Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 11:48:59 AM

Quote from: S'mon on September 29, 2021, 02:19:03 AM
IRL it's hundreds to one at least. IRL you don't need STR 16+ to be an effective warrior or an adventurer, though.

I rather miss GMing 1e AD&D or OSRIC with the Weapon Spec rules, where a Fighter just needs STR 9+ and can get +3 to hit & damage (& ATT 3/2) with their chosen double-spec'd weapon; Red Sonja doesn't need Conan's STR to be an effective warrior.

I agree that the men/women strength difference is very significant as you say - and that in real life one doesn't need to be peak strength to be an effective warrior.

On the other hand, I'm not fond of weapon specialization on simulationist grounds. One of my big problems with individual skill-based systems like BRP or GURPS is that it leads to warrior PCs who (for example) are deadly with a longsword but useless with a short sword or club. That doesn't match up to my reading of history. From accounts, it seems like the key skills for a warrior are broad things like keeping one's head in battle, being able to size up an opponent, and being able to take a wound without collapsing.

You wouldn't want it in simulation. Martial arts going beyond base skill is a fiction trope. In reality boxing is a martial art like fencing or doing a powerful but economical cut and thrust in formation. Fiction tends to showcase a martial art as some esoteric thing or secret knowledge that extends beyond training fitness and experience to make a weapon do things it won't. It's magic by other means. It is pushing physics and psychology aside to get into more mythical legendary stuff. It's not realistic but it's not meant to be. It's for pulpy or cinematic stuff.

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 04:52:38 PM
Obviously, there are specific weapon skills that do make some difference - but the question is how important are they? In some games, weapon specialization is clearly optimal mechanically, and players will generally use it. But my reading of history is that most warriors - even the best / most famous - weren't particularly specialized in a single weapon.

I would say that they have general skills.  Then they have specialists skills.  If they are serious warriors, they develop several specialties (depending on the time, place, and culture).  In the course of developing several specialties, they also pick some skills that overlap some weapons but not all. 

This is pretty much how non-weapon skills work too, which is why there is a lot of middle ground between, say, a person that can barely boil water versus a trained chef.  And notable distinctions between skills levels in narrow bands, and by specialties.  I'm a better cook than the average person.  I'm not as good as my sister. Neither of us are professionals.  Both of us can put meals on the table that are better than many things you can buy.   We have specialties that stand out.  There are several different general and specialized and middling "skills" that go into doing that, some of which come easy to anyone that bothers to learn and others that take some work.

How detailed a game wants to get in that is another question.  However, any system that wants to claim it is modeling human skills to some degree has to take those kind of tensions into account.  It might barely take them into account, and it might not model them very well compared to real life, but it has to at least nod in that general direction.

All specialties is bad, even if the game allows adequate specialties to make reasonable characters.  It's a lot of accounting for too little payoff.  All general skills is also bad, because then you get this broad, anyone can do anything, at which point you shouldn't even bother.  If the game is going to do that, the designer should just admit that it isn't trying to model skills at all, and thus leave them out entirely.  Nothing wrong with that choice, either.

I'm not so much against any particular design as I'm against a design that has pretense to something it is not.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 29, 2021, 03:35:03 PM
We're talking about a game where carrying up to 120 lbs. of gear has zero impact on your ability to fight or perform acrobatic moves. With that in mind, I'd say footwork/wheelwork is nothing but fluff.

Thanks for responding HappyDaze. I won't derail this thread farther on this subject but I will respectfully disagree. Have a good day.

Quote from: tenbones on September 29, 2021, 12:54:57 PMI actually had this happen with one of my female players who rolled an 18 strength (18(87) to be exact) - and showed her a picture of Dorian Yates and said - HE does not have an 18(87) strength strictly speaking by military press. She was so grossed out by it she asked to lower her strength to 17. I was perfectly fine with her looking like a hulked-out woman. SHE wasn't.

That's somewhat misleading since he's a body builder not a weightlifter. 1e takes your character's weight into account so would make it more difficult for someone like that to have a high exceptional strength. I wonder if her decision would have been different if you had instead showed her Liao Qiuyun. She's close to 18(80) in 1e terms but not outlandishly bulky.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 29, 2021, 03:35:03 PMWe're talking about a game where carrying up to 120 lbs. of gear has zero impact on your ability to fight or perform acrobatic moves.

In 1e you would be encumbered with 120 lbs of gear - your movement rate quartered, and your reaction and initiative slowed greatly.

Quote from: mightybrain on September 29, 2021, 07:49:43 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 29, 2021, 03:35:03 PMWe're talking about a game where carrying up to 120 lbs. of gear has zero impact on your ability to fight or perform acrobatic moves.

In 1e you would be encumbered with 120 lbs of gear - your movement rate quartered, and your reaction and initiative slowed greatly.

The wheelchair is a 5e thing, so that's the game in talking about.