Ability scores in the real world

[Avatar_V]

We've all at one point wondered what sort of class and alignment would fit us best and what our ability scores would be like, were we D&D characters, but today at lunch I had an interesting idea. In school we all took tests that told us what percentile we ranked in, intelectually. My idea was that it would be easy to translate ability scores (3-18) into percentile scores like this, so that it is easier to grasp just what a 16 int means, for example. Also, I included a number after the percentage that represents the number of people with this score in a given trait that one could expect to find in a room of 216 people. Anyhow, I whipped out my calculator and here's what I found:
Remember, the % is the percentage of the population that the given score is better then.

3: 0 % 1
4: 0.5% 3
5: 1.8% 6
6: 4.6% 10
7: 9.3% 15
8: 16.2% 21
9: 25.9% 25
10: 37.5% 27
11: 50.0% 27
12: 62.5% 25
13: 74.1% 21
14: 83.8% 15
15: 90.7% 10
16: 95.4% 6
17: 98.1% 3
18: 99.5% 1

I thought the list was interesting. In a way, it almost makes an 18 seem a little less impressive because anybody in Mensa has at least a 17 int, and National Merit Scholars are all 18s. Given that I know 2 National Merit Scholars, it's interesting to think that they are smart enough, relative to everybody else, to warrant an 18 if they were a D&D character. I always thought of 18s as being like Einstein or something, which makes me wonder if people like Einstein wouldn't have superhuman traits in D&D (I suppose after 4 levels of 'physicist' he could boost his int to a 19 ) While it's easiest to think of int since we have those handy standardized tests that give us a percentile, this could really be used for any trait if we can come up with a percentage. For example, if someone's stronger then 9 out of 10 people, but probably not 19 out of 20, then they have a 15 str. Anyhow, this post is getting long, I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this subject.

 

[Umbran]

Also, I included a number after the percentage that represents the number of people with this score in a given trait that one could expect to find in a room of 216 people.

Is this a 3d6 distribution, or a "4d6 drop the lowest"? You should perhaps note that this all goes to heck in a handbasket it the universe is point-buy..

Oh, and you should also note that being over 18 is no longer "superhuman". Anyone with a high enough starting stat can exceed 18 with levels (or even just with age, for mental stats.

 

[Avatar_V]

This is 3d6. I assume that everybody is 3d6 and that when we roll up a character we use 4d6, drop the lowest or point buy systems we're just making sure we get one of the decent set of scores that would come out of all the 3d6 rolls.

edit: After rereading this, I think a little more explanation might help. What I mean is that I assume that the world is all 3d6 people. Rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest just models the fact that in that room with 216 people, someone who becomes an adventurer is more likely to be one of those lucky 10 who has a 15 in a given score. Also, good point about the over 18s not being superhuman. I'm still stuck in 2e, sorry

 

[Quickbeam]

Re: Re: Ability scores in the real world

Is this a 3d6 distribution, or a "4d6 drop the lowest"? You should perhaps note that this all goes to heck in a handbasket it teh universe is point-but...

LOL .

As for the original post, I don't mind thinking that "normal" folks can have 17's or 18's in various attributes (in fact I'd say that's reasonable), while truly gifted individuals have scores which fall above the standard array -- like Einstein in your example.

 

[Christian]

Well, we can't be using point-buy, or everyone would have identical totals ... The point-buy system is there to enforce some kind of starting parity for game-balance reasons. The 'average' person is assumed (in standard D&D) to roll 3d6 for each attribute, assigned to the attributes in the order rolled.

I haven't brought this up in a while ... I did a mathematical analysis once of the 3d6*6 method's total score distribution, with some intriguing results. The point-buy suggestions in the DMG fall on 'natural' breakpoints in the curve.
15: 50th percentile (same as 3d6*6)
21: 75th percentile
25 (standard): 90th percentile (same as 4d6*6)
28: 95th percentile
32: 99th percentile

I'm sure this all means something ...

