Attribute levels and their meanings.

[hal]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Which is cherry-picking one phrase from a gigantic pile of material. I mentioned the counter-example which disproves that penalties in general are all capped at -10: fright checks. Otherwise why would the table go up to 40? So now we're just arguing about skill checks specifically, and it seems ridiculous to cap penalties at -10 when one is discussing ridiculous skill levels. (For anything approaching realism, sure, I'm with you.) But Supers and over-the-top stuff like Monster Hunters comes to mind. Firing a bazooka two-handed while driving with your knees through a blizzard would seem to fit the theme there. And, frankly, I think that the penalties would stack worse than -10.

Not to mention that UMs are kind of condescending. It gets interpreted as "Gee, you missed something so obvious that I'm actually embarrassed for you, you moron". Communicating via interwebs is difficult that way, so I advise avoiding writing styles like that. Try "Well," or just "IIRC" instead.

I'm not going to comment on the UM paragraph above beyond "that you read into it something I didn't have on my mind is on you, not me". It is not a "Gotcha" moment - as that rule has been in existence since before GURPS 4e was even published. If someone is unaware of the rule, having someone else point it out is not an attempt to embarrass them or create a gotcha moment. <shrug>

As for the Fright Check modifiers? Um, In light of your comments above, I will try to say this in a manner that is an attempt to avoid the "gotcha" mindset. It is however, and attempt to point out why your comment may not be entirely accurate when it comes to Fight Check Modifiers AND the rules for Skill modifiers...

1. Fright Check modifiers are used to lower the probability of successfully making a Will saving roll, which is itself, an attribute, not a skill.
2. Will saving rolls have a cap on them, that any roll in excess of 13 regardless of actual value, is deemed to be a failure
3. The purpose of a Will penalty in Fright Checks, is not only to determine the success/failure possibility for the roll on 3d6, but is also used as a modifier in subsequent rolls in the event of a failure. As such, those modifers are not SIMPLE modifiers - but instead, are dual purpose modifiers

So, to me, they aren't the same mechanic, and should not be lumped together with Skill modifiers or a debate regarding them. They are two separate things. Just as the table for modifying skills doesn't really apply to the SPEED/RANGE table, and the -10 limit not apply to ranged combat rules. Heck, even GURPS 3e differenced the range/speed penalty modifiers for "to hit" from the Range/Speed/Size tables for sensor rules, and ruled that any sensor roll at -10 or worse is impossible.

That GURPS has a body of work that spans over 30 years means that some of the material will be overlooked, forgotten, or be superceded from time to time.

Take what you will of this comment, but please, do not take it as a slam against you. Expect a private message shortly...

Interrupted train of thought: What I meant to say was that the Speed/Range table doesn't get applied to fright checks, and you can't modify fright checks with taking extra time to deal with the issue, etc. The Fright check modifiers are UNIQUE to fright checks and do not use the skill modifiers. As for Monster Hunters - that's a genre of its own, not applicable to say, OLD WEST, or other such genres. It isn't applicable necessarily to any of the 150 point character campaigns that might be applicable, although it might apply to characters with over 10 adventures where the GM allows them to put points into skills reaching excessively high levels. And as you point out, it only MAYBE applies in campaigns with high skill values, but note too, that the rule in the BASIC book pre-empts whether or not a character has a skill at 16, skill at 20, or even skill at 30 IF the GM so determines.

[hal]

Originally Posted by weby

But it is fully realistic that you may come upon door with fine lock (-5 to pick HT p 203), have only improvised tools(-5) and be forced to work by touch(-5).

Those are fully realistic things. Of course the GM can just say "you cannot do that" and move on. But the fact is that even with realistic things there are situations where the sum of the negative modifiers can get really high.

Ok, some definitions here...

Cinematic campaigns by their very definition, defy realism, but attempt to remain true to "Cinematic reality depicted in movies". No one would argue that in Fast and Furious - they take some SERIOUS liberties with reality - to the point of having the main character land on an oncoming vehicle approaching at 50+ miles per hour from one direction, and his flying through the air in the opposite direction at some 50+ mph - and having the love of his life land on his belly/chest with NO injuries (nor he himself sustaining any) as being anywhere NEAR realistic. What is worse, that same movie has other characters dying from a fall from less than 50 feet of an ascending plane going at less than 100 mph.

So, all that behind us, with the understanding that we're talking ONLY about realistic campaigns, my question is...

Are we taking into account ALL Of the possible modifiers involved here, or only the negative ones? Remember, the -10 penalty is strictly for the final result, not the overall issues inherent to the situation.

To wit:

Lockpicking requires a time duration per attempt of 1 minute. Taking 30 x longer at the task grants a +5 bonus. In addition, High Manual Dexterity as an advantage, even at its lowest level, is worth a further +1 bonus.

Thus, a thief with a skill 18 in lockpicking, attempting to pick that fine lock, in full darkness, taking half an hour at the task, with fine manual dexterity, rolls at a penalty of -9, not -15 as stated above.

We're no longer dealing with the full -10 penalty are we?

