Full Version: Trolls and their skulls and intelligence
Err, the average Troll has a Body of 8-9 (3.5 + 5 racial) vs. the average Human with a Body of 3-4.
If, for whatever reason, I decided I was going to give Trolls additional armor for the head, it would be one point of Impact.
Note that I don't think it's a good idea. Sure, a Body 9 human and a Body 8 Troll soak damage the same, but we're talking a human at the peak of possible fitnesss as compared to a lower-end average Troll.
~J
Note that I don't think it's a good idea. Sure, a Body 9 human and a Body 8 Troll soak damage the same, but we're talking a human at the peak of possible fitnesss as compared to a lower-end average Troll.
~J
I always mix up the Body and Strength boni of Trolls. I guess it's because I never play them. 
3.5 is statistically right, and is what I use as average, but I seem to recall canon specifically mentioning stats for the average (in their eyes) member of each meta-type which are based on 3 + appropriate modifiers. This is what I was refering to in my post.
3.5 is statistically right, and is what I use as average, but I seem to recall canon specifically mentioning stats for the average (in their eyes) member of each meta-type which are based on 3 + appropriate modifiers. This is what I was refering to in my post.
| QUOTE (Botch) |
| Both trolls and humans can have BOD 4,5,6, & 7 at Chargen without cyber augmentation yet I know which one should have a better chance at resisting a serious head wound, BOD being equal. |
Well, other than trolls not being able to have anything less than 6 at Chargen as was mentioned, you could use the exact same logic for saying that, both at BOD 7, the troll should be a heck of a lot more difficult to wound seriously than the human, regardless of which area the attacks are concentrated on.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| 3.5 is statistically right, and is what I use as average, but I seem to recall canon specifically mentioning stats for the average (in their eyes) member of each meta-type which are based on 3 + appropriate modifiers. This is what I was refering to in my post. |
What's statistically right about it? 3.5 is the mean of a set of values distributed evenly from 1 to 6, but I don't recall any suggestion anywhere that Attribute values are evenly distributed across their possible range.
In fact, they're clearly not. Even disregarding the statement in canon that 3 is average, Attribute distribution cannot be a symmetric curve centered at 3.5 unless you assert that no one has raised Attributes past the RML.
Sorry, I must have got the +4/+5 the wrong way round for BOD/STR, (fomorians and minotaurs only have +3/+4 with no dermal armour for the fomorian), so that would be 5 to 7, not 4 to 7 overlap between human and trolls (inc. variants) . With the average BOD for a fomori being 6 (No DP) and 6(7) for a minotaur.
1 point of impact armour to head only? Its not going to make a munchkin shift race or have any real difference to game balance. Head shots seem to only happen when there are snipers about (and they tend to use quite high powered weapons).
1 point of impact armour to head only? Its not going to make a munchkin shift race or have any real difference to game balance. Head shots seem to only happen when there are snipers about (and they tend to use quite high powered weapons).
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| Even disregarding the statement in canon that 3 is average, Attribute distribution cannot be a symmetric curve centered at 3.5 unless you assert that no one has raised Attributes past the RML. |
Because of the necessary shape of the distribution curve of attributes in the general population, I generally consider the median value for the average of BQSCIW for humans somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0.
The curve is going to look much like a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. On the linked picture, change Speed (m/s) to BQSCIW/6, divide the indicator numbers on the x-axis by 100 and use the Ar-40 curve. [Edit]And obviously cut it off at 1 and 11, and then raise the peak to make the probability add to 100% again. The lower end should probably be less likely, too, since I don't see people with all 1s in attributes as being very common...[/Edit]
AE, I believe the associated karma costs with increasing attributes (especially by including the racial modifier in with the cost) that your graph is a left-right mirror image of what would happen in SR.
| QUOTE (John Campbell @ Nov 25 2004, 12:54 PM) |
| What's statistically right about it? 3.5 is the mean of a set of values distributed evenly from 1 to 6, but I don't recall any suggestion anywhere that Attribute values are evenly distributed across their possible range. In fact, they're clearly not. Even disregarding the statement in canon that 3 is average, Attribute distribution cannot be a symmetric curve centered at 3.5 unless you assert that no one has raised Attributes past the RML. |
It's assumed that the vast majority of the population has an Attribute ranging from 1 to 6, with those breaking 6 being the rare outlier and thus ignored for purposes of calculations. It's also assumed that all of those values are roughly common; there's as many people with an Attribute of 1 as there is 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Thus if you take all those people the world over, cram them together, and figure out the average Attribute score, it's going to be between 3 and 4 -- or 3.5 [which, in Shadowrun's tradition, gets rounded down to 3 for official purposes].
What's rare is that it's assumed that anyone you pick at random off the street will have all six Attributes landing between 3 and 4. They most likely won't. But if you pick a few hundred people off the street at random and average all their Attribute scores together, chances are it will land in or around that range. And that would be the point of using the word "average." It's also why individuals are measured against that average so that you can, at a glance, determine if their above or below average in that respective Attribute. It has nothing to do with random dice throws or any other garbage along those lines.
The big problem is that the people tend to forget or ignore that and actually assume 3-4 is the average Attribute rating for a given individual. You see it a lot when people gasp and shake fists when someone posts a character with a few 5's and 6's and a few 1's and 2's, too.
But none of that changes the fact that 3-4 is still the average score. It's just that "average score" doesn't mean what some people think it means.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
It's assumed that the vast majority of the population has an Attribute ranging from 1 to 6, with those breaking 6 being the rare outlier and thus ignored for purposes of calculations. It's also assumed that all of those values are roughly common; there's as many people with an Attribute of 1 as there is 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. |
Why are you assuming this? There's no support for it in canon. It's implicitly contradicted by the canon assertion that 3 is the average Attribute value. And it seems to me to be a bit inconsistent to assert that there are just as many 6s as there are 3s, but the people with 7s or higher are statistically insignificant. At minimum, it makes for a really weird-looking distribution curve... something like the one AE posted is more plausible.
| QUOTE |
| Why are you assuming this? There's no support for it in canon. |
Save for that whole dismissible scale between 1 and 6 (with 7 and higher not even being available to most starting haracters), huh?
| QUOTE |
| It's implicitly contradicted by the canon assertion that 3 is the average Attribute value. |
Yep. And it is. See previous post to find out what "average Attribute value" actually means, as opposed to what you want it to mean. Then find me a single canonical character -- PC or NPC -- who has 3s across the board. Good luck.
