Thread: GIN Ultra-Lite
View Single Post
Old 05-21-2012, 08:53 PM   #35
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the frozen wastelands of Southern California
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
I'm inclined to think that just gets a bit... kludgey. I don't really think we can have the 3d6-bellcurve cake and eat the Check Digit one too.
Indeed. And this is the reason why I'd love to see an IN2e that incorporates ideas from this project but sticks with some version of a d666 mechanic. That way, you can have your cake (IN2e) and eat it, too (IN Reprise).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
Off the top of my head? I would give different starting values and/or different values for X in the "X*Forces = Points for characteristics" formula. So -- pulling numbers out of my ear -- a Small Animal (1-3 Forces) would start with 1 or 2 as the base for their characteristics, and multiply the Forces by 1 or 2. A Medium Animal (2-4 Forces; yes, there's overlap) would start with 2, multiply by 3 (or something like that). A Human-Sized Critter (4-6 Forces) can use 6 and 4. A Big Animal (4-6 Forces) could use 8 and 4+. Blue Whales... I dunno, around there, just handwave the conversion and say, "Look, they have X Corporeal Forces and Y Strength and Z hit points, and if you try to possess this, you may have another think coming."

(It would be amusing to me if the big whales (and other giant undersea things?) were all 6+ Forces and could hear the Symphony. And only Jordi's angels really knew this. RELEASE THE KRAKEN SOLDIERS OF GOD!)

The "different values for X" and "handwave" were both ideas I've had for a Jordi expansion for aaaaaaages. >_>
Formalizing this a bit, GURPS has a concept called "Size". As written, it's based strictly on the notion of how a target's Size affects the Target Number to hit it, which is a bit mathy for Reprise (and possibly even for IN overall); but the idea of assigning an abstract Size rating to things and adjusting their basic characteristics accordingly is something I've also thought a lot about. The way I'd do it:

Your Size determines the maximum number of Corporeal Forces you can have. That is, a human-sized creature can have up to 5 Corporeal Forces (Vessels get an exemption from this, due to being Vessels); larger creatures can have more, and smaller creatures can't have as many. Note that I'm using the same scale here that's used to define the number of Forces required fo a Kyriotate to possess a given animal.
Technically, small bodies have less Strength than large bodies do; but then, they also tend to be more agile: compare the mobility of a rat as it darts around looking for cheese to the mobility of an elephant as it lumbers around. The simplest route to go here would be to call it a wash: just divvy up your Characteristic points as you see fit, with a suggestion that smaller creatures be biased toward Agility while larger one's are biased toward Strength; the more complex object would be to adjust the base values accordingly: for example, for each step down from human Size, reduce base Strength by 1 and increase base Agility by 1, and vice versa. This allows the usual range of Sizes to go as low as five steps down from humans (for a base of Str 1/Agl 11, and with a maximum of 0 Corporeal Forces) and as high as five steps up from humans (for a base of Strength 11/Agl 1, and with a maximum of 10 Corporeal Forces). An even more elaborate scheme would be to introduce an asymmetrical progression: smaller creatures lose two Strength per step down while only gaining one Agility per step, and must buy up their Strength to a minimum of 0; large creatures gain one point of Strength per step while losing two points of Agility, and must also maintain a minimum Agility of 0. This is a bit more complex, but might yield more acceptable results in terms of where Strength and Agility fall: in particular, large creatures have to devote an ever-increasing portion of their Corporeal characteristic points to offsetting the Agility penalty imposed by their Size, leaving them with proportionally less to devote to getting truly obnoxious levels of Strength.
I'll have to run some numbers to see if Size's impact on Strength results in acceptable Body Hit totals; if not, it might be possible to factor Size directly into the Body Hits calculation. I'd prefer the former method; but only if the numbers support it.

I'll comment on the rest later, when I have some more time.
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote