"Anthropomorphic Levels" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the SF Discussion Message Board
Action Log
14 Mar 2018 5:02 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
- Crossposted to SF Discussion board
Areas of InterestScience Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleA few basic techniques are enough to paint the Institute Scientist.
Featured Profile ArticleCan the door to Gothic Hell be closed?
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
etotheipi | 30 Aug 2017 10:07 a.m. PST |
How "human" do you like your anthropomorphic wargaming figures (or book/move a'morphed characters, if you don't game them)? 1 – They look and behave like animals and just talk and think like humans. (Wind in the Willows) 5 – They stand upright and behave (carry objects) like people as well as talky and thinky bits. (Redwall) 10 – Basically humans with animal heads, (tails, wings,) feet, and hide. I like all the options (and some in-betweens like "Frog and Toad" are probably a 2-3 on that scale), but my fave of faves is 5. Redwall meeses rule!
On the game mechanics side, I think it is essential to have "animal character". Either rules on behaviour or bonuses for making an in character decision that may not be tactically optimal. |
ZULUPAUL | 30 Aug 2017 10:18 a.m. PST |
|
Dwindling Gravitas | 30 Aug 2017 12:14 p.m. PST |
Ears & tails … possibly whiskers and nose … Oh, sharp teeth! Defo sharp teeth! Nekomimi FTW! :-) …I knew living in Japan so long would taint me ,-) |
Flashman14 | 30 Aug 2017 12:23 p.m. PST |
I guess All of the Above is the same as No Preference. |
Parzival | 30 Aug 2017 3:43 p.m. PST |
You are incorrect in assigning your first description to The Wind in the Willows. The animals in The Wind in the Willows behave essentially as humans, wearing clothes, carrying things, living in furnished homes, even appearing in human courts for joyriding in human automobiles ("Putt-putt!"). Instead, your 1 setting applies to Watership Down, in which the characters are indeed rabbits in every respect, save for having near human-level intellect and the ability to communicate with each other in elaborate language; oh, and the tendency to create human-style cultures and governmental systems. (Great book, in any case.) I really don't see how 5 and 10 are really any different. Maybe 10 should be "evolved/artificially enhanced intelligent descendants of animals" as Niven's Dolphins of space, Kzinti, Traveller's Aslan and Vargr (and other aliens), and even Rocket Raccoon. I think for gaming, I'm more of the latter two. "Real" animals having an intelligent battle just really holds no interest for me. By the way, I'm not really certain there is a scale here. At most you have three choices, with an "All of the Above," and the "No interest" choice, of course. |
Dwindling Gravitas | 30 Aug 2017 5:55 p.m. PST |
How about an 'Animal Farm' scenario as per Fables? |
Dust Warrior | 30 Aug 2017 6:17 p.m. PST |
|
The Beast Rampant | 30 Aug 2017 10:04 p.m. PST |
I'd say 5. And I don't think the rabbits in WD behave all that different than 'real' rabbits. Addams seems to go out of his way to keep them from just seeming like talking cartoon bunnies. BoJack Horseman – 10. New season in a manner of days! |
|