Travel Times & Distances

[bigdamnhero]

Thoughts on Encumbrance. Most PCs in my games try to stay below 25% Encumbrance when possible: 

• For a 10 STR character, that's 24 kg of armor, weapons & gear.
• For a 13 STR character, that's 36 kg of armor, weapons & gear.
• For a 15 STR character, that's 49 kg of armor, weapons & gear.

24 kg is a suit of Def 4 armor, a wooden shield, a broadsword, a bow with 20 arrows, and 6 kg of gear, rations, gold, etc. 36 kg is Def 5 armor, a metal shield, a bastardsword, a heavy crossbow with 20 bolts, and 6 kg of miscellaneous. So we're not talking about a lot of stuff. 50 kg+ loads were extremely common in my infantry days, and I was never above 13 STR at my best.

 

Per FH6's table, someone walking at 10-24% Encumbrance is limited to 2.2 mph, or around 17 miles per 8-hour day. But if we use the x7/8 figure I posted earlier, that works out to our 3 mph target, which gives you 24 miles per day. If they're 25-49% Encumbered, cut that to 2.5 mph, 20 mile per day. That doesn't seem too far out of line.

 

Meanwhile, a 25 STR Riding Horse (or Light Warhorse) carrying a 100 kg rider is already in the 10-24% Encumbrance range even without adding in armor, etc. Which means per FH6 they move at the same rate as our walkers above. Of course if you have significantly more gear to carry - as might be expected for long overland travel - horses will become your friends.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The problem isn't limited to animals: by RAW a 0-point Normal (12m Running, 2 SPD, 4 REC, 20 END) can run 15 miles at a 7-minute/mile pace (100 minutes) before running out of END. 

 

 

Well technically the average normal human being can't dead lift 100 kilos over their head even with a huge effort, so I think "normal" is a bit overstated in Hero. I've always considered 8's for base characteristics and the resulting figured (or their equivalent in 6th) to be more representative of a normal human being.  Even so, your basic point holds; the game doesn't represent long term running or really any athletics very accurately.

 

Encumbrance is something that doesn't come up terribly often in games but it probably should in many fantasy and more gritty modern settings. You can condition yourself to be able to handle loads for long periods of time - the military has a saying: sweat now so you don't bleed later - but most people do not.  I always consider armor in my fantasy games to be well distributed, so that its not the same as carrying an armload of metal, and I treat it as half weight.  backpacks and other carrying methods designed to distribute weight well and carry it easily do the same thing for weight carried inside.  Both, of course, only for the purposes of encumbrance.

[Markdoc]

Meanwhile, a 25 STR Riding Horse (or Light Warhorse) carrying a 100 kg rider is already in the 10-24% Encumbrance range even without adding in armor, etc. Which means per FH6 they move at the same rate as our walkers above. Of course if you have significantly more gear to carry - as might be expected for long overland travel - horses will become your friends.

 

This is a key point that a lot of GM's forget - when calculating LTE for long term movement, you need to look at how much END is used for movement, but also how much END is used for carrying weight. You can move far faster and much further carrying no load than even a light load, so it's not just about being slowed down, but also about getting tired faster.

 

So your point about offloading weight onto horses and mules is a good one ... which is why people did it in real life.

 

When calculating END usage, a normal person carrying 25 kg or more is going to be burning 1 END just picking it up and holding it. Moving at 6", they will burn through another 2. So at full speed, they will tire fairly rapidly. Offloading some of that to a horse will let you move faster, or for longer, or both, even if you are walking.

 

As an aside, if you want to model the "moving until you die" thing a simple house rule is to use the LTE rules and just apply them to STUN and BOD (prorated) once your END hits 0. So once you have worked your END down to 0, you can still keep driving yourself (or your mount) on, but at the cost of losing Long Term STUN and BOD (1 BOD for every 2 STUN). That will keep you going for a while, but at a cost. Depending on your balance of STUN and BOD and how wounded you were at the start of your death march, you may or may not collapse before your heart and lungs simply give out.

 

cheers, Mark

[bigdamnhero]

Finally had time to get back to this topic, and have been playing with ship speeds. Here's what I've kludged together based on the information provided in previous posts and conversations I've had with other people. Any feedback from the nautically-knowledgeable is much appreciated.

