Topic: Large & Gigantic attacks

[rdanhenry]

Even a swung club made from a tree can be dodged (and dodging is part of the RM parry mechanic, which is the problem with "DB negation" approaches with anything you aren't bug-like next to). Now, you can't effectively avoid the castle-stomping class of giant (there's a reason RPG giants tend to stay in the 8'-20' range), where you are in the position of the helpless little bug, but such a giant is not a monster in the first place, it is a plot device. Godzilla isn't diverted from destroying Tokyo by someone getting in a lucky critical with one of those tanks or fighter planes; it takes either a cunning plan or another gigantic monster to matter. Stats are irrelevant for interactions with mere humans. For less massive size differences, the hit multipliers and some modest OB bonuses do just fine, possibly with additional Impact or Unbalancing crits if you really want to up the ante.

Even a stomping attack can be defended against if there is some unevenness in the terrain, allowing one to huddle next to a boulder to dive into a ditch.

[Ynglaur]

rdanhenry has put it well.  At a certain scale, creatures become a plot device, and not a collection of uber-stats.  Just as a GM can rule a maneuver physically impossible (don't eve roll), so too can a GM simply rule that "the monster levels the tower", and the Siege Weapon Attack Tables be darned.

That said, a GM who treats his PCs like ants ("The giant steps on you.  You die.") perhaps isn't telling the best story, much less allowing the PCs to shape that story.

[Zedul]

Wow lot's of replies since I last visited.

I think someone mentioned something about Lions taking down bigger prey like Elephants. It's a misnomer to say the that Lion is the "King" when in fact the Elephant is the King of the Jungle.  Elephants are wickedly dangerous, even though they look silly... they are just so big they do immense damage.  You see how fast a Lion is? Yet the Elephant always seems to outmaneuver them and stomp them down in combat.

Q:  How is this possible when the Lion is much more agile in combat?  It has sharp claws and teeth!
A:  Higher OB due to size advantage - in most cases forcing even 2 or 3 Lions to flee!

Marc:

My races are custom in every case. I have no gnomes but I have a druidic race of plains dwellers who live along the biggest river of my continent.  They ride wolves and are called "Hespa" - and max out at 4 foot high.  They are svelt and warlike, so not like Tolkien's hobbits at all but they do make amazing thieves with their +25 AG mod, but not the greatest warriors with only 80 base hits, and a -15 ST mod.

Hespa PC's are limited to knives, daggers, shortbows, clubs, and shortbows though they may wield a 1 hand mace or a broadsword as a Two Hand weapon (though it still strikes as a 1 hander).  So their attack limitations are built into the weapons they use.  I've yet to see a Hespa PC use a two hander and no one has ever taken one as a fighter since they usually want to take advantage of their agility or intuition and play a ranger, thief, rogue, or druid (animist).  They are overwhelmingly dangerous with a bow... but shortbows and small weapons do squat and cannot even crit Super Large Creatures with higher armor!  So there you go.

I do allow characters to break 150 on the tables - but again, since there are so many damage multipliers in my game with magic weapons and monks and such that I limit that to 1dmg per every 10 points.  Likewise I do not award higher crits for breaking the table because I read that table as the maximum critical result for that SIZE of weapon.

Also, if a Monk is casting a x4 dmg spell and breaks that chart open by 100 or so, that extra 10 points of dmg becomes an extra "40" hits!!!  That's not even taking weapon Kata into account.  Going 1 per 5 would make it an extra 80, and even Adrenal Strength or an Open Essence spell would make most of those results hit for 100 concussion hits with a 5 points over rule.  I know this because I used to do it 1 per 5 and ran into that problem fairly often.  

If I have a troll with a sword, I do not use the THS table, I use Mark 4 or 5 sections of Melee Weapon Table from Spacemaster substituting E Slash and E Krush for the J result of Powersword (E Slash and E Heat)  You will notice that table indicates a weapon nearly twice the size of a THS so it works fairly well.

