Points value of "regular" people?

[Tiggurix]

Greetings! So, some time back, this thread was about creating "ordinary people", which, in the OP's eyes were characters of 0 to -50 points. Now, in my opinion, this is grossly underestimating the capabilites of "average" people, and, indeed, the 3rd edition rulebook agrees, having a sidebar that mentions that everyone of 15 points or less are below average. But I actually think that 25 points, which is what it lists as the "average" people value, seems too low for me as well. I'm thinking that it is closer to 50 points.

Now, I have thought a bit about how I would estimate the points value of a random, "ordinary" NPC in a 21st century setting, and this is what I've arrived on: A human generally is born with a base points value of 0, not including any of the standard disadvantages for being a helpless baby. As they grow older, their points value generally increases with about 5 points per two years, arriving at a points value of about 25 points at 10 years of age, at the "mid-point" of their childhood, and then finally stopping this relatively rapid growth at about twenty-ish of age, with a points value of about 50. From there, the points value slowly increases with age, with about a point for every year, arriving at about 55 at 25 years of age, 60 at thirty years of age, and so on, and so forth, right up till the onset of senility (if they ever reach this point). This would give a 100 points character at 70 years of age, if they haven't become senile, but obviosly, at this point, they are beginning to heavily feel the onset of old age, and are probably far from their prime, though generally wiser, nonetheless.

Obviously, what is going to be the "average" points value is going to vary enormously from setting to setting. In harsher, less forgiving settings (like the one I'm going to GM in the holidays, which is about a society of exiles in a harsh, subterranean land), I imagine that the majority of youths are going to be about 100 points at twenty-ish years, as they will have to have had learned quickly the leasons of prudence, and to be tough all around, to have survived to adulthood, while the elders will be even more "badass", with a man/woman reaching 50 years of age easily reaching 200 points, I imagine.

So, what do you think? How competent would you estimate an "ordinary" person to be, and why do you estimate so? Do you like my (very basic) system for estimating the points progression of a regular human being? Do you think that I'm wildly off my mark, and that I'm vastly overrating the competency of the average human being, or do you think I'm undervaluing the worth of the common "human spirit", and that even in the 21st century regular folks would be a hundred points in their twenties? :P

Share your thoughts!

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Tiggurix

Greetings!

Hey.

Originally Posted by Tiggurix

Share your thoughts!

Presuming that you have read the thread you linked to, which had a huge, extended, crappy debate about this very topic with many varied opinions / methods expressed that came to a sort-of neat-but hostile and not-especially-productive resolution with almost everybody more-or-less not listening but agreeing to disagree and a few of us who enjoy the thread still occasionally posting very low-point characters, what could possibly motivate you to try to necro this debate? Do you feel like anybody has anything to add to what was said in the very long-winded thread you linked to? The Low-Balla Thread (which, for the record, is my favorite thread ever) is IMHO there for people to enjoy or not at this point.

[Tiggurix]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Presuming that you have read the thread you linked to, which had a huge, extended, crappy debate about this very topic with many varied opinions / methods expressed that came to a sort-of neat-but hostile and not-especially-productive resolution with almost everybody more-or-less not listening but agreeing to disagree and a few of us who enjoy the thread still occasionally posting very low-point characters, what could possibly motivate you to try to necro this debate? Do you feel like anybody has anything to add to what was said in the very long-winded thread you linked to? The Low-Balla Thread (which, for the record, is my favorite thread ever) is there for people to enjoy or not at this point.

Well, to be honest, it's not a debate that I've ever had, and that debate was not the original intent of the OP either, and, as far as I've ever seen, there aren't any other threads that handles that topic in specific. I must admit that I haven't read the entire thread myself, for some reason, probably because of its daunting size, but that thread is years old, and if you're tired of this discussion from that thread, then just share your thoughts and leave it be.

[johndallman]

I don't think "ordinary" people have point values nearly as clearly defined as you seem to. I reckon they're all over the place in the range 0 to 100 or so 4e points, with outliers above and below that range.

[Tiggurix]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I don't think "ordinary" people have point values nearly as clearly defined as you seem to. I reckon they're all over the place in the range 0 to 100 or so 4e points, with outliers above and below that range.

Actually that's exactly what I hold by, just that I try to rationalise a "mean" to stand by as a rule-of-thumb. Of course the mean is going to be different from setting to setting, and from society to society, and from tech level to tech level. That's the specifics that I'm trying to discuss.