EDIT: Actually, since I have MrJLBB right here, I'll list a couple random stats for the contacts (the closest we'll find to "average" characters in the game) modified to Human templates. (As a side note, whoever put these stats together should be shot for breaking the standard listing of Attributes; Charisma is 4th, not 6th... cripes).
City Service Worker: 3 3 2 3 3 2
DocWagon Paramedic: 5 5 4 4 4 3
Dock Worker: 5 5 6 5 3 4
Gunsmith: 4 4 4 4 4 3
Hermetic Academic: 3 4 2 6 6 4
Highway Patrol: 5 4 6 4 4 3
Mr. Fix-It: 5 6 5 5 4 5
Sleazy Tabloid Reporter: 2 4 2 4 4 4
Street Vendor: 3 3 3 3 2 3 [the closest I could find and, shucks, even he's not straight 3's]
Supply Sergeant: 5 3 4 4 4 4
Taxi Driver: 2 4 3 4 3 4
Wiz Kid Ganger: 4 4 4 3 4 3
| QUOTE |
| And it seems to me to be a bit inconsistent to assert that there are just as many 6s as there are 3s, but the people with 7s or higher are statistically insignificant. |
Maybe you should look up the word "outlier" sometime, then take a look at how many characters -- particularly starting characters -- have a stat outside of the 1-6 range.
| QUOTE |
| At minimum, it makes for a really weird-looking distribution curve... something like the one AE posted is more plausible. |
Once again, that all revolves around statistical averages. The average die roll may be 3.5, but your chance of hitting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 is *identical* on *every* *single* *roll* of that die. The average only shows up after a ridiculous number of rolls, all of which are added together and divided by the number of rolls. It has *no* bearing on the individual roll.
I will admit to one thing, there are likely the same number of people with an Attribute of 1 as there is 6, as there is 2 as there is 5, and as there is 3 as there is 4. Is that better?
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) | ||
Save for that whole dismissible scale between 1 and 6 (with 7 and higher not even being available to most starting haracters), huh? |
Which in no way implies that values are evenly distributed across that scale. That is, as you admitted, an assumption that you're making. And it's an assumption that you're making with no support for it in canon.
| QUOTE | ||
Yep. And it is. See previous post to find out what "average Attribute value" actually means, as opposed to what you want it to mean. Then find me a single canonical character -- PC or NPC -- who has 3s across the board. Good luck. |
I snipped that whole section of that post when I replied because it has no bearing whatsoever on anything I said in the post you were allegedly responding to. Go back and read what I wrote instead of making arguments aimed at what you assume I'm saying.
Hint: I'm not claiming that everyone has 3s across the board. I'm saying that the average value - and, yes, I know perfectly well what "average" means - is 3, just like the book says, not 3.5, and that statistics do not provide a reason to assume otherwise.
| QUOTE | ||||
Maybe you should look up the word "outlier" sometime, then take a look at how many characters -- particularly starting characters -- have a stat outside of the 1-6 range.
Once again, that all revolves around statistical averages. The average die roll may be 3.5, but your chance of hitting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 is *identical* on *every* *single* *roll* of that die. The average only shows up after a ridiculous number of rolls, all of which are added together and divided by the number of rolls. It has *no* bearing on the individual roll. |
Who's rolling dice?
You're quite correct that if you roll 1d6, your chances of getting any particular number from 1 to 6 are exactly the same. But Attributes in Shadowrun are not rolled on dice, so there's no reason to assume that their distribution matches that of dice rolls, whether that be the flat distribution of a single die or the symmetrical bell curve of multiple dice.
| QUOTE |
| I will admit to one thing, there are likely the same number of people with an Attribute of 1 as there is 6, as there is 2 as there is 5, and as there is 3 as there is 4. Is that better? |
No. You've missed my point completely. I'm not pushing a symmetrical bell curve with the mean at 3.5 rather than a flat distribution with the mean at 3.5; I'm saying that the distribution curve should be an asymmetrical one with the mean at 3, which not only fits what the book says, it conveniently accounts for the outliers at the high end without having to stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "Statistically insignificant!"
I don't have MJLBB, but I'll just go ahead and use the numbers Doctor Funkenstein posted along with the ones in SR3 for contacts, which are:
Bartender: 4 3 4 3 2 2
Fixer: 2 3 2 3 5 5
Mechanic: 2 3 3 2 6 4
Mr Johnson: 2 2 2 4 6 5
Talismonger: 2 2 2 4 5 4
Technician: 2 3 3 2 6 4
I'll go ahead and assume none of these have Racial Attribute Modifiers factored in, the SR3 ones don't seem to at any rate. It should be noted that these are people who would be useful for shadowrunners as contact, and thus necessarily a good sample of "average" people in the canon SR world. Since these are probably supposed to be examples of average members of their particular subgroup (the Mechanic, for example, is supposed to be representative of the average mechanic), the list does have some validity.
