Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Assuming a character has an IQ of 18, with a perception of 20?

Is it 20 points thus putting IQ at 19 and Perception at 21?
Is it 15 points putting IQ at 19, perception staying at 20?
Or is it 20 points putting IQ at 20 leaving perception at 20 and the character is out 5 points for not planning better?

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It's the first one, generally. It's the second one if that's how your group/GM plays/allows. It should never be the last one.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

By default, +1 IQ - regardless of the source of it - also comes with a +1 to Per and a +1 to Will. Note this is the same for other attributes - +1 ST also comes with +1 HP, +1 DX or +1 HT comes with a +0.25 to Basic Speed (which also functionally comes with a +0.25 to Basic Move, although you generally round that down), and +1 HT comes with +1 FP. Some GM's divorce IQ from Per and Will while leaving the prices the same; others will allow purchase of what's often referred to as "IQ!" which is a metatrait consisting of +1 IQ [20], -1 Per [-5], and -1 Will [-5], for a net change of +1 to IQ, +0 to each of Per and Will, and a net cost of [10]. But those are houserules; the RAW is that, while you can buy Per and Will up or down from IQ, the three are linked, regardless of when you purchase them.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Normally yes, and I would tend to run it as option 1.

Only reason it came up is due to the line about perception in the basic book.

"By default, Per equals IQ, but you can increase it for 5 points per +1, or reduce it for -5 points per -1. You cannot raise Per past 20, or lower it by more than 4, without GM permission." (Basic page 16).

This seems to hard cap perception at 20...

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Oh, in that case, if the GM is enforcing that cap, you would indeed only pay [15] for +1 IQ, because it would only give +1 to IQ and Will, not to Per. Essentially you're "trading in" some of what you spent on Per to raise IQ (and Will) for a bit cheaper - instead of having +8 IQ [160] and +2 Per [10], you now have +9 IQ [180] and +1 Per [5].

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It would be IQ 19 and Per 20 and be out 5 points if the GM is holding to hard caps and not allowing the "buy down" of IQ by splitting out. This would also be "RAW" (Rules As Written).


However, as a few have noted, not many GMs in these parts hold to that. In my case in particular it would be that, but because I split Per and Will out of IQ and still keep IQ at 20 points... so it's less "out 5 points" and more "IQ and Per are separate attributes" in my games (because IQ is the super stat that is stupidly cheap for it does).

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I don't think there's any support in the books for charging players points for a trait they don't get. A character who goes from
IQ 18 [160]
Will 18 [0]
Per 20 [10]

to

IQ 19 [180]
Will 19 [0]
Per 20 [5]

is perfectly RAW-legal. There are places in the book that even state that you can do quasi-respecs to change how points are distributed to be more efficient, so long as you don't lose capabilities - for example, see Improving Skills From Defaults, B173 - you can switch the direction of a default so long as none of the skills involved go down). Any GM who enforces an attribute cap, and then punishes players by requiring them to, as in this example, pay full price for a level of IQ, wasting points simply because they had the gall to envision a character who started with a higher Per than their IQ, would count in my book as a bad GM.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I agree. Just remember that in normal games, IQ, Will and Per cannot go above 20 for humans.

So, if he already has Perception 20, he can't buy to 21. It would be like Varyon's example, he would pay 15 points to increase IQ and Will to 19, and then another 15 if he wanted to increase from 19 to 20.

Think of Per as if it were (IQ, Per Only, -75%). He would be paying to remove the limitation. I know it's not exactly like that, but it's a similar idea.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

That's specifically a rule about buying up perception. IQ is much more expensive and loses a bit of functionality once you buy it up over 20.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Of course in a normal game, there aren't very many characters who have 200 points invested in IQ, have gained another 20, and somehow have nothing more attractive to spend it on than levelling IQ some more.

Hitting attribute limits is not a situation I've ever seen in play, maybe occasionally at character creation where you actually have a lot of points at once and each individual one isn't quite so precious.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It's a question of play style. Infinite Cabal was probably not a "normal game" but the Cabal Lodge that the PCs belonged to had a social prohibition on IQ above 20, because their Grand Master wanted to retain an advantage. When two of the PCs decided to break that limit, it was taken as a declaration of independence. And yes, it was worthwhile. IQ 21 makes the various bonuses for skills of 20 easy to get, and having (IQ+Magery-2) at 25 gives you another energy point off spell costs.

