| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where did the 145 come from though? Are you able to glance at your sheet and get that? Because most people can't.Graystone, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to listen or, frankly, believe anything you're being told. You may as well stop asking me anything.Believe it or not I would have asked the same question but he was faster. Where is the difference subtracting the hit for 29 damage from your 121 HP or taking your 10lb rope out of your 89lb backpack?That, nothing. Like I said, the problems of additional and subtraction don't start arriving until you start adding and subtracting triple digits, like when you're dragging something or figuring out how much capacity your new strength score gives you, and how that alters other statistics.
1 bulk from 5 is still easier than 10 from 89 though, even if both are well within people's capabiltiies.
How often are you adding or subtracting triple digits with weight, though? When you have to drag or carry someone? Which is how often?
And even if it's above some subjective value of "often enough", that's still not some onerous calculation or even a calculation at all (at least, not one that has to be done in the moment).
When you're figuring out your weight encumbrance (waaayyy back at character creation of the beginning of the adventure), figure out your max, what you're carrying, and what you have left over. I.e., I can carry 240 total, I'm currently carrying 95, so I have 145 left.
Now it's the middle of combat and I have to carry someone. They're 138 total.
138. 145. Which one is bigger?
That's not a calculation; it's just a comparison. You do more calculating with your hit points on a vastly far more regular basis. Even at 1st level.
I got it at the beginning (at character creation/start of the adventure). I took my total carry value, figured out how much I'm carrying so far, subtracted one from the other, and got 145. Then I wrote all three on my sheet.
So now that it's an encounter and I'm in the rare circumstance where I care about triple-digit values, I literally can glance at my sheet and get that (actually, I probably could either way, so it's more accurate to say that literally anyone else could, too).
Which is way more effort than someone is going to want to go through.
Given tools and prep, most people can do all the stuff you're saying. It isn't enough fun for most to be worth the bother, because a lot of the edge cases get too complex for most to do at a glance.
Is is really so difficult to imagine that 1 form 5 is less complex than 10 from 89, or 6 from 18 being less than 145 from 240, even when the figures are in front of you? Or that doing those same calculations on the fly 4 or 5 times a round is different than having to even remember what the rules and capacities are for the rare moments when you do need to use them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that I think you're asking in bad faith, it's that we're trying to describe the color purple to you. That you also starting making insults did not help my mood, I admit (correction, that you made a comparison I found insulting, I'll take your word for it that you weren't trying for that), but the real problem is that you are still asking a system that is not trying to make logical sense make logical sense.
What confuses me, and makes it question if it a "describe the color purple" issue is that there are 2 other here, Tectorman and Ubertron_X that are saying similar things to me: this is in addition to other I've gamed with that have similar views. I know my brain works a bit different than others which is why I'll look to see if I'm the only one saying/thinking something and in this case I'm seeing more than a what I count as a 'statistical anomaly' number of people that seem to agree with me. This makes me think me think this is a normal difference of opinion instead of something unique with me.
PS: also, thanks for taking my word I meant no offence. ;)
THAT comment was about whether division or multiplication was easy for people, and that it is easy for you but not others, in reference to your complaint that bulk ratings changed based on the size of the carrier. Tectorman and Ubertron have been asking why HP is different than encumbrance, which was not the original conversation, even if you joined in with them. Where triple digits came in was when Ubertron asked:
I dont see much difference in between weight and bulk when it comes to the math involved apart from the fact that you will probably use smaller numbers when using bulk and fractions that have been substituted by L.
Which I took to mean he was talking about the bigger numbers involved in dragging and pushing, and figuring out overall capacity in the first place. It is apparent that he wasn't now, so that's my error.
There are different answers to different parts, but the bottom line is still the same that it was at the beginning; most people have an easier time with smaller, vaguer units rather than specific weights. That it happens to align with my professional experience in dealing with carrying capacity is interesting to me, but immaterial to your questions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that I think you're asking in bad faith, it's that we're trying to describe the color purple to you. That you also starting making insults did not help my mood, I admit (correction, that you made a comparison I found insulting, I'll take your word for it that you weren't trying for that), but the real problem is that you are still asking a system that is not trying to make logical sense make logical sense.What confuses me, and makes it question if it a "describe the color purple" issue is that there are 2 other here, Tectorman and Ubertron_X that are saying similar things to me: this is in addition to other I've gamed with that have similar views. I know my brain works a bit different than others which is why I'll look to see if I'm the only one saying/thinking something and in this case I'm seeing more than a what I count as a 'statistical anomaly' number of people that seem to agree with me. This makes me think me think this is a normal difference of opinion instead of something unique with me.
