I did a search on discussions revolving around the question "should Dwarves have lower Movement than humans/elves with the same physical stats (STR, AGI, etc)?"

I couldn't find any such reference in either HM1, HM3 or HMG.
(The closest I got was editions penalizing human females (!) and giving a boost to certain kinds of Gargun)

And the only Lythia.com discussion was in "Alternate Realities", specifically using HM for "midgaad":
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3970

Yes, I know Frame indirectly modifies Agility, which in turn modifies Move (unless you use the independent stat of Speed). But I feel even a Dwarf with a normal Frame (and thus with no AGL penalty) should have a Speed reduction.

And yes, I know of proposals to tie Speed to Height. But I feel (short) humans and Dwarves have completely different body-leg proportions, and that a short human can well run as fast as a tall human. It's the distinct body type of a Dwarf I feel should render the Speed (but not Agility) reduction.

To my surprise I can't find any such option.

That's why I'm asking you if there somewhere is a designer's discussion on the (lack) of racial movement modifiers, or if the general wisdom has anything to say on this topic. (Please note: I'm talking regular Harnic Dwarves now, not alternate realities.) Is there something about Harnic Dwarfs and their body structure I don't know about?

To make it clear what I'm looking for: discussions on stuff like these examples:
* "Move is equal to Agility except for Dwarfs who get MOV=AGL-2"
* "Roll Speed using 3d6 except for Dwarfs who roll 2d6+1. Adjust to fall at most 4 points from Agility."
(A Dwarf could in this latter example still get Move 14 in the unlikely case of rolling a non-AGL-penalty-giving Frame and then max out Agility. The Speed roll would then get adjusted upwards above the normal maximum of 13 since that's still 5 points from Agility)

Well, I agree with you, but can't point to any canon reference.

I'd apply similar penalties to gargun as well.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

IMC I've been using (~AGL+~SPD+(~Height/4-~Frame/2))/3 as a SB for Mobility.

Probably more complicated than most people are looking for.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Thanks. Well, as you know there are lots of ways to houserule this. And I'm not really asking for that. My question was more if the Harnic community or its designers have touched upon this question at any point in time...?

Essentially I wish to ask the question: "It seems slower Dwarves is common to fantasy. Is there any reason or rationale given why this isn't the case in Harn?"

Is it simply because Harn was concieved before the "Dwarves get many bonuses but speed isn't one of them" became a fantasy trope? Or is it because the Harnic vision of a "dwarf" is substantially different (on the point of stride length and body proportions) than the common image of a dwarf in fantasy gaming today? Or is there another reason? Indeed, is there a reason at all, or is it just a case of "it's always been like that"...?

Some versions of HM even give speed penalties to females - so it's not like having modifiers on speed specifically (and not indirectly via Frame or Agility) is unknown to Harn. Yet, from where I'm coming from penalizing the speed of Dwarfs is a much higher priority than penalizing the speed of women (which I'm actively against).

Any further thoughts on this (including links to previous discussion) are welcome.

I thought it was because most situations where precise movement calculations are combat related........and Dwarves always STAND AND FIGHT!

I am also unaware of Canon considerations regarding this; other than Harnplayer that says they 'possess strength out of propotion to their size'. This could give them a surprising turn of speed compared to a human of the same height I guess..with a leaping type gait I guess. I am thinking of Sebulba in Star Wars (although it is his arms he 'walks' on).

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

Regarding your primary question: No, I'm fairly certain it was not specifically dealt with as an official design item. As for a reason why not, that's speculative. My guess is that it was, at worst, an oversight. It could be that it was felt that the AGL penalty addressed the issue adequately. To my knowledge, this is the first time it's been brought up.

It would be a very simple fix to just swap the 2 pt penalty to Speed from human females to all Khuzdul, leaving no penalty to Speed for either human gender.

My guess is that the trend to "slow down" Khuzan Mobility would come from their probability to have frames up toward the "massive" end, which penalizes Agility, which penalizes their maximum possible Speed (must be within 4 pts of their Agility), which - in 1st ed HM anyway - directly slows them down as Mobility is Speed x5... (I suppose it slows them down in all editions, just not as "directly"...)

Of course, all that armor the typical dwarf warrior wears too would slow them down as well, in proportion according to the HM edition rules being used....

Finally, I see dwarves in the Gimli fashion... they can be seemingly quite fast "over short distances".