In somewhat more normal games, I've found working characters up to IQ caps of 15 or 16 worthwhile. When lots of IQ/H skills are useful, high IQ is the easy way to raise them.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Except you aren't charging for a trait they aren't getting. IQ costs 20 per level, that it also happens to raise Perception and Will for free is secondary and not a part of paying to buy up IQ*.

Same thing would happen if someone bought up HP separate from ST, but there was a HP cap that matched the ST cap and the Player then bought ST up to cap. Unless the GM is allowing the Player to buy down Secondary Characteristics and get the points back, it's points that are wasted. Same as if a PC loses a limb, they don't suddenly get points to spend elsewhere.

The whole "buy down IQ" thing is actually rather unsupported by RAW as "buying down Per" is the same as "taking a Disadvantage", and you don't get points for Disads gained during play.


* Unless the GM is using the optional "buy down" thing which I consider a nonsensical point crock. IQ should not be 10 points per level, it shouldn't ever be a better choice than a 10 point Talent (ignoring that it's almost always better than a 10 point Talent already).

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

In fact, there is an old discussion about talents not being worthwhile in many cases precisely because of this. Because if you don't raise Will and Per, in practice IQ ends up being 10/level. The "problem" is that you have a limit on how much you can reduce from Will and Per (4 below IQ, normally). That's why people have been complaining for years that some 15/level talents just aren't worth it (Smooth Operator is the most famous one, I think). Because precisely with this, you can pay 10 per IQ and have more benefits (unless the Talent has many skills with different attributes).

As for paying the difference to match IQ, Per and Will, I don't see any problem. I don't think it's fair for the player to charge for something he won't use. This point being thrown away makes no sense to me in this case. If you don't want this situation in the game, then it's easier from the start to unlink Per and Will from IQ, charging each one separately (that's it, IQ alone costing 20, without both Per and Will). Otherwise, I think it's unfair.

EDIT: If the player paid 50 points to have Regeneration 1HP/minute , and wants to go to Regeneration 1HP/second throughout the game, which costs 100 points, he will not have to pay another 100 points, he will simply pay the difference of what he already paid for what he wants to get. For me it's similar in the case of IQ, when the person wants to match with Will and Per.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

My, currently resting, once-was-Traveller campaign has characters in the 1000-1200+ point range, and the higher point value ones tend to have all their stats in the 16-20 range, with them working on capping out the secondary stats as well. This is probably not the optimal build strategy (DX and IQ aside), but it's what the players ended up at.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Yeah I'd allow a bonus point of Per or Will (or both) to be sacrificed to buy IQ at 15 (or 10) points.

Surprised it's not even a base rule to allow this.

Same thing for sacrificing bonus HP or Lifting ST or Striking ST to get a discount on baseline ST purchases.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

You can actually do this. At least the HP thing.

It's even an option mentioned in Psonics. There you can buy ST without HP. In the specific case there, it goes with a -10% limitation on top of being psionic, but it is presumed that outside of that, you could buy it without a problem.

But yes, for me it should be better written or have certain parts rewritten to be able to better level up each separate aspect.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Personally I almost agree with ST or HT, as there are almost no skills associated with them, reducing their cost at the expense of HP/FP isn't as big a deal.

But for IQ or DX? Ah, no way I'd agree with it. Makes them too valuable to boost for skill increasing purposes. As it is I'm still contemplating raising IQ to 40 points per with Per and Will stripped out. But there are other ways to "
solve" my 'high IQ is a problem' problem, so it's still just at the weighing options stage.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

If you don't want high IQ characters, just don't allow them. It's simpler than setting prohibitive or punitive prices for other types of players. Most of the games I played had initial and maximum stat caps during the game. It's even a solution suggested by How To be a GURPS GM. It's not because the player has points and XP that he can buy everything until infinity. It's not how it normally works, save for maybe some Supers games.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I think it's still subject to the limitation of the secondary attributes being unable to vary more than 4 points in either direction from the primary

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

(nods) My own hack is to charge double XP for raising Attributes after character creation; players expect that what they start with is what they've got. IQ bumps happen every rare once in a while, there've been a couple of DX bumps over the decades, and one fellow saw the error of his ways when he took HT 9 against me saying "That'll really bite you in the ass, trust me on this one." An expensive lesson.

