Chris Goodwin

"The races tend to act evil because evil gods made them to be that way" has been good enough for D&D for decades. It's good enough for an action/adventure game about characters becoming more powerful by killing monsters and taking their stuff. But:
 
1) Just because D&D does something, doesn't mean everyone else, or indeed anyone else, should do Fantasy that way. Or even Fantasy gaming.
 
2) I am no longer one of the young adult males who were D&D's original target audience. I am a late-middle-aged, effete pseudo-intellectual. I overthink. So even when I play D&D, I toss the metaphysics and do it my own way. But that would be very long to explain and likely of limited interest to anyone else.
 
Suffice to say that if Tolkien can build a Fantasy world on the theological and moral frameworks of Catholicism, I can do it on Enlightenment humanism. I have no trouble finding a sufficient supply of villains the PCs feel happy to battle and kill. I am quite happy with the result, and my players seem to be, too.
 
Dean Shomshak

I disagree almost with the premise of the thread, from a philosophical standpoint. I don't think it's possible to create a race to be evil, because evil requires a conscious choice made with free will. Acts are evil; we generally only consider a person evil if they know the things they do are evil but they refuse to stop doing them.  
 
What's an evil act?  Those are defined almost universally, by every culture on Earth.  Murder, kidnapping, rape, lying in court in order to harm someone else.  Killing in self defense is not evil, nor is killing the enemy in war, but acts of war against civilians are evil.  
 
Speaking of war, here's a point: almost every culture, probably throughout human history, has, when war is imminent, attempted through propaganda to define the enemy as evil.  They're evil because they're against us, even though their people are very nearly the same as ours.  Farmers, peasants, laborers, craftspeople, the religious... their people want a steady job, a roof over their heads, three meals a day for themselves and their families.  That's what our people want, too. 
 
A man-eating lion can't be evil. It can be "broken", as lions almost never eat humans. Even if the lion chooses to eat man over other meat, it can't be evil by definition, because it's not sapient. Note: that doesn't mean it's not dangerous, or that it shouldn't be destroyed; it's just that lions are not creatures of conscious morality.  
 
You can't create a race to be evil.  You can create a race to be violent, destructive, pestilent, dangerous, but if you do that it's you who are evil, not the beings you created.  Just the same as if you'd created a killbot swarm or a deadly virus.  
 
Without free will, they're robots, they're an extension of their creator's will, but they're not evil.  They can't be.

I disagree almost with the premise of the thread, from a philosophical standpoint. I don't think it's possible to create a race to be evil, because evil requires a conscious choice made with free will. Acts are evil; we generally only consider a person evil if they know the things they do are evil but they refuse to stop doing them.  
 
What's an evil act?  Those are defined almost universally, by every culture on Earth.  Murder, kidnapping, rape, lying in court in order to harm someone else.  Killing in self defense is not evil, nor is killing the enemy in war, but acts of war against civilians are evil.  
 
Speaking of war, here's a point: almost every culture, probably throughout human history, has, when war is imminent, attempted through propaganda to define the enemy as evil.  They're evil because they're against us, even though their people are very nearly the same as ours.  Farmers, peasants, laborers, craftspeople, the religious... their people want a steady job, a roof over their heads, three meals a day for themselves and their families.  That's what our people want, too. 
 
A man-eating lion can't be evil. It can be "broken", as lions almost never eat humans. Even if the lion chooses to eat man over other meat, it can't be evil by definition, because it's not sapient. Note: that doesn't mean it's not dangerous, or that it shouldn't be destroyed; it's just that lions are not creatures of conscious morality.  
 
You can't create a race to be evil.  You can create a race to be violent, destructive, pestilent, dangerous, but if you do that it's you who are evil, not the beings you created.  Just the same as if you'd created a killbot swarm or a deadly virus.  
 
Without free will, they're robots, they're an extension of their creator's will, but they're not evil.  They can't be.

A further point of Moral Foundations Theory is that people place different weights on each foundation. This gets into politics, which I will avoid, but it's worth noting.
 
