What is Casual STR meant to be?

[Grail Quest]

The mechanical definition of Casual STR, while it works out, in numbers anyway, for many situations, is clearly incorrect. A character with 100 STR has a Casual STR rated at ~0.1% of his full STR, while a character with 10 STR has a Casual STR which is 50% of his full STR. If you look at how much can be lifted/moved, as STR approaches 0, Casual STR becomes approximately the same as full STR.

 

What, then, is Casual Strength? What are real-world examples of actions that approach the limit of what Casual STR can do?

[MisterVimes]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

The mechanical definition of Casual STR, while it works out, in numbers anyway, for many situations, is clearly incorrect. A character with 100 STR has a Casual STR rated at ~0.1% of his full STR, while a character with 10 STR has a Casual STR which is 50% of his full STR. If you look at how much can be lifted/moved, as STR approaches 0, Casual STR becomes approximately the same as full STR.

 

What, then, is Casual Strength? What are real-world examples of actions that approach the limit of what Casual STR can do?

 

Casual strength has always been a very ROUGH mechanic designed to simulate the ability of the enormously strong to casually brush aside cars, tractor-trailers, M-1 Tanks and other nusances that might be in the wait of monsters trying to cross town on a beautiful saturday afternoon. It was never intended to be an exact measurement, but rather a quick and dirty way to say that a character can uproot a lamp post the same way you or I would pick up a pencil... a non-action.

[Warp9]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

The mechanical definition of Casual STR, while it works out, in numbers anyway, for many situations, is clearly incorrect. A character with 100 STR has a Casual STR rated at ~0.1% of his full STR, while a character with 10 STR has a Casual STR which is 50% of his full STR. If you look at how much can be lifted/moved, as STR approaches 0, Casual STR becomes approximately the same as full STR.

 

What, then, is Casual Strength? What are real-world examples of actions that approach the limit of what Casual STR can do?

 

As I mentioned a little while back in my "Exponential VS Linear" thread, casual STR is one of those things where the system gets confused between scales.

 

And you missed the most fun example: An ant at -50 STR will have a -25 Casual STR. Anybody with a negative STR will have more causual STR than regular STR.

 

 

 

 

The matter would be taken care of by sticking to one scale.

 

A 1/2 multiplier for casual STR would work fine if STR was linear.

 

And for exponential STR, casual STR should be something like -10 (which would be 1/4 lift in all cases)

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

I have a standard house rule that says for STR 30 and below, casual Strength is STR-15. Which might still be too high.

[Grail Quest]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

And you missed the most fun example: An ant at -50 STR will have a -25 Casual STR. Anybody with a negative STR will have more causual STR than regular STR.

 

Actually, the official FAQ indicates that for negative STR, Casual STR is (STR - 5), although they arrive at this in a roundabout way.

 

I had considered making Casual STR equal to (STR - 40), since at -30 STR, a character is supposedly not able to move themselves. Assuming a base STR of 10, this means an adjustment of 40 points, or approximately 0.39% lift.

However, that is based on a possibly arbitrary benchmark.

 

We can all come up with "obvious" cases of Casual STR, such as brushing aside a buzzing fly or what not, so those don't give us an idea of what the benchmark should be.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

I've always used Casual Strength as a rough estimate - I don't use the number, I just gauge it off of their max lift.

 

I define it as whether or not you become aware of your muscles. I lift a bottle of soda, I'm more aware of the coldness and wetness of the bottle, not my biceps. I lift a light duffle bag, or push open a door, I'm not really aware of my body pushing. But a six year old child or an older person, they have to strain to push open a door. I'm a big, big guy. My female coworkers have to strain to lift the jumpstart box with two arms, I do it with one without thinking.

 

Because I'm hyperaware of the effect size has on physical interactions, I also factor in size when dealing with Casual Strength. A 30' tall robot with a STR 100 can easily lift a tree. A 6' tall brick can't, not with me. Why? Because I'm 6'6", and I can lift 15 lbs. without trying. But a 15 lb, 30' tall structure made of balsa would will cause me to exert myself.

 

-cK

[TheEmerged]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

At least in my mind, Casual STR is how much STR you can use without burning END or taking a half-phase action. So I can lug a 10-lb reference book without burning END, but if I try for that 40-lb bag of cement it's going to cost me END -- that's the metaphorical line.

