Size Modifier and Basic Move

bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:

> Ben Finney <ben.DeleteThis@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> >Does Size Modifier affect Basic Move?
> >If not, why not?
>
> If not, then the point must be that if you want a non-standard Basic
> Move, you're going to have to pay for it in the usual manner.

That's my question though. If one makes a SM+6 creature, surely the
"standard" would be that the creature moves faster; and vice versa for
creatures with negative SM. However, GURPS says the "standard" is that
larger and smaller creatures each move the same rate as if they were
SM+0.

> If you make a Size+10 critter without any Basic Move modification,
> you're basically saying "I want to design a giant slug".

That seems a defective way to define the standard effects of being
bigger; and it certainly isn't explicit in the definition of SM.

> If you want to make a Size+10 humanoid creature, you'd be well
> advised to consider sinking some points into extra Basic Move for
> it.

I have no quarrel with paying for it. I was wondering why it wasn't
part of paying for a differently-sized creature in the first place.

--
\ "I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history, in |
`\ every culture, is the story of Popeye." -- Jack Handey |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

korinNOduvalSPAM.TakeThisOut@yahoo.it (Korin Duval) writes:

> Ben Finney <ben.TakeThisOut@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> >Does Size Modifier affect Basic Move?
> No automatically.
>
> >If not, why not?
>
> 'cause you can build a small and fast animal (like a dog, a fox,
> etc., eventually combining basic move with Enhanced Move)

So to build a *natural* creature (dog, fox, etc.) I must give it an
advantage designed to model *supernatural* speed.

> or a big and slow one (the Horrible But Slow Blob of Planet
> Allucaneat).

Which is the default for a large creature. Which seems
counter-intuitive.

I was expecting, in an edition of GURPS where we could finally allow a
creature's ST provide their HP without split HT scores for every
single non-human-sized animal out there, that SM would be a good model
for differently-sized natural creatures by default too.

> >If we assume that Basic Move should be affected by Size Modifier,
> >what's the solution? Should we simply apply SM to BM? That would
> >give our rat BM=1, human BM=5, dragon BM=11. Or some other
> >calculation?
>
> I think it's a good rule of thumb, +/-1 to BM per +/-1 of SM.

It's too simplistic. It leads to a SM-5 creature (of DX 10, HT 10)
having BM=0, and negative BM for any creature smaller than that.

Perhaps it needs to also take ST into account; small creatures that
are strong can move quickly for their size, and large creatures *need*
to be strong if they're going to move at any decent pace.

> Remember, however: if building a PC or Ally or whatnot (*), to
> add/subtract the cost of Basic Move to the CP total.

I'd rather that SM wasn't a 0-point feature and *included* things like
this by default. When building a large/small creature, if I don't
automatically get one whose expected movement is correctly modelled,
what other natural expectations will I need to be careful of?

For other advantages and disadvantages I can understand that writing
them explicitly is good, because they're properly recorded. But Basic
Move is recorded separately *anyway*, even for average humans; why not
calculate it once, including SM as appropriate, instead of needing to
take extra customisation steps?

--
\ "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the |
`\ precipitate." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

Korin Duval wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:37:18 +1000, Ben Finney <ben.RemoveThis@benfinney.id.au>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>Does Size Modifier affect Basic Move?

> No automatically.

>>If so, how, and where is this documented?

> It's not, AFAIK.

>>If not, why not?

> 'cause you can build a small and fast animal (like a dog, a fox, etc.,
> eventually combining basic move with Enhanced Move) or a big and slow
> one (the Horrible But Slow Blob of Planet Allucaneat).

> [...]
>
>>If we assume that Basic Move should be affected by Size Modifier,
>>what's the solution? Should we simply apply SM to BM? That would give
>>our rat BM=1, human BM=5, dragon BM=11. Or some other calculation?
>
>
> I think it's a good rule of thumb, +/-1 to BM per +/-1 of SM.
> I'd rule, also, that each +1 to SM is roughly (VERY roughly) +10 to ST
> (I mean, +5 to +15 per +1 in SM, according to the creature 's
> structure).
>
> Remember, however: if building a PC or Ally or whatnot (*), to
> add/subtract the cost of Basic Move to the CP total.

> (*) I believe that NPC are almost never required to be built on an
> EXACT number of CP.



