Alternative IQ distribution

[kdtipa]

Here's an example of a talent that covers an intuitive ability to use a group of related skills well. The talent advantage even specifies that it is as though you are raising the base attribute with respect to the skills on the list. So you could say that this talent is a representation of being intuitively better at certain kinds of things. And don't forget that the talent advantage gives you a reaction bonus from people who witness you being talented, and you learn the skills faster because you are just that good at those skills naturally.

Social Talent
15 points per level (normal max level of 4)
The character with this talent is excellent at interacting with people in a variety of ways. They seem to just intuitively know how to read people, be polite or bawdy at the right times, and even to talk people into things using a variety of methods. It's almost like a charisma, but beyond force of personality it is a knack for doing and saying the right things at the right times.

• Acting
• Body Language
• Carousing
• Detect Lies
• Diplomacy
• Fast-Talk
• Fortune-Telling
• Leadership
• Merchant
• Politics
• Psychology
• Public Speaking
• Savoir-Faire
• Sex-Appeal
• Teaching

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Having said that, house rules are fine, too, if you like them. But you risk to unbalance the game, making universal geniuses too expensive, for instance (compared with universal athletes). Lara Croft would become far much cheaper than Sherlock Holmes. Unless you also split DX. And then, why not ST ... And HT?

No.

GURPS still has its 1st edition legacy of focusing on the physical, with 3 primary attributes that are physical and 1 that is non-physical. There is no good reason why 75% of the primary attributes should be physical, and no good reason why "universal geniuses" shouldn't become more expensive relative to characters who need high ST, DX and HT.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

No.

GURPS still has its 1st edition legacy of focusing on the physical, with 3 primary attributes that are physical and 1 that is non-physical. There is no good reason why 75% of the primary attributes should be physical, and no good reason why "universal geniuses" shouldn't become more expensive relative to characters who need high ST, DX and HT.

From an external point of view, it sounds to be right.

But from a skill point of view it is not anymore. Because there are very few skills based on ST or HT.

Lara Croft, DX 18 [160]. Almost every physical skills (acrobatics, climbing, every driving, piloting or weapon skills ...) at level professional or better (12 for the hardest ones, 14 for the easiest ones). She surely has HT 12 as well; maybe even 14. But, compared to DX or IQ, it's quite cheap.

To create her mental twin, a universal genius like Sherlock Holmes, you just have to do the same thing: IQ 18 [160]. Almost every mental skills at level professional or better. Like Lara Croft, Sherlock Holmes surely has a quite high HT ...

Split IQ and you break that balance.

As I said it above, driving is not just physical. Ditto for fighting with a sword. Ditto for doing sports, especially team sports (which require a lot of strategy!). So, despite of its name, GURPS DX is not just physical.

That is why I don't see GURPS basic attributes like three physical and one mental attribute, but more like that:

• The character's external energy: ST.
• The character's general adaptation of his body to the surrounding: DX.
• The character's general adaptation of his mind to the surrounding: IQ.
• The character's internal energy: HT.

Note that it is not "my" vision. I would like to say it is, but it comes from someone else, on a French forum, and I don't remember his name. It's a pity, because it is very bright and allows to see attributes differently. As they really are, instead of as their names sound to show them.

[Mithlas]

Originally Posted by kdtipa

If a person in your system has Logic-IQ 12 and Intuition-IQ 14, you could model it nearly the same way without having to make a super complicated change to the GURPS system.

Let's say this example person wants to learn diplomacy, and in your system that's more intuition based, so they base their skill on the 14. In straight up normal GURPS with the Talent advantage, you could create a Talent that fits the intuitive social interactions, and let them take the advantage at +2. Then with their normal IQ of 12 (most skills based on this), and the talent that roughly equates to being intuitive with certain skills would start from the 14. I'm trying to say that you can already model a difference in "kinds of intelligence" with the RAW.

But what you're presenting is only the minor bonus. Reading back through Talent on Characters p89, I want to point out a couple of important things that I think you might be skimming over (or in your interpretation disregard because you might not think them appropriate):

Originally Posted by Characters p89

Generalists will find it more cost-effective to raise attributes

This would be the case in a 1 or 2-mental attribute model.

Originally Posted by Characters p89

if he would be impressed by your aptitude (GM’s judgment)

A person might be just as impressed at the lifting power of a ST 18 human. I don't think this is necessarily appropriate for Talent as much as simply high ability, which is no different than just buying another level in the attribute.

