12-13-2012, 07:04 PM | #201 | |
Join Date: Jun 2011
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
"The learning rate of children above 130 IQ is approximately 8 times faster than for children below 70 IQ" Based strictly on learning rates in the doubling-range of skill costs, we would expect to see a range of about 9-12 for that 95-98% of the population, with 2-5% being exceptions outside that range. (Personally, I would make the rate of exceptions substantially lower, at least for general GURPS IQ. 1-2% might be an okay rate for high-side exceptions when including Talents, though). |
|
12-14-2012, 02:09 AM | #202 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
For example, it only subtracts 25% of the time required to develop a reliable skill level in a skill with significant consequences of failure and/or becoming something of an expert at a routine profession (skill 14). As for attaining mastery in a challenging field (skill 16 in a Hard skill), the difference in learning times between IQ 10 and IQ 11 is less than 15%. High gIQ represents intellectual curiosity, rapid assimilation and good memory, but it's also a way to fold generic life-experience and education that's below what's needed to get a point in each field into a game trait. That is, some people with higher gIQ might be precisely as naturally smart as people with lower gIQ, with the difference lying in knowledge base and experience. Whether that's because they has had a better education or more experience or whether they simply pay more attention to their surroundings and spend more of their time picking up new information is ultimately a roleplaying decision and not mechanically relevant. So when two characters need to perform a task governed by a skill they don't have or quickly develop the basics of competency, the one with the higher gIQ can be assumed, for game purposes, to already have some knowledge about the skill, even if it's below what 1 point gives. That's why he does much better at default and that's why he picks it up much faster. But as they continue to study in the same field, the advantage of that greater initial familiarity becomes less and less important. In my experience, at least, this is fairly representative of reality, at least on the order of simulation we can expect from anything gamable. While human learning speed might not vary by as much as gIQ7 to gIQ 15 or so would suggest at first glance, that's only if we try our best to design tests that remove cultural differences and so reduce the advantages of the smarter, more curious people with better memories by denying them the benefits they'd get from already knowing something about the subject, even if they lack a point of skill.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
12-16-2012, 11:28 PM | #203 | |
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
Sometimes, too, somebody that knows a lot about a related area is less ready to listen to instructions/advice in an area s/he knows something about, but not as much as the core area with which they are familiar. |
|
12-17-2012, 03:27 AM | #204 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
"I'm very bright, I can do it without any help!" is more a proof of stupidity than a proof of cleverness... All the very bright people I know always ask for detail as soon as they meet someone who can tell them things they don't already know. And they listen it carefully... "Know enough to be dangerous" is the key expression here. When you believe you know enough, you become dangerous. When you really know enough, you begin to realize that you only know very few and that you actually have a lot more to learn. |
|
12-17-2012, 03:35 AM | #205 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
And to come again to the main topic of this thread, the problem of very high IQ is that it doesn't only determine the speed of learning. It also determine the begining of the skill: the default level. That is why IQ (or DX) has to be chosen wisely. True geniuses exist in our real world. But they are rare. And universal geniuses may exist too, but they are even more rare... Most historical geniuses where geniuses in few field of knowledge. A character who would be outstandingly good in all sciences, humanities, relations with others, arts, technology, etc., wouldn't sound very realistic. Even in a fictional world! Mac Gyver is very good for survival and technology, but he is not as good as Einstein in Physics, and he is not as bright as Mozart in Music... And vice versa. Thus, not too high IQ and talents are the best way to create geniuses... At least, in the GURPS system, where IQ has so many effects on so many skills. Last edited by Gollum; 12-17-2012 at 03:40 AM. |
|
12-17-2012, 05:25 AM | #206 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