With that, I don't think anyone's bumped a stat more than once.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Ah, the "Worst of both worlds" approach - exacerbate any possible balance issues of having high attributes by making it so that only those players who thought to exploit it at character generation can get the full benefit from it. With a few exceptions*, I'm generally not a fan of having traits that are only available at character creation... but things costing more because you didn't have the foresight to start with them I'm definitely not a fan of (requiring a quest or similar to justify gaining it, if just suddenly having it wouldn't make sense in the setting, I'm fine with). But if your group enjoys that playstyle, I guess go for it.

*If there are traits that a character literally cannot have without starting with it - like Magery in a setting where one is either born a mage or isn't, or a trait that can only be had with a specific racial template - that's generally fine and adds a bit to flavor and immersion.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

more likely just "do it like 3e(r) did it." But then, I think taking that rule out for 4e was one of the best decisions they ever made.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Well, I suppose that would presuppose GMs sitting on their asses while character creation was happening, and never giving a lick of guidance or counsel. But if your group enjoys that style, meh, not my circus, not my monkeys.

Although speaking of balance issues of high attributes, the OP mentions levels my campaign's never come remotely near: no one's had an attribute higher than 15 since I flipped to 4e. Possibly you should jump all over that.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

With or without that rule my experience is that few players bump stats and even fewer more than once. Of course with that rule there's a strong impetus to dump all of your points into stats and advantages, with minimal skills. Skills are so easy to raise even without the rule.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

That's my issue with that particular house rule: the result is neither fun, nor realistic, nor interesting.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

My concern is more that it doesn't really address any potential balance issues with high attributes (which would be the main reason to boost their price) but does punish those players who don't start with said high attributes by making it so their character can never really catch up to their full potential (or, keeping in mind the concept of balance, to those in the party that did opt to start with high attributes). The fact you help with character creation does help alleviate some of that, as you can warn them if they're making a bad decision... but players aren't always going to listen to you (case in point, the fellow who opted to start with HT 9), and punishing them for doing so in the fashion your rule does simply doesn't sit right with me.

All that said, if you play games where attributes never start above 15 - which implies characters are typically more in the 12-13 range - you aren't going to see as many of the issues that can come about from high attributes and the effects of your houserule are going to be reduced. I don't really see much point to having the houserule - like RyanW, I don't see anything fun, realistic, or interesting about it - but if your group likes it, go for it.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to be insulting with "if your group likes it" - what is fun is entirely subjective, and just because I don't find something fun doesn't mean I think those who do have anything wrong with them.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

If I recall correctly (been years since I've looked at a 3e rulebook inside the cover), there was a second method that was used to curtail high attributes in lieu of purchasing skills: increasing costs via arithmetic sequence (not quite geometric). As Attributes increase they cost progressively more to raise. A geometric progression would result in almost exclusively skill purchases, but there's probably some function that mimics a linear then arithmetic then geometric rise. Of course the default 4e linear was probably chosen for a good reason beyond mere simplicity.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It's very difficult - or even impossible - to make increasing cost for stats go well with racial templates. In an mono-specious (special?) setting, it would probably work well.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I didn't say "I don't want high IQ characters". I said "high IQ is a problem", that is an entirely different statement.

For instance I've had people try to make "low" IQ skill-monkeys (by low I mean 12) in the same game as someone who made an IQ 16 PC who then raised their IQ two more times. The "low" IQ character simply wasn't as good as the high IQ PC at IQ based skills, even the defaults of the high IQ PC were sometimes higher than bought skills on the other PC.

And this can not be fixed with Talents. The only solutions I've come up with are:

1 - Cap IQ, which is not a solution when you want to allow IQ 20 "Super Genius" types.
2 - Cap where Attributes add to skills. This is intriguing and I've done it, but the Players whinging is terrible, loud, and incessant. Also it's slightly overly complicated.
3 - Raise the price of IQ and DX, without raising the price of the sub-attributes (or more importantly splitting some out, like Will and Per, which my Players are pretty much used to by now).

The last one really does fit the bill of "simple" and "fair". If IQ costs 60 (or ideally more) per level then it makes raising a handful of IQ based skills on their own attractive and makes Talents even more attractive (even 15 cost Talents become super attractive). And I lean toward anything that makes Talents more attractive.