Well, I have to admit that I am not the youngest guy around and in our youth we were not allowed to use calculators at all. Everything had to be done in your mind (simple math) or on paper (complex math). As such I see no formal difference in simple additions or subtractions while admitting that those do get more difficult when numbers get higher. Using figures that you could possibly count with your hands and feet probably is easier than using a bigger range of whole numbers, however both systems require the same amount of bookkeeping and fraction tracking (3L = 0.3) so for me neither is easier nor less effort.
To add to that I have absolutely no grasp on bulk, i.e. what it stands for, how it is determined etc. I know that it is an abstract unit supposed to make things easier, however I find this very "simplification" rather intransparent and this is what drives my scientfic self insane. When I look outside and take a look at my car I know that its weight is about 3000 pounds, however I would have no clue on how much bulk that is. Of course the concept of weight is nothing inherent but something we have learned sometime during our youth, however I really like it when I can transfer real life concepts into play and not have to use an additional, artifical system of measurement.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat after me "Bulk is an abstraction, not a simulation."
Which would be fine... if it were true.
If Bulk was just an abstraction there wouldn't be as much issue, but they took away the abstraction when they added the codified lbs per bulk... which defeats the entire purpose of it and adds nothing of value in all honesty, just confusion.
To add to that I have absolutely no grasp on bulk, i.e. what it stands for, how it is determined etc. I know that it is an abstract unit supposed to make things easier, however I find this very "simplification" rather intransparent and this is what drives my scientfic self insane. When I look outside and take a look at my car I know that its weight is about 3000 pounds, however I would have no clue on how much bulk that is. Of course the concept of weight is nothing inherent but something we have learned sometime during our youth, however I really like it when I can transfer real life concepts into play and not have to use an additional, artifical system of measurement.
Unfortunately there's no real fix for that. Carrying capacity is not a scientific measure; it's more akin to a social science one, even if some of the terms seem similar.
Probably the closest objective measurement to capacity would be displacement, but even that is tangential.
Professionally speaking, the weight of your car is often the least of my worries. I need to measure how many cars fit into a cargo rack, and THAT is my first limiting factor. Then I do the math afterwards and figure out if I'm trying to violate federal regulations by overloading a car carrier, but that is a much later step (and frankly my computer keeps track of that for me anyways).
Additionally, in experience, 0.3 is different for many to think about than 3 light. That one I'm not sure how widespread it is, but thinking of 3 whole units is easier than 3/10. It's like 30 cents is easier than .3 dollars, and 3 dimes is easier still. They're all the same thing, but people are weird. I think that one has to do with how many things you can keep in your head, and somehow the 1st and 3rd on that list is fewer things than the 2nd. I don't fully understand that one myself, but seems to be consistent for many.
Repeat after me "Bulk is an abstraction, not a simulation."Which would be fine... if it were true.
If Bulk was just an abstraction there wouldn't be as much issue, but they took away the abstraction when they added the codified lbs per bulk... which defeats the entire purpose of it and adds nothing of value in all honesty, just confusion.
This is true, and goes back to my crack about bulk freighters in starfinder. 40 cargo holds is one thing, but those cargo holds having a capacity of about 25 tons is hilarious to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add to that I have absolutely no grasp on bulk, i.e. what it stands for, how it is determined etc. I know that it is an abstract unit supposed to make things easier, however I find this very "simplification" rather intransparent and this is what drives my scientfic self insane. When I look outside and take a look at my car I know that its weight is about 3000 pounds, however I would have no clue on how much bulk that is. Of course the concept of weight is nothing inherent but something we have learned sometime during our youth, however I really like it when I can transfer real life concepts into play and not have to use an additional, artifical system of measurement.
