Issues with ST and advice from GULLIVER
NeedSomeFire
thing.
After reading all that GURPS core books had to offer and a good long read
through as much of the ST related GULLIVER material I could find; I have
changed my opinion on the matter. The problems with ST are big enough that I
want to fix it for my game.
I am a big fan of the optional rule that calculates Fatigue from HT and HP from
ST. This is far more "realistic" in many ways. Game play however doesn't take
it so well. Dragons can now exaust themselves from but a few breath attacks or
spells. Not only that problem but just how does one measure loss of fatigue
now? Is it damage to HT that will effect further use of things like the running
skill? Or does it just damage your ST by that amount like GURPS has you do
normally? If the second is true, then fatigue would hold no meaning for dragons
and the like. And using this option how would one use the Natural ST
limitation? It is a limitation on strength mainly comprized of limiting the
Fatigue gained from an amount of ST.. now that Fatigue comes from HT it doesn't
work very well anymore.
Reading GULLIVER has opened my eyes to the problem but, for some weird reason,
I don't entirely like the way GULLIVER fixed it (good as the fix may be). I
would really like it if there were only one ST score to mess with, just like
any other stat (yes I know HT can have a "/" but thats for HP and I think HP is
a stat to itself). The Quad ST method listed in GULLIVER comes to mind for
this. However, you either have two ST scores (wich I don't like), or you have
to give a slightly more unweildy mechanic to all of the different GURPS ST
formulas. While the latter really isn't a big deal play wise, it is a
significant divergance from the GURPS norm of utter simplicity (well with
everything execpt ST I suppose).
Other RPGS (D&D 3rd is a good example) handle strength in a different way that
works much better. Instead of rolling against ST you roll and ADD to it to
come up with a final number (Difficulty class). If your roll plus your ST (or
ST modifier) equals the difficulty class or target number, then you succeeded
in whatever task it was. This works quite well even with damage tied into the
stat. However, this is completely non-GURPS and simply can't be worked in
without messing everything else up.
I am looking for something I can easily implement into play that doesn't change
anything else (unless it is tied to ST), will allow me to use ST for fatigue
and HT for HP, doesn't change (atleast radically so) the GURPS damage
progression, and doesn't add unnessisary calculations or radically change GURPS
fromula. Yes, I know I am looking for something can't exist. But I am looking
for ideas of any sort to contemplate on.
David Johnston
>
> A recent post about GULLIVER inspired me to really look into this whole ST
> thing.
>
> After reading all that GURPS core books had to offer and a good long read
> through as much of the ST related GULLIVER material I could find; I have
> changed my opinion on the matter. The problems with ST are big enough that I
> want to fix it for my game.
>
> I am a big fan of the optional rule that calculates Fatigue from HT and HP from
> ST. This is far more "realistic" in many ways. Game play however doesn't take
> it so well. Dragons can now exaust themselves from but a few breath attacks or
> spells.
As I recall, many magical beasts in GURPS supposed have "mana organs",
so why not just give them a Fatigue reserve?
Not only that problem but just how does one measure loss of fatigue
> now? Is it damage to HT that will effect further use of things like the running
> skill?
I don't recall it having much effect when it was ST based.
Or does it just damage your ST by that amount like GURPS has you do
> normally? If the second is true, then fatigue would hold no meaning for dragons
> and the like. And using this option how would one use the Natural ST
> limitation?
One would drop the Natural ST limitation since it's purpose was to handle
a problem now being handled by the switch.
NeedSomeFire
>so why not just give them a Fatigue reserve?
Point taken. I could easily use Extra Fatigue.
>Not only that problem but just how does one measure loss of fatigue
>> now? Is it damage to HT that will effect further use of things like the
>running
>> skill?
>
>I don't recall it having much effect when it was ST based.
I should have been more clear. What I meant was: With the standard rule base
fatigue is equal to ST so when you loose fatigue you mark it off of strength
(except for damage, items carried, ect.) but now that it is quite possible to
have much more ST than fatigue what happens when fatigue is lost? I imagine you
still mark it off of strength and just run out of fatigue before you are
actually at 1 ST. Correct?
>And using this option how would one use the Natural ST
>> limitation?
>
>One would drop the Natural ST limitation since it's purpose was to handle
>a problem now being handled by the switch.