But you are right, the Large Creature Attack Tables should probably be expanded to higher results.  Something like "Large" "Super Large", "Huge", and "Gigantic"   
 

[rdanhenry]

OTOH, what actually beats elephants? Bees. Size isn't everything. (Of course, this isn't one on one, but the colony is the basic unit of the social insects, not the individual.)

[markc]

Lost Post so here goes again;
 
Zedul;
 I have see a pride of lions attack an elephant and that included the male as well as the super prides females were having a rough go of it.
 In my game I reduce an opponents DB by -20 per additional attack after the first to reflect gang tactics and taking into account attacks that hit or are threating but do no damage. But if the attacks are not a threat then I do not reduce the DB as the targets has nothing to worry about.


 I also think there is more than enough material above for a Super Large Creature Book; Expanded rules on large PC races, Rules for special sized creatures, extra attack and crit tables, new magic items that take into account the new rules, new creatures and updated stats for existing creatures and probably something I have forgotten.


MDC


BTW Zedul, I am MarkC and Marc is MarcR. No worries as everyone gets our names messed up and mixed up. To make it worse I am an ICE Forum Moderator and he is a Moderator. But he is also the RM line Editor IIRC and I an just a volunteer. So MarcR is much more important than little old me.
MDC   

[Marc R]

The key here is that you're stacking one house rule on another, but didn't specify the first.

i.e. that over the 150 do more damage.

Changes the OB rise situation a bit so that it actually is rises in damage, rather than bracketing above a hard stop at 150.

That said, having hunted more than my share of roaches and flies, and taken a hand at catching dragonflies with a butterfly net. . .sometimes just being bigger doesn't make you better.

I know that after spending a lot of time at the dwelling that will forever more be known as "The House of Flies" that I got a lot better at swatting them over time. . .building up my ranks in swatter. . .got so good I was able to pull of TWC with swatter-swatter.

For every Elephant taking down Lions, you can come up with Contrary examples of small beating large. . . .Which gets even more pronounced with intelligence added to the mix, I think in the other thread we discussed how Humans exterminated almost all megafauna during the stone age.

There are many solutions, and often you can come to a workable answer in any of a dozen different ways. . .especially if you're dealing with combining two or three different micro patches to come to one big answer.

[Zedul]

The key here is that you're stacking one house rule on another, but didn't specify the first.

i.e. that over the 150 do more damage.

Changes the OB rise situation a bit so that it actually is rises in damage, rather than bracketing above a hard stop at 150.

That said, having hunted more than my share of roaches and flies, and taken a hand at catching dragonflies with a butterfly net. . .sometimes just being bigger doesn't make you better.

I know that after spending a lot of time at the dwelling that will forever more be known as "The House of Flies" that I got a lot better at swatting them over time. . .building up my ranks in swatter. . .got so good I was able to pull of TWC with swatter-swatter.

For every Elephant taking down Lions, you can come up with Contrary examples of small beating large. . . .Which gets even more pronounced with intelligence added to the mix, I think in the other thread we discussed how Humans exterminated almost all megafauna during the stone age.

There are many solutions, and often you can come to a workable answer in any of a dozen different ways. . .especially if you're dealing with combining two or three different micro patches to come to one big answer.

Right hunting in packs animals 1/4 of the size of something else can take on a single large target.

And yes a swarm of bee's can be nasty but remember, some of the creatures we are talking about are five to ten times larger than elephants!

And those flying bugs are moving at the equivalent of Mach 1 or more relative to their size.  So I imagine if a Player Character could fly as fast as an F22 fighter jet and Maneuver three times better they would be hard to hit for the giant!

Unfortunately I think spell flight is limited to like 30mph.

Also, as we go back to the conjecture that cavemen hunting mastodon's and such out of existence with "simple spears and slings" I would point out that those cavemen had nothing in common with us.  You can't think of a bunch of naked 21st century computer geeks hunting elephants with a spear and get a clear picture of the terror a pack of primitive human hunters probably instilled.