If I needed a specific number for the bulk of a car instead of just "no, you can't carry that" (which is generally the practical limit), it's easy enough to work backwards. From experience it takes about 16-20 people to lift and move a car, so a max capacity of 10+StrMod and say the average strength mod is 2 a car should be about 200-240 bulk. Probably pick the high number because "an automobile" is a difficult thing to carry.
But again, practically the specific number doesn't matter so much as "the party will need to find a dozen or so villagers to help them."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THAT comment was about whether division or multiplication was easy for people
That had a caveat, easy with a calculator. To take your example, say "subtracting 49980 from 11030000 pounds" is something that WOULD be simple for everyone* I've handed a calculator and the 2 numbers: it's entering one number, hitting the minus button and then entering the last number followed by hitting the equal sign. I'm not expecting mental math or even paper math for that comment.
* of course when I say "everyone", I mean people capable of understanding math and calculators: I'm not handing calculators to babies and expecting math.
Well, I have to admit that I am not the youngest guy around and in our youth we were not allowed to use calculators at all. Everything had to be done in your mind (simple math) or on paper (complex math). As such I see no formal difference in simple additions or subtractions while admitting that those do get more difficult when numbers get higher. Using figures that you could possibly count with your hands and feet probably is easier than using a bigger range of whole numbers, however both systems require the same amount of bookkeeping and fraction tracking (3L = 0.3) so for me neither is easier nor less effort.
To add to that I have absolutely no grasp on bulk, i.e. what it stands for, how it is determined etc. I know that it is an abstract unit supposed to make things easier, however I find this very "simplification" rather intransparent and this is what drives my scientfic self insane. When I look outside and take a look at my car I know that its weight is about 3000 pounds, however I would have no clue on how much bulk that is. Of course the concept of weight is nothing inherent but something we have learned sometime during our youth, however I really like it when I can transfer real life concepts into play and not have to use an additional, artifical system of measurement.
100% agree with everything, including not bring the youngest person around. ;)
If I needed a specific number for the bulk of a car instead of just "no, you can't carry that" (which is generally the practical limit), it's easy enough to work backwards.
You can't carry it, isn't very useful nor is it a practical limit when the game has vehicles that "can hold upwards of 1,000 Bulk". So if I need to know if you can fit 5 cars into the ship, it's important to know if it's 200 or 240 bulk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just tell my players it's inventory slots, ignore the weight part.
*grumbles*
Back in PF1, I used to note every weight, even in games that generally didn't use then just in case it every became relevant. Now I lobby for just dropping it alone with tracking ammo and food unless as long as it's not an clearly outside the norm [like a 1000 swords or trekking through a desert]. Never thought about item slots: I have to admit I'd be curious to see that in action.
THAT comment was about whether division or multiplication was easy for peopleThat had a caveat, easy with a calculator. To take your example, say "subtracting 49980 from 11030000 pounds" is something that WOULD be simple for everyone* I've handed a calculator and the 2 numbers: it's entering one number, hitting the minus button and then entering the last number followed by hitting the equal sign. I'm not expecting mental math or even paper math for that comment.
* of course when I say "everyone", I mean people capable of understanding math and calculators: I'm not handing calculators to babies and expecting math.
And this is where MY neurodivergence kicks in, because that is straight up not easy for me. Even with a calculator.
I'm dyslexic. That many digits and zeros quickly goes to "sure why not?" rather than anything meaningful, where doing it by tons is easy enough to do in my head. But generally speaking from what I've seen the first calculation is harder, even with a calculator, even if it doesn't verge on impossible for most people like it does for me.
Edit: Also, something I haven't brought up, but even people that have calculators often don't like using them. I don't know if it is a very large factor, especially among anyone mid-millennial or younger, which is why I've been ignoring it, but it isn't a nonfactor.
Additionally, in experience, 0.3 is different for many to think about than 3 light. That one I'm not sure how widespread it is, but thinking of 3 whole units is easier than 3/10. It's like 30 cents is easier than .3 dollars, and 3 dimes is easier still. They're all the same thing, but people are weird. I think that one has to do with how many things you can keep in your head, and somehow the 1st and 3rd on that list is fewer things than the 2nd. I don't fully understand that one myself, but seems to be consistent for many.
