Not nessecarily. Someone like me could survive. Hell, I have survived on the streets, and a ganger ain't got shit on me if he can't hit me before I get him.

Besides, I think the "normal people"/"wimpy people" versus some great adversary is a compelling concept people would enjoy playing. It would be like playing Jagged Alliance 2 using only MERC mercs for your campaign; it'd be like winning a battle with Biff and Flo.

Against what... The Janitors of Alruco?

Well those, but also Alien-ripoff subterranian monsters. And magically super-effective gyrojet weapons.

Ah, yes. Biff and Flo... AKA: Bait.

Depending on how you want to run it. Ambushing is still the win in the end. At the same time it makes 1 IP combats common which may or may not be nice.

I wasn't trying to be negative, but it would be interesting to have a run where each person got two or three character sheets from this thread. You make the game more like paranoia that way = )

I don't think most people here would get wailed on, but taking on uber bad guys and gangers are two different concepts. Low level shadowrun would be an interesting concept though. When you finally get up to a 400 bp character things will get a lot more interesting, and you have created all the back story you need.

I would find it kind of fun to run a mission. What would be our team composition and mission parameters?

Team composition would probably depend on the mission parameters. Or, you get the team and the GM would tailor the mission accordingly. If not, it'd be a short game, we don't have the combat skills nor the hackers nor magic.

man, looking at people's gears, y'all need more weapons! j/k

Yes. The book defines the meaning of skills as different according to the commonality of that skill in standard society (standard meaning the default assumptions of the game):


Thus, for driving a car, skill 0 will mean you can do it. For repairing a car, skill 0 means you can't unless your GM is being generous. Skill 1 of course would mean that you had a bit of knowledge of car workings and might be able to get it started again if it's an easy problem to fix (low threshold).

I think the idea of grabbing characters from this thread and running a game would be brilliant. And I disagree with the naysayers who think it would just be a TPK. In real life, and Shadowrun is about as representative of real life in this regard as you can hope it to be, it's as much about what you're willing to do as it is about what you're able do. No - I probably can't go toe to toe with a professional boxer in a fist fight... but I can whack him in the back of the head with a cricket bat when he's not looking. Can't do it in D&D, where a club does 1d4hp damage on someone who has 80hp total... but SR4 can handle it. A Joe Normal game would be workable and fun if the GM thought things through. I did a "Joe Normal" one-shot in oWoD once and it was great fun and though everybody died, it was only because they were stupid about something and slipped out of character into "adventurer mode."



I would not use IQ to define Logic, though it is a way to convey what the Logic score might mean to players. The validity of IQ tests, i.e. how they apply to effective intelligence, is a contentious area. Or at least it was. I don't know much current research on the subject. For example, by your scale above I have a Logic of 6. There's a temptation to believe that, but I'm not convinced of it, myself.

IQ tests were developed as a means of identifying children that might need extra help. I think the two wisest things said on the subject of them come from Alfred Binet who created the first IQ test:



Intelligence is not a scale and does not have the qualities of a scale. But more important by far is this:



Much like some other labels society offers, once the subject has accepted it, they have accepted limitations. It is perfectly possible to learn how to do well on IQ tests. Try it - you too can have an IQ of 150+.

Khadim.

Having a game where you play normal people landed in nasty/hopeless/dowright scary situations wouls be really good fun, I think. Every test made would be a little thriller, you have to really think of other ways out rather than combat as the characters won't have the guns, armour, skills or even inclination to take on oponents in a violent way.

I completely agree. It is however the best analogue we currently, or will likely ever have to Log and Int. Thats like saying you shouldnt measure Str based on bench press or dead lift capability. Sure strength encompases far more than just what you can lift over your head, but thats the best method of measuring it. Also, If you have an IQ of 145+ on a WAIS I would say you most certainly do have either a Log or Int 6. You score higher than 99.9% of everyone else who has ever taken the test. Keep in mind that SR ability scores are not a fixed value, but a range. Someone with an IQ of 145 and someone with an IQ of 159 would have the same Log score, but one would be way smarter than the other. Remember, the higher you score, the larger the difference between each individual point.

I think a more accurate way of measuring it would be to take a given IQ range and say that it gives you a number of points to distribute among your Log and Int. Perhaps something like:

70 - 4
85 - 5
100 - 6
115 - 7
130 - 8
145 - 9
160 - 11

I can understand the association between IQ and Logic, but am not sure as solid a link exists between IQ and Intuition. As difficult as it is to measure logic, it seems like it would be even harder to do so with int... Does anyone have any suggestions of any alternate method for measuring int (or, alternately, can someone explain how I'm wrong and why an IQ test would be a good measure of it)?

