Moving fatigue to HT?
Slaede Wilson
enduranceit seems the better place for Fatigue to be. However, it is
indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
How do you people out there handle it?
John L. Freiler
: Has anyone else looked at converting Fatigue over to HT? Since HT covers
: indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
: How do you people out there handle it?
Our group has swaped Fatigue and Hits for some time. Fatigue is based of
of Health (HT) and Hits are based off of Strength (ST). The tricky part
is going through the rule and deciding when HT means health and when it
means hits. We find that this works very well, in fact it eliminates the
need for split stats for all sorts of animals: does it make sence that a
ST50 and HT13 elephant can stay awake for ten days while a ST3 HT13 dog
couldn't make it through the night. It also always bugged us that mages
were tended to be forced into selecting high ST to cast spells. It has
always seemed to us that the fatigue should come from the life force of
the caster, a higher life-force corresponds to a higher HT, even though
the mage may be a comparitive weakling.
The primary thing to remember is that as Hits get reduced, Health rolls
are required for conciousness, etc. Blow through, death roll levels,
crippling damage levels, etc. are based off of Hits (ST), while the
actual rolls for healing, staying concious, recovering from stun, etc.
are based off of Health (HT).
It works well for us. Any questions?
John
Harold Carmer
: Has anyone else looked at converting Fatigue over to HT? Since HT covers
: enduranceit seems the better place for Fatigue to be. However, it is
: indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
: How do you people out there handle it?
Why not make is such that for every point or two of Fatigue, you lose a
Strength level. Once HT goes down to 3 or less, ST is halved...
Once HT goes down to 0, you then have to roll versus HT every second as
per the usual HT at zero or less rules...
Redeucer Oehler
> : Has anyone else looked at converting Fatigue over to HT? Since HT covers
> : enduranceit seems the better place for Fatigue to be. However, it is
> : indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
>
> : How do you people out there handle it?
We've created a seperate fatigue stat that is based off of the (health
+ strength)/2. Then if the character class has additional fatigue
bonuses (like dwarves) that is added to the result. This seems to
work pretty good, and has not caused any problems. Weith this, you
can make a weak mage with a good health, and have good Fatigue, or
vice versa.
a trai in pace,
Redeucer
Slaede Wilson
> Slaede Wilson (sl...@io.com) wrote:
> : Has anyone else looked at converting Fatigue over to HT? Since HT covers
> : enduranceit seems the better place for Fatigue to be. However, it is
> : indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
> : How do you people out there handle it?
> of Health (HT) and Hits are based off of Strength (ST). The tricky part
What? Hit Points based off ST? Interesting, I guess it makes as
much sense as basing it off HT - but an't you have a strong man with a
glass jaw?
> is going through the rule and deciding when HT means health and when it
> means hits. We find that this works very well, in fact it eliminates the
> need for split stats for all sorts of animals: does it make sence that a
> ST50 and HT13 elephant can stay awake for ten days while a ST3 HT13 dog
> couldn't make it through the night. It also always bugged us that mages
> were tended to be forced into selecting high ST to cast spells. It has
> always seemed to us that the fatigue should come from the life force of
> the caster, a higher life-force corresponds to a higher HT, even though
> the mage may be a comparitive weakling.
Agreed. This is the primary thing that made me want to change it.
> The primary thing to remember is that as Hits get reduced, Health rolls
> are required for conciousness, etc. Blow through, death roll levels,
> crippling damage levels, etc. are based off of Hits (ST), while the
> actual rolls for healing, staying concious, recovering from stun, etc.
> are based off of Health (HT).
> It works well for us. Any questions?
Yes, actually - the big one that's giving me heaps of problems:
ST is reduced by fatigue. As you are fatigued you get weaker. If, for
example, you have an HT of 14, and an ST of 9. You run for a minute in
heavy armour gaining 4 fatigue (this may be wrong - I approximated and
the exact value doesn't really matter).
You are now at 10 fatigue of 14 and feeling weaker. What is your
effective ST now?
Slaede.
ekb
> Has anyone else looked at converting Fatigue over to HT? Since HT covers
> enduranceit seems the better place for Fatigue to be. However, it is
> indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
> How do you people out there handle it?
