+Peter V. Dell’Orto made a very on-point comment about my post Go ahead and roll vs. ST. Worth responding to in detail, so I did. His words are in blue-italics, mine in indented black.

I understand the impulse here, and I respect the work you’ve done, but:

– it’s got to be simple.
– it’s got to be a roll, because we don’t just say “DX 14? You just make it.”
– it’s not good if the roll makes another attribute into ST in order to avoid using ST (i.e. HT-based rolls to avoid ST-based rolls)

I tried, and perhaps failed, to make that clear in my Parting Shot. Well, parting fusillade, since I had an entire section there. But yeah, it does have to be simple. Some of the “don’t bother rolling” is to avoid ridiculous edge cases such as when someone pointed out that it was theoretically possible for someone of normal-human size and strength to fail to do a Pickup on a mouse.  

That was an artifact of the scaling at fractional multiples of Basic Lift getting quite crazy. PK and I deliberately stopped it at the low end, but didn’t put the line in saying “just don’t roll if you’ve got a ST 10 guy picking up a 2-lb object.”

I agree that all opposed contests should involve a roll. That’s why I pegged the expectation of automatic success at 14 to 16. 16 is convenient because it still allows for a crit fail.

This is why I still have rolls vs. ST, and why I’ll cheerfully normalize around ST 10 like in a Regular Contest of ST. Is it perfect? Not really. Can it be recursive? Yes, but so can any roll (I roll against DX to see how agile I am!). Is it simpler to use a stat on the sheet and not look stuff up? Yes. Done and Done.

Rolls vs. ST that are normalized vs a foe aren’t too bad, I suppose. I don’t like them, but they get the right approach. Rolling vs ST for things like Wrench Limb or to pick up a rock are problematic (the second much more than the first) because of the extrinsic nature of it.

The most useful part of my post, I think, is really the “this is how you can calculate an extrinsic penalty to make the ST roll vs an inanimate object not stupid.”

This is why everyone knows that you can jump over at hex at cost 2, but has to look up their Broad Jump. One you look at, one you look up.

I’d be fine with a replacement, but it’s got to be vastly better if it’s going to be even a little more complex and/or slower to use in play.

Well, I agree. That’s why the opening line of my Parting Shot was “well, this sucks.” Because even though “roll vs ST” has issues, “roll vs HT, then a complicated ST calculation, and if you fail that roll DX, and if you fail THAT roll HT again” is simply awful. It would work as a computer macro (and be pretty damn satisfying, at that). It would not work at the table, for the same reasons – it requires a computer even when things go well (to figure the Weight Penalty of an object and the corresponding Injury Modifier based on lift speed).

 TG has the beauty of swapping a single system that’s simple and binary with a single system that is simple and not-binary. That’s the standard I like – does this make my life easier and give better results? Perfect! One of those two? Okay. Makes things more complex and/or gives worse results? No.

This can be an impossible task with ST, being that it wasn’t designed ground-up to do all the things it could do.

This was the core of my findings. ST being extrinsic and not-simple (quadratic in nature) to calculate using the standard GURPS resort for such things (SSR table) means that anything you want to do requires breaking out the calculator (what’s the ST equivalent for a 1,356-lb rock? Gah! 82.3. That’s not helpful).  

Even switching to cubic ST, which I explored in a prior post, doesn’t help. It just switches the basis from a square root to a cube root. Booyah? No, that’s no better, and in fact it’s worse. 

Logarithmic ST based on the SSR would be better from that perspective, since it’s either a table lookup or something that many (not all) have internalized. Double the SSR value as a penalty has worked well enough in TG in the Grappling Encumbrance Modifier Table. That would pretty drastically reduce the resolution of ST though. 

As you note, I don’t see an easy answer there that meets our criteria – fast, realistic, easily playable. 

But I’m going to keep looking.

If you’ve read this blog, you’ll see that I’m not a huge fan of ST rolls. I prefer using comparative ST (or even Basic Lift) to calculate a modifier, and then rolling against . . . something . . . with that modifier applied.