As an aside, I think I might also disagree with Halabis's suggestion above that an average mental score of 2 equates to a mentally impared person. As I understand the scale (which is often debated) the Logic of the average dockworker is 2 and the Logic of the average computer technician would be 3 (while the Strength of people in those two professions would be reversed.) That would seem to indicate that Logic 2 falls in the 90-99 IQ range (less developed, but still highly functional). I think that someone who falls into the range of mental retardation is off the low end of scale, and Forest Gump (with an IQ of 75-85) would be a Logic 1. What's everyone else think?

I didnt say Log 2 was mentaly impaired, I said Log 1 was. IQ 70 is mentaly Impaired (which I associated with Log 1), above that you are considered normal. 64% of the population falls between IQ 85 and 115. Thats pretty much the "average" range. 2 is considered underdeveloped but not deficient, therefore 85 is most appropriate. 3 is considered average, therefore 100 is appropriate.

Also I would never associate profession with IQ. I know a couple grocery store stock boys with ~140 IQ, and i can guarantee you that some of the IT people here have a Logic score of 2.

As to intuition, you would be supprised by how much thinking goes on at a subcontious level. Think back to how often you are able to answer a question without actualy knowing WHY you knew the answer to that question. Stuff like that absolutely would be picked up on an IQ test. (not that you didnt know how you knew the answer, bu tthat you knew the answer at all)

I disagree. For intelligent people, one limiting factor on an IQ test is how well they do at Pattern Recognition. Pattern Recognition uses both Logic and Intuition.

Another limiting factor is that IQ tests are timed tests. Intuition speeds up Logic.

Take an IQ test. Preferably one that lets you see the correct answers. Unless you are a real genius, you will eventually come across questions that you can't figure out even knowing which answer is correct.

I agree with you. The dock worker / programmer example is my position also for reasons stated earlier.

@Halabis's: I accept your points about IQ and your analogy to bench presses. But I often feel with the subject of intelligence, that many people don't appreciate the complex and composite nature of intelligence so I stress the problems with interpreting IQs when they come up in discussion. By your scale, I am a Logic 6 individual (I scored 153 when I was twenty so any childhood bumps should have long since smoothed their way out). I put myself down earlier as a Logic 4 individual, however. Am I just being modest? I considered whether I should put a 5 down, but felt I wasn't focused enough to qualify. It would be unrealistic to put myself down as a 3 as by career and objective comparisons, I know that I am considered very intelligent. I settled on 4. But if the general consensus here is that I should be a 6, I will consider editing my post, though.

It's interesting however, that I have an acquaintance who has a recorded IQ of 173. She was a mathematician, though now does research in a different field. She is an obviously smart person. I don't think people would peg her at a 6 if asked to judge her on a scale, perhaps a 5. What is noticeable between us, is that I'm able to assist or correct her on several areas (more so than she is me on our common subjects) and I think that is very definitely the difference in our Skill levels showing which is quite apparent sometimes. I might be unfair to her, however. She is quite oddly focused sometimes and might be a 6. Sometimes it's hard to see what we are familiar with.

A couple comments:

• With respect to driving, I always saw this skill as a great example of the difference between a unaware and Rank 0. If you have absolutely no experience or training you cannot reasonably operate a vehicle, but take some basic lessons (such as high school drivers ed.) and you are at Rank 0. Hence this common skill is at Rank 0 for many. Only if you drive a lot, or strive to improve do you get to Rank 1+.
• I only use IQ as one example of Logic. I only use it for Logic, in part as an example of Intuition being the aspects of Intelligence measured poorly by the common standardized tests. So SAT results would also work for Logic, but not well for Intuition. As for not using the standard deviation of 15 for my example I try to stress to my players how bad a 1 in an attribute is (you have NO dice for any skill you would default with). I also wanted the Rank 7 to be essentially off the practical scale since it represents the most Logical people on the planet. (There is no Logic 8 without magic, or SR tech, so 100% of humans are between 1 and 7, not just 99%)

As an example, the Sheriff on Eureka has a Logic of 3 (they gave his IQ score in an episode), but he clearly has an Intuition of 5 or 6. This is what makes him useful in a town where Logic 6 is not uncommon and Logic 7 has multiple examples (maybe half the main characters).

CO-SIGN

It is a documented fact that a number of the great thinkers of the industrial age chose to work at jobs that didn't require thinking. This allowed them to spend their working hours thinking about other things besides work.

