Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Two is the new Three...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Steak and Spirits
Is three really the 'average' attribute for a Metahuman? Well no, not if you evaluate the mean average between attributes rated between 1 and 6. It isn't hard to note that 3 would actually be just below the mean, while 4 would be just above it, so if we round down we force the whole number of 3 as average.

However, I'm wondering if perhaps with the way the mechanics of the system are currently set up, somewhere between 2-3 might be a bit more appropriate as average.

This becomes more apparent after examining that:

1) Player Characters are always considered to be 'exceptional', or 'Above Average'.

2) 300 Build Points are assigned for Player Character in a street level campaign.

So.

Comparing Shadowrun 3rd edition to Shadowrun 4th Edition can be, at times, like comparing apples to oranges. But if you can reach back into the recesses of your mind, you'll recall the Priority system for character Generation. On the subject of Attributes, at the height of the spectrum, a character could receive 30 points to spread around, while at the bottom end, there were 18 points to use. It was assumed that 'Joe Average' NPCs used the bottom tier for creation, and thus many NPCs would find themselves with a string of 3s, perhaps a 2s, and maybe as a result of that 2, a 4 to offset it.

Is it possible that believing that '3' is the average level of an attribute is a false assumption, held-over from the previous edition?

Well, in Shadowrun 4th Edition, there is no varying degree of levels of attributes. Shadowrunners will almost entirely always use every last BP they can towards Attributes. Meanwhile, NPC creation does not afford the luxury of always maxing out attributes.

Consider that it takes 120 Build Points to create a character that has four attributes rated at 3, and four attributes rated at 2. If we incorporate both point #1, and point #2 from above, then we've got to consider that an 'Average, everyday' NPC may very well have accumulated less than 300 Build Points in the course of their lifetime. Perhaps 200 Build Points would be too little, but perhaps 250 Build Points may be a bit more appropriate?

If, and I understand that this is operating under an assumption, a Baseline NPC had 250 Build Points to begin, then we're looking at having effectively spent their maximum allotted BPs on Attributes, just bringing them up to a split of 2's and 3's. And even if we were to allow them to be created with the full 300 BPs, ignoring point #1, they still won't have enough BPs to put 3's across the board. Let that sink in a moment, because that's important.

If a 'street level' campaign Build Point total is implemented to create a more 'street level' character, which is closer to an 'average' NPC, it's still impossible to create a character which is composed of completely 'Average' attributes. Which is more likely? That 'Street Level' Characters represent below average individuals? Or that our scale of comparison is incorrect?

This supports the notion that in reality, an attribute at 3 is acting as the 'mathematical' mean, but does not represent the real 'average', and instead, the scale we're using to judge what composes an 'average' attribute has been flawed to begin with.

If we evaluate the scale, by ignoring the 'mathematical' mean, and instead evaluate it under a 'practical' mean, it addresses several issues in the system that very well could have been misconceptions. First an attribute of '3' is no longer the average attribute, but instead the expected Attribute corresponding to the field of expertise of an NPC. Second, an attribute of '2' is no longer a below average attribute, but instead excepted attribute corresponding to an aspect of an NPC that is not integral to their field of expertise. In other words, 2.5 is your 'average' attribute, which is spread around a character into whole numbers in the form of 2s and 3s.

What does that mean? It means that by taking this to heart, the game ceiling has been lifted a little, if for no other reason than a change of perspective. And perhaps by accepting this perspective on attributes, it may be easier when presenting future improvements on the character generation portion of our latest edition of Shadowrun.
Butterblume
I belive you are making a lot of assumptions which are questionable.
Steak and Spirits
It's possible. Would you care to point them out, and demostrate why they are invalid assumptions?
OneTrikPony
I've run into this exact thing in the last couple of days. I've been using the conversion rules to x-fer NPCs from MJLBB to SR4 in prep for my campaign.

for anyone who doesn't know, to convert a character from V3 to V4 you multiply both Attributes and Skill ratings by .66 or two thirds so yes I'd say that by the conversion rules the average SR4 character stat is 2 out of 3.

The interestign thing is that, while most of the characters in MJLBB have average Abilities of 3, they also have average skills around 3 but the SR4 BBB says that a professional skill rating is 3 so i don't know what the actual intention is.

(edit:)Personaly I don't think I'll like having average attributes of two for NPCs. I don't have the math skills you do but my intuition tells me that with a dice pool of 4 as opposed to 6 makes npc glitches something like 30% more common.
FrankTrollman
A 3 Attribute and Skill is indeed an average professional. That's not the same as Joe average.

So a beat cop comes in there with stats at 3 and skills of 3 (SR4,, p. 275 and 282), while a man-on-the-street has stats and skills of 2 (SR4, p. 275).

So very roughly:

Some Guy: Dicepool 4
Professional Guy: Dicepool 6
Elite Guy: Dicepool 8-10 (Shadowrunners are here mostly)
Specialist Superninja: Dicepool 12+
Prime Runner: Dicepool 15-20

You can start a character tweaked out into the Prime Runner category in a task or two, but it's very difficult to count as even elite in a broad range of tasks.

-Frank
Serbitar
I see no conceptual reason why attributes of joe average and a professional should be so much different. Slightly, yes, but the difference comes with difference in skills, not in attributes.

The examples given in SR4 rulebook are extremely exagerated if you take a gaussian attribute distribution centered on 3 with a standard deviation of 0.5
Thyme Lost
With only 4 dice, you have about 80% chance of getting at least one success.
1-(4/6)^4=.802469...

With only 6 dice, you have about 91% chance of getting at least one success.
1-(4/6)^6=.9122085...

With 12 dice, you have about 99% chance of getting at least one success.
1-(4/6)^12=.992292......

So, someone who is just an average joe, how likely should they be for getting at least one success?
Don't have much to add other that that, I've been awake for less than 5 minutes...
Don't know if I was helpful.

Thyme Lost
Steak and Spirits
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
A 3 Attribute and Skill is indeed an average professional. That's not the same as Joe average.

No, it isn't, certainly. However, the point I was making is that a character with a Logic score of '2', for example, is not 'below average' necessarily so far as that character's logic score is compared to the broad stroke of (meta)humanity. Infact, that score could very well fall into the majority of denizens of the sixth world.

Compared to Player Character Shadowrunners, who are by their nature 'exceptional individuals', it may be below average. But evaluating the world's population as a whole, they're entirely in the 'normal' range.

This is contrasted by previous editions, where we've assumed that anything less than a 3 reflected an underdeveloped attribute.

QUOTE
You can start a character tweaked out into the Prime Runner category in a task or two, but it's very difficult to count as even elite in a broad range of tasks.

-Frank


Agreed. However, the above text was a reference to comparing average NPCs to each other, or Shadowrunners to Average NPCs. Shadowrunners by the nature of their much larger Build Point pool, will nearly always have every attribute in excess of the metahuman 'Average'.

QUOTE (Serbitar)
I see no conceptual reason why attributes of joe average and a professional should be so much different. Slightly, yes, but the difference comes with difference in skills, not in attributes.

The examples given in SR4 rulebook are extremely exagerated if you take a gaussian attribute distribution centered on 3 with a standard deviation of 0.5


The conceptual reason why the attributes of Joe Average differ from the Professional is that Joe Average chooses his profession based off of his aptitudes. A 'Professional' can or is, more or less, still Joe Average. The difference is that of his standard attribute distribution of 2's and 3's, his 3 falls in an attribute that he also has trained a skill to level 3 in.

Thus. Joe Average is synonamous with Professional, when Joe Average is a Beat Cop, with Agility of 3, and Pistols of 3. Which is not to say that a professional can't have a '2' in their attribute. But the most well suited to their profession, professionals, will have matched their '3' with their '3'.
Apathy
QUOTE (Thyme Lost)
With only 4 dice, you have about 80% chance of getting at least one success.
1-(4/6)^4=.802469...

With only 6 dice, you have about 91% chance of getting at least one success.
1-(4/6)^6=.9122085...

With 12 dice, you have about 99% chance of getting at least one success.
1-(4/6)^12=.992292......

So, someone who is just an average joe, how likely should they be for getting at least one success?
Don't have much to add other that that, I've been awake for less than 5 minutes...
Don't know if I was helpful.

Thyme Lost

Assuming that we're talking about shadowrunner-type skills, Joe Average doesn't have 4 dice, because he doesn't actually possess skills in shadowrunner-type areas (like infiltration, pistols, or unarmed combat). So if Sally the secretary picks up the pistol the guard dropped and tries to shoot you as you walk into her office, she gets 1 die to roll (Agility 2, -1 for defaulting), modified by environmental conditions.

I'm not sure whether a 33% chance of a single success shooting (with no obstructions, injuries, or distractions, at short range) is reasonable or not, but you could argue that it might be close.
Butterblume
I really don't like spaghetti post, so I try to be short.

QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
It's possible.  Would you care to point them out, and demostrate why they are invalid assumptions?

I didn't say invalid. I said questionable, as either not proven true or used on that side of the scale that supports your argument while disregarding the other.

QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
1) Player Characters are always considered to be 'exceptional', or 'Above Average'.

Is that a rule? Isn't the whole point of a street level campaign that you play average or even less than average people?

QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Is it possible that believing that '3' is the average level of an attribute is a false assumption, held-over from the previous edition?

It is stated in the SR4 rules that 3 is average (p. 62, attribute ratings). Just pointing it out, for those who missed it wink.gif.

QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Shadowrunners will almost entirely always use every last BP they can towards Attributes.

In my personal experience, most players tend to use less than 200 BP for the normal attributes (might of course be different in street level campaigns).

QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Meanwhile, NPC creation does not afford the luxury of always maxing out attributes.

True, but NPC normally aren't freshly generated wink.gif. Instead, most have had years to accumulate experience in their life and 'get better'. Most at a far slower rate than the PCs, of course. I realize the inherent flaws in my assumption here (one is that older PCs don't have more BP), but I waive that away on grounds of game balance biggrin.gif.
Konsaki
Personally, I think that 3 is the average Attribute for people in 4th, but 0 is the average Skill level. Sure your NPC might know a select few things, like a mechanic will know auto mechanic skill, but will he know longarms skill, probably not.
Butterblume
0 is the average (standard) skill level for the untrained. This a fine but important distinction wink.gif.
Steak and Spirits
QUOTE (Butterblume)

I really don't like spaghetti post, so I try to be short.

QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
It's possible.  Would you care to point them out, and demostrate why they are invalid assumptions?

I didn't say invalid. I said questionable, as either not proven true or used on that side of the scale that supports your argument while disregarding the other.


Fair Enough. I'll assume that the points below are the issues that I've overlooked.

QUOTE
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
1) Player Characters are always considered to be 'exceptional', or 'Above Average'.

Is that a rule? Isn't the whole point of a street level campaign that you play average or even less than average people?


While I'm not going to argue the 'point' of a Street level campaign one way, or another, it clearly does not offer few enough BPS to create a character that is 'below' average in the sense that they have been cursed with a degree of ineptness that allows an Typical individual off the street to outperform them in any given task. At 300 BPs, there's 150 BPs for Attributes, enough Skill points for 20 total ranks (Four skills at Professional Level, and 2 developed, superior skills), =Y= 250,000 and another 20 BP to spread around anywhere else you might need it.

QUOTE
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Is it possible that believing that '3' is the average level of an attribute is a false assumption, held-over from the previous edition?

It is stated in the SR4 rules that 3 is average (p. 62, attribute ratings). Just pointing it out, for those who missed it wink.gif.


The actual text uses the word 'Typical', not 'Average'. The question is 'Typical of what?' I believe the answer is 'Typical of an Attribute relating to the field of an NPC professional'. This is opposed to 'The Typical rating of all attributes'.

As stated previously, it isn't possible to create a 'Typical' individual with 300 BPs, if you use your definition.

QUOTE
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Shadowrunners will almost entirely always use every last BP they can towards Attributes.

In my personal experience, most players tend to use less than 200 BP for the normal attributes (might of course be different in street level campaigns).


I'm not certain why anyone would take less than their full amount available for attributes. But, then again, I suppose it's possible. smile.gif

QUOTE
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Meanwhile, NPC creation does not afford the luxury of always maxing out attributes.

True, but NPC normally aren't freshly generated wink.gif. Instead, most have had years to accumulate experience in their life and 'get better'. Most at a far slower rate than the PCs, of course. I realize the inherent flaws in my assumption here (one is that older PCs don't have more BP), but I waive that away on grounds of game balance biggrin.gif.


