What's the point of Athletics-0?

[rancke]

Which is WHY you want Athletics 0.

You've lost me now.

Now, as to trained athletes that are out of shape. Any athlete that comes into annual training camp way overweight is not physically fit.

All my knowledge of athletes is vicarious, but I'm pretty certain that someone who was fit six months ago is still going to be a lot fitter than someone who have never been fit. In a scale that has just two grades, fit and not fit, I submit that any athlete that comes into annual training camp way overweight would still go into the 'fit' category.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

All my knowledge of athletes is vicarious, but I'm pretty certain that someone who was fit six months ago is still going to be a lot fitter than someone who have never been fit. In a scale that has just two grades, fit and not fit, I submit that any athlete that comes into annual training camp way overweight would still go into the 'fit' category.

Still on the fit vs athletic discussion?

Athletics in game, RAW, terms can be defined as a character either having the skill or not. In real life it is less specific. Since this is a discussion about the game, for me it's confusing when one starts trying to use real world - not as clearly defined - athletics as a comparison.

So that's athletics. Now how about fit.

of a suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose

As far as I know fit has no single real life metric which can be applied to the real world let alone the game rules.
For example, a fit football lineman is using a different standard than a fit marathon runner. Some people use age/height charts and say people should have a certain body fat and weight. Was Refrigerator Johnson, even during the season, "fit" by those standards?

The game rules don't have even one of those various possible metrics.

Is a CCC777 character with no RAW athletics skill fit?
Is a ex athlete who is 58yo and has deteriorated to 444777 but still has RAW athletics skill fit?

Rhetorical questions. I'm not seeking your answers just posing things for you to think about if you wish.

If one goes strictly by the MgT book, I believe rancke is the one who brought this up, all characters that have the Athletics skill is also physically fit. From the real world

"Physical fitness is generally achieved through correct nutrition, exercise, hygiene and rest."

To me, this is just descriptive text to say, in general, athletes tend to be physically fit.

Can a character who does not have the athletics skill be "physically fit"? Don't see why not.
Is it possible that a character with athletics skill is not always "physically fit" their whole life. Don't see why not.

That said, what's the point? Seriously. I've forgotten what the point is of the fit vs athletic discussion.

 

[Condottiere]

Fit to me would be someone who has to do physical labour or spends some time in the gym or on the track each week.

Drilled front line infantry should immediately qualify.

 

[rancke]

That said, what's the point? Seriously. I've forgotten what the point is of the fit vs athletic discussion.

Ah, if only there was a way to retrace the discussion back through the proffered arguments and reread them.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

Ah, if only there was a way to retrace the discussion back through the proffered arguments and reread them.

You are the OP. I'm asking for clarification of what the point of the fit vs athletics discussion is and from your point of view all you have is sarcasm?

If all you are looking for is meaningless debates and not any real discussion to help people understand the rules or develop their own so that they can enjoy the game, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Some people use age/height charts and say people should have a certain body fat and weight. Was Refrigerator Johnson, even during the season, "fit" by those standards?

somewhat off topic, but the reason a pro football player (or pro westler, or lumberjack, or any physically demanding job) would have a poor BMI by the normal mesure (height (cm) / weight (kg) ) is that the normal BMI maths are based on the assumption that you work in an office job or simmilar non demanding role, and this your fat/muscle ratio should be.

A pro athlete, who may have a lot more muscle (which is denser than fat so wieghs more for a given volumne) than a office job person, so he will have a poor BMI even though he is, by most definations, "fitter".


the only reason i can think of for having athletics-0 is to allow a player to attempt things that only someone with the skill could attempt. I'm trying to think of examples off the top of my head, but not getting to far. only thing i can think off is stuff like outdoor rock climbing, where you need to know how to tie knots, set up belays, place gear etc, and no amount of natural dexterity will change that.


anyway, to answer ranckes question about wether to keep athletics-0, I'd say change it, personally, either to athletics 1 (player picks specialty) or to another rank 0 skill, so that either way, the player gains a benefit form the skill.

If it's for newbies, and it's needlessly confusing, don't include it. when our DnD group inducts new members, we normally give them fighters or other "simple" classes, so they can learn the universal mechanics without having to faff around trying to lrean a load of extra rules like how magic works, until they've got the hang of the basics.

 

[rancke]

You are the OP. I'm asking for clarification of what the point of the fit vs athletics discussion is and from your point of view all you have is sarcasm?

In this particular case, yes. Being the OP does not give me any advantage in tracing back the discussion that you don't have. I can think of no valid reason why you couldn't do it yourself.


Hans

 

[rancke]

the only reason i can think of for having athletics-0 is to allow a player to attempt things that only someone with the skill could attempt. I'm trying to think of examples off the top of my head, but not getting to far. only thing i can think off is stuff like outdoor rock climbing, where you need to know how to tie knots, set up belays, place gear etc, and no amount of natural dexterity will change that.

Various acrobatics activities such as tightrope walking and trapeze swinging, I suppose. And since there is no separate acrobatics skill, presumably Athletics covers that. But I have to say that I do not see any of the four listed Athletics specialties as covering that sort of activities. I would feel compelled to house rule an Athletics (acrobatics) specialty if I wanted an acrobat in a campaign of mine.

EDIT: Indeed, there are quite a few athletes (one kind) that I wouldn't allow any increased ability to perform athletics (another kind). The rules seem to me to be inadequate to cover this subject. But I'm not saying that this is wrong; it's a simplification for game purposes and to some people the loss in verisimilitude is no doubt justifiable.

Anyway, to answer ranckes question about wether to keep athletics-0, I'd say change it, personally, either to athletics 1 (player picks specialty) or to another rank 0 skill, so that either way, the player gains a benefit form the skill.

If it's for newbies, and it's needlessly confusing, don't include it.

I am inclined to go that way.


Hans

 

[Brandon C]

I'm not sure if there is a need for the Athletics skill at all. The most obvious specialty -- Sports -- isn't included and most of the listed specialties could just as easily be represented by increases to the physical characteristics.

 

[Condottiere]

I'd cover it under Disadvantage Couch Potato or Desk Jockey.