I fully understand where you are coming from and I see your point. Doing math using fractions is usually taught a lot later than doing math using whole numbers, so for example while keeping in mind a "new blood" generation of very young players it makes a lot of sense to stick to whole numbers. Also, just because math comes easy to me I can not assume that this is the same for everybody. The thing is that I still expect a basic grasp of math and numbers from anyone playing a (mechanically) largely numbers based game.
But perhaps this is also a customs issue, like using measurements of cups and spoons for recipes in the US whereas a European recipe would most likely list everything in grams (so 1 cup of white sugar would list at 200 grams).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in PF1, I used to note every weight, even in games that generally didn't use then just in case it every became relevant. Now I lobby for just dropping it alone with tracking ammo and food unless as long as it's not an clearly outside the norm [like a 1000 swords or trekking through a desert]. Never thought about item slots: I have to admit I'd be curious to see that in action.I just tell my players it's inventory slots, ignore the weight part.
*grumbles*
I tracked that stuff too, it just felt natural to me.
And I mostly just like the visual.
More I think people interpret a fraction as a piece of a different unit, and so you're effectively interpreting 2 numbers for every fraction, but thinking of it as a whole unit is only 1, and there is an extremely low ceiling for how many numbers people can keep in their head at once.
Like, instead of 3 dimes (1 number), $.30 is 3/10 of 1 dollar (2 numbers that you instantly process). Although this particular example is more illustrative than accurate; people are very much able to keep track of money as long as they don't have to add or subtract it, at which point they reach for that register.
How easy or complex the division is not the problem, the ability to process is.
OH! Good example is spreadsheets. A spreadsheet that is merely a list of values is a lot smaller and works a lot faster than a spreadsheet that is calculating those values, even if they are individually extremely simple calculations. Fractions are, for some, a formula, where a whole unit is a value.
Does that make more sense? It is something you can train out of at least.
Edit: but now that you mention it, volume is the closest to an objective carrying capacity measurement. Not quite right, but close enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm dyslexic.
See, I can understand that you'd have special issues because of that, but I wasn't intending to include those with mental/physical issues that make it more difficult [I haven't given a calculator to someone with an issue that makes use harder]. I just figured that'd be assumed but it's my fault for assuming: I didn't mean it to be an absolute for those that have reason to find the action itself hard.
Oh I figured, and no offense was taken.
There's not even one version of dyslexia, so someone else that is dyslexic might have no issue whatsoever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is is really so difficult to imagine that 1 form 5 is less complex than 10 from 89, or 6 from 18 being less than 145 from 240, even when the figures are in front of you? Or that doing those same calculations on the fly 4 or 5 times a round is different than having to even remember what the rules and capacities are for the rare moments when you do need to use them?
No. But it IS really so difficult to imagine how 29 lbs added to 138 lbs is more complex than 29 hp added to 138 hp. Would it be better if I said "pretend the pounds are hit points first"? Is that extra step sufficient for a person to go from "How do I even do this?" to "167, easy!"?
And yes! One calculation towards the beginning of play IS different than doing multiple such calculations on the fly 4 of 5 times a round. By being done far less often (so, easier), not being done on the fly (so, easier), or multiple times in quick succession (so, easier).
I'll try again now that I've calmed a little. I apologize for losing my temper again, but it really is frustrating having to say the same thing over and over. The answers aren't going to change, y'all.
No. But it IS really so difficult to imagine how 29 lbs added to 138 lbs is more complex than 29 hp added to 138 hp. Would it be better if I said "pretend the pounds are hit points first"? Is that extra step sufficient for a person to go from "How do I even do this?" to "167, easy!"?
This wasn't the question you asked, and not what I was talking about. I was pretty specific in a couple posts that: addition and subtractions don't start hitting walls until you are adding and subtracting triple digit numbers, which this is not an example of, and also that anything involving even the most basic multiplication or division makes people tap right out immediately. I didn't say that 29 to 138 is different for weights and HP, so I got a little annoyed that you shoved those words down my throat.
What I did say is that most people don't bother with having those numbers you're talking about figure out in advance, because most people don't. I also said that 6 from 18 was less complex than 145 from 240, which is true, even if you have a calculator in hand and both figures in front of you. It isn't any harder to calculate, especially if the calculator is doing the work for you, but it is less complex. And that IS an objective statement.