I am going to hazard a guess that those humans were a hell of a lot stronger and faster than we are now. The fact that an unarmed chimpanzee can tear a man limb from limb and beat him over the head with the bloody stumps should give you pause when considering what it must have been like to see such a mean nasty hairy primate with a spear or a sling!

What I am saying is that human beings are weak sauce, they tend to get by on intellect.  Yet some of these big monsters I see in stats are only twice or less than the strength of a decent level 20 human warrior, and were easily targets for even weak or strictly enforced PC's who play well.  I believe that sometimes game developers so fear "over inflation" that they tend to under-power the big scary monsters.  I once read a guidebook that had Smaug listed at like 400 concussion hits and a 200DB,.  I mean really, how would a dragon with only 400 concussion hits take on an army of ten thousand armed dwarves, and level entire cities?   



Oh and Mark, thank you!  I do get confused as to who I am talking to at times!

[Ecthelion]

I think someone mentioned something about Lions taking down bigger prey like Elephants. It's a misnomer to say the that Lion is the "King" when in fact the Elephant is the King of the Jungle.  Elephants are wickedly dangerous, even though they look silly... they are just so big they do immense damage.  You see how fast a Lion is? Yet the Elephant always seems to outmaneuver them and stomp them down in combat.

Q:  How is this possible when the Lion is much more agile in combat?  It has sharp claws and teeth!
A:  Higher OB due to size advantage - in most cases forcing even 2 or 3 Lions to flee!

Do you have any evidence for your statements? The Wikipedia articles about lions and tigers state that these predators also occasionally attack hippos and rhinos, which are animals of about 10 times their own mass. And the article about the tiger contains the sentence "Adult elephants are too large to serve as common prey, but conflicts between tigers and elephants do sometimes take place", which means that tigers in rare cases do attack elephants, which again they would not do if they did have no chance to win.

You seems to have become entrenched in the opinion that larger size of creatures is such a huge advantage that a small creature has no chance to win against a larger creature. But unless you come up with some evidence I have to say that this basis of your argument is plain wrong. No doubt, larger size is clearly an advantage, but it does not make you invincible. And therefore the general approach taken in C&M, with usually higher OBs for larger creatures, more concussion hits they can take, special critical tables and occasionally a damage multiplier, seems quite right. Yes, some areas may be improved, but in general it works well. And making such drastic changes, like boosting the OB of dragons up to 500 or so, would not improve the game but make it worse, because players want their high-level characters to be able to stand a chance against such a beast.

[rdanhenry]

http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerskillingelephants.htm

[Cormac Doyle]

Check the current edition of the New Scientist - which has a video of a Beetle killing the toad that tried to eat it. Size does NOT mean a higher DB or OB:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/06/born-to-be-viral-beetle-in-death-battle-against-toad.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=viralbeetle

Size DOES mean additional damage if the blow lands
Size DOES mean that Parrying a blow is an ineffective defense strategy ... dodge or die (and you better be fast to dodge)

With respect to Elephants vs large cats ... typically this situation simply does not come up ... big cats simply ignore elephants unless they are desperately hungry (in which case they typically target the oldest/youngest) ...

For a better corollary - look at wolves vs large Elk/moose or similarly sized creatures ... the wolves do not even try to attack until they have exhausted the creature ... then they all attack in a pack to bring it down ... even then, they may lose members of the pack to injury if they are unlucky! They *could* do the same to a bear ... but generally wolves and bears just ignore/avoid each other.

[Marc R]

Right hunting in packs animals 1/4 of the size of something else can take on a single large target.

And those flying bugs are moving at the equivalent of Mach 1 or more relative to their size.  So I imagine if a Player Character could fly as fast as an F22 fighter jet and Maneuver three times better they would be hard to hit for the giant!

