Strength Doctrines

Wow...I need to re-read these old blog posts more often. There are a more than a few gems lodged in the archives! I was composing (in my mind) an essay on the when I found half of what I planned on saying waaay back in this post on a similar subject.

The Doctrines of Strength is a set of rules (like those of Sun Tzu) for the forces of Nurgle in the WH40K game, derived from the Strengthfinder philosophy of Tom Rath. Unfortunately, my actual essays on the subject were scattered to the astral (or internet) winds when Deathguard.org shut down their forums, but the Doctrines were based on three pillars distilled from a "Strengths" seminar I was required to attend at work:

1) We only become more of what we already are.

2) We make our biggest advancements in areas of our strength.

3) Um...something else I can't remember right now.

Actually, I'm probably screwing up #2 in my mind...it needs to be broken down into two distinct tenets:

a) building upon strength is easier.

b) building upon strength pays better dividends.

Now as I said in my previous post, I don't think the strength theory is particularly apt for daily life...I'm more of the "DaVinci" school of thought that people should be well-rounded in their training and education rather than focused only on their strengths. After all, LIFE is not just about winning (well, for some people it might be, but they might not be the nicest folks you'll meet). In many ways, trying to do so is the equivalent of min-maxing.

On the other hand, in playing a game in which WINNING is the objective...such as WH40K or football...the Doctrines of Strength can reap rewards. Yeah, you're one-sided...but so long as you keep the game focused in YOUR arena of expertise, you can blow up your opponent before they exploit your weakness. In effect, you're changing the strategy from "how do I manage the field with the pieces at my disposal" to "how do I manage my opponent so that I can force him to play my game." It's not effortless, but it is proactive instead of reactive...which I prefer anyway.

[by the way, as I write this, the Bears are up on the Seahawks at halftime. They will need to come back...much as Pittsburgh did...in order for my fevered ravings to prove accurate. Hey, I was right about Green Bay! Hopefully, they'll find their own strength in the locker room. Go Seahawks!]

ANYway...y'all are probably wondering what this has to do with RPGs. Well, it can apply to game design, especially in helping to focus the designer. Not only does it keep the designer on task (not worrying about systems and mechanics that don't contribute to the overall game coherence), but it dials in attention on the components that are cool/innovative and building on them.

In discussing Heroes Unlimited, a lot of its coolness gets lost in its ugliness. Yes, HU is ugly, and loses its focus...or rather, never properly places focus...in its quest to highlight its author's diatribe.

On second thought, "diatribe" is definitely too strong a word. And while Siembieda's discussions on how HU is a "thinking man's game" (...as opposed to...?) don't even appear too much in the main HU rulebook, it is the conspicuous lack of instruction on how to make best use of the rules that makes any such wasted space more irritating. You won't find anything like "Campaign Info an Ideas," or "Adventure Creation" in the Heroes Unlimited rule book. Such sections can be found in the Heroes Unlimited GM's Guide...but last time I checked there was no mention this was a required volume for playing the game.

But I don't want to talk about HU's failings...I want to talk about its strengths.

- granular superhero action from street level all the way up to Bronze Age Thor with minimal effort (i.e. Champions or GURPS could do it with hours of prep, sure...I don't want to do that work; not my idea of "fun").

- in-game experience having a measurable impact on character effectiveness without affecting the actual power level of super characters.

- emphasis, not on combat, but on performing heroic activities (linked to reward system, i.e. influencing character behavior).

[ugh...the game just ended and the Seahawks are out of the playoffs. A key injury to our tight end unhinged the offense in the first half, along with the mysterious disappearance of Marshawn Lynch. He must have pulled a hamstring doing all those expo spots on ESPN this week...]

- a fearless approach to superhero archetypes including distinct mechanics for handling physical superpowers versus psionics versus magical abilities versus robotics versus special training.

- and, of course, the three-tier strength system that, with minimal tweaking, can model most anything in the comics or live action film (television cartoon? no...go get Cartoon Action Hour if you want the Superfriends or something).

- a combat system that actually feels a bit like the slow-motion, frame-by-frame of the comic action sequence.

I can't help but think that if these things were EMPHASIZED by the writer(s)...and then if there were some real guidelines written for running the damn game...Heroes Unlimited might get a little more love from the RPG community.

