Genders - What's the difference?

[El Mahdi]

I've got a question.

Why is the Strength score indicative of muscle mass only?

Because in the real world, that is what determines strength. There are different types of muscle fibers that do different things, most specifically slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscle fibers. Dexterity and efficiency of a muscle is determined by both the mass of that muscle and the efficiency of it's neural connections to and within the brain. But strength is almost purely determined by mass. An equal amount of muscle mass/density in a man or a woman would have exactly the same strength capability (excluding skeletal structure, metabolism, etc.). Muscle fibers do not get stronger from exercise, they develop more muscle fibers due to exercise. Testosterone levels do not make a muscle stronger (though they can help one produce more muscle mass). Men are typically stronger than women because of a higher average mass and density of muscle. Not because of physiological differences in the muscles themselves.

I mean, we're dealing with characters for whom "Blessed as a babe by the god of martial exploits" or "fueled by destiny" is a perfectly respectable reason to have a high Strength score.

In most D&D campaigns/premises, you'd likely be correct. But not all D&D campaigns have such premises. Some very specifically do not have things like "Gods" or "Destiny". Some are purposely set in a real-world environment, where allowing such premises would stand out as inappropriate or absurd.

Just as Vanilla isn't the only flavor of Ice Cream, so standard fantasy is not the only flavor of D&D.

Are you assuming that barbarians, when raging, *actually* Hulk up?

Nope. Since I prefer a real-world analogy and realism based premises in my games, I'd assume that the Barbarians Rage Ability is due either to Adrenaline or an introduced chemical substance (translation: Drugs) - just like real-world Berserkers.

If I was playing in a supers-based D&D game, then I'd find "Hulking Up" as a perfectly okay explanation.

If I was playing straight fantasy D&D; divine intervention, innate magic, or pretty much anything else will work just fine. When I play a game based on pure fantasy, I don't have a problem with this.

I have and do play in many different D&D settings, not only the ones with standard D&D assumptions.

Different strokes...your mileage may vary...etc., etc., etc.

 

[pawsplay]

Because in the real world, that is what determines strength.

No. In the real world, muscle fiber provides motive power, but actual strength depends on pretty complex biomechanics. Otherwise, weightlifters would lift the same weight every time, which they do not, and that is the simplest strength application I can think of.

 

[El Mahdi]

No. In the real world, muscle fiber provides motive power, but actual strength depends on pretty complex biomechanics. Otherwise, weightlifters would lift the same weight every time, which they do not, and that is the simplest strength application I can think of.

Muscle mass is the biggest determining factor, the one that most objectively determines strength potential, though there are other factors (but I said that in my post). Increase muscle mass and strength will increase. Decrease muscle mass and strength will decrease. One can change the mechanical factors a bit but only through technique (you can't actually change your skeletal structure - at least not positively). One can also change the biochemical factors (metabolism, energy efficiency, etc.), but such changes are still limited by the amount of muscle present in the first place. Steroids don't even directly increase strength. They may increase the chemical efficiency of a muscle, or allow the addition of new muscle more quickly than without, but they don't actually increase the strength of a muscle fiber. There is nothing in the world that will allow a muscle to exceed it's structural limitations (adrenaline can allow one to exceed their bodies own safety limits, but if the muscles structural limitations are exceeded, the muscle will fail). Every lift is different because of all of those factors, but mass is the single biggest limit on strength potential - which is really what a D&D ability score is - Strength potential.

And that's really what we're talking about with D&D ability scores (usually) - they are a measure of potential. When making strength checks, we're making a random roll referenced to and limited by the characters strength potential in the form of a strength bonus. So, a character with a Strength bonus of +4 has a potential for a Strength check result of 5 to 24 (with a natural 1 usually being an automatic failure). So, just like the weightlifter, the D&D character isn't lifting the same weight every time (though the system does allow absolutes when it comes to carrying capacity - but I really don't want to make a strength check every time a character picks some mundane thing up - so I roll with it for ease of play). If a character uses their ability increase from level advancement on increasing strength, what they've done is increased their muscle mass.

So, you're right, mass isn't the only thing involved in strength, but it's the only variable of the equation we have any significant ability to affect, and is the biggest determining factor in strength potential.

 

[pawsplay]

Muscle mass is the biggest determining factor, the one that most objectively determines strength potential, though there are other factors (but I said that in my post). Increase muscle mass and strength will increase.

That's simply not true. There are differences between training for power and body sculpting. While a boxer might, for instance, lift weights in order to increase strength, to actually achieve a stronger punch, the boxer needs to punch repeatedly, and integrate the muscles and support structures. Further, you simply can't talk about strength without considering motor neurons. Without balance, coordination of opposite muscle groups, and a good initiation of motions, you suffer from inefficiency. And inefficiency means less strength. Poorly coordinated motions are like a tug of war team where four people are pulling with all their might, but the fifth isn't sure which way they are supposed to pull. Because muscles must be coordinated, simply adding more muscle doesn't add more strength in a linear fashion.

