At what size do giants need the Dependency (Mana) advantage?

[mjj1976]

Ok, but is there also a way to apply it to normal people of different sizes, weights, and strengths? Do tall people actually move faster because of long legs, provided they have enough muscle to give them the same power-to-mass ratio as someone of normal size? So, as a general rule, is this how it works?: [character's power-to-mass ratio relative to species average] ^ 0.5 * ([character's height] / [species average height]) ^ 0.5 * [species average Move] = [character's Move]

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by mjj1976

Ok, but is there also a way to apply it to normal people of different sizes, weights, and strengths?

Not really, no. Tall people do move faster (there's a reason track and field stars tend to be tall) but the scaling is much more modest.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Not really, no. Tall people do move faster (there's a reason track and field stars tend to be tall) but the scaling is much more modest.

Largely because the power-to-weight ratio doesn't scale up at a 1:1 ratio in real life, as discussed adnauseum.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Largely because the power-to-weight ratio doesn't scale up at a 1:1 ratio in real life, as discussed adnauseum.

Also because of the ST to weight ratio. On average, top speed should scale as roughly (P / W^2/3)^1/3. Using the P = W^0.75 formula, we get about the 0.027 power of weight, or about the 0.08 power of linear scale. Thus, a 2mm and, at 1/1,000 human scale, should multiply speed by about 0.58.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by mjj1976

I enjoy these sort of figures, but it seems that no matter how hard I try to understand the one about Move, I just don't get why it would work that way. Couldn't it be based on the square root of the creature's power-to-mass ratio, then multiplied by a "speed factor", like in 3E's Vehicles? How does the creature's SM and/or stride length affect how it applies its power?

Pendulum-like movements are significant in gait, Pendulum periods go as the 1/2 power of length. So stride length times stride frequency (=speed) goes as the square root of scale.

Non-pendulum gaits are hijous inefficient, the extra power is mostly wasted.

[JAW]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous Bean

I agree that giants would look noticeably different from regular-sized humans, but I'd just like to comment that the problems experienced by abnormally tall people aren't necessarily a nix on large bipedal humanoids. The key here is that these people are abnormal -- their dimensions are outside the limits that their species has adapted for, so that's why they're running into problems.

Thicker bones, odd hip structures, and different placement of muscles and ligaments would make a larger biped fairly feasible, I'd think. Again, I agree that there limits to the size, but simply dismissing the possibility because of problems experienced by abnormal individuals in a different species seems to me to be a bit illogical.

Well yeah - T-rex sized bipedal creatures made from regular flesh and bone definitely are not impossible. Even something quite humanoid would be possible - just thicker bones and slow geared muscles on low legs etc.

But they would not survive on "regular" ecosystem very easily. And would likely be fairly clumsy, have poportionally weaker arms etc..

Rather than straight dependency (mana) fantasy giants could have portion of their stats with requires mana modifier and have disads with mana as mitigator. High level of overweight to begin with - an oversized creature would effective move as if heavily encumbrenced to begin with even though it was ripped with muscles rather than fat. Straight DX might not require mana - elephants have very good coordination - they just are not that agile - ie dodging jumping acrobatics etc would be heavily penalised on realistic giant - encumbrance penalties would work just fine for it. And/or having a bit low DX but decent manual DX. HT might be dangerously low without mana if they are pretty much human in form - but of course different physiology (multiple hearts etc..) could compensate. And of course increased consumption could be partly mitigated by mana if one wants a giant that could live - but not really survive without mana. On the other hand the giants using about all their time for eating or finding food is a fine trope anyway. But a t-rex would most likely starve in our ecosystem if it was not fed and so would a giant put in "regular" fantasy world - without magic of some sort. Of course an occasional 12 foot giant might not have trouble finding employment that would earn the food - but a race of 12 foot giants would likely not be realistic unless the world they live in is somehow "exotic".

[b-dog]

Originally Posted by JAW

Well yeah - T-rex sized bipedal creatures made from regular flesh and bone definitely are not impossible. Even something quite humanoid would be possible - just thicker bones and slow geared muscles on low legs etc.