But what am I saying...I'm not even running it, and I like the game!

I'm going to have to review Palladium's policy regarding "derivative works" and the internet again. I think I'd be more likely to run and play HU with a little (self-imposed) organization and stream-lining of the game...but it seems a bit of a waste to do so only for myself.

; )

[or maybe I'll just watch football...now that the Seahawks are out of the play-offs, I find I am rooting for the Patriots to NOT lose to the Jets. Not because I'm a New England fan or anything, but because I don't want the Steelers going back to the Super Bowl; sorry, New York]

***EDIT: And yet, at halftime, the Jets are up 14 to 3 on the Patriots, surprising them just as my fever dreams predicted. If this keeps up, my Steelers Super Bowl prediction will hold, but I really don't know who they'll be playing from the NFC. Whose defense is better between the Bears and Green Bay? Probably the Bears...but it's pretty close. And Rogers is much better than Cutler. But the Bears have home field advantage, a coaching staff containing four NFL head coaches, and an offensive line that should be able to give a balanced game for Chicago. Even though Green Bay will be fairly well rested after blowing up the Falcons, I think I still give advantage Bears. ***

I Blame Captain America...

One thing I absolutely love about Heroes Unlimited (sorry, folks...just gotta' keep talking about this) is it's three tier system for physical strength. In HU, there are three distinct levels of "strength" a character can possess: human, superhuman, and supernatural.

Human strength...physical strength that is un-augmented and limited by the frailties of the normal human body...has an absolute limit of 40. It includes characters who have lifted weights and 'roided themselves up, as well as the strength of bionic characters that still possess some fleshy parts (and thus have to be wary of the strain on their puny, human systems). Human strength can be divided further into "normal" (P.S. up to 16), "strong" (P.S. over 16), or "extraordinary" (which is for those folks with bionics or high levels derived from certain superpowers).

Superhuman strength is just that: strength greater than the capabilities of a human. Robotic strength, alien life forms, super-powered strength, and that unrestricted by the human form (for example, characters that can turn their bodies into rock or metal) all are capable of superhuman strength. Superhuman strength has no maximum limit to it, and is considerably stronger in terms of lifting/carrying capacity. Spider-Man may be a skinny guy but he has superhuman strength.

Supernatural strength is unnatural...in comic book terms this is the might of Thor or Hercules or the Hulk in what would otherwise be considered a "human-sized package." Thor can bench press 100 tons, even though he is physically on-par with Luke Cage or so. Supernatural strength does exceptionally more damage than human and superhuman strength, and the carrying capacity is much greater as well...though for truly comic book level strength still requires some house rule adjustment.

But we'll get to the criticism in a second; first thing is to give credit where credit is due. This multiple tier approach to strength is great, and my favorite approach to the subject in any superhero game I own (and I own a LOT). White Wolf's Aberrant was pretty good with its physical strength of plus mega-strength power (not a two tier system, per se, but two separate systems that operate in tandem together. The Thing and Cage might both have Strength scores of 5, but different Mega-Strength scores, whereas Spider-Man and Cage have the same Mega-Strength but two different starting Strength scores). Unfortunately, Aberrant fails to mimic comic convention weirdness, doesn't do Iron Man, and has a tough time with granular, street level heroics (like The Cape).

[mmm...as I type this, the Steelers have managed to take the lead over the Ravens despite being completely shown up and dominated by Baltimore in the first half. Looks like my feverish ranting had some merit]

Most superhero games simply equate physical strength to being a single scale...perhaps, it goes from 1 to 100, but it is absolute in its measure. Cage is stronger than Hawkeye by a lot, but hasn't a chance in hell against the Thing, who will eventually succumb to Thor in a battle of physical might. The problem with this is when one ties the strength score to melee attack effectiveness...for example, Super World or Villains & Vigilantes. Mutants & Masterminds avoids this, but is such a wuss when it comes to super strength anyway (a starting character with STR 10 and the ability to live 50 tons does no more damage than the STR 20 bruiser that can only lift 6 tons...and spends a heckuva' lot more "power points" for the privilege) that it hardly bears mention.