That's what I've done in every game I've been in that worked that way. The only times it wasn't worth it were games where we only played a handful of sessions and the game fell apart. But any game that lasted more than "level dings" and it was super effective.

And in 3e combining high starting IQ with Eidetic Memory between session and on-the-job training? Woof, that was terribly broken.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

The obvious mistake being made there is to try to make a versatile IQ skill oriented character with low IQ instead of just focussing on maximising a single role-defining skill or concentrating on the physical.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I don't think that solves anything. It's an absurd solution that makes characters of reasonable IQ impossible or unviable, basically. If there is a player who wants to play a Sherlock Holmes of life, he would basically be penalized in relation to the others.

You could make the same argument for DX, and try to justify an increase to the DX cost for something similar. That is, basically any character with a high attribute would be impossible to do in games with normal scores.

What is evident to me is not a problem with the attributes themselves. It's that your table can't handle them. There are many tables out there where this problem doesn't occur.

Players don't have defaults on all skills, for example. You must have a minimum of contact on the subject to roll the skill at default, even from TV. If you've never seen that in your life, you can't even take the roll, basically. At least as far as knowledge skills, physical skills you maybe can take a chance.

You need to manage what each player intends to do. What niche will he want to specialize in, if there will be one. More than that, you have to manage expectations, know what everyone wants or expects from the game. RPG is a social game and requires an agreement between the parties to function. When well managed, this type of problem does not usually occur. Each player will have their character in their area of interest.

A high IQ or DX character doesn't necessarily mean they'll be good at everything. Take Sherlock Holmes himself as an example: there are areas where he simply has no interest and relegates the task to someone else. This is very common in both RPGs and movies and series. Having IQ and DX 18 doesn't mean the character will want to be good at everything. A specialist in the occult and the like with an IQ of 18 will not necessarily be a good physicist, engineer or inventor, for example, if he has never seen such things in his life or has no interest. Furthermore, two characters with IQ 18 can be very different from each other.

I understand that some players like to mess around or like to be hyper-competent at everything. Maybe it's "Batman evil", where the player wants their character to be good at everything possible. It happens, I know. But this needs to be managed before the game takes place. Managing expectations, building characters... all this has to be discussed beforehand, to avoid problems during the game.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

They didn't put words in your mouth, they answered your implied question of what you should do with "high IQ is a problem". The answer is: Don't allow it.


This right here shows it is not a "high IQ is a problem" but a clear lack of communication between players and between GM and players.

One player wants to play a "low IQ skill-monkeys" then that is their niche, the other players should figure out something else to play and you as the GM should enforce this. The fact you allowed another player to then create a high IQ character that steals the spotlight from the first player is wrong.

Understanding what the players want to play and working with them to make sure each character WORKS TOGETHER and each player has something they, and ONLY they, can do is the job of the GM.

My only house rule I always play with is separating Will and Per from IQ, keeping IQ at 20/lvl and making Per and Will 10/lvl.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

As a player who has run PCs with IQs ranging from 9 to 14. Also a sometime GM...

I have built designs from mage to combat monster strongman to combat monster acrobat with Chaos Tinged Mage/Priest/Warrior thought to be a Boogyman by 1/3 to 1/2 of the worlds population (but still mostly fighting for good) in between.

Stats are not the end. Skills are not the end. They are the beginning. What you can think of to do with them will define how 'powerful' you are...

Sure it is the GM's job to make the game and table fun. It is also the job of ALL the players.

It will help everyone for YOU to know what you have built AND BE HAPPY playing it. Let your teammates handle your blind spots. If you are cut off and alone. Forced to do things you are NOT good at, life happens. Do the best you can and hopefully live to move on. Apparently that was the plot this week.

If you are not having fun or you find that the aspect of character you were exploring has reached its end.

Change.

Build a new character and embark on a new adventure.

More points can be fun but so long as you are holding down your end and contributing IME the rest of the team will not mind if you 'change hats'. Even if you are objectively less powerful.

It is a game. There is no right or wrong, just fun and unfun.

My 2 coppers.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

4. Buy the 16 IQ for the skill-monkey character with the -0% limitation "Only for skills." (Per and Will handled according to the normal rules.)

