Jump to content

Constitution of little animals


Gollum

Recommended Posts

After thinking a bit more about it, another solution could be to disconnect the constitution score and the stamina percentage.

Constitution and Stamina are also used to determine whether a creature can be active un-

der conditions of "stifling heat, freezing cold, or without food or water" (BRP page 219).

Here half the creature's Constitution is used to decide when the creature has to begin to

make Stamina rolls for further activities and finally survival. A low Constitution score of

little animals would mean that, for example, a human would be able to survive extreme

cold better and longer than a polar fox, while in reality even a tiny lemming would do bet-

ter than an unequipped human. And an average snake would need to have a Constitution

of at least 14, because most snakes can easily go 7 days without food ... :)

Edited by rust

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Okay. I'm surprised. Figured it would take too long to cover that much territory.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitution and Stamina are also used to determine whether a creature can be active un-

der conditions of "stifling heat, freezing cold, or without food or water" (BRP page 219).

Here half the creature's Constitution is used to decide when the creature has to begin to

make Stamina rolls for further activities and finally survival. A low Constitution score of

little animals would mean that, for example, a human would be able to survive extreme

cold better and longer than a polar fox, while in reality even a tiny lemming would do bet-

ter than an unequipped human. And an average snake would need to have a Constitution

of at least 14, because most snakes can easily go 7 days without food ... :)

If we are only going to use CON for HP, and toxin resistance, and Stamina for everything else (or vice versa) wouldn't it just be better to adjust the hit point formula?

For example if Hit Points equaled SIZ with a slight modifier for CON,

say HP = SIZ-2+CON/4 I think it would solve most of our problems.

For instance, if a cat had CON 10, SIZ 2, the revised formula would give it 3 hit points.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Domestic cats, for instance (especially males), walk within a radius of 20 to 30 kms around their house every day.

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.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That is closer to what I was expecting. I figure a cat probably patrols it's territory at, say 5kph, so patrolling a 300 km sqaure territory (about eh size of a 20km radius) would take quite awhile. Looking on-line I been seeing that there is a distinction between a cat's territory and the area that it visits frequently the large territory claims, and why most cats seem to be gone for only a few hours at a time.

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

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a tangent, one of the trends in cat "ownership" (which veterinarians are actually encouraging) is the "indoor cat" -- cats who never leave the house, even to go into the yard. The theory is that indoor cats are safer (no cars, no rivals, no predators) and will live as much as twice as long. But I wonder how the cat, who is programmed to roam and wander, feels about all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I wonder how the cat, who is programmed to roam and wander, feels about all that.

It depends a lot on the type and personality of the cat and on its upbringing, some cats take

well to spending their life indoors, especially when there is a second cat which they like, others

try to escape their "prison" whenever possible. Our Norwegian Forest Cat mentioned above

grew up on a farm, was used to roam freely, and hated to be kept indoors for more than a

few hours. A friend had two Siamese cats which were raised by "indoor cats", never left the

apartment, and actually were extremely afraid of "the wilderness outside". As for the life ex-

pectancy, our rather adventurous Norwegian Forest Cat had learned how to avoid dangers

from her mother and died naturally at the quite high age of eighteen years.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sorry, it gets a bit more complicated. rusts example tend to introduce other factors that are not covered under CON. For instance, the polar fox has a pelt, and is native to a colder environment. Both factors that add to it resistance against cold, but which wouldn't help to resist other things (heat for example). The snake's ability to go a long time without food has much to do with it having a very different type of metabolism, not necessarily a better one. Take that snake and put in in the same cold environment as the human and polar fox and guess which one dies first.

So it's not necessarily true that a certain animal should have a high CON or stamina because of one aspect of resistance that it excels at. It's not necessarily false either, hence the dilemma. But an animal that is good at multiple resistances has got something going for it.

Hmm, taping that other animal thread we got going and applying the cube-square relationship to CON like Erasmus and I have done with out animal stats, adjusting CON 2 points for every 3 we adjust SIZ the relationship between SIZ and CON looks something like this.

