Gollum

And what did you conclude, and why?

EDIT: Obviously don't need a full expose, just some stuff to maybe go and read. Personally I am of the opinion they do due to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs about being reborn as animals and vice versa. Plus we know they have the intelligence of around 5 year olds. So by that argument we are holding that intelligence is the basis on the existence of soul, so therefore babies wouldn't have one either. So I think every living being has one.

Since the main argument of Descartes was that animals don't have any language, my main counterargument was that they have one. But, in these years (about 20 years ago), there were few indisputable proofs. I used the example of Washoe and Koko, two female monkey which spoke AMESLAN (American sign language for deaf people). Both of them had no problem to speak that language and to generalize words like "open" too everything which can be opened, including taps. Furthermore, Washoe (a chimpanzee) created new concepts, like "striped horse" for zebra or "face-hat" for mask while Koko (a gorilla) used words to lie from time to time. But these was not great proof, of course. Everyone can remain doubtful by saying that these are monkeys, which are the most close to us animals... I am very far from having established that all animals have a conscious.

I wouldn't say that animals have the intelligence of a 5 year child. In my humble opinion, they have a different intelligence. Some recent psychology researches show that there are different kinds of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Cats, for instance, may have a low logical-mathematical intelligence, of course, but their bodily-kinesthetic one is indubitably far much higher than our. And they surely smile about our failure in that topic... I remember climbing once in a tree and telling to my cat: "Hey! Look how I climb well." My cat looked at me. As soon as I went down, my cat ran until the top of the tree. She didn't climb. She ran vertically, thanks to its claws. It make me laugh and my cat seemed very happy, as if she was saying: "Hey! Just look what climbing really means."

My master report title was: do animals have a spirit/soul? ("une âme", in French). It was an answer to René Descartes' theory of animal-machine.

I do have that supplement but have not read it yet.....time being what it is and all that. What do you think of the ones in CbG? Are there any others you think could or should be included?

Of course. This list is quite short and players will inevitably think to a lot of other traits that are used to depict novel or movie heroes... Some traits of this list could also be modified. Animal empathy is for example presented as a disadvantage (the character is too sweet with animals and let them dominate him). But it could perfectly be regarded as an advantage (the character understand animals better and can make them obey more easily, like a horse whisperer).

Now, as Vexthug wrote it, the most important thing to keep in mind is that traits work better when they are tied to the game world.

I come from GURPS, which is a game in which advantages and disadvantages are an important part of the character creation. Perhaps even the most important one. That is why the list of advantages and disadvantages given in the rules is huge... But even with GURPS, if the game master doesn't select the traits that are available in his game world, and the ones that are forbidden, and if the player doesn't justify the advantages and disadvantages he chooses with a good character background, things inevitably sound odd. Likewise, if players take too many traits, performing them during the game is too hard and, eventually, some of them become just forgotten words on the character sheet...

So, in my humble opinion, a complete list is not the most important.

First because no list can be complete, especially in a universal roleplaying game which can handle SF as well as fantasy. And second, because the best is when a player imagine a trait inspired by the background and that perfectly corresponds to the character he wants. Moreover, best traits are those that are fine tuned, not generic ones that could fit to every character. Two different alcoholic characters doesn't have exactly the same problem with alcohol for instance... One can become very bad tempered while the other one will just make a lot of gaffes and be very clumsy...

Should BRP, or any of the D100 family have qualities and drawbacks at chargen? If so, how would you do it? What kind of things would you include?

Do you think this would benefit the system at all?

Cthulhu by Gaslight has a system of traits that are either advantages or disadvantages. They are rolled at the character creation but could also be chosen. They add bonuses or penalties to some stats or skills.

• Aged (Disadvantage): Add (1D3+1)x10 years to age; age affects statistics starting at age 30 for EDU, 40 for physical attributes (p. 36 of Call of Cthulhu 6th edition).
  
• Ambidextrous: Uses either hand without offhand penalties.
  
• Eagle-Eyed: +(2D3)x5% to Spot Hidden.
  

Oh. I also wanted to answer to that...

The question is can we get some more data from somewhere?

Unfortunately, no. We can have some examples... Which will inevitably be at variance with other examples...

Modern zoology and ethology (as far as I can know it for watching a lot of animal documentaries) tend to contradict a lot of ideas that were supposed to be science in the last few years. I've for instance learned things as amazing as the fact that some trees feed their babies! It has now been proved scientifically...

So, a lot of things are discovered every year, if not every month, and it is impossible to follow. Even for scientists, who can only focus on their own subject of experimentation. When I was studying philosophy at university, I make a lot of research about the soul of animals. And these last few years, I learned so many things that could have been very useful for my master report... Opinions about animals fall one after the other very rapidly.