But it's also worth noting that just about everyone acknowledges the need for *compromise* between virtues. One way to create peoples whose motives are comprehensible but reprehensible is to pick one virtue and make it absolute, leaving no room for compromise. For one easy example, every member of a species might be totally loyal to each other, but regard all other sapient beings as enemies who must be eradicated to make more living space for themselves. Conversely, members of another species might be such libertarians that they refuse to give an inch to anyone else's will, even to respecting contracts or other free associations. (OK, we just re-invented Lawful and Chaotic Evil.) Or folk who are Purity/Defilement absolutists might fanatically seek to conquer everyone else to impose their dietary, religious, or other code. Even Care/Harm becomes supremely creepy in the classic SF short story "With Folded Hands," in which unstoppable robots invade Earth to keep humans safe and comfortable... whether we want it or not.
 
They are all, by their own standards, righteous. But their absolutism also makes them implacably hostile to everyone else. They must be fought.
 
Dean Shomshak

I disagree almost with the premise of the thread, from a philosophical standpoint. I don't think it's possible to create a race to be evil, because evil requires a conscious choice made with free will. Acts are evil; we generally only consider a person evil if they know the things they do are evil but they refuse to stop doing them.  
 
What's an evil act?  Those are defined almost universally, by every culture on Earth.  Murder, kidnapping, rape, lying in court in order to harm someone else.  Killing in self defense is not evil, nor is killing the enemy in war, but acts of war against civilians are evil.  
 
Speaking of war, here's a point: almost every culture, probably throughout human history, has, when war is imminent, attempted through propaganda to define the enemy as evil.  They're evil because they're against us, even though their people are very nearly the same as ours.  Farmers, peasants, laborers, craftspeople, the religious... their people want a steady job, a roof over their heads, three meals a day for themselves and their families.  That's what our people want, too. 
 
A man-eating lion can't be evil. It can be "broken", as lions almost never eat humans. Even if the lion chooses to eat man over other meat, it can't be evil by definition, because it's not sapient. Note: that doesn't mean it's not dangerous, or that it shouldn't be destroyed; it's just that lions are not creatures of conscious morality.  
 
You can't create a race to be evil.  You can create a race to be violent, destructive, pestilent, dangerous, but if you do that it's you who are evil, not the beings you created.  Just the same as if you'd created a killbot swarm or a deadly virus.  
 
Without free will, they're robots, they're an extension of their creator's will, but they're not evil.  They can't be.

Man!  Suddenly i don't want this power.
 
I can't imagine having to repeat everything 7,151 times!   That would be like having eight kids!
 
 

I have to admit that, reading the initial posts of “what?  Instant acceleration?  Why, it would tear them apart”, I was envisioning a campaign Session Zero much like:


 
GM:  OK, tell us a bit about your characters. 


 
[Duke, of course, is so polite and unwilling to hog the spotlight that he waits for everyone else to go first.]


 
Player 1:  My character is the last survivor of an alien civilization.  He’s super-strong, super-fast and super-tough. And he can fly and shoot laser beams out of his eyes!


 
Players and GM Chorus: Super-cool!


 
Player 2: My character was altered in a strange accident, and can now become a being of living flames.  She can attack with the flames, they protect her from damage and they even make her lighter than air so she can fly.


 
Players and GM Chorus: Marvelous-cool!


 
Player 3: Hey, my character was changed in a strange accident too.  He was attending a science display when he was accidentally bitten by an irradiated, DNA-altered Bat!  He has all the powers of a bat – proportionate strength and speed, bat-sense and he built artificial wings that allow him to fly! Now he fights crime while attending high school, your Friendly Neighbourhood Bat-Man!


 
Players and GM Chorus: Double-homage-cool!


 
Player 4: My character is just a normal guy, but he was trained by an ancient cabal of wizards. He wears an array of mystical artifacts given to him by the ancient cabal, and can warp reality itself with his mighty spells and mystical knowledge.


 
Players and GM Chorus: Magic-cool!


 
Duke: My character can fly at incredible speeds, and is capable of imparting that speed to others at will, through direct or indirect physical combat.  [Awaits Speedy-cool response.]


 
Player 1: But what about the physics of high velocities?


 
Player 3: Wouldn’t that rapid acceleration tear someone apart?


 
GM: We’ll have to break out the physics textbooks to ensure that these abilities are treated with full realism and scientific accuracy – how else can we possibly pretend to believe a man can fly?

 
 
I am a big fan of starting any new game/system with its rules as written. Until I see how it plays, and integrates with all of the other rules, assessing the impact of some tweak is dicy at best.

You should count yourself lucky that it has only gone two pages...

