Single Attribute Dependency: by example of IQ

[fdenzer]

Hi.

So we are running a psionic campaign. During character
creation, I was presented with a minor flaw in mapping real-life
values to the plausability of the intelligence attribute.

Our premise is like this:
Everyone gets 100 cp to spend on a mundane person that
gets supercharged with psi abilities of increasing effect:
after 25 cp on the very first day, I am aiming to get them
to a final pool of 100 points on psi-abilities, -skills or other
non-mundane stigmata for the demi-gods that they will
become.


One character in our campaign represents a doctor.
She has a mix of about 30 mundane or psi skills that should work
based on IQ or in rare cases Willpower.

Since she has not every skill at 16 by now, there is
still room for improvement with more IQ.

When I saw the players new final draft, I saw the player put
Intelligence at a final score of 15.

When I tell someone to make a 100cp concept and IQ is set to 15,
that is all 100 cp (and some disadvantages taken,
or house-ruled to make Per/Will stay low.
Let's say disadvantages as per RAW.
HT would be broken, if RAI were
2cp/level with no basic speed (5cp per .25) or FP (3cp) increase).

So I told the creator to lower that score at least by one.

I did hope for no one to be min-maxing, but having the target to
breath life in a normal person's scores. To exaggerate, taking
IQ 20, no skills, reducing Will and Per back to 10 give you a
sum of 100cp spent, while it would make 80% of the raw medical
and social skill scores identical (familiarity rules withstanding).


While I may try to stop power-gamers from maxing out just
one basic attribute, since it is most point efficient, it is not
fun to make everyone buy up any attributes to insane levels:
the premise was that an everyman or even poor, pitable underdog
got psychic powers and can make a run for a better place in
his or her life in the slums, or may even reach a safer ``Elysium''.

How do I make other mundane point sinks interesting?

Last time the players came up with mundane advantages
like Luck or Empathy my answer was ``oh god, please no'':

That is because they save like a single character creation point
when compared to the Psi-powered version, but I cannot counter
those abilities with

• anti-psi,
• or request them to take Sense of Honour(psionic)
• or an unreliable-modifier

in case that I absolutely must be the buzzkill for a scene.
When to block SCs in regards to unexpected attribute use or
limit the usefulness of their abilities is a different topic.

As a GM, I know my responsibilities for everyone to have stuff
they planned work out the same way or it does not get fun.

But I am speaking about typically imprisonment, or a defensive
use on NSCs who have a speaking role (before they die,
perhaps dependent on the color of their more or less red T-Shirt)
for this kind of debuffs.


How would you suggest to handle this?

To reiterate (perhaps TL;DR) :
Having high attributes allows character to be archetypical
jack-of-all-trades, even when they where build with only a
specific set of skills in mind. I feel like the should not outshine
other members when it comes to improvisation if they happen
to select IQ since they are Psionics, Mages or Sages. But as
hundreds of skills default to IQ, this is what counts in many
unforeseen encounters.

The normal people from this campaign should not have
shooting skill at 22 or be otherwise the best in the world,
with an IQ like Kasparov. The extra-bucket of psi points could
make a schoolgirl fly to the moon on her inline skates, though.




PS
One organizational meta-thought about asking online:
How do you like crossposts to rpg-Q&A at stack exchange?
Does that generate new active users here if I provide a link there?
Or should I refrain from asking a GURPS or language-agnostic
repost there, with or without linking here?

[johndallman]

It is entirely legitimate to set limits on attributes, or other kinds of point expenditure. The usual terminology is "buckets" of points, after an article in Pyramid #3/65 Alternate GURPS III.

You might, for example, set a limit of 80 points spent on attributes, 50 on advantages, and 40 on skills. I intentionally made the sum of these buckets larger than the 100 points you're giving the players, plus any plausible quantity of disadvantages, so that they have freedom to build characters in different ways.

As for rpg.stackexchange.com, you'll get more answers faster here for GURPS questions. I've never seen any etiquette rules about it mentioned here, although there are several people here who also answer questions there.

[fdenzer]

Hi,

Originally Posted by johndallman

It is entirely legitimate to set limits on attributes, or other kinds of point expenditure. The usual terminology is "buckets" of points, after an article in Pyramid #3/65 Alternate GURPS III.
...

Yes, I have that issue of Pyramid and we are using the bucket rules.
With 80 cp in attributes, that is an ``okay all is well'' for IQ 18 if you lower Per and Wil, though?
These disadvantages reasonably refund attribute points, according to page 6 in Sean Dr. Kromm Punch's article of Pyramid #3/65 Alternate GURPS III.


You did give a concise version of the rules proposed there. Concerning the charater creating, those three lines of text were pretty complete.
Having a 100cp character budget with generously-sized slots that need to balance out in sum seems a good idea. My problem is more that it does not feel like a natural character for the low-power, struggling-wealth beginnings of our campaign.