This leaves us with the following:
Average BOD: 3.33
Average QUI: 3.61
Average STR: 3.39
Average CHA: 3.33
Average INT: 4.28
Average WIL: 3.94
Highest Attribute: 6
Lowest Attribute: 2
Average Attribute: 3.65
Median Attribute: 4
P(Attr = 1) = 0
P(Attr = 2) = 21/108 = 0.194
P(Attr = 3) = 27/108 = 0.25
P(Attr = 4) = 37/108 = 0.343
P(Attr = 5) = 15/108 = 0.139
P(Attr = 6) = 8/108 = 0.074
Average BQSCIW/6: 3.65 (unsurprisingly)
Median BQSCIW/6: 3.42
Highest BQSCIW/6: 5
Lowest BQSCIW/6: 2.67
P(BQSCIW/6 >= 5) = 1/18 = 0.0556
P(5 > BQSCIW/6 >= 4) = 5/18 = 0.278
P(4 > BQSCIW/6 >= 3.5) = 3/18 = 0.167
P(3.5 > BQSCIW/6 >= 3) = 7/18 = 0.389
P(BQSCIW/6 < 3) = 2/18 = 0.111
If this numbers are any indication, we can conclude the following:
-Before racial modifiers, attribute ratings of 1 or greater than 6 are extremely unlikely.
-"Somewhere around 3.5" is a reasonable estimate of the average attribute (and thus of the average BQSCIW/6).
-Attributes of rating 4 are easily the most common, with 3s the second common, then 2s, then 5s and then 6s. Nothing can be said about the relative probability of 1s and 7+s.
-The attribute (and the BQSCIW/6) curve will indeed look somewhat like the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, only with a flatter center and an extremely sharp drop-off for P at values of Attr under 2.
These only hold true for that part of the population in the canon world of SR that would be useful as contacts for shadowrunners according to the game designers, if at all.
Bartender: 4 3 4 3 2 2
Fixer: 2 3 2 3 5 5
Mechanic: 2 3 3 2 6 4
Mr Johnson: 2 2 2 4 6 5
Talismonger: 2 2 2 4 5 4
Technician: 2 3 3 2 6 4
I'll go ahead and assume none of these have Racial Attribute Modifiers factored in, the SR3 ones don't seem to at any rate. It should be noted that these are people who would be useful for shadowrunners as contact, and thus necessarily a good sample of "average" people in the canon SR world. Since these are probably supposed to be examples of average members of their particular subgroup (the Mechanic, for example, is supposed to be representative of the average mechanic), the list does have some validity.
This leaves us with the following:
Average BOD: 3.33
Average QUI: 3.61
Average STR: 3.39
Average CHA: 3.33
Average INT: 4.28
Average WIL: 3.94
Highest Attribute: 6
Lowest Attribute: 2
Average Attribute: 3.65
Median Attribute: 4
P(Attr = 1) = 0
P(Attr = 2) = 21/108 = 0.194
P(Attr = 3) = 27/108 = 0.25
P(Attr = 4) = 37/108 = 0.343
P(Attr = 5) = 15/108 = 0.139
P(Attr = 6) = 8/108 = 0.074
Average BQSCIW/6: 3.65 (unsurprisingly)
Median BQSCIW/6: 3.42
Highest BQSCIW/6: 5
Lowest BQSCIW/6: 2.67
P(BQSCIW/6 >= 5) = 1/18 = 0.0556
P(5 > BQSCIW/6 >= 4) = 5/18 = 0.278
P(4 > BQSCIW/6 >= 3.5) = 3/18 = 0.167
P(3.5 > BQSCIW/6 >= 3) = 7/18 = 0.389
P(BQSCIW/6 < 3) = 2/18 = 0.111
If this numbers are any indication, we can conclude the following:
-Before racial modifiers, attribute ratings of 1 or greater than 6 are extremely unlikely.
-"Somewhere around 3.5" is a reasonable estimate of the average attribute (and thus of the average BQSCIW/6).
-Attributes of rating 4 are easily the most common, with 3s the second common, then 2s, then 5s and then 6s. Nothing can be said about the relative probability of 1s and 7+s.
-The attribute (and the BQSCIW/6) curve will indeed look somewhat like the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, only with a flatter center and an extremely sharp drop-off for P at values of Attr under 2.
These only hold true for that part of the population in the canon world of SR that would be useful as contacts for shadowrunners according to the game designers, if at all.
Note that MrJLBB listed the attributes incorrectly, and I didn't bother to change them. They list them as B Q S I W C, but that's a minor point to your calculations above (just a change in which Attribute averages to what). No biggie.
What I'd like to point out is that, as far as I can tell, the 3rd Edition rules never actually do say that 3 is the average. It's not mentioned on SR3 pages 39-41 (where Attributes are described), it's not mentioned on SR3 pages 55-56 (where the cost for Attributes are described), and it's not mentioned on SR3 page 244 (where the rules for improving Attributes are described).
The use of "3" is just assumed. 3.5 is the average number, and like most things in Shadowrun, that gets rounded down to 3. But, as mentioned, I can't find any actual reference to that in the rules themselves.
What I'd like to point out is that, as far as I can tell, the 3rd Edition rules never actually do say that 3 is the average. It's not mentioned on SR3 pages 39-41 (where Attributes are described), it's not mentioned on SR3 pages 55-56 (where the cost for Attributes are described), and it's not mentioned on SR3 page 244 (where the rules for improving Attributes are described).
The use of "3" is just assumed. 3.5 is the average number, and like most things in Shadowrun, that gets rounded down to 3. But, as mentioned, I can't find any actual reference to that in the rules themselves.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Note that MrJLBB listed the attributes incorrectly, and I didn't bother to change them. They list them as B Q S I W C, but that's a minor point to your calculations above (just a change in which Attribute averages to what). No biggie. |
I figured from a few of the statlines that you had not switched the attributes' order from that which appears in the books, so I switched them myself. The numbers above are correct in that respect.
Groovy, and sorry about that. I blame the turkey on my laziness.
