 Two is the new Three..., ...Joe Average NPC Stats. |
  |
 Nov 6 2006, 02:24 AM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer  Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636  |
There's no reason why the mid-point of the possible scale should be the average value of a population. The range of strength of an adult human might range from bench pressing 20kg to bench pressing 400kg, but that doesn't mean that the average person can bench press 210kg. Few people reach their potential and this means that there's more room on the upper side of the scale than the lower.
There's no anti-correlation between logic and charisma. Smarter people tend to be more charismatic. Stupid people less so. And yes, I am equating Logic with Smart in this case. As to strength and agility, this is rubbish. Being stronger doesn't make you less agile. As a rule, it makes you quicker because your power to weight ratio is better and it makes you better co-ordinated because proper weight-training increases neuromuscular co-ordination. I do a lot of it, and I should know. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Nov 6 2006, 03:19 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Thank you knasser for pointing out that median =/= mode =/= mean (i.e. average). It can be entirely accurate to say that the average attribute is 3 while saying the most common attribute is 2. At the same time a guy in the 2.5 range (not that fractional attributes exist in the game world) would have as many people above as below. In fact I expect such a distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 6 2006, 08:26 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Why do you have to see it based on random probability ? You're not born with some attributes : you develop them in your lifetime. Besides, I'm not sure these "random variables" have to be independent nor equally distributed.
In the 2070's your meat body isn't much use in urban areas (except for barrens), so physical attributes may tend to be a bit under the "norm". But those who train regularly (for example, Tir Ghosts) can get very high attributes. The BBB isn't written by probability expert for probability experts. When it says that 3 is the typical/average/median/standard/whatever attributes, it just means that someone who's not especially strong nor especially weak will have Strength 3, that someone who's not especially quick nor especially slow will have Reaction 3 and so on. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 6 2006, 09:20 AM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Its implicitly stated that the most common attribute is 3, not the average. By the way: The average is only then not the median, when the distribution is asymmetric. The only assymetry one can possibly assume in Shadowrun is that the minimum value of an attribute is 0.5 which is 5 sigmas away from the gaussian mean, while the maximum is 7 which is 8 sigmas away from the mean. Thus the average is a little bit bigger than 3. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 6 2006, 09:22 AM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
That what I meant with
I do not take the whole issue very serious, its just that I wrote a random NPC generator and thus had to think about all the statistics behind attributes and do some research. Gaussians do a suprisingly good job (and for example the strength and IQ distribution are very gaussian in reality, and uncorreleated by the way) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 6 2006, 03:57 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Ther are lots of other ways to generate asymetry. Imagine for example you have a sample consisting of: 1, 1, 1 , 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4,4 5, 5 6 That's a sample size of 21 and an "average" of 3. But almost half the people have a 2. More than half the people have a two or less. And since there are exceptional attributes, maintaining a 3 average is going to have to look like this.
No they aren't. While there are occassional giants with limited mental capacities and brilliant minds with chronic wasting disease - worldwide strength correlates pretty well to nutrition. And so does education. There aren't a whole lot of brilliant scientists coming out of the Yucatan and the people there are lucky to break 1.5m in height. On a grand scale, strength and intelligence correlate pretty well. If you took all the people in the world, and lined them up by height, the people at the taller end would fairly consistently outperform people at the lower end at math. Deprivation is deprivation. And people who don't have the requisite materials to realize their potential don't realize their potential. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 6 2006, 04:14 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
OK, I have to specify:
There are no reasons why a genetical attribute distribution should be asymmetric, except the aforementioned asymmetry of the extrema. I do not question the fact that it is mathematically possible to generate an asymmetric distribution. This is trivial. phenotypical distributions can be asymmetric as they are subject to various "one way" effects. Think fat people. You can always be more fat than you can be thin. Second: I think you are misinterpreting education for intelligence. phenotypical height is correlated to wealth, which is in turn correlated to education. genotypical height and intelligence is not, at least in the linear regime covering the fluctuations of humankind. In the non-linear regime you will find that intelligence correlates very much with body size, as you need a certain body size to maintain a brain of a certain volume. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 6 2006, 04:21 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Your Strength score isn't your genotypic strength, it's your actual strength. How much can you lift, how fast can you run. Why would your Logic be your genotypic intelligence? None of the other attributes work like that.
