An Argument against Stat Normalization

[Andreas]

My main problem with stat normalization is that it doesn't allow for very large ranges of ability. In real life, there are contests for which for which person A will beat person B every time*, who will in turn beat person C every time, and so on for D, E, F, G, H, I.

*As in at least as often as the probability of making a skill 16+ roll.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Andreas

My main problem with stat normalization is that it doesn't allow for very large ranges of ability. In real life, there are contests for which for which person A will beat person B every time*, who will in turn beat person C every time, and so on for D, E, F, G, H, I.

*As in at least as often as the probability of making a skill 16+ roll.

You have to go past 'not stat normalizing' and into 'completely blowing out the scale' if you want to get that out of quick contests.

Regular contests may give a sharper dependency on skill level? Not sure, I'd need to examine the math further.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You have to go past 'not stat normalizing' and into 'completely blowing out the scale' if you want to get that out of quick contests.

Regular contests may give a sharper dependency on skill level? Not sure, I'd need to examine the math further.

Sure, you can't fully represent that just with quick contests either way, but stat normalizing makes the problem more obvious.

Regular contests often have an even lower dependancy on skill level (which is why I don't relly like them).

[D10]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Ultimately it is a game, so whatever's fun for the group is right.
But I still don't like how a high IQ character is automatically a professional at most skills with zero training. That's not at all realistic, so I prefer not to allow it for realistic characters.

Thats something dependant on GM fiat tho. I dont let characters roll defaults on things they have zero training with (for instance, I wouldnt let a high IQ character try to play a saxophone using default IQ if he didnt play it at school or something)

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Ultimately it is a game, so whatever's fun for the group is right.
But I still don't like how a high IQ character is automatically a professional at most skills with zero training. That's not at all realistic, so I prefer not to allow it for realistic characters.

This often comes up in discussions about high attributes, but it strikes me as more of a problem with the default system than with the high attributes themselves. If high defaults is the only problem with high IQ, limit the defaults more.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Kromm

My first thoughts when reading about the crazy rifle shot mentioned upthread were: "Why does this Überschütze not have High Pain Threshold for the pain, Night Vision for the darkness, Targeted Attack for the target, Armoury (Small Arms) to repair the crappy rifle, and Gunslinger (because that's the only kind of character who will be taking such shots)?"

“Because it's not as cost-effective as just dumping all of those points into Guns.”

But see my thoughts about point accounting in general in my signature…

Frankly, I agree with the preference for stats that cap out at a fairly low level all things considered (e.g., 14 for attributes, 20 for skills), with further competence being represented by penalty mitigators that don't makes you “more competent” so much as they let you maintain your peak performance under increasingly severe conditions. It's one reason why I prefer encouraging players to invest heavily in Techniques — which, to the extent that I still use point accounting, would be done by making most Techniques cheaper.

Anyway, could someone please explain what “stat normalization” even is? I feel like I should know; but it isn't readily apparent to me.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But I still don't like how a high IQ character is automatically a professional at most skills with zero training. That's not at all realistic, so I prefer not to allow it for realistic characters.

Which is why I'm a member of the Cult of Stat Depression. Note, not "normalization", but reducing the impact Attributes have on defaults and skills.

[weby]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Pain, visibility, targeting, distance, etc. There are also penalties for equipment quality, position, and stability. For example, a character who suffered Severe Pain (-6), in near darkness (-9), aiming at the vitals of a target (-3), at 100 yards away (-10), with a damaged rifle without sights or scope (-3), hanging upside down (-4), from a swaying branch (-2), would suffer a cumulative -37 to skill to hit their target.

In some campaigns that is expected "harder challenge" type thing.

In my current high power fantasy campaign the challenges scale with "adventures". Those are separate missions to be accomplished within the main storyline.

---
The base difficulties are:
Adventure number-15 for mundane things(meant for everyone to to succeed mostly)
Adventure number-10 for very easy things(not meant as challenge, but not meant for everyone to succeed)
Adventure number-5 for easy things(meant to require a bit of trying)
Adventure number for challenging things(meant to require use of resources/time)
Adventure number+5 for very challenging things(meant to require use of lot of resources/time)
Adventure number+10 for “impossible” things(not meant to succeed likely)
---

The characters are currently in adventure 30, so the -37 is among the tasks that might succeed for the specialist when everything goes right in random skills.

Then there is the occasional "if you combine silly enough bonuses for a skill that is the main focus for one character you might succeed". As example for such we had recently a challenge of history with success by up to 100 giving higher and higher results with the 100 giving all things. The characters succeeded by 102.. But that was because one of the main focuses for one of the character is history, and they spent a lot of resources to both reduce penalties and to give a bonus. Resources being such things as character points, timed powers(like per session or game day/week/month powers), powerful loot that works as reagents and much more.


But in other campaigns a -3 makes things basically impossible.

So what skill and stat levels are expected depend fully on the campaign.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Ultimately it is a game, so whatever's fun for the group is right.
But I still don't like how a high IQ character is automatically a professional at most skills with zero training. That's not at all realistic, so I prefer not to allow it for realistic characters.

There are ways to deal with excessive defaults. You could use my idea where characters suffer additional penalties, up to doubling the base penalty, for every level below the relevant attribute and reduce penalties for every level above the relevant attribute. That way, you give people a reason to buy the skills (Talents would add to relative skill levels rather than base attribute levels or base skill levels under this system).

For example, you have a character with IQ 16 defaulting First Aid at 12. Under controlled circumstances, they would function as someone with skill 12. Under stressful circumstance, like in very poor lighting (normally -4 to skill), they would suffer an additional -4 because of their low relative skill, meaning that they would function at an effective skill of '4' rather than the effective skill of '8'. Conversely, a paramedic with IQ 10 and First Aid at skill 14 would ignore the penalty completely, as their experience has prepared them for such circumstances.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

“Because it's not as cost-effective as just dumping all of those points into Guns.”

Then go right ahead! If all that matters is Guns, and you never plan to benefit from High Pain Threshold or Night Vision except when shooting, will only ever use Armoury for fixing your guns to get rid of penalties, and don't plan to use Gunslinger with Beam Weapons, Gunner, or Liquid Projector, or to take advantage of all the stuff it grants in Gun Fu (access to cinematic abilities, reducing Fast-Draw penalties, etc.) . . . I agree. Why not just raise Guns?

Gunslinger [25], High Pain Threshold [10], Night Vision 9 [9], a quick point in Armoury (Small Arms) [1], and Targeted Attack (Rifle Shot/Vitals) at its maximum [3] add up to 48 points. That's +12 to Guns, and should go a long way toward canceling penalties for you.

Which said, those traits could also halve severe pain from -6 to -3, eliminate the -9 for darkness, take away -2 of the -3 for targeting the vitals, and let you add half rifle Accuracy (round up) without aiming for +3 to negate the -3 for the rifle being in poor shape, which is an effective +17. And they have uses outside of this one.

I'd take the other stuff, not more Guns.