Skip the relative variations, a dragonfly is simply fast and agile, as are many animals large and small. . .I don't think that anyone here at any point has stated large = slow, so I suspect you're having that argument with yourself or against the memory of people who said that to you in the past, but I haven't yet actually seen anyone put that forward here in this thread.

Mongoose vs King Cobra or Bottlenose Dolphin vs Great White Shark, in fact in both instances, sometimes one wins, sometimes the other, all four animals reputed for their great speed, and a large variation in mass between them.

Leopard or Jaguar vs one of the various Cow/Buffalo is usually a size variation of 1:16 or 1:24 and both are usually solo ambush hunters. Anyone who thinks a Buffalo is "slow" should stay outside the fence for their own safety.

There's plenty of factual instances of creatures solo killing animals far larger than them, ranging from the micro (gram weight) to the macro (Tonne weight) animals.

Nobody here is disputing that size can be an advantage in combat, but you should be wary of absolute statements. There is a correlation between size and combat ability, but it seems to be not as strong as you're putting forward, where it would overwhelm all other factors. . .like level, intelligence, natural weaponry. . .

[Zedul]

With respect to Elephants vs large cats ... typically this situation simply does not come up ... big cats simply ignore elephants unless they are desperately hungry (in which case they typically target the oldest/youngest) ...

Here is an interesting piece on elephants tracking down and killing rhino's!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3E_a1Oau6c&NR=1&feature=fvwp

another legit video of elephants chasing off lions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-EZHZpAsOI

There are more one where an elephant wards off the attack of 7 to 8 lions and survives that looks legit.  And a few gruesome ones of pack of dozens of hungry lions going after elephants, and an elephant stomping a tiger to death but some of these look like the animals are drugged and the situations are artificial - done by some jerks who are into bloodsport so I won't post them and give them any legitimacy.

Marc R, I am not having an argument with myself.

The point I was making with the elephants is that a lion is a predator, the elephant is not equipped to be a predator and yet they can still deal with such things because of their size advantage alone.

Therefore if a Lion was the size of an Elephant it would be horrific.  Now we are talking about some of the creatures that player characters must face.

You point out how deadly a mongoose is to a snake, now imagine if that mongoose were 8 feet tall and chasing the party?  This is the point I am trying to make.  That size is going to make things like that worse.

As far as jaguars killing livestock?  I am not going to throw a 20' tall cow at my party and expect it's going to kill them based on size alone!  Give me some credit, I am not taking it to the extremes you want to suggest.

What I am saying is that a giant killing machine like a dragon, a basilisk, a giant, a troll, and so forth are often understated in fantasy role-playing games and the way they are statted out is often inaccurate to the point of ridiculous.

If you watch that gruesome video above where the female elephant is attacked by a pride of lions - she survives nearly dozens of bites and claw attacks, in role-master terms think about the concussion hits of thirty+ successful large attacks + bleeding wounds + criticals, and yet that elephant is still standing at gets away and she isn't even a big one!  That many lions attacking in rolemaster and hitting that often would go easily over double or even triple the concussion hits allotted to the 12,000 lbs elephant.  (350)

So if you look at creatures and treasures it seems those elephants stats are inaccurate.  Worse if you turn a dozen pages or so you will find yourself a 27 foot tall cylops that is what?  3 or 4 times the size of an elephant?  It's concussion hits are marked down as: (450)  And it could probably die on concussion hits alone to a dozen human sized fighters with longbows in the course of 30 seconds or so, assuming the longbows do no critical damage!


And this is the point of everything I am saying. That game designers are often so worried about running a tight ship and keeping their numbers from "inflating" that they understate what a big nasty monster would really be like in both offensive capabilities and the damage it could take.  It's something to consider when you stat out a creature in a campaign.  So when I see a 15 foot tall demon from another plane of existence with 300 hit points  and a 250 OB... I am going to roll my eyes and adjust accordingly.