*grin*

If NPCs normally aren't freshly generated, I'm not sure what they are, then. If BPs are supposed to represent an accumulation of experiences, skills, and abilities up until 'Gametime!' then I'm confused how you create the NPCs that you do not have actively participating in a campaign.
knasser
Average attribute is 2, I think. There's no actual reason for the average to be the midpoint of the possible range, as was originally suggested, that's for sure. After all, it's not the case that humanity is evenly distributed from 1-6 in their attributes is it? Perhaps 1 in a thousand have a score of 6. Just to take Strength as a specific example, the amount of difference that rigorous and long-term training can make is enormous. There has to be more on the upper side of the strength scale (stronger than average) than there is on the lower side (weaker), for it to represent this. Same goes for other attributes.

Steak and Spirits also had it right when he pointed out that if people in a profession where attributes matter have 3's, then 3 must be slightly above average because the slightly higher stats that average distribution gives them lead them into that career. (I think S&S put it better).
Serbitar
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
QUOTE (Serbitar)
I see no conceptual reason why attributes of joe average and a professional should be so much different. Slightly, yes, but the difference comes with difference in skills, not in attributes.

The examples given in SR4 rulebook are extremely exagerated if you take a gaussian attribute distribution centered on 3 with a standard deviation of 0.5


The conceptual reason why the attributes of Joe Average differ from the Professional is that Joe Average chooses his profession based off of his aptitudes. A 'Professional' can or is, more or less, still Joe Average. The difference is that of his standard attribute distribution of 2's and 3's, his 3 falls in an attribute that he also has trained a skill to level 3 in.

Thus. Joe Average is synonamous with Professional, when Joe Average is a Beat Cop, with Agility of 3, and Pistols of 3. Which is not to say that a professional can't have a '2' in their attribute. But the most well suited to their profession, professionals, will have matched their '3' with their '3'.

Perfectly true. But then, look at the stats of the grunts given in the BBB.

Humanis Policlub goons have laughably weak stats while those of Triad Posse are too high and statistically somebody whith the stats of a Tir Ghost would be a one in a Trillion or something.
Thyme Lost
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
I'm not certain why anyone would take less than their full amount available for attributes. But, then again, I suppose it's possible. smile.gif

Its called need the points elsewhere. I'll hopefully be running a game soon. Three of my players are done making their characters. It is a 500 BP game and only one character used above 200 BPs on Attributes. The Troll Street Sam Archer, used a full 250 on attributes. The Elven Mage and Human Hacker, both used less than 200 BPs on Attributes because they felt they needed stuff to help flesh out the character and complete the character.


Thyme Lost
Steak and Spirits
QUOTE
Its called need the points elsewhere. I'll hopefully be running a game soon. Three of my players are done making their characters. It is a 500 BP game and only one character used above 200 BPs on Attributes. The Troll Street Sam Archer, used a full 250 on attributes. The Elven Mage and Human Hacker, both used less than 200 BPs on Attributes because they felt they needed stuff to help flesh out the character and complete the character.


Thyme Lost


I certainly couldn't dispute that they may have needed the BPs elsewhere, given that I'm haven't seen their character sheets. From personal experience, however, I find that if I'm in the min/maxing mood, I'm much more inclined to boost my attributes, and take a 1 or 2 in a skill if I'm hard pressed to cover my bases, than the other way around. None the less, good luck with your campaign. smile.gif

QUOTE (Serbitar)
Perfectly true. But then, look at the stats of the grunts given in the BBB.

Humanis Policlub goons have laughably weak stats while those of Triad Posse are too high and statistically somebody whith the stats of a Tir Ghost would be a one in a Trillion or something.


Well...

QUOTE
There’s a reason the special forces of the elven nation of Tir
Tairngire are called Ghosts: they are the masters of covert operations
and have broken into some of the most secure areas on
the planet undetected


I don't know if 'One in a Trillion' is quite accurate. But I won't deny that Tir Ghosts are some fucking badass mother fuckers from hell. As far as Humanis Goons... Yeah. Looks like about 90 BPs worth of Attributes. I'd guess that'd be a below average individual... By about 30 BPs. cool.gif
Glyph
I think looking at the sample NPCs kind of supports Steak and Spirits' assumptions. Granted, it's a relatively small sample. However, NPCs such as bartenders, bloggers, or humanis lieutenants have 140 for stats, not enough to even have 3's across the board. As it is, they have 4's in places, but one 4 means they have three 2's, and two 4's mean they have four 2's.