In fact, that’s what Control Points (from Technical Grappling) basically are: a proxy for the power of your grip or applied force (damage analog) that either apply a penalty directly (often at -1 per 2 points) or can be spent to apply penalties 1:1, which makes them similar to thrust damage in progression and power.
But saying, “Oh, just roll against Skill with ST as a modifier” does have a drawback, in that it might privilege DX and the cheaper skill even more than usual – and if you can pit skill (at 4 points per level) vs. ST (at 10 for “full” ST, though only 3 for Lifting ST) mostly you’ll win by picking skill.
And yet, one of the reasons that Control Points and the Training Bonus were priced the way they were in TG was to keep ST cheaper – especially for multiple skills – as a way to make your grappling life better. All things being equal, the stronger fighter will win.
In fact, here’s a pull-quote from George Silver on the topic (p. 3 of TG):

Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
                     – George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

OK, so blah, blah – it’s good to be strong. But I hate ST rolls, because I think rolling against an extrinsic quantity is dumb. If you have a ST 15 man trying to lift a rock, he’s either got the ST to do it, or he doesn’t. Rolling ST to see if you can apply ST doesn’t work well – it’s basically recursive. What about penalized ST? Meh. Still rolling against a quantity not normed to a 3d6 roll.
So what can you do?

Roll against ST anyway

It’s possible to adjudicate this with a ST roll, but you’re going to have to be lavish with penalties. First, if we look at the rules for lifting things, found on p. B353, you can see that simply by taking Ready maneuvers, you can pick up (in two seconds) one handed a mass equal to twice your basic lift.  In two hands, but taking four seconds, you can hoist up 8xBL.
Well, if the first lift takes two seconds on the average, then you’re rolling against a 10. If the second lift takes 4 seconds, you might be rolling against an 8.
Can we rationalize this? Well, it has to scale, so that a ST 40 creature and a ST 10 creature both exerting themselves at 2xBL have the same odds of success. So a ST 10 creature needs to be operating at no penalty, while ST 40 needs to be operating at -30. 
So that means that lifting penalties must also be extrinsic. That is, the penalty for lifting a 500-lb boulder is independent of anything else. That’s actually darn handy.
After hacking at it for a bit, turns out that the right absolute penalty to make that work is

10 – ST equivalent of lifted weight *  sqrt(2)/2

So in order to normalize all ST rolls properly, you convert whatever weight is being lifted into an equivalent ST using the usual Basic Lift formula (ST = sqrt (5xWeight)), multiply it by 0.7 (call it 0.7), and subtract that from 10.
OK, now that’s for a 1-handed lift. The two-handed lift works out to a skill of 8, but much higher lift multiple. Do we wind up with a different scaling? I’m sure we do. Will it be easy to parse out? Let’s see. Yep, the trend is different, but you can relate to it.

8 – ST equivalent of lifted weight * sqrt(2)/4

OK, so the first number is the skill roll required, while the divisor for the sqrt(2) term incorporates the number of hands (2 instead of 1). The 8xBL vs 2xBL comes into play with the ST-equivalent calculation.
Issues, Issues

There are some clear issues with what’s going on up there, though.
For one, the faster you do the lift, the lower your penalty. This is an artifact of the starting conditions: the light, one-handed lift happens in two seconds, while the heavy, two-handed one takes four. But the target number can be seen in the table to the right.
The faster you lift, the higher your target, and so perversely you have a higher chance of a burst lift than you do a slow-and steady one.
Even so, heavy one-handed vs heavy two-handed, both in the same time, at least goes the right way. Pushing 160 lbs at ST 10 in one hand vs two looking for a two-second lift, you’d get:
ST-equivalent: sqrt(5×160) = 28.28, and multiplying by 0.707 gets about 20. Dividing that by two for two hands is 10.
Two-second lift: That’s just a target of 10. So you’re at -10 to do this lift 1-handed, and no penalty to do it with two hands.  (10-20 vs 10-10, for -10 and 0 with one and two hands).
From there on, just roll vs. ST with that penalty. Success means you lift the weight. And failure . . . 
Lift Fast, Get Hurt Fast

The problem with the fast lift is that you’re risking an injury or out-of-control condition. So if the penalties for lifting faster are lower, because you’re expecting fewer fails before you succeed, then we’ll need something to counterbalance that. Something where the faster you go, the more likely you may get hurt.
Let’s look at our two lifts above, 160 lbs with one and two hands. The penalties for a 1, 2, and 4 second lift (implying target numbers of 16, 10, and 8) would be -4, -10, and -12 for one-hand, and +6, 0, and -2 with two.
Yeah, so we definitely have issues if we just use this to roll vs. ST. We need a “did you hurt yourself” check first, and only then a “did you complete the lift” check.
So we’ll need something that says “heavier is worse, faster is worse, and stronger is better.”
So let’s look at ST – Target Number – Lifting Difficulty:
ST: What it says on the tin. Your ST score.
Target Number: the same thing you pick from the table above
Lifting Difficulty: ST equivalent of lifted weight * .707 / Number of Hands

Oh, and by-the way: I don’t think a 4-armed creature gets 4 there. It’s either 1 for one hand, or 2 for two-or-more.

