What do you guys think Tony Stark's (Iron Man) Intelligence Score would be?

[billd91]

IIRC, the stats for Han Solo in the SWSE core rulebook place him at 15th level. That's absolutely fine. But it should be possible to create a 1st level Scoundrel using the default char-gen method for the game (which is 25-point buy), level him up to 15th level, taking all the same classes, feats, talents, and so forth, and end up with a character who matches the stats given in the book.


No, but if your GM gave you a sufficient budget of points, would you not still expect it to be possible to build Supermen without cheating?

I expect the rules to enable me to build Superman. But I don't necessarily expect them to enable me to build him with the defaults in play by any particular GM or the game. For example, I expect the 15th level Han Solo to have stats achievable by the rules... but not necessarily starting from point buy. As long as they are within the range available, that's fine. The issue here is that a 25 point buy default method is designed to produce PCs for use in a team so that none of the other players get jealous of each other and everyone thinks the initial conditions are fair. That's not a consideration when modeling the characters that inspired the game. They weren't envisioned under the restrictions of creating a game that's got statistical balance between different players.
Besides, if he had been played, his campaign could have gotten there by rolling dice for the stats.

 

[delericho]

I expect the rules to enable me to build Superman. But I don't necessarily expect them to enable me to build him with the defaults in play by any particular GM or the game.

If the rules claim "Superman is a 400-point character", and your GM says "here's 400 points, go build your character", should you, or should you not be able to build Superman? By RAW, without cheating?

For example, I expect the 15th level Han Solo to have stats achievable by the rules... but not necessarily starting from point buy.

With SWSE, because they were trying to promote their "Living..." games, WotC laid down an official char-gen method, which happened to be point buy. That being the case, it's not unreasonable to take that as the char-gen method for 'official' characters.

Besides, if he had been played, his campaign could have gotten there by rolling dice for the stats.

Han Solo's stats are such that if they were generated by rolling, his player cheated. (Edit: see below...)

Ultimately, though, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm simply not going to be moved from my position that in a Star Wars game, Han Solo should be rules-legal for PC use, in an "Avengers" game Tony Stark should likewise be available, and in D&D Drizzt should be a rules-legal PC. In all cases, using the default char-gen system provided by the rules, but allowing for appropriate levelling up.

Edit: I'm slightly embarrassed by this - I checked my SWSE book, and it turns out the Han is actually one of very few iconic characters who can be built using 25 points (although I very much doubt that anyone would build their character like that - it requires sacrificing having any very good stats in favour of having slightly above values across the board). However, my broader point is still valid - both Luke and Leia require in excess of 30 points to build, while Amidala requires at least a 40-point buy.

 

[billd91]

If the rules claim "Superman is a 400-point character", and your GM says "here's 400 points, go build your character", should you, or should you not be able to build Superman? By RAW, without cheating?

If he can be built with 400 points? Then yes. However, in Champions, for example, I'm skeptical that's possible. It's going to be virtually impossible to build Superman or Thor on the default point suggestions for Champions - which is in the 250-350 range. A whole lot of assumed experience-based or bonus points will be required to get either to a suitable simulation, particularly without saddling them with lots of ridiculous disadvantages. However, since setting the points usable in a campaign is subject to GM's discretion, I'd say that no rules were being broken even if default suggestions from the game are not being followed.

With SWSE, because they were trying to promote their "Living..." games, WotC laid down an official char-gen method, which happened to be point buy. That being the case, it's not unreasonable to take that as the char-gen method for 'official' characters.

Han Solo's stats are such that if they were generated by rolling, his player cheated.

From my perspective, if the stats can be achieve with any stat generation method, default for Living Campaigns or not, no rules are being broken. And since the first method listed in the SWSE Core Rules is rolling for them, I'd be inclined to think that the default method... NOT point buy. That may be required for the Living Force campaign, but it's not the only appropriate method, nor should the default for any particular campaign, even a large and officially supported one, be the gold standard on which all published NPCs should be based.

EDIT: for what it's worth, in DC Adventures - Superman is built on 289 points. But then, M&M3 does have a different point scale than Champions.