This allows one to play a PC who is very skilled but not a genius on a reasonable point budget.

Note that this requires your players to give away some PC power for free, so I expect (based on your comments for solution 2.) that this might not work for your group, but it is a viable GURPS hack for certain character concepts.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It doesn't strike me as a good idea for any character concept to be about numbers. Numbers are how you translate character concepts into game mechanics. "Low IQ skill-monkey" isn't a character concept, it's screwing around with game mechanics in a suboptimal manner. Character concepts are:

"Rich kid dilettante with shallow knowledge of many subjects"
"Wise old scholar"
"Glib con-artist using social skill to fake expertise"
"Miracle-working engineer but awkward with people."
"The greatest doctor in the world but he pisses everyone off"

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Low IQ Skill Monkey is the OPs example, not mine. Besides that, it wasn't a character concept about numbers.

Low IQ but skilled means the player wanted a character that was very skilled at things without having a very high IQ.

The OP then had another player go ahead and make a character with a high IQ that stole the low IQ but high skill players moments to shine.


Taking your examples, imagine if you want to play a "The greatest doctor in the world". That means high skill levels in everything related to being a doctor. Then comes along another player with "Wise old scholar" who just has a really high IQ and spends the bare minimum on any skill that doesn't have a default so they can roll against it. That "Wise old scholar" can take any of your moments away because their skill in all of your areas are equal.

That is a GM and player communication problem, not a problem with the rules or character concepts. Every player needs to communicate what they want to play and the GM needs to see how those characters will interact with each other and if there are any overlaps or even gaps, and then suggest changes. If the players don't want to change their minds even though it disrupts other character concepts, then that is a bad player. If the GM see this and doesn't suggest changes to prevent player niche being compromised, that is a bad GM.

Everyone should be together to tell a story and have fun, its not fun when the character YOU want to play never shines because someone else decided to steal the spotlight.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

IQ is a number.

Greatest Doctor in the World. IQ 12, Physician Skill 30. Cost 116.

Wise Old Man. IQ 16. Physician Skill 14. Cost 121.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Personally I think the mistake is in the system, not the choice. Yes, it's not how I'd make a "broadly skilled" PC either, I'd go high IQ, Jack of All Trades, then focus on a few skills I wanted above 15-16... since you know all my IQ defaults would be 15+ (or 13+ if "high" only means IQ 16).


I see the mistake here, you think I'd only be raising the cost of IQ. DX has to go up as well, unless I was trying to discourage super genius PCs. But as I've already said "I want high IQ characters", it should be presumed that is not the goal.

It's not absurd. Raise the skill heavy Attributes (and strongly reassess some Advantages), give everyone more points, problem solved. Then a "IQ 18 and handful of very high skills" PC can easily co-exist with the "IQ 12 and a lot of 15-16 level skills" PC.

And why wouldn't you readjust your starting point totals? Are you wed to an arbitrary point total? I'm certainly not.

That's more than a bit insulting.

You should really double check on this one. Sure, if someone makes a character who has limited/no contact with the reference culture and tech levels, that's a reasonable ruling. But it's very rare that I've seen this, and it would be completely unreasonable to decide the super genius has no access to say, Survival, just because their defaulted skills risk stepping on the low IQ Survivalist's niche.

It is reasonable that the Player holds back and lets the Survivalist take point in survival encounters, but not that they sit around pretending they're incapable if the Survivalist goes down or is split from the group.

What's even more reasonable is when the GM find problems with the system, they investigate methods of fixing them instead of just telling Players "no you can't make high IQ PCs because the system is broken".

"Hyper competence" implies high IQ and putting points into all the skill the Player wants the Character to be competent in. That's fine. Literally, that's okay.

The problem is when the high IQ PC is also broadly "skilled" in everything due to high attribute defaults, to the extent that low IQ PCs with lots of points in skills aren't even equal to the defaults of the high IQ PC. That is a problem within the system. That it costs more to be as broadly skilled as the high IQ Character than the high IQ PC paid.

I've been running games for almost 40 years, let us all just accept that I understand Session Zero and focus on where the problem actually rests.



I wouldn't accept that as a Player. And my Players who know I'm fond of floating skills would give me the side eye if I tried to get that past them.

