SIZ Attribute II

[Mugen]

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Follow up! In the Bestiary, it says an average dwarf is 115 cm and 45 kg. Average SIZ is 7, which is slightly over half of the human average of 13. So is an average human just under 230 cm tall?

SIZ scale is not linear ! You can't just multiply it by a factor to get one's height.

Also, even if it's called "Size", it is actually more strongly linked to mass than height. The relationship between mass and height is also not linear, as mass depends on one's volume. A 230 cm tall dwarf will have all his proportions doubled, and his mass is expected to be roughly 8 times the mass of a 115 cm dwarf, if all other factors remain the same.

As a result, his SIZ will be far above 14.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Mugen

[Barak Shathur]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

SIZ scale is not linear ! You can't just multiply it by a factor to get one's height.

Also, even if it's called "Size", it is actually more strongly linked to mass than height. The relationship between mass and height is also not linear, as mass depends on one's volume. A 230 cm tall dwarf will have all his proportions doubled, and his mass is expected to be roughly 8 times the mass of a 115 cm dwarf, if all other factors remain the same.

As a result, his SIZ will be far above 14.

That makes sense, thanks!

[soltakss]

5 hours ago, Mugen said:

SIZ scale is not linear ! You can't just multiply it by a factor to get one's height.

Also, even if it's called "Size", it is actually more strongly linked to mass than height. The relationship between mass and height is also not linear, as mass depends on one's volume. A 230 cm tall dwarf will have all his proportions doubled, and his mass is expected to be roughly 8 times the mass of a 115 cm dwarf, if all other factors remain the same.

As a result, his SIZ will be far above 14.

We always took 1 SIZ = 1 Stone (14 lb or 6.3 kg) as a general rule of thumb. 

We also took the SIZ chart in RQ2 and used that as a rule of thumb when talking about humanoid creatures. I think I played that stocky creatures, such as dwarves, used the height range from 1 SIZ lower and the weight range from 1 SIZ higher, so a SIZ 6 Dwarf would have a height range of 106-120 cm and a weight range of 42-49 kg, instead of the 121-135 cm/36-41 kg for SIZ 6.

One of the Players in our RQ2 Campaign looked at Vrok Hawks, which are roughly humanoid in shape, having two legs, two upper limbs, a body and a head. He noticed that they could reach SIZ 6, which gave them a weight of 36-41 kg and a height of 121 -135 kg. Comparing it to a Californian Condor, 11-15 kg, he claimed that Yelmalians had something the size of a vulture perched on their shoulders.

[Mugen]

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

We always took 1 SIZ = 1 Stone (14 lb or 6.3 kg) as a general rule of thumb. 

Simple (except when you're French and only know the metric system...).

I remember there was a SIZ chart in StormBringer and Hawkmoon first french editions, with different height range values depending on your body shape. Did it also exist in the english versions ?

It was certainly not compatible with the latest BRP "canon", in which SIZ follows a roughly exponential law in its "anthropocentric" range, then becomes linear.

But we already discussed the SIZ matter... 

 

[soltakss]

11 hours ago, Mugen said:

I remember there was a SIZ chart in StormBringer and Hawkmoon first french editions, with different height range values depending on your body shape. Did it also exist in the english versions ?

Yes, it was in the English versions.

Rather than have that, I adjust the height/weight bands by _/- 1 or 2, it gives similar results and is easier.

 

[Barak Shathur]

  

2 hours ago, Al. said:

I see this artefact* slightly differently.

No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans.

If I still used SIZ in my [d100] games I'd make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6.

 

* a younger, angrier Al would call it a 'problem' now I am happy to be less judgemental.

I feel vindicated. This is exactly how I feel about it. For me, BRP systems flunked the SIZ stat in a couple of ways. One being that it was completely untethered to STR, which could make for some absurd combinations. The other that it ought to represent mass, not height, since it has such a big effect on both DB and HP. But in most iterations I've come across it seems to be implemented more as the latter, most egregiously in the case of dwarves, who ought to have larger SIZ than pure height would dictate, due to their stockiness. Even RQ dwarves, who emphatically are not D&D or Tolkien dwarves, with 4D6 STR surely have got to be heavier per inch than humans. If they're not super muscular they at least probably have much denser muscle tissue, and much heavier bone structure to support that immense 'pound for pound' strength. Which should net them a greater SIZ stat. Still, I'm not sure I'd give them the same mass as humans, but at least 1D6+6, if humans are at 2D6+6.

