 Strength and Body, Visual representations |
  |
 Sep 21 2006, 07:40 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046  |
I'm trying to visualize what different values of attributes look like on people. Strength, for example, is an easy one. Power-lifters all have a certain body shape that goes along with their Strength of 6/7. Body seems like it would be somewhat related, since more massive people with lots of muscle are generally better at absorbing damage. My teetering, very thin 91 year old grand mother with the osteoporosis would be a Strength 1, Body 1 character.
What would a human with Strength 1, Body 6 look like? What about one with Strength 6, Body 1? |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 07:44 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 5-December 04 Member No.: 6,869 |
The first would be a rail thin marathon runner guy. Not tossing any boulders, but can keep going and going and going.
The second would be a real fatass. Super large, able to manhandle people, but gets winded going up stairs. |
|
|
|
 Sep 21 2006, 08:03 PM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,739 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
That doesn't quite fit, though... with a Strength of 6 you would also have enough muscle to help protect against damage, I guess. I don't think this combination could exist, realistically. Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 21 2006, 08:10 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
Yeah. Truth is, while the attributes can exist independent of each other, and there's no rule requiring any particular relationship between any two attributes, some combinations have no justification. That there is a good reason to have a character image before you start assigning numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 08:12 PM
Post
#5
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,706 Joined: 30-June 06 From: Fort Wayne, IN Member No.: 8,814 |
The body 1, strength 6, to me, seems more like a martial artist stereotype. Someone that is really thin and low mass (body 1) but has very strong muscles, bones and tendons (strength 6). Strength is just strength...raw power. And while there is a definite correlation between body mass and strength, it is certainly possible to be really small but very strong or reallay big but very weak... I agree, realistically, its extremely rare to see either type...but I also don't think you would see many character or NPC builds on both ends of the spectrum...so it all balances out! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 21 2006, 08:42 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,739 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
I don't think you can show me even one martial artist, that is Strength *6* and not at least Body 3-4 as well in game terms. ;)
Bye Thanee |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 09:17 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 21-May 06 From: San Diego, CA Member No.: 8,581 |
Strength 6 Body 1...hemophiliac power lifter?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 09:23 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,706 Joined: 30-June 06 From: Fort Wayne, IN Member No.: 8,814 |
I guess the thing I am thinking are people from some of the taller, yet skinny African tribes, fighters from India or Tibet...some of those folks are really frickin' small (either short or skinny) yet quite strong. Do I have a real picture I can share? No. But, think of someone like Dhalsam in Street Fighter. I agree that most martial artistists are going to have at a body of 3-4, maybe a 2...but rarely. I am just saying that in a fantasy game, the fantastic happens and I for once can make a case for these combinations:) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 21 2006, 09:48 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
A Lesbian Elf Ninja with a Katana, and Heavy Armor. Since only a munchkin would ever make either, thats what it would look like :grinbig: But seriously, an ex weight lifter who used too many steroids and got a bad heart, would be a good example. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:19 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,739 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
He wouldn't drop dead by one hit from Chun-Li, though. ;) Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:46 PM
Post
#11
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
The munchkin also forget that armor is limited to 2x body.... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 22 2006, 12:42 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
STR1 BOD6 is a fat guy who is so large that punches and even small bullets are stopped by his massive folds.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 01:32 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,241 Joined: 10-August 02 Member No.: 3,083 |
I think a tough, wiry guy could also be str1, body 6. But yea, fatass is the most likely.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 05:29 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
Is Body directly related to size? I thought it was more a measure of resistance to physical force, and immunity to toxins. Either way, you're missing two other key physical attributes to draw your picture from. Also, athletics skills may further flesh the notion out.
A High Body character with low strength, and low agility will more likely be more sluggish, traditionally displayed with more weight. But what happens if they have a high athletics skill? Can you be athletically overweight? Meanwhile, improving agility strikes me as the distance runner type - Who, while have very hearty stamina, and well compacted and tough muscular system around their bones, lack the physical strength to effectly levy their strength on others. But when if their athletics skill were non-existant? Perhaps in that case, a character may be a bit lanky, comfortable with their own body despite how it can work against them levying their strength against other people and objects? But as most people in real life fall into the range of average, it's hard to imagine someone with an attribute rating of '1' - Afterall. That's nearly the absolute bottom of human possibilities. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 07:50 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 199 Joined: 11-September 05 Member No.: 7,729 |
Yeah. Rating 1 attributes would be a sign of things like severe mental retardation, autism, immuno-deficiency syndromes, cystic fibrosis, hyper-obesity, paralysis, etc. Someone with a stat like this would, in all liklihood, be noticably handicapped.