No, your Logic is how good you actually are at technical and scientific problem solving. That's education related,and that correlates to wealth as well as height does. That's why you can train yourself to increase every attribute - they represent not your potential but what you actually have achieved. And people who get more inputs achieve more. Across the board, and rather unsurprisingly. Strength and Logic are correlated pretty tightly overall on a world scale. -Frank |
|
|
|
|
Nov 6 2006, 08:54 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
I'm confused by the arguments around the Tir ghosts.
They don't start out with those stats. Those stats represent the ghost after years of training. It's not like they walk out in the fields and pluck newly ripened Tir ghosts from the vine. I expect they come in to the program with lower attributes across the board, then get them boosted by focused, dedicated training (which would be represented in game by Karma). It may be hard to find good candidates, but the ghosts aren't ghosts at the beginning. Granted, Charlie the CPA isn't Charlie the CPA at birth either. But I expect the ghosts get a far higher level of training (aka more karma), so grow more than Charlie. Of course, the assumption in a character creation system is that everyone is basically balanced. And we all know from real life that there are people who are simply "built using more bp" than others. So trying to extrapolate the character creation system out to the entire world is gonna fail. To the general point, though, I like the idea a lot. If 2.5 is the expected average, it also removes the idea that a 1 body is a crippled person, a 1 logic is a vegetable, etc. I realize that the sample characters don't quite bear that out, but I also explain that away with the idea that the samples are there to provide a challenge/backup appropriate to the characters, not to represent the world as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 6 2006, 09:47 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I actually use 0 level attributes for conditions like paralyses (Str 0), Brittle Bone disease (Body 0), severe mental retardation (Intuition 0), etc. One nice thing about saying that the average is 0 is that it tones down player expectations for their characters. Unlike earlier editions, SR4 seems to be geared towards lower attribute levels and if Joe Average is Body 2, then that makes players less bothered about being Body 4. By cranking down the scores a little, it also gives the GM more room at the top for maneuvre. It lets someone with Strength 7 be really strong for example, whilst you don't need that differentiation for the physically weak. @Serbitar There is no reason why the distribution on the attribute scale shouldn't be lopsided. This accords with real life quite well, after all. People will work to catch up the average, they will work less hard to exceed it. This leads to a bulge on the lower end of the attribute scale. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 6 2006, 11:56 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
I'm guessing that when you wrote the average of '0' that was a typo. However, I agree. Infact, it's been something of a revalation when evaluating some solutions to the current BP/Karma issues in character creation. I have a feeling that understanding, accepting, and integrating this into SR4 will really open up the top-end ceiling of the game, helping to mitigate one of the (conceptual) issues we've all had with hard caps. As it stands right now, I'm fiddling around with a Two-Stage form of Character creation, where a character is brought up to 'Joe Average' Level in stage one, and then the second stage of character creation involves improving on that base. It seems to have allowed for some min-maxing, through attributes, but really brought it down to a much more reasonable level. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 7 2006, 12:14 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Hmmm. Yes - typo. I meant 2 not 0. Thanks. I think a lot of the issues people have had with SR4 have simply been an inability to adjust from previous editions. The other big example is magic. A magician with magic 4 is equivalent to a magician starting at 6 in the old system. If you keep this sort of stuff in mind, then much less seems broken, to me. I've never altered the character generation ruiles, but I work with players to help them min-max a little where needed and to keep some perspective. I show them stats for typical characters such as security guards so they can see that their characters are impressive. And just as importantly, I keep the opposition on a reasonable power scale. I like to challenge them with smart tactics as much as I do with high-grade opponents. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 04:25 AM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
true to some extent, but not true in other ways. my problem is not that characters can't reach the numbers of previous editions. my problem is not that 4 seems too low. my problem is that a character can *start the game* right at the maximum. that's just silly. you can start off as the world's greatest doctor, pretty much, if you want to. there is no one in the world better than you can be at chargen if you so choose (except for those who can break the rules, but they don't count). now i'm not saying you should be forced to start off as a first year biology student who's just barely got a first aid certificate... i'm just saying you shouldn't be able to start off at the very top of what is (meta)humanly possible. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 7 2006, 11:14 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
If you start off the best as something then you are going to have to sacrafice something else to balance it all out. You spend 85 BP to max out one stat, 30 BP for Exceptional Attribute and Skill qualities, and 28 BP to have 7 in one skill.