 

The mechanical line is just that -- a mechanic. Ignore or modify it as you wish. If it matters enough to you that you feel the added complication is worth it, go for it. If you don't? Hey, glad you enjoy the game.

[Warp9]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

Actually, the official FAQ indicates that for negative STR, Casual STR is (STR - 5), although they arrive at this in a roundabout way.

 

Oops. I guess I should keep up with the FAQs

[Warp9]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

At least in my mind, Casual STR is how much STR you can use without burning END or taking a half-phase action. So I can lug a 10-lb reference book without burning END, but if I try for that 40-lb bag of cement it's going to cost me END -- that's the metaphorical line.

 

The mechanical line is just that -- a mechanic. Ignore or modify it as you wish. If it matters enough to you that you feel the added complication is worth it, go for it. If you don't? Hey, glad you enjoy the game.

I agree that it is a mechanic. But what should the mechanic be based on?

 

Right now it is based on 1/2 your normal STR, but cutting values rated on a logarithmic scale in half does not have very much meaning.

[Grail Quest]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

At least in my mind' date=' Casual STR is how much STR you can use without burning END or taking a half-phase action. So I can lug a 10-lb reference book without burning END, but if I try for that 40-lb bag of cement it's going to cost me END -- that's the metaphorical line.[/quote']

 

There's an implication here that any power, used at a sufficiently low setting, costs virtually 0 END. Most of the time, I can see how this could be reasonable.

 

How about this:

 

Using any power at -35 Base Points (slightly less than 1% power) costs no END.

 

Casual STR, then is (STR - 35).

[Grail Quest]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

Right now it is based on 1/2 your normal STR' date=' but cutting values rated on a logarithmic scale in half does not have very much meaning.[/quote']

 

I suspect it is halved because halving still gives a tangible result for the "majority" of cases. That is, there is next to no expectation that anyone will be playing a character with 0 or less STR.

[Trebuchet]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

There's an implication here that any power, used at a sufficiently low setting, costs virtually 0 END. Most of the time, I can see how this could be reasonable.

 

How about this:

 

Using any power at -35 Base Points (slightly less than 1% power) costs no END.

 

Casual STR, then is (STR - 35).

While I feel you may be on the right track with this, I think (STR - 35) may be too low. That would mean a STR 10 normal could only move something which weighs 0.8 kg, or only 1.76 lbs, with casual STR. I think -15 or -20 as a subtractor from base STR might be more plausible. I think 5% or 10% of normal STR would probably better reflect what a character can do effortlessly. A 10 STR normal or character could thus lift a machine gun or an assault rifle (12.5 or 6.4 kg respectively) with casual STR. Lifting 27.7 or 14 pounds with casual STR sounds far more reasonable for a normal than does a mere box of cereal.

[Grail Quest]

Casual STR = Negligible Effort?

 

How about:

 

*

 

Casual STR is a measure of Negligible Effort on the part of the character. If a result is achieved by Negligible Effort, it is meant that, without significant exertion, that result is achieved. Commonly, this also means that the result was an incidental one, often unknowingly accomplished.

 

For example, a sprinter in the lead breaks the ribbon erected across the finish line. That he has broken the ribbon is incidental to his running forward. As the ribbon is broken as if it were not there, it is considered to have been broken with Negligible Effort.

 

Beyond a certain threshold, an action will require active use of Strength and a character must normally take the time to perform an action. This amount of effort is the maximum possible amount of Strength that can be considered to be exerted with Negligible Effort. This is Casual STR.

Casual STR is arbitrarily set to be (STR - 30), or approximately 1.6% of a character's maximum STR without Pushing.

 

*

 

I have deliberately set Casual STR to be very low. I do acknowledge Trebuchet's point, but I also feel that Casual STR should also imply near-zero long-term effort as well.

14 lbs on "average strength" is not much to lift, but will still tire your arm after a while.

If you've ever been to an Interval Training class and done 30+ bicep curls on even just 6-8 pounds, especially when you're already sweating bullets from the aerobics portion, you'll know this to be true. And at that stage, even a 2-pound difference in a handweight can make a crazy amount of difference.

 

Feedback?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Casual STR = Negligible Effort?

