Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Trolls and their skulls and intelligence
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Mercer
QUOTE (Stumps)
To add another round in the chamber of why Charisma is a bad thing to have a negative to for an entire Race: (and this doesn't say that other attributes are good either)
Edges & Flaws that deal with Social Issues:
Uncouth

I almost need to list nothing else other than that.
If you bother to read the description, they pretty much shoot themselves in the foot with that Flaw in regards to having a Charisma penalty.
QUOTE
An Uncouth character has no social graces.  Such characters suffer a +2 target modifier on Social Skill Tests (including Negotiation and Ettiquette Tests.)
This Flaw is common among street muscle-types, and many professional shadowrunners consider it the mark of an ameture.

I'm reading things in there that sound like Trolls.
"no social graces"
Check, Trolls are viewed as rather graceless in their social skills.

"common among street muscle-types"
Check, Trolls are commonly known to be "muscle-types"

And look at that...this Flaw here adds +2TN to the social skill test.
Hey, I remember doing that myself when I was revamping the Racism Table.
hmm....

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that since trolls have a minus to CHA and many are described to "graceless, muscle types", they should not have a minus to CHA and instead have the Flaw Uncouth?
Stumps
QUOTE
I think the fact that orks and trolls do suffer their Charisma penalties against their own kind show that it is not a matter of looks or social acceptance,

Ok...That makes no sense.

Take two incredibly dumb idiots who can only have enough intelligence to say one word, "ugh!"
Now, make another race of secondary idiots who can say two words, "Ugh Thugh!"

Dumbasses Race 1 has two guys hanging out together and their conversation goes:
DR1 Guy A: "Ugh."
DR1 Guy B: "Ugh. Ugh!"

Does guy A think that guy B is a dumb ass because they both can only speak one word?
um...probably not. They're too fricken stupid to know the damn difference.

This is what I will call the, "My feet don't stink" theory.

"Holly shit!"
"What?"
"It smells in here, what the hell do you have that died?"
"What are you talking about? It doesn't smell in here."

Now, take that second Dumbass Race, called, Dumbass Race 2.
They get to talking.
DR2 Guy A: "Ugh."
DR2 Guy B: "Ugh. Thugh!"
DR2 Guy A: "Ugh thugh thugh ugh."
DR2 Guy B: "Thugh thugh."

Do they think that they are smarter because they can say two words?
Perhaps, but I doubt it on a racial level.
That's pretty common for individuals though. Pampas ass jerks!

Now they meet.
DR1 Guy A: "Ugh."
DR2 Guy B: "Ugh. Thugh!"
DR1 Guy A: "Ugh?"
DR2 Guy B: "Ugh. Thugh!"
DR1 Guy A: "Ugh?"
DR2 Guy B: *begins to think that DR1 Guy A is a dumbass.*

Again...the "My feet don't stink" theory is in force here as DR1 Guy A & B both have "stinky feet" (they only say one word and suck mentaly) so neither of them think much of it.
But DR2 Guy B comes along and now someones around who notices that stench (thinks they're dumb) because his feet are washed (he knows two words).

And thus, if Dumbass Race 1 & 2 are the entire worlds population of races then Dumbass Race 2 would think that Dumbass Race 1's "feet" (intelect) "stink" (are dumb) and Dumbass Race 1 would think that there is nothing wrong with their "feet" (intelligence) and think that Dumbass Race 2 are assholes for making them feel bad when they come over.
Stumps
QUOTE
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that since trolls have a minus to CHA and many are described to "graceless, muscle types", they should not have a minus to CHA and instead have the Flaw Uncouth?

Somewhat...yes.

But not entirely.
What I'm saying really is that the reasons that can be derived for Trolls to have a racial negative to Charisma are things like "They are big and strong but are dumb and uncouth so we'll give them body and strength bonuses and intelligence and charisma negatives."

That's most likely exactly the reasoning that they originaly had too.
Edges and Flaws weren't around.

But now we've got "uncouth", a flaw commonly for those muscle-types who have no social graces.
Hmm...well, that's what the aim was with the penalty to charisma so um...what are we still having that for?

Then there's things like "uneducated" and others.
There's no reason to have bonuses and negatives any longer really since there are edges and flaws that pretty much do the same damn thing.

It also makes no sense for characters to hit themselves twice for the same thing.
For instance.
Being a Troll and taking Uncouth.
If you seriously stop and think about why Trolls have that negative to Charisma and what it was trying to represent, then it really doesn't make sense for a Troll to be taking Uncouth after having a penalty that already represents them as being Uncouth.

Yes, one could argue that the Troll with uncouth is really uncouth because he's naturally uncouth as a Troll and then he's also just uncouth for even a Troll so now he's really uncouth.
Sure. No prob.
Do like all other Flaws that have bad, and real bad.
Make levels of it.
Mercer
Not every game uses Edges and Flaws though. A particularly big point as my group is one of those. Also, Edges and Flaws aren't in the SR3, but the SRComp. I don't think racial disadvantages should be buried in optional rules, no matter how prevalent they are.

QUOTE (Stumps)
What I'm saying really is that the reasons that can be derived for Trolls to have a racial negative to Charisma are things like "They are big and strong but are dumb and uncouth so we'll give them body and strength bonuses and intelligence and charisma negatives."


Well, I don't think racial modifiers all balance out as a +3 or +4 by accident, so there was a discussion of game balance at some point. I think they tried to stay in the lines as much as possible between reflecting the source material (the basic fantasy convention of elves and dwarves and orcs and trolls) and not making every race a stereotype (though, the line from SR1 about trolls living under bridges is highly suspect).