 

Ships                    Great Winds    Good Winds    Neutral Winds    Bad Winds    Real Bad Winds

Open Water           6 knots              4 knots               3 knots            2.5 knots          2 knots

Coastal/Islands     4 knots               3 knots             2.5 knots            2 knots            1 knot

 

Favorable Current => 1-2 knots faster

Unfavorable Current => 1-2 knots slower

Rough Water => 1-2 knots slower

Fast Ship, Light Cargo => 1-2 knots faster

Slow Ship, Heavy Cargo => 1-2 knots slower

Ships in open water with adequate crew can sail for 24 hours per day

Sailing along coasts/reefs, or without adequate crew, can sail 8-12 hours per day

 

Note: I realize that taking the modifiers too literally could result in excessive speeds, or retrograde speeds, but this is just to give the GM some basic guidelines.

[Cancer]

With really bad winds, your choices are heave-to or risk being sunk. Heave-to means zero if you get what you want, otherwise some fraction of a knot in the direction, tide, or surge are pushing you. And that could be onto the rocks.

[Christopher R Taylor]

If you just let the winds blow you (which might be the only option in deep blue) you can end up hundreds of miles off course and in a direction you are unaware of without some magic or a "Dwarven Compass" or something of the sort.

[bigdamnhero]

I hadn't thought about "strong winds blow you off course and you wind up someplace unexpected," but that's certainly a common enough trope. Hmm...I'm thinking that would likely be a plot device more than a mechanical effect?

[Markdoc]

One of the major factors to consider is contrary winds were not just something that slowed you down, but something that stopped you completely (assuming reasonably historical ancient/medieval-type ships). Most of these ships could not sail within 3-4 points of the wind (meaning that they were literally unable to gain any ground against a headwind). There are literally hundreds of references in the sagas, for example to crews sitting around on land waiting for a favourable wind (sometimes for weeks), and we have letters from the ancient world that make the same point. So your speed in bad winds is 0 if you can reach land, or even negative, if you are at sea. Which makes the point, by the bye,  that a retrograde speed is entirely possible: we see it in real life sailing as well.

 

Anyway, this is one of the reasons why sea voyages could take what seems like an unreasonably long time - you might spend days or even weeks in port waiting for a wind. When the reconstructed viking longship Havhingsten sailed from Denmark to Ireland it only took a day and a half to cross the North Sea even with light winds at first. But the crew had to sit around and wait 10 days for a suitable wind (you can read an account of the voyage written by a friend of mine here).

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

How about this:   The ability to travel long distances is based not on tactical movement rate, but on one's ability to keep going for hours on end.  So REC is the determining factor. 

 

Base Overland Movement (BOM) is REC in KM per hour.  Use 1 LTE each hour spent moving,

 

If encumbered, reduce effective REC by either the DCV/DEX penalty (harsh GM) or the END/Turn penalty (forgiving GM) for that level of encumbrance.

 

Quick March : 1.5x BOM, use 3 LTE per hour.

 

At a Jog : 2x BOM, use 6 LTE/Hour

 

Then adjust for terrain as needed.

[NuSoardGraphite]

It gets more interesting with mounted creatures. I had to study this a bit for my upcoming Dearthwood module, to give a table of how quickly people can travel through it based on terrain and mode. Mostly I did it as an exercise to test how big the area was (I wanted it to take more than a day to cross).

 

The travel times are a bit uncertain. People cannot just go all day long, and as noted a horse will, if urged, run until it literally dies, but you have to stop and eat once in a while, and there are always going to be minor annoyances like a thrown horseshoe, a log in the way, a bridge washed out, etc etc. This stuff slows or limits travel time.

 

Horses are a particular area of annoyance for me. People treat them like a motorcycle: you ride to a locaiton, jump off and go in. No food, no care, no currying, left out to die in t he wilderness, undistracted, mindless.

The players might treat them as such, but the characters would not. Just because the player doesnt think about it doesnt mean the horses areent properly ccared for. It is the charactet that has Riding at 13 or less and a familiarity with Horses, not the player. Thats how I treat the situation.

[bigdamnhero]

How about this:   The ability to travel long distances is based not on tactical movement rate, but on one's ability to keep going for hours on end.  So REC is the determining factor. 

 

Base Overland Movement (BOM) is REC in KM per hour.  Use 1 LTE each hour spent moving,

I like the idea of REC being the determining factor. (Or at least a determining factor, along with CON & END I would say.) The BOM seems high tho: 8 RECs aren't uncommon in my fantasy games, and 5 mph awfully fast for a base speed. I like the modifiers for Encumbrance, quick march & jog tho.

 

I was actually playing with forced march rules yesterday, trying to work all my thoughts into a coherent system. Unfortunately what I wound up with required a crap-ton of CON & EGO Rolls and resulted in way more randomness than I really wanted. So I want to rework it into something simpler and will post when I have something intelligible.

