Okay.

I get why attributes don't have rating descriptions like skills - racial modifiers. The average for a human is not the average for an elf is not the average for an ork.

But that creates some issues for those of us who try to place sheets in context.
---

So...

Well, let's look at humans.

Statistically, the average should be 3 in all physical and mental attributes. But what's the actual average person have for attributes?

In other words, how do you describe attribute scores?

Actually, they do have rating descriptions, and that has caused some 'issues' with a number of people. According to the book, 3 (or metahuman equivalent) is "average". Some people claim that this also makes 3 "normal", and anything less is weak. Others claim that it works better with 2 as "average".

I suggest following the general guidelines - 3 is the overall average value. 2 is the normal value. Most people will possess one or two attributes at 3 important to their job/career/personality/whatever, with the others at 2. What this means is that Joe the Manual Laborer will have 3 in Body &/or Strength, with 2 in the remaining attributes. Joe the Librarian will have 3 in Logic &/or Intuition, with 2 in the remaining attributes.

Moose is bang-on. I tend to figure civilians have stats from 1~3, with 3 being what they consider themselves good at. Skills are the same way - a competent security guard might have pistols 3(practiced), drive 2(competent), and Computers 1(educated). Based on the description in the book, I figure the bulk of metahumanity is going to roll 6 dice for what they do professionally.

Obviously, this Normal Joe stuff doesn't come into play much in Shadowrun - 6-point pool guys don't worry us much. However, it's a handy benchmark for 'naturals' : a pool of 4 is incompetent, 6 is trained, 8 is advanced, 10 is a master and 12 is a genius. With cyberware, it's easy for us to get pools in the neighborhood of 17 (augmented attribute at 9, 6-point skill + 2 point focus) but it's sometimes handy to pause and realize just how superhuman we've become.

The devs have already weighed in on this at least once. 3 is both the average and the normal. Most people might have a 4 related to their job, and a 2 in their weak stat.

The devs have written about normal people. They did it in Runner's Companion when they statted out the Wage Slave, for example. Here's the official Wage Slave:
Body 2 Agility 3 Reaction 2 Strength 2 Charisma 3 Intuition 3 Logic 3 Willpower 3 Edge 2 Essence 6 Init 5 IP 1
Active Skills: Computer 2, Data Search 2, Etiquette 2
Knowledge Skills: Corporate Politics 2, Professional
Knowledge skills at rating 3

So no 4s, just mixes of 2s and 3s. The Club Hopper has a couple of 4s, however, in Charisma and Intuition. The Troll Dockworker has some pretty impressive physical stats (10 Body and Str) and seems pretty burly overall. The Pimp has a 5 Str because he has to have a strong Pimp Hand, although Edge 1 seems low; it really is hard out there for a pimp.

So you can probably take a look at Runner's Companion's Advanced Contacts section for a developer idea of some normal folk.

One interesting thing came up on another thread on gender differences, when someone said guys had less incentive to work out, since their natural strength was enough for how the modern world is designed. I've noticed that - I don't really work out that much or anything, but I can still help people who need jars opened, help move a couch, etc.

What I am trying to say is that in Shadowrun, I imagine there will be a lot more orks with Strength of 3 than humans with Strength of 1, and a lot more elves with Charisma of 3 than humans with Charisma of 1. When your "natural" Attribute is good enough, you aren't as motivated to improve it. Of course, that won't hold true for things like an ork bouncer or an elven fixer.

I have always considered an Attribute of 1 to be weak but functional (you need additional negative qualities before you have someone who is developmentally disabled or invalid), a 2 is low-average, a 3 is high-average, a 4 is well developed, and a 5 or 6 is something you only get with dedicated training.

Vocation affects the spread of stats a lot, though. Lumberjacks might very well have Body and Strength of 5 as "average", and some jobs, such as corporate headhunter, will call for people with stats of 4 or more in every single mental Attribute.

also note that one only need 4 dice to auto-buy a hit, and thats probably how most people get around in their day to day life.

At first, I was looking for a poster called Moose. Then it hit me that he was refering to Muspellsheimr. Which brought to mind a somewhat humorous mental image of a large burning talking deer.

It might just be my groups "min-maxing" too much or something, but most of the normal people in my games have "Base Stat + (2 [- base stat + 6])". For example, an ork's logic is 2, a troll's charisma is 1, ect.

I don't like this perspective as it tends to make all the metatypes more the same. But it is supported by the character generation rules, which don't factor racial modifiers into the skill increase cost. (i.e. it costs just as much for the ork to increase its strength from 3 to 4 as it does to bump its logic from 3 to 4.)

That is why my group uses karma character generation instead of BP. It fixes this (and that you can either get 6 in your important skill making you master of your art or make you a failure in two skills at 3 (because face it, with 6-7 dice you won't succeed in hacking that commlink before your stealth runs out)

I told my players that 3 is natural average but that 2's are as common as 3's (A lot of people have not developed their stats, for various reasons)