So an average guy (ST 10) trying to lift 40 lbs (ST equiv of 14.14, penalty of -10 in one hand) in two seconds (target 10) will have a ST roll of 10 to lift it, but an injury penalty of 10-10-10 = -10.

That’s a hefty penalty, and honestly a HT 10 guy shouldn’t be worried about injuring himself here, because right now, he can lift that same 40-lb weight with two Ready maneuvers and no risk of injury. That suggests a net roll of 14 to 16, Or a bonus of something like 15 to the quantity above.

So let’s try that for a ST 20 guy, who should be able to lift 160 lbs in one hand with that same ease.

ST: 20
Target Number: 10
Weight Penalty: -20 (this is independent of ST, which is the only good thing about it)
Injury Modifier: 15+20-20-10 = +5

OK, good. Not surprising, but good. Now, if he wants to make that same lift in one second (target 16 – ‘you only fail on a critical miss’ territory’) that would be:

ST 20
Target Number: 16
Weight Penalty: -20
Injury Modifier: 15 (constant) + 20 (ST) -16 (Target) – 20 (lifting difficulty) = 35-36 = -1. 

So to do it in two seconds a prospective HT check would be at HT+5; in one second with little risk of failure you’d roll at HT-1.

That doesn’t seem like crazy talk. It does seem like way too much calculation to pick up a rock. It also makes me say Eww. At least two rolls – maybe three – per turn in order to lift something. Well, these are the trials and tribulations of wanting to keep rolling vs. an extrinsic parameter.

So, what happens if someone with ST 10 wants to lift 220 lbs in two hands, taking a target number of 7?

ST: 10
Target Number: 7 (check the table above)
Weight Penalty: 220 lbs in two hands is -11.7, call it -12
Injury Modifier: 15+10-7-12: 25-19 = +6.
Lifting Difficulty: 7-12 = -5

So taking one’s time will eliminate the possibility of injury (roll at HT+6), but you’ll roll at ST-5 to make the lift . . . 22 seconds to move BLx11.

Let’s say that a failure by 10 means you risk injury or lose control of the weight. So you make a DX check, and if you make it you can drop it safely. If you fail, you make a HT check or take damage.

Parting Shot

Well. This kinds stinks, really.

To make an extrinsic roll make sense (Roll vs. ST to lift the weight), then other weights need to be put in the same terms. That’s not bad. Each weight can be simply converted to a Weight Modifier for a one-handed lift. Halve that penalty for a two-or-more handed lift. 

But the rest? The sequence would go:

  1. Do Math
  2. Roll HT to see if you hurt yourself just applying the initial force.
  3. If you don’t hurt yourself, start making ST rolls. 
    1.      If you make the roll, you complete the lift.
    2.      If you fail the roll, but not by 10+, you’ve not hurt yourself but you didn’t complete the lift. 
    3.      If you fail by 10+, you botch the lift. Proceed to 4.
  4. Botched lift: Make a DX check. If you make it, you abort the lift successfully. If you fail . . .
  5. Make a HT check. Fail it and you injure yourself.
Up to three rolls just to lift something? Even if you push the boundaries of target number, ST equivalents, injury and whatnot, you’re still doing way too much work here.
So what do do?