The house rule I use is that Fatigue is based on HT and hit points are
based on ST. HT is still used for the usual rolls wrt how gracefully
characters take damage - and also for "extra effort" rolls. I don't
bother with fatigue lowering ST other than to reduce the chances of a
successful "extra effort."
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
ekb
[snip description of John's house rules which sound like they're essentially
the same as mine.]
> > It works well for us. Any questions?
> Yes, actually - the big one that's giving me heaps of problems:
> ST is reduced by fatigue. As you are fatigued you get weaker. If, for
> example, you have an HT of 14, and an ST of 9. You run for a minute in
> heavy armour gaining 4 fatigue (this may be wrong - I approximated and
> the exact value doesn't really matter).
> You are now at 10 fatigue of 14 and feeling weaker. What is your
> effective ST now?
By my house rules, I'd still have ST 9, but would be at -4 if I wanted to
make any "extra effort" rolls. This may not quite match the reality
check, but IMHO the extra book-keeping needed to be more "realistic"
isn't worth it.
If this lack of reality bothers you, I'd suggest something like applying
a -10% ST penalty for every -25% of total Fatigue spent. In your example
above, I'd be at ST 8 after losing 4 Fatigue, ST 7 after losing 7
Fatigue, and ST 6 after losing 11 Fatigue.
John L. Freiler
<zappage>
: ST is reduced by fatigue. As you are fatigued you get weaker. If, for
: heavy armour gaining 4 fatigue (this may be wrong - I approximated and
: the exact value doesn't really matter).
for fatigue. Didn't know there was such a rule. Do you recalculate
basic damage and carying caps. as well? seems like it would be more
bother than it's worth, which is why our group probably never considered
it.
: You are now at 10 fatigue of 14 and feeling weaker. What is your
: effective ST now?
Actualy, Ilike the suggestion that you are at a -4 penalty to supreme
effort rolls. Unfortuantely I cna't remeber the rules for PCs operating
with heavy fatigue. Iguess I'll have to review them and see if that jogs
my memory (Our group is usually very carefull about keeping at full
fatigue. I once ran a game where the party got killed or seperated
untill only the dwarf (ST15) and the mage were left, the dwarf never
slept, keeping watch all night over the mage, in the morning the mage
would lend ST to the dwarf for staying up all night and recover the
fatigue quickly as mages do. I'd have started making the dwarf act a
little crazy for lack of sleep, but the player/dwarf was already a bit
wacked out :)
John
David P. Summers
> > It has
> > always seemed to us that the fatigue should come from the life force of
> > the caster, a higher life-force corresponds to a higher HT, even though
> > the mage may be a comparitive weakling.
> Agreed. This is the primary thing that made me want to change it.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just switch what "magic fatigue" is based on
rather than just switching stats around?
Bruce Kvam
> : example, you have an HT of 14, and an ST of 9. You run for a minute in
> : heavy armour gaining 4 fatigue (this may be wrong - I approximated and
> : the exact value doesn't really matter).
> Hmmmm. Even when we were playing by the basic rules, we never reduced ST
> for fatigue. Didn't know there was such a rule. Do you recalculate
> basic damage and carying caps. as well? seems like it would be more
> bother than it's worth, which is why our group probably never considered
> it.
The rules mention that you *can* reduce damage dice based on reduced
ST due to fatigue, but add that it is an awful lot of bookkeeping.
In my personal experience with volleyball, after playing for three
hours straight I can still hit almost as hard as I can when I'm fresh
(well, yeah, that isn't all that hard...), but my accuracy is *way*
down. I'm much more likely to hit the ball out or blast it into the
net when I'm tired.
For me it's possible to make single high-intensity actions when
fatigued, but sustained activity is hard. When fatigued, I have enough
energy to pass and hit, but chasing down an errant pass is harder
because that requires a long burst of energy, rather than a couple of
short bursts.
I've also read about studies on athletes who didn't sleep well. These
indicate that physical performance isn't significantly affected by one
night's lack of sleep, but that *judgment* definitely is. (This was in
the context of pre-big-game jitters.) A couple nights of sleep
deprivation will definitely affect physical performance, however.
Given those data points, perhaps extreme fatigue should impose a
penalty on IQ and DX and *all* skills. Maybe -1 from fatigue/2 down to
to 4 fatigue, and -2 for 3 fatigue and below? Wouldn't all the Mages
holler if you made that rule!