I didn't really have to work real hard for those figures. A passing familiarity with Excel helped immensely.
| QUOTE (Botch @ Nov 24 2004, 01:28 PM) |
| All artwork in SR shows trolls with as large or larger proportioned skulls; almost no picture of a troll includes scalp covering hair. From this we can see that the cranial capacity of a troll is tremendous, yet they suffer the largest intelligence penalties. After researching cranial capacity to straightforward intelligence measurements, there appears to be an issue; why aren't trolls the most intelligent meta-humans (Yes, I do know about game balance and I have since D&D 1st Ed was SOTA, so don't mention it, okay.)? A trolls brain would have to be slightly (a few percent) larger to cope with the larger nervous system a troll body brings, but nowhere near the projected cranial capacity depicted in SR artwork. The brain would also have to be bigger to include sense enhancement (ie. Thermo), but that rationale has not been applied to dwarves so it ships water from the start. Here's some reasons, which one/s do you prefer if forced to pick. a) Addtional nerve feedback processing b) Additional sense (IR vision) c) Much, much stronger jaw muscles (think hyenas) d) Much better sense of smell (think canine levels) e) Mcuh better sense of taste (think snake) f) Much more memory g) "Spare capacity", in the event of brain damage a troll's brain can "re-wire" quickly. h) Re-inforced skulls giving a noticeable level of (impact?) armour. Might be the reason trolls don't wear helmets, don't need to. i) Additional blood filters and shock absorbtion for the brain (think giraffes and other headbutting species) None of this is being done to seek a massive gamemech advantage, just a collection of justifications for why trolls are trolls and not just a thick human with big muscles who has a 25% tax on life. |
This made me laugh out loud....
Ok I'll entertain your fancy for a bit.
For one thing trolls lack any of the skeletal modifications we would associate with mammmals having the first 5 things on your list.
F is just rediculous.
As for G well there is no evidence among mammals of anything resembling a "redundant" system or capacity. The brain is pretty specialized and there is not any "spare space" or "back up systems".
H might actually be biologically defensible.
as for I well i'm not going to comment on that (ok yes I am). As far as we know trolls have not evolved with a male dominance heirarchy such as that exibited by wild sheep. They haven't been around long enough to evolve their own habits...and without evolution to drive adaptations they would have the same basic structure and adaptations as a human......for now.
| QUOTE (Cray74) | ||
Point: Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity than us (25% more brain volume, 1500cc vs 1200cc, on average). Based on their tool designs over hundreds of millennia, the cave dudes hardly innovated. Pee-brained homo sapien sapiens raced past them. Point: Neanderthals had about the same body weight as humans, or not as dramatically different as trolls vs humans. Point: Later homo erectus (0.5 million years+), a smaller critter than modern humans, had the same size brain as humans. Point: The brain size of known human geniuses ranges from 1000cc to 2000cc, a factor of 2. Conclusion: Within the approximate range of human brain sizes, there is dramatic variations in intelligence not linked to brain size. |
Wow I'm really suprised someone knew this but I'm glad you mentioned it. It's absolutely correct. They lacked the ability for abstract thought (which meant they could not understand that they must store food for winter). So regardless of their larger braincase they were NOT more intelligent.
Any large data sample containing Greatest Length of Skull or brain case measurements plotted against Intelligence Quotient will yeild NO CORRELATION whatsoever. This is true throughout mammalia.
ok i'll stop witch burning..I did offer some actual constructive criticism above.
Is a squirrel thus capable of abstract thought?
And your point regarding the limited evolution time of Trolls is based on the false assumption that this is the first time they've cropped up.
~J
And your point regarding the limited evolution time of Trolls is based on the false assumption that this is the first time they've cropped up.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Is a squirrel thus capable of abstract thought? And your point regarding the limited evolution time of Trolls is based on the false assumption that this is the first time they've cropped up. ~J |
well since we weren't provided with the phylogeny of trolls since they don't fragging exist it's a little difficult to make those judgment calls isn't it?
Nothing in the books mentions that metahumans existed before the first goblinization.
See we are running into a fundamental problem here. Those of use more analytical posters are attempting to refute people using aspects of real life science to explain things that are not in fact real or in real life. So it's a bit like sticking a round peg in a square hole...
I can debate evolutionary adaptations and mammology all day long but it's not going to explain what the creators have done. But what I will do is refute incorrect assumptions using real life knowledge.
Want to explain it with fluff or stories? Great. Don't use bad science to justify it.
The link betwixt Shadowrun and Earthdawn is fairly clearly outlined, and Trolls existed then. We're not talking a race that has only existed for forty years.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
| For one thing trolls lack any of the skeletal modifications we would associate with mammmals having the first 5 things on [Botch's] list. |
Eh? A larger jaw and bigger jaw muscles might well be visible -- and if you look at the troll art in sourcebooks, you'll not that many of the drawings describe trolls (and, incidentally, orks too) as having relatively larger jaws than humans, and even more pictures cover the sides of their skull with bone plates and other stuff that makes it impossible to tell either way.
Better sense of smell does, in nature, usually occur along with nose of a different construction than most trolls in SR art have, but like you said yourself: trolls didn't exactly evolve at length into their current shapes, they might just have more of whatever important crap humans have inside their noses and better storage/analysis of smell data in the brains, with noses looking exactly the same. That's not at all less logical than many of their other features.
What "skeletal modifications" would you associate with mammals having "additional nerve feedback processing" (which I assume is a composite of having more nerves, being capable of more accurate movements, and trolls having relatively more accurate senses in general), "IR vision" and "better sense of taste"?
And for point I: whether they have evolved or not has, again, absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if the race of trolls had been created by a Great Dragon on a whim (which I doubt it has in SR...) they could still have better shock absorption for the brains. Not to mention that I'm certain Botch did not mean to imply they actually used to "head-butt" a lot, just that it's another mechanic to protect the brain which takes up space in a troll's head.