On 11/13/2022 at 2:41 PM, soltakss said:

We always took 1 SIZ = 1 Stone (14 lb or 6.3 kg) as a general rule of thumb. 

We also took the SIZ chart in RQ2 and used that as a rule of thumb when talking about humanoid creatures. I think I played that stocky creatures, such as dwarves, used the height range from 1 SIZ lower and the weight range from 1 SIZ higher, so a SIZ 6 Dwarf would have a height range of 106-120 cm and a weight range of 42-49 kg, instead of the 121-135 cm/36-41 kg for SIZ 6.

RQ3 had 6 kg per point of SIZ (at least at the humanoid end of the scale) and this makes sense to me. I'd put an average dwarf at around 120 cm and 54-60 kg (SIZ 9-10).

Oh and I should clarify, I don't see dwarves as 'combat monsters'. I think they should be about on a par with humans in a stand up fight. Not better, but definitely not inferior. That's how they were when RQ was first conceived, before humans had their sudden growth spurt, and that's how they ought to be in my mind.

[SDLeary]

9 hours ago, Al. said:

No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans.

I remember Steve saying something along those lines; I'm not sure that would fit with Mostali though. Tolkien's dwarves, most certainly!

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I feel vindicated. This is exactly how I feel about it. For me, BRP systems flunked the SIZ stat in a couple of ways. One being that it was completely untethered to STR, which could make for some absurd combinations.

Not completely untethered...

Quote

I'm sure this isn't really what you mean though. 

I do seem to recall one game that we played that restricted STR maximum to 1.5x SIZ. Can't recall if that was a published work or house rule, or not. But it is a restriction that I have played in some of my games.

SDLeary

Edited November 15, 2022 by SDLeary

[davecake]

12 hours ago, Al. said:

No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans.

Somewhat later, in his BRP superhero game Superworld, Steve realized that for that game at least it was necessary to distinguish between height and mass at times, as characters who were very dense, or very tall but not heavy (Stilt Man!) appeared, and the convention was that they were written as SIZ <height>(Weight), eg a very dense character (a body made of metal?) might be SIZ 14(56). Weight was used for hit points, damage bonus, height made you easier to hit (or harder for tiny SIZ). Height reduced your normal movement, but made movement powers cheaper. 

It actually would be pretty easy to adopt for RQ, with mass used for hit points and damage bonus, height used for Strike Rank and skill modifiers, most other times it happens in the rules are easy to work out (grappling or Flight spells mass, Illusion spells usually height, and so on). It would be an easy house rule, you’d just need to go through the bestiary and decide which monsters it applies to. It’s the best kind of optional rule, IMO - it solves the problem when you need it, 90% of the time when not needed it can be ignored, and even when it does matter, it’s mostly in creating characteristics rather than play. And besides dwarves, could be tweaked to allow for obese or skeletal characters if you wished (though of course most human PCs would be assumed to be of normal morphology). 

Contrary to Jeff I prefer the RQ3 average of Con and SIZ for hit points, as the RQ2/RQG system completely falls apart for very large or small things - and I think that may have come in with Superworld too. The problem of having to give dwarves a large Con in RQ3 could easily be solved by separating Height and Weight for dwarves, and it makes the game much more intrinsically simulationist, with large creatures generally appropriate hit points without a huge CON.
Though it might appeal to have large things fairly easily defeated, in practice RQ2 stats would compensate by giving large things loads of armor - dinosaurs in RQ2/RQG tend to have as many armour points as hit points for even not notably armored ones in order to make them scary enough, for example, so it become a quest for a critical, rather than whittling big things down. 

Anyway, that’s an interesting aside, but a bit tangential to the main issue. Game design of an evolutionary nature like RQG has many trade offs, and they reflect different tastes and contexts. 

[Barak Shathur]

4 hours ago, davecake said:

Contrary to Jeff I prefer the RQ3 average of Con and SIZ for hit points, as the RQ2/RQG system completely falls apart for very large or small things - and I think that may have come in with Superworld too. The problem of having to give dwarves a large Con in RQ3 could easily be solved by separating Height and Weight for dwarves, and it makes the game much more intrinsically simulationist, with large creatures generally appropriate hit points without a huge CON.
Though it might appeal to have large things fairly easily defeated, in practice RQ2 stats would compensate by giving large things loads of armor - dinosaurs in RQ2/RQG tend to have as many armour points as hit points for even not notably armored ones in order to make them scary enough, for example, so it become a quest for a critical, rather than whittling big things down. 

