Empathy with low IQ

[Thamior]

A PhD is more a matter of persistence in a field.

Yeah, yeah, bad example. You know what I meant though.

At the 5 point level it functions more like a talent and notes that it's not entirely reliable. If you want to have moderate or low IQ with a higher success number, why isn't either Reliable or Talent your solution?

Because:
1) Why should I use something that's not in the basic rules to fix something that is in there? I'd rather use something that IS in the basic rules: the principles of success and failure and clearly stated "if you don't like the rule, change it".
2) Talent has to do with a Power, which "is an exotic or supernatural gift that you can direct in different ways to produce a number of related effects". You could say "but you can emulate it this way". And I think it's too much busywork for something that should be simple.
3) Reliable has 3 eyes+ rating which is somewhere between "May cause significant problems all on its own" and "May break the game!". That's reassuring!

A talent for 3ish skills costs 5/lvl. Sensitive costs 5 points for a +1 to 5 skills. That doesn't seem like a disadvantage.

6 skills, and a bonus to reaction rolls, and a faster learning. All for 5 points. For Sensitive skill bonuses I would give 2 points. And that would be generous.

The GM saying "he's pompus and selfish" doesn't mean that he lacks those traits or even that he has those traits. It may be a false impression based on a certain reaction or just something said at that moment.

It's not sensitive, it's baseline. Anyone can react like that. What is the difference between IQ 10 person that has this advantage and IQ 10 person that doesn't disregarding skill bonuses? "An “advantage” is a useful trait that gives you a mental, physical, or social “edge” over someone else who otherwise has the same abilities as you." You are worse for having this "advantage". No other advantage in Basic Set behaves like that.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Thamior

Because:
1) Why should I use something that's not in the basic rules to fix something that is in there? I'd rather use something that IS in the basic rules: the principles of success and failure and clearly stated "if you don't like the rule, change it".
2) Talent has to do with a Power, which "is an exotic or supernatural gift that you can direct in different ways to produce a number of related effects". You could say "but you can emulate it this way". And I think it's too much busywork for something that should be simple.
3) Reliable has 3 eyes+ rating which is somewhere between "May cause significant problems all on its own" and "May break the game!". That's reassuring!

1) Talents are introduced on B89. Reliable was generalized in Powers, but existed for select abilities in the Basic Set so it wasn't exactly a new concept.

2) See 1. Talents didn't start as supernatural or exotic. They were just aptitudes to add to your attributes so you could build characters that are good at something specific. Someone with a intuitive gift to understand others, but is average (IQ) in other ways certainly fits that bill.

3) What do you mean by 3 eyes+ ? I haven't see that rating system.

Changing stuff is fine, but like I said above, I don't see the need. The description isn't misleading. The effect isn't underwhelming. You can do some genius level "I just know you" stuff with it. Even taken with the the other traits you need to really exploit it, the overall cost is very reasonable.

Furthermore, most traits need to be coupled with other traits to be useful. Plenty of advantages and skills will backfire if you stack the deck against your PC intentionally.

6 skills, and a bonus to reaction rolls, and a faster learning. All for 5 points. For Sensitive skill bonuses I would give 2 points. And that would be generous.

Personally I find that Walk on Air isn't worth it compared to Flight, but meh, pricing is somewhat subjective.

In any case for a talent you get 1-6 related skills, faster learning (somewhat marginal since learning usually is done off-screen in your PC's spare time), and a conditional bonus. 3 is pretty close to the middle of that 1-6 and you get a potentially powerful ability to read people rather than a conditional bonus. Not a bad trade off.

"An “advantage” is a useful trait that gives you a mental, physical, or social “edge” over someone else who otherwise has the same abilities as you." You are worse for having this "advantage". No other advantage in Basic Set behaves like that.

You aren't worse for getting additional bonuses and additional options, and no one is requiring you to take something you don't like or won't want to use.

Besides, there are quite a few advantages that can be turned on you. 2 heads - don't go where people think that's a sign of evil. Zeroed? Don't get booked by law enforcement. Unaging? Yes, we want to find a immortal and figure out what makes them live forever. New senses? Great new ways to offend, stun, and otherwise debilitate you. Mind Control? Great way to fun afoul of everyone. Invisibility? You're invisible by default. Innate Attack? Cyclops would argue it can be bad to have. Let's not even start on Rogue's powers.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by naloth

3) What do you mean by 3 eyes+ ? I haven't see that rating system.

