PDA

View Full Version : How to accurately state your stats!



Xyk
2008-02-06, 08:14 PM
Okay, guys. Here's how we're gonna do it. We are gonna choose each stat and find a good way to test it.

Strength: Carrying capacity will work fine for this, working backwards, by the max load, Max clean and jerk.

Dexterity: A game of darts. (to be specified)


Constitution: Holding breath. 1 point per 6 seconds.


Intelligence: IQ divided by 10


Wisdom: ???????


Charisma: Mafia. (to be specified)

What is the thoughts of you?

sikyon
2008-02-06, 08:16 PM
Strength should be max clean and jerk, for being able to "lift it above your head".

Edit: IQ should be a function of the statistical distribution of how you can roll 4d6 take the 3 highest and the distribution curve of human intellect.

Xyk
2008-02-06, 08:19 PM
Max clean and jerk would do nicely, I don't know much about weight-lifting, so i didn't tihnk of that before now.

It shall be changed!

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-06, 08:27 PM
Intelligence: IQ divided by 10


IQ tests kind of get skewed along extremes. Doesn't seem all that fair to me as with a decent 14 INT you're a genius and casters would be up and out the stratosphere.

CHA, INT, and WIS would definitely be the toughest if not impossible. How can you measure the personal magnitude of someone? Wisdom is so esoteric, it can be the streetwise rogue chock full of common or an isolated mountain monk with profound insights into the human(elf/gnome/dwarf?) condition.

pinkbunny
2008-02-06, 08:27 PM
IQ/10=int allways irks me, because a standard deviation of IQ is 15, and a standard deviation of int is 2, making a better representation (IQ-100)/7.5 +10 = int.

This also functions to make high genius end up being around int 18.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 08:28 PM
One problem is that a lot of the best measurements are going to come down to skill checks, which are inherently fudgeable. That said...


Dexterity - Balance checks seem the best option here. Easier to measure quantitatively than Tumble or Sleight of Hand, at least.

Constitution - how long you can hold your breath. Easy enough.

Wis - average measure of eyesight and hearing, with 20/20 vision and whatever the standard for hearing is as the baseline. I've got 20/15 vision or so, which is awesome, but below-average hearing, so I'd probably come out close to Wis 10.

Wis 2 - object tracking. I think it's fairly evident that Wisdom is based largely around Situational Awareness in D&D, so testing the ability of a person to track multiple moving objects at once should work. Get a large enough sample, and you can bellcurve everything and place people from 3 to 18 that way.

Charisma - Notoriously qualitative, but I'd recommend Werewolf/Mafia, a classic bluffing-diplomacy game. Bellcurving works here too.

Ozymandias
2008-02-06, 08:44 PM
I recommend that this stop. Using IQ (a rather slanted test for spatial/symbolic logic) as an indicator for the much broader enumeration of "Intelligence" is an abstraction of an abstraction, and will usually result either in vainglorious self-lionization or low self-esteem producing intellectual jealousy. Of course, that's what IQ tests generally do in the first place.

Anyway, as mentioned, 18 on 3d6 is about .4%, or roughly two and a three quarters (nearer to three) standard deviations from the mean (10.5), whereas a similar IQ result is about 140-145. So that system really doesn't work at all.

The title is misleading. The system is completely subjective and arbitrary, so someone's interpretation can be "accurate" only insofar as it makes a game fun to play. Because, remember, that's the point.

Theli
2008-02-06, 09:03 PM
There is also the added difficulty of these stats representing humans from the middle ages or times of legend, as the vast majority of DnD games are set in a fantasy medieval period. (Modern d20 notwithstanding.)

Modern humans probably have different stat averages. (Though probably not all that different...except maybe for con and str.)

Xyk
2008-02-06, 09:06 PM
One problem is that a lot of the best measurements are going to come down to skill checks, which are inherently fudgeable. That said...


Dexterity - Balance checks seem the best option here. Easier to measure quantitatively than Tumble or Sleight of Hand, at least.

Constitution - how long you can hold your breath. Easy enough.

Wis - average measure of eyesight and hearing, with 20/20 vision and whatever the standard for hearing is as the baseline. I've got 20/15 vision or so, which is awesome, but below-average hearing, so I'd probably come out close to Wis 10.

Wis 2 - object tracking. I think it's fairly evident that Wisdom is based largely around Situational Awareness in D&D, so testing the ability of a person to track multiple moving objects at once should work. Get a large enough sample, and you can bellcurve everything and place people from 3 to 18 that way.

Charisma - Notoriously qualitative, but I'd recommend Werewolf/Mafia, a classic bluffing-diplomacy game. Bellcurving works here too.

Dex: I don't know if balance would work, anyone with gymnastics training or even martial arts or something like soccer is going to be considered with ranks.

Con: could you please direct me to the rules for holding breath, I havent had the need to use it.

Wis: I think wis2 is definitely more accurate but it would be hard to rate.

Cha: I have not heard of this Werewolf mafia.


IQ/10=int allways irks me, because a standard deviation of IQ is 15, and a standard deviation of int is 2, making a better representation (IQ-100)/7.5 +10 = int.

This also functions to make high genius end up being around int 18.

I tested this with a bright iq of 120 and got 12+2/3.
this may be more accurate.

With this, einstein with a 202 IQ would be Int 23.6. That is ridiculous, though 160 is exactly 18. Personally I think IQ/10=int is better. Even discarding einstein, there are plenty of people with more than 160 IQ and 18 int is supposed to be the most a human can have. Not only that but it is simpler with iq/10=int.

Casters are out of the stratosphere. It bugs me to no end when people gain 26 int and don't roleplay more than 13. Then again wizards bend space and time with complex math. You also have to take into account that people with more than 140 iq are pretty much freaks. You will probably not meet more than 1 or 2 of them. Those are generally the adventurers in a dnd situation.

This is mostly just for fun and curiosity's sake. Much like an IQ test. All dnd characters are totally unrealistic, but it's a game. This would probably only be used in the cliche that the adventurers are themselves sent to another world.

Crow
2008-02-06, 09:25 PM
A lot of Clean and Jerk is technique. "Weaker" individuals who have done it a lot or had instruction will be able to do more than someone who is "stronger" but hasn't.

Do a composite of Deadlift (lift off ground weight), and Clean and Jerk (lift over head). Take the average of the two scores.

For Dexterity, most of the measures people propose are actually Strength and Power based movements. Some sort of measurable flexibility exercise would be more appropriate. I don't know what to use though. Sit and Reach?

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 09:38 PM
Dex: I don't know if balance would work, anyone with gymnastics training or even martial arts or something like soccer is going to be considered with ranks.

Con: could you please direct me to the rules for holding breath, I havent had the need to use it.

Wis: I think wis2 is definitely more accurate but it would be hard to rate.

Cha: I have not heard of this Werewolf mafia.
Dex: Everything is adjustable. ESL people score worse on IQ tests, someone with a strong core but weaker limbs (like me) could ace "carrying capacity" tests while being weaker than others, etc. Honestly, in the spirit of things, I think it's better to at least have something that should approximate it. Balance is trainable, but so is everything else (including IQ Test Performance).

Con: " A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success. "

Wis: Agreed. I offered the former because it's much easier to measure and calculate via D&D physics. Also hard to train in.

Cha: "Werewolf" and "Mafia" are two minor reflavourings of the same game, which revolves around the set of players (usually 5-10) drawing cards determining their roll. The Werewolf/Mafia are working to kill everyone else, and everyone else is trying to kill the Werewolf/Mafia. Each "night", the Werewolf/Mafia choose one person to die, and each "day" the surviving players discuss things and vote on someone to lynch. Intrigue develops as particular people get noted for advocating the lynching of villagers, or arguing against the successful lynching of a Werewolf/Mafia member. All in all, personal victory depends on being able to act naturally under interrogation, being persuasive in your arguments, and being likable enough that people want to keep you in the game.

Chronos
2008-02-06, 09:39 PM
With this, einstein with a 202 IQ would be Int 23.6. That is ridiculous, though 160 is exactly 18. Personally I think IQ/10=int is better. Even discarding einstein, there are plenty of people with more than 160 IQ and 18 int is supposed to be the most a human can have. Not only that but it is simpler with iq/10=int.We have no idea how many people there are with IQ over 160, because nobody has yet designed an IQ test which can give meaningful scores that high. But I'll bet that it's not much more than 1 person out of 216.

And even if there were someone with a 202 IQ, that doesn't mean that an 18 Int implies an IQ over 200. Most things in real life follow bell curves, which never actually go to zero in the tails, so there is no value so high it's impossible (just really, really unlikely). 3d6 is a decent approximation of a bell curve, but unlike the real thing, it does have absolute limits. This tells us nothing about the real world; it only tells us that our simulation of the world isn't perfect, and that the D&D rules don't really apply to someone like Einstein.