I was just thinking that it might make more sense in RQ to reverse the DB and HP generation systems, so that HP goes back to being the average of HP and SIZ, while DB is based STR, with a modifier for high or low SIZ. Why? Because arguably, strength is more important for damage generation, since kinetic force is the most important factor here, and higher muscular strength allows you to move your weapon faster. Large body mass can help with a stable point to generate that force from and allow you to 'lean into it', but it's not as decisive (and small size can detract from it similarly).  

Size however has a huge impact on ability to sustain damage. It's been said before on these forums, a given blow might knock a small creature down while not having much impact on a large one. I'd say it's at least as important as health and ability to withstand pain (CON).

[Barak Shathur]

8 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I do seem to recall one game that we played that restricted STR maximum to 1.5x SIZ. Can't recall if that was a published work or house rule, or not. But it is a restriction that I have played in some of my games.

I've been ruling in my BRP game that for creatures like humans, where STR and SIZ have similar range, they can't differ by more than 6 (so one die, essentially). If they do, you move points from the higher to the lower until they are within 6. For dwarves and orcs, I make it 12 (I give dwarves SIZ 1d6+6).

[Jeff]

5 hours ago, davecake said:

Contrary to Jeff I prefer the RQ3 average of Con and SIZ for hit points, as the RQ2/RQG system completely falls apart for very large or small things - and I think that may have come in with Superworld too. The problem of having to give dwarves a large Con in RQ3 could easily be solved by separating Height and Weight for dwarves, and it makes the game much more intrinsically simulationist, with large creatures generally appropriate hit points without a huge CON.
Though it might appeal to have large things fairly easily defeated, in practice RQ2 stats would compensate by giving large things loads of armor - dinosaurs in RQ2/RQG tend to have as many armour points as hit points for even not notably armored ones in order to make them scary enough, for example, so it become a quest for a critical, rather than whittling big things down. 

We found in play that it is exactly the opposite. RQ3 falls apart for very large creatures - as they become nearly unkillable. Which we know is wrong because killing giants and other big monsters is a staple in Greg's stories. And before anyone says it is not realistic that Bigclub the Giant "only" has 28 hit points instead of 63 hit points, well if we want to be at all realistic, Bigclub can't actually walk.

[Barak Shathur]

44 minutes ago, Jeff said:

We found in play that it is exactly the opposite. RQ3 falls apart for very large creatures - as they become nearly unkillable. Which we know is wrong because killing giants and other big monsters is a staple in Greg's stories. And before anyone says it is not realistic that Bigclub the Giant "only" has 28 hit points instead of 63 hit points, well if we want to be at all realistic, Bigclub can't actually walk.

If my calculation isn't off, a 63 HP giant would have 21 HP in its head. A critical with a broadsword is 18 HP damage, plus DB of +1D4. Should take care of it. Not to mention possible magical damage added to that. Sounds about right to me?

[Akhôrahil]

48 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

If my calculation isn't off, a 63 HP giant would have 21 HP in its head. A critical with a broadsword is 18 HP damage, plus DB of +1D4. Should take care of it. Not to mention possible magical damage added to that. Sounds about right to me?

Agree - a 28 HP Giant falls apart like nothing when PCs are skilled and buffed (I would be shocked if it survived the first round of melee) while 63 HPs means some effort (it might well go down on the first round still, but it takes some work).

PCs are scary in fights.

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Agree - a 28 HP Giant falls apart like nothing when PCs are skilled and buffed (I would be shocked if it survived the first round of melee) while 63 HPs means some effort (it might well go down on the first round still, but it takes some work).

PCs are scary in fights.

I think the dream dragon we encountered went down in two or three.

[davecake]

14 hours ago, Jeff said:

RQ3 falls apart for very large creatures - as they become nearly unkillable. Which we know is wrong because killing giants and other big monsters is a staple in Greg's stories.

A lot of Greg’s stories are based on events in his RQ2 game, which becomes kind of circular.
Not that I can remember a lot of giant killing stories? 

15 hours ago, Jeff said:

And before anyone says it is not realistic that Bigclub the Giant "only" has 28 hit points instead of 63 hit points

But the issue with Big Club in the RQ3 version isn’t that he has 63 hit points - the issue is that he has insane armor, as he wears plate armour and giants armor points scale with their SIZ in RQ3. The random upscaling of armor for large things was a much bigger factor in making large monsters nearly unbeatable than hit points, and made fights turn into either crapshoots waiting for criticals, or entirely about using magic. 