Trolls, and to a lesser extent orks, do get some pretty hefty physical bonuses, so it seems unfair to expect these points won't balance out somewhere else in the stat block. Taking bonuses to stats in exchange for conditional minuses in social situations seems a little like borrowing gold and paying back lead. Most players making the troll brickwall don't really care that they are losing CHA (or INT) in the exchange, since they aren't planning to play the face anyway. Those of us that like to make troll faces (Grrrr! I mean, ahem) or ork conjurers or anything else do get stuck with the short end, but thats something you know going into it. Nobody makes a troll conjuring adept because they want their life to be easy.

But again, it depends on how you interpret the stat modifiers. I consider them largely genetic. Orks will be better physically and worse mentally than the equivilent human. Thats simply the way God (or Nigel Findley) made them. Not that they can't overcome those disadvantages, or for that matter waste those advantages (one of my players had an ork with a 3 STR), but they will always be a part of that genetic expression of metahumanity.

toturi
Let's see if you can understand this then:

Cha = F(Appearance, Self-confidence, etc)

I do not know if Appearance is a large part of Cha or a small part or how it can be a fixed stat with Appearance being a variable in different cases, but it is present in the equation. Somehow or other the Trolls and Orks get a racial penalty by being Ork or Troll and that is how it is rationalised in Canon. Fine, your world is a kinder, gentler, more PC one. Trolls and Orks do not suffer a loss of looks towards each other, fine. You cannot accept that, fine. It is your game world.

Finally, I would also like to raise something. Ghouls have a Cha penalty too. They do not suffer from Racism, but they still lose that Cha.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE
Not every game uses Edges and Flaws though. A particularly big point as my group is one of those. Also, Edges and Flaws aren't in the SR3, but the SRComp. I don't think racial disadvantages should be buried in optional rules, no matter how prevalent they are.

Which is why I repeatedly used "equivalence" in my post on the topic earlier in the thread. Sort of like how Dermal Armor is the equivalence of the Toughness edge.

I've experimented with simply using the RMLs and adjusting racial costs in the past. As an idea, it sounds great and seems extremely plausible. But in practice (at least for me) it was rather unsatisfactory without modifying a few other sets of rules (like the amount of Attribute points characters get for various Priorities). Racial costs were also difficult to gauge and often underminded the Human cost of E/0.

But if the system were built around it to begin with, and humans were given more than just the equivalence of a reversed Bad Karma flaw, I'm positive it would work well.
Thanos007
Why would orcs have racial penalties with other orcs? Well I can see it for the ones who goblinised. These people were raised with the "normal" idea of human beauty. Then they goblinise. They would appear to them selves as well as those around them to be deformed/ugly. It would probably take a generation or two for there to be a standard of orc beauty. And my guess would be that the closer to the human norm the more attractive the orc in question would appear to the public at large and other orcs as well.

This would apply to trolls as well.

I'm not saying this is right or fair but there it is.

Thanos


Kagetenshi
Again, take a look at the articles I linked above. In many parts of Africa, the standard of beauty has been warped to something completely different even when there was a preexisting standard. I'm not arguing anymore that it would be a part of Charisma, but I think that the assertion that Orks would inevitably find other Orks attractive (or Trolls/Trolls or Trolls/Orks/Orks/Trolls/etc.) is quite flawed.

~J
Mercer
QUOTE (toturi)
Let's see if you can understand this then:

Cha = F(Appearance, Self-confidence, etc)

I do not know if Appearance is a large part of Cha or a small part or how it can be a fixed stat with Appearance being a variable in different cases, but it is present in the equation. Somehow or other the Trolls and Orks get a racial penalty by being Ork or Troll and that is how it is rationalised in Canon. Fine, your world is a kinder, gentler, more PC one. Trolls and Orks do not suffer a loss of looks towards each other, fine. You cannot accept that, fine. It is your game world.


Appearance and Charisma are not linked in any meaningful way. To imply otherwise makes no sense mechanically and it makes no sense in terms of real life comparisons. It has no basis in anything except some vague notion that people like attractive people. Orks and trolls get penalties to CHA for the same reason they get penalties to INT, because their brain isn't as efficient.

Again:
QUOTE (toturi)
I do not know... how it can be a fixed stat with Appearance being a variable in different cases
Simple. It can't. It doesn't make any sense to link it, and it makes a lot of sense to unlink it. If I have to chose between two rules, one of which makes no sense and one that does, I'll go with the one that makes sense.

Actually, I'm not sure you are replying to me, since at no time have I ever implied orks and trolls shouldn't get penalized. And I'm not sure why anyone would think my world is kinder, gentler or more PC. I know sometimes in the rush to respond we end up stacked behind posts other than the ones we want to address. I have never implied orks or trolls do or do not suffer a loss of looks. I'm the one arguing looks have nothing to do with any of this. My argument would not change if orks looked like Antonio Banderas and elves looked like potatos, because I'm saying the CHA penalty is neither based in appearance or perception. Its an actual thing that occurs before anyone hates them or thinks they're cute.

QUOTE
Finally, I would also like to raise something. Ghouls have a Cha penalty too. They do not suffer from Racism, but they still lose that Cha.

Considering that there is a bounty on ghouls in most places, I find the claim that they do not suffer from prejusdice a little strange. In any event, Ghouls don't lose CHA because people don't like them. They lose CHA because their brain doesn't work as good as it used to, and people don't like them because they are rotting cannibals.

If I may borrow a line from Kagetenshi's last post to further explain what I mean about Charisma and Appearance being separate:
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
  In many parts of Africa, the standard of beauty has been warped to something completely different even when there was a preexisting standard.

