Scales for GURPS attributes, talents, skills, etc.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Because it seems to me that the sort of thing they do is uncommon and remarkable. Though its certainly possible that my idea of their effects is exaggerated.

Do you think that 11+X would be better?

I think that Talents are, if anything, less remarkable than attributes, in general, and a 10+X scale might well be appropriate for them.

I think low levels of Charisma are pretty common, but Charisma above +3 is exceedingly exceptional. In the interest of simplicity, though, I'd say that (11 or 12)+X fits them fine. Perhaps 11 would be better.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Do you think that 11+X would be better?

I see you changed it already. Pity... IMO, 12+X was fine for those two traits.

[Randover]

I am not sure about the figures of geniuses 15+ scores. Its seem like the whole scale jumps from common to genius all to easy. + I would guess that Einstein had a combination of high IQ and high level of talent - giving him his genius.

If I might suggest my figures than it would be
10
11-12
13-14 (for smart people, who goes to collage and have chance to get Ph.D.)
15-16

I am not exactly Einsteing bios expert but I might give him IQ 15-16 + 4 levels of talent. Someone with broader field of geniality might qualify for IQ 17-18 without any talent or just little talent.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Randover

I am not exactly Einsteing bios expert but I might give him IQ 15-16 + 4 levels of talent. Someone with broader field of geniality might qualify for IQ 17-18 without any talent or just little talent.

I'm not convinced that IQ 17-18 has ever existed. I think it might fit into a cinematic campaign just fine, but as for the real world, I doubt it's suitable.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I see you changed it already. Pity... IMO, 12+X was fine for those two traits.

Only if you believe Attributes of 12 are less remarkable than a single level of Talent. And I don't think that's true or in the spirit of how Talents were intended.

As for Charisma, everyone knows someone who's more charming than usual, who finds it easier to attract people of the opposite sex than their looks would suggest, etc. It's not all that remarkable.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by DAlillama

I would think that talents would be less remarkable than attributes. The idea of introducing them, As I understand it, was to reduce the incidence of excessively high DX and IQ by reflecting the ability to be good at a few things, but not at everything.

I was thinking the same thing at first, but now think that with Talents including a Reaction bonus they are in effect more 'remarkable' than their generic counterpart, higher attributes.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm not convinced that IQ 17-18 has ever existed. I think it might fit into a cinematic campaign just fine, but as for the real world, I doubt it's suitable.

Leonardo da Vinci perhaps?

As for Charisma, everyone knows someone who's more charming than usual, who finds it easier to attract people of the opposite sex than their looks would suggest, etc. It's not all that remarkable.

This is obviously subjective, but for comparison purposes:

Thinking of times when I have been exposed to large population samples for extended times (educational programs, mostly), I'd say that people of notable charisma at +1 in those settings number in the range of 1 in X hundreds. Where X, depending on setting, has ranged from 1 to maybe 5.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Leonardo da Vinci perhaps?

I'm not even sure that IQ 16 would be needed for him. Personally, I think that a much better example of a true polymath is Julius Caesar; politician, soldier, general, writer, statesman, lawyer, historian, priest and much more.

He excelled over all his peers in anything he ever wanted to do.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

This is obviously subjective, but for comparison purposes:

Thinking of times when I have been exposed to large population samples for extended times (educational programs, mostly), I'd say that people of notable charisma at +1 in those settings number in the range of 1 in X hundreds. Where X, depending on setting, has ranged from 1 to maybe 5.

That's circular logic. By confining yourself to 'notable' Charisma, you're begging the question.

My point is that one level of Charisma is much less notable than two, which are again much less notable than three, et cetera. We can probably all name a person who gets away with behaviour others wouldn't because she/he is charming when he/she does it. That doesn't make these people charismatic enough to start religions or command armies by force of personality.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

We can probably all name a person who gets away with behaviour others wouldn't because she/he is charming when he/she does it. That doesn't make these people charismatic enough to start religions or command armies by force of personality.

Uh, the comparisons are nice. The question is, are these comparisons (starting a religion, commanding an army through the force of personality) backed by rules effects. What reaction roll does one need to give orders without having Rank?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Uh, the comparisons are nice. The question is, are these comparisons (starting a religion, commanding an army through the force of personality) backed by rules effects. What reaction roll does one need to give orders without having Rank?

It's a very situational thing, isn't it?

I'd say that someone who can convince a lot of people to become his devoted followers (with any combination of Charisma, use of Influence skills or Reputation) has accomplished it.

This will sometimes be a matter of Reaction rolls, but more often something the GM will judge based on the nature of the people involved, the prospective cause, character actions, the positive and negative traits the character has, etc.