But all is not rosy in the HU world of superhero strength, and I put the blame squarely on Captain America.

I find Captain America to be a fascinating character, admittedly more so with the Marvel Ultimates imprint. Here's a character, whose only real superpower is his ability to be the perfect human fighting machine...he is cited as being at the absolute peak of human potential in strength, agility, endurance, and durability. In game terms, I take this to mean "max human stats;" after all, if another human had the possibility of achieving a higher level of ability, well, then that would show Cap had NOT actually met the maximum human potential, right?

So what is the maximum human potential for strength?

Now THAT is an interesting case. After all, there have been plenty of legendary strongmen over the years...guys like the Mighty Atom who was able to prevent a small prop airplane from accelerating by tying it to the hair on his scalp. The current world record for an unassisted dead lift is 975 pounds (held by Benedikt Magnusson), which would seem to be a good baseline for figuring "maximum human strength."

With Heroes Unlimited, a character with maximum human strength (40) can dead lift 1600 pounds. A normal human with EXTRAORDINARY physical strength (still not superhuman) and a strength of 40 can dead lift 8000 pounds.

[on the flip side, the only way to have a character like Thor, capable of dead lifting 80 tons or so, would require a physical strength of 320, well outside the range of any character rolled up in Heroes Unlimited]

HU has the right idea with its tiers, but the carrying/lifting amounts exhibit too shallow a range to exhibit all the possibility of comic book heroes...which hinders its ability to do what it does so well (granular heroic role-playing).

The problem is especially pronounced if you try to model Captain America using the "super-soldier" class (an otherwise excellent option for characters as diverse as Wolverine, Black Widow, and Cap). None of the options for boosting the 98 pound weakling's strength can be taken without increasing it to at least "extraordinary range;" easily putting the character in the same class as Spider-Man (who can pick up and toss a VW Bus without breaking much of a sweat).

*sigh* ...sometimes it appears to be all about upping the power ranges, aka "Rifts Bloat," which I hate and is both antithesis to the potential of the game and the stated values of its designer/author. But if Palladium only appeals to munchkins, I guess munchkin value is the proper fan base to play to...

Fortunately, the HU Gamemaster's Guide makes it abundantly clear that GMs are free to play-about with the actual lifting/carrying capacities of the various classes of strength. UNfortunately, Palladium's irritating internet policy makes the posting of house rules outside their forums to be an iffy prospect to post my totally excellent house rule changes to strength. At least in reference to Palladium's Heroes Unlimited.

; )

Playing to Your Strengths

Having my own little blog from which to proselytize has been very liberating for me…not in the sense that I now speak my mind where before I did not…but in allowing me to cut down on time pent surfing various net forums and moderating/following discussion threads. Sure, my “message” (if I have one! Still refining that) may not be reaching as many folks as it could be, but dammit I can’t be responsible for everyone anyway! If it’s meant to be, people will find their way here and if anything I write interests them, they’ll stick around.

Doesn’t mean I don’t sometimes miss or get nostalgic for the old web forums.

One set of forums I frequented regularly circa 2006-2008 was those over at deathguard.org. Unfortunately closed up now, deathguard.org was THE premier site for discussion specific to the Death Guard chaos space marines of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. In addition to fun tips on painting, modeling, and army building there was plenty of discussion on strategy, tactics, and theoryhammer regarding the use of the Death Guard against other army types. The place was quite the think tank, and there were a lot of victories forged in the fires of those discussions.

Which often surprised other 40K players. Fielding an “all Death Guard” army (or any chaos specific-dedicated force) is kind of the equivalent of showing up to a Con with your Little Brown Books and running an OD&D game. In the original edition of 40K, if one wanted to field a chaos legion army, one would choose a single patron demon (for Death Guard this would be Grandfather Nurgle, Lord of Decay) and build the army using those troops specific for the patron. However, beginning with the 2nd edition (WH40K is now in its 5th or 6th edition) the designers moved to a more “Chaos United” kind of format, where you could sample a little of this and a little of that from the Chaos buffet line.