[Edit]It's an "aspect of real life science" to use a thicker skull, shock-absorption and other methods existing in some species of animals IRL (almost always mammals, I presume) to explain away the smaller brain size compared to head size of trolls. How those features actually come about IRL has nothing to do with it. Who-/whatever created trolls as we know em (Verjie, fairy godmother, anything) could just have looked at some animals which have such features and went: "Cool, I want those on my 'troll' species."[/Edit]
Good points. Again I'm drawing these examples from the current state of knowledge involing mammalian adaptations. You could make up any number of reasons for these troll adaptations to exist..but those reasons probably won't represent current scientific knowledge. But that's fine it's a fantasy game after all and the height of creativity. I'm just not into drawing false paralells with current real life knowledge.
| QUOTE (Austere) |
Eh? A larger jaw and bigger jaw muscles might well be visible -- and if you look at the troll art in sourcebooks, you'll not that many of the drawings describe trolls (and, incidentally, orks too) as having relatively larger jaws than humans, and even more pictures cover the sides of their skull with bone plates and other stuff that makes it impossible to tell either way. |
Well, I've studied mammalian jaw/inner ear evolution and the trend of increased bite force is due to increased surface area of the skull for which to have more, larger and more complex jaw musculature to anchor to. For instance, a sagittal crest or some other fold or dimple to attach large bunches of tendon. I wish I could post a picture of the jaw musculature. Now, also the evolution of the masseter was facilitated by the expansion of the rostrum, which trolls clearly exhibit, but without actually seeing a troll skull it's tough to say but I'm guessing that type of adaptation would not be warranted. They don't appear to exhibit a pronounced sagittal crest based on the art but again it's tough to say.
The bony plates (I'm assuming) would not be over the jaw musculature. No mammal has jaw muscles anchored to the skull underneath any other bone(s).
Larger jaws mean nothing in regard to bite force. They are levers and a larger lever requires a larger force to produce a more forceful bite. They do not seem to exhibit the skull adaptations associated with heavy jaw musculature of other mammals. Based on the art they would appear to be scaled with human jaws. Larger lever and also larger muscles don't produce a much more forceful bite where a larger lever and much larger/more complex jaw musculature would.
See what I'm saying? Same relationship between lever and force but just a bit larger due to their overall larger body size.
| QUOTE (Austere) |
What "skeletal modifications" would you associate with mammals having "additional nerve feedback processing" (which I assume is a composite of having more nerves, being capable of more accurate movements, and trolls having relatively more accurate senses in general), "IR vision" and "better sense of taste"? |
IR "vision" in nature as we know it does not occur with ocular structures as almost all fantasy literature suggests. IR signature recognition only (i think) occurs in reptiles which are not mammals so again it's an irrelevant question. But where it does occur in reptiles it's sensory "pits" as in the Pit Viper, not eyes.
Increased capacity to process neural information would suggest a larger braincase in proportion to skull size which has already been addressed.
| QUOTE (Austere) |
And for point I: whether they have evolved or not has, again, absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if the race of trolls had been created by a Great Dragon on a whim (which I doubt it has in SR...) they could still have better shock absorption for the brains. Not to mention that I'm certain Botch did not mean to imply they actually used to "head-butt" a lot, just that it's another mechanic to protect the brain which takes up space in a troll's head. |
Correct. I'm just saying that without an impetus for natural selection for individuals with thicker skulls (which would have to occur over many,many generations) there really isn't any "real" explanation for it. All adaptations are a response to selection (environmental or demographic stress).
| QUOTE (Austere) |
| It's an "aspect of real life science" to use a thicker skull, shock-absorption and other methods existing in some species of animals IRL (almost always mammals, I presume) to explain away the smaller brain size compared to head size of trolls. How those features actually come about IRL has nothing to do with it. Who-/whatever created trolls as we know em (Verjie, fairy godmother, anything) could just have looked at some animals which have such features and went: "Cool, I want those on my 'troll' species. |
Right the result is real. But the mechanism for achieving the adaptation of thicker skulls is not there as provided by the source books I've read. Of course the great thing about fantasy is it can be explained any way. Also I'm not ruling out mutations...if they seem a bit consistent.
I know absolutely nothing about Earthdawn or it's relevance to the topic.
I just played SR for the first time in over a year last night. We played First Run and I was struck by how brilliant the writing/designing was. It was a ton of fun with only 3 people and I had forgotten how much better/more stimulating it is than AD&D. I was scared shitless by the Red Samurai. I knew I didn't bring enough weapons...all I had was a shotgun and I couldn't even hurt the cyberzombie. The mage saved everyone.
But I digress.Have a great Thanksgiving I'm off to a Tryptophan induced slumber and then some real work. Interesting conversation.
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
| Conclusion: Within the approximate range of human brain sizes, there is dramatic variations in intelligence not linked to brain size. [/QUOTE] Wow I'm really suprised someone knew this but I'm glad you mentioned it. It's absolutely correct. They lacked the ability for abstract thought (which meant they could not understand that they must store food for winter). So regardless of their larger braincase they were NOT more intelligent. Any large data sample containing Greatest Length of Skull or brain case measurements plotted against Intelligence Quotient will yeild NO CORRELATION whatsoever. This is true throughout mammalia. ok i'll stop witch burning..I did offer some actual constructive criticism above. |
So a species that buried their dead in graves lined with red ochre had no abstract thoughts patterns? Could fashion tools more complex than any other creature except for homo sapiens, and could alter their environment is a style such as us. Check out the study of dog domestication to see the link between superior senses and superior communication/intellengence retention.
You also miss something about SR/ED evolution and it appears evolution in general outside of the classical darwinian model. Evolution does not happen slowly over millions or thousands of years in a smooth progression, it happens in 2 ways through point specific mutation. One is small, stable mutation that has little immediate impact on life often from a socio-sexual drive or random DNA damage the other is rapid large scale mutation over a few generations due to an overly hostile environment.
A very good introduction to non-darwinian evolution theories is the New Scientists article on Wallabies of SE Australia. They were infected by virus that has been playing Mr. Potato Head with their genes and have a level of evolution that cannot be explained by classical darwinian theories.
Now, we know that SR has several similar things that play Mr. Potato Head with meta-humans. HHMVV virus and mana, specifically mana is used by meta-humans to reorganise their genetic makeup when exposure levels are high enough. If this wasn't enough to accelerate evolution then The Scourge definately is. All meta-humans exhibit a focus towards a survival trait whether it be physical power, knowledge, fertility or environmental adaption. And The Scourge has happened twice before and who knows how many times before homo sapien sapien worked out what it was. Also we do not know when the 5 strains of humanity deverged, although clearly after homo sapien became a stable species.
