An Argument against Stat Normalization

[Anthony]

In any case, that just makes johnny-one-skill even more viable. The usual problem is characters who have multiple skills but not as broadly skilled as IQ (or DX, depending on the skill set).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by Anthony

In any case, that just makes johnny-one-skill even more viable. The usual problem is characters who have multiple skills but not as broadly skilled as IQ (or DX, depending on the skill set).

You could say related skills help negate the penalty, but don't add to rolls (so it's good to be broadly skilled if you want to do crazy stuff, but if you only want to make a normal check you're only adding the base skill).

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's okay to seek efficiency for a character as long as you realize that has nothing to do with realism. You're doing so to get a more capable character for your points. You're gaming . . . which is 100% acceptable when playing a game!

—

I say all this as someone who's on the record as having run very high-powered campaigns where every PC had high attributes. I'm not against high scores being prevalent among PCs! I'm just against arguments to justify that as "realistic." It isn't . . . it's a game construct.

Even in real life, most people have more complex models of their own capabilities than they have of their friends, and more complex models of their friends than people in general. Most people have a fine-grained sense of their own strengths and weaknesses ("I am good at running but upper-body work tires me out"), and circumstantial factors ("damn, because I did not sleep well I messed up that conversation"), but blame friends' performance on traits ("she works hard, he is always grumpy"), and rely heavily on stereotypes to assess people they don't know.

Game models have to be simple enough for sleep-deprived people who have not finished high school to use for fun.

Like you say, I don't see any reason to expect that GURPS attributes would be normally distributed, or that one standard deviation has insignificant effects. Someone in the top third of the population at ping pong will be known as pretty good in his office league.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Pain, visibility, targeting, distance, etc. There are also penalties for equipment quality, position, and stability. For example, a character who suffered Severe Pain (-6), in near darkness (-9), aiming at the vitals of a target (-3), at 100 yards away (-10), with a damaged rifle without sights or scope (-3), hanging upside down (-4), from a swaying branch (-2), would suffer a cumulative -37 to skill to hit their target.

A character with DX 12 and Guns (Rifle) DX+15 [52]-27 would not have even a chance under the standard rules, as their skill would be -10. With the rules that I suggested though, they would have an effective skill of '5', as their experience would reduce the penalty from -37 to -22, reducing their skill from 27 to 5.

As he's also got Perception -15 to even see the target, assuming the target is right out in the open (+10 for unhidden, in open target, -10 for range, -9 for light, -6 for pain), I have no problem with even Guns-27 being unable to shoot them (especially as in lighting that poor even aiming by simply looking down the barrel won't work). It encourages players to look for ways to reduce the penalties and gain bonuses.

As for what attributes mean, I generally assume that +-1 in an attributes is noticeable after to interact with someone in a way that shows that attribute, or observe them using it for a bit. So after you've met someone and had a talk to them about their job, or something a bit deeper than the weather and sports results, you will notice if they're a bit dull (IQ9), or smart (IQ11). +-2 is immediately obvious, except possibly for HT (though someone with above average HT won't look unhealthy unless they're currently ill) - that guy is obviously big and strong, that woman is clearly pretty smart after even a short conversation, and that kid over there is definitely clumsy as he's tripping over his own two feet all the time.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Rupert

It encourages players to look for ways to reduce the penalties and gain bonuses.

Yep. That's pretty much why p. B172 says, "a true master has a detailed understanding of every aspect of his calling, best represented by stopping at a masterful level (20 to 25) in the 'main' skill and branching out into several 'subsidiary' skills," and, "consider putting some points into advantages that negate skill penalties for adverse conditions," and advises the GM to encourage players to develop their characters laterally.

My first thoughts when reading about the crazy rifle shot mentioned upthread were: "Why does this Überschütze not have High Pain Threshold for the pain, Night Vision for the darkness, Targeted Attack for the target, Armoury (Small Arms) to repair the crappy rifle, and Gunslinger (because that's the only kind of character who will be taking such shots)?"

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I can't imagine any campaign I would run, not even high-end supers, where I would feel that "you can't do that" is an inappropriate answer.

Inversely I can't imagine a campaign, even a gritty uber-realistic low point campaign where I'd say "You can't even try".

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Kromm

My first thoughts when reading about the crazy rifle shot mentioned upthread were: "Why does this Überschütze not have High Pain Threshold for the pain, Night Vision for the darkness, Targeted Attack for the target, Armoury (Small Arms) to repair the crappy rifle, and Gunslinger (because that's the only kind of character who will be taking such shots)?"

Well... all that or Super Luck.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Well... all that or Super Luck.

You still have to get your effective skill up to 3-. Below that Super Luck can only help you avoid a critical failure.

[D10]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Disadvantages are a better way to represent realism than stat normalization.

I think I agree with this more than anything else. Id much rather model a high IQ person and add disads, than model a IQ 12 person and add talents

[Flyndaran]

Ultimately it is a game, so whatever's fun for the group is right.
But I still don't like how a high IQ character is automatically a professional at most skills with zero training. That's not at all realistic, so I prefer not to allow it for realistic characters.