The concept of a Weight Penalty makes sense. It’s the ST-based equivalent of a multiple of Basic Lift. But what you really want to do here is to take a “multiples of basic lift” approach for the entire thing, and calculate a penalty.
Then, you want to roll against something. 1xBL should be pretty much instant success with one hand – say +4 to +6. 2xBL should roll against a 10. 8xBL with two hands rolls against an 8.
If we play a bit, we can use the Size and Speed/Range Table. The Lifting Target for a given multiple of Basic Lift works out surprisingly well for 2x the Range value for that multiple. Target numbers are also sensible: 10 for 1-H lift and 15 for 2H lift. If we tabulate that, we get
Red means you can’t even roll to lift it. But maybe you add 5 to it if your goal is to “shift slightly.” So that you need a crit with two hands to shift 50xBL slightly (you’ll be trying it for 30s or so), but with one hand, you can shift about 15xBL a bit.
So that’s at least “make one roll, and on a failure, maybe you need to check to see if you drop it or injure yourself or something.” It scales automatically, since it’s based on an NxBL figure. And it uses a table that every GURPS player has.
What about ST vs ST?

This is also force on force, and the best way to look at it is probably a ratio of BL to BL. That provides a good assumption that whatever the right ratio of effort is (I can fight at 6xBL!), it’s common to all. So ST 10 vs ST 20 has the ST 10 guy resisting 4x his own BL, while the ST 20 guy is pushing back against only 0.25xBL to achieve “balanced” levels of force.
If we use the same scale as pushing vs a static object, then only one party should roll. If I try and split it into two rolls (so each party gets their own lookup), that is perhaps more satisfying, but it creates some artifacts. 
So I’m just going to have the PC roll vs a look-up table result. The GM can either assume that he’s rolled a 10 vs. a 10 target (and leave it all in the hands of the PC) or actually roll if more variability is desired.
But the resolution is finer: if the foe is twice your ST (or half of it), it’s not a contest at all. You just lose. So the gradations of the roll look like this:
You could easily turn this into a ST vs ST table (I did that too). But basically, take the foe’s ST divided by the PC’s ST and square it. Look that up as the BL multiple on the SSR table, double the modifier, add that to 6, and roll. If you make the roll, you win. Fail it, you lose. If the GM also wants to roll, it’s whoever makes it by most, or fails by the least.
Other Possibilities

The only other possibilities for contests of power (or at least those that are strongly influenced by power) are DX and HT. DX makes sense in some cases – such as combat skills, which take account of relative ST through a damage roll (or a control point roll, in Technical Grappling). 
HT seems good at first – hey, if you’re robust, you can push your limited ST farther without buckling. 
That’s all well and good, but HT is more frequently fatigue and exhaustion rather than structural power, and doing it that way means a ST 10, HT 20 guy has a super-duper advantage arm wrestling a ST 10, HT 10 guy. That’s probably not desirable.
So I think the flat values explored above are the right mathematical way to go if you’re replacing ST rolls with ST-modified target rolls. 
For keeping ST rolls, it’s obviously a heck of a lot more complicated, and involves finding another extrinsic quantity – in this case force or weight – to subtract from the roll before you roll dice. The nice thing about that is for very low (or high) weights, if your net roll is 19 or higher (say), you can just say “yep, you grabbed it.” If it’s less than 3, “you can’t lift it.”

I had an unexpected surprise when Greg Porter himself responded to my post about scaling in GURPS and EABA. His comments and the back-and-forth he had with David Pulver are not to be missed.

What? You missed them? Hie thee to the comments section of that thread. Read. I’ll wait. Good? OK, we continue.

But his original reply deserves more than to be buried in a comment section, so I pulled it out and replied point-by-point. There are places where we agree, and places where we don’t. My posts are indented (because I’m responding). His are in purple/bold, in the main text.

The concept [logarithmic scaling] is not new, even if not fully chart-ified in the past. Hero System is a “doubling every +3” system for things like Strength, and I think Bill Willingham’s Underground (Mayfair Games) also had a progression-based chart.

Definitely not new, but also definitely one of the best, I think, ways to approach a universal scaling for a generic system. I had wondered if setting the “number of divisions per x10” equal to the sides on the dice while rolling 3d6 would work out as generic (I was hoping that 3d10 would work out well with a 10-step per x10 scaling), but it didn’t. At least, it didn’t with the elegance of the GURPS 3d6 and 6-steps-per-x10.

There’s good/bad, optimum/non-optimum to all of these, and it often depends on what you are looking for and what the system is trying to do. DC Hero’s “doubling per +1” is indeed brutal, but probably necessary if you are going to put Batman and Superman in the same scene and not have to fill Superman’s sheet with 12-digit Strength values.