Knasser: What you are doing is tending to assume that our own experiences are more common than they actualy are. Its a thing that all people do. For example ask anyone what thier political beliefs are (liberal or conservative), and then ask them which political belief system to most members of their country share. I can guarentee you that most of the time (in America at least) you will get the same answer for both questions. People tend to assume that what they are is closer to average than it actualy is. I see no problem with pegging you as IQ 6 and your friend as 7. You are naturaly biased by what you have experienced. The thing is IQ tests tend to favor those with strong analytical skills, the same skills necisary to be a mathematician. Just because you are smart doesnt mean you know everything. IQ is not just what you know, it has to do with your ability to figure out what you dont know.

Do you think that 1 in 10,000 people having Log 6 is too common? becuase thats what IQ 145 is (remember we are talking WAIS scale here, im assuming thats what you and your friends IQ are measured in, and what my scale is listed in. I am less familiar with other tests). Higher than 99.98% of all other people. (ok so its realy 2 in 10,000, sue me)

As a matter of fact, Halabis, IQ tests are made to test "Fluid Intelligence", which is the ability to figure things out from the available information as opposed to crystallized intelligence, which is what you know. It is one reason that the WISC, children's WAIS, is generally considered to be slightly more reliable than the WAIS because what you have learned has less of a chance to affect things. Then again your neurons don't finish developing till age 25 so it has it's drawbacks as well.

Chris

I didn't mean that any individual stock clerk or construction worker is any lower intellegence than any particular computer programmer. Or that you could make an assumption about an individual's intellegence based on their profession. There are no average people in real life, we're all individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses. However, if you took every dockworker in the world, gave them IQ tests, and took an average of the results of all those thousands or tens of thousands of people, that average score would be lower than if you did the same thing on the many thousands of computer programmers in the world. This doesn't necessarily mean that the dock workers have lower potential intelligence than the programmers either, but reflects that programmers spent a greater percentage of their time and effort using and honing their mental abilities than do dock workers, and that programmers often have background knowledge and education that allows them to apply what knowledge they have more effectively in answering questions. (For example, I've taken those tests before and know that a familiarity with calculus made some of the questions easier. The guy who dropped out of high school may be a genius, but will take longer to figure things out via brute force approaches if he lacks the tools he needs to answer the questions.) This is also reflected in the SR character improvement model where a PC can improve their Logic over time with effort and karma.

I've gone back and edited my profile to be Logic (not IQ) 5. I do have extremely strong analytical skills (it's what I do for a living so that's handy). However, I know that I have the potential to be better if I improve my concentration. Given that I'll never put myself down as a 7, that means I have to leave some space for this improvement so must be a 5. That's Logic.

It was the WAIS scale, by the way.

Name: Sam
Alias: Lionhearted
Proffession: unemployed
Metatype: human (although my wiccan friend suggest that im a therianthrope)

B 4 (can take fair amount of punches, hardy immune system, but rather short of breath)
A 3 (great manual dexterity and hand/eye co-ordination, but rather clumsy)
R 3 (to much computer games)
S 2 (skinny...)

I will not leave an explanation after the mental attributes as it would be far to long

I 5
L 4
C 3
W 4

Edge 3 (lucky in games, but not in love)
Ess 6 (I think)

Qualities: 25 bp
Addiction (moderate, nicotine) +0 bp
Obscure knowledge 20bp
(I have an unique ability to remember any strange and often unnessescary information I pick up)
Stubborn +5 bp
Visions 10bp
(okey a magic quality, but you know.. déjà vù and dreams about things that turn out to happen is rather common to me.. fucking hate it)

Active skills
Influence group 2 (when I want to, I know how to handle people)

Con 3 (natural liar, comes in handy some time..)
Negotiation (sense motive) 3 (5) (Im very good at reading people.. puts them off their feet)

Artisan (painting) 2(4) (been drawing as long as I can remember, getting pretty good at it)

Unarmed combat (subduing) 1(3) (Yellow belt in judo and know some "dirty" grapples for subduing my brothers..)

Perception (smell) 1(3) (I can smell if an apple is fresh.. can you?)

Palming 1 (sleight of hand abilities)

Computer 1 (Well.. I know how to use most of the common softwares.. and can design a webpage)

Knowledge skills (27p, I wont even bother statting it out cause it boggles my mind)

Language skills:
Swedish (N)
English 4
French (understanding) 0(2)

Commonly worn equipment
Contact lenses
Cellphone (camera,video,MP3,msn & internet capabilities)
Cigarettes + Original Zippo lighter