Lets do a reality check here:
Over short distances, just about any 4 legged creature can move faster
than any two legged creature.

Examples: Rabbits, Rats, Squirrels, Dogs, Horses, Gazelles, Giraffes,
Elephants.

Antithesis: Tree Sloths

On the other hand, over a several days span, a man can out run a horse.

Ants, having 6 legs and 10x the proportional strength of a man move
quickly for their size, but obviously not at a (DX10 HT10) 5 hex per
turn rate.

Flying, on the other hand, means that bees, wasps, and other really
small insects move quite a bit faster than 5 hexes per turn.

Never having had to design a critter from scratch (I usually just pick
something I consider roughly equivalent, and then modify extensively), I
had not paid attention to the size modifier vs move factor.

I would say the the mode of movement, -air, land, or water- the kind of
propulsion -two legs, 4-legs, 6-legs, multilegs, small vs large wings,
etc.- as well as size and weight ratio all play a part in the basic
movement rate. As we play a game, and are not trying to model reality
exactly - just get a reasonably beleivable approximation for the
circumstances, I wouldn't get too specific as to applying a +1 for every
+1 SM.

My first suggestion, would be to use the Size/Speed/Range Table (3e)to
generate the modifier to apply to the construct's Basic Move. The
alternative as I see it is to give it what you want (ie-custom
application) based on similarities to other critters or your custom
biological features.

From a gaming perspective, the idea is to make it challenging as well
as entertaining for the PC's in your scenario. Ignore the "rules" and
cut it to fit your game.

Regards,
Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

In article <44e334d7$0$25435$6c5eefc5@news.westnet.com>, raven RemoveThis @westnet.poe.com
wrote:

> Well, things should cost what they cost, and moving fast is a heck of an
> advantage, so why _not_ buy them as approriate rather than have it built
> into a size mod package and then make people modify?

That's what the GURPS book recommends. Dogs have an appropriate speed for dogs.
Human speed is given based on the stats you generated when you created your
character. If you have Gigantism there are numbers for modifying your move in
the notes for it.

Size doesn't reflect on move as much as mass and mode of movement. Any chart SJG
generates will have inherent flaws. Just try to come up with a chart that gives
good move numbers for Elephants AND Whales.
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:37:18 +1000, Ben Finney <ben RemoveThis @benfinney.id.au>
wrote:

>Howdy all,
>
>Does Size Modifier affect Basic Move?

Nope.

>
>If so, how, and where is this documented?
>
>If not, why not?
>
>The formula for calculating Basic Move is (Basic Speed minus
>fractions). Basic Speed is calculated as (HT + DX)/4.
>
>But Basic Speed is a measure of reflexes and physical reaction time,
>not movement rate. Surely Basic Move should be different for creatures
>of different sizes? Should a creature of HT 10, DX 10 have a default
>Basic Move of 5, regardless of whether they are SM+0 (human), SM-4
>(rat) or SM+6 (dragon)?

Having chased a mouse, they really aren't that much slower than I am.
Their stamina isn't much to speak of, though.
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

David Johnston wrote:
> Having chased a mouse, they really aren't that much slower than I am.
> Their stamina isn't much to speak of, though.

Thanks for the data point.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

Kent Allard <evil DeleteThis @hearts_of_men.net> writes:

> Size doesn't reflect on move as much as mass and mode of
> movement. Any chart SJG generates will have inherent flaws.

Thanks. This, and other posts in this thread, explain that I was
probably expecting too much: a simple, sensible default calculation of
Basic Move from general attributes.

I see now that it depends on many other things not neatly encoded in
those attributes, and figuring it out, or just choosing one that makes
sense, is just part of describing the creature.