Thats over 1/4 your BP just to make yourself the best in one skill. You can do that, but it will set you up short in other areas or you will have to take up alot of Neg Qual to offset alot of it and even then you dont break even. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 12:27 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
@knasser : So basically, you're saying that you're lowering the average so that players used to the irrealistic scale of the attributes in SR3 don't feel bad in SR4 and so that human runners are superior to average humans ?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 12:42 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
Jaid,
What is the problem with someone being at the top of their game in a skill, at chargen? As Konsaki said, they pay a lot to be able to do that and are weaker in other areas. I see no reason not to allow players start off at that level, if they so choose, if their backstory/idea supports it, and if the GM (me) believes that they are interested in playing a fun char, not just min-maxing. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 03:06 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,598 Joined: 24-May 03 Member No.: 4,629 |
You can always take the "Three-Twenty Challenge" and run a team with 320 starting BP instead of 400. If you do this, you should also:
Lower the skill max to one at 5 or two at 4, while Groups cap at 3. Lower the maximum Resources from 50 down to 40. Lower the maximum Availability from 12 to 8. Bingo bango bongo, you've got "Rookie Runners", a crew that's fairly new-ish to the street, raw and ready for adventure. Everyone has a TON of room to grow, so much so that it won't just be your magicians jonesing for Karma. Currently testing to see if the Qualities level should be adjusted and if so, if it should be dropped to 30 or to 25. Characters come out surprisingly cool. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 03:33 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
He's not even lowering the average. He's point out that what is commonly accepted as the average may not be the actual average. It's more about shifting your view point that anything else. Right now, if you have a 2 in a stat, you feel like it's low. A 3 feels about average, and a 4 is a little above average. A 1 feels like you're pretty incompetent. That really only leaves 5 and 6 as "impressive" If you look at 2 as the average, then 1 is just below average. 3 is a bit above. 4 and 5 are impressive. And 6? 6 is top of the line. Then when you get something like a troll, who starts with body of 5, you look at that and say "Wow, nice. 3 points above the average human." I like the idea.
But why not? This is SR, not DnD. You can are playing a runner with some experience, just getting a rep. You aren't an 18 year old fresh off the farm. For point of reference I'd point to Firefly as the prime example runner team. At the start of the series, they are all fairly competent. Each one has strengths and weaknesses, some obviously min/maxed to max out negative qualities and pump combat abilities to obscene levels with adept powers (River), some are the top of the line in one field, but weak in others (Simon, Wash, Kayleigh), some are pretty well rounded, with one or two strengths (Mal), and a couple are combat focused, but have a few other skills (Jayne, Zoe). They start out fairly able to do things. Over the course of the show, they evolve new abilities, and new skills, but even from day one, they're fairly able to do what they need to do. They don't have to start out rolling drunks for cash and xp - they can jump right in to a train job. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 7 2006, 06:15 PM
Post
#44
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
Absolutely. Infact, I'll take it a step farther. 400 BP might be -too many- BPs to begin with at all.
Awesome. Let us know how that turns out. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 7 2006, 06:29 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 7 2006, 06:33 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Hmmm. I seem to have answered that without even touching my keyboard. But actually, I'm grateful 'cause the others have put it better than I probably would have anyway. ;) As to rookie characters, I think 400BP is still okay. If the GM wants non-min-maxed PCs, I'd put caps on skills rather than lower the BP, because then you still get well-rounded characters that don't have big holes early karma has to plug. Also, some character concepts, (mage, technomancer), really have a kind of minimum below which they just aren't effective. To low a BP allowance and they have none left over to make their character anything more than the concept. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 7 2006, 06:40 PM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,598 Joined: 24-May 03 Member No.: 4,629 |
Got a whole thread on it, actually. I have to erase and replace one character there (long story), and there're more on the way. Good stuff, if I may be so bold. |
||
|
|
|
||
 Nov 7 2006, 06:59 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Depends on the feeling I guess.
I don't find 2 to be especially low, just like I don't find 4 to be impressive. It's just below and above the norm. 1 is really weak, 5 is impressive and 6 is exceptional. Above is extreme (world records). With 2 as the norm, you'll actually need 0 to represent big weaknesses (as you've already said) and so you'll just be shifting the scale one step, getting common exceptional attributes (and even world records) for chargen runners or limitating the BP (as other have already said). I don't really get the idea behind this change. You end up with having nearly the same situation as before, except you have a bit larger scale... Why not make it from 0 to 10 for humans with 5 being the average then ? Or even 0 to 20 (and roll the attributes with 3 dices ? :silly: ) |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 07:01 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
Because that would be a craptastical system in which you rolled for random stats...
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 07:09 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Thanks, you made me see I forgot to add the necessary smiley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 05:55 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.