We used to play Battle Tech using Hero Robot Warrior rules. Loved it better as there was much more you could do with your mech in combat. We just stated that END was Heat. One thing though, mechs that can shift from mech to fighter suck in Battle Tech but not in Robot Warriors. If I can find my Battle Tech writeups I will have to put it on this site.

I hadnt considered looking there; thank you, Sir!
 
So far as I know, the GM has only the one book, but still: it is importsnt to me to be as honest with him as I can, and to respect his boundaries.  I shall have a look at it, but likely tomorrow. 
 
 

I'm fairly certain that neither 5e nor 5er have any such rule. 
 
If there were such a rule, it would be in The Ultimate Speedster.  I haven't pored through that book to find one yet.

How did the Disadvantage cause them any actual disadvantage?  Why couldn't a Mutant take a Disadvantage for "non-Mutant powers cost double"? Let's give Solitaire 20 points for "technology-based powers cost double" and Seeker can get 20 points for "powers not based on being a highly trained athletic normal" cost double".  Obsidian can pay double for powers that don't come from being an alien.

Why doesn't Obsidian get a disadvantage for "pays double for mental powers"?  Defender IS "getting away with something" as he avoids 20 points worth of complications.  "I pay extra for things I am not buying anyway" is not a disadvantage,

This is a fair question; I will do my best to give it a fair answer.  Do not percieve any brevity or ommision as any sort of disregard, though.  Instead, forgive it as a sign that I am working from a phone, with just my thumbs, and am a bit "done" with typing this way, having just carried on an extensive but important conversation on a separate matter.   Apologies in advance.
 
The best summation I can offer is to refer back to an earlier point in this thread where- I believe it was our friend Doc Democracy- pointed out that one can roughly tailor things to produce the kinds of combats one desires, from six-turn slugfests to three-punch drops.
 
And he is right.  And it works.  And once you do it, players very quickly adapt to their new constraints- that is, players optimize their builds for the arena in which they play.  Your recourse is to either forbid this (which I have get to see go well in any game under any circumstances), or do the same in order to offer any actual challenge.
 
Take into consideration the bell curve of the attack roll.  Players will optimize their characters here, too, be it additional skill levels, tactical maneuvers, etc.
 
But the best routine adjustment players can hope for is +3 or +4.  More extremes are possible through cunning planning and careful teamwork, setting, bracing, adding skill levels and environmental bonuses, etc, but during a typical combat using loose campaign limits, the best typical adjustment is an additional three or four points on his CV.
 
Your villain likely will have a few of his own tricks, and can likely get two or three points of adjustment of his own; more if you make,it point to not dumb your villains down now and again, and maneuvers and environment, etc are available for your villain as well.
 
With everyone optimized- even just a little-  for their table rules, in my own experience, it is really unusual to get a running (ie, non-surprise) combat where the antagonists have more than four points of CV different, with two or three being the most typical.
 
Looking at the bell curve and the shifts for CV differences, the odds of scoring a hit are quite predictable, and upsets like wild dice rolls- as we know- are less common the more dice you roll.  Our attack roll uses three dice, so upsets are more _possible_, but still not terribly likely.  You can get a pretty solid feel for who gets in the first hit, and who gets in the most hits.  
 
A damage dice pool of what-  twelve to twenty dice?  Is even more consistent than the attack roll.  And of course, you have a very good idea of how many blows it takes to drop each character _because you designed specifically for that_.
 
In absolutes?  No; it is not one hundred percent predictable.  In practical terms, the nature of the bell curve for 3d6 and for pools of large numbers of dice make both "who hits who the most" consistently- not perfectly, but consistently- predictable, and the results of a typical damage pool are easily compared to the targets available.
 
When things like campaign limits or recommendations come into play, players _will_ optimize for them; GMs optimize for them,  and the end result is that, from the meta, it actually becomes _easier_ to predict, but the limits, ultimately, reduce the variables in play.
 
 
When you design those guidelines toward the idea of "drop in X hits," it all becomes that much more consistently predictable.  Again: not perfectly, but more consistently.  In a way it is a help:  I know just what villains to send against them to give them a challenge!" Or "to take the wind out of their sails" or "to give them a quick victory," but again, that is possible because the guidelines have made the outcomes more consistently predictable.
 
Is this always the case?  No; of course it isn't.  In fact, I expec2r several post demonstrating how wild rolls are still possible and how a scenario once went totally opposite the plan because of three or four of them.   I have a handful of these stories myself.   However, they are called wild rolls for a reason, and when I compare my own handful of them against all the time I played under rule-of-X style limits, it just reinforces the increased predictability such guidelines bring. 
 