 

To me, Casual Strength is purely a game mechanic meant to approximate an effect we often see in various genres of fiction. Between most people that we would encounter in real life (or at least the game-stat equivalent of them) it would have little or no impact. It's only when we start to deal with individuals who are exceptionally stronger than average that we have scenarios where said individuals casually brush opponents aside, and that situation is more prevalent in adventure fiction than real life.

 

I'm sorry, this will probably sound snarky, but I must admit that I'm amused when gamers try to extrapolate the standards of real life to situations that couldn't exist in real life. There are no humanoid beings with a STR equivalent to 50 or 100; it's physically impossible for such a being to exist and be made of anything remotely organic. They're superhumans from the realms of myth or comic books, and the feats that those superhumans perform routinely defy the laws of physics. IMHO trying to hold them to real world logic is unnecessarily rigorous.

 

Casual STR is just a handy rule to adjudicate a situation played for dramatic effect. Like many dramatic effects it doesn't bear close scrutiny, nor is it intended to.

 

Okay, I realize that that probably added nothing to the discussion here. Please excuse the interruption - I will now get off my soapbox and let you continue.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

I agree completely with L.L. here. Its a mechanic meant to simulate the effect seen in various types of fiction. Its not something you should attempt to apply real-world physics to (I understand damage rules, but this?) because the genres from which it is pulled completely ignore physics for the most part, so finding a satisfactory compromise is going to be difficult, if not nigh impossible to achieve.

[Grail Quest]

Re: Casual STR = Negligible Effort?

 

I'm sorry, this will probably sound snarky, but I must admit that I'm amused when gamers try to extrapolate the standards of real life to situations that couldn't exist in real life. There are no humanoid beings with a STR equivalent to 50 or 100; it's physically impossible for such a being to exist and be made of anything remotely organic. They're superhumans from the realms of myth or comic books, and the feats that those superhumans perform routinely defy the laws of physics. IMHO trying to hold them to real world logic is unnecessarily rigorous.

 

Casual STR is just a handy rule to adjudicate a situation played for dramatic effect. Like many dramatic effects it doesn't bear close scrutiny, nor is it intended to.

 

I don't know if this post is trolling or not, but since it's in a thread I started, I suppose I ought to respond.

 

Your POV suggests you don't need the HERO rules at all. Just use Cowboys and Indians (which has its own advantages):

 

ClintE: "Bang bang! I shot you. You're dead."

JohnW: "Am not!"

ClintE: "Are too! Now, for dramatic effect, just shut up and play dead."

 

The whole point of a rule system is to try to model a certain "reality"--even an unrealistic one. No finite rule system will accurately model one, but we can try to come close and have it internally consistent. Without this assumption on why we are proceeding, we need not discuss any rules at all.

 

And we "need" to do this because in a game, there are different opinions going on and different ways players want to move the story, and when these interplayer stresses come into conflict, "fair" means an impartial, agreed-upon-beforehand rules arbitration. Rules are not there to help the story--great stories need no rulesets. Rules are for people-management (or, if you like, ego-management) in a collaborative environment.

 

For a multi-genre ruleset, I admit that it may be a moving target sometimes--it depends on how detailed you want to be.

But if your internal consistency is that there is no internal consistency, and you're willing to handwave everything to "dramatic effect", you have wasted your money on the HERO rule book.

 

Also, I think you have assumed everyone wants to play a superhuman with the HERO System, or that everyone in the game is superhuman. I'm not sure which, or both.

[Mister E]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

How many sticks of dynomite does it take to blow up the Earth?

 

Strength, Damage, and Body, are all exponential in the HERO system. Casual Strength is broken, because it treats Strength, Damage, and Body as linear.

 

Make up your own rules, if this fact bother's you. I think using -10;15;or 20 to STR does a better job, then 'halving' the number of dice you use.

 

If you don't have a problem... play the game as is. Fun-wise, and effects-wise, the original rules are just fine.

[Trebuchet]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

Strength' date=' Damage, and Body, are all exponential in the HERO system. Casual Strength is broken, because it treats Strength, Damage, and Body as linear.[/quote']Only Lifting from Strength is exponential. All other STR effects, such as Leaping and Throwing, are linear in nature. Why should Casual Strength be any different? It can't even be used to attack another character (5er, page 423) for damage. Ultimately, Casual Strength doesn't represent what can be done effortlessly (since it costes END); it represents what can be done instantaneously.

