What's with the modesty about stats?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Icelander

...
I think a liberal application of familiarity penalties to defaults will sharply cut-down on the cinematic ubercompetence of characters with Attributes even slightly above the norm and if GMs link the appropriateness of a character having a given familiarity with his number of points in the skill*, players have a good reason to sometimes opt for an experienced, well-trained and educated character over a naturally gifted one.
...

That would defeat nearly the whole purpose of defaults, that is to allow most people to have at least a chance to perform things without skill.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Pyramid #3/44, Alternate GURPS II.

Thanks. I have to buy it. For that reason and several other ones...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Thanks. I have to buy it. For that reason and several other ones...

Modesty aside, both Alternate GURPS issues were very strong. #34 and #44.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Modesty aside, both Alternate GURPS issues were very strong. #34 and #44.

Yes. I really have to buy both. And I'm even sure that some of these rules will become the main rules in a future (an as far as possible future) fifth edition.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That would defeat nearly the whole purpose of defaults, that is to allow most people to have at least a chance to perform things without skill.

Why?

If the given task is something that he should realistically have a chance of performing without skill, the odds are pretty good that it's either very easy (high positive TDM), something that the character is already familiar with, even if he lacks skill, or both.

Indeed, I'd say that most Driving instruction is actually not enough to give a point in Driving. Even the Dabbler Perk might require a bit more than a couple of lessons and a few afternoons of applying them. But if we say that a brand-new driver spent his minimal driving education obtaining a familiarity with the basic tools and tasks he's most likely to require, he not only has a decent chance of successfully driving under favourable circumstances, but we also have a way to distinguish him from someone whose default comes from watching cars on TV.

Most people have tried doing stuff that requires a skill to do well, but they didn't pick up a point in the skill. That gives a default and it might be enough to avoid unfamiliarity penalties, if what they need to do isn't too far away from what they tried before. But defaults that don't come from actual experience, but simply from knowing that a given skill exists*, well, honestly, they probably should give a very poor chance of success at a difficult task, under pressure.

*This extreme example of what defaults can represent is of course more-or-less directly from the Basic Set.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Shooter A and Shooter B both have DX 10. Shooter A has seen guns used in movies (Default), Shooter B has practiced a bit with his uncles AR-15 (1 point in Guns (Rifle)). Give them each an AI AWM (different action, chambering, and mount from the AR-15), and Shooter A is better for his lack of practice than Shooter B. Unless there is a rule that familiarity penalties can't lower skill below default.

I just assumed that any GM that wasn't either wilfully ignorant or actively malicious would apply such a rule. It's nowhere stated explicitly, but neither is the immunity to familiarity penalties that not having a skill apparently grants.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Why?

If the given task is something that he should realistically have a chance of performing without skill, the odds are pretty good that it's either very easy (high positive TDM), something that the character is already familiar with, even if he lacks skill, or both.

I have to admit that I agree with Icelander here.

I learned to use pistols during army (national service) with only one weapon: the PA 9mm. But I did not learn to use it enough to have one point in the skill. I barely shot 100 ammunitions, at maximum, on a cardboard target and in the best possible conditions... And that's all! So, even if the study rules are designed for learning skill during the game (and not for reference during character creation) we are still far, very far from 200 hours of training with a master...

A question rises then: why would I have no penalty at all if I tried to use another kind of pistol (a .45, for instance) while a master marksman would have the quite high -3? It is not really fair.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Lamech

Nope. Check page 350.

It makes sense, to do realistically would be a pain in the ass, but they are still off.

I guess the rule I was thinking of is only in THS.

[coyote6]

Originally Posted by Gollum

A question rises then: why would I have no penalty at all if I tried to use another kind of pistol (a .45, for instance) while a master marksman would have the quite high -3? It is not really fair.

It's only -2 for 9mm to .45.

However, even so, the familiarity penalties are too high, IMO. If going from a pistol to a light machine gun is a -2 default, going from .45 to .40 shouldn't be that big a deal. I would halve them.

But I am a heretic that thinks 4e has too many skills as it is. :)

[Fwibos]

Originally Posted by DCB

Again, descriptive not prescriptive.

What a doctor does every day has an enormous amount of training and experience behind it; what someone in a call centre does every day typically has minimal training and relatively short-term experience. Suggesting that they both have skill 12 because "it's what they do every day" is silly.

I strongly suspect Kromm was giving a rough rule of thumb for "average folks", and did not intend for the wide range of human competences to be crammed down into that average.

Assumption: Real-World. This does not hold for games outside that

And yet, Tactical Shooting describes a well-trained, regularly vetted and tested sniper as having a skill of 15. The best shooters in the world have a 16. You average beat cop isn't likely to have more than a 10.

And why is that silly? A Professional Chemist, Doctor, or Call Center tech all have their skills at about 12. That's what professional means. the fact that being a doctor is harder than being a Call Center Jerk is covered under skill difficulty levels.

Assume IQ 10:
Call Center professional - Computer Operation -10 [1], Diplomacy-9[1], Fast-Talk-9 [1], Pro Skill: Call Center - 12 [8]*, Administration -9 [1] = 12 points

Chemist - Chemistry-12 [12]*, Administration -9 [1], Secondary skill related to job: (Mathematics, Biology, Metallurgy, or Pharmacy) -10 [4], = 17 poiints

Doctor: Physician-12 [12]*, First Aid-12, Surgery-8 [1], Diagnosis-12 [8]*,
Physiology -11 [8] = 29 points

Surgeon Surgury-12 [16]*, Physician-9 [2]. First Aid -11, Physiology -11 [4], Diagnosis-10 [4] = 30 points

* Primary skills used.

It takes nearly twice the number of points to become a pro doctor as a pro chemist. All of them have 12s. I did not add optional specialties - a surgeon would have one, in all likelihood.

This is why a doctor spends 8 years in school, that and the fact that while Failing a Pro Skill: Call Center default is embarassing and may anger somone, failing a physician of surgery roll can kill someone

The elegance is that an IQ 11 person learns much faster than an IQ 10 person - they get to professional level quicker. Same with someone with Talent - they breeze through med school, if they are a lsacker, then they have the same professional skill. If they buckle down, they become best in field.

I will, however, add, that subjective level is also a distinction worth knowing.

IQ + 2 and IQ +4 may both equal 12, but IQ+4 has a lot more experience.