Attribute Scaling - A genre approach

[VariousRen]

I noticed a few threads on the forum (I think fairly old ones) about attribute pricing, and how it should be changed to reduce the value of raw attributes. This reminded me of a thought I had a few days ago that I figured I should try and turn into a proper (if unplaytested) set of rules.

The key behind my approach is this: attributes need to scale differently in different genres.

From what I have observed, attributes follow three different schools of thought:

1. The Stat-normalizer(I fall into this category): Stats very far above and below the average are unlikely, and you should be charged extra for being unlikely because it gives you an advantage over other people in the world. (Logarithmic Scaling, exponential cost)
   
2. The DF Approach: Every level of attribute gives the same bonus, so it should cost the same to increase it from one level to the next. Dungeon Fantasy follows this path directly, and I believe it's the GURPS standard. (Linear Scaling, linear cost)
   
3. The Super Approach: Every level in an attribute further defines what my character does, so it should get stronger with every level. This is the category I am least confident in because I have almost no experience playing a supers game, but I've included my best crack at them here for completeness's sake. The super genius isn't just a point or two smarter than the average man, he's a full 10 or 15 IQ points smarter. The brick doesn't have an extra 5 DR, he's got 500. (Exponential Scaling, logarithmic cost)

I believe most genres fit pretty strongly into one of these three catagories. Anything termed "realistic" is probably type 1, anything termed "cinematic" is probably type 2, anything termed "super" is probably type 3. I'm sure exceptions exist, but in broad strokes this seems to be correct. Attribute cost could be scaled based on which setting type you live in, and a simple note in world books, campaign notes, ect would make the genre expectation clear to everyone playing.

Type 2 games can be left as they are and considered the standard, appropriate as GURPS already leans towards "Cinematic Realism". Type 1 and type 3 games have a convenient exponential/logarithmic chart provided in the basic set for range. Look the bonus or penalty to your stat from 10 up in the range category and the final cost is the value given under linear measurement times the current linear price. IQ 10 costs 0 points, IQ 12 costs 100, IQ 14 costs 200. Skills become very important over basic attributes. The final adjustment factor can be tweaked (and would need a lot of play testing) to find the correct value.

Type 3 games perform the reverse of that operation. Look up your stat in linear measurement column and pay the value in the size category times the linear cost. ST 2 costs 0 points, ST 10 costs 40, ST 100 costs 100. This style of pricing already exists for supers in the form of super ST. Default values of 2 stress a common theme in super games where low attributes are covered up by super powers so they do not matter. Disadvantages are better suited for representing critical weaknesses of your character.

Finally, it is possible to mix and match types for different types of stats. In a supers game type 3 IQ may tip the balance in favour of brainy characters too much, so IQ could be made a type 2 (linear) stat while ST is a type 3 (exponential) stat. In a realistic game ST may be left a type 2 stat while everything else is a type 1 (logarithmic) stat.

Opinions on using different types of attribute scaling are welcome, as well as observations that may make the rules unplayable.

[Maz]

I think it's a valid way to do things. And I agree with the types.


Also you might want to use the same rules for leveled advantages. You can have telekinetic powers in both a stat-normalisation game, a cinematic game and a supers game.

- In the grim and realistic telekinetic game you would like to limit it to party tricks. Or at least require massive limitations such as high FP cost and uncontrollable to get a high level.
- In a cinematic game you can get it as normal.
- In a supers game, its the same as super high ST.


The same is true for innate attack and DR.


How would you set the scale for the more exepensive or cheaper values?

[Celti]

I find stat normalisation to be perfectly possible and plausible with linear costs. Note that thanks to the bell curve of 3d6, even a nominally "linear" stat is not linear the way it is, in, say, d20.

I restrict all stats (with some waffle-room for ST) to a (human) maximum of 14 in realistic games, chosen in part based on this post by Kromm, and based in part on the fact that at an attribute of 14, your standard default for any skill with an attribute default is equal to what one point in the skill gets an average (attribute-10) character.

I've stuck with this rule for years, and have never found it necessary to either charge more for higher levels of attributes nor scale what each level of an attribute gets you.