[Outsider]

Hm.. Move to REC with STR always assumed to be 10.   Theory would be that big strong guys with extra REC derived from having bought up their STR don't really get an overland advantage from that REC because it comes with a whole lot of extra muscle mass they have to lug around.  This will put most "20+ STR/18 CON types down to a 6 BOM, or 3.75 mph base.  People like Aragorn (18+CON, possibly bought up REC separately too) into that 5 mph range, which isn't so bad.  Aragorn, after all.

 

I haven't actually played enough 6th ed to know how people build characters in it, so i am not sure what would work well there.   REC is always bought seperately, right?  So maybe REC - STR/5 for base to simulate muscle mass actually being kind of a hindrance on a distance march?

[Christopher R Taylor]

The players might treat them as such, but the characters would not. Just because the player doesnt think about it doesnt mean the horses arent properly cared for. It is the character that has Riding at 13 or less and a familiarity with Horses, not the player. Thats how I treat the situation. 

 

 

Sure, but if they ride up to the dungeon entrance, leap off and go in, what happened to the horses?  They aren't motorcycles, you can't just park them and leave them for days.

[bigdamnhero]

I haven't actually played enough 6th ed to know how people build characters in it, so i am not sure what would work well there.   REC is always bought seperately, right?  So maybe REC - STR/5 for base to simulate muscle mass actually being kind of a hindrance on a distance march?

Hmmm again... I agree STR isn't a huge advantage to long walking in its own right, tho of course it does affect encumbrance. And yes in 6ed, REC is bought separately, so there would be no need to "correct" for that by subtracting STR out. (Another good example of why decoupling Figured Characteristics made sense IMO, but we've all had that debate ad nauseum in other threads and no need to revisit it here.)

 

Sure, but if they ride up to the dungeon entrance, leap off and go in, what happened to the horses?

Eaten by wolves - have a nice walk back to town.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well Muscle mass actually gives more than it takes in terms of endurance.  In other words, the gain you get in ease of activity outweighs its weight because tasks just take less effort to do.  Strength doesn't equal mass.

 

When you're in really good shape, tasks that used to be a bit tiring or take effort, aren't nearly as tiring or take as much effort.  Such as carrying around 180+ pounds of human mass.  So if you're strong,  you'll carry that 180+ pounds easier than someone who's in lousy shape like me.  Its a saying in the military: sweat now so you don't bleed later.  Be in really good shape right now so you can move when you need to and don't get tired out.

 

So you really shouldn't need to remove strength from recovery in 5th and earlier editions.

[bigdamnhero]

But being in "really good shape" is about more than just STR. In Hero terms, that would seem to match the description of CON better than STR.

 

Putting my Former Infantryman hat on for a minute: the guys who had the easiest time on road marches weren't necessarily the weightlifters. In fact I'd say the big guys were actually at a bit of a disadvantage when carrying light loads. For example: the Expert Infantryman Badge test includes a 12-mile road march carrying a very light load in less than 3 hours. The first people to cross that finish line were the whipcord runners, not the bodybuilders. (In my unit, the Badge Of Pride* was to do it in 2 hours, but I wouldn't have wanted to fight anyone afterwards.)

 

Now throw on a heavy pack and you've got a different story, sure. But even there - assuming general overall fitness - I'm not sure muscle strength counts as much as just plain size. In other words, a 200-pound soldier in reasonable shape carrying 100 pounds has an advantage over a 120 pound soldier carrying the same load, but that's because the former is carrying 50% of his body weight and the latter is carrying 83% of his body weight. Of course Hero doesn't have a Size stat, nor am I suggesting we add one, so STR probably works fine as a proxy for calculating Encumbrance. But that's Encumbrance: it shouldn't drive base movement rates IMO.

 

* aka Authorization To Talk Smack.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This is true, being ripped doesn't necessarily mean in really good shape, I agree.  But being strong doesn't necessarily mean really swole, either, so I would think whatever gains you get from strength would offset their weight, overall at least in terms of recovery and endurance in Hero.  I've known some crazy strong guys that were very lean, they were built with steel cables and braided leather, or something.

[bigdamnhero]

True. Thinking of it from another angle, let's consider 3 guys of the same height and basic body structure, and same overall fitness level:

• Dude 1 is carrying an extra 25 pounds of beer gut.
• Dude 2 is average weight/build for his size.
• Dude 3 is carrying an extra 25 pounds of muscle.

Dude 1 is obviously at a disadvantage compared to Dude 2. But Dude 3? I'd certainly say he's not at a disadvantage compared to Dude 2, since the added muscle carries itself. But is he at an advantage compared to Dude 2? I'm not sure.