The subjective part comes in when the question is "is this too complex to be fun?", which is a standard in which there is no standard answer.
I alluded to, but you seemed to misunderstand, that some of that complexity become tolerable if you're doing it every round, like you do with HP. If you are constantly doing a certain calculation with the same number, people's tolerance level increases. But having to stop that, set it aside, and start seeing how your carrying capacity is affected, people lose interest even if it is the same or similar calculation, with the additional difficulty that they have to figure out how to create the formula and what variables they're working with from a cold start. Because, again, people don't usually figure it all out in advance, where they really can't get away with that with HP.
There are systems where you can though, including WoD as I mentioned. That is probably why they went with a system with smaller numbers and fewer additive steps than D20's HP.
Another example of how processing arithmetic works differently for different people is the numerical operations test from the old ASVAB. For those that never took that particular test, it was about 80 extremely simple math problems, like 60/15 and 24+30, multiple choice, and you had 1 minute to solve them all.
I flunked that one hard, despite being solidly in the 90+ percentile of every almost math standardized test I'd ever taken (I'll never forgive that 7th grade assessment that stuck me at 89th percentile). Like low 30 percentile flunked. I was quite confused until my math teacher at the time explained it: it isn't a math test at all, but a test of your processing and decision making ability.
This anecdote isn't particularly germane to this specific discussion, but is intended as an example of how people, measurably, can process even basic math slower or faster. To the point that the military was able to create a standardized test that measured other abilities based on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of how processing arithmetic works differently for different people is the numerical operations test from the old ASVAB. For those that never took that particular test, it was about 80 extremely simple math problems, like 60/15 and 24+30, multiple choice, and you had 1 minute to solve them all.
I flunked that one hard, despite being solidly in the 90+ percentile of every almost math standardized test I'd ever taken (I'll never forgive that 7th grade assessment that stuck me at 89th percentile). Like low 30 percentile flunked. I was quite confused until my math teacher at the time explained it: it isn't a math test at all, but a test of your processing and decision making ability.
This anecdote isn't particularly germane to this specific discussion, but is intended as an example of how people, measurably, can process even basic math slower or faster. To the point that the military was able to create a standardized test that measured other abilities based on it.
Oh I remember that. Man that test SUCKED.
It seemed near impossible as I recall.
Another example of how processing arithmetic works differently for different people is the numerical operations test from the old ASVAB. For those that never took that particular test, it was about 80 extremely simple math problems, like 60/15 and 24+30, multiple choice, and you had 1 minute to solve them all.
I flunked that one hard, despite being solidly in the 90+ percentile of every almost math standardized test I'd ever taken (I'll never forgive that 7th grade assessment that stuck me at 89th percentile). Like low 30 percentile flunked. I was quite confused until my math teacher at the time explained it: it isn't a math test at all, but a test of your processing and decision making ability.
This anecdote isn't particularly germane to this specific discussion, but is intended as an example of how people, measurably, can process even basic math slower or faster. To the point that the military was able to create a standardized test that measured other abilities based on it.
Oh I remember that. Man that test SUCKED.
It seemed near impossible as I recall.
A good friend of mine at the time got a perfect score. Since his mom was our math teacher, I couldn't directly ask her "How did THAT moron get higher than I did?" but I'm sure it was implied.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat after me "Bulk is an abstraction, not a simulation."Which would be fine... if it were true.
If Bulk was just an abstraction there wouldn't be as much issue, but they took away the abstraction when they added the codified lbs per bulk... which defeats the entire purpose of it and adds nothing of value in all honesty, just confusion.
That doesn't stop it from being an abstraction, the rule you are quoting is titled "estimating" and is prefaced with "general". It also only gives guidelines for items 10lbs or less.
So something of 5-10lbs is usually 1B, something that is a few ounces or less is usually negligible.
To put it another way, the general rule is there to give quick guidelines to grant bulk from a weight, not to give bulk values a weight. It is a one directional conversion from the non abstract (weight) to abstract (bulk) to the abstract.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can tell you why HP is easier. I don't have to deal with damn fractions.
