Measurable ability scores (brainstorming)

[TuggyNE]

A recent post about the difficulty of measuring D&D's standard six made me wonder if there could be a more measurable set of attributes, one based on tests with at least some measure of objectivity. (IQ test quality or better; however flawed IQ tests may be, they get within the right ballpark nearly all of the time.)

Unfortunately, any system with mystical or supernatural abilities is likely to have at least one attribute that's well-nigh immeasurable, unless no attributes have any influence on such abilities at all. So the goal is more to reduce those down to the minimum possible, and have as many attributes with good metrics as can be. To begin with, it's probably not necessary to filter out everything that can be reduced to another score; just get a lot of alternatives in initially, and then the best set can be determined from there.

List so far (objective = not reliant on opinions; linked = directly connected in most common use to the best measurement system; repeatable = consistent results whenever measured):
{table=head]Attribute|Objective|Linked|Repeatable
Strength|Yes|Partial|Yes
Int|No|No|Yes[/table]

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I think the first, and possibly largest, obstacle is actually defining what the ability scores are; one can't very well design a test or determine whether or not it is "linked" without a better idea than the ability descriptions give of the things for which one is supposed to be designing tests.

[TuggyNE]

I think the first, and possibly largest, obstacle is actually defining what the ability scores are; one can't very well design a test or determine whether or not it is "linked" without a better idea than the ability descriptions give of the things for which one is supposed to be designing tests.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the set of ability scores is ill-defined, and so it's hard to figure out which of them to include? Or are you saying that any given ability score is poorly-defined, and so it is difficult to determine how to test it? Both of those, I think, can probably be fixed by coming up with a set of new attributes that are sufficiently granular and designed to be tractable to measurement and definition.

If you're saying something else, though, I got nothin'.

[Kornaki]

Everyone should be described on their carnival skills

Strongman game - Ranges from 0 to bell-breaker, it measures how hard you can smash something with a hammer. Substitutes for strength sometimes

Wack-a-mole - Ranges from 0 to molacide, it measures how quickly you can react to things. Substitutes for dexterity sometimes

Dump Tank - ranges from 0 to Super Soaker, measures how often you can hit a target with a thrown object. Substitutes for dexterity sometimes

Ring Toss - ranges from sucker to didn't play, measures your spatial reasoning. Substitutes for intelligence sometimes

Kissing Booth - ranges from peck on the cheek to more than you paid for . Substitutes for charisma sometimes

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the set of ability scores is ill-defined, and so it's hard to figure out which of them to include? Or are you saying that any given ability score is poorly-defined, and so it is difficult to determine how to test it? Both of those, I think, can probably be fixed by coming up with a set of new attributes that are sufficiently granular and designed to be tractable to measurement and definition.

If you're saying something else, though, I got nothin'.

The latter, at least with regard to the standard D&D abilities, particularly mental abilities; there are enough overlapping or murky areas that determining whether the results of a test should measure intelligence or wisdom could prove very difficult.

[Totally Guy]

What does repeatable mean in context? Are you saying it's something you can measure more than once, in more than one way or it's something you can just keep rolling until you succeed?

[TuggyNE]

What does repeatable mean in context? Are you saying it's something you can measure more than once, in more than one way or it's something you can just keep rolling until you succeed?

Whenever you measure the ability score/attribute itself, on a real person or a fictional character, you get consistent results (possibly from different methods too).

Not talking about ability/skill checks here, and no rolls are involved.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Hm. For intelligence, there are a number of ways I've seen it measured.

• 1 INT = 10 IQ. This is easy, and supposedly given by Wizards once somewhere, but doesn't match up with the actual standard deviation unless you replace 3d6 with something more clustered around the center, like (27d6)/9.
• By comparison to other people, using 3d6 as the average. A couple months ago, using anydice for research, I wrote up this table:
  