Superman is always tough, because his powers fluctuate with the writers’ needs. Being able to push planets around is going to challenge pretty much any quantifiable system. Even description-based games such as Fate will probably have some issue with that, though “as strong as the scene needs him to be” is much more tractable with a game like Fate than GURPS, with its bias towards the quantifiable.

GURPS works pretty good at the human level, but is human-oriented enough that going to superheroic levels is often a problem.

I think the log scaling that I am trying to wrap my head around (and that +Sean Punch looked at in the most recent Pyramid) fixes that somewhat – actually, I think it has the potential to fix it entirely. EABA with it’s inherently log-based chart also scales from fleas to kaiju. I haven’t internalized the system yet – still reading through it – but I have gathered that already.

And EABA has its quirks, too. It doubles every +3 for Strength and every +2 for everything else (and as designer I can tell you that took a -lot- of tweaking). And you don’t have to memorize 20 levels. If you know that each +2 is x2 and each +1 is x1.4 (or for most purposes, x1.5), then if you know a particular value it is pretty easy to scale up or down. For instance, 25 meters is a ranged difficulty of 12. What’s the difficulty at 50 meters (x2 distance), 100 meters (x4 distance) or 12 meters (x1/2 distance)? You didn’t have to memorize 20 levels or even look at the table to figure it out. The same could be said for -any- of the other games with regular progressions.

Where I think that this runs into issues is what if you approach it as “the range is 2900m?” In GURPS, for example, if I know that 20m is +6, then 30m is +7 and x100 for that is 12 more, making it +19. For EABA, each +20 is x1000, so that makes it harder. Though if I happen to know what 3m is, then I can just put that and add 20 to it. I’m sure it gets easier with practice, but “oh, it doubles each time” isn’t easy at the table, but adding or taking away zeros is, since we’re used to base10 placeholders.

GURPS’ scale is very nearly the same as yours, of course. You have +20 per 1000x, repeating, while GURPS is +6 per 10x.

It’s a small point, but I’ll stick to it: a smaller number of values until a progression repeats exactly makes it easier to play without resorting the The Chart, A Chart, or Any Chart. This is true enough for the fan base for which I write that it pretty much gets pounded into my style. And you’re talking to the guy who put transcentental equations into GURPS for the purposes of bow design, and whips out any convienient math function at the drop of a hat – since I love systems with underlying mathematical rigor because they scale well and can be tested for extremes easily.

All of that is trumped by the players and GM being able to instantly get to the “roll the dice” part. If you as designer didn’t feel that the x1000 per +20 wasn’t important, you wouldn’t have put it in – so people (and the game rules) are making differentiations based on that progression, and a lot of things seem to happen at breakpoints. You have to know that 25 is one of the points on the chart.

Actually, looking, it’s not on the chart. 23 is on the chart, which is sensible (it’s 2^4.5 power, rounded to no digits). But you need to know that it’s 23, and whether you round up, down, or nearest (EABA is not unique here) and that 23 is a unique level, but 230 is not – that’s 250. 500 is on the chart exactly, but 50 isn’t. So I’ll stick to my point here and say that people are going to want to memorize the progression, and that 6 or 7 levels per x10 is a more natural fit than 20 levels per x1000. It’s not a game-making point, but I think it’s a legitimate one.

I will disagree and say you can’t actually set x1.0 to zero and have things work out if you want to do “table math” -and- have the values be useful in game terms in relation to things like Strength rolls and the particular game’s dice conventions.

This may well be true. It really depends on how often one will do manipulation with the log of the actual value and have it matter, as opposed to just working with modifiers. If is all you ever need to know is the ratio of two lifting forces (200 lbs force is fighting 150 lbs force, that’s always 1 step away on The Chart or the GURPS progression. That will be a +/-1 bonus or penalty in either system.

If you’re going to be asking for the actual force (or distance, time, or whatever) values frequently, then setting the zero to 1.0 is going to be more important. As a game designer, one will have to pick. It should be relatively straight-forward to do one or the other.

I -think- that values are usually set to minimize the number range and math for the normal expectation of play. So, a GURPS default target size of +0 means no math operation is needed for the default target size. Which happens to be a unit of measure that is not 1.0. Setting default human size to “1” (for a +0 modifier) would means the game’s measurement scale has to go from being in yards to being in “person heights”.