Smaller numbers = easier
Less numbers = easier
Bulk benefits from both of this points. You know what sucks about weight? Calculating every damn item. And on top of that, every item has a different weight. That is a lot of different numbers versus a bunch of Ls and 1s.
I can do complex math in my head in a matter of seconds. I don't want to.
|
Additionally, in experience, 0.3 is different for many to think about than 3 light. That one I'm not sure how widespread it is, but thinking of 3 whole units is easier than 3/10. It's like 30 cents is easier than .3 dollars, and 3 dimes is easier still. They're all the same thing, but people are weird. I think that one has to do with how many things you can keep in your head, and somehow the 1st and 3rd on that list is fewer things than the 2nd. I don't fully understand that one myself, but seems to be consistent for many.I fully understand where you are coming from and I see your point. Doing math using fractions is usually taught a lot later than doing math using whole numbers, so for example while keeping in mind a "new blood" generation of very young players it makes a lot of sense to stick to whole numbers. Also, just because math comes easy to me I can not assume that this is the same for everybody. The thing is that I still expect a basic grasp of math and numbers from anyone playing a (mechanically) largely numbers based game.
But perhaps this is also a customs issue, like using measurements of cups and spoons for recipes in the US whereas a European recipe would most likely list everything in grams (so 1 cup of white sugar would list at 200 grams).
Just to show that things are never simple : I am fifty, with a high level of education and able to calculate pretty quickly in my head.
Yet I prefer Bulk because it looks less daunting (small numbers, simple categories) and that I will not need to make any effort to use it. As opposed to carrying capacity in PF1.
Psychological differences (or maybe likes/dislikes) rather than INT scores or a generational thing IMO ;-)
Like Albatoonoe said : I can do that but I do not want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the advantage of bulk is being able to take a glance at your character sheet and just add those few, small numbers (or count those Bs if you write bulk that way). For light bulk, you can also very quickly figure if there are less than 10, between 10 and 20, or more than 20; you rarely have to actually count them.
In comparison, a sheet with a column of different numbers gives you no chance to do the same: you have to do the math.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other benefit of Bulk is that measuring system agnostic so it works for everyone equally well. Rather than being good for Americans and basically nobody else.
I am offended at the insinuation that the imperial system is good for people of the USA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under the old rules with containers we've been ignoring the bulk rules same as we always did weight.
The new S/W/H system is extremely appealing however and we'll calculate and adjust bulk as a result soonish, probably when we go back to playing in person.
I don't struggle with simple calculations but the reward for tracking weight was never enough to not just handwave it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat after me "Bulk is an abstraction, not a simulation."Which would be fine... if it were true.
If Bulk was just an abstraction there wouldn't be as much issue, but they took away the abstraction when they added the codified lbs per bulk... which defeats the entire purpose of it and adds nothing of value in all honesty, just confusion.
That doesn't stop it from being an abstraction, the rule you are quoting is titled "estimating" and is prefaced with "general". It also only gives guidelines for items 10lbs or less.
So something of 5-10lbs is usually 1B, something that is a few ounces or less is usually negligible.
To put it another way, the general rule is there to give quick guidelines to grant bulk from a weight, not to give bulk values a weight. It is a one directional conversion from the non abstract (weight) to abstract (bulk) to the abstract.
It’s guidelines that remove the abstract from the abstraction, which is an issue because the abstraction was the goal.
And also because if you follow those guidelines it breaks suspension of disbelief every time you’re dealing with anything that isn’t something you hold in your hand.
What does the game lose by not saying full grown humans weigh 30lbs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s guidelines that remove the abstract from the abstraction, which is an issue because the abstraction was the goal.
And also because if you follow those guidelines it breaks suspension of disbelief every time you’re dealing with anything that isn’t something you hold in your hand.
How does it remove abstraction? It is clearly abstracting a defined variable in a one directional manor.
Weight is a defined variable in the real world, bulk is a flexible abstraction of that. The guidelines are a one way conversion to help convey a concept of intent to abstracting to lower weight values that could otherwise be contentious without guidelines.
What does the game lose by not saying full grown humans weigh 30lbs?
It doesn't say humans weigh 30 lbs? I am not sure what your point is, could you explain?