Mind you, if you were a GM at the table I was playing, and you said "Sure, you can roll against your skill of 18 with a -15 penalty, go for it!" I'd roll knowing that I was unlikely to succeed with only 60 seconds into it. If I had a 20 skill, with a -15, same story. A 30 skill? Hmmm. Right there, I'd be thinking "Is this a cinematic campaign, or a realistic campaign" on a private level, and just play at the table to keep the story flowing. Who am I to argue the point during the game?

For now, it may seem that I'm arguing both sides of the argument, but what I'm really saying is this: When someone says that the max penalty to a skill is set to 10, is that person really saying that the max usable penalty for a given skill is set to -10 and can even be attempted because it is too impossible? Ask that person instead. I can't put words in THEIR mouth other than to tell another "Hey, their position is not without merit".

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by hal

"Impossible. No sane person would attempt such a task. The GM may wish to forbid such attempts altogether. Example: A Driving roll to steer a car with the
knees while firing a bazooka twohanded during a chase through a blizzard.”

How many of us have not seen someone steering a car with their knees while eating an Egg McMuffin and talking on their cell phone in rush hour traffic? Horrendously dangerous, but it’s a real life thing that people do (successfully and unsuccessfully).

[hal]

Originally Posted by Culture20

How many of us have not seen someone steering a car with their knees while eating an Egg McMuffin and talking on their cell phone in rush hour traffic? Horrendously dangerous, but it’s a real life thing that people do (successfully and unsuccessfully).

On a relatively straight stretch of road in which braking or swerving is not anticipated? I've seen a few of those - but never one in which the driver is approaching an S turn or perhaps heading towards stopped or slowing traffic. Rush hour traffic where someone can cut you off unexpectedly is also a set of circumstances I've never seen anyone driving no handed, but then again, I'm paying more attention to my driving and watching out for their potential bad driving (back in my day, it was called defensive driving)

;)

So no, I would not expect to see someone driving no handed down a road during a blizzard, trying to fire a bazooka at an enemy at the same time.

[AlexanderHowl]

The problem with the bozooka analogy is that it ignores each circumstance is a separate modifier. Driving in a blizzard should be a -10 penalty (partial blindness combined with icy roads and severe winds), driving hands-free should be a -6 penalty, and driving while aiming a bozooka should be a -4 penalty, so the total penalty for that stunt should be -20, not a relatively easy -10 (a normal person with skill 14 might actually succeed on a -10 penalty, so it is not an impossible task for a normal person, just a quite difficult task).

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by hal

I'm not going to comment on the UM paragraph above beyond "that you read into it something I didn't have on my mind is on you, not me". It is not a "Gotcha" moment - as that rule has been in existence since before GURPS 4e was even published. If someone is unaware of the rule, having someone else point it out is not an attempt to embarrass them or create a gotcha moment. <shrug>

Whoa, there, Tex. I didn't read much of anything into it, so I'd say that nothing is on me at all. What were you reading into what I said? :) More seriously, though- honestly, that was just a reminder about how easy it can be for people to misinterpret little noises like "um" or "er" when we lack tonal and body language cues, and that it's a bad idea to write as we would speak for that reason. I hope that a re-reading of what I posted convinces you of that. (And yes people do go back and forth with the "you should have a thicker skin" vs "you should not write like a tactless ass" argument all day.) Ultimately yes it would be nice if everyone gave everyone else a bit of benefit of the doubt, but the truth is that such things will get misinterpreted eventually, so it behooves anyone who wants to keep the conversation civil to just break a few poor communications habits. I personally do believe in civil discourse (not that I haven't ben dragged into the gutter on occasion) and disdain forums that produce flamewars ad nauseam, so I certainly have learned to avoid such rhetorical devices for exactly that reason and I know that mods here have gently nudged other people on the issue as well. Heck, I have learned (the hard way) that even that smilie I put above can be misinterpreted! (For the record, that was meant as a friendly jibe.)
But as I said in response to your PM, I should have PMed that to you to begin with, so mea culpa, I ended up causing a miscommunication instead of heading one off. I also owed you a public response, if only to clarify what I was saying and that I wasn't making an accusation of some sort.

Frankly, having to write a detailed manifesto like that every time I try to make what I think is a simple and civil point does get tiring. So I do feel you, there. But regarding:

Originally Posted by hal

If someone is unaware of the rule, having someone else point it out is not an attempt to embarrass them or create a gotcha moment.

Just as a quibble, I would have to say that I disagree. Tone matters, not just raw informational content. (Especially when, as is the case here, reasonable people are disagreeing on whether a rule actually exists- see below.)

EDITED to remove something pointless, here.

But back on subject- yes, I'm aware that there is a lot of legacy and conflicting material. So, you can't really point to any one as an absolute refutation of another, right? Heck, if we're arguing legacy errata the ST/damage table should have been changed with the new edition and Kromm has tacitly acknowledged that. What I was saying- and this is going out on a limb for me as a simulationist who dislikes cinematic gaming- is that in those over the top cinematic games that fiat saying "your penalty adds up to -10, so you fail automatically despite having a skill of 32" simply does not fit the genre!
Also that guidelines are, well, guidelines, and that I had interpreted the table you referred to (about -10 for the blizzard/driving/bazooka) as a very rough introduction to how to rate task difficulty for uncertain GMs rather than a limitation on how bad a penalty can be in every possible setting.