Fatigue should also impose a penalty on your HT roll when running (if
it doesn't already). Does your Running skill roll replace your HT roll
for fatigue checks when running?
A compromise rule on reduced damage would be to halve it (the same as
movement) when you reach Fatigue 3. I think that would closely mirror
reality -- if you're down to Fatigue 3, you're just about dead...
Slaede Wilson
> > ST is reduced by fatigue. As you are fatigued you get weaker. If, for
> > example, you have an HT of 14, and an ST of 9. You run for a minute in
> > heavy armour gaining 4 fatigue (this may be wrong - I approximated and
> > the exact value doesn't really matter).
> > effective ST now?
> make any "extra effort" rolls. This may not quite match the reality
I thought the extra effort rules were only really for SUPERS?
> check, but IMHO the extra book-keeping needed to be more "realistic"
> isn't worth it.
> If this lack of reality bothers you, I'd suggest something like applying
> a -10% ST penalty for every -25% of total Fatigue spent. In your example
> above, I'd be at ST 8 after losing 4 Fatigue, ST 7 after losing 7
> Fatigue, and ST 6 after losing 11 Fatigue.
Why less ST per fatigue? Why not -10% ST per -10% fatigue?
The best rule at the moment is looking like: Calculate Fatigue/ST (e.g.
ST: 12, HT:16 Fatigue/ST=12/16=4/3) for each time you lose that amount of
fatigue, reduce your ST by 1. That way, your fatigue level=your strength
level.
You would of course round to the nearest whole number and would make
probably make up a table beforehand for easy reference./ e.g.:
ST:12, HT:16
Fatigue ST
16 12
15 11 (11.25)
14 10 (10.5)
13 10 (9.75)
12 09
11 08 (8.25)
etc.
John L. Freiler
: The best rule at the moment is looking like: Calculate Fatigue/ST (e.g.
: fatigue, reduce your ST by 1. That way, your fatigue level=your strength
: level.
the purposes of rolling versus strength. The only times I can remeber
that this gets done is during grappling (very rare in my games) and
lifting things above your X-hvy encumberance (also very rare, but I think
this is the 'extra effort' rule mentioned by others). Because of its
infrequent use in our games, we ignore this effect, but your rule
certainly seems reasonable. The rule about what happens as you get to
low/zero fatigue still apply as written.
John
PGunn...@medio.net
>Has anyone else looked at converting Fatigue over to HT? Since HT covers
>enduranceit seems the better place for Fatigue to be. However, it is
>indisputible that fatigue lowers ST.
>How do you people out there handle it?
For a time, some friends and I used HT instead of ST. It was more
logical (most mages shouldn't have to spend time in a gym), but, after
a time, the extra bookkeepping (based on HT, affects St, ect) wasn't
worth it. We went back to ST for simplicity. With the "Revised"
edition out, just take a low ST and buy Extra Fatigue. It works.
True Names
: slept, keeping watch all night over the mage, in the morning the mage
: would lend ST to the dwarf for staying up all night and recover the
: fatigue quickly as mages do. I'd have started making the dwarf act a
: little crazy for lack of sleep, but the player/dwarf was already a bit
: wacked out :)
There is a separate spell for that. It is called Vigil. Lend ST is one of
its prerequisites.
I always treat fatigue from lost sleep as different from all other
fatigue. I think the 5 fatigue per lost night in the book was a bit
unrealistic. I give -2 to all stats for a lost night of sleep, but a Will
roll can reduce this to -1 (critical success negates the penalties) for
one minute. After 24 hours you have to make Will rolls to avoid sleeping
whenever you aren't performing some physical action or involved in
something very interesting.
I feel that that is a lot more realistic than simply losing 5 fatigue per
night. I have awful sleeping habits myself, and I know that it effects
a lot more than just strength.
--
In the darkness of future past ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Magician longs to see. > Dave OHearn <
One chants out between two worlds, > ohe...@max.tiac.net <
"Fire, walk with me." - David Lynch, _Twin Peaks_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Slaede Wilson
Not really. If you just switch what magical fatigue is based on
you are again left with the problem of your ST going doen with your
magical fatigue. And if you're going to fix that up for magical fatigue
you may as well do it for regular fatigue as well.