Most of the problem would be fixed, yes. However, Jumping and Skill defaults
would still be effected if the Natural limitation wasn't used (or atleast those
two components of it). Or does this not matter much and the game still works
fine with the jumping and defaults left in? I have no play experiance with
that.
David Johnston
>
> >As I recall, many magical beasts in GURPS supposed have "mana organs",
> >so why not just give them a Fatigue reserve?
>
> Point taken. I could easily use Extra Fatigue.
>
> >Not only that problem but just how does one measure loss of fatigue
> >> now? Is it damage to HT that will effect further use of things like the
> >running
> >> skill?
> >
> >I don't recall it having much effect when it was ST based.
>
> I should have been more clear. What I meant was: With the standard rule base
> fatigue is equal to ST so when you loose fatigue you mark it off of strength
> (except for damage, items carried, ect.) but now that it is quite possible to
> have much more ST than fatigue what happens when fatigue is lost? I imagine you
> still mark it off of strength and just run out of fatigue before you are
> actually at 1 ST. Correct?
I'd say so.
>
> >And using this option how would one use the Natural ST
> >> limitation?
> >
> >One would drop the Natural ST limitation since it's purpose was to handle
> >a problem now being handled by the switch.
>
> Most of the problem would be fixed, yes. However, Jumping and Skill defaults
> would still be effected if the Natural limitation wasn't used (or atleast those
> two components of it).
Assuming human mass and superhuman strength, there's no problem with a superhuman
ability to jump. It's what you'd expect. Things that are very strong because
they are very large should have their jumping distance divided by how much
larger they are. I'm sure Gulliver has rules for that. As far as skill
defaults go, I don't see much of a problem. Godzilla is intimidating, and
if he wants to lead, I say, let him!
T. Bone
> I am a big fan of the optional rule that calculates Fatigue from HT and HP from
> ST. This is far more "realistic" in many ways. Game play however doesn't take
> it so well. Dragons can now exaust themselves from but a few breath attacks or
> spells. Not only that problem but just how does one measure loss of fatigue
> now?
For that and other questions, there's a part of GULLIVER you may have
missed: an overview of Fatigue in Book 6.
To get all rulesy and pedantic: The problem's not just the _base_ for
Fatigue. It's the base for Fatigue _and_ all accompanying rules -- how
you lose Fatigue, what the effects of that loss are, etc.
ST works fine as the base for Fatigue -- IF you make a few changes
from GURPS. HT works fine too, if implemented right. Overall I find
the HT option _easier_ to play, but again, either can be made to work.
Anyway, it may not be The Answer for you, but check it out and see
whether or not it helps.
> And using this option how would one use the Natural ST
> limitation? It is a limitation on strength mainly comprized of limiting the
> Fatigue gained from an amount of ST.. now that Fatigue comes from HT it doesn't
> work very well anymore.
My own take is that you shouldn't need the Natural ST limitation for
_anything_. I don't understand the point behind it.
Here's Natural ST in a nutshell:
SJG made a ST attribute. Simple enough; no problems.
SJG then made some rules for jumping, strength-related skills, and
Fatigue, all involving the ST attribute. So far so good.
But then players applied those rules to creatures with high ST and
said, "Hey, these rules don't work right".
SJG said, "You're right. We need to change the ST attribute."
I slap forehead and say, "No, leave ST alone, and fix the broken rules
instead."
Put weight into the jumping equation (where it should have been all
along), and that problem goes away. Stop basing skills on ST, and
another problem's solved. Clean up the Fatigue rules, and the final
problem falls away.
But anyway:
> Reading GULLIVER has opened my eyes to the problem but, for some weird reason,
> I don't entirely like the way GULLIVER fixed it (good as the fix may be). I
> would really like it if there were only one ST score to mess with
I don't blame you for disliking the split ST score in GULLIVER or the
squaring stuff in Quad ST (though really, the latter is not a bad
solution).
The GULLIVER rule and Quad ST both change the lifting part of ST, so
we can get realistic lifting scores (which can be wrong in GURPS)
while keeping GURPS' damage and ST costs (which presumably are OK).
But there is one more way to do it, using the single ST score that you
want. Instead of fiddling with the lift portion of ST, change the
damage and cost portion.
Go ahead and give a double-size Giant a full ST 40 or 50, as it should
have (not the 25 or 30 or so GURPS would give it). Go ahead and give a
cat ST 1 or 2 as it should have, not the 3 that GURPS gives it. And so
on -- give everything the correct strength for its lifting ability.
