# Re: (TFT) 1 point of 'damage' vs. 1 point of Fatigue

```Hi Jay,

Thanks for the reply. It's very interesting, and I'm sorry I don't have time to go over everything in detail (except I think that might be an infinite branching process that would only end when we couldn't keep track of it and/or passed out or something).

I quite agree that GM and players need to focus attention on what they want their play to be about. It just seems to me that your chosen domain seems to me to be sort of donut-shaped, in that you want the usual fun adventure-relevant topics, and you also want some extreme science details many of which are not included in any game, but then you skip a lot of things that would connect the two, so you have all these interesting details but the foundation between them and the game situation is missing less-detailed elements that exist in real life and to some degree in some games (e.g. GURPS comes to mind).

--- Jay_Carlisle@charter.net wrote:
...
The way I see it, I can take 1 point of ST under my definition of 5.5 pounds
moved 1 foot in one second and relate it to one "horsepower" as the 1/100
inverse of the 1 point of IQ to 100 little "cars" idea.

I know I'm pretty stupid, but this stuff matches up well enough to define
arguments just a little bit I feel.
If I can show your an order of magnatitude off in a gripe then the
reasonable player/GM adjusts at that point.
Elseif we are negoitaing how many die and +/- to the roll.
Then the die is cast and the story moves forward.
...

PvK: Except, I don't think you have the right _types_ of units. Thinking of real-world physics, compared to your example, you are trying to equate some aspect of ST, to mass moved a distance over a period of time, and also equate that to horsepower, and then to IQ (!!!) and then to "100 little "cars" idea" (???).

* ST: Is that one point of damage, or the difference between two ST levels when a figure is applying physical effort?

* mass moved a distance over a period of time: In physics that would be work/time, which is like "power", not force. I would think strength exertion might tend to map somehow (but not really) to physics' term "force", and damage might map somehow (but not really) to physics' term "energy". So if you really meant velocity rather than distance moved, and you meant damage, that might map (but not really).

* horsepower is a power measure, closer to force. Again, those things don't _really_ map because there are also mechanics involved. GURPS abstractly represents that with different damage types and different strength-to-damage tables for swings versus thrusts, with adjustments for the weapon being used, and sometimes for the skills being used. If you were taking the data you found and using it to criticize and tweak the GURPS melee damage numbers, I would be interested and find it useful, because it's a frame of reference that I am familiar with and that seems to have reasonably accurate cause & effect, and I could compare it to my own calculations that seem right to me.

* IQ: Are you kidding? How can you equate IQ to ST or a physical measure, unless you're bending spoons with your intelligence?

* "100 little "cars" idea": I don't think I want to know. ;-)

...
>Consider this...
A group of players decide to rob a bank but first decide to use a hired
group of henchmen to rob another bank across town.
The henchmen are set up to fail while the main attempt hopes to benifet from
an all out resaponse against the henchmen effort.
IMO as a GM what you have as a tool to work with is the police force on this
and it's not fair to pull additional cops outta your neather regions to
Acting like there's ALWAYS enough cops to handle anything "illegal" in town
is a bit like killing a "respawning" something for x-# of gold.
...

PvK: Absolutely. That's the way I like to GM too. I like to be aware of what exists in my world, and let players interact with it, and have that determine what happens, rather that scripting things.

>I'm not foresaking your GURPS advice... I owe the deal a stronger look for a
number of reasons...

PvK: Cool. I would do the Basic Set first, then if wanting more modern detail High Tech, then if wanting insane vehicle details Vehicles (though that one's even too much for me, except for some parts).

>I'm still @faebookakie on Champions Online which is free for a basic account these days.

PvK: Interesting. If/when I come into some time, I may take a look.

>I'd just rather supplement the abstract at the players request... more or less.

PvK: Sure. I've played with some trippy GM's who were into weird tangents of game development, and found it interesting and fun for a while.

It's just tempting to see you putting so much energy into research that seems like it could be relevant and useful to what I'm interested in, but missing the "middle of the donut" and so not being applicable (except to pick through to see what interesting data points you have found).
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"

```