[Rq-rules] Farewell to CON

[Sven Lugar]

 From my service experience of 35 years ago in a land far-far-away: 
Brute strength was less a factor in winning a fight than the durability 
& stamina from having a strong constitution. One had to fight off 
disease, miserable conditions that sapped you, stay awake & sane thru 
long gruelling hours that tax you mentally & physically, & other trials 
that demanded little strength & a great sturdy constitution before you 
even saw a fight. This even applies to non-combatants, such as nurses 
who couldn't sleep thru a prolonged mortar attack & yet turned too & 
patched us up. (Personally going to the wall didn't bust my composure 
but going to the statue of the nurses brought back the hardest memories 
for I wouldn't be alive without those women). Thus I've seen women hold 
up better than men. I've seen smaller men keep going thru a patrol when 
the big buff types fell apart. The nastiest fighters I've ever met have 
been predominantly smaller & always faster & always smarter guys. But 
yeah, I want a large strong guy dancing with the Stoner than some small 
guy for a short term. So I suggest to you that realistically both must 
play a part. STR & CON don't correlate but rather they compliment each 
other.
respectfully,
Sven

Lev Lafayette wrote:
> --- Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote:
>
>   
>>> This is pretty much because I cannot fathom many
>>> situations where STR and CON don't correlate
>>>       
>> strongly.
>>     
>>> STR and SIZ, well that's a different matter.
>>>       
>> *shrug* I've known far too many basically indolent
>> and not particularly
>> physically impressive or powerful people who shrug
>> off every infection and
>> demonstrate remarkable robustness of health, and far
>> too many athletic or
>> physically powerful people who are prone to every
>> minor infection that goes
>> around to fold STR and CON together and find it
>> "realistic".
>>     
>
> I must say on the scale of the things, I haven't
> noticed this a great deal. The correlation between
> physical fitness, musculture and health seems strong
> enough in game terms to me.
>
>   
>> But to be honest, the niggling moments when RQ's
>> model DOESN'T align with
>> the setting / world are few and far between and for
>> me not worth the effort
>> of re-jigging the system.
>>     
>
> This one hasn't required too much work at all.
> CONstitution doesn't seem to get too much use as it
> is.
>
>   
>> There is of course an argument (hinted at in RQIII
>> itself) that
>> perceptiveness is already a direct function of CON
>> (i.e. a general health)
>> anyway... ;-)
>>     
>
> Quite true that... 
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
>
>
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/09042d18/attachment.html