 

[fireinthedust]

M&M: Clearly this was *not* what I meant. Obviously I could use a Supers game to mimic superheroes. What, with thousands of posts and the Watcher as my avatar, I must not have heard of M&M (all three editions) or another supers game like Marvel Heroic RPG (for which I'm the Watcher, on these boards right now)?


What I *meant* was: What are some ways to use d20 Modern standard character creation to make as close an approximation as possible to the Avengers. The fantastic example above (+26 Knowledge (engineering) to build the armor) is what I'm talking about. Maybe Hawkeye as an arrow version of a Gunslinger/Fast hero. Thor could be the only one to use D&D levels and items, and likely a few levels sunk into a racial level adjustment or template. Wolverine could use Cybernetics and the d20 Future template that grants regeneration.


As for DMPCs: Invincible DMPCs are a trap, a silly solution for the problem of how to introduce familiar faces to PCs who are liable to do what PCs do best: kill them and take their stuff!

The GMs I've had who use it, use it for EVERY NPC they want us to talk to, even inappropriately (who can forget the 15th level Fighter innkeeper and his 10th level sons, all of whom are max-strength power attack fighters).

It's a sign of severe insecurity.

Having the book characters use super-stats not only is this weakness, it also doesn't represent the characters at all well. Conan isn't that powerful in the books. Yes, he'd have maxed out strength... but really, a 16 Intelligence?! Come on, that's silly. He's high average at best, and uneducated save in the ways of war.

I agree with the point buy arguments.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Conan is clever and uses his wits. I see him more as a strong thief than a brute fighter.

WEG Starwars had templates so that all the characters could be made, if you acquired the skill points. That was the hard part. Solo had something like 100 points invested in Blaster, Dodge, and Piloting.

What is Iron Man's Int? To paraphrase JMS, He has the Int of Plot.

 

[Spatula]

The smart vs wise has been discussed. What about the limitations of the authors? If I wrote an Iron Man story, I would need to do a ton of research to make the technobabble correct. But If I was under a deadline, it would extremely difficult to do. And I had a limited space for words, it would be even more difficult. Without a lot of effort put into the research, the writers are limited by their own capability. Writing someone is smart is easy. Proving it by having them make amazing logical conclusions and process information in ways the writer can't understand (and can't properly communicate) is very difficult.

I don't think that Tony Stark's (or any other superhero tech-person's) technobabble has ever been scientifically researched by the writer. It's all sci-fi, and fantastic (not hard) sci-fi at that - it just has to sound somewhat plausible. And hopefully be internally consistent.

Proving that a character is smart when you're the author isn't hard. You know what's going to happen ahead of time, and your character probably does, too. Filling in the how of it is as easy as dropping in the clues that the character needs. When you control the plot, the set, and the characters, it's somewhat trivial to make anyone appear as anything you want.

I think where the author's limitations come into play is in writing what smart characters chose to do with their intellect, which maybe won't seem all that smart to the audience.

 

[delericho]

If he can be built with 400 points? Then yes. However, in Champions, for example, I'm skeptical that's possible... A whole lot of assumed experience-based or bonus points will be required to get either to a suitable simulation... I'd say that no rules were being broken even if default suggestions from the game are not being followed.

Indeed. None of which I have a problem with (as I said a couple of posts above).

However, if the rules claimed Superman was a 400-point character, but it turned out that he'd bought all of his powers at half price, then I would have an issue.

In d20 systems, character level is the key measure of power. A character of "level X" will have this much assumed power, given by this number of feats and that number of talents. Heck, many of the games even assume a specific amount of equipment! I therefore find it objectionable when something is presented as "level X", but significantly violates those assumptions - if you want more power in your 'iconic' characters, give them a higher level!

(It's especially infuriating because it's just so unnecessary. It is entirely possible to build a 1st level character who looks like Luke as he leaves the farm without exceeding that 25-point norm.)

From my perspective, if the stats can be achieve with any stat generation method, default for Living Campaigns or not, no rules are being broken. And since the first method listed in the SWSE Core Rules is rolling for them, I'd be inclined to think that the default method... NOT point buy.

