[Sterling]

Since the SR5 Core doesn't (at least as far as I can see) give a breakdown for what Attribute ratings actually mean I went back and had a look at the SR420A Core.  Since the conversion guide that originally came out stated that Attributes were unchanged from 4th to 5th Ed I feel that these still stand:

1 Weak
2 Underdeveloped
3 Typical
4 Improved
5 Superior
6 Max unmodified human

So, for example, a Strength 1 Body 5 character is (to me) husky, tending to fat, with little or no muscular development.  Charisma 1 is, for whatever reason, so dull that ditchwater actively avoids its company.  As for Logic 1, well, they should never be the guy doing your planning (c.f. Maverick, Arcology Podcast).

This is why I try and avoid any Stats at 1 unless they are being used to underpin a particular peculiarity of the character.  If I have to take Attributes at Priority E then I don't try and make any Stat spectacular, because by making Attributes the lowest Priority I've stated that they are simply the least important part of that character.

Any thoughts?

[RacoonSF]

In my opionion characters with a specific attribute value and combination can still be quite different.

A Character with low Logic might be dumb, he might be simply irrational or ruled by instinct/impulsive.

A Character with low Charisma might be rude, shy, unattractive or socially incompetent.

A Character wiht high Body might be fat, wiry or muscular.

This also depents on the characters qualities etc. E.G. with "Uncouth" the Caracter with low Charisma is probably simply very rude an short-fused, while a Character with "Dimmer Bulb" an low Logic would probably be slow to get a concept.

[Top Dog]

Well exactly what means what is a... rather big controversy, at times. It comes up pretty much any time someone posts a 1-attribute build.

Exactly how you interpret it changes between characters as well. Charisma 1 may be someone who's rude and unlikeable, or someone who's so insecure as to be unable to assert himself. But generally, a rating of 1 to me means he's quite terrible at associated actions, for whatever reason. A 2 means you're weak, but still able to perform most functions.

A 6 isn't "Max unmodified human", by the way. Top athletes/scientists/politicians and whatnot will likely have Exceptional Attribute, and be at 7 naturally.

[Sterling]

A 6 isn't "Max unmodified human", by the way. Top athletes/scientists/politicians and whatnot will likely have Exceptional Attribute, and be at 7 naturally.

Accepted, but these were the ratings straight out of the book.

[Senko]

Personally I'd swap them around a little out of the book or not if only because of the connotations with the various terms so I'd have . . .

1 Underdeveloped
2 Weak
3 Typical
4 Strong
5 Exceptional
6 ?
7 Max unmodified human

probably just me but I hear weak I think for example a slender teenage girl who would have difficulty lifting heavy weights whereas underdeveloped sounds like someone below that such as the class president in the Onidere manga who struggles to open a normal door (she's one of two girls interested in the main male lead the other one rips buildings apart when she stops paying attention to her strength from embarassment at him complimenting her) or the main male lead of Kurogane who collapses panting after jogging 200 metres (not overweight etiher just very, very weak physically). You can be weak but still part of the normal range of human strength wheras underdeveloped moves out of that. Could also describe a young child (preteen age).

[Top Dog]

Personally I'd swap them around a little out of the book or not if only because of the connotations with the various terms so I'd have . . .

1 Underdeveloped
2 Weak
3 Typical
4 Strong
5 Exceptional
6 ?
7 Max unmodified human

probably just me but I hear weak I think for example a slender teenage girl who would have difficulty lifting heavy weights whereas underdeveloped sounds like someone below that such as the class president in the Onidere manga who struggles to open a normal door (she's one of two girls interested in the main male lead the other one rips buildings apart when she stops paying attention to her strength from embarassment at him complimenting her) or the main male lead of Kurogane who collapses panting after jogging 200 metres (not overweight etiher just very, very weak physically). You can be weak but still part of the normal range of human strength wheras underdeveloped moves out of that. Could also describe a young child (preteen age).

And therein lies the crux of the argument - is a score of 1 "weak" or is it "underdeveloped", using your definitions? SR5 doesn't say, and even if SR4's descriptions still applied, 'weak' is rather broad a term.