Still, I wouldn't give NPC's straight 2's across the board - rather, I would say that most Joe Average NPCs will tend to have a bit lower than 3 on average - a mix of 3's and 2's, with more 2's if one or two Attributes are 4's. Skills will probably be around 3 or so for skills related to the NPC's profession, with combat skills either non-existant or at 1 or 2 at most. Occasionally a skill will be higher for an NPC's main function - as high as 4 for an active skill (such as computer), or 5 for a knowledge skill representing a major interest of the NPC (such as exotic mixed drinks for a bartender, or conspiracy theories for a paranoid data haven admin). Also keep in mind that some NPCs will be less than average - Humanis goons, teen gangers, brainwashed cultists, squatters, etc.
Steak and Spirits
QUOTE (Glyph)
Still, I wouldn't give NPC's straight 2's across the board - rather, I would say that most Joe Average NPCs will tend to have a bit lower than 3 on average - a mix of 3's and 2's, with more 2's if one or two Attributes are 4's.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I would do any less. Scrolling up a bit, I wrote:

QUOTE
If, and I understand that this is operating under an assumption, a Baseline NPC had 250 Build Points to begin, then we're looking at having effectively spent their maximum allotted BPs on Attributes, just bringing them up to a split of 2's and 3's.


So, as you say, a mix of 3s, and 2s, with some more 2s (Or 1s?) if one or two attributes are 4s.
Blade
I mostly disagree with what's being said here.

First, I think that the attribute scale was totally broken in SR3 (either that or you were playing superheroes). With the worst priority for attributes, you were "an average human". But with just 3 in your attribute, you couldn't do much. There were two ways to deal with that : either have superheroes PC or consider 4 or 5 as the average for NPC.

I don't consider that runner are superheroes nor surhuman. They just have something special : magic, cyberware, skills (especially since that NPC can go with 0 (untrained) in a lot of skills while most runner need at least perception/dodge/infiltration). They tend to be a bit better (at least kept in good shape) than the average man on the street (if they want to survive), but they aren't that different (especially for beginners). A successful corporate salesman may be created with 300 BPs, it's just that he won't spend it in Longarms and Move by Wire but in charisma, willpower, influence skill group, lots of knowledge skill and some high connection contacts.

Even if 3 is the average on the whole, it doesn't mean that everyone has 3 in each attribute. Most office worker will tend to have a rating of 2 in Strength/Body (because they don't do the minimal weekly exercises needed to keep in shape), but may have some 4 in their mental attributes.
Wakshaani
Two things.

First, the 300 and 500 point numbers are a tad off. Run with 320 and 480 instead (80% and 120% of teh baseline, respectively) ... this will give you the correct level, where you can have 3's across the board, or scimp a bit for a focus... teh aforementioned office worker (Or Decker or Wage Mage) who has Body and Strength a bit low, but has an improved Logic or Willpower.

Second, in teh Attribute section, they have a list, where '3' is listed as the normal level, and under skills, 3 is considered a professional in the field. Someone with Logic 3 and Knowledge Skill: Accounting (3) is a CPA and ready to roll. They can just toss 4 dice for a success for Very Easy tasks (The daily grind) and, if they want to actually burn the midnight oil, they can roll all 6 dice and shoot for a 2nd success for something tricky.

Your "Best guy in the company" level will have an attribute of 4 (Exceptional) and a skill of 4 (Veteran Professional) ... Mortimer Sneed, CPA for ten years and known for never missing a deduction, he has 8 dice, letting him just *buy* 2 successes, or work a bit and go for the third for something REALLY hard.

The best guys in teh city (Not the VERY best guy, but that upper eschelon) will have a 4/5, 5/4, or even a 5/5 split, letting them still buy 2 successes at will, but reliably getting a third when they try. And guys that good? They TRY.

That mythical 12 dice level, tho ... that's somebody special. Presidential contenders, World Series MVP pitchers, Olympic-level archers ... that is some RARE talent.

As a general rule of thumb, 6 dice in the profession will handle the average joe, pushing into 7 or 8 for a seasoned vet.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE
I don't know if 'One in a Trillion' is quite accurate.


Of course it isn't. Let's consider the concept that only 1 in 1000 people have an attribute of 6. That's a reasonable baseline actually, so let's work with it. That means that 6.5 million people have a Strength of 6.

If the 6s were handed out at random, you would expect only 1 in 1000 of those people to have a Strength and Body of 6 - so there'd be only 6,500 people worldwide who have a Strength and Body of 6. If stats were random you would expect only 1 in 1000 of those people to have an Agility of 6 as well. That would make it be that there were about 6 or 7 people worldwide who had a Strength, Agility, and Body of 6 - about one per continent.