[Christopher R Taylor]

It depends on how the muscle was built I think.  If he's just swole and built up bulk rather than strength, its probably a push.  If he's focused on strength and increasing his lifting capacity, he's going to be better off.  Its kind of easier to think of in Hero terms.

 

Guy 2: 10 strength

Guy 3: 15 strength.

 

Lifting a 50 kg item takes about half of Guy 2's strength, but only 1/4 of Guy 1.  So he's using less energy to accomplish the same goal.  I know that sounds weirdly abstract, but its true that the stronger you are, the less effort it takes to move the same weight.

 

But those guys that get huge just to have huge muscles and look ripped often aren't so much building up strength as size.  They're stronger, for sure.  but they aren't as strong as the guy that works on power instead of bulk.

[bigdamnhero]

True. Tho again we're kindof conflating baseline movement with ability to handle Encumbrance. But at some point we just have to abstract it unless we want to break STR down into several component Characteristics. (PS - I don't want to do that.)

[Christopher R Taylor]

I have in the past fooled around with building an RPG before, and I had stats broken down like that: Strength wasn't just strength but lift, exert, that kind of thing.  Dex had agility and manual dexterity, Intelligence had memory, discernment, etc.

 

Its fun to work on and can be really precise but in the end pointlessly complicated for no good reason other than just being complicated.  You don't actually gain anything in the game, its just fun to design and think about.

[Alcamtar]

That 25 lb of beer gut may or may not mean anything. The skinny guy may or may not be in shape. The strong guy may not have great endurance. My girlfriend is the same height as I am and maybe 25% heavier. But under the fat she is athletic and very strong. She can out-hike any of us, both speed and distance, like the energizer bunny. If she is at any disadvantage compared to me she sure hides it well. In fact I would even suggest that the "thicker" people are often better hikers than the thinner people; the thinner ones tend to move faster, and are more agile, but they also wear out faster.

 

There are different types of muscle, different body chemistries, different natural talents. A simple number like STR or CON is so grossly inadequate to describe such things that it's laughable. "CON" may mean wildly different things for two different people (doesn't get sick? has endurance? resists poison? resists stunning? heals quickly?) Maybe beer gut guy has a 24 CON because he can hold his liquor!

[Alcamtar]

 

I don't like tying overland movement rates to characteristics, because people (and animals) are variable but movement tends to average out over time. Instead I prefer a simple rule of thumb that applies equally to everybody, and then I can adjust that a bit for situation or individual.

 

Leisure Backpacking I'd put at about 2mph, with a pack around 30lb (20kg), what we call a "trudge." Actual movement is a bit faster, but after accounting for rests, meals, and slower movement up/down hills, that's a good average figure. Inexperienced or out of shape hikers move more slowly than that, and strong experienced hikers can do better than that, but that's a decent average. Note that this is from my experience and supported by family and friends' experience, but we take occasional backpacking and hiking trips for up to a week at at time; but we don't "live on the trail". In that case 3mph is a good estimate for an experienced hiker or an unencumbered hike.

 

This "leisure rate" is relevant because a party moves as fast as its slowest member. While the Aragorn types may be able to walk 3mph up and down mountains, the bookish wizard may only manage 2mph. Same for the villager you took on as a guide, or the nobleman who hired you and insisted on coming along, or the prisoner you rescued. And if hiking in plate armor with a 15kg backpack, even Strider is going to slow down a bit.

 

It's the little things that get you: getting hungry, muscle and joint aches, blisters on your feet, chafing from the back, neck and back fatigue. Hiking up or down hills really slows you down. Muddy or uneven footing is bad. Walking through ankle deep ferns requires care because you can turn a foot, and doing so while loaded with a backpack can throw your balance and result in a sprain or a painful fall. People who hike fast for long periods are either experienced with heavy muscle and endurance, or carrying a light pack, or both. They also stick to good trails. Modern ultralight packing doesn't exist in a fantasy setting, with nearly weightless gear, freeze dried foods, and well engineered packs. Put a week's worth of normal food in a wood frame leather pack with a wool blanket and you have a heavy load, no avoiding it!

 

While I have backpacked a lot, I have not horse packed. My research suggests that horses can manage about 6 hours a day, right in like with FH6. They move faster than men, but can't keep it up as long, so the overall distance is about the same. After a days' ride/work, a horse needs 60-90 min to cool down before it can eat. Then it needs to graze slowly during the afternoon for about 2-3 hours on good grass. So that means striking camp at 8am, riding for 6 hours, then stopping about 2pm. The horses can start grazing by 3 and be finished by dusk. If you bring grain you need less grazing so might shorten the camp time a bit, and longer summer days allow more time, but then you risk overworking the horse. Some accounts I've read of long distance riding show about a day of rest time for each day or two spent traveling, and if a horse gets sick you'll be stuck in one place for a week or more until it recovers. I figure a maximum of 4-5 days of travel per week is a decent compromise for a fantasy game. 