But, no matter. I think that you had the final word above:

It usually doesn't matter too much in play, and when it does there tend to be things we can do about it for people. But animals tend to get the short straw. Besides, the focus on the game is such that if we bother to get stats for an animal, it's probably not going to die from cold, starvation or exposure in the game.

Indeed. We are playing a game, not making a scientific report. So, finally, it doesn't really matter... What really matters, however, is not having all little animals necessarily sickly and horses making more damage than wolves when biting (see the other thread). Or, at least, allowing a GM who wants more healthier cats in his game world to have them without unbalancing their hit points and other things like that at the same time.

But we need some sort of MOV score. We can't have all the animals just stand there. I'm not even looking for precision (at least not yet), but just something that gives a good ballpark figure.

And that is really what is interesting, indeed. After that, every GM will be able to twist these good ballpark figures to his very special creatures and decide, for instance, that the jaguar has a much higher running speed than a panther of the same size.

What you say here is amusing. Not because your arguments are amusing - to the contrary, they are serious and very good. But because I had a similar conversation about GURPS and animal Health on Steve Jackson Games forums.

Of course animals, especially savage ones, sound to have a lower health than humans. They die much earlier in their lifespan... But...

1) In my humble opinion, this is essentially due to our medicine. If we hadn't this medicine, things would certainly be very different. Just look at people who don't have access to our medicine, either far from our western world or far from our modern time in the past. Does that mean that our medicine makes our constitution higher? I'm not sure at all. To the contrary. If our medicine suddenly disappeared, I'm quite sure that a lot of people would die within a year, if not just a month. So, in my humble opinion, we are not really healthier than animals, we just have a medicine than keep us alive for a longer time. In roleplaying game terms, it means that we have bonuses to our rolls. But, of course, that is just my opinion and lot of people disagreed with me on Steve Jackson Games forum... Which is fine! I've no mean to prove what I say.

2) If the comparison with humans is problematic lets compare little animal with bigger ones: elephants, hippopotamus, gorillas, rhinoceroses... These last don't live in better conditions and suffer about the same problems than littler ones. Shorter lifespan than expected, illnesses, and so on... In BRP rules as written, they still have a much higher Constitution score. So, this is really a problem.

Finally for insects, do you know that ants are the lonely animal which can live with us on south pole. Yes, they discovered some, that human scientists surely brought with them... During winter, these ants which now live outside of human buildings are caught in ice. They are frozen. Literally. And once the summer comes again and temperature becomes a bit higher, ice melts and these ants begin to live and move again. I've seen that in a documentary. It was really amazing to see them come again to life and move as soon they never stop to work... So, yes, ants also resist to incredible colds.

Note than I'm not saying that cats, ants, birds, and other animal should have a higher health than humans. I'm just meaning that there is no reason that they have a lower one than bigger animals when size doesn't matter. For the blast of Raid, size matters of course, because it is poison. Ditto for the bath bubble. The doze of poison is just incredibly huge compared to their size.

Hey, just for the fun, there is one thing that no roleplaying game take into account. The size matters a lot for falls. But inversely from what all roleplaying games usually say. An ant can make a hundred yards fall without harming itself. Its size is so little that it nearly floats on air and can't fall rapidly. The height of the fall has no effect on ants. If an elephant falls just from one yard, to the contrary, its legs will inevitably break. That is why elephant is the lonely terrestrial animal which can't jump. So, fall damage should be inversely proportional to the size, that is, to the amount of starting hit points...

The one I seem to remember was a BBC production titled "The Secret Life of the Cat":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xcvhw

Thank you. It sounds to be exactly that. I'll try to find and watch it.

More from a few decades of living near a lady who was a member of an animal protection

society and who rescued and kept lots of cats over the years, which gave us an opportuni-

ty both to learn from her and to experience the social behaviour of a wide variety of cats,

plus what we were able to learn from our own cats over the years.

Which is the best way to really know cats, what they feel and how bright they are in reality. I don't believe in "cold" science... But, unfortunately, it doesn't teach how much a cat can walk during a night of hunt. Unless following her... Which is impossible, because she goes fast, mixing walk and run, and rapidly disappears among shadows.

I would really like to see the documentary about cats with trackers.

Once I can work out a reasonably good formula for MOV things should speed along again. In theory movement speed for animals can be worked out from body mass (SIZ), muscle mass (STR, but can be approximated from SIZ), and a factor based on body shape, but I haven't been able to reverse engineer a formula that holds up, yet.