Oh, and the standard deviation of 3d6 isn't 2, it's sqrt(35)/2, or about 2.96. So an 18 int would correspond roughly to an IQ of 138. Which, yes, is a really high IQ.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-02-06, 09:47 PM
So what's that mean for those of us with IQs of 150+?

Am I race that gets +2 INT?

(because that would be pretty damn cool.)

-Blue

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 09:52 PM
Oh, and the standard deviation of 3d6 isn't 2, it's sqrt(35)/2, or about 2.96. So an 18 int would correspond roughly to an IQ of 138. Which, yes, is a really high IQ.
Not really, especially among roleplayers. A sampling of one of my old gaming groups showed, out of 8 people, an average of about 135-140 and nobody below 120. On the other hand, these weren't based on the official tests (we went with some of the more reputable internet tests, as far as those things go), so you can dispute the results if you want. But it IS true that dissociative capacity, one of the central skills for roleplaying, correlates highly with intelligence, so maybe.

Xyk
2008-02-06, 10:07 PM
Dex: Everything is adjustable. ESL people score worse on IQ tests, someone with a strong core but weaker limbs (like me) could ace "carrying capacity" tests while being weaker than others, etc. Honestly, in the spirit of things, I think it's better to at least have something that should approximate it. Balance is trainable, but so is everything else (including IQ Test Performance).

Con: " A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success. "

Wis: Agreed. I offered the former because it's much easier to measure and calculate via D&D physics. Also hard to train in.

Cha: "Werewolf" and "Mafia" are two minor reflavourings of the same game, which revolves around the set of players (usually 5-10) drawing cards determining their roll. The Werewolf/Mafia are working to kill everyone else, and everyone else is trying to kill the Werewolf/Mafia. Each "night", the Werewolf/Mafia choose one person to die, and each "day" the surviving players discuss things and vote on someone to lynch. Intrigue develops as particular people get noted for advocating the lynching of villagers, or arguing against the successful lynching of a Werewolf/Mafia member. All in all, personal victory depends on being able to act naturally under interrogation, being persuasive in your arguments, and being likable enough that people want to keep you in the game.

Dex: this is true. A balance test is gonna be our best bet if nothing better comes along.

Wis: The vision and hearing tests would certainly be easier and probably better for a dnd group since most people know their vision and hearing. This is also practically impossible to train. It will be edited in if there are no qualms.

Cha: that sounds like a super-fun way to determine charisma. The problem is a way to rate it.

Con: This is excellent. It will be edited in immediately.

Chronos
2008-02-06, 10:15 PM
Any IQ result you get from an online test is worthless. Most of those tests you'll find online, if you answer the questions completely randomly, you'll still score over 100. Maybe roleplayers are more intelligent, on average, than the general population, but you still won't find very many 140s among them.

Saithis Bladewing
2008-02-06, 10:36 PM
How does ability to hold your breath account for the ability to take damage or ward off illness?

And how does this alternate method of calculating Int score account for those of us who score, say, 178? Far too exceptional for your 'only 18s' limitations, apparently.

The only stat we can really put a single number to with any kind of accuracy is Strength, anything else has too many factors. Also, as a sidenote, 18 is the highest achievable by humans, eh? So what about those nice handy statbumps that give you +1 and let you achieve well over 20? Must you be so structured to such quaint concepts as 'impossible to go higher than x'?

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 10:37 PM
Cha: that sounds like a super-fun way to determine charisma. The problem is a way to rate it.
1) Play a large number of games. Tally wins for each player (but keep it secret, otherwise people might gun for them and bias the result).

2) Rank each player by win/loss ratio, with a minimum number of games played necessary to qualify.

3) Assign each person a score based on the expected bellcurve results (if we're using 3d6 for example, the top 0.46% get a full 18, the next 1.39% get 17, etc)

The only question is playing a sufficiently large number of games.


Any IQ result you get from an online test is worthless. Most of those tests you'll find online, if you answer the questions completely randomly, you'll still score over 100. Maybe roleplayers are more intelligent, on average, than the general population, but you still won't find very many 140s among them.
Granted, but there are still some out there that use (or claim to use) a method similar to what I described above, meaning your IQ is returned based not on your score, but on how your score compares to other people in your age bracket. That is what I meant by "more reputable". I do agree though - internet IQ tests are notorious for ego-pandering, and any results should be taken with a grain of salt.

Asmodeus
2008-02-06, 10:47 PM
I tested this with a bright iq of 120 and got 12+2/3.
this may be more accurate.

With this, einstein with a 202 IQ would be Int 23.6. That is ridiculous, though 160 is exactly 18. Personally I think IQ/10=int is better. Even discarding einstein, there are plenty of people with more than 160 IQ and 18 int is supposed to be the most a human can have. Not only that but it is simpler with iq/10=int.

Just a minor technicality here... 18 is the max for a level 1 human. However, a human with 4 class levels can achieve 19 INT, and 8 class levels can get 20. I think its safe to assume that Einstein was probably a level 10 Expert, at least.

Because of this, all measurements would have to be taken at a point in time when we are certain that the person in question has not taken more than 3 class levels. I would suggest measurements take place on the birthday when the subject reaches minimum starting age for a character.

For Dex, it would be hard to use Balance as a measuring device, because it would be difficult to determine whether an individual had taken ranks in the skill. For example, a Gymnast who can do a handstand on a 3 inch balance beam may be just as dexterous as a skilled pick-pocket, who never learned how to use a balance beam. We could probably make an approximation, but not any sort of precise reading.

For precision, you'd need to find a function of the ability that is directly related to its score, or its bonus. Both the Lifting Capacity, and the Breath Holding functions work very well.

Xyk
2008-02-06, 10:57 PM
How does ability to hold your breath account for the ability to take damage or ward off illness?

And how does this alternate method of calculating Int score account for those of us who score, say, 178? Far too exceptional for your 'only 18s' limitations, apparently.

The only stat we can really put a single number to with any kind of accuracy is Strength, anything else has too many factors. Also, as a sidenote, 18 is the highest achievable by humans, eh? So what about those nice handy statbumps that give you +1 and let you achieve well over 20? Must you be so structured to such quaint concepts as 'impossible to go higher than x'?

Holding breath is based off constitution directly in dnd so it will provide probably the best guess.

18 is supposed to be the best that can be obtained without magic. The world records really don't count. The best deadlift for instance is about 21 str. the smartest guy ever supposedly had 200ish IQ meaning probably close to 20 int.
18 str would mean a max deadlift of 600lb which is pretty much outrageous.

EDIT: do we have a suggestion for dex that is purely based on the skill? the phb lists threading a needle as a dex check, but that's boring. maybe egg tosses or something, i dunno. suggestions are over-welcomed.

Asmodeus
2008-02-06, 11:06 PM
I've got an idea for an approximation of Wisdom.

Hypnotism allows a Will save to negate. Will Saves are based off of Wisdom.

If we found a novice Hypnotist, and had him attempt to hypnotize a person several times, we could take an average of how many times the person was able to resist and get a very rough calculation of their Will.

The major variances we'd have to look out for would be a Hypnotist who happens to have a higher/lower than normal DC to resist, and classes which get Will as their strong save. Anyone with Iron Will as one of their feats would also register as having high Wis.

Xyk
2008-02-06, 11:12 PM
I've got an idea for an approximation of Wisdom.

Hypnotism allows a Will save to negate. Will Saves are based off of Wisdom.

If we found a novice Hypnotist, and had him attempt to hypnotize a person several times, we could take an average of how many times the person was able to resist and get a very rough calculation of their Will.

The major variances we'd have to look out for would be a Hypnotist who happens to have a higher/lower than normal DC to resist, and classes which get Will as their strong save. Anyone with Iron Will as one of their feats would also register as having high Wis.

It's an idea but there are many who simply don't believe in hypnotism and will have a much stronger will save to that. I would suggest torture but thats against some laws.

wumpus
2008-02-06, 11:18 PM
Strength (in AD&D) was officially "number/10 one could (military) press over the head". Presumably this is a clean and jerk. Of course, it included plenty of values between 18 and 19 (the notorious exceptional strength).

Constitution. A better (if longer, more stressful) test would be the cooper test. Unfortunately this correlates somewhat strongly with strength/dexterity (marathon runners would face issues trying to sprint hard enough to score well).

AslanCross
2008-02-06, 11:20 PM
As far as I can tell, hypnotism does not work that way. It will not work at all on a person who is not willing to undergo it.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 11:21 PM
I've got an idea for an approximation of Wisdom.

Hypnotism allows a Will save to negate. Will Saves are based off of Wisdom.