If beauty was tied to CHA, what this would mean in game terms is that people would be less able to conjure spirits as people found them less sexy. That's dumb. (I'm not implying this is your viewpoint Kage, I just took the line because it showed that standards of beauty are mutable.)

If Charisma didn't do anything (like in D&D), then there wouldn't be any point in keeping physical attractiveness separate (even though AD&D split it up into Comeliness anyway). But in SR, Charisma does a lot. And none of it has to do with physical attractiveness.

Seriously, if anyone can come up with any vaguely sensical justification for tying looks to CHA, I'll read it and I'll consider it. But just saying, "It's in the system" doesn't float. If a dumb thing is printed in a book, its still a dumb thing.
toturi
You just cannot accept that there is Appearance in the equation, once you can wrap your head around that it makes sense. Since you insist on seperating the 2, claiming it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. OK, the day America votes for a horribly scarred American Idol... that's the day I'll believe Charisma has absolutely nothing to do with Appearance.
Stumps
QUOTE
It would probably take a generation or two for there to be a standard of orc beauty.

And those who were goblinized have to be at least around 40 years old right now.
That's at least a generation, if not nearing two.

But that's irrelivent in this debate to most involved.

QUOTE
You just cannot accept that there is Appearance in the equation, once you can wrap your head around that it makes sense. Since you insist on seperating the 2, claiming it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. OK, the day America votes for a horribly scarred American Idol... that's the day I'll believe Charisma has absolutely nothing to do with Appearance.

Toturi...that doesn't work.
QUOTE
once you can wrap your head around that it makes sense.

To suggest that the only problem anyone has is that they just simply can't understand it is really odd.
You will understand it when you realise that you just don't understand it and when that happens, you then understand it.
That makes no sense.

Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (toturi)
You just cannot accept that there is Appearance in the equation, once you can wrap your head around that it makes sense.

Only regarding the racial modifiers. Nowhere else in the game does appearance or attractiveness have any impact on Charisma as an attribute.

So no, it doesn't make sense. Even the description for Charisma states that it is beyond looks (even though I already admitted that it can be read the way you prefer to read it).
toturi
Yes, Doc, Charisma is MORE than just looks. I agree too. But the way I read it (and you have already said so) is that I choose to see Looks as part of Charisma. Maybe not 50%, certainly not 80%, but 20% perhaps. The problem I have is with people who see it as 0%.
Kagetenshi
I move to rename Charisma to Sexiness. Spirits are renamed to Boy-Toys or Joygirls, and are limited to Sexiness because that's how willing they are to stick around in hopes that the summoner will eventually decide that they are "The One" and settle down with them. Likewise, Astral Combat Damage is a measure not of how hard one hits, but how distracted the other party is at the time.

~J
Stumps
See...
While that arguement is going on, I really don't care WHAT charisma is comprised of.

I care how the idea of the uncouthness of Trolls and Orcs is handled in game mechanics.

Hell, I'm getting frustrated with this.
We just keep saying the same damn thing.
How many times have we all said what our points are?

I mean really...like I said.
The more I talk this debate, the more I just hate the entire bonus/negative concept.
Kagetenshi
And I care about how the game mechanics are expressed in terms of uncouthness. You're taking a description and trying to make the rules match it, I'm trying to take the rules and make the description match it. Problem is, as far as I can tell we're arguing about the effects of our points, not our points themselves.

~J
Mercer
QUOTE (toturi)
The problem I have is with people who see it as 0%.

Why? Beyond one line under the description of Charisma, what justification is there to have appearace and Charisma linked? Since nothing in the system that deals with appearance deals with Charisma (and the majority of these are Edges and Flaws, but also include spells such as Fashion, Make Over, Healthy Glow and most notably, Shapechange), and nothing that increases or decreases Charisma affects appearance (again, mainly the spells Inc or Dec CHA, and equivilent spirit powers), why keep saying they are linked?

Further, no character concept that deals with appearance has any link to Charisma, and vice versa. If someone wanted to play a high charisma, butt ugly character, would you disallow it? If someone wanted to play a physically attractive but otherwise abrasive a-hole, would you disallow it? Would there be any reason for this beyond a stubborn adherence to the idea that Charisma and Appearance are somehow linked, even though no one seems to be able to explain how?

To me, the idea that there are CHA 1 supermodels in the world seems a lot more likely than the idea you'd take Physical Drain trying to conjure a Force 6 Elemental because you aren't pretty enough.

Gyro the Greek Sandwich Pirate
QUOTE (Mercer)
QUOTE (toturi)
The problem I have is with people who see it as 0%.

Why? Beyond one line under the description of Charisma, what justification is there to have appearace and Charisma linked? Since nothing in the system that deals with appearance deals with Charisma (and the majority of these are Edges and Flaws, but also include spells such as Fashion, Make Over, Healthy Glow and most notably, Shapechange), and nothing that increases or decreases Charisma affects appearance (again, mainly the spells Inc or Dec CHA, and equivilent spirit powers), why keep saying they are linked?

Further, no character concept that deals with appearance has any link to Charisma, and vice versa. If someone wanted to play a high charisma, butt ugly character, would you disallow it? If someone wanted to play a physically attractive but otherwise abrasive a-hole, would you disallow it? Would there be any reason for this beyond a stubborn adherence to the idea that Charisma and Appearance are somehow linked, even though no one seems to be able to explain how?

To me, the idea that there are CHA 1 supermodels in the world seems a lot more likely than the idea you'd take Physical Drain trying to conjure a Force 6 Elemental because you aren't pretty enough.