Oh, be careful here. I watched a documentary about dinosaurs. The interviewed scientists tried to calculate the speed of dinosaurs from their footprints, weight of bones, height, shape, and so on... They came to a quite good formula. Then they tried to apply this formula to living animals, to verify it... The formula said that dolphins weren't able to move at all.

So, don't try to be more precise. There are times where taking into account too much precision makes the results very far from reality. What I learn at school is that biology doesn't work like physics. Life is often surprising and far to be mathematically predictable.

Actually, I do agree with you. Everything depends on what we name constitution. This characteristic, as every other characteristic, covers so many things that it is very hard to say who is supposed to have a high constitution and who has not.

You're asthmatic... Does it really mean that you have a low constitution? Do you have less hit points than someone else of your size? Are you less able to stand cold or heat, starvation or dehydration, staying awake all the night or drinking alcohol than someone who is not asthmatic? I'm an asthmatic too, and, eventually, it didn't prevent me to be able to run one hour at about 7 mph or to become a black belt karateka... With training. Did my constitution improve or was it high enough from the beginning?

So, do little animals have less constitution than bigger ones? It's very hard to say. It all depends on what is exactly tested with the roll and the exact circumstances of this test. A snow fox will resist cold easily, but not heat. A venomous snake from Africa will resist heat but not cold. A man from Africa would have a lot of problems if he was suddenly brought in Canada during winter. An Inuit would have a lot of problem if he was suddenly brought in the Sahara...

So, of course, we could found dozens of examples where size matters, like poison, drinking alcohol, etc. Here, littler creatures are supposed to have a lower constitution... But we can also find dozens of other examples where size doesn't matter like resisting illness, night without sleep, etc. And here, it is hard to maintain that cats, rats and snakes are necessarily less resistant than humans!

What about migratory birds who can fly during so many hours (sometimes, they fly several days in raw, without sleeping!)... How much constitution to sustain such an effort during a so long time.

I just don't agree on the fact that little animals like cats, rats, snakes and birds are supposed to have a lower constitution score for everything covered by this characteristic, like the official rules sounds to say.

And to take a more meaningful example, insects are among the most resisting creatures on earth. Ants, for example, can stand incredible heat, cold and even radiation levels. They are still among the littler animals and wouldn't even have a constitution score of 1 in BRP.

Depends on when Erasmus and I can get out acts together and finish it. We're working on putting together a sampler of critter stats. Some of the "behind the scenes" mechanics that we've been using to generate stats are available for anyone who is interested. We used a mathematical approach to generating stats, based on a creature's body type and mass, which we use to extrapolate stats for similar creatures.

Wow. Amazing. Tell us as soon as it will be finished.

Even if I do agree with Rust, a good start is always better and doesn't prevent the GM to change numbers whenever required.

They indeed tend to do so when they are becoming adults and looking for a territory

of their own. Once they have discovered or conquered their own territory, they tend

to become more "stationary" in order to control, patrol and defend it.

Does this knowledge come from a study with trackers and cameras? Indeed, we believed that tigers were isolated predators until automatic cameras have been put on their territory. There, we discovered that tigers live in couples and that when humans come around, the father tiger go in one direction while the mother tiger chooses another one to mislead us (and to prevent us from finding the babies).

What I want to say with this example is not that you are wrong - I really don't know. But I just want to emphasize the fact that science sometimes firmly believe something about animals... Until some people decide to verify whether it is true with simple but effective technological gadgets.

Nclarke, do you have the reference of the documentary you wrote about. It may be the one of which I heard talk.

Unfortunately it also puts the whole issue of high stamina for small animals back into doubt.

Not really. The snow fox example from Rust, his snake example, and many other wild animals examples show us clearly that even if cats are more lazy than what my veterinary told me, little creatures are not less resistant than us to walk, starvation, dehydration, illnesses and so on. After all, most modern westerners are absolutely unable to walk 10 km per day, or to resist one day without food and without feeling very sick the day after... So why would we have an average CON of 10-11 while a cat or a rat would only have 7 or less... In a surviving contest, I would bet on the cat and the rat, not on the westerner human.

This seems a bit over the top. Looking at the domestic cat's wild relatives, the

average male one "owns" and patrols a territory of approximately 6 square ki-

lometers, the average female one "owns" and patrols a territory of approxima-

tely 2 square kilometer, and the largest territory claimed by a wild cat that was

recorded in Germany's forests was approximately 13 square kilometers. In an

area with a low population density of wild cats and low availability of suitable

food for wild cats a male wild cat's territory might be larger, but even 20 squa-

re kilometers would be far from an area with a radius of 20 or 30 kilometers.