If we found a novice Hypnotist, and had him attempt to hypnotize a person several times, we could take an average of how many times the person was able to resist and get a very rough calculation of their Will.

The major variances we'd have to look out for would be a Hypnotist who happens to have a higher/lower than normal DC to resist, and classes which get Will as their strong save. Anyone with Iron Will as one of their feats would also register as having high Wis.
Actually, believe it or not, irl hypnotizability would probably correlate better with intelligence. Autohypnosis (any hypnosis, really) is one of the defining elements of the "dissociative capacity" that I mentioned a few posts ago, which itself correlates highly with intelligence. But yeah, hypnosis always has more to do with the subject than the hypnotist. It's not some power the dude has, it's a part of the mind's ability to compartmentalize. All they're doing is facilitating. Will saves have nothing to do with it.

mikeejimbo
2008-02-06, 11:25 PM
It bugs me to no end when people gain 26 int and don't roleplay more than 13.

The problem is that it's hard to roleplay something smarter than you. They're playing to 13 Int because their IQ is probably more around there.

Xyk
2008-02-06, 11:28 PM
The problem is that it's hard to roleplay something smarter than you. They're playing to 13 Int because their IQ is probably more around there.

yeah, that's why i dislike minmaxing casters so much. It is practically impossible to roleplay.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-02-06, 11:29 PM
Wisdom score is also a limited measure of the character's sanity. This is reinforced with: Madness domain decreases one's application of Wisdom score to ability/skill checks, Alienists loses 2 points of Wisdom when gaining Alien Blessing and some spells/special attacks causing Wis damage/draining having "Madness" or "Insanity" written somewhere within the description (Madness ability of Allip, to name one).

So if you're relatively calm and collected, don't fantasise about unhealthy things ('cause that's creepy...), then your wisdom modifier can be said to be on the positive side.

Well, it's a suggestion not a dictation, mind you all.

Jack Zander
2008-02-06, 11:38 PM
I've taken 1 real IQ test and two Internet one, and the ones I used gave me a score of only 2-3 points above the real one. Of course, the real one I took when I was about 8 or 10 and the other two were within 3 or 5 years of now (and I'm 19), so that would put me into a new age bracket. And I'll admit, I was a much smarter as a child than as the college student I am now.

Cuddly
2008-02-06, 11:43 PM
So if you're relatively calm and collected, don't fantasise about unhealthy things ('cause that's creepy...), then your wisdom modifier can be said to be on the positive side.

I don't freak out in tight situations (I do some pretty gnarly stuff in big water with little boats), but I do enjoy choking dogs. It's about the only way I can... ahem. Never mind.

Anyway, would contrasting factors balance out? On a forum of nerds, I don't expect anyone to see the problems of rolling every possible type of physical exertion into a category of "strength", so more exertion necessarily = more strength. Pretty straight forward. But if you're good at some things and bad at others, within the same category, how do you add them up?

Jack Zander
2008-02-06, 11:46 PM
I've got an idea for an approximation of Wisdom.

Hypnotism allows a Will save to negate. Will Saves are based off of Wisdom.

If we found a novice Hypnotist, and had him attempt to hypnotize a person several times, we could take an average of how many times the person was able to resist and get a very rough calculation of their Will.

The major variances we'd have to look out for would be a Hypnotist who happens to have a higher/lower than normal DC to resist, and classes which get Will as their strong save. Anyone with Iron Will as one of their feats would also register as having high Wis.

HYPNOTISM DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
(Can I get a photoshoped image please?)

You must be willing to undergo hypnotism in order to be hypnotized. That involves clearing your mind of all thoughts and concentrating very very hard on only what the hypnotist says. You have to imagine (which leads to belief) that everything he is describing is real, and you are feeling it, right there in the scene. There are only two types of people who cannot be hypnotized: Those who do not believe in it, and those who cannot concentrate easily. Neither of these have anything to do with Wisdom (or Intelligence).

Though, if you can't be hypnotized, you might have a weak Constitution.

Crow
2008-02-07, 12:08 AM
Strength (in AD&D) was officially "number/10 one could (military) press over the head". Presumably this is a clean and jerk. Of course, it included plenty of values between 18 and 19 (the notorious exceptional strength).

Constitution. A better (if longer, more stressful) test would be the cooper test. Unfortunately this correlates somewhat strongly with strength/dexterity (marathon runners would face issues trying to sprint hard enough to score well).

Military Press (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/SPPPPJ155.wmv) (better know as the Shoulder Press) is far different than Clean and Jerk (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/cfj-nov-05/clean-n-jerk.wmv).

Burley
2008-02-07, 10:59 AM
I'd suggest, for DEX, using one of the things that you can't put ranks in: DC. Use base touch AC, (ie without deflection bonus), and have a game of freeze tag with creatures of the same speed. People with a high DEX will be the last ones to get tagged.
There would be touch attacks going all over the place. And, if you make sure that each creature has weapon finesse, you could get a representation from who can tag the most people.
Of course, when it comes to stats and incorporating them into real life, there is always a luck factor. Real life luck comes in many facets, while in-game luck would have a range of 1-20. Luck doesn't come in increments of 5%...Looking at my life, no way.

OverdrivePrime
2008-02-07, 11:02 AM
I'd suggest, for DEX, using one of the things that you can't put ranks in: DC. Use base touch AC, (ie without deflection bonus), and have a game of freeze tag with creatures of the same speed. People with a high DEX will be the last ones to get tagged.
There would be touch attacks going all over the place. And, if you make sure that each creature has weapon finesse, you could get a representation from who can tag the most people.


That's not bad, but plenty of people have ranks in tumble, and freeze tag is usually full defense.

Jack Zander
2008-02-07, 11:27 AM
That's not bad, but plenty of people have ranks in tumble, and freeze tag is usually full defense.

No way, a double move beats the full defense in tag.

I think a sprint is more accurate. As long as you aren't up against trained sprinters (who obviously have the run feat). We just need to figure the average time.

Dodgeball could also be used, but then you've got BAB invloved.

Thexare Blademoon
2008-02-07, 11:37 AM
For Dexterity, most of the measures people propose are actually Strength and Power based movements. Some sort of measurable flexibility exercise would be more appropriate. I don't know what to use though. Sit and Reach?

I cannot say "no" emphatically enough.


Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance.

Flexibility isn't there. Furtheremore, even if it was, it runs into the "measuring a whole stat by one use of it" issue with the force of a wrecking ball. Though I hate using myself as an example in these discussions, I do horribly on sit and reach; if this was your measure of DEX, I'd have an 8 at best. I'm very agile, however; to provide a school example from a few years ago, in a dodgeball game where we were not allowed to run (we could dodge, but we had to stay in about the same place), someone in my class threw the ball at me over a dozen consecutive times, missing each time. Luck may affect things, but not that consistently.

EDIT: Took me so long I got ninja'd ten minutes ago, with another post that mentions dodgeball, too.

Telonius
2008-02-07, 11:38 AM
Dex is supposed to be a measure of reflexes.. so we might be able to get some kind of measure of people's reflexes. How fast you can respond to a blinking light, or how fast your elbow twitches if you hit it with a hammer, something like that.

....or you could measure average numbers of ninjas on the boards?

sonofzeal
2008-02-07, 12:01 PM
Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance.
Wait.... does anyone else remember the tiny Flash game, where your mouse pointer is a square and you have to avoid an ever-accelerating set of rectangles moving around the play area? That one would be a good test of three of the four facets of Dexterity, without bringing outside factors in. Practicing it does give some advantage though, since paths are deterministic, so do we want to go by first run, or let people try as much as they want and take the best? Either way it should be a pretty accurate measure. Or does someone want to go and code up a more chaotic version?

(edit - it's not the game I was thinking of, but this (http://flashgamesite.com/mini/35-Squares) might work too.)

Crow
2008-02-07, 12:05 PM
The skills used in running and sprinting are functions or power, not dexterity. The maximum application of force in the shortest time. Changing directions, cutting, accelerating....

I would suggest something like target shooting (different ranges at moving and stationary targets) to measure DEX. Not very easy for a lot of people to go out and do though (and everybody thinks they're a better shot than they really are, in my experience).

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 12:18 PM
IQ/10=int allways irks me, because a standard deviation of IQ is 15, and a standard deviation of int is 2, making a better representation (IQ-100)/7.5 +10 = int.

This also functions to make high genius end up being around int 18.

Are you sure about this? A 160 IQ would get you an 18 Int in this case and a 180 over a 20. That seems off to me (perhaps because I don't think I have an 18 int.)

I'm not really sure what the IQ spreads are supposed to be as a percentage of population though so...

TheElfLord
2008-02-07, 12:33 PM
Are you sure about this? A 160 IQ would get you an 18 Int in this case and a 180 over a 20. That seems off to me (perhaps because I don't think I have an 18 int.)