Originally Posted by Characters p89

You may never have more than four levels of a particular Talent.

This might not come up often, but there are certain people who are exceptional in certain fields (such as the savant. Alan Turing was hailed as a genius of mathematics and mechanics, but also reviled in his time for having terrible handling of people and reading context) or may be damaged in certain fields (as from physical trauma like the 1918 Influenza pandemic is thought to have afflicted on brain tissue). Having more of a divide between one sector of mind and another might be appropriate.

Originally Posted by kdtipa

And one more quick thing: I don't think it makes sense to say the computer operation is strictly logical and diplomacy is strictly intuitive.

And I don't think it makes sense to say that Archery is strictly Dexterity without Strength, or that the same is the handling for Judo or Karate. And yet I don't see people arguing that it's wrong for Running to be Health instead of Strength for bursts of speed (from a physiological standpoint, either could be applied to sprinting).

I understand the point that "GURPS does things this way", but the point of bringing up this thought experiment is to look at the vices and virtues of both camps instead of disregarding either out-of-hand. I do agree that intelligence is not neatly modeled as just "logic" and "intuition", but neither does an overconsolidated "IQ" attribute do so. I study Cognitive Science, and the problem with human intelligence is that the more we delve into it, the more scientists understand we don't know yet.

Originally Posted by Gollum

difference between human intelligence and animal intelligence came from a judo-christian point of view

Um...no it didn't. Reconstructions of Greek and eastern European philosophers indicate that humans thought of themselves as above animals as far back as we can find, and this same sentiment is expressed to varying degrees in carvings on bone in Mongolia well before contact between those cultures was made. Granted, these same cultures looked down on (insert people outside recorder's ethnic group) as being sub-human as well. The idea of humans as being distinct from the world we live in (whether or not spirits are above us or not) goes back for a long time - whether we considered ourselves animals as zoologists might now is something that depends on interpretation.

Originally Posted by Gollum

low IQ and a good DX and Per perfectly work to make intelligent animals. That way, you don't give them high IQ-based skill defaults which would be totally weird.

I definitely agree with you there. Up until we get into Awakened animals, but once we go into fictitious creatures they can go so many different ways it depends on the author, genre, and intended audience.

Originally Posted by Gollum

Split IQ and you break that balance.

You're assuming that there is a balance. A powerful wizard doesn't even need high Health, just high IQ (according to the current 1-mental system). A powerful warrior needs high ST, DX, and HT - the combination more than costing what just IQ does.

Originally Posted by Gollum

• The character's external energy: ST.
• The character's general adaptation of his body to the surrounding: DX.
• The character's general adaptation of his mind to the surrounding: IQ.
• The character's internal energy: HT.

...it is very bright and allows to see attributes differently. As they really are, instead of as their names sound to show them.

But you're re-defining the attributes to do so. Is there margin to do so? Yes, but it's outside what I view as the centrist understanding of those attributes. And as you refer to them "as they really are", I think that necessarily indicates you think that's how they should be. It's a working model, but not necessarily the only one.

In the end, I think there is (and has to be) some overlap between attributes put into practice, but the sense I'm getting (if only from about 2 posters) is that there is something inherently "wrong" with trying to treat intelligence as a complex thing, like pressing children into labor or drinking coffee in the evening.

[simply Nathan]

I don't have any problems at all with dividing intelligence into more Attributes, I just don't think Logic/Knowledge or Intelligence/Wisdom are sufficiently distinct to really get a good grasp on how the division works the way I do with ST/DX/HT.

IQ/Per/Will as separate Attributes would be a good way to go. So would IQ/Will/some word for social intelligence.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

We did send communications in the space tailored to be understandable by non-human intelligence. Not anthropocentric, and yet a communication not even figurable by any terrestrial animal but us.

What definition of intelligence are you using when you state that animals can be intelligent like humans?

It was designed to be understandable by experts in astronomy. The vast majority of humans would fail to understand anything but the pictures of people.
When 99% of your group fails at a task, I'm not so sure we would count as intelligent by that measure.
I never said intelligent like humans. That's my point. Humans are great at human things, but organgs are better at orang things. Assuming that our entire minds are across the board better is anthrocentric hubris.
We kick butt at language and nearly everything else we do well comes from that alone.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Gollum

...[/INDENT]Having said that, GURPS is just a game, not a scientific or philosophical treatise about intelligence. So, in GURPS terms, I consider that a low IQ and a good DX and Per perfectly work to make intelligent animals. That way, you don't give them high IQ-based skill defaults which would be totally weird.