Slaede.
David P. Summers
> Not really. If you just switch what magical fatigue is based on
> you are again left with the problem of your ST going doen with your
> magical fatigue. And if you're going to fix that up for magical fatigue
> you may as well do it for regular fatigue as well.
We are mixing concepts here. You have to decide if magic puts a physical
drain on you.
-If it doesn't, then it shouldn't reduce your ST. If you don't want
your mages to have to be vigourous or big, then this is your choice.
-If it does, then the question is just an extension of wether you think
fatigue should be based on ST or HT and the usual arguements apply.
(I go with ST. It makes sense that a larger creature has can do
more, in a physical sense, and you don't have to hassle with
changing the system).
Lemar Johnson
designed to work magic extensively; neither are we designed to dig
ditches throughout the day or take hits to the kidneys without ill
effect. We can build up our ability to deal with such circumstances
(growing in spell level, working out, or doing Tai Chi
respectively...but even Tai Chi can go only so far on the latter). And I
think, for the human norm, stronger people do generally have more
fatigue. If you look at cross country runners, more heavily-muscled
people may or may not be slower than their smaller counterparts, but
they definately have more staying power.
I avoid having Ogres as incredible spellcasters and Ellyon as wimpy ones
by setting up a ratio of some sort between increased or decreased ST and
actuall fatigue points gained (this is inspired by the Supers treatment
of Increased ST; your proportional fatigue went down as your ST goes
up). For the Enhanced ST advantage (which is basically a point break
anyway), simply say that it has no effect on fatigue at all: a creature
whose race has (ST+3)x2 gets 13 fatigue points. One could also say that
any race with a basic ST below 8 cannot have less than 8 fatigue (though
if they by their ST down their fatigue will go down accordingly).
Does that work for anyone?
-Lemar Johnson
Bruce Kvam
> fatigue. If you look at cross country runners, more heavily-muscled
> people may or may not be slower than their smaller counterparts, but
> they definately have more staying power.
Is this really true? In my (extremely limited) experience of seeing
marathon runners, the winners in the Olympics always seem to be
scrawny almost to the point of emaciation (in the women's event, I
always think of Rosa -- whatever her last name is). Is this merely an
uninformed impression, or is there any validity to it?
David P. Summers
(Bruce Kvam) wrote:
> Is this really true? In my (extremely limited) experience of seeing
> marathon runners, the winners in the Olympics always seem to be
> scrawny almost to the point of emaciation (in the women's event, I
> always think of Rosa -- whatever her last name is). Is this merely an
> uninformed impression, or is there any validity to it?
Marathon runners are a very poor analogy for this issue. This is
because there are other factors. As you run, you lift your body
up an down. This mean that people with light builds have an
inherent advantage. In fact strength training is helpful
to longdistance runners if they can do it without "bulking up".
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any position on any of this do you
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.Gov
Scott D. Orr
Kvam) writes:
>
>Lemar Johnson <ljoh...@reed.edu> wrote:
>
>> fatigue. If you look at cross country runners, more heavily-muscled
>> people may or may not be slower than their smaller counterparts, but
>> they definately have more staying power.
>
>Is this really true? In my (extremely limited) experience of seeing
>marathon runners, the winners in the Olympics always seem to be
>scrawny almost to the point of emaciation (in the women's event, I
>always think of Rosa -- whatever her last name is). Is this merely an
>uninformed impression, or is there any validity to it?
>
Yes, that's true. In fact, the Japanese have traditionally
concentrated on long-distance running for precisely that reason
(because they tended to be smaller and weaker than people from other
countries).
Scott Orr
Douglas W Higgins
Damon Kosheleff <dam...@engc.bu.edu> wrote:
>Bruce Kvam (bk...@drake.prometric.com) wrote:
>: Lemar Johnson <ljoh...@reed.edu> wrote:
>
>: > fatigue. If you look at cross country runners, more heavily-muscled
>: > people may or may not be slower than their smaller counterparts, but
>: > they definately have more staying power.
>
>: Is this really true? In my (extremely limited) experience of seeing
>: marathon runners, the winners in the Olympics always seem to be
>: scrawny almost to the point of emaciation (in the women's event, I
>: always think of Rosa -- whatever her last name is). Is this merely an
>: uninformed impression, or is there any validity to it?