  Spoiler

  Show

  If you're the most brilliant person in a group of about 200 people, or the most intelligent person you know (if you're social or in school), you have 18 Intelligence.
  If you're the most knowledgeable person in a large room of 50 people, you have a 17.
  If you're the smartest person in whatever room of 20 people you walk into, then you have a 16.
  If you're more intelligent than a randomly chosen group of 10 people, then you have a 15.
  If you're smarter than 5 out of 6 people you meet, you have a 14.
  If you are likely to be more intelligent than 2 out of 3 random people, you have a 13.
  If you choose one stat, about half of all people have a 12, 11, 10, or 9 in that stat.
  If you are likely to be less intelligent than 1 out of 3 random people, you have a 8.
  If you're less clever than 1 out of 6 people you meet, you have a 7.
  If you're not as intelligent as anyone else in a group of 10 people, then you have a 6.
  If you're the least intelligent person in whatever room of 20 people you walk into, then you have a 5.
  If you're the least logical or rational person in a group of 50 people, you have a 4.
  If you're the most feeble-minded person in a group of about 200 people, or the least intelligent person you know, you have 3 Intelligence.
  
  The problem is that it's subjective and inaccurate. It also assumes that 3d6 is used for the population; if everyone has 4d6b3 stats, then a 3 goes from 1 person in 217 to 1 person in 1250.
• 10 INT is 100 IQ, and every 10 points of IQ is 3 points of INT. This combines the standard deviations of IQ and 3d6 well, but involves a little more division and also assumes the entire population is generated with 3d6.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

See, I'm not sure that IQ tests measure the same qualities that are supposed to be reflected by Intelligence, in D&D.

[TuggyNE]

Hm. For intelligence, there are a number of ways I've seen it measured.

• 1 INT = 10 IQ. This is easy, and supposedly given by Wizards once somewhere, but doesn't match up with the actual standard deviation unless you replace 3d6 with something more clustered around the center, like (27d6)/9.
• By comparison to other people, using 3d6 as the average. A couple months ago, using anydice for research, I wrote up this table: (snip)
  The problem is that it's subjective and inaccurate. It also assumes that 3d6 is used for the population; if everyone has 4d6b3 stats, then a 3 goes from 1 person in 217 to 1 person in 1250.
• 10 INT is 100 IQ, and every 10 points of IQ is 3 points of INT. This combines the standard deviations of IQ and 3d6 well, but involves a little more division and also assumes the entire population is generated with 3d6.

Yeah, I remember those. They're not terrible, but they're not necessarily as good as possible either.

See, I'm not sure that IQ tests measure the same qualities that are supposed to be reflected by Intelligence, in D&D.

Fair enough; I'll put it in as unlinked.

[ericgrau]

With the right ability damaging creatures, you can measure all of them. Even if you need to make multiple attempts and take an average. Though I think strength is the only one that is directly and consistently measurable by mundane means.

For example, the average person's wisdom is 4 allips. A very good cleric might have 7-8 allips of wisdom. Now imagine a church looking for new recruits...

[TuggyNE]

With the right ability damaging creatures, you can measure all of them. Even if you need to make multiple attempts and take an average. Though I think strength is the only one that is directly and consistently measurable by mundane means.

For example, the average person's wisdom is 4 allips. A very good cleric might have 7-8 allips of wisdom. Now imagine a church looking for new recruits...

That's imperfect, chiefly because we do not have ability-damaging creatures in real life, so calibration is difficult.

[NichG]

Reaction times can be tested in real life and are generally repeatable measurements. They may be a good connection to whatever ends up driving initiative (Dex in D&D, Dex+Wits in World of Darkness, etc).

Constitution is related to how long you can hold your breath in D&D, which is pretty quantifiable even if you might get different results each time you test someone (whereas in D&D its a fixed amount of time).

Its the mental attributes that tend to cause problems. I'm sure there are tests for certain real life behaviors, conditions, and dysfunctions that could crudely map out the low ends of Wis and Cha (probably with a granularity of around 5 points or so), but I don't think we have anything for the high end.

[dps]

Kissing Booth - ranges from peck on the cheek to more than you paid for . Substitutes for charisma sometimes

If that's the case, we can measure a person's charisma by how many contagious diseases he or she contracts.

[Astral Avenger]

Its the problem of Bean and Ender in Ender's Game/Shadow, the tests can't be designed to differentiate between people on the very top of the range, so we can't quantify the difference between someone with a 17 and someone with an 18 or higher (if we say they increase with age).

Edit:

If that's the case, we can measure a person's charisma by how many contagious diseases he or she contracts.

HA! good one

[Jay R]

If that's the case, we can measure a person's charisma by how many contagious diseases he or she contracts.

As always, the six characteristics cannot be separated as easily as people think.