Even with an unusual amount of wild rolls in a session or two, the longer a given campaign goes on, the more dice get thrown, the more the resolutions averages out to the initial prediction.
 
Is it bad?
 
Inherently?  No; not in any absolute way.  The points made in this thread, such as "design your villain to drop in three hits" and such demonstrate that for the majority of users, it might even be _desirable_.
 
For me--
 
Let me stress:
 
_For me_, I found it _intolerable_.  Because I like wild crazy things to happen?
Well, _yes_, but in fairness, as a general rule, I bristle equally hard at conversations of predestination, so there is a thing you know about me now.  ;).
 
But _for me_, it was a big stab against what I thought Champions with it's unique build and combat and damge resolution systems were providing us.  I felt like I had been somehow cheated (no; of course I hadn2t been cheated, but emotions and logic have different names for a reason.  ).  I had just assumed that campaign regulations were helping, when in fact they were providing me the opposite of what I wanted: a high degree of unpredictability.  Truly crazy stories to tell,   I saw two options:
 
Institute the hit location rules (which I did not want to do) to provide radical damage swings and spice things up, or go play something else.
 
So I did that.
 
I missed HERO, and almost ten years later, I came back, but I havent used limits, caps, regulations, or rule of X -type things since then.  For what it is worth, I have been much happier.  Maybe it _is_ harder, and I don't think most people happy with what they have would want to even consider it, but it works for me and mine, and I am quite tickled to play again.
 
Before anyone thinks I hate on guidelines or limits: I do not.  They have their value.  It is merely that _for me_, they restricted one of the more enjoyable elements of the game.
 
 

Of course, but that's still reasoning backwards to justify the in-game aspects.
 
And they didn't always hold.  AU/AE has the mageblade...who can fight, who can cast spells.  Not AS well as a full-time caster or warrior, but well.  In Ars Magica, the notion of "balanced" was tossed RIGHT OUT of the window.  The magi were MUCH!!!! better than the companions overall.  (With plenty of drawbacks of their own, mind.)  The intent was that you'd have multiple characters, sometimes playing your mage, sometimes not.
 
And let's recognize:  in the D&D source material, there are few seriously important warrior types.  The power brokers are the high priests and archmages.  There was no pretense of balance, at higher levels, in 1E or 2E.  This changed somewhat in 3E;  direct damage became far more problematic once Con bonuses applied to all hit dice.
 
 
Largely false.  I almost never spent any time on math homework, or a non-coding CS assignment.  I didn't need to.  I finished it.  Yeah I was the guy that finished the math exam in 25 minutes with a perfect score.  I had *plenty* of time to be active.  There are plenty of college athletes who are there to try to go pro, and are taking...let's call them less than rigorous classes.  OTOH...there are plenty that are taking serious classes.  AND devoting 2-3 hours every day to their sport.  MIT and Cal Tech play in Division III conferences.  Think their athletes can slack off their course work?

Do they give you the long white beard when you graduate from wizard school or do you have to buy it separately?  Asking for a friend.

Do they give you the long white beard when you graduate from wizard school or do you have to buy it separately?  Asking for a friend.

I would be more inclined to agree if the result of the figured characteristics were more in line with the amounts needed for the characters. 
 
I never saw a Super who did not need more defenses in some form.  Bricks (with high CON) did not have a lesser need for END (and, by extension, REC) than lower-con Mentalists and Energy Projectors.  Characters with lower physical stats still needed STUN (and again REC) to remain viable in combat.  I never saw a Super just go with their figured SPD, or even just buy it up to the next full point.
 
A player relying on Figured to build a viable Supers character would typically be quite disappointed.  In fact, I would suggest the Figured were actually more viable for heroic characters.
 
In the shift to 6e, my inclination was to retain the familiarity of figured characteristics, but reprice the primary characteristics to incorporate the base figureds they would provide.  That would still be a reasonable option in my view.  However, I would also eliminate the "you can only sell back one" rule (which is not needed if pricing is appropriate) and abandon the limitation "no figured" - just sell them back.  And if the primary characteristic has a limitation, the Figured sellback gets the same limitation if those are from the limited Primary. 
 
But that would be much more complicated than just buying each characteristic up separately, so I also see the merit in the decision that, if the pricing is appropriate, we don't need two different ways to buy the exact same things. Of course, that line of reasoning also supports Doc's more extreme elimination of all characteristics in favour of buying only the underlying mechanical effects.  It's not a binary choice, but a continuum.
 