--
\ "Never use a long word when there's a commensurate diminutive |
`\ available." -- Stan Kelly-Bootle |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:37:18 +1000, Ben Finney <ben.TakeThisOut@benfinney.id.au>
wrote:

>Howdy all,
>
>Does Size Modifier affect Basic Move?
>
>If so, how, and where is this documented?
>
>If not, why not?
>
>The formula for calculating Basic Move is (Basic Speed minus
>fractions). Basic Speed is calculated as (HT + DX)/4.
>
>But Basic Speed is a measure of reflexes and physical reaction time,
>not movement rate. Surely Basic Move should be different for creatures
>of different sizes? Should a creature of HT 10, DX 10 have a default
>Basic Move of 5, regardless of whether they are SM+0 (human), SM-4
>(rat) or SM+6 (dragon)?
>
>If we assume that Basic Move should be affected by Size Modifier,
>what's the solution? Should we simply apply SM to BM? That would give
>our rat BM=1, human BM=5, dragon BM=11. Or some other calculation?


well i can testify from personal experience that a motivated rat is a
damn site faster than BM one.
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

Ben Finney wrote:
> Thanks. This, and other posts in this thread, explain that I was
> probably expecting too much: a simple, sensible default calculation of
> Basic Move from general attributes.
>
> I see now that it depends on many other things not neatly encoded in
> those attributes, and figuring it out, or just choosing one that makes
> sense, is just part of describing the creature.

Some creature design lines would actually be good. The freeware RPG
system Quest FRP had some guidelines in its "Monster Book", at least up
until v2.1. I don't know if the later versions have it. It consisted of
advice in appropriate "DR" for various animal types (although it also
said that you had to correct for size, e.g. not give a mouse and an
elephant the same "DR" even though both are of the mammalian type),
advice on "HT" values and so forth.

GURPS Bestiary would do well to spend 2-3 pages on the subject.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

David Johnston <rgorman.DeleteThis@block.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:37:18 +1000, Ben Finney <ben.DeleteThis@benfinney.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>>But Basic Speed is a measure of reflexes and physical reaction time,
>>not movement rate. Surely Basic Move should be different for creatures
>>of different sizes? Should a creature of HT 10, DX 10 have a default
>>Basic Move of 5, regardless of whether they are SM+0 (human), SM-4
>>(rat) or SM+6 (dragon)?
>
> Having chased a mouse, they really aren't that much slower than I am.
> Their stamina isn't much to speak of, though.

Having chased a mouse, I'm pretty sure that they are a lot slower than I
am. The appear to be pretty fast, but that's because they can run in
places where I have to walk or crawl. In a straight 100 meter dash, any
human should be able to beat a mouse.

Same goes for cats. Cats walk much, much slower than humans, but they're
small enough to run indoors.

BM+SM is a bit too extreme, because SM is logarithmic, while BM
is linear.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

Kent Allard <evil DeleteThis @hearts_of_men.net> wrote:
>
> Size doesn't reflect on move as much as mass and mode of movement.

Leg length matters quite a lot, I think. Animals with short legs tend
to walk a lot slower than animals with long legs. I also think 4-legged
animals run faster than two-legged animals with the same leg length.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

Kent Allard <evil DeleteThis @hearts_of_men.net> wrote:
> In article <44e45cfc$0$4512$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, mcv <mcvmcv DeleteThis @xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> Leg length matters quite a lot, I think. Animals with short legs tend
>> to walk a lot slower than animals with long legs. I also think 4-legged
>> animals run faster than two-legged animals with the same leg length.
>
> But cheetahs run much faster than giraffes, so even leg length isn't the major
> contributing factor (hence my mention of the elephant and the whale in my last
> post).

Running is not the same thing as walking. I wouldn't be surprised if a
giraffe can actually walk faster than a cheetah (although there's bound
to be exceptions to any rule), but a cheetah is a running machine. He's
optimised for running, and that's pretty much all he can do. That's why
he's faster. 4-legged animals don't just use their legs for running,
they use their entire body, so it makes sense that leg length matters
less there.

Ofcourse all of this is just how I think it works. I could very well be
wrong, and even if I'm right, there's bound to be exceptions.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move 

On 17 Aug 2006 13:16:37 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv.TakeThisOut@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Running is not the same thing as walking. I wouldn't be surprised if a
>giraffe can actually walk faster than a cheetah (although there's bound
>to be exceptions to any rule), but a cheetah is a running machine. He's
>optimised for running, and that's pretty much all he can do. That's why
>he's faster. 4-legged animals don't just use their legs for running,
>they use their entire body, so it makes sense that leg length matters
>less there.

That depends on the animal. Cheetahs rely on the flex of their spines
a great deal, for example, while horses do not.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.TakeThisOut@paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: Size Modifier and Basic Move