Just on the subject of average stats, I believe the Pedestrian (which is about as close to Joe Q. Public as you'll get) has stats of 2 + racial modifier in everything? Sounds to me like 2 is your average stat.
actually since biology was one of my majors back at college I feel qualified to reply to the original question.
brain capacity in itself is not an indicator of intelligence.
IIRC you can gauge somewhat the potential from intelligence from the ratio between cranial capacity and the medula. it has been over 10 years tho..
a very easy argument to disprove the basic theory? facts. women on average have smaller/lighter brains than men. therefore somewhat less brain capacity, yet they are not in any way less intelligent. <there also DO exist serious studies on this subject>
so while it seems very intuitive to say bigger brain=>more intelligence, the facts until now disprove the theory. read up on " the mismeasure of man', which is all about attempts to relate brain size to intelligence and thereby add support to some races being `naturally`more intelligent than others.. 100 years of wasted time..
this does raise up the question of anthropology, we really do NOT know how intelligent hominids were but in anthropology bigger brain=>more intelligence is still used as there is not really any way you will get a neanderthal to do an IQ test
soo.. troll: bigger head, not necessarily higher IQ
DS
brain capacity in itself is not an indicator of intelligence.
IIRC you can gauge somewhat the potential from intelligence from the ratio between cranial capacity and the medula. it has been over 10 years tho..
a very easy argument to disprove the basic theory? facts. women on average have smaller/lighter brains than men. therefore somewhat less brain capacity, yet they are not in any way less intelligent. <there also DO exist serious studies on this subject>
so while it seems very intuitive to say bigger brain=>more intelligence, the facts until now disprove the theory. read up on " the mismeasure of man', which is all about attempts to relate brain size to intelligence and thereby add support to some races being `naturally`more intelligent than others.. 100 years of wasted time..
this does raise up the question of anthropology, we really do NOT know how intelligent hominids were but in anthropology bigger brain=>more intelligence is still used as there is not really any way you will get a neanderthal to do an IQ test
soo.. troll: bigger head, not necessarily higher IQ
DS
| QUOTE (DrJest) |
| Just on the subject of average stats, I believe the Pedestrian (which is about as close to Joe Q. Public as you'll get) has stats of 2 + racial modifier in everything? Sounds to me like 2 is your average stat. |
I haven't got all the books and nothing 1st/2nd Ed, where does this come from? It would be really weird if it occurs in a 3rd Edition sourcebook, because that would mean this "Pedestrian" would be greatly outclassed by an average city service worker or street vendor, not to mention taxi drivers.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
I haven't got all the books and nothing 1st/2nd Ed, where does this come from? It would be really weird if it occurs in a 3rd Edition sourcebook, because that would mean this "Pedestrian" would be greatly outclassed by an average city service worker or street vendor, not to mention taxi drivers. |
Sounds like the SR2 U^2C, or "Innocent Bystander".
| QUOTE (Demosthenes) |
| SR2 U^2C |
Huh? SR2 what?
Upright
Uptight
Citizen
Clarified in the little blurb beneath as "also known as 'innocent bystanders', and 'victims'", iirc...wimn...
Uptight
Citizen
Clarified in the little blurb beneath as "also known as 'innocent bystanders', and 'victims'", iirc...wimn...
Oh, OK. It certainly seems that's changed from SR2 to SR3.
Personally, I don't really worry about "average" stats when running the game - I just go with what seems to fit (bearing in mind that if all the NPCs have ridiculous stats it just doesn't help suspension of disblief).
All 2s is, I think, fine for an innocent bystander.
After all, "Innocent Bystander" is usually only a couple of feet from "Collateral Damage"...
All 2s is, I think, fine for an innocent bystander.
After all, "Innocent Bystander" is usually only a couple of feet from "Collateral Damage"...
This is what I get for posting when I don't have the books on me. Mea culpa, the pedestrian has blanket stats of 3 + racial modifier (Contacts p. 25). I hang my head in shame.
| QUOTE (DarkShade) |
| a very easy argument to disprove the basic theory? facts. women on average have smaller/lighter brains than men. therefore somewhat less brain capacity, yet they are not in any way less intelligent. <there also DO exist serious studies on this subject> |
Quite right, but male and female brains are "wired" differently with different strengths and weaknesses. Neither is better, just different and it is this I want to explore on a troll/human comparison.
DS, what is your take on the options at the start of the thread?
| QUOTE (Botch) |
| So a species that buried their dead in graves lined with red ochre had no abstract thoughts patterns? Could fashion tools more complex than any other creature except for homo sapiens, and could alter their environment is a style such as us. Check out the study of dog domestication to see the link between superior senses and superior communication/intellengence retention. You also miss something about SR/ED evolution and it appears evolution in general outside of the classical darwinian model. Evolution does not happen slowly over millions or thousands of years in a smooth progression, it happens in 2 ways through point specific mutation. One is small, stable mutation that has little immediate impact on life often from a socio-sexual drive or random DNA damage the other is rapid large scale mutation over a few generations due to an overly hostile environment. A very good introduction to non-darwinian evolution theories is the New Scientists article on Wallabies of SE Australia. They were infected by virus that has been playing Mr. Potato Head with their genes and have a level of evolution that cannot be explained by classical darwinian theories. Now, we know that SR has several similar things that play Mr. Potato Head with meta-humans. HHMVV virus and mana, specifically mana is used by meta-humans to reorganise their genetic makeup when exposure levels are high enough. If this wasn't enough to accelerate evolution then The Scourge definately is. All meta-humans exhibit a focus towards a survival trait whether it be physical power, knowledge, fertility or environmental adaption. And The Scourge has happened twice before and who knows how many times before homo sapien sapien worked out what it was. Also we do not know when the 5 strains of humanity deverged, although clearly after homo sapien became a stable species. |
I specifically mentioned mutations thank you...