If I look to the d20 system, the same issues arise.  There are breakpoints (why have an odd number?), and there are other ways to buy many of the mechanics (skill points; feats that provide one element of a characteristic, such as more skill points, save bonuses or more hit points).  They're neither as frequent nor as obvious, as Hero provides much greater transparency in the character construction rules, but the same issues are in there.
 
 
sounds like an ability that the character logically should purchase, under Hero's get what you pay for and pay for what you get philosophy.  Again, I believe that is embedded into other games less visibly.  If my D&D Wizard should "realistically" be wearing heavy armor, I have to dedicate some character resources to that heavier armor, so I get less character resources towards other aspects, like my spellcasting.  Or we see a new class, or a teak of an existing class, that adds some abilities and takes others away.  In Hero, that character spent points on using heavy armor, and paid for it by spending less points on spellcasting.

Chris' comment on Robot Warriors playing the same in 2021 under 6e as it did in 1988 reflects the often-stated reality that the core of the game has not changed over all the editions.
 
Character creation is where the complexity exists, and where the changes have taken place.
 
By contrast, DND 1-2E, 3E, 4E and 5E are different at a core mechanical/task resolution/gameplay level.
 
So when we ask whether the game is "better" with or without figured, one answer is that the GAME is unchanged - it plays exactly the same. 
 
We have very few discussions on changing the gameplay.  Maybe the occasional discussion of the SPD chart or using d20 instead of 3d6. Most of the discussion is on character creation, or on the extent to which interaction of characrer creation elements should be covered by the rules or figured out by the gaming group on their own.

According to the subject line, the betterness of either figured or or non-figured formerly-figured characteristics.
 
However, we are humans, and there have been a few drifts.   
 
 

For me it's Robot Warriors. 
 
I hadn't actually played Robot Warriors from 1988 until lockdown was easing.  So 2021?  I ran it with 6th edition for characters and combat and Robot Warriors mecha design rules.  And it was every bit as fun and played 99% identical to how it played in 1988. 
 
What were we talking about again?

Breaking down everything into abstractions is a good idea... in the abstract. 
 
But we're people, who don't think about these kinds of things in the abstract.  We're playing a game in which our "playing pieces" are intended to represent people. 
 
We're not playing a physics engine or a biology simulator.  I'm fond of saying "good enough is good enough", and I think that what we've got in 6e is good enough.  The mix of stats and the breakdowns and all. 
 
If we keep breaking everything into pieces parts, you could have a character who can lift 12.5 tons but can't damage a normal person by punching them, but I can't imagine a person (which is, again, what our playing pieces are supposed to be) who can do that. 
 
It's nice to keep some concrete representation.

I have no dog in this fight, but have enjoyed the discussion immensely; my thanks to everyone who had something to say on the subject.
 
I did want to visit that comment above for a moment.  First, I would like to mention that before you can decide that, you must first decide if the hit location chart is going to be in play.  If it is, remember that depending on how well you roll there, a normal can one-shot a normal, and a super can accidentally kill one.
 
If you are using the hit location chart, you may want to put a little extra thought into what defenses and what levels of them are acceptable.
 
 
I also wanted to comment that when that epiphany hit me--  "Rule of X means how many hits before they drop," I walked away from HERO for almost a decade.  All that I had percieved as a precise, detailed system for resolving combat, etc, all boiled down to "how many times do I want them to roll to hit before it is over?"
 
At that moment, I became a narrator telling exactly the story I wanted to tell and they had no idea that everything they did was futile:  I could pre-determine the outcome of every battle by setting the villains such they could absorb one more hit than could the heroes, or that they could "Typically" drop an opponent with one less strike, or reverse those, and the heroes were nearly gauranteed victory.
 
Not by their actions, so much, but because I could decide on Thursday who was going to fall or reign supreme on Saturday, and because everything was built within the required campaign limits, no one ever doubted that it was all on the turn of the now-almost-pointless dice.
 
So I walked away.  I went back to Traveller, some Space Opera, some Space Master, lots of Car Wars and a few other things, but it was almost ten years before I thought about going back to Champions / HERO.  Eventually we slid a then-in-progress Traveller game onto the Champions wheels, and it worked out well enough, plus allowed for a lot of creative freedom.
 