Of course, now that it has been clarified that we're discussing realistic campaigns that's all sort of moot. But even then, so long as a penalty to a skill check results in at least a target of 3 then I personally have no problem letting a player roll if they want to do so, even if it was more than a -10 penalty. And good luck to them! Again, "The GM may wish to disallow..." That is a direct quote- there is no actual prohibition there. No where can I find a statement to the effect that "skill penalties cannot go worse than -10, because such tasks are simply impossible." And, yes, it may exist but I just have not found it. If so, let me know. It's not like I'm doing some sort of detailed definitive search of Holy Writ, here.

And as has been pointed out the example given was a poor one, anyway. That would be a much higher penalty.

Originally Posted by Alonsua

I meant to treat only realistic stuff in this thread.

Well, then there is certainly a point to be made that no realistic human could pilot a helicopter through a Cat 5 hurricane, unless they could fly over the weather system, but I don't think that any helicopters can do that- I would have to research it. That would be kind of like the "you die, no save" answer to how much damage you take when you fall into lava. :)

That's not really a single-roll type of task, anyway. It's more like how you have to roll often when you're driving or running in very bad conditions. I would probably model that as "roll against piloting at -10 every minute". Or even better "roll against piloting at -1, then at -2 a minute later, and -3 a minute after that..." and so on, increasing the penalty every minute as the helicopter goes deeper into the storm to at least hint to the player that s/he is engaged in a Very Bad Idea.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The problem with the bozooka analogy is that it ignores each circumstance is a separate modifier. Driving in a blizzard should be a -10 penalty (partial blindness combined with icy roads and severe winds), driving hands-free should be a -6 penalty, and driving while aiming a bozooka should be a -4 penalty, so the total penalty for that stunt should be -20, not a relatively easy -10 (a normal person with skill 14 might actually succeed on a -10 penalty, so it is not an impossible task for a normal person, just a quite difficult task).

That may be a little aggressive. Driving in a blizzard isn't a "near impossible" task, I've done it a couple of times myself. Yes, I slowed down and paid extra attention, but driving full speed in a blizzard doesn't result in a wreck 98% of the time. (Just a high number). -6 for hands free sounds a little excessive as well. The hard part is probably the multitasking between aiming the bazooka, which requires focusing in on a target, and the driving, which requires situational awareness.

[AlexanderHowl]

Driving a car hand's free should be like driving a car with No Fine Manipulators, since you would be driving with your knees.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by acrosome

It has often been said regarding skills, that a level of 12 implies that one can make a living using that skill, for whatever that's worth. So a professional carpenter should have Carpentry-12, etc.

The exception is that skills which are routinely performed under stressful conditions, or where there is no margin for failure, should be at level 15, while level 12 indicates someone who assists under such conditions, or who has limited training.

Example:

Nurse: Diagnosis-12, Pharmacy-12, Physician-12, First Aid-12.
Doctor: Diagnosis-15, Pharmacy-15, Physician-15, First Aid-12 (unless you're an ER doc or nurse, then it goes to 15).

Originally Posted by acrosome

Also (and this will get me screamed at nowadays) a rule of thumb from way back in The Day was to think of IQ as IQx10.

This is still a pretty good rule of thumb, although you might change it to "order of magnitude" for IQ. e.g., IQ 11 = top 10% of population, IQ 12 = top 1%, IQ 13 = top 0.1%, etc. That gets you IQ 20 as top human IQ, with 1.0% x 10^-10 of the population. The curve isn't perfect, but I try to top out even my most intellectually impressive realistic or "semi-realistic" characters at IQ 15.

With Quad ST, ST ranges for humans get heavily compressed. ST 14 should be about the human maximum, with levels of Lifting ST and Lifting skill used to model weightlifting feats.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Culture20

How many of us have not seen someone steering a car with their knees while eating an Egg McMuffin and talking on their cell phone in rush hour traffic? Horrendously dangerous, but it’s a real life thing that people do (successfully and unsuccessfully).

If there's a Hands Free Riding technique for Riding skill, why not a Hard (possibly Cinematic) technique for Driving skill?

Hands-Free Vehicle Control
Hard
Defaults to Default Skill-5
Cannot Exceed Default Skill-2

You can briefly control a vehicle with your legs, elbows, and/or some other body part, allowing you to use your hands for some other task. Under routine conditions, where you're traveling along a more or less straight and level course, roll vs. this technique once per minute to retain control of your vehicle. In more demanding conditions, roll vs. this technique every second!

Likewise, how about a Perk which lets you reduce skill penalties for driving in difficult conditions, but only to avoid a crash or similar problems? It would be a bit like the Surefooted Perk.

Bad Weather Vehicle Control
Must Specialize
1 point per level

You have experience controlling your vehicle in difficult climatic conditions, such as high winds, mud, rain, and snow. For Each level of this perk reduces skill penalties due to adverse conditions by one level, down to a minimum of half the normal penalty.