I thought Charisma was more an amalgamation of social ability with attractiveness (especially since you get those pheremones in M&M that give +4 bonsuses to charisma when you're dealing with people who can smell and aren't spirits)

I would think a butt-ugly guy with good social graces might be the same overall charisma as a supermodel who was a total jerk, though the GM could do things like ascribe situational difficulties to what either character was doing based on whatever task was being undertaken.
Stumps
QUOTE
And I care about how the game mechanics are expressed in terms of uncouthness. You're taking a description and trying to make the rules match it, I'm trying to take the rules and make the description match it. Problem is, as far as I can tell we're arguing about the effects of our points, not our points themselves.

What I care about is making sense. I don't care if I have to gut the damn rules and description to do that.
I never have.
Unlike toturi, I hold nothing sacred in SR nyahnyah.gif

For me, right now, I'm concentrating on just the 100% of the time effect of Charisma penalties to Trolls and Orks.

Obviously I don't like it. I've listed my reasons. And people disagree with them and some see how I could see it that way.

To put it simple.
Racial Bonuses and Negatives as an entire whole, outside of the physical bonuses and negatives, and even then some are subject to suspision, are illogical in their absoluteness.

No RACE will ever be an absolute of mental capability in my mind.
That ceases to be a RACE and becomes a spieces.

The more I debate this, the more I like Docs rule set.
Mercer
QUOTE (Gyro the Greek Sandwich Pirate)
I would think a butt-ugly guy with good social graces might be the same overall charisma as a supermodel who was a total jerk, though the GM could do things like ascribe situational difficulties to what either character was doing based on whatever task was being undertaken.

If Appearance factored in at all, you'd run into all sorts of pain in the ass situations (what I call Pitas, Gyro), in which an ugly caster couldn't call as powerful a spirit as an equivilent pretty caster. Likewise, if they were to go Astral, the prettier one would be stronger. If anyone can make that make sense, I'll hang up my guns right now.

This is before we even get into the idea that beauty is a mutable, indefinable thing that everybody has a slightly different preference to, and CHA is a set number that does not change.

And Tailored Pheremones, while raising your CHA for mundane tests, don't make you look any better. They make you smell better, or more powerfully, but they don't change you looks. And getting all the plastic surgery in the world to make you more beautiful (this is assuming in 2064 plastic surgery has advanced to the point where it makes people look more beautiful rather than making them look like partially microwaved Barbie dolls) won't raise your Charisma.

If plastic surgery did raise Charisma, then I would admit the game designers meant for the two things to be linked, but I'd still think it was a dumb idea.
Gyro the Greek Sandwich Pirate
Well, plastic surgery today doesn't necessarily make you more beautiful....quite the opposite, sometimes....

And who says spirits don't like to deal with pretty people more than ugly people? Just throwing that out there...
toturi
Plastic Surgery does increase Charisma, only that this increase does not affect Astral ability. In general, would you like a pleasant looking person more or a ugly looking person more, just be looking at them, no social contact etc? If you said, ugly or neither, I'll hang up my guns now.
Gyro the Greek Sandwich Pirate
If everyone's hanging up their guns, can I have 'em? biggrin.gif
Mercer
QUOTE (toturi)
In general, would you like a pleasant looking person more or a ugly looking person more, just be looking at them, no social contact etc?

So you're asking me if I were to pick someone without having any social interaction with them at all, this would be a good indication of what their Main Social Interaction Stat would be?

toturi, if you can come up with any reason why a pretty person would be a better conjurer or stronger on the astral plane than an ugly person, then you'd have a point.
toturi
Pretty person, more easily have better self confidence, better self confidence better conjuror/stronger on astral plane.
Fortune
Crap. While appearance may be a contributing factor in self-confidence, it is not manditory. Or do you think Mother Theresa or Hitler were not self-confident.
Kagetenshi
No, I don't think Hitler was self-confident.

~J
toturi
I think ordinary people would feel better if they looked better.
Stumps
QUOTE (toturi)
Plastic Surgery does increase Charisma...

QUOTE (Mercer)
toturi, if you can come up with any reason why a pretty person would be a better conjurer or stronger on the astral plane than an ugly person, then you'd have a point.

QUOTE (toturi)
Pretty person, more easily have better self confidence, better self confidence better conjuror/stronger on astral plane.

That is a load of crap.
Self confidence is not found coming from your good looks.
If that were true then we would not have anorexic good looking people out there.
We would not have bulimic people out there.
We wouldn't have people who look good already getting plastic surgery because they think they need it when they don't.

Someone who put whitener on their teeth, got plastic surgery, and liposuction done because they are self-conscious about their looks and now act with more confidence because they think they look better to people are people I could walk straight up to and say, "Wow! Man I'm sorry, but you are just ugly." and completely destroy their false sense of self-confidence.
As soon as they could, they would be back trying to improve their looks again.

QUOTE (toturi)
In general, would you like a pleasant looking person more or a ugly looking person more, just be looking at them, no social contact etc? If you said, ugly or neither, I'll hang up my guns now.

The very fact that you have to ask completely negates your point.
You run into a problem right about where I tell you that so and so is good looking and you look at me half cock-eyed because you don't understand what the hell I'm saying.
Shallow Hal anyone?
Mercer
QUOTE (toturi)
Pretty person, more easily have better self confidence, better self confidence better conjuror/stronger on astral plane.

This is a perfectly valid point. Charisma is measure of confidence, and confidence can be based, in part, in a person's feeling that they are good looking (hey, I know thats true for me smile.gif).

Here's why I still disagree with you.

