Scales for GURPS attributes, talents, skills, etc.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's a very situational thing, isn't it?

I'd say that someone who can convince a lot of people to become his devoted followers (with any combination of Charisma, use of Influence skills or Reputation) has accomplished it.

This will sometimes be a matter of Reaction rolls, but more often something the GM will judge based on the nature of the people involved, the prospective cause, character actions, the positive and negative traits the character has, etc.

Yeah, but then we're no longer talking about Charisma. As noted in the description, Charisma represents ability to impress through the force of personality alone, not through looks or skills or other tricks. It is essentially a passive ability, much like Appearance, but not visual.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm not even sure that IQ 16 would be needed for him. Personally, I think that a much better example of a true polymath is Julius Caesar; politician, soldier, general, writer, statesman, lawyer, historian, priest and much more.

He excelled over all his peers in anything he ever wanted to do.

Yes, I thought of Caesar too.

DaVinci's scope was pretty impressive too; when you get looking at it, it includes much of Caesar's list but without the military and political acheivments.

That's circular logic. By confining yourself to 'notable' Charisma, you're begging the question.

No. Notable to me the observer as distinct from the observed norm. It's not a logical proposition, its an evidentiary proposition -- different critiques may be avaialbe, but there is no fallacy.

My point is that one level of Charisma is much less notable than two, which are again much less notable than three, et cetera. We can probably all name a person who gets away with behaviour others wouldn't because she/he is charming when he/she does it. That doesn't make these people charismatic enough to start religions or command armies by force of personality.

Yes, I understand that, but what proportion of people do you think have Charisma +1?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Yeah, but then we're no longer talking about Charisma. As noted in the description, Charisma represents ability to impress through the force of personality alone, not through looks or skills or other tricks. It is essentially a passive ability, much like Appearance, but not visual.

Charisma combined with Influence skills is pretty much needed for any sort of large scale endeavour. Someone trying to lead based on Charisma alone would be a naive figurehead, not the real power of the organisation.

I think it's exceptionally unrealistic to assume that just because someone is born with a natural talent for something, he wouldn't also learn skills related to it if he spent a significant time on pursuits where such skills would be useful.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Charisma combined with Influence skills is pretty much needed for any sort of large scale endeavour. Someone trying to lead based on Charisma alone would be a naive figurehead, not the real power of the organisation.

I think it's exceptionally unrealistic to assume that just because someone is born with a natural talent for something, he wouldn't also learn skills related to it if he spent a significant time on pursuits where such skills would be useful.

I doubt Joan of Arc was trained in Politics and other related skills.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Yes, I thought of Caesar too.

DaVinci's scope was pretty impressive too; when you get looking at it, it includes much of Caesar's list but without the military and political acheivments.

Military and political achievements are especially impressive because the stakes are so high. And because they depend on abilities that GURPS files under IQ (interpersonal skills, reading people, etc.), but is not usually counted as part of real-world IQ.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

No. Notable to me the observer as distinct from the observed norm. It's not a logical proposition, its an evidentiary proposition -- different critiques may be avaialbe, but there is no fallacy.

When trying to establish notability to an outside observer, it's invalid to limit instances of Charimas to 'notable' Charisma.

'Notable' means something different from 'noticable'. For example, I may think that one of my friends in noticably more charming than another, but that doesn't mean that I think either of them is especially notable for charm.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Yes, I understand that, but what proportion of people do you think have Charisma +1?

About the same proportion as have any one individual Attribute at level 11-12. Certainly more than have any one Attribute at 13+, which is a very exceptional individual.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Only if you believe Attributes of 12 are less remarkable than a single level of Talent. And I don't think that's true or in the spirit of how Talents were intended.

Hmm... I don't have any special insight into the intention behind Talents, but it does seem to me that by dint of being an advantage with some exclusivity, they ought to be seen as more special than attributes as close to the norm as those rated at 12.

As for Charisma, everyone knows someone who's more charming than usual, who finds it easier to attract people of the opposite sex than their looks would suggest, etc. It's not all that remarkable.

Not everyone, certainly. I honestly can't think of anyone that I know like that. I regard Charisma as quite like a Talent, ITR.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Molokh

I doubt Joan of Arc was trained in Politics and other related skills.

I doubt she spent two years leading an army without learning Leadership.

Training in skills isn't the only way to learn them. Using them under stressful conditions is pretty effective.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

'Notable' means something different from 'noticable'. For example, I may think that one of my friends in noticably more charming than another, but that doesn't mean that I think either of them is especially notable for charm.

We're in wikipedia territory, aren't we? ;)

Okay, so what 'notable' really is? As with all arguments, let's start with definitions.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I doubt she spent two years leading an army without learning Leadership.

Training in skills isn't the only way to learn them. Using them under stressful conditions is pretty effective.

Still, she had to start with a default, didn't she?

And I doubt two years are enough to learn all the stuff people learn by attending a military academy and then going into stressful conditions.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

When trying to establish notability to an outside observer, it's invalid to limit instances of Charimas to 'notable' Charisma.

'Notable' means something different from 'noticable'.

If that's the hair you're trying to split, fine -- read 'noticable' for 'notable'.

About the same proportion as have any one individual Attribute at level 11-12. Certainly more than have any one Attribute at 13+, which is a very exceptional individual.

Meaning what, in terms of population though?