Maximum Attributes for Real World People

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Culture20

She served as a mechanic and military truck driver in WWII. I assume she would have been given some sort of basic training even if she only drove trucks around Great Britain.

Okay, well, that could be a point of Soldier, at least.

[Anthony]

Honestly, given the way the skill system works, the evidence for stats above about 12 is dubious. A stat of 12 learns skills four times as fast as a stat of 10...

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Honestly, given the way the skill system works, the evidence for stats above about 12 is dubious. A stat of 12 learns skills four times as fast as a stat of 10...

No it doesn't. 1 point is one point for either stat. It takes just as long to improve for either stat.

[Flyndaran]

Stats just cover far too many things to work for simulationism as I believe people call it.
Some real individuals may have super quick learning, but start with abysmal defaults, and vice versa. That's not even getting into talents which I think far better represent rare geniuses and super athletes. And of course that real strongmen specialize in lifts so shouldn't be used as examples of maximum human over all Strength.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Stats just cover far too many things to work for simulationism as I believe people call it.
Some real individuals may have super quick learning, but start with abysmal defaults, and vice versa. That's not even getting into talents which I think far better represent rare geniuses and super athletes. And of course that real strongmen specialize in lifts so shouldn't be used as examples of maximum human over all Strength.

This brings up a common mistake people have with GURPS - they only look at the stats and not advantages, skills, or techniques.

One of best example of this "power through" mentality I have seen was in the fan created GURPS Mummy. Even in 3e there were better ways to achieve the same results without sending the stats into orbit and 4e has made things even easier.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No it doesn't. 1 point is one point for either stat. It takes just as long to improve for either stat.

IQ 12 with 2 points in a skill has skill 12. IQ 10 with 8 points in a skill has skill 12. Thus, 2 points are as good as 8 points, or 4x faster learning.

The plausible range of stats would be larger if the cost curve for skills was different.

[JazzJedi]

Originally Posted by Anthony

IQ 12 with 2 points in a skill has skill 12. IQ 10 with 8 points in a skill has skill 12. Thus, 2 points are as good as 8 points, or 4x faster learning.

The plausible range of stats would be larger if the cost curve for skills was different.

Exactly! What would be a more realistic cost curve for skills? I tinkered with some different models but never came up with anything satisfying. My first solution was that all skills had a fixed cost for a level, but stats above 10 gave a 10% cost reduction. So DX 15 means that all DX-based skills cost 50% less. But I abandoned this as it had lots of issues.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

IQ 12 with 2 points in a skill has skill 12. IQ 10 with 8 points in a skill has skill 12. Thus, 2 points are as good as 8 points, or 4x faster learning.

The plausible range of stats would be larger if the cost curve for skills was different.

And IQ 12 with 8 points has skill 14, but IQ 10 with 16 points has skill 14. That's only 2:1. If you go to skill 16, it's 16 vs. 24, which is only 3:2. Push it up to skill 20, and it's 32 vs. 40, which is 5:4. As you increase skill level, the ratio looks to go to 1 as a limit. Doing a ratio at only one point on a curve doesn't produce meaningful results.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by JazzJedi

A GURPS stat of 20 is not realistic at all - someone with a stat at 20 would be an expert in nearly all skills that default to that stat, which is absurd.

That's an argument against the defaulting rules being unrealistic, not about high skill levels. I think the alternative suggestion is to use a fraction like 2/3 for the default, instead of a flat -4/-5/-6.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

That's an argument against the defaulting rules being unrealistic, not about high skill levels. I think the alternative suggestion is to use a fraction like 2/3 for the default, instead of a flat -4/-5/-6.

Or just adopt an alternate rule that cut off defaults after your stat reaches 16. With that, the very most brilliant person on Earth could play chess, or design model railroad layouts, or keep house as well as an entry level professional or serious hobbyist, given the requisite familiarity; for anything else, they would fall a bit short of "professional" level. I think that neatly avoids the worst issues about defaults.