Guaging Attributes Options

[Ddays]

In the SR4 book, there's a handy little table that shows the degree of proficiency you have at each skill based on your ranks as well as a a little description of how good you are (0 is average joe, 1 is high school athlete, 2 is blah blah)

I was wondering if there's anything of the sort for attributes, or if it's plausible to make one since I was wondering if my 2 logic troll is as dumb as a grade schooler or around average for a guy out of high school.

I'm aware there are some problems with this (some of the unawakened animals have surprisingly high mental stats), but a vague guideline would still be nice.

[Strobe]

I think the problem with that is what the stats represent. Reading the descriptions for them show that the stats can mean different things. High body might be a big burly guy or just a fitness freak with a good immune system. Logic might be how well you use the data you have but it is difficult to say it isn't a part of somethings raw cunning.

I guess it is possibly since they give a few descriptions for each one eg. Strength 5 might be weightlifter, professional bodybuilder or boxing champion but Body 5 might be boxing champion, marathon runner but not the weightlifter as they are just Strength not always the Body (not saying they wouldn't have the body mind you).

-Strobe

[knasser]

I'm very strongly of the opinion that 2 is the average attribute for a person. Firstly, it's backed up by the grunt stats in the SR4 BBB, secondly it really makes sense. The range of ability for a human is quite wide (let's take Strength as an example) and the vast majority of people are not placed mid-point in that range. Instead, the average is below that mid-point. There is far more room at the top than there is at the bottom because few people reach their potential. If it were otherwise, most folks be half as strong as the world's strongest person and most of us are not powerlifting 300lbs ;)

I give 2's across the board as standard then a 3 in things people should be good at. So the Lonestar cops in the BBB have 2's with a few 3's in body, etc. I represent ability more through skills than Logic, Intuition, etc.

Your Log 2 troll is not an idiot, and will be experienced in appropriate areas which will make him effectively smart in that field. But he's not someone you would immediately think is very bright.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[pbangarth]

I'm particularly interested in what people think an Attribute of 1 means, as I have seen several contributors to Dumpshock grow hot under the collar at the mention of generating characters with Attribute(s) at 1.

Is a character with, say, 2 Attributes at 1 an abberation that cannot exist in reality, but only in a munckin's dream?

Would the character Radar in M.A.S.H. have average physical ratings of 3 (or 2 as mentioned above) or something lower?

Is an Attribute of 1 any more exotic than an Attribute of 6, particularly since it is closer numerically to the 'average' value of 2or 3?

[Blade]

a character with 2 attributes at 1 could exist in reality: someone with a physical deficiencies could have Strength and Body at 1, someone burnt on drugs can have willpower and charisma at 1...

As for the 2/3 debate, I think that someone who's healthy but doesn't do much physical effort will have a Strength rating of 2. This covers a big part of the population, but it's not how you'd picture a "standard guy".

[sunnyside]

The book does mention that 3 is "average". In the powerlifting example that person would probably be strength 7 (if they aren't exceptional they aren't at the olympics in that event), and they would also have a lot of skill. Powerlifting at that level takes technique.

Still 2's are far from uncommon. There are probably lots of people who are generally below average, and most people are probably below average somewhere.

An attribute of 1 however is something that might stick out a little bit. However they do exist. Some people are just plain dumb, etc.

Multiple attributes at 1 could certainly exist. The trick is that chars like that tend to be annoying. The classic example of that is the character who dumps logic and charisma because they intend to use their own abilities in place of those. All to many GMs will let that work. Especially the logic part. Also GMs frequently don't like tracking encumberance. And so str 1 characters can often get by like their str3 counterparts, instead of having things happen like the GM saying they can't pull themselves up the ledge or something.

[James McMurray]

I'd say that an attribute of 1 is abyssmally low for a Shadowrunner. If you're not covering it with skills or 'ware you could easily get yourself killed.

[knasser]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Still p. 62.

[sunnyside]

I think knasser may be thrown off the page 62 stuff by the NPCs.

The gangers are often poorly nourished, and haven't exactly been trying to develop their cerebral capacities.

And I don't know what to think about humanis goons. My inclination is that we're talking about people whose mother is also their neice.

[ElFenrir]

It seems that in the old days, 3 seemed to be the average, but these days, it appears to be a 2.

