A Brief Rant On The Value of Attributes
David Johnston
at many intellectual skills but for some reason he's at a
disadvantage", my sympathy is nonexistent. It makes sense to me that
smart characters are going to be better in general at intellectual
skills than stupid ones. When a player complains that their design
which does not make sense, doesn't work very well, I just want to slap
them on the back of the head and tell them to do something that isn't
dumb.
And I say this, despite having designed an IQ 9 telepath named
Headstrong.
David Trimboli
> When people complain "I want to design a stupid character who is good
> at many intellectual skills but for some reason he's at a
> disadvantage", my sympathy is nonexistent. It makes sense to me that
> smart characters are going to be better in general at intellectual
> skills than stupid ones. When a player complains that their design
> which does not make sense, doesn't work very well, I just want to
> slap them on the back of the head and tell them to do something that
> isn't dumb.
It sounds like they're saying, "I don't want to pay 20 character points
per point of IQ."
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Ben Finney
> David Johnston wrote:
> > When people complain "I want to design a stupid character who is
> > good at many intellectual skills but for some reason he's at a
> > disadvantage", my sympathy is nonexistent.
Preach it, brother.
> It sounds like they're saying, "I don't want to pay 20 character
> points per point of IQ."
“… even if 20 points works out to be cheaper than the shopping-basket of
skills I've put individual points into”.
--
\ “I got a postcard from my best friend, it was a satellite |
`\ picture of the entire Earth. On the back he wrote, ‘Wish you |
_o__) were here’.” —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney
Johnny1a
Or perhaps 'I want a character who is book-smart but has no common
sense.' I've met those charactrs in real life...
Bent C Dalager
> When people complain "I want to design a stupid character who is good
> at many intellectual skills but for some reason he's at a
> disadvantage", my sympathy is nonexistent. It makes sense to me that
> smart characters are going to be better in general at intellectual
> skills than stupid ones.
The typical way to accommodate this directly would be to allow bang
skills so you can have the IQ 8, Science!-20 character and he'd even
be better off for it in the science department since each point of IQ
costs 20 but each marginal point of Science! only costs 12.
(ooh, and he could have Will-4 and Per-4 for a whopping 80 points
towards the disad limit from stats alone! After all, who needs Enemies
when you've got your player milking your very basic survival
characteristics for points!)
The much more typical way, of course, is to buy an appropriate IQ
level for the skill levels desired and then represent this character's
unique stupidities with appropriate Disadvantages. I gather many
players new to GURPS don't quite get this approach though and hence (?)
the presumably repeated challenges to your sympathic faculties :-)
Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
David Johnston
No, that's not it. They just object to the idea that there could be
any bad ways to make characters.
David Johnston
Of course IQ doesn't give you common sense.
WDS
> Of course IQ doesn't give you common sense.
But a smart person is more likely to have more common sense than a
stupid person.
Rob Kelk
<sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
IQ 13 plus Impulsive should simulate that well enough...
--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"There's always somebody who's going to hate your work, no matter
how good it is. DON'T LET HIM CHASE YOU AWAY FROM WRITING, BECAUSE
THAT WAY HE WINS." - Robert M. Schroeck, 18 July 2006
Bent C Dalager
A high-IQ person who buys Common Sense will get more use out of it
than a low-IQ person who does the same.