I am hardly extreme.  If you want extreme look for an online MMO.

Back in the day I used to play Everquest... we had the games first kills of most of the dragons in temple of veeshan, and I remember standing there hacking away with 40 other players for nearly an hour to drop one dragon.  Now that  seemed extreme.


 

[yammahoper]

I once used the rules in C&T for making small critters bigger.  The end result was an invasion of massive elephant sized rabbits that were complete terrors.  fast, good biting OB, LA crits, was a good time.  The master behind the plot was a 25th level druid/killer rabbit who sought to create a kingdom safe for rabbit kind.

Inspired by Piers Anthony and an ode to Monty Python.  Players loved it.

[Ecthelion]

What I am saying is that a giant killing machine like a dragon, a basilisk, a giant, a troll, and so forth are often understated in fantasy role-playing games and the way they are statted out is often inaccurate to the point of ridiculous.

And I am quite sure that this is intentional. If creatures like trolls or elephants had 2000 hit points instead of 150 and were much harder to hit, then combat would take much longer - and players and GMs alike don't want to spend hours rolling and checking attack & critical tables for just one fight against a large critter. And if such creatures also had extremely high OBs, then PCs would not stand a chance against them and the players would be disappointed that they can only fight against orcs, goblins and other small creatures but not against trolls or dragons like the heroes in fantasy literature or movies.

So if you think that in your game the combat stats of large and huge monster should be massively increased, just go ahead. The game can be tailored to individual needs. But it is not a flaw of the game that the values are the (unrealistic?) way they are, it is instead a strength of the game - one which many other FRP games share. It's not realism that matters, it's having fun which does!

[Marc R]

Dude, I'd urge you to take a re-read of everyone's replies, as you're dismissing everyone's comments out of hand, then we read and reply, and you dismiss again.

Feel free to go 12 rounds with a buffalo and tell me how sissy they are. leopard kills them, even at 1/16 or less it's mass. . .Buffalo kill people all the time in the real world. (Go look up Bison, Cape Buffalo and Wildebeest).

The point you're totally skipping over, is that +600 OB is so far out of scale, that it's a trump, so that modification makes anything else meaningless.

A wasp with a +600 OB is a freaking nightmare, much less anything larger.

Not to say you should never use such a beast, but that +600 OB shoves it way off the top end of scales. . .it will be far more dangerous than a real world elephant should be.

A human of moderate skill mounted with a shortbow, or highly skilled mounted with a spear, has decent odds vs an elephant in the real world. . . .which indicates to me that your logic is flawed in thinking that an elephant is somehow that nasty.

The Lion is attacking an animal with fairly decently thick skin (armor) which takes damage as either a large or super large. . .which would make lion vs Elephant in pure vanilla RM with no goofing around with the OB a very chancy thing indeed. I'd bet on the elephant.

You're losing track of the fact that in RM "Big and Nasty" doesn't need a 600 OB bonus. . .it can be tweaked off their hits, the crit reduction, the armor, immunity to stun, immunity to bleed, immunity to knockback, the size of their attacks AND their OB. . .making it unnecessary to push one lever all the way to the stop in order to get that result.

Nobody here is calling for pads and helmets, but I feel like +500 or +1500 OB is merely excessive and unnecessary. . .people from other systems already complain about the number of sharp edges and corners. . .of all the game shops in the world to walk into and call game designers a bunch of whining sissies, this seems an odd choice.

The elephant, as is, already has a lot of tweaks to make it nastier, compare it's stats to the lion, and tell me you'd bet on the lion?

If you flip a few pages on, the Dragons are truely heinous, even just as is out of the book. . .The reaction in most RM games I'm in to "Dragon" is "Run!".

