Realistic Animal Strength

[AlexanderHowl]

While the majority of animals are probably accurate when it comes to DX, IQ, and HT, GURPS has a tendency of underestimating animal ST. For example, in 1924, a female chimp was recorded as having a pull strength of around eight times that of an athletic human man of the same weight, which would mean that her pull ST would have been a minimum of 33, assuming an athletic man with a ST of 12 was used in the comparison. Another example are Asian elephants, which have been recorded carrying loads over 18,000 pounds, which would give them a carry ST of 95 or so, three times their official ST in GURPS. I was wondering if anyone had adjusted animal ST in their games to reflect reality.

[aesir23]

That chimpanzee study is out-dated and inaccurate, at least according to this article which cites several more recent studies. GURPS isn't so far off at all.

I don't know about the Indian elephant, though. But keep in mind, that if we based animal strength off the highest ever reported, we'd have to account for humans who can deadlift half a ton.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

For example, in 1924, a female chimp was recorded as having a pull strength of around eight times that of an athletic human man of the same weight, which would mean that her pull ST would have been a minimum of 33, assuming an athletic man with a ST of 12 was used in the comparison.

Attempts to repeat that result with more rigorous methods have mostly failed, regularly showing a pound for pound pull force of about double what a human would manage, and that mostly centered on the arms. For a big, 130-pound chimp, I would use ST 11, Arm ST 14.

But until I see the documentation, I'm very skeptical that any elephant has ever carried 18000 pounds.

[AlexanderHowl]

I think that a ST 14 grossly underestimates a chimp's ST. That would mean that an athletic human could outperform a chimpanzee, which seems unrealistic. Humans excel at fine motor control, not raw force, and there is no shame in admitting that only the strongest humans can match an average chimpanzee.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I think that a ST 14 grossly underestimates a chimp's ST. That would mean that an athletic human could outperform a chimpanzee, which seems unrealistic. Humans excel at fine motor control, not raw force, and there is no shame in admitting that only the strongest humans can match an average chimpanzee.

From this article on Slate:

In 1943, Glen Finch of the Yale primate laboratory rigged an apparatus to test the arm strength of eight captive chimpanzees. An adult male chimp, he found, pulled about the same weight as an adult man. Once he'd corrected the measurement for their smaller body sizes, chimpanzees did turn out to be stronger than humans—but not by a factor of five or anything close to it.

[Boomerang]

I think ST is close enough. It is DX that I think is unrealistic for some animals. An elephant has an average DX of 12 and a house cat 14. I would probably go with 10 for the elephant and 12 for the cat.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I think that a ST 14 grossly underestimates a chimp's ST. That would mean that an athletic human could outperform a chimpanzee, which seems unrealistic. Humans excel at fine motor control, not raw force, and there is no shame in admitting that only the strongest humans can match an average chimpanzee.

It's not a question of admitting it, it's a question of whether it's true. The experiments from 1920's just haven't stood up to attempts to repeat it. It was also measuring something far more specific (pull strength) than GURPS ST represents.

Pound for Pound, chimps seem to be about 2X as strong as a human (especially in the arms)--not the 5 to 8X we used to think. That's still plenty impressive, but they're also somewhat smaller than the average human.

I think that it would be reasonable to give Chimpanzees a couple extra levels of arm strength, and an individual chimp (a 200 lbs male, for example) could certainly have a strength significantly higher than the racial average. But even then we're probably just talking 14 ST + 6 Arm ST.

Now, since this is GURPS, an uplifted chimpanzee with a gym membership and a personal trainer who spoons whey protein onto his breakfast cereal might be able to improve on that significantly.

To return to your original post, I can highly recommend GURPS Animalia as a fan site with really well researched realistic animal write-ups. Better than the Basic set, IMHO.

[simply Nathan]

HT, particularly FP, is probably overestimated for every animal with 11+ other than canids. A lot of animals feel like they had their HT assigned for gamist purposes to get Basic Speed 6.00 rather than the animal's known stamina and resistance to toxins and diseases (Cat has DX 14, so let's give it HT 10; Bear has DX 11, let's give it HT 13; Wolf has DX 12, let's give it HT 12).

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

I think ST is close enough. It is DX that I think is unrealistic for some animals. An elephant has an average DX of 12 and a house cat 14. I would probably go with 10 for the elephant and 12 for the cat.

A house cat is DX 13 to 14 by definition. Look at pg. B14, under How To Select Basic Attributes. "Feline grace" is the defining characteristic of a score of 13 or 14.

DX 12 for an elephant does seem exceptional, though.

Luke

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

DX 12 for an elephant does seem exceptional, though.

The trunk might be DX 12, but that might be done better by giving the elephant DX 10 and two levels of High Manual Dexterity.