Big Club is an unusual example - what makes him notoriously dangerous is his Chaotic Feature of +10 pt skin, plus some lunatic has given him plate greaves. So his armor points are formidable 22 on legs and 16 elsewhere. Dangerous, but his unarmored parts are not completely impenetrable with a special - say, a long spear ((1d10+1) impale would do 12+1d10+ db, so around 20-21 points, plus maybe a few more for Bladesharp. An impaling Firearrow does 9+ 3d6, so around 20. A slash from a truesworded bastard sword (this is RQ2) does 3d10+3 + db, so 22-23 - another 4 for Bladesharp maybe. 
His RQ3 version has effectively about twice the hit points per location, ~21 in the legs and abdomen. But the stats for giants were changed so he starts with 13 point skin rather than 6, and so his leg armour is 31 points, 23 in most locations, and some maniac decided that wasn’t bad enough so gave him a giant size chain mail hat. In RQ2 specials etc can make some difference - in RQ3 specials will just bounce off the higher armor, so you are looking at criticals only to effect him. The increased hit points do make it worse, because you probably have to critical him twice in the same location to take it out, but it’s the increased armour that is the real culprit, the fight is just waiting for criticals.

For a normal giant, it’s much starker - if Big Club was a normal giant of his size - his hit points would go from 28 to 63, more than doubling, but his armor points would go from 6 to 13, meaning he would go from most normal hits causing some damage, to most normal hits causing no damage. Doubling hit points makes the fight longer - doubling armor points changes its nature significantly. Another example is dream dragons - they went from ‘4-10 point skin, determined randomly’, definitely within the human range, to 24 point skin, definitely requiring probably specials more likely criticals to hurt them at all - the armour is what takes the fight from wearing down a powerful enemy, to a frustrating series of waiting for criticals. And in RQ2 a 20d6 dream dragon would still have a 3d6 con, so actually kind of fragile in RQ2, a single magically enhanced critical bow shot might take out a location! 

This is a persistent trend with large things from RQ2 to RQ3, and I think much more important than the hit point increase in making large creatures seem undefeatable. Personally I think some of the urge to increase the armour points of large creatures came from play experience with large creatures having low hit points, and thus being relatively fragile without armor - though of course I have no inside knowledge, I’d love to hear from someone involved in the RQ3 design process, it’s interesting to note that switching to the average of STR and SIZ was a choice Steve Perrin made a lot earlier than that. 

And I personally find the ‘crapshoot waiting for criticals’ a far worse kind of fight to experience in play to a ‘wear them down’ fight, that works quite well for a group of tough heroes emphasising their survivability and tactics rather than mostly hoping for lucky dice. YMWobviouslyV, and I know there are other trade offs to consider, like overall complexity and compatibility with other products. But I’m still fairly convinced that RQ3 got this change right overall, and that separating height and mass in a few unusual cases would cover its deficiencies well - and that increasing the Armor of large creatures was the real issue with RQ3 making most large creatures effectively undefeatable, not their hit points. 

[Jens]

17 hours ago, Jeff said:

We found in play that it is exactly the opposite. RQ3 falls apart for very large creatures - as they become nearly unkillable. Which we know is wrong because killing giants and other big monsters is a staple in Greg's stories. And before anyone says it is not realistic that Bigclub the Giant "only" has 28 hit points instead of 63 hit points, well if we want to be at all realistic, Bigclub can't actually walk.

Conversely RQG has problems with small creatures, particularly those with good CONs and/or a single hit location. Take a Vrok Hawk- you could have a SIZ 2, CON 15+ bird with 13 or more HP in its single location...

[Akhôrahil]

On 11/13/2022 at 2:41 PM, soltakss said:

We always took 1 SIZ = 1 Stone (14 lb or 6.3 kg) as a general rule of thumb. 

This works for PC races, but essentially, SIZ just simply represents the game-mechanical effect of the size.  An elephant weighing 6000 kg doesn’t have SIZ 1000, that would be silly.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Akhôrahil]

If this was GURPS, there would probably be some way to calculate SIZ from weight using logarithms or something. 🙂

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

If this was GURPS, there would probably be some way to calculate SIZ from weight using logarithms or something. 🙂

It's in GURPS Fantasy (no log involved). It is actually a way to calculate/estimate Hit Points (and ST) based on longest dimension (height/length) and/or weight. 

[Barak Shathur]

The more I think about it, I would make HP = SIZ, modified by CON instead of the other way round. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Barak Shathur