I'm not really sure what the IQ spreads are supposed to be as a percentage of population though so...

The standard deveation (SD) for IQ is 15 points, and the mean is 100.


68.2% of the population falls within 1 SD of the mean (85-115) 38.1% between 85-100 and 38.1% between 100-115.

13.6% have IQs between 70 and 85. Another 13.6% are 115-130. This totals 95.4% between 70 and 130.

2.1% have IQs of 55-70. Again 2.1% have IQs of 130-145. 99.7% of people fall within three standard devations, or 55-145.

.1% of the population has an IQ <55. Another .1% has an IQ over 145.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 12:34 PM
The standard deveation (SD) for IQ is 15 points, and the mean is 100.


68.2% of the population falls within 1 SD of the mean (85-115) 38.1% between 85-100 and 38.1% between 100-115.

13.6% have IQs between 70 and 85. Another 13.6% are 115-130. This totals 95.4% between 70 and 130.

2.1% have IQs of 55-70. Again 2.1% have IQs of 130-145. 99.7% of people fall within three standard devations, or 55-145.

.1% of the population has an IQ <55. Another .1% has an IQ over 145.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Oh. Yeah that helps. That conversion makes a lot of sense then.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-07, 12:52 PM
I still don't see myself as having 19 INT, which is where my 169 IQ would put me... (real IQ test) I've never been sure how much faith to put in IQ tests. But if you say I have 19 INT, I'll go with it =P

As for DEX, I agree that sit & reach is an awful approximation, as one can just sit & reach for an hour or two on end and by the end of it double the starting result. Gross. I'm much more inclined to like the ranged touch attack strategy, like target shooting.

I do think carrying capacity is a good STR measure. Good core strength and poor arm strength should balance out, so that's not really an issue I think.

I like holding your breath for CON, and mafia for CHA (despite the proposed test being incredibly hard to actually do...)

I think WIS could be represented by a similar game to that one described for DEX, since WIS is largely about spatial awareness. Alternately, WIS could be represented by poker in the same way as mafia/werewolf, since WIS is also important for reading people (unfortunately it also is influenced by CHA, as is werewolf/mafia influenced by WIS...)

sonofzeal
2008-02-07, 01:06 PM
I still don't see myself as having 19 INT, which is where my 169 IQ would put me... (real IQ test) I've never been sure how much faith to put in IQ tests. But if you say I have 19 INT, I'll go with it =P

As for DEX, I agree that sit & reach is an awful approximation, as one can just sit & reach for an hour or two on end and by the end of it double the starting result. Gross. I'm much more inclined to like the ranged touch attack strategy, like target shooting.

I do think carrying capacity is a good STR measure. Good core strength and poor arm strength should balance out, so that's not really an issue I think.

I like holding your breath for CON, and mafia for CHA (despite the proposed test being incredibly hard to actually do...)

I think WIS could be represented by a similar game to that one described for DEX, since WIS is largely about spatial awareness. Alternately, WIS could be represented by poker in the same way as mafia/werewolf, since WIS is also important for reading people (unfortunately it also is influenced by CHA, as is werewolf/mafia influenced by WIS...)
The problem I have with your "ranged touch attack" approach is that, as in D&D, there is a vast difference between people who've trained at it (high bab, weapon focus, etc) and people who've never held a gun before (non-proficient). Dex hardly comes into it at all, at that point. I'm still in favour of some flash game which tests eye-hand coordination, reflex speed, and fine motor control, the way that Squares Flash Game I linked does. I would hope that few of us are non-proficient with the mouse.

(edit - my current highscore is 102 squares, 9409 points.)

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-07, 01:14 PM
The problem I have with your "ranged touch attack" approach is that, as in D&D, there is a vast difference between people who've trained at it (high bab, weapon focus, etc) and people who've never held a gun before (non-proficient). Dex hardly comes into it at all, at that point. I'm still in favour of some flash game which tests eye-hand coordination, reflex speed, and fine motor control, the way that Squares Flash Game I linked does. I would hope that few of us are non-proficient with the mouse.

I forgot to mention that I liked this (the game) approach. For the ranged touch attack I was actually thinking more about something in the video game genre, in order to get around proficiency issues. The problem is that I feel a lot of things are going to also be partially WIS-based in the spatial-awareness area.

sonofzeal
2008-02-07, 01:17 PM
I forgot to mention that I liked this (the game) approach. For the ranged touch attack I was actually thinking more about something in the video game genre, in order to get around proficiency issues. The problem is that I feel a lot of things are going to also be partially WIS-based in the spatial-awareness area.
Agreed. Maybe one of those whack-a-mole shooters?

Asmodeus
2008-02-07, 01:25 PM
The problem I have with your "ranged touch attack" approach is that, as in D&D, there is a vast difference between people who've trained at it (high bab, weapon focus, etc) and people who've never held a gun before (non-proficient). Dex hardly comes into it at all, at that point. I'm still in favour of some flash game which tests eye-hand coordination, reflex speed, and fine motor control, the way that Squares Flash Game I linked does. I would hope that few of us are non-proficient with the mouse.

(edit - my current highscore is 102 squares, 9409 points.)

I like the idea for target shooting.

A light crossbow at 70 ft seems to be the best option, since everyone would have proficiency with it. Again, we'd have to take the measurement at the point where we are sure they haven't gained extra feats. Point Blank Shot wouldn't be an issue at 70 ft, adn there would be no range penalty. The only variant factor would be their BAB, which would be a 0 or a +1 at that level. The target would have to be medium sized, Unarmored and flat-footed for a base AC of 10. That would give us accuracy within 3 points of DEX.

Weapon Focus might cause an issue though. Perhaps instead of a light crossbow, we should use an improvised weapon. Problem is I can't think of a good one for ranged attacks. Thrown weapons aren't a good idea, because of range increment problems.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-07, 02:22 PM
I was thinking about darts, because accuracy with darts is almost entirely DEX-based. obviously it's a probem if people have practice with them, but that's true for nearly anything else, too. One of the reasons it's so hard to translate from real life into D&D terms is because real people have way more skill points than you get in D&D, and they matter a little less. For instance, you could go play darts for an hour and get a "rank" in it, but it's not like you've gained a level or anything, or like you will do so anytime soon.

Possibly the best way to do DEX is for a smaller group of people to come to a conclusion on a similar sort of game that no member has any proficiency with, or that everyone has in about equal degree (other games that could work: horseshoe, pool, even Wii Sports or something...)

Chronos
2008-02-07, 02:31 PM
I still don't see myself as having 19 INT, which is where my 169 IQ would put me... (real IQ test)I'll say this again: If it returned a value of 169, it wasn't a real IQ test. There is no known way of measuring IQs that high.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-07, 02:37 PM
I'll say this again: If it returned a value of 169, it wasn't a real IQ test. There is no known way of measuring IQs that high.

I took this test probably ten years ago or more, when my parents paid for me to have a real one... I'm not saying it's still up there but still, basing INT on IQ is still not necessarily accurate.

Jack Zander
2008-02-07, 02:41 PM
Who said Einstein had an IQ of 202? As far as I know, he was never tested, or he hit the maximum so we can't ever know what his real IQ was (one of the two).

Why do people keep thinking target practice would be a good measure for dex? That's a good measure for BAB, not Dex. And no, everyone in the world is not proficient with a crossbow. The commoner picks one simple weapon and that's it (it's possible for someone to not be proficient with their own fists actually).

The game seems the best to me. Perhaps even one of those helicopter click games, though you can practice at them too. Reaction tests may be a good idea, though you'd have to do about 100 tests for each person and the reaction couldn't have a countdown, it would have to be random.

TheDon
2008-02-07, 02:49 PM
Wis: The vision and hearing tests would certainly be easier and probably better for a dnd group since most people know their vision and hearing. This is also practically impossible to train. It will be edited in if there are no qualms.


How do you take into account people who have eye sight or earing problems?

Judging by the strenght of my glasses I would have a wisdom arround 4 or 5, however I am considered a person to turn to for advice and usualy a good judge of character.

Crow
2008-02-07, 03:03 PM
I like the darts idea. The flash game is too small a scope for measuring reflexes and coordination. Most any athlete will have more agility and better reflexes than some fat guy sitting at home with a mouse in one hand, but the fat guy may be much better at the flash game.

For any of these stats, we should have a panel of tests and take the average results of all of them together. Darts, Flash Game, and something else?

For WIS, something more than sight/hearing is needed. As of tuesday, I'm 20/15 w/ a perfect score on the hearing test. But I sure as hell can make some bad decisions.

sikyon
2008-02-07, 03:05 PM
I suggest a combination of Reflex tests like meter-stick drop and balancing activities like how fast you can run along a balance beam, or something like that.