Charisma affects how many he will be exposed to. Constitution measures how many he contracts.

[TuggyNE]

As always, the six characteristics cannot be separated as easily as people think.

Charisma affects how many he will be exposed to. Constitution measures how many he contracts.

Also, Int and Wis might affect the sanitary countermeasures they would take.

[Geostationary]

Step one: Actually define what these attributes even mean. If you can't clearly tell someone what you're attempting to measure, you can't measure it. Saying "I measure Strength" is meaningless; saying "I'm measuring their capacity to lift a weight from the ground above height [x] while standing" is something you can actually do.

[TuggyNE]

Step one: Actually define what these attributes even mean. If you can't clearly tell someone what you're attempting to measure, you can't measure it. Saying "I measure Strength" is meaningless; saying "I'm measuring their capacity to lift a weight from the ground above height [x] while standing" is something you can actually do.

Well, yes. That's … kind of the idea here? To come up with a good list of replacement attributes, or more than one?

Not sure how I can make the OP clearer….

[Frozen_Feet]

You could measure strenght and constitution as follows:

Con: 12 minute running test + breath-holding test.

Str: jump from standstill + deadlift 3 rep max + 1 minute test for sit-ups, push-ups and pull-ups.

Before worrying of the scoring, however, you'd need a large enough sample population to establish the averages. Then place the results on a 3d6 bell curve.

For Dex, there are multiple standardized reaction time tests, but I don't think they accurately reflect D&D Dex, as Dex also includes agility, flexibility and manual dexterity.

[NichG]

Conceivably you could use reaction time to get at Wis as well by separating it out between the time it takes to 'notice' something and the time it takes to react to it physically in the correct way once someone has noticed it.

For instance, a test like this:

- At some randomized interval during the test, either a green light or a red light will flash on the display, either on the left or right of the screen. If a green light flashes, the subject is to press a button on the right. If a red light flashes, they are to press a button on the left. Time from flash to first physiological response is measured for Wisdom (e.g. looking at pupil response, facial ticks, whatever), and the time from the first physiological response to when the button is pressed is used for Dexterity.

Edit: Scratch the above, its measuring the speed of interpretation of the results. For Dexterity, perhaps something where they must reach out and touch a light that quickly flashes into existence on the screen and then moves off the screen at high speed, and you measure the accuracy of their 'touch attack'?

[Waspinator]

One issue is that there are D&D characters with mental stats that no real person likely has, which makes calibrating the scale hard. Like a gold great wyrm has a 32 Int. That is so far out on the bell curve that it's hard to even say what they should be able to think of.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Also, Int and Wis might affect the sanitary countermeasures they would take.

Condoms: The Smart and Wise thing to do.

[Frozen_Feet]

In the long run, even they aren't sufficient. I know, I made a table out of it. Double protection is adviced.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I can't really tell which "Schroedinger's Wizard" joke I should make right now, but I know I should make one at the same time I realize I probably shouldn't make one.

[Jay R]

What you're looking for is called an "operational definition" in statistics - to turn a general concept into a measurable quantity.

And a little serious thought will make it clear that there can't be one. My CON changes tremendously based on how much exercise I've had in the last month. When I've been in my best shape, I've had above-average response to injury, but still below-average response to illness.

I am much better at gymnastics than my wife, but I could never do the delicate embroidery she does. So who has the highest DEX? Based on an examination of the D&D tables, I estimate her DEX to be 16+ on embroidery and any other little fiddly business, but 7- on any big physical actions - climbing, tumbling, etc. I'm close to the reverse (12-13 on gross physical actions, 6- on little ones).

All six of the D&D characteristics are combinations of several different sub-categories, in which people can have wildly different scores. That's because you cannot model that much of human behavior and abilities with only six measurements.

The D&D simulation, like every useful simulation, is less complicated than the real world. (This one goal of a simulation. My simulations prof said, "If we wanted to observe reality, we would observe reality.") The D&D rules aren't intended to show all the complications of human behavior, but to simplify them to a level that we can play the game.

[valadil]

Str: jump from standstill + deadlift 3 rep max + 1 minute test for sit-ups, push-ups and pull-ups.

This is one example where I really like how GURPS does things. Weight lifting is a skill. It lets you lift more than your stat would. I think real life weight lifting would work a lot more closely to this model than to the D&D model of heavy weights indicate high strength.