Also I did not mention those various aspects of Homo neandertalus because I do not know if they are indeed true. There is also evidence that they made musical instruments and buried their dead with flowers but that doesn't make it true.
Now it would be pretty interesting if every individual of a species had a point shift mutation at the same time wouldn't it? Your on shaky ground....mutations do not explain adaptations nor does phenotypic plasticity of one or a few individuals. So because one person can tolerate cold better does not mean every species now becomes cold adapted henceforth.....
But again this is pointless...SR is not a real ecological system.....anything can be explained by anything and it doesn't have to fit the mammalian model because there is magic, mana, dragons whathaveyou. Just don't pretend your ideas are biologically sound in real life. Have fun!
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
| But again this is pointless...SR is not a real ecological system.....anything can be explained by anything and it doesn't have to fit the mammalian model because there is magic, mana, dragons whathaveyou. Just don't pretend your ideas are biologically sound in real life. |
But thicker skulls, larger and more powerful jaws, different and greater range of senses, and a general reconfiguring of the use of brain matter as reasons for why a mammal might have relatively smaller brains compared to total head size, and why larger brain size has even less to do with "intelligence", are "biologically sound IRL" or at least so it seems to me. There is no biologically sound reason why these features would have come about, but that's a completely separate issue.
[Edit]OK, I take part of that back, because it seems at least Botch is trying to say there are biologically sound reasons for trolls to have these features in the first place. I'm not saying that, though.[/Edit]
[/QUOTE]I specifically mentioned point mutations thank you...[QUOTE]
No, you didn't you just said that trolls had not been around long enough to evolve and totally flew in the face of ED links. You made a denegrating reply full of falicies and then followed up by saying that neanderthals died out because they couldn't understand winter and had no abstract thought.
The references to other animals was to provide an easily accessible reference to the type of developments found in animals with comparible functions, I am a firm believer in "function dictates form" and acknowledge that there is often more than one viable solution. There is no point in having big horns if they fall off easily. Trolls are armour plated muscle bound giant humaniods and so MUST BE SUITED to combat-like conditions. With the massive investiture in the rest of a trolls anatomy it would be ....odd.... not to see additional protection to the brain.
In lay terms
Evolution is not strictly generational change, but the failure of the mutation containment system that is a delicate balance of bio-chemistry. We already have some mutations locked away inside us, damage the containment system and they spring into action. The more extreme the pressures from the environment, the greater the mutational shift. The more extreme the mutation the less likely it is to be bred and has a much higher chance of significantly impairing the individual.
You all know about different breeds of dogs, yes? How is a primitive culture going to create a defense against something as dangerous as the The Horrors, no tech, no armies, no secret knowledge?
SR canon tells us that mana and magic can directly alter meta-human DNA structures, is it by accident, design or darwinian selection?
Sorry, I'll have to finish part way through as I have a charity netball match now and it won't start without me.
No, you didn't you just said that trolls had not been around long enough to evolve and totally flew in the face of ED links. You made a denegrating reply full of falicies and then followed up by saying that neanderthals died out because they couldn't understand winter and had no abstract thought.
The references to other animals was to provide an easily accessible reference to the type of developments found in animals with comparible functions, I am a firm believer in "function dictates form" and acknowledge that there is often more than one viable solution. There is no point in having big horns if they fall off easily. Trolls are armour plated muscle bound giant humaniods and so MUST BE SUITED to combat-like conditions. With the massive investiture in the rest of a trolls anatomy it would be ....odd.... not to see additional protection to the brain.
In lay terms
Evolution is not strictly generational change, but the failure of the mutation containment system that is a delicate balance of bio-chemistry. We already have some mutations locked away inside us, damage the containment system and they spring into action. The more extreme the pressures from the environment, the greater the mutational shift. The more extreme the mutation the less likely it is to be bred and has a much higher chance of significantly impairing the individual.
You all know about different breeds of dogs, yes? How is a primitive culture going to create a defense against something as dangerous as the The Horrors, no tech, no armies, no secret knowledge?
SR canon tells us that mana and magic can directly alter meta-human DNA structures, is it by accident, design or darwinian selection?
Sorry, I'll have to finish part way through as I have a charity netball match now and it won't start without me.
| QUOTE (Botch) |
| There is no point in having big horns if they fall off easily. |
Moose and their antlers disagree with you.
~J
Antlers aren't horns though. Antlers are pretty much defined by them falling off and growing again each year (well, that or by saying it's the kind of horns deer have).
I'm pretty sure "antler" is defined as the branching horns like those possessed by the deer family. It has nothing to do with "falling off," it's just a type of horn. You might as well say that a square isn't a rectangle while you're at it.
Every mammal I can think of with antlers also sheds them so I would include that is part of the definition. They are deciduous.
One horn is also shed annually: pronghorn antelope. But the rest are not: sheep, goats, muskox, buffalo, etc.
One horn is also shed annually: pronghorn antelope. But the rest are not: sheep, goats, muskox, buffalo, etc.
Uhm, moose don't shed their antlers and instead keep them for life... the only thing they shed is their velvet. Caribou and elk shed theirs, but not moose.
Not that I'm advocating shedding Trolls, as amusing as that would be. I was just correcting that one statement.
~J
~J
Eh? Moose = Alces alces, correct?
| QUOTE (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/deer/Mooseprintout.shtml) |
| Only bulls (males) have antlers. The largest recorded antler spread is over 6.5 ft (2 m). The antlers are shed each year and regrow. |
| QUOTE (http://www.bivouac.com/PhotoPg.asp?PhotoId=4438) |
| Only the males grow antlers (unlike caribou/reindeer of which females do as well) and they shed them after the mating season. The antlers regrow the following spring to a larger size as they grow older. |
Etc.