Deepblue706
2008-02-07, 03:22 PM
Who said Einstein had an IQ of 202? As far as I know, he was never tested, or he hit the maximum so we can't ever know what his real IQ was (one of the two).

I heard he was 160 tops - but I believe you're right, I don't think he was ever tested.

I do recall reading that he was able to be so accomplished at mathematics because part of his brain was unique. Essentially, it said his neural pathways were such that he could do math faster because the part of his brain that is responsible language skills wasn't there, and thus, not in the way. It seems to support the story about his parents thinking he was retarded when he was a child, because he took so long to develop language skills.

If you want to talk about high-IQ people, I think they say Goethe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe) takes the cake.

Chronos
2008-02-07, 03:39 PM
I do recall reading that he was able to be so accomplished at mathematics because part of his brain was unique. Essentially, it said his neural pathways were such that he could do math faster because the part of his brain that is responsible language skills wasn't there, and thus, not in the way. It seems to support the story about his parents thinking he was retarded when he was a child, because he took so long to develop language skills.While Einstein's brain was different in some ways from the norm, it wasn't quite to that degree. Some portions were smaller and some larger, but all of the standard bits and pieces were still there.

And his genius was not primarily mathematical. Much of his work doesn't actually use any math above basic algebra, and what advanced mathematics there is in it was mostly developed by Minkowski. Einstein's genius was mostly in his ability to see patterns and relationships between apparently different concepts, and to discard preconceptions when they no longer proved useful.

Xyk
2008-02-07, 07:19 PM
Darts are a good idea. I'm sure there is an easy way of dividing score into dex. I think I'm gonna edit in darts and mafia.

There has been alot of doubting IQ as a measure of int. Are there any other ideas?

Demented
2008-02-07, 08:16 PM
I took this test probably ten years ago or more, when my parents paid for me to have a real one... I'm not saying it's still up there but still, basing INT on IQ is still not necessarily accurate.

Ah, it's one of those IQ tests. =P
It just means you're 7th grade smart when you're at 4th grade age. (Well, something like that.)
Becomes very irrelevant when you reach adulthood, but it's useful for determining AP classes.


If you want to know someone's INT, why not just check their bonus spells?
Oh, right. No magic. Fie.
There's always SAT scores.
Alternatively, find out who can create the most irritatingly difficult logic puzzle in 8 hours.

LotharBot
2008-02-07, 09:15 PM
STR - Come up with a group of weightlifting exercises that cover several major muscle groups. Calculate each individual's statistical result for each lift, and then average their results together.

DEX - Have a group of machines set up to fire dodgeballs into an area. Put the person in the area. Count hits over time. Unless someone has a feat of dodge or magical armor, all this will measure is Dex.

CON - Expose everyone to "the common cold" and see if they display symptoms, and how severe they are. Repeat several times. People who resist the most have the highest CON scores.

INT - I might be inclined to create a series of "pattern" problems -- linguistic, mathematical, etc. -- and follow people's reasoning process in terms of determining the pattern. How long does it take to figure it out? What do they get stuck on? What rules do they use to get the answer?

WIS - spatial awareness / spatial following. Could be done in a video game. How well do they notice secret areas in a custom-constructed area? Include secrets that are "up", "down", hidden by darkness, obscured by objects, or can't be spotted until after you've spotted the boss guy so the player is distracted. How well can they track a moving object among several (say, a card in 3-card monte with a non-cheating dealer)?

CHA - acting / dating. Give each subject a notecard describing a personality they need to act out. Give them a minute to study it, then they sit down for "speed dating" where the other partner judges. Have them switch personalities every time they move, so that each judge is judging everyone on the same personality but each person has to play several different personalities. Rate people subjectively based on confidence, etc. Make sure personalities are all over the board so everyone gets a chance to be a nerd, a jock, etc.

Deepblue706
2008-02-07, 09:24 PM
While Einstein's brain was different in some ways from the norm, it wasn't quite to that degree. Some portions were smaller and some larger, but all of the standard bits and pieces were still there.

And his genius was not primarily mathematical. Much of his work doesn't actually use any math above basic algebra, and what advanced mathematics there is in it was mostly developed by Minkowski. Einstein's genius was mostly in his ability to see patterns and relationships between apparently different concepts, and to discard preconceptions when they no longer proved useful.

Is that so? I honestly don't know anything about Einstein, other than that he's "That Smart Guy", and what a lot of people like to exaggerate about him in web forums ("HIS IQ WAS 1,000,000!" etc). I guess I have some researching to do, tonight...

Chronos
2008-02-07, 09:52 PM
s that so? I honestly don't know anything about Einstein, other than that he's "That Smart Guy", and what a lot of people like to exaggerate about him in web forumsWell, don't quote me on the part about the anatomy of his brain. I'm not a neurologist, and all I know about his brain, I got from a few articles I read years ago. But I do know about the research he did, and the math (at least, his contribution to it) really isn't all that deep. The biggest contribution he made on the math end is a clever but simple notation for writing down tensor equations.

Xyk
2008-02-07, 09:53 PM
STR - Come up with a group of weightlifting exercises that cover several major muscle groups. Calculate each individual's statistical result for each lift, and then average their results together.

DEX - Have a group of machines set up to fire dodgeballs into an area. Put the person in the area. Count hits over time. Unless someone has a feat of dodge or magical armor, all this will measure is Dex.

CON - Expose everyone to "the common cold" and see if they display symptoms, and how severe they are. Repeat several times. People who resist the most have the highest CON scores.

INT - I might be inclined to create a series of "pattern" problems -- linguistic, mathematical, etc. -- and follow people's reasoning process in terms of determining the pattern. How long does it take to figure it out? What do they get stuck on? What rules do they use to get the answer?

WIS - spatial awareness / spatial following. Could be done in a video game. How well do they notice secret areas in a custom-constructed area? Include secrets that are "up", "down", hidden by darkness, obscured by objects, or can't be spotted until after you've spotted the boss guy so the player is distracted. How well can they track a moving object among several (say, a card in 3-card monte with a non-cheating dealer)?

CHA - acting / dating. Give each subject a notecard describing a personality they need to act out. Give them a minute to study it, then they sit down for "speed dating" where the other partner judges. Have them switch personalities every time they move, so that each judge is judging everyone on the same personality but each person has to play several different personalities. Rate people subjectively based on confidence, etc. Make sure personalities are all over the board so everyone gets a chance to be a nerd, a jock, etc.

Strength is fully covered and is far more simple with simple carrying capacity. The problem with dex is getting our hands on a dodgeball firing machine. Con is just silly. wis could be something similiar to the ball under some cups. Charisma is gonna be hard to judge.

crimson77
2008-02-07, 10:23 PM
IQ/10=int allways irks me, because a standard deviation of IQ is 15, and a standard deviation of int is 2, making a better representation (IQ-100)/7.5 +10 = int.

This also functions to make high genius end up being around int 18.

Actually your estimate is wrong. The standard deviation for 3d6 is somewhere between 2.8 and 3.0 with a mean of around 10.5 (n = 1000). To convert from a 3d6 curve to an IQ curve you need to use a z score. To not bother you with the statistics behind that, here is your modified equation:

Int = [(((IQ-100)/15)*2.9) + 10.5]

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-07, 10:31 PM
There's always SAT scores.

If college has taught me anything, it's that the SAT means ****-all when it comes to rating how capable anyone is. (though I share your opinion of the IQ test)

Ozymandias
2008-02-07, 11:01 PM
Static tests (IQ tests, ACT, SAT) are highly correlated with intelligence. This probably isn't exclusively causal, but mutually related to socio-economics status and therefore genetics.

Also, childhood IQs are far, far higher than adults in almost all instances, because of the exponential gain in intelligence during puberty vis-à-vis the relatively small change (or even drop) at older ages. This also, in effect, lets childhood IQs be more "accurate" insofar as they measure the relationship of one's scores relative to that of his or her peers. Regardless, even if they were to measure "intelligence" as the lexicon generally defines it, it's unlikely that someone with a 140 IQ has exactly a 5% chance greater than that of someone with 120 or 130 on nearly all mental tasks (I suppose skill ranks could mitigate that somewhat, but commoners/experts don't get that many).

Xyk
2008-02-07, 11:01 PM
Actually your estimate is wrong. The standard deviation for 3d6 is somewhere between 2.8 and 3.0 with a mean of around 10.5 (n = 1000). To convert from a 3d6 curve to an IQ curve you need to use a z score. To not bother you with the statistics behind that, here is your modified equation:

Int = [(((IQ-100)/15)*2.9) + 10.5]

This doesn't work. 160 IQ would mean 22 int. That is ridiculous. 120 is 13-14. None so good here.

sonofzeal
2008-02-07, 11:04 PM
Actually your estimate is wrong. The standard deviation for 3d6 is somewhere between 2.8 and 3.0 with a mean of around 10.5 (n = 1000). To convert from a 3d6 curve to an IQ curve you need to use a z score. To not bother you with the statistics behind that, here is your modified equation:

Int = [(((IQ-100)/15)*2.9) + 10.5]
By that standard, my Int is.... 19.2. That sounds a bit high, but I did get a university degree in mathematics, so I figure I'm not too far off.