Would you suggest this also applies to midgets and those who suffer from dwarfism?
Makes them slower so they're easier to catch!!!

_________________
"The woods are alive with the smell of his coming!" Ilviran chant.

When I was using HM1 I used Spd -2 for dwarves M/F (but I kept the no more than +-4 rule from Agl). In HM3 I stayd with the rules. Dwarves have a penalty to Agility (most often anyway, due to Frame) so they already have a penalty for Move (since it is the same as Agl).
I have experimented with the Move -2 in HM3 when using Move as a separate ability (it's an option) but since that could result in a movement that matches the Terracotta army due to the hefty Encumbrance penalty to physical abilties, I skipped that.

_________________
"Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur" - Tacitus
Fenhorn's Hârnpage

I guess one thng here, should there be a penalty to movement and agility because of frame an height?

I look at olympic sprinters, and most of these by HM weight charts would have a medium or heavy frame.

In long distance runners, you see a lighter frame in general, but for sprinters the frame is generally no lighter than medium.

I think is has a lot to do with the muscles needed to sprint, and being "too light" does not make one faster.

Also look at NFL receivers an defensise backs - some of the fastest people around, but most are heavy, some would even fit the massive weight.

One thing according to HM - Frame is NOT "fatness" - the weights are based on prime body weight by frame, overweight is a seperate issue.

IMO for humans at least, height and frame have little to do with speed. I guess overall height to a point helps speed - sprinters are often a little taller than the average man, the stride issue probably helps, but there are those that are 5'8" or so and just as fast.

Agility might be another matter - defensive backs have to be quicker than most other players, and because of this defensive backs are usually shorter than receivers.

I'd say overall mass reduces potential agility to a point - but it does not matter if you are tall, massive, whatever. For example a 6'6" player is genrerally less agile than a 6'0" player of the same frame.

Now how this relates to Khuzdhul, I am not sure . Most human sprinters are not of dwarf stature, and most sprinters are at least of average height. I think it makes sense for dwarves to be a bit slower.



Interesting Feanor, not a bad idea for those OK with more calculations. And it's a pre-game calcualtion, not one that effects gametime play speed.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I might add I do things a little different IMC as well with size/strength/weight

Heavy and Massive add 8% and 16% to weight respectively. The lighter frames reduce weight by the same.

I do not give AG mods based on frame except for a -1 for a massive build.

Strength also effects weight - +/- 1% of body weight for every point above or below 10 strength.

I also give a "size factor" in the 6-20 range for most humans, and figure "actual strength" as (Str+siz+siz)/3.

Makes decent size a requirement to have much strength. My Khuzdhul and Gargun are bigger though to, Khuzdhul averaging about 4'10", Most Gargun in the 5' range, Khanu in the 5'4" range.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I'm left wondering if you have other arguments besides basic political correctness for being against negative SPD mods for human female characters, perhaps from some as-of-yet unreleased comparative study of the respective average running speeds of the male and female parts of the human species.

As concerns the fictional kuzai of Hârn, I've always envisioned them with an average walking speed not much different than the human norm, but less able to attain high sprinting speeds. Since this never has been an issue IMPH with no dwarf PCs and only a few NPC ones with designed rather than rolled-for statistics, I never felt the need for a specific houserule covering that case, but a 3d4+3 roll for SPD would provide a nice spread IMO.

_________________
«Fair is what we see, Fairer what we have perceived, Fairest what is still in veil.»
—Nicolaus Stenonius

Well, it may not be politically correct, but it is indeed accurate, women run at slower speeds than men in about every category, short or long distance.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Women have far less strength then men on an equal weight basis. The lack of a strength minus for females on Harn has always twigged my "overly political correctness" nerve. If it was just evening out plusses and minuses between the sexes that would be one thing but it makes even less sense when females on Harn are afforded more total bonuses than men are.

In Harnmaster females are slightly smaller and lighter framed leading to lower strength and higher agility. If there were more of a direct association of Mobility to Agility a minus on Speed could be to partially compensate for the higher Agility. Speed is often maxed out at AGL-4 so females are potentially enjoying a slight benefit to Mobility that the -2 SPD offsets - lowering their speed to less then men but often not as much as it seems. The lower body weight leads to lower strength but not enough to account that on an equal weight basis females are still weaker then men in the real world.