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I thought the list was interesting. In a way, it almost makes an 18 seem a little less impressive because anybody in Mensa has at least a 17 int, and National Merit Scholars are all 18s. Given that I know 2 National Merit Scholars, it's interesting to think that they are smart enough, relative to everybody else, to warrant an 18 if they were a D&D character.

Score on a standardized test != intelligence.

I was a National Merit Scholar, but I don't think that I have an 18 int. Probably more like a 15 or so.

 

[Avatar_V]

You have a point, Meepo. But, in theory that's what they're supposed to measure. I don't know. I can see cases both ways. I mean, I do well on those tests, too, and I've backed my car out of the garage before without opening the garage door (oops) and many similar things. I guess that that's why there's a seperate score for int and wis. I think the best case for those tests not measuring intelligence effectively is considering that intelligence can be more abstract instead of logical. My sister is a brilliant poet but only scores a little above average on such tests; that's there problem. Still, if you're a National Merit Scholar, I'd think your int would have to be at least a 17. 18 int means that in a room with 215 other average people, you're the brightest. Now, you're probably very modest but think about it, in your high school graduating class there were probably that many people (at least) and I'd be willing to bet you were right up on top of the heap.

 

[Zigmutt]

theoretically, the population should have a normal distribution in these stats, but you are forgetting that there are factors that affect masses which cannot be accounted for ina random sample- or even a population as large as billions-

1) mass starvation- in a country- even continent where food is not a problem, you would imagine that weight and str is normally distributed, but in a country like India, China, and other 3rd world countries, the curve is set much lower.

2) why did you cut off the highest score at 18? are you just counting the normal scores of newborns- with innate talents? cause in the course of one's lifetime, you are able to increase your attributes by +5 (every 4 levels) and also, for mental attributes, they increase with age too. So if a wise old man increases 2 age categories, and is very wise to start off with, by the time he dies, his wisdom should be 23.

3) you set the mean stat at 10- when it should be 10.5 (3d6) which means that the curve is skewed- not completely normal.- but this is countered by death- a person can have attributes of 18 and more- but if a person has an attribute of less than one- they are dead.

4) you forget that people take care of each other- in a normal population, the weak dies- and the stupid, uncoordinated, borish... but in human poops- these people can still live, grow and have families...

 

[Avatar_V]

1) mass starvation- in a country- even continent where food is not a problem, you would imagine that weight and str is normally distributed, but in a country like India, China, and other 3rd world countries, the curve is set much lower.

True, this isn't accounted for. I guess if you were looking for such a distribution you could just shift mine a bit.

2) why did you cut off the highest score at 18? are you just counting the normal scores of newborns- with innate talents? cause in the course of one's lifetime, you are able to increase your attributes by +5 (every 4 levels) and also, for mental attributes, they increase with age too. So if a wise old man increases 2 age categories, and is very wise to start off with, by the time he dies, his wisdom should be 23.

I think to take into account increasing attributes and age would make this a lot more difficult then something I could do over lunch , so yea I guess this is before aging or leveling (people don't level that much, do they?) is taken into account

3) you set the mean stat at 10- when it should be 10.5 (3d6) which means that the curve is skewed- not completely normal.- but this is countered by death- a person can have attributes of 18 and more- but if a person has an attribute of less than one- they are dead.

Well, actually an 11 is better then half the other scores. That means that half will be 3-10, half will be 11-18, so actually the mean is 10.5.

4) you forget that people take care of each other- in a normal population, the weak dies- and the stupid, uncoordinated, borish... but in human poops- these people can still live, grow and have families...

I think this is accounted for. I think if it weren't for this the lower end of the scale would have to be smaller (wouldn't there be more 17s and 18s then 3s and 4s if natural selection ran its course?)

 

[pensiv]

wouldn't there be more 17s and 18s then 3s and 4s if natural selection ran its course?

Not necessarily because these are scores based on averages. If natural selection were to run its course as is suggested, the scores would most likely have the same distribution, but carry more weight individually. Your "Darwinian" 18 would out rank your "normal" 18.