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Everything is just a matter of scale, really. Not to criticize your way to GM, Zedul, but I think your problem lies more in downscaling your PCs' levels than upscaling the creatures' levels. Sure, a normal tiger or a normal bear would rip a normal man in half with little effort. Well, if you roll an average human farmer, complete with average stats and level (meaning 3-4), I doubt he would be able to survive against a tiger or a bear, or any large monster in the C&T, short of a miracle. first, his hit points would be low enough that most single Huge attacks in the AL&CL table would send him unconscious, so no need for more damage. Second, how much do you think such a character has in his DB+OB? Probably in the +10/+20, low enough that the +85LGr/65LCL< or 90MBa of a bear, or the 110 LBi of a tiger would indeed rip him in pieces in a couple of rounds, without missing him. So, no need for more OB, either. At least, no based on how much dangerous a tiger, a boar, an elephant, etc. are to a normal man. They are big and nasty.

[markc]

Zedul;


First it seems like your players and you love it so keep it up. I am just trying to understand your thoughts on the matter.


 IMHO; In talking scale it does depend on the scale of your players OB and DB to the OB and DB of your creatures. IMHO if your OB and DB keep going up then they should also for others in the universe(s).


 As to size I always remember the argument of cell size and the factor volume vs area. This can be found in most Biology books and probably some Physiology and Zoology books as well.
MDC

[Zedul]

Dude, I'd urge you to take a re-read of everyone's replies, as you're dismissing everyone's comments out of hand, then we read and reply, and you dismiss again.

people from other systems already complain about the number of sharp edges and corners. . .of all the game shops in the world to walk into and call game designers a bunch of whining sissies, this seems an odd choice.

I have not dismissed any comment out of hand, in fact I carefully read each comment, tried to discern what was being said and even did a bit of research.  For example I did not even have an idea of how fast insects fly relative to their size until I read it after one point was made.

Just because I did have the time to answer every single point, doesn't mean I did not read them or consider them.

I have not walked into any shop and called a game designer a whining sissy.

I am not  making accusations, or calling anyone extreme (which is not necessary a bad thing in and of itself which I will get to later). It's not my way to get all ticked off at someone I do not agree with and name call when it's such an extraneous debate.  I mean really, you have to keep these arguments within context and have a sense of humor about it.

We are arguing over the offense bonus and hit points of a imaginary giant or dragon for the love of pete!

Ecthelion said:

"But it is not a flaw of the game that the values are the (unrealistic?) way they are, it is instead a strength of the game - one which many other FRP games share."

And you Mark R - you reiterated that people from other systems are already having issues with RM's sharp corners.


My notion is that people from other systems should just go back to their other systems and not concern themselves with the sharp edges of RM!

No game designer should be worried what someone from another system thinks.  My friends and I came running to RM because it was so different and far more radical than other systems, it was "Oh wow!  This is not the same old, same old!"  My notion is, that the more bugged a hard core D&D or Pathfinder GM or Player is about RM the better job the RM people are doing.

Nothing bother's people more than when other people are having fun doing something completely different from what they are doing, and doing it entirely in a different way than they are doing it!  It makes folks flat out angry!  HEY!  That's not right! 

Here is a truth in life.  You have to be yourself, you cannot imitate others.  That was the true beauty and glory of this gaming system when it first arrived on the market.  It was nothing like anything else.  It was extreme!

The mere fact that a RM character could achieve level 100, and that gods were listed in the hundreds of levels with stats of 150 and such used to drive D&D players crazy... let alone the attack system. 
A d100 instead of a d20?  Omg!  That's insane!!  That's extreme!  That's crazy!  You can't roll a d100 without over inflating an attack result!  Critical tables and instant death?  LEVEL 50 SPELLS???  That's stupid!  That's overblown!  That will never fly!

But secretly they all wanted to try it so they would start sneaking over, then they would get hooked.

But once something is so close to their system they go "ah yea, it's not that much different than what we are doing, it's sensible enough."