Oh, and apparently my Con is 20, since I can hold my breath for two minutes. Again, this seems high, since I tend to get asthmatic when I exercise too much... but on the other hand, I never get sick, so I'm probably on the high end either way.

It's too bad we didn't go with the balance check, too, since I have a naturally amazing sense of balance (and rock at dodgeball too). Darts have never worked well for me, for some reason. Best I can figure, I'm a Factotum of at least 3rd level, with full ranks in Balance and the Brains Over Brawn trait picking up the slack.

Jack Zander
2008-02-07, 11:24 PM
Gasp! I just realized a flaw in the CON thing. Holding ones breath has a minimum of 1 round per point in the score, but then you make checks each round to continue. Someone with Con 6 could get really high and hold their breath for 2 minutes if conditions were right.

Xyk
2008-02-07, 11:28 PM
Gasp! I just realized a flaw in the CON thing. Holding ones breath has a minimum of 1 round per point in the score, but then you make checks each round to continue. Someone with Con 6 could get really high and hold their breath for 2 minutes if conditions were right.

I saw that from the beginning.

However, holding breath is still based directly off con. I went with 10 being average and 60 seconds being average breath holding. 1 point per round would work just fine.

Jack Zander
2008-02-07, 11:34 PM
I suppose you should do about 20 tests at different times of the day while doing different things (from lying still to swimming underwater) and take the average. That should yield proper numbers.

Chronos
2008-02-07, 11:43 PM
Quoth crimson77:
The standard deviation for 3d6 is somewhere between 2.8 and 3.0 with a mean of around 10.5I take it you got that from a Monte Carlo simulation? It can be done analytically.

Warning: Math follows The mean is simple enough: A single die's mean is given by (1 + n)/2, where n is the number of sides on the die. And when you add multiple dice rolls together, you just add the means. So 1d6 has a mean of 3.5, and 3d6 has a mean of exactly 10.5 .

For the standard deviation, the formula is a bit more complicated. First, you get the variance (the square of the standard deviation). The variance of a single die is (n2 - 1)/12 , and when adding (or subtracting) dice rolls, you add the variances together to get the total variance. Finally, you take the square root of the total variance to get the total standard deviation. So the variance of 1d6 is (62 - 1)/12, or 35/12, so the variance of 3d6 is 35/4, and the standard deviation of 3d6 is sqrt(35)/2 (which comes out to 2.958...). Which is in fact between 2.8 and 3.0 , and thus consistent with your Monte Carlo results.

DementedFellow
2008-02-07, 11:55 PM
I kinda see this whole idea as a fool's errand.

Are we to assume that just because you can hit a bullseye you are more dexterous than a trampolinist?

Or just because you cannot win a game, you would suck as an orator?

Face it, people. We're all commoners. Even those of us with larger than average muscles, IQs, and so on.

I'm also against the idea of using IQ as a means of defining intelligence. Tests can only measure how knowledgeable you are on THAT day of the test. There are a lot of mitigating factors and just because someone is bad at taking tests, that doesn't mean that they are stupid.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-07, 11:58 PM
CON-

holding your breath is good, but since there is the random factor, you should do it several times throughout the day under roughy the same circumstances. From there you can average them and then approximate what the "mod" is and subtract or add a certain number of points based on that mod in relation to the average (Sorry I'm not going to make the effort right at the moment to work out the numbers right now). I think that works though, roughly.

Kristoss
2008-02-08, 12:11 AM
My Dex Test: The Ruler Drop Test

Aim: Catch ruler as quick as possible after it is dropped.

Setup: Hang the ruler over the subjects single hand (not both) so that the top of the hand is just on the 0cm mark.

Play: Drop the ruler. The subject is not allowed to move their arm, they are only allowed to squeeze their hand. The distance that the ruler dropped before it was caught is a measure of the subjects dexterity.

Variant: If need be hang the ruler a bit higher above the subjects hand.

sonofzeal
2008-02-08, 01:02 AM
I kinda see this whole idea as a fool's errand.
Well, duh. D&D physics is not real-world. Things do not work like D&D says they do, and I think we all realize that. That doesn't mean we can't have fun with the concept.


My Dex Test: The Ruler Drop Test

Aim: Catch ruler as quick as possible after it is dropped.

Setup: Hang the ruler over the subjects single hand (not both) so that the top of the hand is just on the 0cm mark.

Play: Drop the ruler. The subject is not allowed to move their arm, they are only allowed to squeeze their hand. The distance that the ruler dropped before it was caught is a measure of the subjects dexterity.

Variant: If need be hang the ruler a bit higher above the subjects hand.
There's a bunch of places that have this, marked off with times instead of distances, so that works. The supposed minimum is about 0.2 I believe, so I'd propose a rough formula of ( 4 / time ), using the best time out of a series of three.

Chronos
2008-02-08, 01:41 AM
Face it, people. We're all commoners. Even those of us with larger than average muscles, IQs, and so on. Actually, many of us are probably experts, and I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to find one or two rogues or fighters on the boards.


My Dex Test: The Ruler Drop Test

Aim: Catch ruler as quick as possible after it is dropped.

Setup: Hang the ruler over the subjects single hand (not both) so that the top of the hand is just on the 0cm mark.

Play: Drop the ruler. The subject is not allowed to move their arm, they are only allowed to squeeze their hand. The distance that the ruler dropped before it was caught is a measure of the subjects dexterity.

Variant: If need be hang the ruler a bit higher above the subjects hand.Nope, it's actually trainable. I've been able to catch the ruler faster than the supposed maximum possible (and no, before you ask, I wasn't the one dropping it), and my Dex is average at best. The trick is to not look directly at it: Your brain can process information from your peripherial vision more quickly than from your direct vision.

Jack Zander
2008-02-08, 01:49 AM
Actually, many of us are probably experts, and I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to find one or two rogues or fighters on the boards.

Nope, it's actually trainable. I've been able to catch the ruler faster than the supposed maximum possible (and no, before you ask, I wasn't the one dropping it), and my Dex is average at best. The trick is to not look directly at it: Your brain can process information from your peripheral vision more quickly than from your direct vision.

Maybe for you, you high level rogue with Uncanny Dodge!

Any test that does comparative results would work out well. Since stats are based off of the average, and the average may change between time periods, comparing everyone to each other and finding the various brackets would work out better than anything really.

For example, some standardized tests don't give you a score, but rather a percentage which reflects how many people you scored higher than. Most people will get around 40-60% and there is a bell curve from there on both ends.

Skjaldbakka
2008-02-08, 01:56 AM
Has it been mentioned that this process is made of lose and fail? With the possible exception of Strength, none of the the six attributes are actually just one measurable trait.

For example, I am a pretty fair shot with a packet of bird seed (a function of dex), but dodging said packets (also a function of dexterity) is not something I can do with any reliability. Nor do I react quickly to things, or move quickly. Also, I can't catch worth a damn. However, I am a fair hand with a boffer sword, and most are hard pressed to land a hit with one. Both functions of dexterity. For those unfamiliar, those are NERO boffer larp experiences I am calling on there.

For another example, I can hold my breath for 90 seconds, a 15 con by your test. However, I cannot keep up a running pace for any length of time. I do have a high pain threshold, however. Note the discrepencies there. Although I do tend to give myself a 15 con.

Don't even get me started on the mental stats.



Also, none of us are commoners, or really can be. We pretty much have to experts at the minimum, given the level of education in those countries with access to computers. Unless we are all geniuses. The skill points alone cause problems here. Of course, D&D is the wrong system for statting up a realistic modern person. World of Darkness does better (although me as a WoD character still has a better capacity for running than makes sense for me).

Just because it is one of those threads:

D&D: Str 13, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 12
WoD: Str 3, Dex 2, Stam 3: Int 3, Wits 2, Res 1: Pres 2, Manip 2, Comp 4

Chronos
2008-02-08, 02:29 AM
Maybe for you, you high level rogue with Uncanny Dodge!That, I am not: What levels I have are almost certainly Expert (rogues don't get Knowledge: Physics, nor a bunch of other things which would appear to be class skills for me). I suppose one could make the case that I spent a skill point on the ruler-catching thing, but the trick I use is really, really easy (I learned it in an afternoon). Still, though, the fact that there's a simple trick, and that those who know the trick will do significantly better than those who don't, pretty much rules it out as a test.

mroozee
2008-02-08, 02:32 AM
Okay, guys. Here's how we're gonna do it. We are gonna choose each stat and find a good way to test it.