A houserule to set a hard cap of 3 on the other stats in a given category (physical or mental) wouldn't be out of line. If you can barely roll yourself over (agility 1), how in the hell are you going to exercise enough to benchpress a car? With intensive physical therapy, you could probably get your other physical stats up to "average" ranges (if you're lucky), but whatever deformity or defect you have causing the first problem is going to limit the rest of your physical performance. The skills linked to your crippled stat would probably need to be treated as Incompetencies, while those linked to your capped stats would be similarly capped, though you could still get a benefit from specializing. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 07:58 AM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,739 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
I actually don't think it is that extreme. 1 is seriously below average, but not hampered in an additional fashion, that would be negative quality territory in addition to the low attribute. Some Rating 1 attributes won't be completely uncommon, they are just about as rare as Rating 6 in the general public, I'd guess. Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 22 2006, 03:59 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Is there anything in canon that shows exactly 'how bad is bad'? If I assume that each level of rating represents an equal portion of the population, than body one is just the bottom one-sixth on the toughness scale, pretty fragile, but not necessarily a hemophilliac. On the other hand, if I assume that most people have average stats, with percentages making a standard bell curve, and that each point away from average (3) represents one standard deviation (might not be quite on, but I think closer to the truth than the first option) than body 1 folks represent the frailest 4 percent of the population. If that's true, than I'd expect to see people with borderline hemophillia, osteoporosis, immunological deficiencies, etc. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 22 2006, 04:25 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
If you're going to house rule that everyone has to start at 3, then 3 becomes 1....
And everyone is spending 80 of their 400 build points on stats. And metahumans become *far* more prevalent. 20 points for an ork, vs 40 points required to increase str and body to 3? Sure. 25 for dwarf vs 40? Yes please! You'd be silly not to be a meta at that point. And there's no indication that 1 is impaired. If that were the case, it would definitely have been called out in the rules describing the attributes. I'm actually surprised that SR doesn't have negative qualities that give you those sorts of impairments, though.... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 04:42 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
Yeah, I completely agree, It would be really helpful to understand if it's a equal percentage, or bell curve deviation. I'm inclined to think that it's equal percentage. And considering that 3 is not the mathematical average of 1-6, it would imply a 0th rank of attribute that is not available to shadowrunners. Where a 0 in an attribute is serious handy caps as described in other posts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 22 2006, 05:00 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,739 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
The quality section is a bit lacking, anyways. There are a lot of quite fitting qualities, that are not covered there. But those can usually quite easily be adjudicated and assigned a BP value. Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 22 2006, 05:01 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,739 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
Well, there is a table, which says, what the attribute values represent in the Game Concepts section, but don't expect too much. :D Bye Thanee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 22 2006, 05:08 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 750 Joined: 9-August 06 Member No.: 9,059 |
It's called out in the rules preventing you from defaulting at thing that ordinary people won't have as skills but should have some minor hope of accomplishing. If you have a strength of 1 and don't have any athletics skills you can't hope to climb anything more difficult than a ladder, you can't ever run faster than your base movement, etc. If you have charisma of 1 you'll never be able to lie convincingly, etc. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 22 2006, 05:11 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
0 is actually available, with the use of Decrease Attribute spells. However, it's treated as basically incapacitated. The system doesn't allow you to START at 0.
I was under the impression that Infirm had made it into this version. Am I wrong? A rating of 1 isn't necessarily "impaired" any more than someone with no cardiovascular capacity, serious butterfingers, or a complete inability to read body language might be "impaired." It doesn't necessarily indicate a wasting disease, old age, bad arthritis, or having been sitting on your couch for so long that your skin is threatening to grow into the upholstery. However, it's worth noting that someone who does suffer from these conditions might be statistically represented as having the same rating in that statistic. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 06:08 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
I agree with you, to a point. But I know people at my job that aren't "impaired" but probably couldn't climb anything more than a ladder, and get winded after about 30 seconds of climbing a hill. And I know people that can't grasp a simple computer concept if you hit them over the head with it. And I *definitely* know people that can't succeed in a social interaction to save their lives. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 22 2006, 06:36 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Jacked In, Up & Out Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 232 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Oceanside, CA Member No.: 95 |
Actually, yes. I remember a few years back, one of the fitness magazines had an article about a guy who competes in triathlons (including the Ironman), and is 5'6" tall, and weighs about 250. That falls pretty high on the obese side, and the guy, when interviewed, admitted it was mostly fat, not muscle. However, he also generally finished in the top third of the triathlons he ran. So, yes, it is possible to be athletic, and overweight. Definitely not the norm, but possible. Dave |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th May 2026 - 11:59 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.