Of course, to older (or more stubborn) “traditionalist” players like myself this was frigging blasphemy! I ran a “Khorne only” army for a looong time, up till I discovered deathguard.org a whole community of dedicated curmudgeons drawn to the plaguey ones for the modeling opportunities a diseased horde affords the a budding sculptor. Seeing them as kindred spirits, I quickly switched allegiances and built a very nice collection of plague marines; a veritable “pox hammer,” if you will.

Other 40K players call this a “theme” Chaos army. But really, we’re just Old Schoolers of a 40K variety.

Anyway, on the Death Guard forums I developed my own pet theory of strategy called the Doctrines of Strength. I wish I’d saved my essays on the subject, as they were lost with the closing of the forums. They were a bit controversial (that is, heatedly debated at times), but they served ME well. The basic idea behind them (I’m not going to try to eloquently re-create them today) is that an army/force is good at SOMEthing, figure out what that something is, and do THAT. Hell, overload it! One gets more “bang for the buck” playing to one’s strength and can achieve crushing victories using the same.

The reason this was contested was of the existing idea of “shoring up one’s weaknesses.” This was the theory that if an army was weak in one area, one should add units to compensate for those weaknesses, thus becoming more “well-rounded.”

To me, this appeared to be a coward’s deception…hell, trying to compensate for weakness is simply denying your own strength! For example, the Death Guard were never going to be great at long range shooting, so why bother worrying about adding one or two (very high priced) long range weapons to the mix. Just focus your tactics around the areas your force is strong (short-mid range and close combat) and crush your opponent in the areas where YOU are strong.

Anyway, as I said, there was far more to it than that, and several good discussions on the subject that I wish I’d saved somewhere (maybe they are saved on my old PC hard drive, but that’s sitting in my garage still). Anyway, they weren’t entirely original (except perhaps in application)…I got the idea for the Doctrines of Strength from a seminar/training at work!

The training was based on a book (I don’t remember the title, as I’ve never read it, though it’s stuffed in some book shelf at home) and involved a video of people throwing fish around the Pike Place Market…or maybe I’m confusing that with a different training (maybe there was a jazz trumpet player? I don’t remember). ANYway, the basic gist of the training was this: different people have different strong personality traits, the older we get the more we become “more of the same” (stronger in our strong areas, weaker in our weak areas), and we gain more by exploiting our own strengths than we do by compensating for our weaknesses.

Interestingly enough, while I think the Strength theory works great for Warhammer 40,000, I probably come down on the opposite side of the argument with regard to human beings; it is much more important to be a well-rounded person in day-to-day life than it is to be “super strong” in one area. Also, I don’t believe everyone becomes “more of the same” as they get older…it really depends on the self-analysis and work you do on yourself over time. Otherwise, I’d suspect I still be a full-time jerk in stead of just a part-time one!

But with regard to GAMES including RPGs, the strength doctrines are interesting. I see two applications of them with regard to standard RPGs (like D&D) the first obvious, the 2nd less so.

The first, is in choosing character concepts that fit one’s randomly rolled profile. Now of course this only applies to games where random chance is a factor in character creation (for example: ALL old TSR games, Traveller, Chaosium BRP games, etc.). The recent post over on Grognardia about ability scores is what got me thinking about this at all. In OD&D, the three Prime Requisites (strength, intelligence, and wisdom) did nothing but increase the rate at which you gained experience points. This is the Doctrines of Strength in all its glory! You can certainly play a fighter with an 8 strength…and hit just as hard as a fighter with an 17 strength (same to hit roll at any given level, same 1D6 damage regardless of weapon type)…but the guy with the 17 is going to get more “bang for his buck” in earned XP than the lesser dude. The same applies to the un-intelligent wizard or the cleric that lacks wisdom.

I like this…hell, I like it A LOT. Most of the gamers I know do NOT like it (simply because they prefer more bonuses and more distinctions between characters), but I do. You can role-play the wimpy fighter or ignorant wizard with great fun and enjoyment (and you know what else? No one gets an advantage over someone else simply because they happened to roll a higher strength than the other! THAT’s game balance, folks!). And yet there is still a reward for the players who “play to their character’s strengths” in the form of more rapid advancement (though not “meteoric” advancement…just a bonus).

The second, less obvious application of the strength doctrines is regarding players’ choice of character type within an RPG. Certainly many folks gravitate to different types of characters depending on their temperament and personality. However, some of us (like me), want to try a whole slew of different personas seeing great “role-playing potential” (whatever THAT means!) in various character types; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are best suited to a particular class or archetype.