Every single site I could find said all deer (family Cervidae) have antlers which are shed and regrown each year. Moose, and other deer, just happen to grow bigger ones each year. About the velvet:
| QUOTE (http://www.enaturalist.org/topic.htm?topic_ID=28) |
| Ossification (bone deposition) begins at the base of the antler and keeps pace with the growing tip. Once the tip is ossified, the velvet is shed. During growth, the velvet probably also acts as a protective device against antler damage since it is very sensitive; deer are careful not to bump antlers when in velvet. |
Was Doctor Funkenstein kidding, by any chance?
| QUOTE (Botch) |
| No, you didn't you just said that trolls had not been around long enough to evolve and totally flew in the face of ED links. |
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
I know absolutely nothing about Earthdawn or it's relevance to the topic. |
Reading comprehension....
| QUOTE (Botch) |
You made a denegrating reply full of falicies and then followed up by saying that neanderthals died out because they couldn't understand winter and had no abstract thought. |
Oh my. You really know nothing of biology/mammology/evolution do you?
You also need to brush up on your reading skills. Try reading my post again.
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
I'm not ruling out mutations...if they seem a bit consistent. |
Your correct on one aspect. Mutations do drive evolution. But what you don't understand is that they are random mutations and they only persist in the population IF they increase fitness. If they decrease fitness than the mutated individual probably does not leave many offspring and the mutation dies with them. If the mutation increases fitness then that individual has many offspring and the beneficial mutation disseminates throughout the population slowly because it must be passed on to subsequent generations...it doesn't just magically go to everyone at once.
This is all basic biology I don't know what your trying to argue...
Also, if my post if so full of fallicies then I challenge you to refute all my points and provide credible resources. Your grasping at straws.
| QUOTE (Botch) |
The references to other animals was to provide an easily accessible reference to the type of developments found in animals with comparible functions, I am a firm believer in "function dictates form" and acknowledge that there is often more than one viable solution. There is no point in having big horns if they fall off easily. Trolls are armour plated muscle bound giant humaniods and so MUST BE SUITED to combat-like conditions. With the massive investiture in the rest of a trolls anatomy it would be ....odd.... not to see additional protection to the brain. |
Really you need to pay more attention to your reading. Please feel free to look back and see my statement thus:
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
H might actually be biologically defensible. |
| QUOTE (Botch) |
Evolution is not strictly generational change, but the failure of the mutation containment system that is a delicate balance of bio-chemistry. We already have some mutations locked away inside us, damage the containment system and they spring into action. The more extreme the pressures from the environment, the greater the mutational shift. The more extreme the mutation the less likely it is to be bred and has a much higher chance of significantly impairing the individual. |
Just drop the mutation thing ok? It's much more complex than we are treating it and the process of mutation is important...as I discusssed above however your treating it like some kind of back up plan that every species has. That's a total misrepresentation. Mutations are caused my many,many things and they can be beneficial, harmful or totally ineffectual. But what your missing is that they don't just happen all at once to a whole species and all mutate in the same direction. That is rediculuous (if that's what your saying).
| QUOTE (Botch) |
You all know about different breeds of dogs, yes? How is a primitive culture going to create a defense against something as dangerous as the The Horrors, no tech, no armies, no secret knowledge? |
I don't know wtf The Horrors are. But I think I know what your getting at: I would say if something like that were to happen in reality say.....SARS hits the US. Those 10% that survived have a mutation that provides them with some degree of resistance thus they survive and they have offspring...now that beneficial mutation
becomes a integral part of the species.
| QUOTE (Botch) |
SR canon tells us that mana and magic can directly alter meta-human DNA structures, is it by accident, design or darwinian selection? |
Duh....anything is possible it's still fantasy. But don't sit there any try to tell me it's biologically feasible. Just explain it with mana or magic or something. Don't justify your ideas with your own lack of scientific understanding is all I ask. I'm not trying to bring you or your ideas down I just don't want to see misinformation spread.
| QUOTE (Solstice @ Nov 26 2004, 01:26 PM) |
| Every mammal I can think of with antlers also sheds them so I would include that is part of the definition. They are deciduous. One horn is also shed annually: pronghorn antelope. But the rest are not: sheep, goats, muskox, buffalo, etc. |
I'm a biologist take my word for it. Austere is absolutely correct.
I have boxes full of moose, elk and deer antlers in my basement....i certainly didn't kill them all to get them.
Just a few.
Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. But I do know that "antlers are not horns" is completely false.
EDIT: Ah, here's why I screwed up. My daughter's book had some stupid errata. <grr>
But I do know that "antlers are not horns" is completely false.EDIT: Ah, here's why I screwed up. My daughter's book had some stupid errata. <grr>
| QUOTE (http://all-garden-books.com/1583400346.html) |
| Page 10-11 textual error:"unlike elk and deer, moose do not shed their antlers. They keep them for life and use them to forage for food in snow..."Moose in fact do shed their antlers every year, typically in December or January, thereby spending much of the winter season without them. |
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 26 2004, 01:59 PM) |
| Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. But I do know that "antlers are not horns" is completely false. |
Huh?
Antlers and horns are to completely different things Jesus!
How many times do we have to say it?
Antlers: Branched, shed.
Horns: Not branched, not shed (generally).
Please tell me how those are not different?
This is why I'm not going to be a professor when I finish my doctorate.
Okay, people need to relax...
| QUOTE (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=horn&x=0&y=0) |
| Main Entry: horn Pronunciation: 'horn Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German horn, Latin cornu, Greek keras 1 a : one of the usually paired bony processes that arise from the head of many ungulates and that are found in some extinct mammals and reptiles: as (1) : one of the permanent paired hollow sheaths of keratin usually present in both sexes of cattle and their relatives that function chiefly for defense and arise from a bony core anchored to the skull -- see COW illustration (2) : ANTLER (3) : a permanent solid horn of keratin that is attached to the nasal bone of a rhinoceros (4) : one of a pair of permanent bone protuberances from the skull of a giraffe or okapi that are covered with hairy skin |
And it's not even my bolding.
Linguistically, it seems <antler> is a sub-group of the word <horn> and thus you could say that an antler is a horn.
Linguistically, it seems <antler> is a sub-group of the word <horn> and thus you could say that an antler is a horn.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.