SIZ CON hp

10 10 10

7 8 8

4 6 5

1 4 3

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.

I can trash that pretty quickly. I'm an asthmatic (so low CON and Stamina) but have about a 11km walk home from work every day. THat's on top of all the walking I do at work. So I would say there is more to it.

As for survival that has a lot more to do with the fact that animals still actively maintain the skills required to acquire food, and most humans do not, since they can simply buy food. It has little to do with CON and Stamina, except that the "couch potato" factor.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this knowledge come from a study with trackers and cameras?

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. :)

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter's cat began his existence as a wild kitten whose mother lived in an unoccupied rent home across the street. He lived several years as a strictly indoor cat, was very affectionate, liked playing with the dog once he got used to her. Then he went through a period of serious illnesses, and we let him outside both so he wouldn't mess up the house and because cats seem to want to go off on their own when they aren't feeling well. Not only did he get better, but he chose to become an outdoor cat (especially in warm weather), coming home only to eat and then wanting out immediately even in the face of tornado or ice storm. Part of it was that he may have been offended that my wife wouldn't let him sleep on our bed. Now he's hard to predict. Sometimes he's affectionate, especially when hungry, but mostly he wants to roam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yeah, stats are not as cut and dried as one number. 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.

You're asthmatic... Does it really mean that you have a low constitution?

It certainly isn't evidence of a high one. I have multiple allergies as well, and spent a large portion of my childhood in the hospital, so I suspect that I do. On the other hand, I didn't get sick much from other things.

Do you have less hit points than someone else of your size?

No, but that's because realistically CON (and health) have very littleng to do with soaking trauma. That's pretty much a function of mass. Where CON should matter, and for the most part doesn't in BRP, in in how quickly and completely one recovers (or not) from an injury or illness.

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?

It does as far as dehydration goes.

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?

But you might not have it to the same severity. Not everyone who has asthma has it to the same degree. I have a friend who has asthma who smokes. If I did that I'd wind up in the Emergency Room. Did your Constitution improve, probably. Sounds like you worked yourself into better shape.

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...

Yup. It does depend on what we test. My hypothesis was that smaller animals would have less stamina because their higher muscle to body weight ratio would allow them to burn off their energy reserves faster.

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!

Sure it is. Cats, rats, and snakes probably don't have as good a diet as humans, so their resistance could easily be lower. Then look at thier shorter lifespans compared to humans. If they were as fit as humans, why do they die so young? Ususally from a illness? And there is little evidence to prove that their resistance is higher.

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.

That depends on how much weight they have to lift. You see, the smaller mass of those birds is what makes that feasible.

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.

They shouldn't. Not for everything covered. But then, neither should humans, and we tend to let that slide. The idea is for the CON score to represent the ability to handle most of the things covered under than stat. A GM can make some adjustments for special cases, like when your husky gets at your Halloween candy and eats the chocolate bars.

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.

Yup, although a good part of what makes insects so resilient is their small size and comparatively simple biology. Still, a blast of Raid is far more dangerous to an ant colony than to a human. Heck, wading though a bubble bath can kill an ant. And they certainly are much more susceptible to cold than a human.

I'm not saying that small animals must have a low CON, I'm just saying that I don't see much evidence for their having a high one. I've seen evidence of some small animals being good at one of two areas covered under CON, but nothing (yet) that supports a higher overall rating.

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

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Very true, as from what I remember people a several thousand years ago were getting together and having children around 11-ish, and many did not live to see their 30th birthday. If you caught a cold in that day and age, you died. It was that simple. Look at Victorian London - at how prevalent it was for the people who caught colds to get infections or to die from consumption. It wasn't until antibiotics were invented and we could treat such things enabling people to survive. Now look at certain areas that have turberculosis that is immune to all known antibiotics. It almost seems as though we have come full circle once more.

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.

What kind of research did you do? Just kinda curious really and what conclusions you reached.

Edited by rogerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Edited by rogerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...