But change the costs and damage, so the Giant's new ST 50 (or
whatever) has the same cost and damage of the current ST 30 (or
whatever) that GURPS gives it. Change things so the cat's new ST 1 has
the cost and damage of the current ST 3 that GURPS gives it.
That'll do the job. But the point is this: You change the lift that
creatures get for their GURPS ST, or you can give them a "proper" ST
and change the damage and cost for that ST... Either way, if you want
GURPS-like damage and costs AND correct lifting ability AND a single
ST score, you have to change something. No getting around it.
Pedantically yours,
T. Bone
www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/
NeedSomeFire
>missed: an overview of Fatigue in Book 6.
Yes, somehow I did miss that. I like most of the GULLIVER fatigue rules.
>Put weight into the jumping equation (where it should have been all
>along), and that problem goes away. Stop basing skills on ST, and
>another problem's solved. Clean up the Fatigue rules, and the final
>problem falls away.
Agreed.
>Go ahead and give a double-size Giant a full ST 40 or 50, as it should
>have (not the 25 or 30 or so GURPS would give it). Go ahead and give a
>cat ST 1 or 2 as it should have, not the 3 that GURPS gives it. And so
>on -- give everything the correct strength for its lifting ability.
>
>But change the costs and damage, so the Giant's new ST 50 (or
>whatever) has the same cost and damage of the current ST 30 (or
>whatever) that GURPS gives it. Change things so the cat's new ST 1 has
>the cost and damage of the current ST 3 that GURPS gives it.
While that may work I like that even less than Quad ST with all the number
shifting involved. I am going to have to think on this one for a while but, I
will admit Quad ST is looking like what I may end up using.
Thanks for the good discussion, one and all.
Luke
> Assuming human mass and superhuman strength, there's no problem with a superhuman
> ability to jump. It's what you'd expect. Things that are very strong because
> they are very large should have their jumping distance divided by how much
> larger they are. I'm sure Gulliver has rules for that. As far as skill
> defaults go, I don't see much of a problem. Godzilla is intimidating, and
> if he wants to lead, I say, let him!
The physiology of muscles is a very complicated subject. For the
purposes of this discussion, however, we can simplify it down to two
parameters - the force a mucle fiber exert against a nearly static
load and the maximum muscle fiber twitch velocity (here' I'm lumping
recruitment effects into twitch velocity, for our purposes it does not
really matter). These are modified by the design of the organism,
such as how the fibers in a muscle connect to tendons, or how the
tendons anchor to the mechanical levers we call bones. These latter
mechanical details provide for mechanical advantages - the tradeoff of
force for speed - just as the gear ratio coupling a motor to the
wheels does in an automobile (use low gear to get out of the mud or to
climb a steep hill when you need lots of force, use high gear when you
want to go fast, both use the same engine). Unlike automobiles,
however, us biological organisms are stuck with the same gear ratio
all of our lives. In the end, we have a measure of the force you can
exert that does not involve moving very quickly (such as lifting,
carying, and possibly grappling), and a measure of how quickly you can
move your body (as when you jump, run, throw things, punch, or swing a
sword).
What is the result of this? A super strong person mught have the
ability to lift immense weights, or crumble bricks with his bare
hands. However, this strength may come from a really low "gear
ratio", to use our former analogy. He would not necessarily be able
to run faster or jump farther than a normal human. Somewhat
counter-intuitively, he wouldn't be punching that much harder, either.
The "oomph" of a punch comes from the mass of the fist and arm (and
to a lesser extent the rest of the body) and the speed at which the
fist and arm are traveling. Our superman may be a bit bulkier that
the average human because of his hypertophied muscles and massive
bones and ligaments built up to withstand the awesome forces he can
exert, but his punches will not be traveling any faster than those of
the typical person. The only extra damage he will do is due soley to
the extra mass of his fist and arm - his massive strength does not
otherwise come into play. You can use the same argument for swinging
a sword. As a consequence, you can get super strong characters who,
realistically do not jump very far (although they could jump nearly as
far carrying loads that would stagger you or I) or throw things very
far (although they would be able to throw much heavier things than you
or I). Counter-intuitively, they also wouldn't be hitting all that
much harder than the average man on the street with their bare hands -
but if they picked up a cinderblock or a 12 pound ball of ammunition
from a cannon, they could knock an average person into next week.