[Tiggurix]

Also, I realise that I will have to generate some sample characters to support my argument, and I will do this. I just won't do it right now, because I don't have the energy. I'll come back soon with some examples.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Tiggurix

Actually that's exactly what I hold by, just that I try to rationalise a "mean" to stand by as a rule-of-thumb. Of course the mean is going to be different from setting to setting, and from society to society, and from tech level to tech level. That's the specifics that I'm trying to discuss.

Well, I'm thinking about a medium-sized group of people that I know: the 200 staff in the office where I work. They're almost all in the age range 25 to 55, they all have college education in maths or science, and they all do definitely related jobs. But the only thing I'd feel confident in generalising about them in GURPS terms is that they have IQ11 or better. Their wealth levels, social advantages and disadvantages, physical attributes, and skills outside their jobs are wildly variable, and therefore so are their point totals.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I don't think "ordinary" people have point values nearly as clearly defined as you seem to. I reckon they're all over the place in the range 0 to 100 or so 4e points, with outliers above and below that range.

Agreed. And this is made worse by the fuzzy definition of "regular person." Clearly, a werewolf is not a regular person, because he's supernatural. But what about Vladimir Putin? He's not supernatural, and I'd hazard a guess that his wealth and power and extensive allies (plus his amazing, bear-riding skills and epic kung fu) would put him in the several hundred point range. But is he normal? No? What about a highly skilled professional athlete? Or someone in special ops? How about a veteran officer, or an expert detective? Okay, what about a very proficient student?

People seem to have a specific idea of "regular," probably meaning "Like I am," but people who aren't very far off on the edges of the bell curve can be pretty extraordinary. Wealth, talent, skill, motivation and health can all vary pretty considerably. So yeah, I think "regular person" has more than enough room to contain the crippled little girl at school as well as the financially successful mercenary who has seen some action in foreign theaters before coming home to settle with his immigrant wife.

[Crzyraccoon]

I always saw this with regular peoples' points value like this.

Below 0 points: Very physically or mentally crippled people, Retarded, Toddlers

0 to 25 points: Children around the age of 4 to 9, physically or mentally crippled people, dumb.

25 to 40 points: Minors at the age of 10 to 15, Meek.

40 to 70 points: 16 to early adulthood, inexperienced adults.

70 to 100 points: Mid to late adulthood, Experienced adults, talented and/or skilled, Above-average intellegent, Strong physical capabilities.

100 to 200: Badass normals, Very talented and/or skilled that can get them a great career, Genius.

Do note that a regular person is what common in a given society or world, not how much points they worth, non regular people may not just have high points but very low points, What comes to mind is Beavis and Butthead, they could easily be worth -100 points.

Also in my examples, they are just what to expect from the average person in today's TL8 world at those points, and not set in stone for character building even for the same world. You could play a toddler with IQ or a crippled man with loads of skills.

The advantage that possible to gain thats worth alot a points is wealth, Bill Gates would have of this post, would have Multimillionare 4 which is worth 150 points.

[Otaku]

To be fair:

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

To go along with the low-level 25 to 50 point character concepts...

So I think this was a specific niche; the lower end of "normal". Of course I may be reading too much into the phrase and you're right: he thinks no one can be normal and have a positive point value.

Otherwise I would put forth that:

1) TL is a factor of setting; perhaps the typical guidelines should be viewed as applying to specific TLs e.g. a 0 point TL 0 character's higher tech equivalent might be five points at TL 1, 10 at TL 2, etc.

2) I would like to see some worked out examples to support your argument, because on their surface, I find them pretty weak.

At best I could see that "average 70 year old human" having a decent skill set and quite a few social Advantages. I think you might be failing to draw a distinction in that competent tends to be "above average", even if only a little. Simply put, a "normal" person is performing in a relatively "average" fashion, which includes sometimes doing really stupid things and sometimes doing really smart things. Most don't spend meaningful amounts of time studying anything; they get to count hours spent doing a job and/or participating in a hobby as study towards the relevant skill(s), but the better they get at it the less that counts and the more is needed for maintaining that high skill.

Also the aging rules are very simplified, so if you want to get really detailed (and that is how I interpret your analysis) you'd need to start aging rolls probably sometime in a person's late 20s or 30s and instead of just dropping an Attribute a level, allow the player to pick or assign or roll against a chart you'll need to construct for what Disadvantage they get. Or make that an additional aging roll: once for each attribute and then one for "complications due to aging". To keep things from being too different, add in a sizable bonus that diminishes until you get to where GURPS RAW starts requiring aging rolls. Still, more than a few people I know have such complications; usually from a lifestyle habit that did little to nothing until our late 20s or early 30s. Speaking of which, I'll have to finish this later because its time to deal with one of my own "aging complications".