What is the thoughts of you?

Premise: The human range for abilities is from 3 to 18. Anything that LOOKS like it's above 18 actually represents a combination of ability + feats + skills + possible situation modifiers. High-level PC's are super-natural.

Strength: As an upper limit, someone who has never trained in weightlifting can still be very strong, but they will be very unlikely to exceed:

Bench: 450 lbs (use Max Load x 1.5)
Squat: 450 lbs (use Max Load x 1.5)
Dead Lift: 600 lbs (use Max Load x 2)
Clean & Press: 300 lbs (use Max Load)

For game purposes, a person who can lift more than that probably has Skill: Weightlifting or a Feat that increases their lifting; that is, they aren't going to be able to hit any harder. A person who can only bench 30 lbs. is no worse off in combat than a person who can only bench 45 lbs. - they are both in a lot of trouble.

Intelligence: First, I am an IQ skeptic, but there aren't many better options. Different IQ tests have different scales (which makes any unspecified claims pretty meaningless). WAIS and Stanford-Binet use different ways of measuring IQ but they approximately agree on the 60-140 range. Anyone claiming an IQ higher than 140 who has not taken an IQ test designed for unusually high IQ's doesn't really know what their IQ is. My recommendation is:

INT = (IQ - 100)/5 + 10

For game purposes, a person with an IQ over 140 probably has Skill: Problem Solving or an associated Feat; that is, they aren't going to be able to (cognitive analog for 'hit') any harder.

An alternative to IQ is education, though it is hard to categorize people of varying ages this way.

Constitution: This represents "health" and "stamina". Health is pretty nebulous, but stamina may be quantifiable. A marathoner might represent the 18 type. Again, there would be very little difference in game terms between the stamina of a good marathoner and that of a good Iron Man triathlete. Since we aren't talking speed, something like:

How long can you keep up an 8 minute mile pace?

3, 4, 5, 6 = 1, 2, 3, 4 minute(s)
7, 8, 9, 10 = 6, 8, 10, 12 minutes
11, 12, 13, 14 = 16, 24, 32, 40 minutes
15, 16, 17, 18 = 60, 100, 140, 180 minutes

Note: this is for a person with an average build... an NFL offensive lineman may not be able to run a single 8 minute mile, but they are probably above an 8 Con. Then again, who knows?

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-08, 03:25 AM
I know someone mentioned that hypnotism could be used to measure Will saves, but I just remembered something that could make that unreliable: in "The Dilbert Future", authour Scott Adams mentioned that he had found that people who are psychic tend to be easier to hypnotise then non-psychic people, which doesn't correlate here due to how you'd assume eal life versions of Psions would be able to resist hypnosis, which would need a Will save.
In regards to Wis and hearing/vision problems, I'd take those as flaws rather then an indication of Wis (eg: I'm really short-sighted, but I have overly sensitive hearing, which can work against me if there's a lot of background noise and someone is alking to me). Regarding IQ, I tended to see each 5 IQ point above or below 10 as equalling 1 Int point (eg: someone with an IQ of 130 would have an Int of 16, while someone with an IQ of 87 would be rounded down to Int 7). I have an IQ of 129 (rounded up to 130), and I got the same result from my method as I did from crimson77 and mroozee's methods.
Regarding the idea that we are commoners, 1 problem between real life and D&D is that class is much easier to change: for instance, I class myself as a Commoner at the minute do to having a lack of practical skills, but I'll be an Expert with a lot of ranks in Heal and Profession (Alternative Therapist) in a bit over 3 years time once I've been to university. On the other hand, if I decided to join the infantry branch of that army for some reason, my Str would probably increase a lot and I would become a level 1 Fighter. I tend to see this sort of discussion as being fun rather then being anything too serious.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-08, 10:22 AM
Face it, people. We're all commoners. Even those of us with larger than average muscles, IQs, and so on.

Speak for yourself! I'm an expert thank you very much! Some of my best friends are warriors!

Actually though, the more I think about it, if you measure wealth on a quality of living / access to resources (education etc) then most people in first world countries probably count a Aristocrats.

On to Charisma:

Charisma - Notoriously qualitative, but I'd recommend Werewolf/Mafia, a classic bluffing-diplomacy game. Bellcurving works here too.

This is problematic. Not only because of the 'how do you quantify it' problem but also because the nature of Mafia/Werewolf also adds levels of strategy. At least in games I've played, someone who totally pulls one over on the group a few times starts getting killed right off the bat at the beginning of the game, just to be safe.


CHA - acting / dating. Give each subject a notecard describing a personality they need to act out. Give them a minute to study it, then they sit down for "speed dating" where the other partner judges. Have them switch personalities every time they move, so that each judge is judging everyone on the same personality but each person has to play several different personalities. Rate people subjectively based on confidence, etc. Make sure personalities are all over the board so everyone gets a chance to be a nerd, a jock, etc.

I'm not sure this is a good measure either. Humm...


Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

The problem is that bluff (which is pretty much all that test handles) is a skill too. A high Cha person could act out an offensive personality as well as a friendly one and tick people off at the speed dating challenge on purpose. I think there would need to be several aspects of test balanced against eachother for Cha. A tweaked version of speed dating could be one but some others that might have to come into play are:

-Default Leadership: When in a group of strangers with several options regarding what to do as a group, how often does the group follow their lead?

-How symmetrical are their features? This, oddly, has been show to have a pretty close correlation to 'attractiveness' in studies.

-If placed in a situation where they needed to convice another individual of an idea how often do they succeed?

Darzil
2008-02-08, 11:08 AM
Is that so? I honestly don't know anything about Einstein, other than that he's "That Smart Guy", and what a lot of people like to exaggerate about him in web forums ("HIS IQ WAS 1,000,000!" etc). I guess I have some researching to do, tonight...

My favourite Einstein 'fact' (I think it was from a book about another physicist, I forget which) was that after his doctor forebade him to buy cigarettes, for the good of his health, he stopped buying them and starting stealing them from colleagues instead.

Darzil

Chronos
2008-02-08, 11:59 AM
Premise: The human range for abilities is from 3 to 18. Anything that LOOKS like it's above 18 actually represents a combination of ability + feats + skills + possible situation modifiers. High-level PC's are super-natural.I more or less agree, but with a few qualifiers. First, even without supernatural help, a human of 4th level or higher can plausibly have a 19 in some stat. Second, some members of Homo sapiens would probably not be mechanically represented as "human" by the D&D rules: Andre the Giant probably had a Strength higher than 18, but he would probably also be statted in D&D as a half-giant or goliath or the like. Third, I would be more inclined to say that the bell curve implied by 3d6 extends outward, and that the lack of (rare) people above 18 (or below 3) in D&D is just a weakness of the system. So an Int of 18 should really be interpreted to mean "IQ of 140 or higher". With, of course, the caveat that even if someone has an IQ of over 140, it's really hard to measure.

Xyk
2008-02-08, 09:37 PM
Premise: The human range for abilities is from 3 to 18. Anything that LOOKS like it's above 18 actually represents a combination of ability + feats + skills + possible situation modifiers. High-level PC's are super-natural.

Strength: As an upper limit, someone who has never trained in weightlifting can still be very strong, but they will be very unlikely to exceed:

Bench: 450 lbs (use Max Load x 1.5)
Squat: 450 lbs (use Max Load x 1.5)
Dead Lift: 600 lbs (use Max Load x 2)
Clean & Press: 300 lbs (use Max Load)

For game purposes, a person who can lift more than that probably has Skill: Weightlifting or a Feat that increases their lifting; that is, they aren't going to be able to hit any harder. A person who can only bench 30 lbs. is no worse off in combat than a person who can only bench 45 lbs. - they are both in a lot of trouble.

Intelligence: First, I am an IQ skeptic, but there aren't many better options. Different IQ tests have different scales (which makes any unspecified claims pretty meaningless). WAIS and Stanford-Binet use different ways of measuring IQ but they approximately agree on the 60-140 range. Anyone claiming an IQ higher than 140 who has not taken an IQ test designed for unusually high IQ's doesn't really know what their IQ is. My recommendation is:

INT = (IQ - 100)/5 + 10

For game purposes, a person with an IQ over 140 probably has Skill: Problem Solving or an associated Feat; that is, they aren't going to be able to (cognitive analog for 'hit') any harder.

An alternative to IQ is education, though it is hard to categorize people of varying ages this way.