But stats aren't handed out randomly, they are linked. High Strength, Low Body individuals exist, but they are not the rule. They are the exception. In general, people with a high body also have a high Strength, and people with a low Body also have a low Strength. Indeed, while there are 6.5 million people with a Strength of 6 and 6.5 million people with a Body of 6 - it would probably be fair to estimate that at least half of those people are actually the same people.

So your chances of finding someone at random who happened to have the stats of a Tir Ghost are not simply multiples of your chances of finding someone who was that good in each stat. The fact that badass people tend to be badass multidimensionally and ordinary people tend to be ordinary across the board really plays into your hands. So what is a Tir Ghost?

Well, he's an Elf (15%)
He's Tough (Body 4 - 15%?)
He's very Agile (Agility 6 for an Elf - 5%?)
He's very fast (Reaction 5 - 5%
He's Strong (Strength 4 - 15%)
He's moderately Charismatic (Charisma 5 for an Elf - 35%?)
He's crazy perceptive (Intuition 6 .1%?)
He's Smart (Logic 4 - 15%)
He's very Strong Minded (Willpower 5 - 5%?)

OK. On pure demographics taken as independent qualifiers, you might think that he'd be 1 in 45 billion - or about a 1 in 7 chance of one existing at all. But the thing is that it's actually way more likely than that. People in the 85th percentile for Strength are also usually in the 85th percentile for Body. People who are in the 99.9th percentile for Intuition are almost always in the 96th 66th percentile for Charisma.

In reality, you're not looking at independent variables, you're looking at dependent variables - and that means that there are actually dozens of guys this good in the world. Tir Tairgire has a pretty decent "total badass recruitment program" - but other nations can field similarly aweseome individuals.

-Frank
Thyme Lost
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
QUOTE
Its called need the points elsewhere. I'll hopefully be running a game soon. Three of my players are done making their characters. It is a 500 BP game and only one character used above 200 BPs on Attributes. The Troll Street Sam Archer, used a full 250 on attributes. The Elven Mage and Human Hacker, both used less than 200 BPs on Attributes because they felt they needed stuff to help flesh out the character and complete the character.


Thyme Lost


I certainly couldn't dispute that they may have needed the BPs elsewhere, given that I'm haven't seen their character sheets. From personal experience, however, I find that if I'm in the min/maxing mood, I'm much more inclined to boost my attributes, and take a 1 or 2 in a skill if I'm hard pressed to cover my bases, than the other way around. None the less, good luck with your campaign. smile.gif


The Street Sam, Troll Archer, is very MinMax, but still have a very indepth character concept and idea.

The Elven Mage started off trying to MinMax, but wasn't happy with the way the character turned out. The Elven Mage has three Attributes at 1 under Max, reaction, charisma, and Willpower. I should call the character an Elven Shaman, since he used Charisma as drain, but we've always called the character a Mage.

The person who plays the Human Hacker, doesn't MinMax... He has never really needed to.

I also removed some of the limits of normal char Gen. Up tp 100 BP into Gear instead of just 50, and no limits on Availibity.

Thanks for the good luck... I might need it...
Steak and Spirits
QUOTE (Wakshaani)
Two things.

First, the 300 and 500 point numbers are a tad off. Run with 320 and 480 instead (80% and 120% of teh baseline, respectively) ... this will give you the correct level, where you can have 3's across the board, or scimp a bit for a focus... teh aforementioned office worker (Or Decker or Wage Mage) who has Body and Strength a bit low, but has an improved Logic or Willpower.

Second, in teh Attribute section, they have a list, where '3' is listed as the normal level, and under skills, 3 is considered a professional in the field. Someone with Logic 3 and Knowledge Skill: Accounting (3) is a CPA and ready to roll. They can just toss 4 dice for a success for Very Easy tasks (The daily grind) and, if they want to actually burn the midnight oil, they can roll all 6 dice and shoot for a 2nd success for something tricky.


It's possible that the 320/480 could be a bit closer to the mark. However, consider that people generally find themselves drawn to fields that they have a degree of natural apptitude in, and while the mean average of any demographic will (of course) be right down its center, the vast majority of samples will absolutely not be at that mean, but (of course) spread around it.