For Aura though the +2 Aura makes women extremely good mages compared to men - especially since Aura is almost the only important ability for mages (a warrior would need bonuses in several abilities (strength, dex, agility) to equate to a similar advantage. For min-maxers warrior types would benefit from going male and magic types female. With only aura needed to be a good mage it is easy for a person the elect female and put their highest ability in Aura to max out as a mage.

Dwarves also are potential slightly penalized by the 4 difference max between Speed and Agility and their heavier Frame - but not nearly enough to be considered a noticable lowering of their speed.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Yeah, maybe a -2 for strength or so is warranted in addition to their smaller stature.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

With regard to the strength differences between genders, I would say that HM generally takes care of it rather nicely, without having to make further arbitrary penalty to the female.

With what is effectively an overall -2" to height, and a near-impossibility to be "massive" framed due to the -3 penalty to frame, the resultant trend to lower heights and overall weights, when the strength modifiers for strength are factored in, in many ways gives females a functional -2 to strength anyway... at least in HM1. It is really a matter of probability curves of attaining the values.

Standard Human Males - max height 80", max frame "massive", therefore max strength is 23 (due to the +5 to str for the resultant weight of 253#)
Standard Human Females - max height 78", max frame "heavy", therefore max strength is 21 (due to the +3 to str for the resultant weight of 210#)

The difference in max strength is 2, with the female at -2 to the male, which, if you remember that these are the MAXIMUMS for the stat distributions - not including outliers for special medical situations, like genetic throwback - ultimately means that the female has that functional -2 in strength vs males across the probability distributions.

On the other hand, it also gives the females a net advantage of +1 to agility due to frame penalty distribution shifts, and the frame effect on agility, which would have - if no penalty to speed were applied (due to the stat link of speed to agility) - give females a faster movement distribution than males, which doesn't bear out in statistics (mainly from Olympic running speed records) from our real world... and since "realism" is sought for Harn, at least to some degree...

I see the -2 to females for speed as justifiable, but I don't see a further penalty to females for strength to be justified, especially not in consideration that in societies where heavy labor is the norm, that the normal effects on strength for the female usually being smaller and lighter of build can't portray effectively and sufficiently.

Dwarves, on the other hand, being a being of fiction, we can do whatever ability stats modification we wish to them, insofar as the "dwarf" from Harn is not true "dwarfism" as per our real world definition...

Just my thoughts.... useful or not....

This would put the average female around STR 06, perhaps too low even for the politically non-correct among us.

_________________
«Fair is what we see, Fairer what we have perceived, Fairest what is still in veil.»
—Nicolaus Stenonius

Another thing...

On NET weight basis, remember also that women have proportionately different fat to muscle ratios, insofar as the muscle mass of a man of 150# will differ from a woman of 150# to a fairly significant degree, even if both are considered "lean".

The weight vs strength bonus tables in HM strike me as working on the assumption that there is very little - insignificant for factoring - fat in the stat link of frame-weight and strength bonus. This would mean that the normal female fat to muscle ratio hasn't been included yet at that point. It's almost as if to make it properly realistic, all human females would have to select being between 5 and 15% overweight in their HM medical section.

As example:

A human female of 64", and light frame, has a nominal weight of 124#. Assuming a relatively conservative 10% body fat according to the "overweight" medical entry, her weight becomes 136# (effectively negating her "light" frame adjustment, and making her LOOK "average" frame; the extra weight will not make her usually look "fat", just generally larger).

Take a human male of 64", and compare by weights alone, to 136#, and he is also "average" framed.

Now look at HM strength adjustments: the human female, at APPARENT 136# (but really 124# for frame) gets a -2 to str, for a maximum of 16; the male, at 136#, gets a -1 to str...

Again, the way the gender differences come out with a close examination of the HM character creation rules, sort of bears out... what is REALLY missing is what is effectivel automatic "overweight" values for females...

Is it perfect for realistic comparisons? Not sure on that one, although I would wager likely not...
Is it "good enough" for game play? That I would argue is true, although everyone would have differing opinions on that...

Good point.

Makes me think a -1 Str and a +5-10% weight (not additive to Str) combined would be close fit for females.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

I'd agree here. I'm even wondering if basing it strictly on lean muscle mass if the frame should be lighter than -10% on average.

I think a woman with "ideal" body weight is still going to be lighter than a man of the same height, even bearing in mind even at her "ideal" weight she will probably be in the 20% body fat range, while an "ideal" weight for a man is more in the 10% body fat range.