I did some comparing of 2's and 3's with some of the simpler, real world things(like Strength), and a 3 strength is actually pretty damn good compared to the typical person in the early 21st century.

Certain people can be defined by attributes, or in some cases, lack thereof, or both(Stephen Hawking comes to mind.)

Also interesting to notice how many people ''lump'' certain attributes together, like Body and Strength. A little off topic, but i notice many folks don't have a problem dumping Strength but granting high Body, but very few can picture a very strong character with low Body(a steroid abuser could very well have little in the way of health but be freakishly strong due to the drugs). I've seen some boxers who could punch someone's lights out fast, but can't take a hit to save their life.

Sorry for the offtopic, but it seemed like an interesting place to bring it up.

Back on the topic, i really don't know if i believe the book average of 3, or the 2 that folks discuss alot. Assuming attributes are equally tossed around(up to 200 BP), not maxing or gimping anything, that allows 4 3's and 3 4 4's. Which is really good. If it's assumed the ''average'' Shadowrunner uses half their BP to Attributes, i can believe the three, but this might not be the case.

[knasser]

[Narmio]

Not unlike Knasser, I've always assumed that the average person is somewhere around 200 to 250pt build, varying depending on education, training, etc. What that means is 100-120 points in attributes, which is (for a human) mostly twos with a smattering of threes in what you're good at. So the average construction worker will probably have Log 2, Bod 3, while the average schoolteacher will probably have the reverse.

At least, that would be their stats if I ever concocted a run bizarre enough to require a schoolteacher's stats.

[Strobe]

Also people in RL would probably have higher mental attributes than physical attributes. Or at least I think most people in the world have below 3 Strength. Since most highly paid jobs are not physical labor people tend to develop their brains more.

-Strobe

[pbangarth]

Well there's the rub, isn't it, Narmio? The shadows are full of people with 2s. Are we interested in playing them, though?

Then there's the issue of the augmentations available. If 2s are ordinary, and augmentations can improve them to 5s and 6s, is creating a character like that reasonable?

[knasser]

[bibliophile20]

[Nostalgic Jester]

This has been discussed before :) . I don't remember who made it, but I still remember a brilliant observation on the subject: Shadowrun Third Edition average attribute ratings were 3 and when converting characters from said edition to Fourth you should multiply those ratings by 2/3...

Because of that, yesterday 6's became today 4's and by the same token old 3's should become new 2's.

I'd like to highlight the fact that except for the part of 3's becoming the current 2's all of this is actually stated on the RAW, thus making p. 62 a clear example of why cut and paste isn't always such a good idea :D .

[Naysayer]

Especially when you bring metahumans into the equation...
What are the average metahuman stats? In 1st to 3rd, it was easy: take the somewhat dodgy all-three's of the "average" human, add yonder racial modifiers et voilà, "average metahuman".
Now, if you would do that in 4th, the negative mods are no longer that, technically, they just lower the hard cap. Would Hagen, the troll-pedestrian, still have 3s in all mental attributes?
I don't think so, but by the mechanics, you could make a case for that, couldn't you?

But yeah, ever since 1st ed. I found the "average" values odd, given that, as knasser alreay pointed out, they make the "average" human about half as tough or smart as the unmodified max.
And it gave the average troll an Intelligence of 1, which is so much worse that even a crappy logic of 1 because it makes him just overall stupid. Like really plain stupid.

To cut it short, I agree with those who go for an average closer to two, with some threes. Especially with the new hard caps yadayadahasalleensaidi'llshutupnow...

[bait]

Could be that 3s are average for shadowrunners and not the mundanes.

[Critias]

That's pretty weak. The moment you decide to cross the line into becoming a semi-professional criminal instead of any other job in the world, all your stats go up?

[MaxHunter]

2 is the new 3.

Cheers,

Max

[Fortune]

I agree that 2 (or rather 2.5 - with a mix of 2s and 3s in Attributes) should be the SR4 human average.

I'm also of the opinion that an rating of 1 in one (or even two) Attributes isn't the end of the world. There are only so many BPs to go around.

Oh, and as an aside, could one of you nice admin-types fix the Thread's title? Pretty please ...

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Personally, I'll stick with the 3 for Average.
Why? Because that means Joe Average will roll 2 Dice when doing something.
Skill 0 is Average, too - and means defaulting.