>
>the larger ones are good for quick bursts of energy or a few high energy
>feats, but are NOT endurance types (ie. I've never seen a big marathon
>runner with a respectable time).
Untrue untrue. I AM a long distance runner, but I'm a VERY big one.
Naturally, that's why I'm not fast, but I have the same typical
endurance of all long distance runners.
Whether long distance running makes you big or small is a matter of
metabolism. With me, I got a little faster, a lot more endurance,
and a lot more muscular than I had been before. With others, they
get a lot faster, but don't get much bigger.
However, I find that those people, even the small scrany ones, are
a LOT (a very lot) stronger than they look. They're also about 20 lbs
or so heavier than they look.
I, the big guy of the cross-country team, was beaten in a weight
lifting competition (within the team) by someone who looked like
an emaciated living skeleton (and I too am stronger than most people
think I am). Like I said, the results are the same, but how they
effect your body is a matter of metabolism. Of course, if you don't
get bigger, you do get a lot faster than people who do get bigger,
but that's another story.
Another point, I can run a mile in under 5 minutes, but my best
50-yard dash ever was 6.8 seconds (a lot of obsenely obese people
can run a 50-yard dash in less time).
The point is that ST and Fatigue are more related than you'd think.
The scrany little marathoners you see in the Olympics could probably
pick you up over their heads and throw you if they wanted to (on the
other hand, most of them have a 3 inch vertical jump, which is
contrary to the GURPS rules on jumping, but that's another story
entirely).
Doug
Damon Kosheleff
: > fatigue. If you look at cross country runners, more heavily-muscled
: > people may or may not be slower than their smaller counterparts, but
: > they definately have more staying power.
: Is this really true? In my (extremely limited) experience of seeing
: marathon runners, the winners in the Olympics always seem to be
: scrawny almost to the point of emaciation (in the women's event, I
: always think of Rosa -- whatever her last name is). Is this merely an
: uninformed impression, or is there any validity to it?
I would tend to agree with Bruce; SMALLER people have more staying power,
the larger ones are good for quick bursts of energy or a few high energy
feats, but are NOT endurance types (ie. I've never seen a big marathon
runner with a respectable time).
Damon
Lemar Johnson
>Lemar Johnson <ljoh...@reed.edu> wrote:
>
>> fatigue. If you look at cross country runners, more heavily-muscled
>> people may or may not be slower than their smaller counterparts, but
>> they definately have more staying power.
>
>Is this really true? In my (extremely limited) experience of seeing
>marathon runners, the winners in the Olympics always seem to be
>scrawny almost to the point of emaciation (in the women's event, I
>always think of Rosa -- whatever her last name is). Is this merely an
>uninformed impression, or is there any validity to it?
>
and muscle is heavy (e.g., it's dense). Carl Lewis once experimenting
with "bulking up" and increased his muscle tone. He stopped when he
found it slowed down his speed. So those scrawny people are faster than
the heavier ones in the first place.
And there's the fact that if you're heavier, you'll run longer over the
same distance than lighter people (all other things being equal) which
should tire you out more than they. Which leads me to the question,
should not the GURPS Running skill reduce the effective fatigue rates of
runners over long distances? It is very clear that training to run
increases one's endurance for running (I should know - I was a terrible
cross-country runner, but practice still improved me). In fact, I
believe that Running should be placed in the categories of short and
long distance in terms of a GURPS skill. The only reason I haven't
bothered to work out the rules is it never comes up in any games I run.
-Lemar Johnson
Bryan J. Maloney
I have read actual research regarding human physical ability. "Endurance",
measured by the ability to sustain long-term effort, is directly and
linearly correlated to "strength", usually measured by the ability to lift a
mass.
However, "power", which is the ability to hurl a mass, swing it fast, or
otherwise move it "explosively", is not linearly related to either of the
above abilities.
Thus, basing fatigue linearly off ST, if ST measures lifting ability, is
supported by scientific study.
However, basing damage upon ST linearly might not be supported, depending on
whether or not the GURPS damage scale is linear. (It isn't, actually. It's
apparently based upon a root function of kinetic energy plus arbitrary
fiddling.)