Having that said, a healer with no offensive skills (due to Pacifism) and not-that-many breaking social skills except for looks and (5cp) Empathy should not overpower the campaign,
If, big if, it were not for skill defaults, or even picking up new skills as the campaign goes on. We will find TL9 gear or players will accommodate for the world described by me in more and more respects with more and more in-game skills, which is when intelligent or dexterous people will have the upper hand.

[weby]

In general I tend to force low attributes in my games.

As example in my current really high point fantasy campaign the highest
starting attributes were 12(well ST could go up to 14 for the large races) due to the method of having to pick a race and then maximally +1 attribute raise over it.

Even now at 2900 points the limits on attributes makes the highest primary attribute be 20 including the bonus from an artifact and most other characters having a maximum of 17 including magic items (again not including ST, as one character can shapechange to a fire giant and then have ST 26)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by fdenzer

Yes, I have that issue of Pyramid and we are using the bucket rules.
With 80 cp in attributes, that is an ``okay all is well'' for IQ 18 if you lower Per and Wil, though?
These disadvantages reasonably refund attribute points, according to page 6 in Sean Dr. Kromm Punch's article of Pyramid #3/65 Alternate GURPS III.

For whatever reason it is an unpopular opinion, but having a disadvantage limit does address this issue. Personally I usually see players choosing "fun" disadvantages over reduced attributes.

The other thing is you could use GURPS Psis and require that players use the templates and power packages therein.

[Varyon]

You've got a few options here. First, there's Douglas Cole's By Default (Pyramid #3/30), which greatly reduces the impact of high attributes on defaults. Personally, I feel it works best if you use the By Default rules for determining actual skill defaults, but use normal GURPS rules for determining skill level for skills you've actually invested points in. Your IQ 15 character has a default of 6 (instead of 9) for IQ/H skills, but any such skill that she's actually put [1] in will be at 13.

There's also a brute-force method of "You can't have/start with any attribute (or attributes X, Y, Z) above level N." If nobody can have IQ above 12, you don't need to worry about them getting overly generous defaults. If you do this, I suggest allowing a trait I call Training, which costs [15]/level and must be specialized for DX or IQ. Each level of Training (DX) gives a +1 to all trained (at least [1] invested in it) skills that are normally based on DX. Training (IQ) is similar, but for skills that are normally based on IQ, Per, and Will (an IQ-only version, which might be called Training (!IQ) or similar, might be [10]/level). Training actually counts as further levels of skill, rather than an increased attribute - a character with Training (DX) 2 and Brawling at DX for [1] would get Brawling's damage bonus for having it at DX+2, and if the same character with Guns (Rifle) at DX+2 (DX+4 with Training) needs to float skill to IQ to clear a stoppage, his Training bonus carries over (so he does so at IQ+4). Honestly, simply offering the Training Advantage might help you a good deal, as it doesn't improve defaults - which is your current issue - but gives the character benefits that raising the base attribute doesn't.

Strict enforcement of the Disadvantage Limit can also help, if you count buying attributes back down as counted toward it. If you're building the characters on [100], with a Disadvantage Limit of [-50], a character with IQ 15 [100], Per 10 [-25], and Will 10 [-25] has used up their entire Disadvantage allotment. So, while that might be tempting, many players would rather get interesting Disadvantages, so they'll be far less tempted to go with !IQ or similar.

Offering thematic Talents can also help a great deal - +1 IQ [20] is a lot less tempting when you can get a Talent that gives you +1 to your most-used skills (along with another benefit) for only [5] or [10] (depending on how many skills are in it).

Also, "wild" Luck and similar probably won't be too disruptive unless you tend to seriously railroad your players, and even then it's not too difficult to prevent it from coming into play. What do you fear will happen if you can't use its power source to shut it down?

[mikeejimbo]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

For whatever reason it is an unpopular opinion, but having a disadvantage limit does address this issue. Personally I usually see players choosing "fun" disadvantages over reduced attributes.

I was going to mention this. My group is currently doing a campaign where we debated about the Disadvantage limit for a bit, and I finally said "What if reduced attributes didn't count against the Disadvantage limit?" and everyone else said "I thought we were always playing with that house rule." I showed how that could be broken and one guy said "You're the only one with enough system mastery to break builds like that, and you don't". (He once also mentioned that if given 100 points for an ability, I'd probably make one that pets every bunny.)*

So basically what others have said - you are allowed to set limits to attributes, either flat per attribute or total sum spent in positive purchases.

*Incidentally, it's based off TK with Area Effect and an Accessibility: Only for petting bunnies.

[fdenzer]

@Varyon, to quote you, with a fixed reference:

Originally Posted by Varyon

You've got a few options here. First, there's Douglas Cole's [By Default (Pyramid #3/65 Alternate GURPS III), page 30], which greatly reduces the impact of high attributes on defaults. Personally, I feel it works best if you use the By Default rules for determining actual skill defaults, but use normal GURPS rules for determining skill level for skills you've actually invested points in. Your IQ 15 character has a default of 6 (instead of 9) for IQ/H skills, but any such skill that she's actually put [1] in will be at 13.