As for our own cats, the one with the largest territory was a female Norwegian

Forest Cat, the closest thing to a wild cat that one can get. She rarely went

further than about 2 kilometers from our house.

I don't know for cat territories, but the veterinary I was talking about just above assured me that cats really walked regularly very far away from their home. Now, of course, I have not the least mean to verify or to proove anything. I don't follow my cats during their night out...

I don't even have seen the documentary quoted by Nclarke. Tracking a lot of them would be the only way to be sure...

I just glance at the rules about success and failure again and noticed that I made a mistake. As you can see, understanding the rules is not always that simple (even if BRP rules are far much easier than the ones of some other roleplaying games).

The dragon will miss his easy idea roll on a result of 96 to 100 (not just 100). "Unless an action is deemed automatic, there should always be some chance of failure: no matter how high the modified base chance, action rolls fail on results of 96 or higher." (big golden book, page 173, Failure paragraph).

So, there is not 1% chance that the dragon stay there, stupidly, waiting to be hit without reacting, but 5% chance. But that is still not very big. Our very powerful wizard has only 40 x 0.05 = 2% chance of succeeding. Which also means 98% chance of having a very dangerous enemy because if the dragon breaks free from the spell (which is the more probable result) he will hate the wizard and will want a revenge...

And don't forget that in most game worlds, dragons know magic too...

Ok, so I've studied the rules a bit more, sorry for my confused posts earlier.

Don't be sorry. Not understanding the rules at the first reading is normal. And forums are precisely made to ask questions...

But, if I'm reading the control spell rules correctly a successful idea roll will only leave the subject "standing around idly", still an easy target?

Yes, but this is precisely here that there is a contradiction: standing around idly is exactly what is suicidal!

So, the GM has to solve the problem differently: iIf the easy idea roll is successful, but not enough to break free, the dragon won't stay here without moving. Of course, he won't attack either, because he is still subject of the spell...

In my humble opinion, he will instinctively flee away, far enough to be out of range and then wait, idly.

The player characters will surely try to come close to him. Then, the dragon will have another idea roll and will probably flee away again... And so on, until he scores a 100 (in which case the player characters will have the opportunity to attack him) or until he breaks free (in which case they will have to run very quickly because he will be very angry!)...

And this last option is probably what will happen.

So, a wise wizard, who surely learned that while learning the spell, will avoid to try that strategy against a dragon.

I doubt that. I might believe it that a housecat might walk 20 or 30 km a day, might, but I do not believe that they walk in a 20-30 km radius. Where did you get that from?

From a veterinary who knew cats very well. He is now retired. He explained me than cats have a very huge hunting territory that they cross almost every day. But they especially do it during night, which is why we don't see them. During the day, they come back home and sleep. And we just think that they are lazy...

Female cats tend to stay more close from their house than males, though. Surely because they have to stay close from babies.

It explains why cats, especially males, often disappears. They meet a lot of dangers during their nocturnal travel. Especially cars. And once they are killed, we often search for them in the neighborhood. Nobody saw them... Obviously. Most often, they have been killed kilometers away.

I've also heard of a documentary with cameras mounted on cats who came to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, I didn't watch it...

Cats really walk during hours almost all nights and crosses huge distances. Distances than us, modern westerners, are unable to walk (unless being very found of hiking). So, they surely have as much stamina as we have.

Well, you're doing pretty good so far! In the last few days you've hit some of the issues that we've been discussing and dealing with.

Thanks.

LOL! That's pretty much what we came up with. What we did was note the various ways db was implemented (full half, in d3s, etc.) as well as the various types of attack and their corresponding damages. Eventually we came up with a damage class/weapon class psedostat, based mostly on critter SIZ and diet that we use the scale the damage, and determine how much of the db (if any) should apply. In some cases, such as very small critters we even ignored the damage penalty. Frankly, I'd love to tweak some of the damages a bit more, but we are also striving for our final stats to be pretty close to official BRP/RQ3 stats.

You're rules sounds very interesting.

But, in my humble opinion, a lot of arbitrary fiat from the GM is also required in that topic. Indeed, there are so many possibilities that it seems impossible to take all the factors into account. Diplodocus, for instance where as herbivore and peaceful than elephants but had a tail made to hit opponents and surely did a lot of damage with it while elephant's tail damage is very close from 0. Likewise, some carnivores are hunters while others are just scavengers; their biting damage are not necessarily the same even when their strength is. The tyrannosaurus rex had very little arms and thus, despite of its strength, did very little damage while scratching with them... And so on. Things sounds to depend much more on the animal exact morphology and habits rather than on its diet and size.