(If you are referencing "an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk" that doesn't say "an item is 1 Bulk per 5-10 pounds" it is only determining 1 bulk items nothing more, hence it being an abstraction and not a defined scale)|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... they have exact weights mentioned, that explicitly removes the abstraction.
If you are referencing "an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk" that doesn't say "an item is 1 Bulk per 5-10 pounds" it is only determining 1 bulk items nothing more
THAT’S EVEN MORE USELESS AND CONFUSING.
|
|
It is a welcome abstraction (at least by me) and adding some guidelines to help people get a more concrete image of what it can cover is also very welcome.
But really, I am still waiting for people to tell me what Encumbered and STR 10 mean exactly (just as measures of weight are exact) in the real world.
Oh I remember that. Man that test SUCKED.
It seemed near impossible as I recall.
LOL Maybe I shouldn't say that I did quite well: I don't recall missing any questions in the math sections. I also remember the ASVAB telling me I was best qualified for work on a sub electronics or engineering. ;)
LOL Maybe I shouldn't say that I did quite well: I don't recall missing any questions in the math sections. I also remember the ASVAB telling me I was best qualified for work on a sub electronics or engineering. ;)Oh I remember that. Man that test SUCKED.
It seemed near impossible as I recall.
Math is a different section from numerical operations. Actually I think it was 2 different tests besides that one when I took it.
But to be honest, I was already assuming you, Tector, and Uber all scored high on there if you’d taken it. It seems to be playing to the strengths of all three of you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Math is a different section from numerical operations.
Oh, I understand they where different sections but I was including them under the same umbrella as numerical operations was really a test of you speed and accuracy in doing math and for me those are pretty much the same thing. If anything the math section that had word problems was less math to me. ;)
Actually I think it was 2 different tests besides that one when I took it.
I think it was 3 for me: math reasoning [word math problems], knowledge [normal math problems] and operations [the speed test].
But to be honest, I was already assuming you, Tector, and Uber all scored high on there if you’d taken it. It seems to be playing to the strengths of all three of you.
I was surprised I did pretty good on the other sections too. Not that it mattered as I had no intention of entering the military.
What does the game lose by not saying full grown humans weigh 30lbs?
Opportunities to make "He/She/They ain't heavy, he's/she's/they're my brother/sister/other" jokes?
Seriously though the low bulk for humans is specifically a gamist thing to ensure that is it possible for PCs to drag the bodies of their unconscious comrades to safety,even if we have gnome sorcerer hauling the half-orc barbarian out of the fire. Just chock it up to the "adrenaline let you lift the car off the pinned person" sort of thing if you need further justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously though the low bulk for humans is specifically a gamist thing to ensure that is it possible for PCs to drag the bodies of their unconscious comrades to safety,even if we have gnome sorcerer hauling the half-orc barbarian out of the fire.
I think everyone understands it's gamist and why it was done but it's like Rebounding Assault from the playtest. I understand why it's done but when something is SO outrageous it becomes irksome as it stretched credulity FAR beyond fantasy/comic book expectations and moves into loony toons physics. Someone picking up multiple people and walking around without being encumbered or hindered in ANY way ranks up there with throwing a bastard sword 50', shooting the sword with a tree branch shoved into a hand cannon to both deal damage to the target AND carefully returning said bastard sword into your hand.
Just chock it up to the "adrenaline let you lift the car off the pinned person" sort of thing if you need further justification.
Sure... But that makes no sense as the ability is NOT restricted to combat or dangerous situations. The party monk can pick up the party gnome and halfling and cruise around at 60' land speed without issue for HOURS and just drop them as a free action if an encounter happens. Those bulk numbers apply to each and every situation that happens in the day, from how many humans fit into a wagon and how many halflings can ride the same horse [it's 6 unencumbered and 9 encumbered] to a warhorse carrying 200 cats you just tossed on or 300 encumbered...
|
|
What does the game lose by not saying full grown humans weigh 30lbs?Opportunities to make "He/She/They ain't heavy, he's/she's/they're my brother/sister/other" jokes?
Seriously though the low bulk for humans is specifically a gamist thing to ensure that is it possible for PCs to drag the bodies of their unconscious comrades to safety,even if we have gnome sorcerer hauling the half-orc barbarian out of the fire. Just chock it up to the "adrenaline let you lift the car off the pinned person" sort of thing if you need further justification.