See Power-Ups 3:Enhancements p. 12.

[Thamior]

1) Talents are introduced on B89. Reliable was generalized in Powers, but existed for select abilities in the Basic Set so it wasn't exactly a new concept.

These are completely different "Talents", which happen to have the same name. When I saw it first time I was very confused.

I don't see the need. The description isn't misleading. The effect isn't underwhelming.

Opinions. Got that. I have mine too. If you don't see the need that doesn't mean there isn't one. And so far you haven't convinced me.

potentially powerful

Potentially powerful, but harmful if you don't have the implied prereq. Great. It would cancel out the costs.

Besides, there are quite a few advantages that can be turned on you. 2 heads - don't go where people think that's a sign of evil. Zeroed? Don't get booked by law enforcement. Unaging? Yes, we want to find a immortal and figure out what makes them live forever. New senses? Great new ways to offend, stun, and otherwise debilitate you. Mind Control? Great way to fun afoul of everyone. Invisibility? You're invisible by default. Innate Attack? Cyclops would argue it can be bad to have. Let's not even start on Rogue's powers.

Problem with that logic. Things you describe are situational. And they don't pertain to the advantage's basic use. It' like saying "Life is harmful. You get old, sick, and die". That's what you call truism.

Plenty of advantages and skills will backfire if you stack the deck against your PC intentionally.

Yes they do. If you do it intentionally. You have to try. When this is the case it is obvious and simple and fair. This is not the case here. It's like if I would take Striker and I have 13 DX and the rules say: well, in half cases you would not hit the enemy, instead you would hurt yourself. Say whaaaaaa?!
I argue against:
1) Tight coupling of IQ and Empathy (IQ should influence but not dictate);
2) Severe penalty for failure;
3) Difficulty in trying to quantify success ("Why would I even use it if it's so unreliable that it will only confuse me? At what IQ it becomes profitable?"). It's like a bad weather forecast example. Or that old meeting a dinosaur in the street joke.

You can do some genius level "I just know you" stuff with it.

That is actually a problem. It aims so high in its intent that by trying to compensate for it designers have overshot. Result: a very unbalanced and situational advantage.

You aren't worse for getting additional bonuses and additional options, and no one is requiring you to take something you don't like or won't want to use.

It's dead weight. I like the concept of empathy. And I want my character to be this way and not be a bloody genius at the same time. But the rules won't let me (without heavy surgery). Also if I take it and don't use it there are less opportunities for me to move story forward and to get more points from GM for good role-playing. It's missed profits through and through.
Anyway this is my perspective. If you don't have problems with Empathy in your games that's fine, more power to you.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Thamior

These are completely different "Talents", which happen to have the same name. When I saw it first time I was very confused.

A talent gives you a bonus to a select group of things. That could easily include uses of Empathy either as a Powers type talent or a basic book type talent.

Opinions. Got that. I have mine too. If you don't see the need that doesn't mean there isn't one. And so far you haven't convinced me.

Sure, we can differ. No issues, and I use a lot of house rules that fit games I run.

Potentially powerful, but harmful if you don't have the implied prereq. Great. It would cancel out the costs.

+1 to 3 skills isn't harmful. The rest of the effects are entirely voluntary. If getting bonuses to a few things are bad, then +1 IQ must be absolutely horrible?

This is not the case here. It's like if I would take Striker and I have 13 DX and the rules say: well, in half cases you would not hit the enemy, instead you would hurt yourself. Say whaaaaaa?!

No, it's like saying if you take a wild shot, often you will hit something else after you miss. It doesn't directly hurt you, you don't have to do it, and nothing is making you take stupid risks.

Besides if it really bothers you, it's easier to add Task Difficulty modifiers to the roll. Extra observation time could logically give a bonus. Not being under stress, using skills, or just asking questions also logically justify bonuses. Just because it starts at IQ-3 for a snap judgement about a person you just met with zero info doesn't mean that it can't be further modified especially if situation seems right.

That is actually a problem. It aims so high in its intent that by trying to compensate for it designers have overshot. Result: a very unbalanced and situational advantage.

That's something I can see. Empathy coupled with a high success chance is incredibly powerful. Failure is one of the mitigating factors as is the cost of the ancillary abilities you need to buy up to make it reliable.

It's dead weight. I like the concept of empathy. And I want my character to be this way and not be a bloody genius at the same time. But the rules won't let me (without heavy surgery).