What's the appeal?  What's the hook?  A sensible and reasonable system where everything is contained and tight and scaled down is going to attract people over from the same system when they have already invested in all the books?  I wonder if that is truly a strength to be conventional and standard?


Taste Brand X!  It's a lot like Brand Y but just a tiny bit better, trust me!

Maybe you guys are right?  Maybe I should make my game more in line.  Call up my players and say.  From now on we will not be fighting demons, or dragons with 5k hit points and 700 OBs, instead the ancient dragons will be approximately 3x tougher than a bear instead of 20 to 30x tougher - because that's what other game systems do.  We are downsizing everything and standardizing so that your level 50 characters will only be twice as powerful as your level 15 characters,  To bring this all in line we are going to pull your characters as well so throw away those epic swords and artifacts!    Mr Marrior Monk with the +60 sword and the 450+ OB?   I am going to to back to the 5/2/1/ 1/2 system and I am going to top off magic items at +25 so that your OB is going to be around 200, you know, only twice as good with a sword as you were at level 15 instead of 3 or 4 times better!  I am going to take away the stat forges in my world, so no more stat increases for fighting through that dungeon.  No more strength/agilty of 106 or 105... back down to the 75 to 90's for you guys, even if you are level 40 and have invested nearly 400 hours into playing your character to achieve greatness.

I can tell you what they will say to me, because it has already been said:  "Jeff, I can go into any game shop in any city in the entire country and play that game.  Why would I tick off my wife and spend my money to fly 2000 miles to do it there?"

All I am offering here is a "what if" what if your really stat out that dragon in a way that a dragon might actually be instead of limiting it simply to fit the mechanics of your system?  What if you open the mechanics of your system to the possibilities of the unreal or the surreal?

What if a dragon has so many hit points and critical resistances that it could really level an army or a city?  And for PC's to take it on, it virtually requires you to use x6 to x10 elemental attacks and "gasp" truly epic weapons to defeat it.  Maybe you allow your characters to be 10x more powerful than that mere mortal level 4 peasant farmer!  Or better yet, take that farmer boy on a journey where he becomes nearly a demigod...

You do no have to agree with me at all.   But neither should you expect me to agree with you!

This is the way I look at a fantasy game, it's what drew me to gaming, and what drove me from D&D into the arms of Role-master.  And then after, when the Companions and RM2 came out and Shadow World and I could see essence flows and level 60 NPC's and Dragon Lords, and then Lords of Middle Earth with +77 or +100 or +150 weapons?  Or even +250 weapons for the big gods?  I thought... wow! I have plenty of room to breath in and never even come close to to breaking open this system!

I hear your arguments but I truly do not understand why conformity and standardization is better, especially in a fantasy RPG.  I never will.

By gosh if a giant or a dragon with a 600 OB is bugging you, or you think it's a system breaker, then you probably don't want to see what else I have under the hood.  I'd get burned at the stake for heresy.   

Maybe us old RM2 players and our crazy RoCo options and alterations should take our battered old books and go play in the corner where we are not seen or heard.  That way we can't embarrass you in front of the other more "serious" FRP system guys. 

[yammahoper]

Taste Brand X!  It's a lot like Brand Y but just a tiny bit better, trust me!

I just fell a little bit in love.  'Scuse me, I need some Dead Kennedys right now.

[providence13]

Zedul;


First it seems like your players and you love it so keep it up. I am just trying to understand your thoughts on the matter.


 IMHO; In talking scale it does depend on the scale of your players OB and DB to the OB and DB of your creatures. IMHO if your OB and DB keep going up then they should also for others in the universe(s).


 As to size I always remember the argument of cell size and the factor volume vs area. This can be found in most Biology books and probably some Physiology and Zoology books as well.
MDC

I agree, have fun in your game! Game On!

I keep a copy of the "Physics of Superheroes" (James Kakalios) handy just for this reason. Very handy and clearly explained science behind comics. If there is such a thing. It even helps with RPG's. Scale is often misunderstood..