for strength?

Now THAT is an interesting case. After all, there have been plenty of legendary strongmen over the years...guys like the Mighty Atom who was able to prevent a small prop airplane from accelerating by tying it to the hair on his scalp. The current world record for an unassisted dead lift is 975 pounds (held by Benedikt Magnusson), which would seem to be a good baseline for figuring "maximum human strength."

With Heroes Unlimited, a character with maximum human strength (40) can dead lift 1600 pounds. A normal human with EXTRAORDINARY physical strength (still not superhuman) and a strength of 40 can dead lift 8000 pounds.

[on the flip side, the only way to have a character like Thor, capable of dead lifting 80 tons or so, would require a physical strength of 320, well outside the range of any character rolled up in Heroes Unlimited]

HU has the right idea with its tiers, but the carrying/lifting amounts exhibit too shallow a range to exhibit all the possibility of comic book heroes...which hinders its ability to do what it does so well (granular heroic role-playing).

The problem is especially pronounced if you try to model Captain America using the "super-soldier" class (an otherwise excellent option for characters as diverse as Wolverine, Black Widow, and Cap). None of the options for boosting the 98 pound weakling's strength can be taken without increasing it to at least "extraordinary range;" easily putting the character in the same class as Spider-Man (who can pick up and toss a VW Bus without breaking much of a sweat).

*sigh* ...sometimes it appears to be all about upping the power ranges, aka "Rifts Bloat," which I hate and is both antithesis to the potential of the game and the stated values of its designer/author. But if Palladium only appeals to munchkins, I guess munchkin value is the proper fan base to play to...

Fortunately, the HU Gamemaster's Guide makes it abundantly clear that GMs are free to play-about with the actual lifting/carrying capacities of the various classes of strength. UNfortunately, Palladium's irritating internet policy makes the posting of house rules outside their forums to be an iffy prospect to post my totally excellent house rule changes to strength. At least in reference to Palladium's Heroes Unlimited.

; )