...

Also, "wild" Luck and similar probably won't be too disruptive unless you tend to seriously railroad your players, and even then it's not too difficult to prevent it from coming into play. What do you fear will happen if you can't use its power source to shut it down?

By default seems to be the way to go, especially since we never used familiarities on defaults but on technical skills when appropriate. That used to give defaults the upper hand
in case you tried the TL-2 dragon boat you are unfamiliar with on IQ instead of Seamanship/TL8.


@sir_pudding, Varyoin, and mikeejimbo:
I put Disadvantage limits into place to make actually playable characters: if they feel underwhelming because they are too conflicted to properly do adventurous tasks I blame the (summatively) crippling disadvantages on the sheet.
Optimizing (borderline powergaming) on attributes und picking quirks for flavor gives you most freedom of choice and less chores to remember your disadvantages and (role-)play them out. Therefore we had zero disadvantages on some player characters for multiple, year-spanning campaigns when we had disadvantage limits.



Since there are lots of food and (off-topic) discussion at our game table, Luck is like ``reroll a roll every combat turn or dialoge'', so getting at least 15cp-Luck is a staple for its bang-for-a-buck. Not a problem, but as you said, only packages from GURPS Psis that fit thematically should get it to stay with their theme.
Empathy(Sensitive) seemed severly broken when compared to telepathic readings, which my NSCs are sometimes prepared to counter.

That was discussed in regards to GURPS Social Engineering elsewhere. Like having the Sith Lord having the most shrouded mind in the Universe just to be read by Sensitive people is not fun. House-ruling that a mundane Mind Block works against it at minus two (RAW ``to hide feelings [...] against psi or magic'', no mention in Empathy's description that legal defenses exist), if the defender is warned to start in time, caused my gamers to be furious at me for bending the rules. Different discussion, though. Wasn't even the big bad, bug Professor X from X-Men, who should be their ally, but should be able to reasonably defend his mind from being read. If a skill existed that countered obscure mundane things. Except for luck countering luck, or Affliction(negated Advantage), which is too specific.

[fdenzer]

Originally Posted by mikeejimbo

I was going to mention this. My group is currently doing a campaign where we debated about the Disadvantage limit for a bit, and I finally said "What if reduced attributes didn't count against the Disadvantage limit?" and everyone else said "I thought we were always playing with that house rule." I showed how that could be broken and one guy said "You're the only one with enough system mastery to break builds like that, and you don't". (He once also mentioned that if given 100 points for an ability, I'd probably make one that pets every bunny.)*

So basically what others have said - you are allowed to set limits to attributes, either flat per attribute or total sum spent in positive purchases.

*Incidentally, it's based off TK with Area Effect and an Accessibility: Only for petting bunnies.

So, whats a good limit for attributes?

While I feel that a professor or chess player may qualify for
IQ at 13, or a bodybuilder or bouncer should have ST 15,
how do I prevent a 15/13/13/15 spread for the
little-more-than-average John Doe?

Since my players optimize skills first, then pick
disadvantages to make someone pay for that, or skip that
step if their disadvantage limit is reached with negative attribute
picks, should 13/12/12/12, with secondaries at ±2, be the default?
If they want, they can take unusual backgrounds to get to 17, respective 14.
But, big but, if I want to push skills I would take advantages that emulate
attributes or raise skill levels. Talents or High/Acute/Improved X gives you
either semi-overlapping skill boosts, or in some regard a score raise to
attribute X.

Powergaming for rabbit petting isn't that much of an issue, though.
While a cat barely survived the first encounter with our partys
confused lead singer, no bunnies or rats where spared by the local
population so far.

I do know that gaming in a competitive GM vs. player style is more
about game table co-operation, or lack thereof. Yet no one wants
to have a character that fails every skill roll. So I approve of
getting those lousy evermann-target-scores from 9 or 10 up to at
least 12. But as this one character is defined as the healer with nothing
more in the chest, I did get into this minor inconvenience as
my autocratic ``no you don't get that'' GMing style should help the
character sheets fit with the campaign style, while keeping these
rules the same for all players.

[mikeejimbo]

Originally Posted by fdenzer

So, whats a good limit for attributes?

While I feel that a professor or chess player may qualify for
IQ at 13, or a bodybuilder or bouncer should have ST 15,
how do I prevent a 15/13/13/15 spread for the
little-more-than-average John Doe?

Limiting DX and IQ to 13 might be fair. Also, taking a note from the buckets of points, imposing something like "no more than 80 points in attributes" would help. 13/12/12/12 is probably not *too* bad, but I'd rather spend a lot of those 130 points differently. (Though my group frequently plays games with a 100-150 point cap.)