Having said that, to twist numbers, the GM has to start from somewhere. And then, a generic rule becomes a mandatory!

When will we have the luck to see it?

Gollum, maybe Erasmus and I should get you to join our bestiary project?

I'm afraid not knowing animals enough. I know some tricks about them because I studied biology and I am very interested by animal documentaries... But that's about all.

The problem with the bite here is that while horses are stronger than wolves, the muscles horse use to bite are not at strong as those wolves use to bite. Plus, horses are herbivores and their teeth and designed to grind and mush vegetable matter, while wolves are carnivores and their teeth are designed to tear flesh and kill prey.

IMO, the solution is to reduce the horse's bite damage. Something like just using db in d3's might fix this. I just don't see a horse bite doing much more damage than a light mace, tops.

Yes, the best solution could be to make vary the Damage Bonus according to the attack. An elephant may be far much stronger than a dog, he won't do more damage with its tail because elephants are not used to hit with their tail... Crocodiles, to the contrary, are used to hit with their tail. So, even if they are much weaker than elephants, they will do much more damage with it...

This example shows us clearly that the Damage Bonus do not have to be applied regularly on every possible attack. It may vary from 0 to full Damage Bonus, and not just from half to full Damage Bonus.

Possibly, but what makes you think housecats have a high stamina? I wouldn't expect small animals to have the energy reserves, or the capacity to sdraw in enough oxygen to last as long as a fit human.

Little animals can walk, run or resist illness about as much as bigger ones. Domestic cats, for instance (especially males), walk within a radius of 20 to 30 kms around their house every day. And this is just domestic ones. Savage cats may walk much more than that.

Humans have an edge on animals. They know how to pace their run. African hunters, for example, when they want to hunt a gazelle, just run after it until it is so exhausted that it can't anymore move. But this is only possible because when the gazelle flee, it always sprints or jumps at full speed. So, African hunters just have to pace run on its tracks until the gazelle becomes so exhausted that it can't move anymore and that they can kill him with their assegais... It may make us think that humans have more stamina than the gazelle, but that is not right. The gazelle can walk and resist illness as well as a human, if not more.

And either do cats, even if, as the gazelle, they don't know how to pace their run (which is more a matter of skill than a matter of stamina).

An average Dragon has Intelligence 10 (big golden book, page 341). His Idea roll is 50%. An easy idea roll is 100%. So, even if you decide that there is a possibility of failure, there is only 1 chance in hundred that it happens.

The wizard must first succeed the POW vs POW roll. And then, the Dragon makes his easy idea roll. So, statistically, it gives our POW 18 wizard only 40% x 0,01 = 0,4% chance to succeed... Good luck!

Yes, I thought about it... But the problem still remains during the game (even if it corrects things in the statistical average of results).

The horse bite a character... Critical success. Oh my! 9 points of damage and armor is ignored! That's not anymore a horse but a terrible monster!

Edit: note that if the horse was biting a dog or even a wolf, he right killed him in only one bite! "Every knight around makes a sanity roll... And the horse owner a difficult one, please!", said the GM.

After thinking a bit more about it, another solution could be to disconnect the constitution score and the stamina percentage. It would solve the problem in most cases (poisons use the Resistance Table) and would avoid to have one more stat (or a stat split in two).

Thus, an average cat could have CON 7, Stamina 50%.

Thank you again for these very fast answers.

Some notes, though…

Of course, horses rarely attack throat, unlike wolves (except outstanding ones like those living in the quite strange world of Laundry! ). But the problem precisely arises when the GM doesn't use hit locations – which is what I do.

As soon as hit locations are used, the problem is quite solved. The horse will bite a finger, an ear, the nose, or something like that, and it will be severed. That's perfectly realistic.

Now, if hit locations are not used, the horse can kill an average man with only two or three bites. Not just severely harm him. But really kill him. Which becomes not only unrealistic but also unbelievable.

In reality, horses bite a lot. Especially savage ones. And they do it one again each other. If their biting was so powerful, they would surely bite wolves… and win the fight.

So, one solution could be, as said above, to use full Damage Bonus for wolves.

But Damage Bonus for wolves is None, so it wouldn't change anything. And using full Damage Bonus for carnivores would have another unexpected impact: it would make the tiger's bite, for instance, as powerful as an assault rifle (1D10 + 1D6 vs 2D6 + 2; average result 9). Brief, predators would become more dangerous than they are supposed to be…

Another solution would be to systematically use the pulling blow rule for herbivores' bite… But the question would inevitably be: why? A horse in a life or death situation would certainly bite as strongly as he can…