We used it for a couple of short fantasy games, and that was working great until I felt myself matching characters and their equipment do campaign limits and realized that I could again simply replace everything with odd-or-even and three hit points.
 
Anyway, I obviously did come back, but in the examples set by Superman and Batman or Wonder Woman and some guy with a wingsuit and a club or pretty much _anyone_ and the Flash, I have pretty much ignored forcing any limits on characters or the game.
 
If the writers can find something for Batman to do that really does contribute to what Superman is doing, then I can find a way to make a team up between Ultra-God and the Bohemian Bedazzler work out as reasonable, too.
 
I wont pretend that it isnt hard or that everyone should try it, but it has brought back to me the fun I used to have with HERO before I realized it was "knock three times for victory!"  when using campaign limits.
 
 

Precisely:  it actually makes it both easier on the GM, who no longer has to keep pressing danger / horror / inevitable outcome, and more tangible to the players, as the risk is not only real and easy to grasp, but it comes with management toola that are in their own hands.
 
First, I have do say it is an idea I have been toying with _in this specific application_ (I use it a lot for magic spells to enchant others-- the fuel charge, I mean) since someone here a few weeks back mentioned a comic book-  Strikeforce Mortuary?  I dont remember; I remember it was an odd name, but definitely Strikeforce something.  Anyway, the premise was you took some procedure, got superpowers, and were dead within X time, but (I think)  didnt know exactly when.
 
Putting all the powers and abilities on a shared duel charge seemed like an ideal base for this idea, which put me in mind of that god awful movie about the guy who escaped from Hell and his entire existence was on a fuel charge.
 
Anyway, --
 
No, wait.  There is a better place.
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed, but I would be good with one of two possible uses:
 
First, as you state, the campaign has a specific goal, and upon completion of this goal, the game is over.  This means the characters have at least a chance of surviving and then putting down their super powers and living out whatever remains of their lives.
 
I would be equally happy with a campaign that _does have_ a logical "good ending"  (repeling the alien invaders and saving the world; destroting the last of the elder horrors before he devours the sun-  whatever)  that may not ever actually be attained within the lives of a particular set of characters, but everything that the characters do achieve moves closer to that goal, and makes it more attainable by those who will come later, whether that be another batch of PCs or not.
 
In short, so long as the decisions of the characters have _significant_ impact on making the goal more attainable- so long as success- even if attained by others later- is obviously only attainable because of what these characters do--
 
Well, I would be good with that, too.
 
 
 
There it is.
 
There is the better place. 
 
There are a lot of things I have toyed with during this thought exercise, and specifically for that reason:   suppose, like in Strikeforce Whooziwhatsis, the end goal is noble sacrifice?  Suppose it is important to the overall story that at least one character does in fact die, or that at least one death be completely  inevitable (you grimdark jackass, you.    ).
 
Roll a die every day.  Deduct either the STUN or BODY (or both) from the pool every day.
 
BODY damage affects the pool.   Any time a character takes BODY damage, some portion (any portion, even 200 percent if you like) is deducted from the pool.
 
Crises- deeply stressful situations like overcoming a psychological limitation or having to make an EGO check-  if a roll is failed, an amount of points related to the failure is deducted.
 
Ghoulishness-  perhaps these abilities come with ability to draw upon the pools of others as well as or instead of your own?
 
More heroic:  some sort of minor (or major, even) healing ability is granted to everyone who gains these fuel charge powers, but not only is the END xost of the power paid from the pool, but all "healed" points are paid out of the pool as well?
 
Certainly "roll your daily deduction" drives home the ticking of a clockspring that will never be wound again, aa does mking the pool a tertiary damage tracker of sorts, but don't forget the dramatic potential of making it very, very difficult for a noble character to _not_ use his abilities.
 
 
 

Breaking down everything into abstractions is a good idea... in the abstract. 
 
But we're people, who don't think about these kinds of things in the abstract.  We're playing a game in which our "playing pieces" are intended to represent people. 
 
We're not playing a physics engine or a biology simulator.  I'm fond of saying "good enough is good enough", and I think that what we've got in 6e is good enough.  The mix of stats and the breakdowns and all. 
 
If we keep breaking everything into pieces parts, you could have a character who can lift 12.5 tons but can't damage a normal person by punching them, but I can't imagine a person (which is, again, what our playing pieces are supposed to be) who can do that. 
 
It's nice to keep some concrete representation.