1) The self confidence a person feels based on their attractiveness could be entirely delusional (at least, I know thats true for me). They could look like a bag of smashed @$$holes, but because they believe they are god's gift to the 212 area code, they will be much more confident, hence an increase in CHA. (Beauty doesn't make someone confident, though confidence can make someone beautiful.)

2) No matter how pretty you are, there is someone somewhere who thinks you look like hammered dog$h!t. Because what is beautiful is entirely subjective, it fluctuates. You may be beautiful to one person, and ugly to the next. I am not thinking specifically of Benecio Del Toro, but he'll do as an example. Charisma doesn't fluctuate based on the perceptions of those around you (though you can get modifiers to your tn#'s based on those perceptions, it doesn't change the base stat).

3) You look like what you look like. Some people think you look beautiful, and some think you look ugly. This does not make you beautiful or ugly. Beauty is not fact (though, to quote maybe Keats, Beauty is truth and truth is beauty).

And Fortune's point is a good one. We can come up with countless examples of Charismatic ugly people, and uncharasmatic pretty people. Linking attractiveness (which is not even a definable thing) to Charisma (which in game terms is clearly definable, in real life less so) serves no purpose within the rules, is contrary to a moutain of my personal experiences, and creates no end of logical quandries.

QUOTE (toturi)
I think ordinary people would feel better if they looked better

Some of the most attractive women I know are also some of the most insecure.
Herald of Verjigorm
Well, the one thing that the current round of endless restating of positions has inspired is a new term for the same attribute.

Ego. Yes, ego is your ability to break things by force of will, and your potential to make other people feel less important unless they do what you say. Ego is comprised of many details, but the exact combination varies from person to person, one may be obsessed with appearance, while another can be sufficiently narcissistic with a lifestyle reminicent of a less than popular sewer dwelling rodent.

This adds premise for a new edge and flaw combo (suggest point values for each):
Edge: Proud. Even more ego than he deserves, treat as a +1 (per level?) to astral damage codes and any time charisma is used to resist anything.
Flaw: Irritating pride. Got the looks, got the guts, got the bad pickup lines, but no one can stand talking to you for more than one combat round. Treat as a -1 (per level?) to charisma for social interactions with anything that has an intelligence above 2.
Stumps
QUOTE
but no one can stand talking to you for more than one combat round.

*BAM BAM BAM BAM!*
Joe, the merc to Mark, the Streetsam: "So I was hanging around the bar last night..."
*ZAP!*
"...and this really hot chick walks in..."
*Tink-tink-ta-tink*
"...I mean, this chick was not your normal hot babe..."
*ka-BOOM*
Buck, the Troll: "AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"
"...she had eyes like a cat, and..."
*Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat!!*
"...her mouth...oh man, her mouth was..."
*shing!*
Mark: "Would you shut up!!?? I'm trying to fraggin fight here!"
Botch
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Look at it like this. The Incompetence equivalence is basically reflecting the reprecussions of a troll's *massive* size. Yes, his immense natural Body score helps him overcome that physical limitation regarding Athletics, but it doesn't eliminate it either. He should still have a harder time climbing a wall, hiding behind a tree, sneaking around in the dark (those floor planks just love to groan when they have a metric ton pushing down on them), running the 100 meter dash, or polevaulting compared to, say, a human or an elf.

That's what this racial limitation represents. The troll is still capable of using Athletics and Stealth, he's just not quite as good as it as the other metahumans of equal skill. Though in the case of Athletics, he has quite a few advantages over the lesser metahumans anyway since most of them rely on Body and Strength, too. So it levels out in the whole.

Climbing - The rules for climbing can only be interpretated as abstract, trolls do not get any bonus for additional reach and height. The difficulty of a climb is severely reduced as available holds are increased, this balances the pro and cons. The route failing to support a troll is a situational modifier.
Hiding - This again is a situation modifier, whilst a dwarf may find the tree provides full cover, a troll would only be able to use it as partial cover. Floor boards is so a situational modifier because if the floor is concrete or of a very heavy construction there is no creak.
Sprinting - Sprinters are muscle bound and the run modifier is equal, it is long distance running that a troll should suck at.
Polevaulting - Well, 25% extra for the pole to modified to support a troll polevaulter and 25% more for the crash mat to land on. Considering there is no racial jumping modifiers, running modifiers are equal and trolls have a higher development of their upper body strength and longer arms it could taken that they would make better polevaulters with the right poles.

Ol' Scratch
QUOTE
Climbing - The rules for climbing can only be interpretated as abstract, trolls do not get any bonus for additional reach and height. The difficulty of a climb is severely reduced as available holds are increased, this balances the pro and cons. The route failing to support a troll is a situational modifier.

One word: Weight.

QUOTE
iding - This again is a situation modifier, whilst a dwarf may find the tree provides full cover, a troll would only be able to use it as partial cover. Floor boards is so a situational modifier because if the floor is concrete or of a very heavy construction there is no creak.

The penalty reflects the difficulty in finding a suitable place to hide compared to their smaller cousins. Squeeky boards is a result of Sneaking, not Hiding.

QUOTE
Sprinting - Sprinters are muscle bound and the run modifier is equal, it is long distance running that a troll should suck at.

Massive weight and heavy wind resistance. A -1 TN modifier isn't going to a big deal, and its especially not worth the effort when the modifier applies to so many other specializations of the skill. (And as a side note, Trolls are superb long-distance runners thanks to their monstrous endurance... its getting all that bulk up to high speed in a short amount of time that's a bitch).

