What's with the modesty about stats?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Vynticator

Having read quite a few threads about real world stats, I find myself a bit puzzled by what seems to be the prevailing wind in Stats theory on these forums.

GURPS Raw have human stats up to 20, but ST can go higher in an unspecified manner. But on the forums, it seems as if even conceiving of a character with a stat higher than 14, 15 at a push, is a step into super-munchkin world.

I read someone suggesting Leonardo Da Vinci had IQ around 16, the other day. Now, if we take the rules as written, we surely have to imagine a scale that does use a wider spread of stats. If people like Leonardo Da Vinci, Einstein, Socrates, Shakespeare, Darwin (maybe?) - didn't have IQ at 20 or nearly there, then who did? These guys changed human history with their thinking, often across a huge range of fields or integrating many different intellectual pursuits.

Likewise, if world class combatants or acrobats don't have DX 20, what is the meaning of having it there as a human maximum?

That line of thinking just seems odd to me. I don't object to saying 'my game is embedded in harsh realism and I will stat cap at 14 for PCs' at all, it's the idea that the most renowned figures in human history had peak stats at 16 or so.

I agree with you.

The problem is that this forum is mostly a club for GMs, and this leads naturally to a deep-seated horror at the thought of too much player character competency.

The text descriptions for the what attribute levels mean seem pretty clear when you read them, but they are probably the most denied and denigrated passages of rules on this forum.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Brett

That's because the scale for attributes is not an arbitrary scale like the Mohs scale for hardness, but corresponds to concrete abilities in a definite way. In particular, the system of default skills means that performance in untrained skills depends on an attribute alone, so you can tell about a character's attribute by his or her performance in things he never trained at. Or conversely, you can tell that an IQ or a DX of X would imply that the characer was capable of such-and-such.

It so happens that a GURPS character with an IQ of 16 is professionally competent (skill-12) at skills that he or she has merely read about or seen actors enacting on TV. A GURPS character with an IQ of 20 is a master of skills he or she has never tried before. Not just a couple. All IQ-based skills, and there are a lot of them, very diverse, too.

A GURPS character with IQ 20 is a master diplomat, tactician, surgeon, physician, lawyer, historian, geographer, geologist, oceanographer, ecologist, botanist, zoologist, anthropologist, sociologist, economist, mathematician, programmer, physicist, chemist, musician, composer, soldier, accountant, actor, administrator, architect, armourer, artist (in every medium), engineer, carpenter, cartographer, cook, disguise artist, farmer, leader, linguist, locksmith and everything else, including stealth and camouflage, shadowing, every hobby skill, every professional skill, every expert skill, every specialisation. he or she is as good as an expert specialist in all of those. He or she also has an iron willpower, the hearing of a watchdog, the eyesight of an eagle….

There are characters in stories like that, such as Doc Savage. But when we are describing historical characters we don't find many of whom the description implied by a GURPS IQ over 15 is accurate.

Sounds like the real problem is that defaults are ludicrously generous.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Sounds like the real problem is that defaults are ludicrously generous.

They aren't especially generous for characters with stats below 13.

[Fwibos]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I agree with you.

The problem is that this forum is mostly a club for GMs, and this leads naturally to a deep-seated horror at the thought of too much player character competency.

The text descriptions for the what attribute levels mean seem pretty clear when you read them, but they are probably the most denied and denigrated passages of rules on this forum.

I don't think it's that at all. I just think we are giving WAY to much credit to people. First of all - Socrates wrote nothing down. He seems like a person with a healthy wit, a good grasp of things of the world (no greater than his contemperaries) and enough sense to doubt himself (perhaps obfuscating actual self-doubt) and a desire to test things out. These are handled by things like common sense, Perception, some charisma, and a quirk to "Test everything" and OPH (Wise ass)

Giving him an IQ of 12-13 does not seem out of the question,I'd even go as high as 14, but talent can cover that.

4e did away with descriptions of what a level means.

I don't see wht people look down at a 13. A 13 is actually really good. A man with a 13, and double time and safety has a 60 percent chance of succeding on hard skill. HARD. an IQ 13 person can perform an Artist (Drawing) skill check and draw accurately 60% of the time.

On an easy skill, they have a 14 or better. Without any formal study. This is huge.

Gymnasts will have DX between 10-12, and talent between 1-3, and Doublejointed or rarely Flexibility. And of course, there's a bunch of popints in Acrobatics. If you've been training since 2, well - there you go.

This is also for realistic games. This is grounded in the closest to real gurps can do system.

For supernatural games - screw it, take a 20 in ALL the STATS

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

The problem is that this forum is mostly a club for GMs, and this leads naturally to a deep-seated horror at the thought of too much player character competency.

That's right. In my GURPS campaigns I have only allowed characters built on an average of 450 points each. This is because of my deep-seated horror of player-character competence.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Brett

That's right. In my GURPS campaigns I have only allowed characters built on an average of 450 points each. This is because of my deep-seated horror of player-character competence.

I only let my players create -50 point characters. I'm a monster.

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I only let my players create -50 point characters. I'm a monster.

That's the best campaign ever. :-)

Seriously though, we've played a couple of games now at 150 points and I don't think I've seen DX or IQ get above 13 (except in the case of a mage) and only ST has edged to 15. People, especially me, like to sink a lot of points into skills. It may not be "optimal," in the mathematical min/max sense, but I prefer it because I like to design believeable characters. And, for me, skills are more believable than incredible natural talent in everything. Thus, I make use of Talents and spend lots of points in Skills. If that makes me a member of the Cult of Stat Normalization, then can someone please fax me a membership application and/or official card? Thanks! :-)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I only let my players create -50 point characters. I'm a monster.

Hey, I care about my McDonald's staff campaign. If I keep playing him, after a few months, I might have enough CPs to make manager, OR move out of his parent's basement, OR buy an ally (girlfriend).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Sounds like the real problem is that defaults are ludicrously generous.

Only if you think that IQ 20 characters actually exist. The defaults produce entirely appropriate results for the fictional "human but cinematic" characters we generally give IQ 20 to.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I agree with you.

The problem is that this forum is mostly a club for GMs, and this leads naturally to a deep-seated horror at the thought of too much player character competency.

By no means Historical figures are NOT player characters. What I would rate the real Da Vinci at has no bearing on what I would allow a player character to achieve, or even what I'd rate a fictional Clockpunk Da Vinci at.

The text descriptions for the what attribute levels mean seem pretty clear when you read them, but they are probably the most denied and denigrated passages of rules on this forum.

The text actually has "higher than 15" as off the scale.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

The text descriptions for the what attribute levels mean seem pretty clear when you read them, but they are probably the most denied and denigrated passages of rules on this forum.

Yes. When you have a question, read the rules first. They are carefully designed and tested, for several years... Which is not always the case of our house rules and comments!

But a lot of comments on this forum are still very valuable to best understand the rules... Or to find a paragraph that you totally missed... GURPS rules are huge and it is not so easy to memorize everything. So, some posters here, who know the rules almost by heart (they wrote some of them) are very helpful.

I learned a lot here. And, despite of my huge GURPS experience (more than 20 years), I'm still learning every day.