That's patently untrue. Reliable (powers, often considered the 3rd leg of the basic set), Talents (basic set, boost various skills and rolls), and Based on X (again Powers) would move it to Perception which seems logical since it's often based the subtle things that you can sense.

Also if I take it and don't use it there are less opportunities for me to move story forward and to get more points from GM for good role-playing. It's missed profits through and through.

You mean like the gunslinger that doesn't go around shooting everyone because he's good quick drawing and shooting? Having an ability doesn't obligate you to use it where it's not desirable or appropriate. You certainly don't need to build your concept around using traits in bad ways.

[Thamior]

No, it's like saying if you take a wild shot, often you will hit something else after you miss.

Here you can at least register that you miss. You have feedback. And not all misses automatically hit something valuable to you. often =/= always.
Problem with sensitive is you can't even tell if you've succeeded. You are kept in the dark. You stop trusting yourself. And this is a big detriment to this ability.

+1 to 3 skills isn't harmful. The rest of the effects are entirely voluntary. If getting bonuses to a few things are bad, then +1 IQ must be absolutely horrible?

/sigh Do I have to chew out everything to be understood correctly? I never implied that this minor bonus was bad. I thought it was simple to deduce from my words. Guess I was wrong about that...

Having an ability doesn't obligate you to use it where it's not desirable or appropriate.

Couldn't say it better myself. Empathy is desirable and appropriate for any and all interaction. Because in concept (not in rules) it could give you an edge. And it is safe to use. If you could call yourself an empath you conceptually know that you sometimes can read people, sometimes you can't really tell and yet sometimes you get it all wrong.

Anyway I think we run in circles and I'm getting a bit tired. Also while browsing Basic Set for the n-th time I found ideal solution for me, that fits perfectly with my concept. Intuition advantage. With a limitation, only works for guessing peoples intentions. I wonder how much -% that would be though...

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Thamior

Problem with sensitive is you can't even tell if you've succeeded. You are kept in the dark. You stop trusting yourself. And this is a big detriment to this ability.

I see it more like detecting danger or traps. If you fail, the answer is no danger regardless if there is danger or not. It's intentionally misleading so you can't abuse the "I don't know" to take unrealistic actions.

Let's look at a potential use. Your are tracking an imposter, serial killer, or something else on a train after an incident. If there is a pool of 10 suspects and you get one "yes," "no" four times, and "I'm not sure" five times that pretty well tells you what you need to know. If you get "no" five times and "I'm not sure" the rest, you've also narrowed your pool by half. Unless the GM can throw in a few misleading answers, you can pretty well use what you're suggesting to be 100% reliable with what you do know.

Do I have to chew out everything to be understood correctly? I never implied that this minor bonus was bad. I thought it was simple to deduce from my words. Guess I was wrong about that...

lol, it was a bit sarcastic since I consider the skill bonus the primary and the roll to guess if you want a secondary ability. I suppose it depends which features you're buying it for.

Anyway I think we run in circles and I'm getting a bit tired. Also while browsing Basic Set for the n-th time I found ideal solution for me, that fits perfectly with my concept. Intuition advantage. With a limitation, only works for guessing peoples intentions. I wonder how much -% that would be though...

Sure. Social (trait limited) is usually -20%.

[Thamior]

Let's look at a potential use. Your are tracking an imposter, serial killer, or something else on a train after an incident. If there is a pool of 10 suspects and you get one "yes," "no" four times, and "I'm not sure" five times that pretty well tells you what you need to know. If you get "no" five times and "I'm not sure" the rest, you've also narrowed your pool by half. Unless the GM can throw in a few misleading answers, you can pretty well use what you're suggesting to be 100% reliable with what you do know.

That is a very good example, it is exactly what I needed to prove my point. But you handle it incorrectly. Bear with me.

one "yes," "no" four times, and "I'm not sure" five times.

BUUUUUUUT. Because of a possibility of critical failure (when the answer gets flipped) you are never absolutely sure. What if you critically failed to get "yes". Also there may be accomplices which you haven't spotted (you're not sure) or who know something and don't tell.

If you get "no" five times and "I'm not sure" the rest, you've also narrowed your pool by half.