Picking up a broadsword, our superman wouldn't cleave through armor
any better than a typical mideval knight, but the superman could lift
and use with finesse and dexterity a sword so heavy that it would
leave the knight swinging clumsily and grunting with exertion, and
such a heavy sword, powered by our superman's prodigious musculature,
would deal out far more damage than the typical run of the mill
broadsword.
This distinction adds yet another level of complexity to game play,
and many GMs or players will (quite rightly) wish to ignore it in
favor of the simplicty of one ST score. For those who would rather
include it, however, the solution is rather simple. Assume that the
basic ST score is only used for lifting and carrying and encumbrance
(probably better use quad ST for this), as well as for grappling, and
that it sets an upper limit on the damage you can do with a muscle
powered weapon. For jumping, running, throwing distance, and the
actual damage you do with a muscle powered weapon, use a score related
to your speed - I'd suggest using the average of your HT and DX since
GURPS uses half of this average for a quantity called Basic Speed
already that includes some of these effects.
Just some thoughts.
Luke
Joachim Schipper
news:20030907212019...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> A recent post about GULLIVER inspired me to really look into this whole ST
> thing.
> Other RPGS (D&D 3rd is a good example) handle strength in a different way
that
> works much better. Instead of rolling against ST you roll and ADD to it
to
> come up with a final number (Difficulty class). If your roll plus your ST
(or
> ST modifier) equals the difficulty class or target number, then you
succeeded
> in whatever task it was. This works quite well even with damage tied into
the
> stat. However, this is completely non-GURPS and simply can't be worked in
> without messing everything else up.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I pointed out on this board not very long
ago that adding a skill to a dice, rolling against a DC, is mathematically
equal to rolling against a skill plus or minus modifiers. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e809517%240%24127%241b62eedf%40news.wanadoo.nl
for this.
Of course, 3d6 and 1d20 are quite different, which changes the whole thing,
and so is the spirit of the game. But the difference is not in rolling
against skill or DC.
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1-9-03
NeedSomeFire
>ago that adding a skill to a dice, rolling against a DC, is mathematically
>equal to rolling against a skill plus or minus modifiers.
I will take your word for it. However, I was more refering to the ablity to
handle damage as well as load capacity.
You can only roll from 3 to 18 on 3d. The amount you can roll when adding the
die roll to a score is only limited by the score.
In other words: You don't have to worry about any sort of strength check
getting out of hand or breaking a bell curve. You get that high ST to be heigh
enough to handle the right load and push the heavy door and you can also scale
it much easier (in my opinion anyway).
With similar numbers I can see how rolling against and rolling with are the
same thing but the execution is obviously very different and able to handle
different things easier or not as well.
Not that I want to change this in GURPS.. just my obersvations from playing
other RPGs.
David Johnston
wrote:
>>I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I pointed out on this board not very long
>>ago that adding a skill to a dice, rolling against a DC, is mathematically
>>equal to rolling against a skill plus or minus modifiers.
>
>I will take your word for it. However, I was more refering to the ablity to
>handle damage as well as load capacity.
>
>You can only roll from 3 to 18 on 3d. The amount you can roll when adding the
>die roll to a score is only limited by the score.
>
>In other words: You don't have to worry about any sort of strength check
>getting out of hand or breaking a bell curve. You get that high ST to be heigh
>enough to handle the right load and push the heavy door and you can also scale
>it much easier (in my opinion anyway).
I'm not sure I really see how. What's the difference between a higher
difficulty number and a higher negative modifier? About the only
real issue I have with GURPS strength, is that you have to make a
point of out of calculating how much you can really lift. It isn't
intuitively obvious.
heratyk
> difficulty number and a higher negative modifier? About the only
> real issue I have with GURPS strength, is that you have to make a
> point of out of calculating how much you can really lift. It isn't
> intuitively obvious.
What I think he means is:
GM: "OK, Giantman has to make a ST roll to move that boulder"
player: (rolls) "I rolled a 10 and my ST is 50. I guess I made it."
The DM could have given a -40 penalty to make it more challenging. That
does the same thing as rolling 3d6+ST versus a DC of 50 (where a DC of 10
would be equivalent to an unmodified GURPS roll). It's just a matter of
taste.
--
heratyk
http://members.cox.net/cyberdungeon/index.html
Joachim Schipper
news:84h7b.30552$j26.9269@lakeread02...
Precisely.