Simply having muscle mass does not mean it's distributed in areas where it's useful. A lot of the extra muscle in a man can be considered to simply be for moving the man's extra mass around, and supporting his denser bones. Some if may be just accenting secondary sexual characteristics. People who work out in order to shape their bodies do not develop in the same way as people who work to lift very large weights, or to move with explosive power.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This thread has actually slid from potentially interesting to mildly amusing.

 

[El Mahdi]

That's simply not true...

You're right, and I was wrong. I did some reading about this and learned some interesting things. Muscle Strength is ultimately determined by two things, the mass of the muscle and how well the muscle works (everyone pulling together...or not). Going back to the original question that initiated this part of the thread: Why do we link Strength to Muscle Mass? I guess it's just an assumption based on what people observe. Work out, muscles get bigger, you can lift more weight, therefore more muscle equals more strength - which is true, it's just not the whole story. We don't "see" the new neurons and the increase in efficiency of muscles. I was also wrong about fast twitch and slow twitch muscles earlier. Slow twitch is more about endurance than strength. A sprinter would have a higher concentration/ratio of fast twitch muscles, just like a powerlifter. Which means that a sprinters speed is also strongly linked to Strength (not just Dexterity).

Can a person get stronger without adding more muscle mass? If they are not using the full potential of the muscle mass they already have - Yes. If they are already using their muscles at maximum efficiency - No.

Can a person get stronger by adding more muscle mass? If the muscles are also gaining the requisite neuron connections and learning to work efficiently - Yes. If they aren't also developing efficiency in the muscle - No.

I guess that's why bodybuilders can get so big, without necessarily having the same strength as a powerlifter (who may or may not be as big). They do more exercises geared toward making the muscle bigger, and less exercises meant to improve muscle efficiency. (Although they do improve muscle effieciency a bit also.) It boils down to (for the most part) Bodybuilders are concerned with shaping muscles, Powerlifters are concerned with increasing the strength of muscles.

I went over some statistics of powerlifters and bodybuilders, and found something rather interesting.

Arnold Schwarzenegger during his Mr. Olympia days, was 6' 2" and about 235 lbs. (during competition - up to 260 during training). Looking at his reported maximum lifts - he was only about an 18 or 19 Strength in D&D terms (probably about an 18 during competition, as he likely wouldn't have been at his strongest then, just his biggest and most defined - lowest body fat percentage).

Le Maosheng when he set the Clean & Jerk World Record at the 62 kg. weight category, was 5' 4" and 136 lbs. - which equates to about a 21 Strength in D&D.

We can probably assume they had body fat percntages fairly close to eachother (pictures below), or if anything Arnie had a lower percentage (cutting down to extremely low body fat in order to show muscle definition). That gives Arnie a BMI of about 30 at competition time (up to 33 during training), and Maosheng a BMI of about 23. Now I know that BMI is controversial and not necessarily very scientific, and I personally believe BMI has significant shortcomings, but that's still a very significant difference. Arnie more than likely had more muscle mass at the time he won Mr. Olympia, than Maosheng had when he broke the world record - yet Maosheng is significantly stronger than Arnie. Although we don't have exercise for exercise numbers, I'd bet that Maosheng could probably outlift Arnie in just about any exercise.

6' 2", 235 lbs. - 18 Strength_________5' 4", 136 lbs. - 21 Strength

Maybe it's just hardwired into us: Size means Strength. Apparently that's not necessarily true.


I know that the conversaton has gone a bit afield of the OP, so in an effort to bring it back (though it may be just about talked out), I updated that pdf I posted earlier with some of the interesting things I found (like above), including some pictures of female powerlifters and equivelent D&D Strengths. I also learned about and included stats on Mariusz Pudzianowski. That dude is just scary.

 

[pawsplay]

You're right, and I was wrong. I did some reading about this and learned some interesting things.

Wow, I was putting off looking at this thread in the fear it had become extremely tedious. And instead I found this. You just made my day. Thank you! You're a good person.

 

[El Mahdi]

Thank you!

Thank you also. It's been a good conversation and thread. I've actually gained quite a bit of perspective from it. I hope [MENTION=89822]Jon_Dahl[/MENTION] found it provided what he was looking for also (and everybody else in the thread, even the lurkers...although I doubt a certain professor found it worthwhile...)

The realist and tinkerer in me so wants to model everything, but I'm wondering if it's worth it in this case. The only mechanical modeling of this I feel would be fair - and if not worthwhile, at least not damaging - would be either a cap (most realistic but most negative impact), or just limit carrying capacity (mostly realistic, fairly neutral, but so insignificant as to wonder what the point is...). I've definitely decided that a Strength penalty isn't the way to go for me - it's not realistic, and has nothing but negative attached. That was even a key design of 4E (no class or racial penalties, just bonuses), one that I like. I should have rememberd that. I also need to rethink my Strength caps for races like Halflings. Le Maoshengs accomplishment makes me realize that a 4 foot Halfling, even being light (120-130 lbs), can have very significant Strength - even 20 or 21 - and still be realistic (although they'd probably be the strongest Halfling in the World - Evar!).

Oh Well...back to the drawing board (though I do enjoy it, so...).