 

There is no evidence one way or the other to support damage or BODY being exponential in nature within the HERO system as opposed to linear. I've seen good arguments both ways. I don't think it's really important in the greater scheme of things since the HERO system is deliberately not intended to be a realistic simulation, but rather a representation of action/adventure movies, TV, and fiction, which are inherently unrealistic. It uses "Hollywood" physics, not real world physics.

[Mister E]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

I don't want to be argumentative, but +5 STR equals +1d6 normal damage, which translates to +1 BODY damage. The BODY of objects goes up +1 for every doubling of size. It's all pretty eligant.

[Trebuchet]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

I don't want to be argumentative' date=' but +5 STR equals +1d6 normal damage, which translates to +1 BODY damage. The BODY of objects goes up +1 for every doubling of size. It's all pretty eligant.[/quote']Yes, it is reasonably elegant. It's also overly simplistic and highly unrealistic. How much DEF an inanimate object has is at least as important as how much BODY it has in regard to how it takes damage. DEF does not automatically increase with size: A 2 cm thick piece of styrofoam does not have twice the DEF of a 1 cm thick piece. It is far harder to destroy a 100 kilogram block of aluminium than it is to destroy a 100 kg human being. Simply doubling an object in three dimensions cubes its mass. So is the size or mass of an object more relevant to its ability to take damage?

 

If HERO's damage system were intended to be an accurate simulation of real world physics and combat, it would fail miserably. As the basis for a role playing game of cinematic adventure, it works just fine.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Casual STR = Negligible Effort?

 

I don't know if this post is trolling or not, but since it's in a thread I started, I suppose I ought to respond.

 

*SNIP valid objections*

 

Grail Quest, it wasn't my intention to troll, and I reiterate that I'm sorry if I came across as snarky. I apologise if I offended you or seemed to be belittling your position. I really was just responding to the topic of the thread, "What is Casual STR meant to be?" IMHO it's meant to be a game mechanic reflecting a situation often seen in the fictional source material for our games.

 

I'm certainly in favor of having a ruleset for gaming - I don't like to make a lot of things up in-game, as some more "narrativist" gamers do. Casual STR is a rule, one that I personally like and use. And 1/2 your STR score, regardless of what that score is or what genre you're playing, is about as internally consistent as you can get.

 

Where it isn't consistent, as you point out, is in how it models what would be "realistic" Casual STR, based on the notion that effective STR doubles for every 5 pts. However, as you noted some of the situations it applies to are not realistic. My view on that is that attempting to square real-world standards with nonrealistic situations is a logical paradox that ultimately leaves you frustrated. Moreover, as others here have pointed out, the STR stat doesn't square the exponential increase in lifting capacity with the linear increase in damage, so in that way it is already inherently inconsistent. However, the way elements like Defenses and other attack Powers function are built around those damage mechanics, so from a rules perspective it is consistent.

 

While I can appreciate the logic of your position, for my part I wouldn't find making the rule conform more to that logic of enough benefit for the effort. When dealing with a game intended primarily to simulate adventure fiction, IMO internal mechanical and dramatic logic is more important than adherence to real-world standards, as long as the two don't drift unrecognizably far apart. In that way I do think that the system does a good job of consistently modelling "a certain 'reality' -- even an unrealistic one."

 

All that being said, that's still just my opinion, which carries no more or less weight than anyone else's. Ultimately every gamer should try to adjust game rules to give him or her the most enjoyable experience. If Casual STR doesn't match the way you think it should work you should certainly adjust the rule until it feels right to you. This thread has demonstrated that there are other HEROphiles who feel much as you do. I would still have to disagree with anyone who holds that the Casual STR rule is obviously incorrect because it doesn't more closely match how they think it should logically function. But that's just me.

 

Once again, I apologise if my remarks caused any offense.

