What's with the modesty about stats?

[D10]

I believe that the start normatization works fine to describe average people, but in this very world we live in, theres a wealth of folks who are beyond ordinary in some way in every corner, sometimes talents will be able to acurately represent the individual (more often than not really).

Theres 7 billion people on the planet, sure most fit the mold of stats around 10 and skills around 12, If you are analyzing the standard citizen based on a chinese farmer, of course it will seem ludicrous to suggest anything higher than 50pts.

But thats not all of them, you will have people in all sort of difficult situations, with a myriad of advantages and disadvantages, theres too many variables even amognst the poor, and more often than not further point acquisition will mean effective use of ones advantages (or stats).

Specifically when talking about low point of the spectrum people, we imagine people who do long hours for little gain, living in a crappy place with tons of dependants and disadvantages, who just barely has the skills to earn a wage.

But the world is so vast, theres just so many people, even if the average citizen has around 50 points, that doesnt mean that there isnt a huge number of people with more stats than that.

Specifically regarding stats, I think another thing we talking little about, is that altho there is a cap for everyone in a specific atribute, like IQ, getting there is not only a question of being born with it, a kid who lives on to be world class PHD doctor will gradually improve not only his skills but also his IQ (until it hits his subjective cap or he just stops caring to improve).

As a psych student I believe most people despite having talents and affinities for certain areas, more often than not refrain from learning others by lack of interest and not by lack of capacity.

If you were to make a sort of graph, my educated guess is that 70% of the world would have 50 points or less, while 0,1% would have 500 points or more, and some of those people will not even be famous or filthy rich, just a ton of advantages and decent stats.

Look at MMA, combat skills like karate, judo and combinations are expensive, aside from the stats and advantages that make someone an able competitor, and amongst those who fit the template, theres still a ton of variation, some have double jointed, some have hard to subdue +5, etc.. etc...

Pro-Athlethes are a perfect example of guys who have more points than normal people, and at the gyms, football fiels and dojos of the world you will also have people increasing their str, dex and ht.

I guess my point is this:
Point acquirement from real life perspective is completely arbitrary and different for each person,
some people will gain 100 points in an year while others will only lose points over the rest of their life.

In a game the GM has to decide how many points the PCs have and how are the allowed to spend it.

In real life the closest we come to that is deciding how to spend our time.

In a game the GM has to keep balance between the players (at least to some extent), so allowing one player to lets say, win the lottery would be bad.

In real life, theres no GM trying to balance you with every other player on the table, so your advancement occours freely of emcumbrance of having to spend arbitrary points given by the GM to you, therefore if you work out, you get stats and advantages, if you receive combat training, you gain skills, and etc.. Theres no metaphysical point spending, just your brain building the connects necessary to wire you to that knowledge for posterity.

In the game, a PC whose character sheet is already finished would have much trouble convincing a GM to allow him to just suddenly remember a powerfull ally mid session that he never bought and doesnt have to point to spend, but in real life our point total fluctuates as we go on networking on our daily lives.

Considering that gurps tries to be as organic as possible in an inorganic system id say the stats modesty is fine, specially when you consider that most people live lives that push their skills to a broader and lower range, and disadvantages.

I belong to the camp that believe that there were people with IQ as high as 20, we just dont know enough to make that assessement about them, and sometimes lack of interest led them to fields that left no brilliant work to we marvel at.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Following the rules, 13 is "outstanding" that is what we usually name a "genious" in real life... In my humble opinion, hospitals dont require every surgeon to be a genious... As soon as someone is skilled enough (which can be done with an IQ of 11 or 12 - with enough time), he can have the job.

B14:
13 or 14: Exceptional. Such an attribute is immediately apparent – as
bulging muscles, feline grace, witty dialog, or glowing health – to those
who meet you.

Granting that 'Exceptional' and 'Outstanding' amount to the same thing, I see nothing there to suggest it rises to the level of 'genius'.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Langy

Pretty good, actually, unless you were missing the equipment (which includes dive tables, etc). All you need to do is go down to the dive shop and fill up the scuba tank with regular compressed air if you're going to be diving at 'normal' depths.

The main issue you're likely to have is figuring out how to work some of the equipment (which a high-IQ person can probably do relatively shortly) and coming back up too fast (which a high-IQ person likely would know is a problem because knowledge of the bends isn't limited to scuba divers).

If you were going to do some complicated junk (say, *real* deep water diving), then yeah, you'd have trouble - but that'd be taken care of through TDMs and familiarity penalties.

Generally speaking, I don't, in real life or in gaming, attempt default rolls when professional assistance can be hired that easily. Take the dive shop out of your example and put me at the end of a pier alone.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Granting that 'Exceptional' and 'Outstanding' amount to the same thing, I see nothing there to suggest it rises to the level of 'genius'.

I'm considered a genius by numerous people, but my GURPS IQ is certainly not 15+, so there is at least some merit to the idea that real-world people start applying the term at IQ 13-14*.

*Or even earlier, not to mention that such a designation is often based on a high Talent in an area or even just a single high skill.

[Flyndaran]

Genius means different things to different people. I tend to equate it with either extreme levels of skill, like genius violinist, or with the ability to add significantly to the body of human knowledge, like inventors and life long researchers. Creation versus simple knowledge.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm considered a genius by numerous people, but my GURPS IQ is certainly not 15+, so there is at least some merit to the idea that real-world people start applying the term at IQ 13-14*.

*Or even earlier, not to mention that such a designation is often based on a high Talent in an area or even just a single high skill.

Oh good gravy, I'm not touching that one.
My grandparents were invited to MENSA. They took the tour, and left disappointed by all the smart losers. So they played chess without the board or the pieces. They hadn't actually done anything of merit, and were boring to talk to.

As I've written before, intelligence, as it's commonly defined, is only one part of Gurps IQ.

[Kraydak]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm considered a genius by numerous people, but my GURPS IQ is certainly not 15+, so there is at least some merit to the idea that real-world people start applying the term at IQ 13-14*.

Do you have hard evidence that your GURPS IQ isn't 15? I have no idea what "hard evidence" in this context would even mean, so am unclear how you can deploy the word "certainly".

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kraydak

Do you have hard evidence that your GURPS IQ isn't 15? I have no idea what "hard evidence" in this context would even mean, so am unclear how you can deploy the word "certainly".

There is a wide range of IQ-based skills in which I have no training (or interest). I am demonstratably not as good as those skills as even an amateur (skill 8-11). If I had IQ 15, I'd have skill 9-11 in all of them.

If this was just a single field (like music, say), I could justify an Anti-Talent, but the fields of knowledge or endeavour I don't have at least skill 9+ in are, frankly, numerous and diverse.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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

Except that they are not for modest attribute levels. And reducing the default from high attributes just shifts the problem to what happens when someone with DX or IQ 16+ spends one point in a skill. There are not a lot of people who immediately surpass their teachers in any area they take an interest in.

Also, I don't think anyone has a problem with high ST scores. Its just that HT 14+ and IQ or DX 16+ give very strange results. Harping on one line in GURPS Basic Set, written by people with a lot on their plates who were probably not specialists in human capabilities and the capabilities implied by GURPS 4e, does not seem very wise, especially since we have so many precedents that such high DX and IQ only seem appropriate for a few cinematic characters such as Spider Man or Sherlock Holmes.

[Flyndaran]

I have an issue with super high ST scores. But I'll avoid bringing them out to keep this thread on track for the more general issue.