If the effective 'average' for every attribute was 3 across the board, assuming that an NPC develops professional skills in areas he's naturally talented, it'd be much more likely that he'd have a -4- in his associated attribute, due to expected deviation from the mean, rather than a -3-: His dice pool changes from 6, up to 7.

Which mean he really isn't that far from that Mortimer Sneed fellow afterall.

So, no. I'm standing by that the very 'average' individual will find themself with a mix of 2 and 3, with the 3 found in an area(s) that they've chosen to specialize in. And this really isn't such a bad thing at all. The ceiling of advancement from 'average' to 't3h-ma5sive-Aw3som3' is raised, really mitigating the (conceptual) limitations of character advancement in SR4.

And just for a second run at clarification. It lists 3 as 'Typical', not 'Average' or 'Standard'. Which brings the definition of that term under a degree of subjective scrutiny.

QUOTE
In reality, you're not looking at independent variables, you're looking at dependent variables - and that means that there are actually dozens of guys this good in the world. Tir Tairgire has a pretty decent "total badass recruitment program" - but other nations can field similarly aweseome individuals.

-Frank


Right on. And in other news, how's that bid for the presidency coming along?
Serbitar
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Nov 5 2006, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE
I don't know if 'One in a Trillion' is quite accurate.


Of course it isn't. Let's consider the concept that only 1 in 1000 people have an attribute of 6. That's a reasonable baseline actually, so let's work with it. That means that 6.5 million people have a Strength of 6.

@Frank:

My math goes like this:

Every attribute is gauss-distributed such that 67% have attribute values of 3.
Thats a gaussian with mean of 3 and sigma of 0.5.

The rest is math. Ill do it tomorrow, but I think that the probability of a tir ghost is much less than one in a trillion.

And I say that all atributes are uncorrelated. Why should they be correlated? No reason for this at all (some even have the tendency to be anti correlated like logic and charisma or strength and agility). Genetically spoken, they are all uncorrelated random values.
Its just that some job or hobby descriptions tend to train people in a whole field, instead of just one attribute.
knasser
QUOTE (Serbitar)

My math goes like this:

Every attribute is gauss-distributed such that 67% have attribute values of 3.
Thats a gaussian with mean of 3 and sigma of 0.5.


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.

QUOTE (Serbitar)
And I say that all atributes are uncorrelated. Why should they be correlated? No reason for this at all (some even have the tendency to be anti correlated like logic and charisma or strength and agility). Genetically spoken, they are all uncorrelated random values.


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.
Da9iel
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.
Blade
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.
Serbitar
QUOTE (Da9iel)
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.

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.
Serbitar
QUOTE (Blade @ Nov 6 2006, 03:26 AM)
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.

That what I meant with

QUOTE

Its just that some job or hobby descriptions tend to train people in a whole field, instead of just one attribut


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)
FrankTrollman
QUOTE
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.


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.

QUOTE
(and for example the strength and IQ distribution are very gaussian in reality, and uncorreleated by the way)


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
Serbitar
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.
FrankTrollman
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
lorechaser
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.
knasser
QUOTE (lorechaser)
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.


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.
Steak and Spirits
QUOTE (knasser)
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.

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.
knasser

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.
Jaid
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
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.

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.
Konsaki
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.
Blade
@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 ?
Mistwalker
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.
Wakshaani
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.
lorechaser
QUOTE (Blade @ Nov 7 2006, 07:27 AM)
@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 ?

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.

QUOTE (JAID)
i'm just saying you shouldn't be able to start off at the very top of what is (meta)humanly possible.


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.

Steak and Spirits
QUOTE (lorechaser)
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.


Absolutely.

Infact, I'll take it a step farther. 400 BP might be -too many- BPs to begin with at all.

QUOTE (Wakshaani)
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.


Awesome. Let us know how that turns out.
Butterblume
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
Infact, I'll take it a step farther.  400 BP might be -too many- BPs to begin with at all.

There was a poll a while ago about this:

link: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=12197
knasser
QUOTE (Blade)
@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 ?


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. wink.gif

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.
Wakshaani
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits)
[QUOTE=lorechaser]
Awesome. Let us know how that turns out.

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.
Blade
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.gif )
Konsaki
Because that would be a craptastical system in which you rolled for random stats...
Blade
Thanks, you made me see I forgot to add the necessary smiley.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012