I agree, but for that same reason, would entertain talents for realistic animals that cover a few IQ based skills.

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

We kick butt at language and nearly everything else we do well comes from that alone.

This is a theory without any evidence, at present. Notice that the differences between our brain and apes' are far beyond mere language areas. Moreover, it seems that Neanderthals had a prefrontal cortex similar to ours but much less developed sound organs.

I get your point about humans and animals. Let's figure a parallel: a bat is very good at using a sense we don't have (and we cannot really experience). The same for sharks and so. Ravens can imitate sounds much better than us, and they had a much better hearing time-resolution than us.
Nobody here is stating that human mind is "across the board better". Mind is perception and motion, too, and even the whole emotions dominion is the same for us and many animals.
Yet intelligence is not the general measure of mental capability. It is a very specific attribute of mind. When a person tells that animals are intelligent "their way" as humans, he is taking away any meaning from the word intelligence, making it synonymous of mental capacities in every declination.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

We kick butt at language and nearly everything else we do well comes from that alone.

We are also far beyond other animals when it comes to tool making and (with the exception of some insects) hypersociality.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Mithlas

Um...no it didn't. Reconstructions of Greek and eastern European philosophers indicate that humans thought of themselves as above animals as far back as we can find, and this same sentiment is expressed to varying degrees in carvings on bone in Mongolia well before contact between those cultures was made. Granted, these same cultures looked down on (insert people outside recorder's ethnic group) as being sub-human as well. The idea of humans as being distinct from the world we live in (whether or not spirits are above us or not) goes back for a long time - whether we considered ourselves animals as zoologists might now is something that depends on interpretation.

You're right. My statement was overly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by Mithlas

I definitely agree with you there. Up until we get into Awakened animals, but once we go into fictitious creatures they can go so many different ways it depends on the author, genre, and intended audience.

I don't see any problem with giving fictitious creature a higher IQ. It is a bit like allowing amazing attribute levels to human characters. As soon as we are not in anymore in a realistic world, everything becomes possible. A high IQ but with Personal TL 0 (to prevent them from being able to use and built technology) can make the job, then.

Originally Posted by Mithlas

You're assuming that there is a balance. A powerful wizard doesn't even need high Health, just high IQ (according to the current 1-mental system). A powerful warrior needs high ST, DX, and HT - the combination more than costing what just IQ does.

If the wizard doesn't have enough HT, he won't be able to cast a lot of spells (which requires Fatigue Points) and won't probably live long enough to learn them (wizards heroes are often very old ... in a medieval world).

Think about Gandalf and Merlin, the two most famous fictional wizards. Do they only have a high IQ? No. They are also good at a lot of other things and cross the whole country no matter the weather. On foot if they have to do so. Nothing sound to be able to stop them, even physically.

Originally Posted by Mithlas

But you're re-defining the attributes to do so. Is there margin to do so? Yes, but it's outside what I view as the centrist understanding of those attributes. And as you refer to them "as they really are", I think that necessarily indicates you think that's how they should be. It's a working model, but not necessarily the only one.

I'm not really re-defining attributes. I'm just emphasizing how they are used in GURPS (despite of their name).

• You mainly use ST to dish out damage, lift, carry or throw things ...
• You mainly use HT to resist unconsciousness, illnesses, poisons, death ... and have a lot of Fatigue Points.
• And the two attributes which are important to have high skills are DX (for physical skills) or IQ (for mental skills).

A warrior may want a high ST and high HT too. But without a high DX he will only be able to handle very few weapons. Not to mention that he won't be able to ride, climb, jump, swim ... unless spending most of his character points in skills. So, DX remains the most important attribute, even for warriors.

I don't have Dungeon Fantasy. But I have Monster Hunters 1. It emphasizes what I want to mean.

Commando: ST 13 [30]; DX 16 [120]; IQ 12 [40]; HT 13 [30]. Total: 220 points.
Sage: ST 11 [10]; DX 13 [60]; IQ 16 [120]; HT 12 [20]. Total: 210 points.

If you have Dungeon Fantasy, just compare the warrior template and the wizard template. I'm sure you will notice that the main difference is between DX and IQ.