Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8518474" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Except it doesn't. That's my whole point. It DOES NOT do that. It makes ABSOLUTELY ALL characters of a given race have that trait. But that's ridiculous SPECIFICALLY for the reasons I've cited. NOT all members should have that trait. That's literally the point. Just as, even though real-world men are on average meaningfully stronger than real-world women, it is trivial to find men who are not just &quot;not as strong as average woman&quot; but comparable to the bottom end of female strength.That's what I'm saying. You are simply, factually INCORRECT to say that this +2 whatever ACTUALLY represents the difference in central tendency. Because you SHOULD see basically the entire spectrum. That's the point. You SHOULD see Str 8 orcs sometimes. You SHOULD see Dex 8 elves sometimes. They should not be common, but the fact that they aren't common IS what &quot;the average Orc has +2 Str&quot; MEANS. It does not, and never has, meant that absolutely every orc has an innate +2 Str.THAT is the gamist abstraction I am railing against. Because it DOES NOT conform to the way actual, living populations work. It elides the real, measurable behavior of actual populations for a gamist simplification, abstracting all &quot;is an X&quot; characters in the exact same way.Averages represent what is likely. That's the whole point of central tendencies. They represent what is likely. They do not, and cannot, represent the spread of the data. That's not the function averages (of any kind--means, medians, whatever) DO. They literally do not perform that mathematical function.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8518474, member: 6790260"] Except it doesn't. That's my whole point. It DOES NOT do that. It makes ABSOLUTELY ALL characters of a given race have that trait. But that's ridiculous SPECIFICALLY for the reasons I've cited. NOT all members should have that trait. That's literally the point. Just as, [I]even though[/I] real-world men are on average meaningfully stronger than real-world women, it is [I]trivial[/I] to find men who are not just "not as strong as average woman" but comparable to the bottom end of female strength. That's what I'm saying. You are simply, factually INCORRECT to say that this +2 whatever ACTUALLY represents the difference in central tendency. Because you SHOULD see basically the entire spectrum. That's the point. You SHOULD see Str 8 orcs [B]sometimes[/B]. You SHOULD see Dex 8 elves [B]sometimes[/B]. They should not be [I]common[/I], but the fact that they aren't common IS what "the average Orc has +2 Str" MEANS. It [B][I]does not, and never has, meant that absolutely every orc has an innate +2 Str.[/I][/B] THAT is the gamist abstraction I am railing against. Because it DOES NOT conform to the way actual, living populations work. It elides the real, measurable behavior of actual populations for a gamist simplification, abstracting all "is an X" characters in the exact same way. Averages represent what is [I]likely[/I]. That's the whole point of central tendencies. They represent what is [I]likely[/I]. They do not, and [I]cannot[/I], represent the spread of the data. That's not the function averages (of any kind--means, medians, whatever) DO. They literally do not perform that mathematical function. [/QUOTE]

Verification