How much should a lower attribute maximums be worth?

[Blind Mapmaker]

I don't think giving points back for lower maximum attributes is a good strategy. I'd use the Racial Gifts perk from Power-Ups 2. Canonically it's only for exotic or supernatural advantages/abilities, but I can see it being used for raised racial attribute maximums too.

The trick would be to make sure that you pick middling attribute as a standard, so that humans would pay at least one point for raised maxST and raised maxIQ, while gnomes and orcs do not, respectively. I would probably charge one point per attribute and secondary characteristic, but not one per level. If the max is only up one point then I wouldn't charge anything or throw in a second or even third +1 for free, but for the orc or ogre the extra possible ST comes no cheaper than one point.

This might also make a campaign where you can play talking animals or tiny fae instead of humans a bit more balanced without throwing everything out of whack.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

I see this as something that should be in the racial template, but not a personal trait. If multiple races are playable, and some have much lower attribute maximums than others -- especially if the max is lower than 12 -- that might be worthy of a disad.

[tshiggins]

I wouldn't give any additional points for this, either, and I just created a character for a science fiction campaign that has a racial taboo trait, "IQ score cannot exceed 12."

The character is a feline uplift; basically a highly engineered creature whose species started out as large domesticated cats. Meant to be a feline counterpart to K-10 uplifts, they were created primarily for companionship, and the care and service for human beings.

Since the designers knew the target market would want most of the feline traits left intact, the species has the color-blindness and lack of stamina associated with a nocturnal pouncer. However, members also have the night-vision, keen sense of smell (although not as good as dogs) superior hearing, and a whisker-based "faz" sense.

Those sense-enhancements mean a lot is going on in those brains, and it made sense to trade those for mental limitations of some other sort. Additionally, it kept the character from getting too "munchkiny."

After all, in a sci-fi campaign that isn't a post-apocalyptic hell, mental attributes trump physical ones over the long term. So, that many mental assets needed a counterbalancing limitation of some sort.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

I would think there would be some relevant compensation if your character's maximum attribute is below the desirable threshold for the genre. For instance if you're in a fantasy game and the ST maximum for one of the races is an 8. That would represent a real handicap in encumbrance, hit points and damage.

I would humbly disagree with the approach. If the campaign is such that ST 8 is a real bummer and -20 pts isn't reasonable as compensation, I see the cost of ST 8 itself, not a cap, as the problem. That is, it's too modest a disad value for any PC of ST 8, whether the reason is a racial cap, or small size, or simply the player's wish to play a weak PC; the value should be boosted equally for all of those PCs to -30 pts (or whatever is appropriate). Cost problem solved.

As for the fact that the one PC alone is permanently stuck at that ST, I agree with those who say that no extra disad value is warranted. Everyone faces countless caps and limitations and other no-nos – no DX past past 20, no ST 18 if you're a halfling (or ST 15 or 12 or whatever a GM rules), no wings if you're a human (or many other races), etc. It'd be maddening to try to set disad values for every such limitation.

That said... If the campaign premise is "If you're this race, you must take this trait, which is incorrectly underpriced for this campaign, and you're stuck with it", and if the GM wants to remedy the unsatisfactory pricing by saying "I'm giving you an extra X points for that cap", and if everyone's happy with that, then no problem – play on! It just seems to me that adjusting the value of the trait by X points, so it's proper for the campaign to begin with, would be a more elegant solution.

BTW, I think someone mentioned HERO system already, but I know it used to offer a disad value for racial or other caps on stats – and I know that not every player agreed with the idea. Out of curiosity, does anyone know whether HERO still does this?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by tbone

... simply the player's wish to play a weak PC...

Look... that's the only reason a Player ever makes a Character with ST 8. Because that's what they want to play.

Which is why I agree, there is no reason to give points for a "racial maximum". Now, as you say, if some Disadvantage is disproportionately disadvantaging, then yes, adjust how much it gives back for taking it.

Similarly with if an Advantage or positive Attribute is disproportionately non-advantaging (or overly advantaging) adjust it's cost commiserate with your game.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by tbone

BTW, I think someone mentioned HERO system already, but I know it used to offer a disad value for racial or other caps on stats – and I know that not every player agreed with the idea. Out of curiosity, does anyone know whether HERO still does this?

It still has the idea of "Characteristic Maxima" in Hero System 6e, but there doesn't seem to be a disadvantage specified for suffering them when the rest of the campaign doesn't.