"Just have them take a high IQ" is not a solution for "making highly Skilled but low IQ PCs equal to the high IQ Attribute PCs in their default skills".


I know I keep saying "IQ"when I kinda do mean "Attributes", but really... it's because I have never encountered the problem with DX. I've never seen a Player want to make a low DX but highly physically Skilled PC. Probably because they also want good Initiative, good Dodge, and good Movement, and while you can make a "low DX, but good everything else DX related PC", it's, well, just as inefficient as the "low IQ well IQ Skilled" Characters, but also no one seems to want to play that concept.

Okay, now I want to play that concept and I'm annoyed at how terribly inefficient it is.†


† Actually, my solution would be to take a high DX and then invent a Disad like Clumsy [-X], "Take a -y on all base DX checks" or something. And then never approve it for my Players to take it because I almost never call for base Attribute checks. I prefer asking for Skill checks.



Inversely I think the obvious mistake is using RAW GURPS when the system isn't designed to balance that type of Character next to a "super genius hyper-skilled in a few areas". And, did you just call an entire Character concept a mistake? The highly competent but not particularly bright hero? Is a mistake?

Oh, my bad, let me inflate the word count for you:

"Very broadly skilled but not a very smart." Did 7 words do for you what 4 could not?

And yes, in my games "low IQ skill-monkey" is a fine concept (and clearly zoncxs gets the idea). When we sit down and ask for everyone's basic concepts so no one is niche stomping, I'm not looking for a life-path, a full history, or a 25 inch dissertation. 2-6 words is perfectly cromulent. If someone says "Super Genius" or "Combat Wombat" and it's not encroaching on someone else's one to however many word concept, I'm fine working from there. If two people say some variety of "Combat Guy", then they need to touch base and work things out between themselves before going forward... but "Combat Guy" works just fine as a starter.



Actually, what happened is someone made an IQ 12 very broadly skilled PC, spending somewhere around 100ish points in skills across around 50 IQ skills. Another Player made an IQ 15 "Doctor/Research Scientist" type PC with around 20ish IQ skills but only about 40ish points therein. Totally different skill sets on these two, one was a Mr Fixit/Survivalist, the other a Doctor/Research Scientist.

So far, so good. The low IQ PC's Player knew that what they were doing was inefficient, but they planned to pick up a few Talents later for important skills or to round out some competencies and just spend points in the important skills. Basically they wanted to be "broadly competent, but not "really, really, smart"... in others words, we knew what we were doing.

The problem started to arise when the Doctor keep bumping IQ instead of skills... I mean, I knew it was coming the first time we talked about what PCs were spending their exp on and the Doctor said "I'm saving for IQ". I've encountered this exact problem repeatedly, but usually it's the Wizard/Scientist/Doctor outshining the Face rather than a broadly competent Mr Fixit, but still. (Because most Mr Fixits would be mid-to-high IQ, it just makes sense point-wise, the problem with Faces is that Charisma is not the catch all that IQ is, and in DF, Face usually also means buying Wealth, another, albeit smaller, point hole for them to have to fill.)

Now the Doctor never actually had better repair or Survival skills, but broadly speaking, they were more competent everywhere else (IQ skill wise). Even with Mr Fixit taking Jack of All Trades.

It's not even always "decided to steal the spotlight". I've accidentally made characters that smashed other's desired secondary niches because... well... the system isn't good in those regards, and I like to play high IQ PCs. So "oops, my social defaults are higher then the (secondary‡) Face's bought skills" happens often enough I've been putting thought towards how to fix this aside from just pretending my PCs defaults aren't better than their purchased skills.


‡ By 'secondary" I mean the PC isn't primarily a "Face", but then no one else is, so they've bought up skills and maybe an Advantage or two to cover this area... and oops, my Wizard does it better because IQ is broken.



No, IQ is an attribute. 12 is a number.







Tell y'all what, I'm gonna move some of this discussion to it's own thread as it is kinda derailing this one.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

What does "not very smart" mean to the player?

GURPS IQ isn't "how smart you are," it's "how broadly skilled you are." If it makes you feel better, consider it poorly named.

They may be much happier with a high IQ but a few key mental disadvantages (whichever best fit their idea of "not very smart").