For example, my deadlift is almost twice my squat. I've had some flexibility issues and haven't been able to train squats well. Depending on which of those lifts you used, you'd get very different strength results for me. I'd argue that they use the same base strength, but I have different skills in those two lifts.

[Geostationary]

What you're looking for is called an "operational definition" in statistics - to turn a general concept into a measurable quantity.

And a little serious thought will make it clear that there can't be one. My CON changes tremendously based on how much exercise I've had in the last month. When I've been in my best shape, I've had above-average response to injury, but still below-average response to illness.

I am much better at gymnastics than my wife, but I could never do the delicate embroidery she does. So who has the highest DEX? Based on an examination of the D&D tables, I estimate her DEX to be 16+ on embroidery and any other little fiddly business, but 7- on any big physical actions - climbing, tumbling, etc. I'm close to the reverse (12-13 on gross physical actions, 6- on little ones).

All six of the D&D characteristics are combinations of several different sub-categories, in which people can have wildly different scores. That's because you cannot model that much of human behavior and abilities with only six measurements.

The D&D simulation, like every useful simulation, is less complicated than the real world. (This one goal of a simulation. My simulations prof said, "If we wanted to observe reality, we would observe reality.") The D&D rules aren't intended to show all the complications of human behavior, but to simplify them to a level that we can play the game.

Give this man a cookie. People keep jumping to tests for things without ever asking "What is Wisdom, anyways?" and actually giving us something to measure; on closer inspection, this can't really be done as each attribute is a melange of different factors that sometimes interact with each other and sometimes don't. Any replacement attributes would be so specific as to be rather useless for the purposes of what this thread is looking for.

[laeZ1]

I am much better at gymnastics than my wife, but I could never do the delicate embroidery she does. So who has the highest DEX? Based on an examination of the D&D tables, I estimate her DEX to be 16+ on embroidery and any other little fiddly business, but 7- on any big physical actions - climbing, tumbling, etc. I'm close to the reverse (12-13 on gross physical actions, 6- on little ones).

Craft: Embroidery isn't a dex based skill.

[Devils_Advocate]

I'd note that statistics like these need to be replacements not only for D&D (and D&D knockoffs)'s Ability scores, but for levels as well, because levels make characters better at stuff that the Ability scores cover (and thus the Ability scores don't actually represent the stuff that they're described as representing, since characters' actual no-foolin' ability to do whatever derives mostly from level.) As an example, hand-eye coordination is really covered more by Base Attack Bonus than anything else in d20. (By default, Dex doesn't even help melee attacks!)

Of course, if you really want to just straight-up quantify characters' abilities to do stuff, then you can dump the existing skill system and the classes, too. Might as well just have one Trapfinding score to reflect how well someone finds traps, right? Why require a player to justify it via vague metagame abstractions like "Perception score" or "Rogue class"? If you want it to be easier for someone to have high numbers in similar traits than in disparate ones, then you can just give discounts on new abilities based on how close they are to what the character can already do.

Of course, at that point we're looking at only using narrow "skill"-type numerical traits and eschewing the traditional broad "attribute"-type numerical traits entirely. Which... seems like the sensible way to do things, if simulation is your goal? It honestly seems like it would be simpler than typical systems, practically as well as conceptually.

Well, yes. That's … kind of the idea here? To come up with a good list of replacement attributes, or more than one?

Not sure how I can make the OP clearer….

You've listed Intelligence as "not objective" and "not linked", suggesting that by "intelligence" you mean something other than IQ. But what measurement would you base Int on, if not that? I've even seen it suggested that "ability to do well on an intelligence test" seems to be the best functional definition of "intelligence" we have, as backwards as that might seem. What repeatable test other than an IQ test did you even have in mind? (And if you didn't have one in mind, what's your basis for classifying Int as "repeatable"?) If the test is just people rating someone on how smart they come across as in conversation, it might be better to call that attribute "Charisma", and have Intelligence correspond to IQ.

What you're looking for is called an "operational definition" in statistics - to turn a general concept into a measurable quantity.

And a little serious thought will make it clear that there can't be one.

There can't be operational differences of the D&D Ability scores, because of how they conflate different things that are not directly proportional to each other. Thus, using real quantities as attributes requires formulating a new set of attributes. I'm pretty sure that's the point here.