As David noted, the basic scale for GURPS probably should have been 1 yard, which is the unit of hexes used (so attacking at 1-yard adjacency – melee combat – is at no penalty naturally), and a human torso is roughly one yard tall. That would probably have avoided some gymnastics. But you’ll always run into this, since (for example) the default amount of lifting power for Joe Average is not 1 lb., or even 10 lbs. It’s 20 lbs (for the basic increment of lift for ST 10), and from there, it’s ratios – where a lot scaling would work rather perfectly!

One of the reasons I’m so interested in the log scale for GURPS and ST is that so many of the quantities that GURPS relates to the ST score have ratios as the most important point. Multiples of Basic Lift define encumbrance, and HP are derived from ST, and thresholds for wounding are defined as things like HP/3, HP/2, -2xHP, and -5xHP. All of those are easily picked from a logarithmic list.

Thanks again for your considered reply. Having you, +David Pulver, and +Sean Punch discuss this stuff on my blog is ridiculous fun for me!

I promise I’ll let this go at some point. But not today.

In my little mishap from this past Tuesday, I estimate that I got tossed about 6-8 feet. 

Well. That’s enough to calculate a trajectory!

If we assume that I was launched at the most effective and efficient launch angle of 45 degrees for simplicity, that means that my initial velocity imparted by the explosion was something like 4.3m/s.

If we treat the Gaming Ballistic author as a spherical frictionless brainless cow massing 81 kg, we can see that the blast imparted to me roughly 350 kg-m/s of momentum and 750J of energy. That’s about the same energy as in a 10mmAuto, for comparison, but far more momentum.

Let’s assume that the combustion/explosion took place over a roughly 0.005 second period (5 milliseconds). That seems to be on the order of what some brief searching shows is on the upper end of how long it takes for the fuel-air mixture in an automobile cylinder to combust.

If that’s the case, it means that since Impulse = Momentum (F x delta t) = MV, that I was thrown with roughly 70,000 N of force! Roughly seven tons.

Is that reasonable? If half my body was exposed to the blast, that’s about 0.8 square meters. So a pressure requirement of 70,000N per 0.8 square meters, or 87,500 Pascals – 0.85 atmospheres.

According to the Wiki page on blast overpressure, 85 kPa is more than enough to cause severe heart and lung damage, and rip off limbs. Since that didn’t happen, my estimate is off somewhere. 

I suspect that the real problem is my estimation of initial velocity, since my mass is what it is. But I did travel that far (I measured!), so we’ll leave it as is.

It could also be that the velocity was fine, but if the overpressure effect lasted for much longer than 5ms. The force would drop by at least an order of magnitude, and the overpressure is lower and more in the “not turned to instant pulp” zone. Since I’m sitting here typing, that seems much more reasonable, and a discussion here of typical results and levels of overpressure suggest that since my house did not suffer any major damage (nor did I, really), that I was probably subjected to 0.04 to 0.4 psi of overpressure – let’s assume 0.3, giving me more credit for robustness and getting lucky a bit.

So that’s more like 2.1kPa rather than a ridiculous 87kPa. That implies about 1700N of force, which is about a 200ms pressure wave duration.

I don’t know if it’s real or valid, but that’s what the math suggests!

Edit: My wife thinks she’s funny (she’s right)

  • She complained that I hadn’t replaced the drawing of the circle with a little stick figure going “aaaaahhhhh!”
  • Also, today when she was helping me get dressed, she says “Hmm. What should you wear? How about a T-shirt?” And she tosses me this one –>

I love the Size and Speed/Range Table in GURPS. EABA has one too. I think both games get things right and wrong here, and since I have an idle moment, I want to say why.

What’s Right?

Where do these kinds of charts succeed? While there’s lots of small things, here are the big ones that occur to me:


Both charts (the SSR can be found on p. B550; “The Chart” is on p. 2.8 of EABA v2.01) cover the entire possible range of scaling and are logarithmic in nature. My personal experience is that this is nearly mandatory, since both gaming and real life happen on widely different scales.

This need not be frost giants and mortals, either. An aircraft carrier might well be the target of a light antitank weapon. A man might stomp on a bug. An industrial press might have hundreds – or thousands – of times the applied force capability of a human.

So something that accounts for scale is necessary.
Continue reading “Getting the Size/Speed Range Table Right and Wrong”