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

You're just inflating the starting points. Personally, I think it's a bad solution. The problem for you seems to be when IQ starts to get too high. Charging 60 (or more!!) per level will penalize not only the IQ 18 character, but the IQ 12 character as well. And raising the points to compensate doesn't seem productive to me.

If the problem is when IQ starts to get too high, then maybe it's better to put a level cap and charge Unusual Background on top of that per level. In practice, it's as if the attribute becomes more expensive only after a certain level (let's say 15 or 16). That way you wouldn't be punishing the player who just wants to have an attribute 11 or 12.

Just imagine, a Dungeon Fantasy game where DX costs 60 per level. In Dungeon Fantasy, a physical combatant is expected to have DX around 13 to 16 starting. Let's take 14, which is the knight's. At 60 points per level, that would be 240 points (against the current 80). In a template that should cost 250 points. Ok, and then what? Putting starting points of 400 or more points to compensate? And it has other problems. Then imagine that another player, with the same points, but with DX 12 (120 points at the cost suggested by you). Then he spends on a single combat skill 120 points. This gives an SL of 42 in Broadsword, for example. Only with what the other character spent to have DX 14.

Honestly, for me the bill does not add up. It ends up becoming mathematically bad.

Take and look at the Dungeon Fantasy templates, for example. Or the ones from Action. Maybe even Monster Hunters (which is bigger). I don't see the problem you mentioned occurring. I know it can happen at some tables, with some players, depending on the sheet, but it doesn't seem common when each character has their niche. And even in templates in the same area (like the physical combatants in Dungeon Fantasy), they still have their differences, one does not nullify the usefulness of the other.

It was honestly not my intention to insult you. If it looked like that, I'm sorry. But I can't say in other words, if 3 out of 4 tables don't have this issue in play, then maybe it's a question of how you guys are managing these things. With all respect.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I think the game-mechanical solution to the OPs character concept problem of a "low IQ skill monkey" vs. high IQ is a universal talent - call it "broad competence" or whatever. I started a thread about it here:

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It's not even "too high". I've seen this in "low" (100) point games with IQs that were 10 and 14. It's when one PC's IQ exceeds another's by 3 or more, and the lower IQ PC is supposed to be "broadly skilled".

The problem is defaults and exacerbated by the way skills cost more than Attributes which favors just buying up an Attribute. It invalidates an entire Character Concept, one which maybe only my group loves. The "bungling but highly competent" individual.

Because you're only looking at the problem from one angle. Giving more points means lower Attribute PCs can buy up skills to higher levels, levels the high Attribute PC can easily afford for less points.

That's how it worked in 3e, and I'll admit, that does seem to another solution. Ever increasing Attribute costs.

Uses Templates which solves all the problems you've just mentioned.

However, escalated Attribute costs becomes a "raising them later will be harder" problem. I'll have to think on that as well.

Look at the Human Knight who wants to "Face" vs a High Elf Wizard who just defaults their social skills. It happens right out the door at chargen. I know, I've accidentally done that to the human Knight who wanted to be a face and discovered my High Elf Wizard's defaults were better than his bought skills (in this case, Knight really shouldn't try to be a Face, Face Character need a decent IQ, not the Knight's 10). I wasn't even tryign to step on his "secondary role" he just, as many here would say "chose poorly".

(And honestly he did build poorly. He was allowed to go off-template and buy Charisma and Wealth, so he did perform better in Reaction Rolls andat selling loot. But pure diplomancy? Rolling dice for skills? My Wizard was far, far better. We worked it out, he played off as the good looking shining Knight that everyone immediately loves, but who under all the initial bling was a dull boor, and I played the shrewd talking, but dour looking aloof @$$. However it was good no one was stepping on his primary role of damage dealing melee nightmare.)

Apparently it happens way more often in games I run or am in than it probably should.

No, it's just I'm not satisfied with "just cap the problem Attribute". I've down it, it doesn't completely work (see above IQ 10 vs 14), it's just a bandaid, and doesn't allow for high IQ PCs.



I've looked at that, but... it sadly makes using other Talents less attractive. But it is a nice solution to the problem, just not really for me.

[EDIT]
Also, just to note, I really enjoyed that thread. The discussion over "what is a skill and what is an attribute and what is a talent" really drilled into areas I've been thinking about for decades. Thanks for starting it.
[/EDIT]