QUOTE
Polevaulting - Well, 25% extra for the pole to modified to support a troll polevaulter and 25% more for the crash mat to land on. Considering there is no racial jumping modifiers, running modifiers are equal and trolls have a higher development of their upper body strength and longer arms it could taken that they would make better polevaulters with the right poles.

Guess what. Consider this a racial modifier. Why? Because that's exactly what it is -- a racial modifier to account for their MASSIVE size and weight. Trolls can't even do pull-ups if you use the rules for lifting weights (a troll with an average Strength of 7 cannot lift 225kg). And keep in mind that 225kg is horribly anorexic for someone of their listed height and alledged girth. 500kg (over half a ton) is closer to accurate.
Botch
QUOTE (Glyph)
Personally, I have always seen Charisma as primarily a mental Attribute. I have always explained ork and troll penalties based on their life cycles. They not only have a shorter lifespan, but also mature, physically, much more quickly than humans do. I think that would mess up their development, intelligence-wise. They pass more quickly through that developmental/learning stage of childhood and are dumped into adulthood at 14 or 15 years old. That would affect anyone's mental capacity.


By the way, I am not trying to re-start the debate here. I am merely offering one possible game world/realistic explanation for rules that were likely done more for game balance reasons.

Socially they aren't, educationally they aren't, legally they aren't. Plus all I have to do is select an older character age for my troll and your arguement falls over.
Botch
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Stumps @ Dec 5 2004, 11:00 AM)
Take two african-american people from long ago in america.
They were considered to be ugly by the masses.
Now, were they suffering from being socially ugly when they were hitting on eachother?
Hell no!
They still had their own values of pretty and ugly and their whole race didn't suffer a charismatic penalty when dealing with eachother.

Which is why fairly toxic skin-lightening creams are so popular (well, this is more in Africa proper than Americans of African descent). Right. Yeah.

~J

It would take a damn sight more than bleech to humanise a trolls looks and the attempt would actually remove one of the canon reasons for their CHA penalty (tusks). There doesn't seem to be any mass movement of trolls removing their horns and tusks going on a crash diet and having their bones shortened.
Mercer
QUOTE (Botch)
QUOTE (Glyph @ Dec 5 2004, 07:41 AM)
  I have always explained ork and troll penalties based on their life cycles.  They not only have a shorter lifespan, but also mature, physically, much more quickly than humans do.  I think that would mess up their development, intelligence-wise.  They pass more quickly through that developmental/learning stage of childhood and are dumped into adulthood at 14 or 15 years old.  That would affect anyone's mental capacity.


By the way, I am not trying to re-start the debate here.  I am merely offering one possible game world/realistic explanation for rules that were likely done more for game balance reasons.

Socially they aren't, educationally they aren't, legally they aren't. Plus all I have to do is select an older character age for my troll and your arguement falls over.

I believe Glyph's point is that since orks and trolls mature faster, their brain doesn't develop as much (explaining the minus to Int and Cha). It doesn't really matter how old and ork or a troll would be, by this logic, since its only the amount of time he spends maturing that matters (four or so years fewer than a human).
Stumps
Mercer...the problem with that logic is that a 40 year old Troll would then have no real problem in charisma when hanging around 20 year old humans, but would have charismatic problems hanging around 40 year old humans, since the 20 year old charisma levels are going to be lower than those of 40 year old humans under this logic.

Personally, I wasn't aware that charisma had anything to do with maturity at all.
Babies have charisma, and I know old people with crappier charisma than young people. The opposite is true as well.
It's all over the place.
And I have yet to see anything that has me believing that charisma is something that we age better with.

Social Skills? yes, we can learn those over the years as we get older.
That's what the Social Skill section of skills is there to represent.

Charisma is not a skill. It is an Attribute.
A numerical representation of a characters inate level of untrained social capabilities with the world for the purpose of comparitive measurement against the worlds reaction to such a variable level as the character has.

The skill that one gains over time is what allows them to offset their natural charismatic stance.
Mercer
Well, its not my argument particularly, but:

Glyph's point was that it wasn't due to emotional maturity, but the way that the brain actually grows. A troll is pretty much done growning at 14 or 15, whereas a human grows until 19 or so. That a troll or orks brain stops to develop physically 4 or 5 years sooner than a human is the deciding factor in the minuses, not how old the person is. Glyph can correct me if I am wildly off target, but thats how I read it.

I'm not an expert on brains (I have one, but we have a mutual non-agression pact where I won't try to kill it if it won't try to kill me), and I know even less about the imaginary brains of fictional human subspecies, but since this entire debate is hypothetical, Glyph's explanation is as good as any other. (And certainly about a million times better than the argument that orks and trolls suffer CHA penalties because they aren't hot).
Stumps
Well, let's see.
If a charsmatic exchange with a child was represented by a lower target number and the Troll's negative represented a lower cap level of charima capabilities due to a pre-human brain growth completion then I suppose that the theory could be seen as sound.

The question that arrises is whether or not a human's or human-variation's brain growth completion point has a determining factor in a persons overall natural, inate, and un-skilled charisma.

First question:
Does the brains growth have a role to play in it's ability and function?
Reference #1:
Autism and Brain Growth
LINK
QUOTE (From the article)
At birth, autistic children's head circumference is significantly smaller. A rapid spurt of growth starts soon thereafter, so that by age 6-14 months, the head circumference is significantly larger.


Reference #2:
Severe Brain Damage and Brain Growth
LINK
QUOTE (From the article)
The heads of truly brain-damaged children usually grow at a slower rate than those of normal children. In one research analysis done by Doman, on 278 case histories of consecutively admitted brain-damaged children, 82.2 percent were below normal in head size at the start of treatment. All but thirty-seven of the children moved to an above-average rate of growth in head size over the fourteen-month period covered by the survey. In fact, the average rate of growth during treatment was 254 percent — between two to three times faster — of the normal for that age. As a result of the therapy, the brain started growing.