Joachim Schipper
Yes, I agree with your observations on GURPS and D&D - but you should also
be aware that a DC 10 task is as trivial to a skill +9 person in D&D as a
standard task is to a skill-16 person in GURPS. (Actually, the task is even
easier in D&D, unless you instate the rule that a 1 is always a failure.)
You cannot 'break the bell curve' in D&D, but you can get automatic success
under any circumstances at some tasks - and that's pretty much the
equivalent of 'breaking the bell curve' in GURPS, only worse. Of course, D&D
is so epic that automatic success tends to be less of a problem than it
would be in GURPS.
Also see heratyk's post - his explanation of my statement is correct, so
there's little reason to re-type it.
As to handling load and damage with one stat, I believe T. Bone is right -
there is no way to handle both correctly and still stick to standard GURPS
figures.
DW
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<3F5C2B...@telusplanet.net>..
> > Assuming human mass and superhuman strength, there's no problem with a superhuman
> > ability to jump. It's what you'd expect. Things that are very strong because
> > they are very large should have their jumping distance divided by how much
> > larger they are. I'm sure Gulliver has rules for that. As far as skill
> > defaults go, I don't see much of a problem. Godzilla is intimidating, and
> > if he wants to lead, I say, let him!
>
> The physiology of muscles is a very complicated subject
(Rest of message deleted for brevity - please see original message)
Excellent points. Your division of strength into
grappling/lifting/carrying vs combat/speed sounds a lot like GURPS
Gulliver's Combat ST and Load ST. That might be a simpler way to
simulate the differences in ST. So a weightlifter might have Combat ST
12 and Load ST 16 - he doesn't punch that hard, but he's formidable in
grappling and can fence with a broad sword. Interesting, it sounds
like a plausible rationale for split ST. Does anyone know of good
scientific evidence on how that kind of strength varies with size? The
division in Gulliver sounds reasonable (large creatures have carrying
abilities far exceeding comabt strength), but Gulliver did that for
the sake of playability.
On a related subject, does anyone know of a good source for real
world comparisons of average versus peak strength? That is,
comparisons of how much a reasonably fit man could lift, carry, bench
press, etc vs Olympic records. It would be interesting to take the
record strength feats and figure out the likely GURPS stats.
-DW
T. Bone
> lwc...@landau.chem.rochester.edu (Luke) wrote:
>
> (Rest of message deleted for brevity - please see original message)
>
> Excellent points. Your division of strength into
> grappling/lifting/carrying vs combat/speed sounds a lot like GURPS
> Gulliver's Combat ST and Load ST. That might be a simpler way to
> simulate the differences in ST. So a weightlifter might have Combat ST
> 12 and Load ST 16 - he doesn't punch that hard, but he's formidable in
> grappling and can fence with a broad sword. Interesting, it sounds
> like a plausible rationale for split ST. Does anyone know of good
> scientific evidence on how that kind of strength varies with size? The
> division in Gulliver sounds reasonable (large creatures have carrying
> abilities far exceeding comabt strength), but Gulliver did that for
> the sake of playability.
Right, playability. To clarify, the split ST score in GULLIVER is not
a split between what Luke described, which is power for pushing a
static load, vs max muscle velocity.
GULLIVER's split ST score is only a split between a) how much a
creature's muscles can lift, vs b) the game "cost" and "damage" for
that strength.
It seems a game shouldn't need two separate ST scores for that, and
most games _don't_. If GURPS were set up differently, there'd be no
need for a split: cost, damage, and lifting ability would all fit
together nicely for any given creature, and we'd all be a bit happier
with our single ST score.
However, the game was set up so that big and small creatures (as seen
in published examples) don't have realistic lifting ability -- and
giving them realistic lifting ability saddles them with point costs
and damage that the game doesn't intend them to have (again, as seen
by those published examples).
There's not much to do except grumble -- and, as one solution, a) give
them realistic lifting abilities ("Load ST"), but also b) leave them
with the costs and damage that the game designers built in ("Combat
ST"). That's the only purpose behind the split ST in GULLIVER.
As for the aspects of ST that Luke described: The first, force exerted
against a static load, is just lifting ability ("Load ST").
The second, maximum muscle speed, has nothing to do with "Combat ST",
but is also represented in GULLIVER (the only such example in RPG-dom,
as far as I know), in the jumping and throwing rules. It's not
represented as any split ST score, but rather much as Luke describes:
a max speed (and thus distance) in jumps and throws, drawing on the
GURPS Basic Speed stat.