Probably the thing that vexes me most about those characters is that the stats are almost completely useless - most groups will simply never use them - but there actually came a time when I did find use for them. Back in February, I ran a mirror universe one-shot in which half the characters were prequel-era iconics, and half were custom characters. Only it turned out that I couldn't use the iconics as-is, I had to rebuild them to balance with the custom characters. To finally have a use for them, and then to be unable to use them after all... that was more than a little annoying!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think that Tony Stark's (or any other superhero tech-person's) technobabble has ever been scientifically researched by the writer. It's all sci-fi, and fantastic (not hard) sci-fi at that - it just has to sound somewhat plausible. And hopefully be internally consistent.

Proving that a character is smart when you're the author isn't hard. You know what's going to happen ahead of time, and your character probably does, too. Filling in the how of it is as easy as dropping in the clues that the character needs. When you control the plot, the set, and the characters, it's somewhat trivial to make anyone appear as anything you want.

I think where the author's limitations come into play is in writing what smart characters chose to do with their intellect, which maybe won't seem all that smart to the audience.

I couldn't disagree more. I think that some authors will fit things together and research - and others will just make things up as they go along. The same thing happens in TV, and it's normally a matter of who says what.

Also a notorious challenge when writing is to write a character smarter than you are - and there are those who assert that this is impossible. Such characters don't sound right and the logical jumps are wrong, and the notorious pitfall is to make the character comparatively smart by having the simple expedient of making everyone else in the story into a moron.

 

[Razjah]

Also a notorious challenge when writing is to write a character smarter than you are - and there are those who assert that this is impossible. Such characters don't sound right and the logical jumps are wrong, and the notorious pitfall is to make the character comparatively smart by having the simple expedient of making everyone else in the story into a moron.

This is how you get Big Bang Theory "smart". I'm standing by my former argument that the writers cannot properly write a character who far exceed their mental capacity.

 

[delericho]

I don't think that Tony Stark's (or any other superhero tech-person's) technobabble has ever been scientifically researched by the writer.

Well, no, it can't be - most of it is flat impossible!

(That said, as Neonchameleon says, there are greater and lesser levels of "making it up". The technobabble in Star Trek TNG is of quite a different character from that in ST: Voyager, for example, and that's down to research. Neither of them is right, of course, but one of them went to the effort to be a semi-plausible extrapolation of known physics, while the other was immediately obvious as bull. The difference being down to research.)

(Dara O'Briain does a wonderful sketch about this, related to the film "2012". I recommend this.)

Proving that a character is smart when you're the author isn't hard. You know what's going to happen ahead of time, and your character probably does, too. Filling in the how of it is as easy as dropping in the clues that the character needs.

I think this is the key. It's essentially a matter of mystery writing - ideally, the clues should all be available to the audience, but it shouldn't be obvious until the lead character puts it together; however, once they do, the audience should collectively say "ooooh, of course!"

Unfortunately, doing that is hard, and very few writers have the talent for it (and, unfortunately, even the best have a nasty habit of leaving holes in the chain, of jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the revealed facts, or otherwise 'cheating'). Joss Whedon and Steven Moffat seem to be generally quite good at putting these things together, but other writers often aren't as skilled (or dedicated).

And then, of course, there are those writers/studios who don't bother to do the work because they think their audiences are morons.

Also a notorious challenge when writing is to write a character smarter than you are - and there are those who assert that this is impossible. Such characters don't sound right...

This is a signficant problem - the mainstream audience have an inbuilt assumption that a smart person sounds a certain way. But of course, smart people sound... pretty much like everyone else. Write a smart character like that, though, and the audience won't accept it - and so we get House, and Sheldon Cooper, and so on. The smart character must be a know-it-all jerk, he must be constantly showing off his intellect to those around him, and so on.

This is how you get Big Bang Theory "smart". I'm standing by my former argument that the writers cannot properly write a character who far exceed their mental capacity.

I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my assessment of those characters. Particularly back in season 1, that show really annoyed me, because not only was Sheldon an annoying know-it-all, but he was frequently wrong, too!