So, yes. Brain growth has a role to play in the brains function.

Second Question:
Does the affected abilities from the growth have an affect on the capable level of social interaction?

Reference #1:
Autism and Social Interaction
LINK
QUOTE (From the article)
One of the most characteristic symptoms of autism is a dysfunction in social behavior. Numerous reports written by parents and researchers have described this problem, and it is thought by many to be the key defining feature of autism. The social problems can be classified into three categories: socially avoidant, socially indifferent, and socially awkward.


Reference #2:
Severe Brain Damage and Social Interaction
LINK
QUOTE (From the article)
Research and observation clearly demonstrates that individuals with learning disabilities tend to be less accepted by peers, interact awkwardly and inappropriately in social situations and are socially imperceptive.


So, yes. Brain growth has an affect on the capable level of social interaction via it's cause of brain deficiencies.

------
So, Glyph's theory is supported.
Troll's are more likely to follow that of brain damaged individuals brain growth, and in doing so have brains that are smaller than normal after growth completion.
All that extra head space must be for the dermal bone.

And actually, here's one that sounds more like a Troll than anything.
This is from the last article.
QUOTE
The research indicates that individuals with learning disabilities:
-are more likely to choose socially unacceptable behaviors in social situations
-are less able to solve social problems
-are less likely to predict consequences for their social behavior
-are less likely to adjust to the characteristics of their listeners in discussions or conversations
-are less able to accomplish complex social interactions successfully (i.e.. persuasion, negotiation, resisting peer pressure, giving/accepting criticism, etc.)
-are more likely to be rejected or isolated by their classmates and peers
-are more often the objects of negative and non-supportive statements, criticisms, warnings and negative nonverbal reactions from teachers
-are less adaptable to new social situations
-are more likely to be judged negatively by adults after informal observation
-receive less affection from parents and siblings
-have less tolerance for frustration and failure
-use oral language that is less mature, meaningful or concise
-have difficulty interpreting or inferring the language of others


Basically, Troll's really come out seeming more like a brain-damaged, learning disordered person.

If that's true, and Troll's receive their intellectual and charismatic penalties from a brain growth inherited disorder, then it could be theoretically possible to alter the disorder through therapy as is done with present brain disorders.

However, yes. This concept and todays relative studies in it's field support a -1 Charisma for Troll's as a representation of their inability to socially relate well.

Then there's the other junk that Charisma is doing in SR...*shakes head* which causes a mess.
CircuitBoyBlue
The idea that good looking people feel better about themselves is crap. I think I'd feel a lot better about myself if I were as big and strong as a troll than I would if I were extremely physically attractive.
I think the problem is that other people feel better about attractive people. If I were a troll, other people would hate me, partly because they didn't understand what I had become, and partly because I'd go around acting like I was bigger and stronger than everyone else.
I think this is a pretty good argument that no, charisma being based on appearance doesn't indicate stronger will. And it's fortunate, too, because if all attractive girls had strong forces of will, this world would be a horrible place for people like me.

ah, who am I kidding? The girls with weak wills don't go for me, either.
DrJest
Flipping heck! After 16 pages, I think Glyph and Stumps have cracked it! Intellectually stunted by virtue of an autism-like condition caused by the rapid growth... Works for me, I can certainly cite that one next time I'm asked. The spirit interaction and astral things, little fuzzier, but if we're dealing with an actual physcial condition it kinda works anyway.

Nice one, lads, although I expect the thread will run to a few more pages yet smile.gif
Stumps
CircuitBoyBlue:
Thanks for the extra nail, but we baried that coffin a while ago.
There's only about one user that still stands to say that physical appearance has anything to do with charisma in it's practical effects in SR.

DrJest:
Autism wasn't meant as an explination and it would be a mistake to use that one.
The more appropriate would be brain-damaged learning disabled. (aka, the slanderous common name of "retarted".)
You won't find anything in autism that mimics Trolls very well.
Austism is a high increase in the realm of intake of information with a block on the output of information. Trolls do not suffer this problem.

Brain-damaged learning disabilities are a slow intake of information with a block on practical release of the information.
In other words, the normal processes of association and communicative thought are hindered in the individual via an alternate growth pattern of neurological pathways that also grow at a slower speed.

Having a different pattern of neurological pathways for your brain to process thought through greatly alters the way that you percieve and respond to the outside world.
Drugs often alter this set of pathways, and thus, is why people on drugs interact with the world differently than when they are not on those drugs. This is also why long term drug users end up with a different perception and interaction with the outside world than non-long term drug users. The prolonged use of the drug permanantly alters the brains neurological pathways simply because the brain adapts to the new atmosphere of restrictions and input that it is subjected to from the drugs.
This is why we commonly here drug users say phrases like, "It'll open your mind to a new world." and the like.
They are right. It will do that indeed. From gaining new neurological pathways of thought travel, you will begin to percieve experiences in life in alternate and new ways.
The downside to all of this, however, is that you will lose the ability to use your original and normal neurological pathways of thought in the long term process and eventually, lose your grasp on reality and the perception of it to a stable degree.

Under this theory of brain damage learning disabled similarity with Trolls, Trolls can be found to have neurological pathways that are simply different than normal human pathways.
These nuerological pathways could be determined to be slow in response in normal concepts of interaction though the actual thought process may be on par for speed. It's just that they may very well be traveling down a longer network of pathways to process the thought than a normal process of the human brain.