Constitution: This represents "health" and "stamina". Health is pretty nebulous, but stamina may be quantifiable. A marathoner might represent the 18 type. Again, there would be very little difference in game terms between the stamina of a good marathoner and that of a good Iron Man triathlete. Since we aren't talking speed, something like:

How long can you keep up an 8 minute mile pace?

3, 4, 5, 6 = 1, 2, 3, 4 minute(s)
7, 8, 9, 10 = 6, 8, 10, 12 minutes
11, 12, 13, 14 = 16, 24, 32, 40 minutes
15, 16, 17, 18 = 60, 100, 140, 180 minutes

Note: this is for a person with an average build... an NFL offensive lineman may not be able to run a single 8 minute mile, but they are probably above an 8 Con. Then again, who knows?


STRENGTH: I do like using more than just one. What might be a good idea is take the person's results and calculate strength individually than average the results.

Example: Bench- 120 8 str
Squat 150 10 str
Dead lift 375 15 str
Clean and press- 60 9 str

Strength=10.5

That's a really good way todo strength.

INTELLIGENCE:I agree that IQ is probably not entirely accurate but it is the best thing we can get. Your way puts 14 int at 120 IQ. That is probably close to the range roleplayers play 14 int. When I think about it, anyone who is judged with over 140 iq has ranks in problem solving or cheated. This way might work. When I try a dumb person with IQ like 80 it comes out to 6 int. Basically what this is saying is that 1 point of int is basically 5 IQ. I think this way is more realistic to the way role-players play intelligence. I know similar methods have been turned down but I have come to this realization now. This looks better to the roleplaying of characters.

CONSTITUTION:
This is certainly the most accurate representation of con but is hard to do fast.If a bunch of players are sitting around and decide to stat themselves, most people know their personal weight lifting prowess, but this is less known. I'd say yes to this but a quicker solution is preferred. the breath holding is not working out the current way.

DementedFellow
2008-02-09, 02:17 AM
Well, duh. D&D physics is not real-world. Things do not work like D&D says they do, and I think we all realize that. That doesn't mean we can't have fun with the concept.

Yeah, but the title of the thread is "How to accurately state your stats!" The methods mentioned already are rather arbitrary and not accurate at all. Mental masturbation is fun and all, but using arbitrary methods as a litmus test is just asking for people going, "Yay! I have 16 WIS!" While others will respond, "That way is totally bogus. I call shenanigans."

The only one I saw that seemed simple enough was the clean and jerk one. The others are kinda grasping at straws.

mroozee
2008-02-09, 03:26 AM
Constitution:
How long can you keep up an 8 minute mile pace?

3, 4, 5, 6 = 1, 2, 3, 4 minute(s)
7, 8, 9, 10 = 6, 8, 10, 12 minutes
11, 12, 13, 14 = 16, 24, 32, 40 minutes
15, 16, 17, 18 = 60, 100, 140, 180 minutes


If a formula is required to convert back and forth, you can instead use:

MINUTES = 2 ^ [(CON-3)/2]
CON = 2 x log(MINUTES)/log(2) + 3

MILES = 2 ^ [(CON-9)/2]
CON = 2 x log(MILES)/log(2) + 9

For completeness, we also note:
MILES = MINUTES / 8
MINUTES = MILES x 8

At the cost of nice integers everywhere, this equation provides the same overall range and has the following properties:

It is much cleaner to calculate
+2 CON = 2 x MINUTES or MILES
From 13 - 18, the values correlate (roughly) as:
13 = 4 miles
14 = 45 minutes
15 = 8 miles
16 = 90 minutes
17 = 16 miles
18 = 3 hours

Gardakan
2008-02-09, 11:50 AM
STR:10(i am 14 years old...)
DEX:14(At darts i am also very precise. I reach the middle 4 times on 20 attempts....)
CON:13(Keeping breath for 1 minute and 19.28 seconds...)
INT:14(IQ of 130 - 100 = 30 / 7.5 = 4 + 10...)
WIS:7(He don't think when i do anything.)
CHA:12(I am beautiful, able to speak with facility, spontaneous, gentle...)

crimson77
2008-02-09, 05:25 PM
I take it you got that from a Monte Carlo simulation? It can be done analytically.

Yes, I used a Monte Carlo simulation, I was spacing on the actual formula and i knew that i could do it in excel in about 60 seconds.


This doesn't work. 160 IQ would mean 22 int. That is ridiculous. 120 is 13-14. None so good here.

Given the unlikelyhood of achieving a 160 IQ, 4 standard deviations above the mean, it would seem fitting that one would have an Intelligence of 22. Remember that if you fall above 3 standard deviations above the mean you will be in the top 0.01%.

I must put in a word of caution. The only way to accurately get an IQ score would be to have a valid IQ test administered by a licensed psychologist. Online IQ tests do not have the same validity and reliability, from a psychometric perspective, for measuring the construct of IQ.

RandomLogic
2008-02-09, 06:23 PM
If a formula is required to convert back and forth, you can instead use:

MINUTES = 2 ^ [(CON-3)/2]
CON = 2 x log(MINUTES)/log(2) + 3

MILES = 2 ^ [(CON-9)/2]
CON = 2 x log(MILES)/log(2) + 9

For completeness, we also note:
MILES = MINUTES / 8
MINUTES = MILES x 8

At the cost of nice integers everywhere, this equation provides the same overall range and has the following properties:

It is much cleaner to calculate
+2 CON = 2 x MINUTES or MILES
From 13 - 18, the values correlate (roughly) as:
13 = 4 miles
14 = 45 minutes
15 = 8 miles
16 = 90 minutes
17 = 16 miles
18 = 3 hours

I think we should also add in a drinking test. See how well you can hold your liquor. I can't imagine a dwarf running an 8 minute mile pace for, well any time at all.... yet they have +2 Con in D&D terms and can drink a ton of booze.

I don't really know how to test this except saying, if you can take x number of shots of 40% alcohol and not fall over then you have 'x' Con score.

Then you just take whichever score is higher, so if you are fit, but can't hold your liquor you get a high con for endurance, and if you are stumpy but can drink a lot you get a high con for bodily fortitude.

Jack Zander
2008-02-09, 06:44 PM
I think we should also add in a drinking test. See how well you can hold your liquor. I can't imagine a dwarf running an 8 minute mile pace for, well any time at all.... yet they have +2 Con in D&D terms and can drink a ton of booze.

I don't really know how to test this except saying, if you can take x number of shots of 40% alcohol and not fall over then you have 'x' Con score.

Then you just take whichever score is higher, so if you are fit, but can't hold your liquor you get a high con for endurance, and if you are stumpy but can drink a lot you get a high con for bodily fortitude.

That's a Fort save, not a Con check.

wumpus
2008-02-09, 10:18 PM
Military Press (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/SPPPPJ155.wmv) (better know as the Shoulder Press) is far different than Clean and Jerk (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/cfj-nov-05/clean-n-jerk.wmv).

Crow is right, and the AD&D (1E) PH clearly states "military press". This always irked me as the military press is one of my worst lifts.

On CON: I have to say I far prefer the 8:00/mile test (at one time I could get an 18!), it has the advantage over my cooper test (distance run in 15 minutes or so) in that it doesn't require great strength or dexterity to run fast, only the constitution to go long. Note that at least one non-runner with super-human constitution (Lance Armstrong) has run 3 hours at under 7 minutes/mile. I'd like to know if the drinking test is based on amount consumed (fort bonuses don't change to match the dose/mass of the poisonee) or the blood/alcohol ratio.

on Dex: Since dodge ball machines are unlikely to be built (I could see it happening at a con, though), we could simply gang enough tennis ball machines and fill them with (lighter) rubber balls and aim them at a small circle: the subject must stay in the circle and dodge the balls.

on Int: "Intelligence is what my test measures". I don't think we are going to get very far past IQ tests. Unless the subject can cast arcane spells, use the IQ test.

Somebody questioned winning games vs. oration. Unless the games were CHR tests, I'm not sure what the question is (pointed ignoring Elan's complete failure as an orator).

Lastly: We really should geometrically average at least three tests for each ability. Since we have trouble agreeing on any one test for most of the attributes, this is an even bigger problem (but this would fix the "can't grab the ruler, but can walk a ttightrope over Niagra falls" problem).

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-10, 02:43 AM
Another problem with using alcohol is that some people may be perfectly healthy while lacking any sort of alcohol tolerance, but someone who lives of junk food and beer while never even walking would probably develope good alcohol tolerance.

Chronos
2008-02-10, 02:35 PM
Another problem with using alcohol is that some people may be perfectly healthy while lacking any sort of alcohol toleranceAmen to that. I can climb eight flights of stairs without getting winded, I can walk indefinitely, my doctor says that my innards are all working great, and a single sip of wine makes me sick. If we were just going by alcohol tolerance, I'd score a 3, but everything else points toward somewhere in the teens.