So say we have an active man and woman, at an average body fat for an "active" person. The man will have 135 pounds of lean weight, the woman 120 pounds.

According to the below chart, an active average frame 5'8" Man should weigh 151 lbs, a 5'8" woman 143 lbs, so a man should be about 5-6% heavier.

http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/ca ... _women.htm

So men are both a bit heavier, AND have more muscle mass as a percentage of weight.

I'd think that modifying a female's frame by -2, as opposed to -3 might give more accurate weights, but a -2 in strength is probably warranted as well.

Although I still believe that AG should not be increased by a light frame.

In HM3 an average frame is 160 lbs - a light frame is 134 lbs, and a "scant" frame is 128 lbs. In all likleyhood, that scant framed person has very little muscle mass - which makes it tough to move quickly as they are so underweight. Not that a scant frame shold be a detriment to Agility, but it should not add either.

I think many look at a "massive" frame as something akin to an overweight NFL lineman. They may have a massive frame, but a lot of excess weight as well, which would hurt agility, but the frame and muscles by themselves do not impede agility, or speed either for that matter.

If you look at Usain Bolt, the worlds fastest man, he is 6'5", 207 lbs. This puts him in between an average and heavy frame in HM. If indeed the HM modifiers were accurate, he would not be as agile as some scanter framed individuals. If this were an unusual height/weight combination, that could be considered an oddity. However, Tyson Gay, the fastest US man, is 5'10" and 165 pounds, right at the average weight and average frame in HM.

The next best time in the 100 meters from a US sprinter is from Maurice Green, who is 5'9" and 180 lbs, whcih would put his frame somewhere between massive and heavy.

And back to women being slower - the fasted woman's time in the 100 meters is about 10% slower than the mens, Bolt's 9.58 compared to Griffith-Joyner's 10.49 seconds.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Thanks to all who replied on the dwarf question.

Got a bit off topic I guess, Zapp

But the same issue IMO apply to dwarves, at least the same issues as far as movement speed for massive, shorter individuals.

I don;t know how much of an issue height is for speed, as the three of the fastest humans I mention are about average sized with one being substantially taller.

The only thing is though is that dwarves are FAR shorter than humans, and have a massive frame.

I don't think the frame should be too much of an issue, based upon the builds of some fo the sprinters listed above. Personally, I do give a -1 to AG based upon a massive frame, but that's the only frame modification I make for AG.

The shortness of the Dwarves is the more pressing issue IMO.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any studies on the running speed of really really short people, a lot of this is guesswork.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

My first thought on that was that is it significant. While ~60% of humans fall within 1 deviation of "average" less than 1% are 6'5" or taller. For 1 in 3 of the examples to be 60 times less likey to appear is significant - even more so that he is the fastest.

I know I did some research before adding height to my mobility calculations but I didn't write down the decision making process. For many other things though I downloaded olympic data and did comparisons. The formula I came up with does give a height advantage but within human ranges it doesn't matter very much - but comparing humans to dwarves it would.

A quick research online seems to indicate a great deal of disagreement on the subject but from what I can decipher I'd say it is an advantage but height also adds weight which is a disadvantage. The "Stillman height/weight ratio table for distance runners" seems to limit additional weight per inch of addtional height.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

I would agree if most sprinters were tall - but as the other two are pretty much average height, I think height means little for top speed.

And the difference in speed is about one tenth of a second - or a 1% or so difference, a very miniscule difference.

The one thing though is that it seems if 5'8" is current average height, none of the last 10 or so record holders are under this, they range from a bit over to the 6'5" of Usain Bolt. Of course, there are no world record holders taller than him - If height was such an advantage, the 6'6"+ types would dominate the sport, much like in basketball where 6'8" and taller is common.



This I agree with.



I'd definitely disagree here, that weight is a disadvantage for speed. Sprinting is speed - long distance running is endurance. But most sprinters have a Harnic build somewhere between average and heavy/massive.

I don't see any world class sprinters that are in the "light" or "scant" frame category.

Long distance is a different thing though, it's really pretty simple from a physics outlook. Your body needs oxygen replentished when running. Your lungs can increase in efficiency and capacity, but there is a limit. The larger body mass you have, the more oxygen you need, so small body mass but large developed lungs are key for distance running.

Dwarves having a different physiology are different - their higher endurance may well represent great lung capacity or a smaller oxygen requirement, among other things.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....