I am normally a stat-normaliser... and skill-normaliser as well. But maybe part of the problem here is that we set the bar too low. Even with IQ:20 you only get defaults at 14-16. And that's assuming you have a reason for that default in the first place. And then comes familiarity modifiers on top of it. This super-genius could still do most average jobs (that he had some degree of knowledge about) as well as the average person (skill:12-13). But he still wouldn't be an experts (14+) in that field without some time invested in it (at least enough time for 1-2 points and an unknown amount of time to get a broader familiarity). But sure, if he put the time into it, he could rival the experts on the field, but he still would need years of focus to rival the masters in the field (skill:20-25, would cost 2-24 points depending on field, more if you need more than a single skill). So even if Macguver had IQ:20 (I doubt it!) then he wouldn't be on par with Einstein or Mozart in their fields as MacGuver never really spend time on music and composition and even if he have 2 points in Physics that "only" gives him Skill:18, where Einstein probably ran around with 24, and that achieved with A LOT of skills points that would give him familiarity with al aspects not just a narrow field ("making things go boom"). And that's the thing. Real people, (unlike GURPS character who are min/maxed by their players) do not tend to branch out into dozens of fields and spend years in each. So, the real world historical examples of people who are really good at 4-5 things did probably have insanely high IQ. If they weren't good at every field it's probably because they had no interest in it or (in the case of social skills) posses disads that gave them a limit. Remember, high IQ doesn't by itself give a high reaction modifier. I don't know if IQ:20 is believable of a human max (it might be lower). But I do believe that you can have realistic characters with very high IQ that do not have super high skills in everything. By remembering that a default level still requires some default knowledge, and applying familiarity modifiers harshly. Personally I am still a Stat Normalizer though because once we move back into the RPG world players won't know exactly what defaults their character should have and applying random familiarity penalties all the time is annoying. Allowing high IQ is very problematic in GURPS due to the way the system works with a point budget and so on, and because it's an RPG game where people will tend to get the most out of what they pay for. But that doesn't mean historical people who do not min/max and have narrow areas of interest, couldn't have high IQ. You have to look at how much time they spend in different areas to reach the levels they did to get a good idea. Houserule for keeping check of familiarity penalties. Whenever someone wishes to do something new using a skill, have them roll against "experience" skill level (ie. 10 instead of IQ +point-level as usual). A failure results in a familiarity penalty equal to -2 +degree of failure. This way someone with IQ:20 and 2 pt in, say Physics, would roll at skill:18. But would very often suffer at least -4 to -5 penalty. While someone with IQ:13 and 20 points in physics would be rolling at skill:16 but would almost never suffer any familiarity penalty. Last edited by Maz; 12-17-2012 at 05:30 AM. |
|
12-17-2012, 08:34 PM | #207 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jacksonville, AR
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
__________________
Travis Foster |
|
12-18-2012, 10:02 AM | #208 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Speaking of those, Using Skills Without Attributes (B172) is an important thing that shouldn't be overlooked if you're so worried about DX/IQ20. If an action truly depends on experience/knowledge/training but not on intelligence/agility, then by all means, demand a Roll Without Attributes and see your Da Vinci fail.
|
12-18-2012, 02:25 PM | #209 | |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
It sounds like people want the high numbers but don't want to have the high abilities that they mean.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
|
12-18-2012, 05:19 PM | #210 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Re: What's with the modesty about stats?
Quote:
The point is that in all those cases your high skill is represented by "acquired knowledge" where someone with high skill based purely on a high attribute would be "natural instinct and talent". And YES there is a huge difference. Take a master chef. He might have skill 15. If he have it due to IQ:20 and running on default in Cooking it means he can figure out, through his massive smartness, how to cook just about every possible recipe... assuming he has the recipe. If someone asked him to, say, cook ratatouille. It is unlikely he would know where to start. where someone with IQ:10 and 20 pts in Cooking, giving him skill:15 as well, would undoubtedly have cooked it before and know what ingredients to pick and how long it would take and so on. Now of course, if you stick the genius a cookbook and let him try it out once. the next time someone ask him to cook it he can cook it as well as the experienced chef. And if he takes a cause in cooking getting him 1 point in it, he would quickly surpass the experienced chef. Figuring out how to improve the recipe, make the process more efficient and so on (as he would now have a skill of 19). But the experienced chef would still know a lot more recipes. ... I think I am just repeating what I already said. Sorry. ---- Actually. That is exactly where "experience level" is appropriate to use. In any situation where you need to make a "knowledge check" based on the skill. Usually I tend to let that be IQ-based. But I guess there is a lot of reason in making it pure skill-based. Some adventure skill examples: Guns: Recognize specific guns based on sound or look. Know info about random gun (accuracy, range, penetration). Melee weapons: Recognizing known weapon smiths names. Know weakness and strengths of exotic weapons as well as combat-styles used with those weapons. Stealth: Figuring out how easy it would be to sneak into a place. ...hmm, I would still tend to think IQ-based on many of those. Last edited by Maz; 12-18-2012 at 05:28 PM. |
|
Tags |
attributes, stats |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|