Talent + IQ Maximum levels

[Alonsua]

Hi there!

Today I came up with a new question. Realistically, I am considering any character with an IQ over 15 as unrealistic (one IQ-15 being in a frequency of a few billions people). Moreover, figures like Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci got IQ-14 + Talent 4... Do you think that even that might be unrealistic? I mean, having a character with IQ-15 + Talent 4 already takes applicable untrained skills to 12, 13, 14 and even 15 (expert levels)... that alone seems a bit weird. What are your considerations on this subject? Should I force characters to pick among Talent or IQ up to a maximum level of 15 altogether and allow them to buy Talent benefits alone on top of that?

Thank you very much.

[johndallman]

This is more a question about how you want your game to work than GURPS rules. You can do any of these things, because GURPS is a toolkit for building a game, rather than a game in a can, ready to play.

It's up to you what you consider realistic, but you do need to try to make things consistent. If nobody has a skill at anything above 15, making complex inventions is very hard, and you may need to adjust the skill penalties in the invention rules.

The fact that IQ15 + Talent 4 gives defaults in the range 12-15 for skills within the Talent doesn't bother me at all, because I expect a player to put at least a point into all the skills in any Talent that they take. Learning stuff within a Talent is quite easy for a talented character. This doesn't apply if there are cultural or TL barriers to learning a skill, but those would generally remove the default anyway.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by johndallman

This is more a question about how you want your game to work than GURPS rules. You can do any of these things, because GURPS is a toolkit for building a game, rather than a game in a can, ready to play.

It's up to you what you consider realistic, but you do need to try to make things consistent. If nobody has a skill at anything above 15, making complex inventions is very hard, and you may need to adjust the skill penalties in the invention rules.

The fact that IQ15 + Talent 4 gives defaults in the range 12-15 for skills within the Talent doesn't bother me at all, because I expect a player to put at least a point into all the skills in any Talent that they take. Learning stuff within a Talent is quite easy for a talented character. This doesn't apply if there are cultural or TL barriers to learning a skill, but those would generally remove the default anyway.

As a rule of thumb I assumed the text under Who´s Who which defends that "the best in history" at a particular skill will have it at 20-24, so 24 is the maximum (Techniques can go far beyond up to 30). Since I allow characters to buy their skills up to +5, IQ-15+Talent-4+5-Skill goes up to a perfect maximum of 24... Now I found another problem while checking Joan of Arc, who has Charisma +5 (I consider Charisma a Talent, with 4 being the maximum level, which actually turns to be the same than the maximum available Reputation). What do you think?

Best regards.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

As a rule of thumb I assumed the text under Who´s Who which defends that "the best in history" at a particular skill will have it at 20-24

Please remember that the Who's Who series is for GURPS 3e, when skill costs were different and IQ-based skills were often cheaper.

Now I found another problem while checking Joan of Arc, who has Charisma +5 (I consider Charisma a Talent, with 4 being the maximum level, which actually turns to be the same than the maximum available Reputation). What do you think?

The occasional freak of nature is allowed to bend the rules a bit. And Charisma is quite like a Talent, but deciding that is one is your decision, and you're responsible for its consequences.

[kdtipa]

I agree with johndallman that it's a system you set up the way you want it. If what you're looking for is realism, and you want the limit of 15 on intelligence, that's great. If you're running a cinematic campaign with super geniuses running around, then the limit doesn't make as much sense.

Just to add my own bit, I agree with you that limiting intelligence is a good idea. I do that in my campaigns. But I have an additional reason: I don't like when the character is THAT much smarter than the player. Intelligence 20 would be a person who should change the world with their ideas. Giving that character a challenge in terms of thinking would be near impossible. Giving the player a challenge like solving the a mystery would be easier, and fun for the game. But if they can say "I want to roll against intelligence to figure out what I the player have been missing", it's not as fun.

As for intelligence plus a talent... I have no problem with intelligence 15 plus four points of talent. Talent doesn't represent a general ability to figure everything out, and it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would make the game less fun.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Hi there!

Today I came up with a new question. Realistically, I am considering any character with an IQ over 15 as unrealistic (one IQ-15 being in a frequency of a few billions people). Moreover, figures like Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci got IQ-14 + Talent 4... Do you think that even that might be unrealistic? I mean, having a character with IQ-15 + Talent 4 already takes applicable untrained skills to 12, 13, 14 and even 15 (expert levels)... that alone seems a bit weird. What are your considerations on this subject? Should I force characters to pick among Talent or IQ up to a maximum level of 15 altogether and allow them to buy Talent benefits alone on top of that?

Thank you very much.

You seem to be using "unrealistic" when you mean "improbable." That's a fair use, but note that PCs tend to be inherently improbable. That is, you're designing from the heroic end of the human bell-curve. The average medieval PC, for example, is in the top 1% of wealth in most cases, not the average 50%.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

You seem to be using "unrealistic" when you mean "improbable." That's a fair use, but note that PCs tend to be inherently improbable. That is, you're designing from the heroic end of the human bell-curve. The average medieval PC, for example, is in the top 1% of wealth in most cases, not the average 50%.

Well, I am trying to work with bell-shaped curves and real IQ values. Every IQ point in GURPS terms equal to a 1.3 standard deviation of 16 (Stanford-Binet) from the median (around 100), which goes up to a maximum of Real IQ = 100 + (5*1.3*16) or 204. Reverse engineering this data turns to one 204-IQ person in every 24,900,406,809 (or as few as 406,857,516 if rounding up Real IQ-193.6 to GURPS IQ-15) population. Of course a GURPS 16 (224.8 real IQ) is posible, but it is unlikely, since its probability is one in over 321 trillions people :)

[Phantasm]

I almost always figure folks like Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Mozart, and DaVinci have/had IQ 14-15 + Talent 4, and when designing my settings I use 15 as my realistic cap on DX, IQ, and HT (ST tends to gets capped between 17 and 23, depending on the feel I'm going for).

Please note that there ware ways to discourage high stats even in high-point games. Saying "1,000 point game, no more than 100 points in primary attributes" or any similar cap on the core stats will make people think, "if I drop all my stat points in IQ, am I possibly crippling my character?" Best used in moderation, and YMMV of course.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Well, I am trying to work with bell-shaped curves and real IQ values. Every IQ point in GURPS terms equal to a 1.3 standard deviation of 16 (Stanford-Binet) from the median (around 100), which goes up to a maximum of Real IQ = 100 + (5*1.3*16) or 204. Reverse engineering this data turns to one 204-IQ person in every 24,900,406,809 (or as few as 406,857,516 if rounding up Real IQ-193.6 to GURPS IQ-15) population. Of course a GURPS 16 (224.8 real IQ) is posible, but it is unlikely, since its probability is one in over 321 trillions people :)

I don't see where you get those numbers. They can't come from the probability distribution of 3d; 1.71 (standard deviation of 1d6) x 1.73 (square root of three) = ~2.96, which makes one GURPS point ~5.4 Stanford-Binet IQ points. And I don't think there is anything else in GURPS that even approximates a Gaussian distribution. So I'm not sure what your basis is for the computation.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

... Every IQ point in GURPS terms equal to a 1.3 standard deviation of 16 (Stanford-Binet) ...

Equating the IQ score to the Stanford-Binet scale is a house rule. (I know there are some websites out there that fail to mention this.)