To me, a score of 1 should be "weak" in the sense of your slender teenage girl. In shadowrun terms, barely enough to be a functional runner (for all 8 attributes), but nontheless, enough to survive, when balanced against what he ís good at. Your description for "undeveloped" is below functional for a runner. But then, plenty of people do think it means exactly what you say, and that a score of 1 is essentially unplayable.

[Whiskeyjack]

The problem with interpretations of 1 being unplayable is that this should be called out in the RAW as such, or the baseline for stats should be all 2s, with a 1 representing an NQ.

This is obviously not the case.

Having a stat of 1 is totally rules legal and the book never implies that having LOG 1 amounts to intellectual disability or anything like it (maybe borderline to low IQ, but not disability). So people should stop presenting it as such. Really CHA 1 can mean a lot of things but it is telling that it takes an NQ (Uncouth) to truly make it into something like a social impairment above and beyond a low dice pool.

[Darzil]

Mechanically 1 compared to 2 on an attribute is usually 25% chance of 1 less on a limit on some actions and one less hit 33% of the time. Potentially also less chance of an extra combat phase, depending where the borders lie.

[adzling]

As for Logic 1, well, they should never be the guy doing your planning (c.f. Maverick, Arcology Podcast).

haha the player that used to run Maverick is a good friend of mine and we play together IRL most weekends ;-)

So I agree that a "1" attribute does not equal disabled or impaired but it does mean incompetent.
For example a character with 1 agility is going to be a huge liability on combat as they can only run 4 meters per combat turn...
A character with 1 logic should be pretty dense and "air-headed", constantly getting things wrong and misinterpreting the actions of those around them.
A CHA 1 character might be very ugly and or completely socially inept but they won't be pretty and socially inept, that would be a 2 or 3 imho.
So while you could get by with a 1 stat (and our table has one character with one stat at 1) you we frown on it as it tends to impair the rest of the group significantly.
Spend an extra point to get it to 2 or raise it to 2 with karma after your first run or two.

[Whiskeyjack]

Tying CHA 1 into physical appearance gets to a weird point of having rules dictate a player's image of their own character. I wouldn't recommend it. You can have someone who is physically handsome but also socially awkward, churlish, unhygienic, or lacking a filter and all of those could fit the bill for CHA 1. 

[Top Dog]

Right. Appearance can factor in to Charisma, but it absolutely doesn't have to - and the main aspect of Charisma should always be force of personality.

[adzling]

well so does body, str and agility so this doesn't make sense to me imho.

you want to be pretty/ handsome? invest in CHA.

Tying CHA 1 into physical appearance gets to a weird point of having rules dictate a player's image of their own character. I wouldn't recommend it. You can have someone who is physically handsome but also socially awkward, churlish, unhygienic, or lacking a filter and all of those could fit the bill for CHA 1.

[Sterling]

Tying CHA 1 into physical appearance gets to a weird point of having rules dictate a player's image of their own character. I wouldn't recommend it. You can have someone who is physically handsome but also socially awkward, churlish, unhygienic, or lacking a filter and all of those could fit the bill for CHA 1.

Right. Appearance can factor in to Charisma, but it absolutely doesn't have to - and the main aspect of Charisma should always be force of personality.

Totally agree, which is why I described Charisma 1 as for whatever reason, so dull that ditchwater actively avoids its company.  Let a player choose if their character is physically attractive or not, but ask them to play to their Stats.

I like to look at the "fluff" effect of the numbers in the game, not just the "crunch".  By all means let players pick the Stats they want for their character, but expect them to play them. Look at the combination of Stats a player has, rather than just as individual numbers, e.g.: Logic 1 Intuition 5, to me, means a character who reacts without thinking, doesn't stop to scope out a situation and for whom there isn't even a Plan A, let alone Plans B, C, & D.

[Sterling]

haha the player that used to run Maverick is a good friend of mine and we play together IRL most weekends ;-)

Uhh, "used to run"?  Is that a spoiler or something?

[adzling]

Eeek I me be said too much!