Let me give a personal example before I write something that offends someone. Now for me, I am a fan of the Western genre (duh!) and I am an aficionado of the spaghetti western (Clint Eastwood blazing away). I think the silent, stoic, lone gunman is totally badass and cool (who doesn’t?), and it really appeals to my Scorpio nature.

But folks who know me and role-play with me know that I am probably the least likely candidate to play the strong, silent type. Why? ‘Cause I’m loud and talky and perhaps (not too much I hope!) obnoxious at times. I can glare and sneer with the best of ‘em, but especially at the gaming table (a “fun” environment) I tend to be very sociable and un-Scorpionic. Something about role-playing brings me out of my shell.

Similar to my earlier posts about my Toad cleric…I had wanted the guy to be a sleezy, in-the-shadows kind of priest, but I couldn’t help bringing him to the foreground. Now this is NOT because I have any kind of tendency to be "heroic." It IS because I have a tendency to be impatient, aggressive, and (at times) ballsy. Being the support guy or the “thinker/schemer” is NOT my forte…unless I can be thinking up plans and tactics on the fly (I tend to be decisive in the “pressure cooker” situation).

This is probably one of the main reasons I have NEVER played a magic-user or magic-user sub-class in D&D…in ANY edition (oh, well, there was my abortive attempt at a Gandalf knock-off in 3rd edition…but that’s the exception that proves the rule in my opinion). I’m not good at walking in 2nd or 3rd rank…I like to be up front where the action is. I don’t like having to plan my spells in advance (unless I can just take a bunch of utility spells and rely on my SWORD, as I did with my Gandalf character!). Yet another reason why I hate the bard of the 2nd and later editions…they are designed to be a purely support role (they will be quickly up-staged by any “focused” class), and I can’t abide that.

But that’s ME. I have gamed with many folks who don’t share my particular berserker temperament. Clever, outside-the-box players, thoughtful-intuitive players, players who used their social skills to advantage IN GAME. And yes, those heroic players that always, ALWAYS play paladins (hi, Alex!).

Some players like to take a wait-and-see stance, only stepping forward when called upon (these are thieves of the non-swashbuckling variety) and they are perfectly content to play such a reactive role in the party. This is FUN for them. But would they make a good fighter? Not necessarily one of the “tank” variety; that’s quite possibly outside their comfort zone.


This post is getting long so I’ll just talk about one last RPG example (one that, along with Grognardia, blew this whole post into existence). Top Secret (1st edition; I haven’t played SI) is an excellent example of an Old School game that is “wide-open” as far as character possibility, but one where paying attention to one’s strengths is critical. There are only three character types (occupational Bureaus) in Top Secret: Confiscation, Investigation, and Assassination. Nothing chargen-wise distinguishes any of them from each other…you can roll any scores for your random attributes and choose any Bureau. Likewise, Bureaus themselves confer no special abilities or kewl powers…PC s are all trained spies; they simply happen to work in different departments.

The “only” thing Bureaus do is completely influence behavior and one’s role in an adventuring group (because the rewards system – money and experience – is tied directly to one’s actions and the expected actions of a Bureau member). So an Assassin gets more “points” for killing and kidnapping people, a Confiscator gets more “points” for stealing and hijacking vehicles, etc.

While ANY character generated in Top Secret can choose to be of any Bureau, certain (randomly determined) ability scores would be desirable for different departments (for example, an Investigator would like to have more Areas of Knowledge and an Assassin would probably like a higher Hand-to-Hand rating) and could (and should) prompt a person to take a particular “career path.” However, it is even MORE important in a game like Top Secret that players consider their own personal temperament, and how they feel comfortable “playing their character” as the character’s behavior within its Bureau’s specifications are going to be directly linked with game advancement. A person with no stomach for killing or (like myself) no patience for planning “clean” or “ultraclean” assassinations, should probably think twice before picking an assassin character…even though government hit-men seem cool and “glamorous,” the style of playing involved may not fit with our personality types, thus leading to slow advancement, discomfort in conformity, and less overall “fun.”

Just something to think about.