The other factor is the abnormal brain size. Brain size doesn't really difine intelligence, but it does have a heafty affect on the processing ability if the brain is a notable difference in size from the normal size brain.
In this case, I would suggest that the Troll brain actually shrunk rather than getting bigger, while their skulls became bigger due to extra bone protection for the cranium.
The brain would become smaller because their intelligence and social interactive abilities dropped. These are symptoms found in brain damaged brains, of which, a mojority are found to have brains that are smaller than average in size.
Botch
This arguement of an inherented altered brain function only really stands up if some additional modifiers are applied to trolls. The "dysfunction" is a genetically stable mutation from homo sapien sapien norm, there should be a balance to the trade off that is not forced game balancing of attributes. Some additional impact armour to the skull and a possible minor reduction in sensory #TNs would provide this IC balance IMO.

That or shift to DF's amended BP table after the physical skill incompetence is changed to another skill set.
Botch
The major change to everyone's CHA stat happens at the onset of puberty. There is a very real reason why teenagers are moody, sulk, and answer in monosylabic statements.

At or around puberty the brain undergoes a "re-wiring" process, this mainly affects the frontal lobes and communication areas of the brain. The process takes around 5 years to complete. The idea that fast physical development has an "austic" effect on trolls doesn't hold water as in normal humans physical and mental development into adults is two separate processes started by the same trigger.

Yes that paragraph is layman terms
Botch
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
QUOTE
Climbing - The rules for climbing can only be interpretated as abstract, trolls do not get any bonus for additional reach and height. The difficulty of a climb is severely reduced as available holds are increased, this balances the pro and cons. The route failing to support a troll is a situational modifier.

One word: Weight.

QUOTE
iding - This again is a situation modifier, whilst a dwarf may find the tree provides full cover, a troll would only be able to use it as partial cover. Floor boards is so a situational modifier because if the floor is concrete or of a very heavy construction there is no creak.

The penalty reflects the difficulty in finding a suitable place to hide compared to their smaller cousins. Squeeky boards is a result of Sneaking, not Hiding.

QUOTE
Sprinting - Sprinters are muscle bound and the run modifier is equal, it is long distance running that a troll should suck at.

Massive weight and heavy wind resistance. A -1 TN modifier isn't going to a big deal, and its especially not worth the effort when the modifier applies to so many other specializations of the skill. (And as a side note, Trolls are superb long-distance runners thanks to their monstrous endurance... its getting all that bulk up to high speed in a short amount of time that's a bitch).

QUOTE
Polevaulting - Well, 25% extra for the pole to modified to support a troll polevaulter and 25% more for the crash mat to land on. Considering there is no racial jumping modifiers, running modifiers are equal and trolls have a higher development of their upper body strength and longer arms it could taken that they would make better polevaulters with the right poles.

Guess what. Consider this a racial modifier. Why? Because that's exactly what it is -- a racial modifier to account for their MASSIVE size and weight. Trolls can't even do pull-ups if you use the rules for lifting weights (a troll with an average Strength of 7 cannot lift 225kg). And keep in mind that 225kg is horribly anorexic for someone of their listed height and alledged girth. 500kg (over half a ton) is closer to accurate.

1. One answer - strength mod and climbing is about balance and agility more than strength. Only on very very difficult routes is strength an issue. I am unable to do more than 2 chin-ups in one go, but I can climb at British Technical grade 5c.

2. Situational modifier, either there is somewhere to hide or their isn't

3. Err, thats because the weight lifting rules are broke and lifting is not the same as a chin-up. But after testing this against my own strength, weight (STR4,110kgs) and ability to do a chin-up a STR7(225kg) troll should be able to do 1 chin-up, and that is all that is needed to climb well, anything more would be a bonus.
Mercer
3. I think also there is a tendency to equate strength with upper body or arm strength, when its more of an overall strength of the entire body, including the legs. I know when I climb, even rope climb, I'm using my legs a lot more than my arms.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Botch)
...climbing is about balance and agility more than strength.

Exactly.

QUOTE
2. Situational modifier, either there is somewhere to hide or their isn't

Universal racial modifier to account for fewer hiding spaces compared to the other races. That will always be a factor.

QUOTE (Mercer)
3. I think also there is a tendency to equate strength with upper body or arm strength, when its more of an overall strength of the entire body, including the legs. I know when I climb, even rope climb, I'm using my legs a lot more than my arms.

Now imagine having fingers the size of keilbasa and short stubby legs. Besides, the source of the penalty comes from their size which far outstrips anything their strength can compensate for. Hence them being big, lumbering (crippled Quickness and Running Modifier, difficulty with most Athletics- and Stealth-based actions) beasts.
Apathy
Isn't a large percentage of the brain fatty tissue, not neurons, anyway? If this is true, maybe a troll's larger skull just equates to more 'fat' in his head.
Moon-Hawk
Glial cells, which make up the majority of the brain, were long believed to be merely a fatty support structure for the neurons and not involved in any processing since they do not generate action potentials. (little zaps of electricity that your brain uses to think)
However, recent research shows that glial cells can affect each other, affect neurons, and be affected by neurons, by using purely chemical signals. (No big surprise, the synapses, the connections between neurons, use chemical signals called neurotransmitters) The glial cells can use these chemicals to communicate with each other and neurons, although it is at a much slower rate. Currently emerging theories suggest that these glial cells, while much too slow to use to think, are fundamental to processes such as learning and perhaps long-term memory.
So we should probably wait a couple years before we make any more statements regarding that other 90% of the brain. Upcoming research will only prove us to have been grossly misinformed.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012