[Mister E]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

Yes' date=' it is reasonably elegant. It's also overly simplistic and highly unrealistic. How much DEF an inanimate object has is at least as important as how much BODY it has in regard to how it takes damage. DEF does not automatically increase with size: A 2 cm thick piece of styrofoam does not have twice the DEF of a 1 cm thick piece. It is far harder to destroy a 100 kilogram block of aluminium than it is to destroy a 100 kg human being. Simply doubling an object in three dimensions [b']cubes[/b] its mass. So is the size or mass of an object more relevant to its ability to take damage?

 

If HERO's damage system were intended to be an accurate simulation of real world physics and combat, it would fail miserably. As the basis for a role playing game of cinematic adventure, it works just fine.

The OBJECT BODY table is in the book, somewhere, if you want to look it up.

 

There is a correlation between Damage Class and BODY, that showes that the damaging aspect of STR is every bit as exponential as its lifting ability. Thus, halving the number of damage dice for casual feats of strength, isn't very fair. You can do it if you want. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I want to change this aspect of my game. All I know is that in order to accurately simulate the way STR functions in the game, the current method is flawed. Playable, but flawed.

 

If you think it is fair, (if you think that a 5d6 attack averages half the damage of a 10d6 attack), that's cool. I disagree. I think a 9d6 attack averages half the damage of a 10d6 attack. I'm sure this sounds crazy... but this is the way I have rationalized the system from the material I have read.

 

DEF is a factor of arrangement, or composition, not mass, or size. This, I know.

[Trebuchet]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

If you think it is fair' date=' (if you think that a 5d6 attack averages half the damage of a 10d6 attack), that's cool. I disagree. I think a 9d6 attack averages half the damage of a 10d6 attack. I'm sure this sounds crazy... but this is the way I have rationalized the system from the material I have read.[/quote']You can of course rationalize anything as you wish in your own campaign. But the idea that 9d6 of damage is only half as effective (or powerful) as 10d6 is certainly neither supported within the game mechanics or in actual game play. Certainly something with 10 BODY isn't twice as hard to destroy as something with 9 BODY, which was the other half of your argument.

 

Do you seriously think two characters dishing out 9d6 each attack are not going to beat an otherwise identical character who does 10d6 each attack? Because "half the damage" has a meaning within the game. And a 9d6 attack is clearly not doing only 50% of the damage of a 10d6 attack.

[Warp9]

Re: Casual STR = Negligible Effort?

 

There are no humanoid beings with a STR equivalent to 50 or 100; it's physically impossible for such a being to exist and be made of anything remotely organic.

I can appreciate that such a being doesn't seem all that likely, but I would not go so far as the say: "physically impossible."

 

Your statement above reminds me of an old line:

 

Shakespeare’s Hamlet, I, v, 166 “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy,†but also J.B.S. Haldane’s Possible Worlds, “I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any philosophy.â€

 

 

They're superhumans from the realms of myth or comic books, and the feats that those superhumans perform routinely defy the laws of physics. IMHO trying to hold them to real world logic is unnecessarily rigorous.

Just because something seems to defy the "laws of physics" does not mean that actually has to. A hot air balloon might seem to defy the law of gravity, until one understands the situation better.

[Warp9]

Re: What is Casual STR meant to be?

 

Yes, it is reasonably elegant. It's also overly simplistic and highly unrealistic.

It is not bad for game situations.

 

How much DEF an inanimate object has is at least as important as how much BODY it has in regard to how it takes damage. DEF does not automatically increase with size: A 2 cm thick piece of styrofoam does not have twice the DEF of a 1 cm thick piece. It is far harder to destroy a 100 kilogram block of aluminium than it is to destroy a 100 kg human being.

I don't think that any body is making the argument that DEF should be ignored. What the chart give us data on is BODY, and the way BODY progresses as the mass of an object progresses.

 

Simply doubling an object in three dimensions cubes its mass. So is the size or mass of an object more relevant to its ability to take damage?

Actually it cubes its volume. And Volume is a kind of "size." So it is not really "Size VS Mass."

 

Although you might be thinking of size along 1 dimension, vs the total volume in 3 dimensions.

 

 

 

If HERO's damage system were intended to be an accurate simulation of real world physics and combat, it would fail miserably. As the basis for a role playing game of cinematic adventure, it works just fine.

How much is would it "fail" will likely depend on how simplified you want to get.

 

All simulations probably have some factor of divergence from the real world. The more simple you get, the larger the discrepancy is.