Capping Attributes for Non-Human Characters

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by schoon

The simplicity of Fantasy Trip is what attracts me to it.

Want to house rule things in your game - have at it - but I'd prefer the core rules stay as unencumbered as possible.

...but mine is just one opinion.

It is part of the beauty and attraction for me as well. I like to keep this simple, and based on the sheer volume of house rules I see on this forum, I believe keeping it simple so GMs can house rule to their heart's content is hopefully the direction the new TFT will go.

As for the original post, I do like the concept, though only as a rule of thumb for NPCs. I generally don't like to limit my friends if their character concept is "Strongest Halfling in the West!"

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

All games have to decide how physical reality intrudes into their fantasy game; no one answer to this is 'right', but I would say that once you've made your choice you should try to be consistent. Does falling farther hurt you more than falling a short distance? Do people often die when a piece of metal goes through their head? Can a person lift an oxcart or pin an elephant to the ground? These are all questions that can be answered in several ways, but your collective answers to the whole set of them should at least 'rhyme' with each other. That principle leads me to say that 3' tall, 30-40 pound people can never be as strong as a healthy, athletic 6' tall, 200 pound person. It is just physically ridiculous. Some games treat the physical world ridiculously, but TFT isn't one of them.

This.

Also, hobbits and dwarves, being short in stature, should have a reduced MA because they just do not have the same 'step' length as a 6ft tall human. This is not about racism, it's about reality. How many 4ft tall olympic sprinters are there? Well the olympic committee must be racist against short people!

Also, a 30-40lb hobbit does not have the body mass to offset the physics of swinging a full sized halberd. Now they might be able to use their own form of two handed weapons, but they will be hobbit sized two-handed weapons with a cap on damage based on ST. The most buff hobbits might get up to ST 12 or 13, their low mass (maybe 50lbs) won't offset the inertia of a full sized pike, halberd, or possibly a naginata. This is not to be mean to hobbits, but to give a nod to reality.

Now I've always felt that dwarves, being stout (normal mass in a shorter package) are able to use fuill sized weapons for ST because they weigh as much as most humans, they are just denser. They do, however, suffer from short leg syndrome, meaning that they will not have the tactical maneuvering of a taller race like Humans and elves.

Then, all this is up to your interpretation of what the various races are and are not. If you want 3ft tall bricks of muscle wielding 15ft long pikes while simultaneously flinging super accurate thrown weapons, then have at you, just don't expect everyone to take your game seriously.

Just because a game is fantasy doesn't mean it has to be stupid and ignore the laws of physics.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

... Also, hobbits and dwarves, being short in stature, should have a reduced MA because they just do not have the same 'step' length as a 6ft tall human. ...

Hi Kevin,
I made my hobbits and Dwarves have MA 8 for exactly that reason. My Giants have MA 12 or 14 because of their big stride size.

I LIKE the different races being significantly different from each other.

Warm regards, Rick.

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Kevin,
I made my hobbits and Dwarves have MA 8 for exactly that reason. My Giants have MA 12 or 14 because of their big stride size.

I LIKE the different races being significantly different from each other.

Warm regards, Rick.

One thing I have seen a lot of is the GMs pet race having all bonuses and no limitations. I'm pretty sure we have all been guilty of this at least a little in our GMing careers, but good GMs grow out of it over time.

[zot]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

Then, all this is up to your interpretation of what the various races are and are not. If you want 3ft tall bricks of muscle wielding 15ft long pikes while simultaneously flinging super accurate thrown weapons, then have at you, just don't expect everyone to take your game seriously.

Just because a game is fantasy doesn't mean it has to be stupid and ignore the laws of physics.

If someone wants to play "the strongest halfling in the West," and it fits within the rules, why take away their fun?

If a game group wants to play games that "ignore the laws of physics" and they are having fun, they should by all means do so! It's their business what kind of stories they tell.

Some time in 1980 our original GM, Fritz, discovered that, hey, we're really all just sitting around a table, having fun telling a story within a framework we all agree on. Then he posited this...

The Argument Theorem: Role playing game rules should never be used except to resolve or prevent arguments. (Nowadays, I would add "or when the rules themselves are fun" to that)

At some point later he realized that GMs are not fundamentally referees or judges, although they sometimes function in those capacities. Fundamentally, GMs are entertainers.

If accurate physics is entertaining for your group, great. Don't call someone else's game stupid because its physics isn't accurate enough for you.

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by zot

If someone wants to play "the strongest halfling in the West," and it fits within the rules, why take away their fun?

If a game group wants to play games that "ignore the laws of physics" and they are having fun, they should by all means do so! It's their business what kind of stories they tell.

Some time in 1980 our original GM, Fritz, discovered that, hey, we're really all just sitting around a table, having fun telling a story within a framework we all agree on. Then he posited this...

The Argument Theorem: Role playing game rules should never be used except to resolve or prevent arguments. (Nowadays, I would add "or when the rules themselves are fun" to that)

At some point later he realized that GMs are not fundamentally referees or judges, although they sometimes function in those capacities. Fundamentally, GMs are entertainers.

If accurate physics is entertaining for your group, great. Don't call someone else's game stupid because its physics isn't accurate enough for you.

Then by your argument, why have rules at all? Doesn't every rule get in the way of someone's fun? There has to be a rational limit or your are just playing make believe. If some munchkin thinks his halfling needs a 20 ST then nother he can find a gifferent game to play it in.

[zot]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

Then by your argument, why have rules at all? Doesn't every rule get in the way of someone's fun? There has to be a rational limit or your are just playing make believe. If some munchkin thinks his halfling needs a 20 ST then nother he can find a gifferent game to play it in.

I think the Argument Theorem already answers that question:

Originally Posted by zot

The Argument Theorem: Role playing game rules should never be used except to resolve or prevent arguments. (Nowadays, I would add "or when the rules themselves are fun" to that)

You use rules A) to resolve or prevent arguments and B) when they're fun. B adequately covers things like combat because nothing in the rules forces a GM to actually run a combat; a GM is well within their rights to say, "you engage in combat and emerge victorious but end up with these wounds..." but GMs usually choose to run combats because it's a lot more fun for the players to play them out.

This thread is about "capping attributes for non-human characters," so it's my impression that the "strongest halfling in the West" got to ST 20 by actually earning the EP, like every other character in the group.

How is that munchkin?

[JLV]

I really think the "one twue way" arguments are totally counterproductive here.

I couldn't care less if someone else wants to do a D&D-ish dungeon bash, while another person prefers to have only totally realistic dungeons (where's the bathroom at?), or no dungeons at all. Different strokes for different folks. As long as your campaign is fun, who cares? Besides, didn't anyone ever read any stories where the physics were all wrong? Like the Amber series when Corwin or someone got too close the Courts of Chaos?

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by zot

I think the Argument Theorem already answers that question:

You use rules A) to resolve or prevent arguments and B) when they're fun. B adequately covers things like combat because nothing in the rules forces a GM to actually run a combat; a GM is well within their rights to say, "you engage in combat and emerge victorious but end up with these wounds..." but GMs usually choose to run combats because it's a lot more fun for the players to play them out.

This thread is about "capping attributes for non-human characters," so it's my impression that the "strongest halfling in the West" got to ST 20 by actually earning the EP, like every other character in the group.

How is that munchkin?

Then you are welcome top house rule your game as far from reality and believability as you wish. But don't whine at the rest of us for suggesting believable caps for races with obvious physical restrictions.

[JLV]

That seems a bit...personal...by way of response...