But they would not survive on "regular" ecosystem very easily. And would likely be fairly clumsy, have poportionally weaker arms etc..

Rather than straight dependency (mana) fantasy giants could have portion of their stats with requires mana modifier and have disads with mana as mitigator. High level of overweight to begin with - an oversized creature would effective move as if heavily encumbrenced to begin with even though it was ripped with muscles rather than fat. Straight DX might not require mana - elephants have very good coordination - they just are not that agile - ie dodging jumping acrobatics etc would be heavily penalised on realistic giant - encumbrance penalties would work just fine for it. And/or having a bit low DX but decent manual DX. HT might be dangerously low without mana if they are pretty much human in form - but of course different physiology (multiple hearts etc..) could compensate. And of course increased consumption could be partly mitigated by mana if one wants a giant that could live - but not really survive without mana. On the other hand the giants using about all their time for eating or finding food is a fine trope anyway. But a t-rex would most likely starve in our ecosystem if it was not fed and so would a giant put in "regular" fantasy world - without magic of some sort. Of course an occasional 12 foot giant might not have trouble finding employment that would earn the food - but a race of 12 foot giants would likely not be realistic unless the world they live in is somehow "exotic".

I think that giants should get Reduced Consumption because they would basically eat everything in the ecosystem so mundane life forms couldn't exist.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by b-dog

I think that giants should get Reduced Consumption because they would basically eat everything in the ecosystem so mundane life forms couldn't exist.

Doesn't seem to be the case with large whales. I don't think anyone is proposing a land animal a large as the blue whale.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by b-dog

I think that giants should get Reduced Consumption because they would basically eat everything in the ecosystem so mundane life forms couldn't exist.

Really, small animals eat more than big animals.

Consider a human being, weight 150 lbs. An animal 1000 times as big would weigh 75 tons, which I think is the size of the very biggest dinosaurs or a large whale. An animal 1000 times smaller would weigh 2-3 ounces, which is the size of a large mouse or small hamster, I think.

Now, because of scaling, each dinosaur (assuming homeothermy!) eats 100x as much as a human, or 300 meals/day. And each mouse eats 1/100x as much, or 0.03 meals/day.

So one dinosaur, weighing 75 tons, eats 300 meals/day. A thousand humans, weighing 75 tons, eat 3000 meals/day. And a million mice, weighing 75 tons, eat 30,000 meals/day.

Or, the other way round, 300 meals/day will support one dinosaur, weighing 75 tons; or 100 humans, weighing 7.5 tons; or 10,000 mice, weighing 0.75 tons. The same fountain of metabolic energy will hold up a much bigger ball of biomass if the ball is one big organism rather than a lot of small organisms. And you don't need to worry about giants eating everything in sight; it's the lilliputians you have to fear.

Bill Stoddard

[JAW]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Really, small animals eat more than big animals.

Yeas compared to their biomass small animals eat more. But a single big animal eats more in absolute terms than a single small ones. And gurps character sheets are usually for single characters. A lilliputian that surives on 1/10 human meals does have an advantage one on one compared to a giant that needs 10 the amount of food humans need - at least in that effect. Sure the giant has bigger mounth and can scare aay other predators or turn a field more effectively than the lilliputian - but he pays CPs for those - for the STR mainly. So the big guys would end up with increased consumption despite it being less compared to their own mass. If they can carry more food etc - that' cost points in STR - different thing.

Also if the giant is such that ti moves unrealistically fast for a giant - then it might just eat as much as a smaller creature compared to it's size..

Also a single giant has all the biomass concentrated in one place - and is likely much less efficient in finding food in large area as million mices. So it might actually et anything in "sight" as it cannot spread out like million mice when the food runs scarce..

Yup a swarm of locusts with biomass of a single elephant is far scarier than a single elephant. And you likely get more combat effectivenes for food suplies with ogre troops than human troops - but that's just means the ogres have more positive CPs in ST than negative CPs in increased consumption - but a single ogre still has increased consumption IMHO.