Limiting racial language proficiency

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Bio-tech limits you to +1/2/3/4 IQs at TLs 9/10/11/12 for germline genetic engineering regardless of starting IQ. There are ways around this with bio-mods and cyberware but those of course are not hereditary.

No, that's not what I mean. Let me see if I can explain better...

So, say a caveman racial template has IQ-2 [-40]. What is to keep a player from just improving that to IQ 15? It seems wrong for a "stupid" race to be able to do that.

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

The table on DF11 pg.5 just used additive values. So human max is 20 and a race with -3 in that attribute would have max 17.

I personally prefer multiplicative values: if average is x then max = 2x.

That kinda seems like the right track if you use GURPS's usual "normal human" limit of 20 for ST and 15 for everything else in non-cinematic games. Then for the IQ-2 [-40] caveman template the max IQ would be 0.8 x 15 = 12. But even that seems kind of high...

And indeed my most profoundly stupid uplifted animal has IQ-2 [-40]. Thus far. More are coming.

GURPS Ice Age gives some proposed IQs for primitive hominins, though that's 3rd edition IQ- not sure if it differs much.

Australopithecines IQ-4
Homo habilis IQ-3
Homo erectus IQ-2
Neanderthals IQ-1
Archaic Homo sapiens IQ-1
Cro-magnon and other modern humans, normal IQ

So I guess the question is, can we envision an IQ 12 Homo erectus? I admit that I'm kind of having a hard time with that, but it might be minimally acceptable.

[Inky]

Animal templates often seem to have Taboo Trait (Fixed IQ) on them, maybe you're thinking of that? I'm not sure, though.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by acrosome

So, say a caveman racial template has IQ-2 [-40]. What is to keep a player from just improving that to IQ 15? It seems wrong for a "stupid" race to be able to do that.

The only option would be something akin to Taboo Trait, limiting IQ to not go above some value, largely by fiat. As a Taboo Trait, it's a Feature that your caveman can't get above, say, IQ 9.

Personally, I have no issue with there being the rare intelligent version of an otherwise-stupid species. You've just got to keep in mind that this individual is extremely exceptional amongst his or her species. A human with IQ 12 is notably intelligent - an uplifted chimpanzee (or whatever) with IQ 12 is a genius. But if you prefer your uplifted animals not be able to be as intelligent as some humans, you'll simply want to set a limit as a Taboo Trait. There's also an in-between option, where the species has a Taboo Trait limiting their IQ to 9 or less, but you can get IQ higher with an appropriate Unusual Background, functionally making IQ above the limit more expensive.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by acrosome

That seems likely to be far too expensive. Just among the examples of skills affected by literacy on Basic Set p.24 there are eight, and it's a -3 penalty for Broken or -1 for Accented, with each doubled for "artistic" uses such as poetry or singing.

And there must be many, many more skills that are affected. I could name three more off the top of my head.

Too expensive in what way? That's the value the rules assign for the consequence you're describing.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Too expensive in what way? That's the value the rules assign for the consequence you're describing.

If that logic were correct then Accented language proficiency would be worth a LOT more.

I mean, let's do some math. So just on a lark let's say that I could only think of three more skills, plus the eight example skills is 11. But two of them double the penalty, so for an Accented limitation anti-talent it would be [-13], which is nearly the same as Cannot Speak, which is insane. It would cost [-39] for a Broken limitation anti-talent.

And there are clearly a lot more skills that would be affected by language proficiency. So this doesn't pass the reality check, my friend.

[Donny Brook]

The rules don't pass one or both of the reality check or consistency check.

The effect works just like an anti-talent. GURPS' weird handling of languages is what makes it a mismatch.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by acrosome

I considered taboo traits, but it just logically seems more like a skill incompetence to me.

It really is just a taboo Trait, but if you feel it needs to be "balanced" for some reason, then just assigned it an Anti-Talent cost.

And most taboo traits with which I am familiar are for disadvantages, like mental illnesses for engineered humans, etc.

And things like "Has tail" (with no crunchy effects) or "Armor isn’t interchangeable with human armor", etc. Taboo Trait and Feature are interchangeable.

But it is a disadvantage if you cannot raise proficiency above a certain level, though, right?

But is it really?

I long ago discovered that if someone wants to play a Character that can't do things, they look for a way to get paid points to not be able to do that thing they already don't intend to do. So I disallow Anti-talents completely in my games.

See, if the Player wants to play a Character sings badly, they can just not invest in the Singing skill or Talents that impact it, done and dusted.


In your case, you have to decide how impact this will be in the campaign. Will it be as bad as a Bad Reputation -1 [-5] (5; All the Time, x1; Everyone, x1)? No? Then it shouldn't give that many points...

That's why a skill incompetence is a -1 quirk. The GM doesn't get to deny you that point and just say "you didn't points in Cooking, so you already saved the points".

Yes, actually I do. See above mini-rant about how it's a point crock since the Player decided the Character would simply suck at Cooking anyway...

Now, if they want to fight the "uphill" battle of both buying up their Cooking and being "Anti-Talented" in it, I'd implement a leveled Quirk: Anti-Talent [Skill] -1/level each level gives -2 in [Skill].

Now it isn't a point croc.

I was going to base it on the skill incompetence quirk and make them [-1] and [-2]. (After all, languages were skills in earlier editions.)

That is certainly not excessive if you mean "All Languages are capped at Accented [-1] or [-2]".

I still wouldn't allow a Player to get this if they proposed it... but it is your game, and you feel it's worth it, well it sounds reasonable to to the GM who hates the very concept of Anti-Talents.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by acrosome

While we are on the subject, I seem to recall some rules about low racial IQ. Isn't there a limit to how much you can raise IQ in such situations?

Inability to improve certain traits, or improve them above some level, is another Racial Feature.

Player characters might be able to get around such strictures with an Unusual Background E.g. Unusual Background (World's Smartest Uplifted Frog). It shouldn't cost that much, however, since it mostly factors in the surprise value of such a character.

[Dalillama]

Accented/Broken command of your native language is a disadvantage, per the usual language rules, that would appear on rhe racial template. Being unable to change a particular part of the racial template is a Taboo Trait worth 0 additional points

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

That is certainly not excessive if you mean "All Languages are capped at Accented [-1] or [-2]".

Yes, as I explained earlier.

HOWEVER, I just saw "Most have Broken literacy" listed as a 0-point feature for the Doolittle Dolphin (Bio-Tech p.89), so that's an argument in your favor. But that still isn't a cap.