Kinda missed the point.
If you remove the lbs you can still do the thing you bring up and it’s still fully enabled, because of the Bulk numbers.
What does the lbs add to the game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does the lbs add to the game?
It give an understandable metric to understand what you're talking about. Without it, it's harder to conceptualize the item: people are used to thinking in terms of weight and not a percentage of your encumbrance/carry limit. It's like describing things in english stones vs how many stones you can carry without any lbs conversion. Plus it does make it possible to work backwards and change the system from bulk to lbs: the variable total though throws a wrench in an easy conversion though so it's not often done.
What's wrong with carrying people as is? Seems to me like even the strongest characters couldn't carry more than two people without magic.
Pretty sure the strongest people in the real world could pick up and move about briefly whilst carrying two people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with carrying people as is? Seems to me like even the strongest characters couldn't carry more than two people without magic.
As I pointed out, someone that doesn't have a great need for equipment, like a monk, could easily carry the rest of the party at greatly increased speed. A monk with handwraps and bracers and an 18 strength can pick up 3 small PC's and zip around at more than double the speed those PC's can do on their own.
Pretty sure the strongest people in the real world could pick up and move about briefly whilst carrying two people.
Can they do so ALL DAY? Can they really pick up 3 small creatures and move around with them for hours on end without them being ANY hindrance to moving around? You and PossibleCabbage are looking at it as it being only for short periods of time but it is on NO way limited like that. You can literally carry people around 24/7 so there is no "briefly" or a momentary "adrenaline" action: it's a sustainable and longterm situation. The game allows a horse, without any container, to to carry 200 cat for hours on end just like it allows a human to 'wear'/carry up to a dozen cats and do the same...
I suppose I could see it being done if the weight were distributed really well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of saying "1 bulk is 5-10 lb, normally" is that you can quickly come up with bulk numbers for a bunch of stuff, but this is a quick and dirty system that will not apply in every situation.
Like a 100' long pool noodle will weigh about 10 lbs, but it should be significantly more than 1 bulk.
But if we're not trying to come up with weird edge cases 1 bulk per 5-10 pounds works reasonably well. The set of objects that PCs are normally going to carry around is fairly limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I could see it being done if the weight were distributed well.
But the bulk of the creature is ALREADY incorporates the unwieldiness of the object/creature. As such, balance really doesn't matter at all unless you're storing a PC in your backpack as that is the only place where you could argue balance counts. In game, it could literally be 3 small creatures under one arm or those 200 cats randomly tossed onto the horses back so balance is basically a non-factor as you can roleplay it as balanced or unbalanced as you wish.
I mean I could see your point if a super strong guy wearing a specialized harness for carrying multiple people for short periods of time but we could be talking about 400+ lbs for a days travel, which in the game is 8 hours at the exact same rate as without those people which is... lets charitably call it questionable.
I think you're just overthinking it.
How many games depend on an athlete marathoning with multiple parapalegics in hand? Having such a high level of rules specificity would not be beneficial to the game I think.
On the rare corner case where it does arise, a GM would be perfectly within their rights to make a ruling that makes it more sensible. (Like saying a PC becomes fatigued after a number of minutes equal to their Constitution modifier, for example.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're just overthinking it.
I've SEEN the monk carrying multiple small folk before: there isn't a downside and a whole lot of upside. I mean, what downside is there in the current rules? If it's meant to be an in combat/dangerous situation ability, then they could have MADE it that. They already have things like Hustle that inflict fatigue if done too long like you suggested but didn't to it in this case. I not sure how something like this wasn't anticipated.
On the rare corner case where it does arise, a GM would be perfectly within their rights to make a ruling that makes it more sensible. (Like saying a PC becomes fatigued after a number of minutes equal to their Constitution modifier, for example.)
I mean the Dm can make any houserule they want but you can say that about anything that's not working like you want it to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's only good in powergaming way, there doesn't need to be more downside to it.
Small also restricts your choice of ancestries considerably.
So if you want to be a party of gnomes, shoony and kobolds then have a monk carry you around all day that'd be pretty fine by me since it's a funny image.