Also no absolutely definitive no's. And notice that getting one yes between 5 successes is not that high (a half).
It really becomes an interesting mechanic. If it is priced incorrectly I would pay more to have this. And it's not overpowered. You get one shot at it. And on average to have 5 out of 10 reliably you need an IQ of 13 (good synergy with IQ which you have advocated for). At 10 it would be much less powerful but fun to use nonetheless. You would get 2 out of 10. And no guarantee that there will be a "yes" one. Most of the time you will just eliminate 2 out of 10. And then you have to work with the rest. Use detect lies where those skill bonuses would be helpful. And yet still you have to PROVE you are correct to other people. You may get a hunch and focus your attention on the one you detected as a perpetrator.
Now compare it to "the rules" version. At 13 IQ you are as good at guessing as anybody flipping a coin. And at 10 IQ people look at you and do the opposite of what you suggest lol. Even at 15 IQ this guessing is dangerous.
Again, thank you for this example.

I see it more like detecting danger or traps. If you fail, the answer is no danger regardless if there is danger or not. It's intentionally misleading so you can't abuse the "I don't know" to take unrealistic actions.

Bad example. When you detect a trap you actually SEE it! You are sure it is there. You can point a finger at it. Even if it something that looks like a trap, if you just avoid it you will be fine (though this example of misidentifying is a stretch, I just included it here for the sake of worst case scenario of "positive ID" which again would be critical failure).

[naloth]

I see the disconnect. You're looking at how likely it is to give you a success, but modifying what it does on failure. I'm trying to point out how much information your alterations would allow you to get from reliable failure.

First off, very few abilities can be used once and that's usually because the situation where they were relevant has passed. Empathy is always useful for getting skill bonuses (which allow you to use skills) and conditionally useful on immediately spotting loyalties, imposters, and possession when you meet or are reunited with someone. You can re-use Empathy as often as you want to detect lies, which with your changes means that interrogations are basically guaranteed to tell you if the person is lying or truthful after enough questions. The number of times you ask simply needs to be enough to get a more yes than critical failures by a safe margin.

You also seem to miss the point about *failing* to detect something. Failure is misleading, since you don't know about the trap or danger to avoid it. If the GM confirms that you didn't make a good roll, you can avoid them to be safe or try again until you're sure it's safe. The only fair way to handle failure is to make sure the player doesn't know if they failed by giving them a misleading answer.

[Thamior]

I see the disconnect. You're looking at how likely it is to give you a success, but modifying what it does on failure. I'm trying to point out how much information your alterations would allow you to get from reliable failure.

So? I explain why it works better using your own example. With basic rules it boils down to truth/lie dichotomy with no way of knowing if you have succeeded. And it is too punishing. I have described the scenario in my terms. Could you describe it in yours thoroughly? The same situation: 10 suspects. Character with Sensitive and IQ 10, character with Sensitive and IQ 13.

You can re-use Empathy as often as you want to detect lies, which with your changes means that interrogations are basically guaranteed to tell you if the person is lying or truthful after enough questions. The number of times you ask simply needs to be enough to get a more yes than critical failures by a safe margin.

Who told you that? This is a total misunderstanding of how the rules of GURPS and RPGs in general work in the first place. You don't get to reroll that. It's something like a Reaction Roll and Intuition for that matter. Maybe once in a blue moon GM may allow to reroll it but only when something significant happens under very special circumstances. It's the impression, you can't just keep asking yourself for new impression, it sticks.
Hahaha. I get it now. You see, you totally break the Basic Set rule by rerolling. It's like you know your success chance (say, 20%) and you keep rerolling to make enough examples. And then you see the pattern. And then your success chance becomes irrelevant. Way to go!

You also seem to miss the point about *failing* to detect something. Failure is misleading, since you don't know about the trap or danger to avoid it. If the GM confirms that you didn't make a good roll, you can avoid them to be safe or try again until you're sure it's safe. The only fair way to handle failure is to make sure the player doesn't know if they failed by giving them a misleading answer.

Why on Earth have you come to this conclusion about my understanding of failure? That's not what I meant? I didn't speak about failure. I spoke about differences in quantifying success between let's call it a spot check and Empathy as it is stated in the rules.
Spot check: success (you notice and you know that you have noticed), failure (you don't notice and don't know if there is something to notice)
Empathy: success (you notice and you don't know if you have noticed), failure (you don't notice and you don't know if you have noticed).
Failure is indeed misleading in BOTH cases. BUT success in the spot check is immediately evident. You can act on it reliably. Not so with Empathy. You are never sure if you have succeeded. This is THE difference and this is why your example is bad. It's nuances like these that matter and that you seem to either don't notice or don't grasp.