To comment on a paragraph from Luke's post:
>For jumping, running, throwing distance, and the
>actual damage you do with a muscle powered weapon, use a score
related
>to your speed - I'd suggest using the average of your HT and DX since
>GURPS uses half of this average for a quantity called Basic Speed
>already that includes some of these effects.
Minor objection: for jumping and throwing, you can't toss out ST; it
needs to remain at the core of performance. But yes, Basic Speed works
fine in a formula to _cap_ performance of these. (The real-life
interplay of muscle force and muscle contraction speed may certainly
be more complex, but for simplicity I just use Basic Speed in a
calculation that caps performance.)
ST needs to remain part of the damage equation too. Here, too, max
speed is a real-life consideration in blows, as Luke described. A game
system could follow the lead of jumping and throwing: use ST and
weapon mass to get speed, with that speed capped somehow by Basic
Speed.
But I didn't work this into GULLIVER. The reason is simple: reworking
the system to base weapon damage on an interplay of weapon mass and
impact speed would be a tremendous change from GURPS -- essentially,
turning weapon impact into a subset of generic rules for collision
damage. That might be an interesting change, but I didn't make the
effort, and don't know that anyone would care anyway. So I haven't
messed with that.
> On a related subject, does anyone know of a good source for real
> world comparisons of average versus peak strength? That is,
> comparisons of how much a reasonably fit man could lift, carry, bench
> press, etc vs Olympic records.
I've found and used a lot of piecemeal stats, but haven't found a
satisfyingly comprehensive source. If you do, please pass it along...
> It would be interesting to take the
> record strength feats and figure out the likely GURPS stats.
Yep. Just remember, that any ST score reverse-engineered from a record
lift has to account for at least three components:
1) the lift attributed to ST only (no doubt the biggest part of the
lift)
2) any extra performance from technique (i.e., Lifting skill)
3) any extra performance from Extra Effort.
So there's my few cents on ST in the game. And if anyone's still awake
after all that... well, we all need to get out more. : )
T. Bone
www.io.com/~tbone/gurps
Luke
> To comment on a paragraph from Luke's post:
>
> >For jumping, running, throwing distance, and the
> >actual damage you do with a muscle powered weapon, use a score
> related
> >to your speed - I'd suggest using the average of your HT and DX since
> >GURPS uses half of this average for a quantity called Basic Speed
> >already that includes some of these effects.
>
> Minor objection: for jumping and throwing, you can't toss out ST; it
> needs to remain at the core of performance. But yes, Basic Speed works
> fine in a formula to _cap_ performance of these. (The real-life
> interplay of muscle force and muscle contraction speed may certainly
> be more complex, but for simplicity I just use Basic Speed in a
> calculation that caps performance.)
I agree. If you are jumping or throwing with too much of a load that
you do not reach your maximum speed by the end of your stroke, your
strength definitly comes into play.
> ST needs to remain part of the damage equation too. Here, too, max
> speed is a real-life consideration in blows, as Luke described. A game
> system could follow the lead of jumping and throwing: use ST and
> weapon mass to get speed, with that speed capped somehow by Basic
> Speed.
In a home-brew game system I've been working on, I use strength to cap
the "impact" you can do, and speed modified by the weapon's moment of
interia to get "impact" if that "impact" is less than your cap. Here
is why: The work you can do (i.e. the energy you give to your blow)
in one stroke is given by the torque your muscles can exert times the
angle through which your limb swings (or, equivalently, the force of
your muscles times the distance of your stroke). If your muscles
delivered the same torque (or force) at all speeds, this would be
independant of the load (i.e., weapon type). Your muscles work at
maximum torque (or force) at low speeds, however. So if you have a
large load (such as a really big weapon), you can do the maximum
damage possible from your muscles. The lighter the weapon, the sooner
you hit your velocity limit and the less work you can do. The less
work you do, the less energy your blow has, and the less mechanical
disruption you can cause when you connect with your target.
Obviously, the damage you do depends not only on the gross energy
delivered to your target, but also on the sharpness of your weapon and
the details of the blade or point that strike. In GURPS, this would
affect basic damage since you can get through armor better with a
sharp edge, and will also affect the kind of damage you do (cutting,
crushing, impaling, etc.).
This probably introduces too much complexity for most people. The
home brew system I am working on is not really designed to actually be
_played_, it is more an exercise in system design.
Luke