 

By contrast, humans need little time in camp and have greater endurance for hiking longer. Horses are built for speed, not endurance, humans the opposite. In the 1800s it was popular to do endurance walks (google pedestrianism), walking 100 miles in 24 hours, or 1000 miles in 1000 hours (24 miles a day for 42 days straight). Horses can't do that. I also suspect you can't do that with a pack. Heather Anderson walked 2660 miles in 60 days.  ("She was walking, at 3 miles per hour, for extremely long distances, covering 40 to 50 miles per day.") It is relevant not in that this is realistic for fantasy characters, but that it is possible at all, because horses cannot.

 

Naismith's Rule (google) predicts 1 hour for every 3.1 miles, and 1 hour for every 2000 ft climbed. Note that if you climb 2000 ft in 3.1 miles that is 2 hours! So distance traveled is not really distance. Also, climbing takes a lot of energy. Backpacking in hilly country, you can easily eat double the calories you normally eat. Food is critical.

 

People also underestimate water. Each person needs 1-2 qt (1-2 kg) of water per day, and each horse will need 10 gal (~40 kg) of water a day. Double that in the desert. If there are no water sources (and sometimes there aren't, summer can be bone-dry even in the forested mountains) you'll have to carry it.

 

Ultimately are are many many variables, so pick something that feels right to you and your group. I wouldn't bother with fancy formulas, they'll be inaccurate. My rule is that backpacking averages 10-15 mi/day and maxes out at 24 mi/day. Stick to that and you're golden. 24 mi is also a nice round 40km in Hero terms. For gaming, I usually stick to 12 mi per day as a reasonable default on hilly terrain following a trail, double that unencumbered on a road, halve that in very difficult terrain. The players never know precisely how far or fast they went, and anything more complex is just straining at gnats. I'd rather focus effort on making travel evocative and interesting than precisely timed.

 

I'll also add: NOTHING will improve your refereeing (and playing) of wilderness travel as actually going out and doing it. You don't even need to do much, just go out in the woods or fields and hike for a few hours. If you can, camp overnight at least once. Even better, backpack for a minimum of 4 days; we always say the first two days are hell while you're adjusting to it and getting blisters, and you hit your stride on the 3rd or 4th day. That's when it gets easier and your endurance kicks in and it starts being enjoyable. Backpacking is very different from camping or ordinary unencumbered hiking.

[Outsider]

Well Muscle mass actually gives more than it takes in terms of endurance.  In other words, the gain you get in ease of activity outweighs its weight because tasks just take less effort to do.  Strength doesn't equal mass.

 

When you're in really good shape, tasks that used to be a bit tiring or take effort, aren't nearly as tiring or take as much effort.  Such as carrying around 180+ pounds of human mass.  So if you're strong,  you'll carry that 180+ pounds easier than someone who's in lousy shape like me.  Its a saying in the military: sweat now so you don't bleed later.  Be in really good shape right now so you can move when you need to and don't get tired out.

 

So you really shouldn't need to remove strength from recovery in 5th and earlier editions.

 

Dude #1 has 20 STR and 20 CON.  Dude #1 is large, muscular, and doesn't carry a lot of excess weight. But he does carry a lot of muscle.  He weighs 240 lbs.

Dude #2 has 10 STR and 20 CON.  Dude #2 is not unusually large, but he is muscular and doesn[t carry a lot of excess weight  He weighs 180 lbs

Dude #3 has 10 STR and 8 CON.  Dude #3 is not in good shape. He is your basic flabby normal..  He weighs 180 lbs.

 

Yes, 1 & 2 will march 3 into the ground, but I don't really see how 1 will out march 2, since any gain he got from extra muscle is offset by having to carry all that extra muscle around.  YET in regular 5th ED (if nobody buys up their REC separately) he will have 8 REC compared to 6 REC for #2.

[Markdoc]

Sure, but if they ride up to the dungeon entrance, leap off and go in, what happened to the horses?  They aren't motorcycles, you can't just park them and leave them for days.

 

Well, in our games, we left them fodder and hobbled them ... but they usually got eaten. I took some flack from the GM, when after a while, I stated insisting that we walked on our adventures, because I was sick of buying new horses to feed to the monsters  Then after a while we started flying or teleporting everywhere and it became a non-issue (again, apart from the GM, who hated the fact that overland travel adventures were now off the menu).

 

cheers, Mark