Scales for GURPS attributes, talents, skills, etc.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

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.

Here Kromm how Talents can be subsets of Attributes. Here he says that probably every member of certain elite professions should be portrayed with Talents. Same here. Here he talks about plenty of people being born with such aptitudes.

And here's a discussion about how Talents were supposed to replace high Attributes to a degree.

At least the feeling I get is that Talents are supposed to be a narrow competence at a certain field, which is less remarkable in many ways than a broad competence at nearly everything mental or physical (high IQ or DX).

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

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

And don't you know lots of people with Talents?

I know plenty of people who may not be smart, but are naturally good at something. Of course, IQ 10 and a single level of Talent may not be all that remarkable compared to an IQ 12 person, but it's still a Talent.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Molokh

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

Sure. But that would mean she'd also have to lean heavily on those who actually had such skills.

Originally Posted by Molokh

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.

Two years of war is an awful lot. It's more than most high ranking generals today have seen.

But let's also keep in mind that the stuff people learn during years of instruction at a military academy isn't a point or two in the Leadership skill. They learn a complete style consisting of Administration, Expert Skill (Military Science), History (Military History of Service), Intelligence Analysis, Leadership, Public Speaking, Strategy, Tactics and many other skills.

[vicky_molokh]

Besides, some people (mostly out of laziness) don't bother to learn those skills, instead relying on 'gifts from above', taking it for granted.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Besides, some people (mostly out of laziness) don't bother to learn those skills, instead relying on 'gifts from above', taking it for granted.

Then those people don't make successful leaders and don't manage to lead armies or start religions.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Icelander

At least the feeling I get is that Talents are supposed to be a narrow competence at a certain field, which is less remarkable in many ways than a broad competence at nearly everything mental or physical (high IQ or DX).

Thanks for the links. I don't see any stronger evidence than than Kromm's apparent support for a position near yours (one which I notice Hans seems to be arguing against). The last link, in particular, seems to favor my supposition that Talents are, as specializations, more 'special' than the attributes they bolster.

And don't you know lots of people with Talents?

Actually, no. I'm of the opinion that Talents don't necessarily model anything in TRW... that what appear to be Talents are likely to be just natural focusing on a narrow set of skills.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Thanks for the links. I don't see any stronger evidence than than Kromm's apparent support for a position near yours (one which I notice Hans seems to be arguing against).

Given that Kromm is one of the two authors who introduced Talents, I think his view has to have some merit when discussing the writers' intentions with them.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

The last link, in particular, seems to favor my supposition that Talents are, as specializations, more 'special' than the attributes they bolster.

Specialisation is less remarkable to me than broad competence. Specialisation is the foundation of our culture, after all.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Actually, no. I'm of the opinion that Talents don't necessarily model anything in TRW... that what appear to be Talents are likely to be just natural focusing on a narrow set of skills.

Naturally, if you've already decided that Talents don't exist in the real world, you're likely to consider them notable. ;)

But given that real people don't have such a broad ability as GURPS IQ, but instead differing competences at areas such as linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, logical intelligence, etc. it would seem reasonable to me that Talents were the mechanism one would use to model that in GURPS terms.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Naturally, if you've already decided that Talents don't exist in the real world, you're likely to consider them notable. ;)

But given that real people don't have such a broad ability as GURPS IQ, but instead differing competences at areas such as linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, logical intelligence, etc. it would seem reasonable to me that Talents were the mechanism one would use to model that in GURPS terms.

I'll happily concede that my opinion may be biasing my judgment in this case :) I'll just point out that observable differences in RW skill levels doesn't necessarily imply the existence of Talents. The focusing on skill sets I mentioned would seem to be a more reasonable explanation, by Ockham's razor.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I'll happily concede that my opinion may be biasing my judgment in this case :) I'll just point out that observable differences in RW skill levels doesn't necessarily imply the existence of Talents. The focusing on skill sets I mentioned would seem to be a more reasonable explanation, by Ockham's razor.

Only if real people never displayed a measurable difference in their ability to learn new skills.

It's entirely possible for one person to be much quicker to learn certain skills which rely on one facet of intelligence than another person who is nevertheless better at learning something else.

Some people take naturally to mathematical pursuits, while finding other types of learning very difficult, and so on.

I think that variation of this sort is very common and hence not all that notable. I'd venture to guess that something very close to the majority of people are noticably better at one thing than they are at other things, whether or not they've practised it a lot.

Whether it's a relatively dull person with IQ 9 and a Talent for the arts or a genius with IQ 13 and a couple of levels of Mathematical Ability, I see people with Talent as being pretty much everywhere.

Of course, when the person isn't all that exceptional, the Talent may not be obvious (such as someone with IQ 9 and one level of Arts Talent), since their comptence may still be inferior to a reasonably bright person without a Talent.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

At least the feeling I get is that Talents are supposed to be a narrow competence at a certain field, which is less remarkable in many ways than a broad competence at nearly everything mental or physical (high IQ or DX).

That analysis overlooks the Reaction bonus attached to Talents. They are more than just an attribute boost -- they are an attribute boost that people notice.

...And don't you know lots of people with Talents?

That depends on what you mean by 'lots', the same as it did when you made a similar explanation for charisma. What do you mean by it? What proportion of people do your refer to for charisma and talents?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

That analysis overlooks the Reaction bonus attached to Talents. They are more than just an attribute boost -- they are an attribute boost that people notice.

The Reaction bonus is a little strange, yes, but even so, a +1 Reaction bonus isn't necessarily a huge deal. Not to mention that it usually doesn't apply to everyone or anything near it.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

That depends on what you mean by 'lots', the same as it did when you made a similar explanation for charisma. What do you mean by it? What proportion of people do your refer to for charisma and talents?

Again, about the same as people with 11-12 in Attributes.

I have no idea what proportion of people that is, however, as I'm sure the world is full of mediocre people that I don't know. I just generally try to avoid them as much as possible.