Ability scores in the real world

[The Sigil]

also- numbers don't mean much- and genius is a term that we give topeople who we think have made great discoveries and provided science (or any other field) with valuable knowledge.

But it is subjective to time and place. We call Einstein a genius now, a great mathematician, but he failed forth grade Math- what does that mean?

Perhaps the more relevant question is: was Einstein more intelligent than the masses? If we define intelligence as "the ability to comprehend and process information," the answer is "maybe."

We credit Einstein for "discovering" the theory of relativity. Never mind that special relativity naturally "falls out" of Maxwell's equations. I remember fiddling with them in college and actually doing the derivation myself - before I read the derivation in a textbook or had a teacher explain it to me. It helped that I recognized the result once it "fell out" because I had already been taught that "this is special relativity" but the point is, I managed to derive it myself. I can't imagine that I'm the only one. Einstein just happened to be the first one to do it. Does this make me as smart as Einstein? I don't think so - I only managed to make one such derivation, he made many more - but with respect to special relativity (only), I felt like I was on his level (at least, the level he was at as a patent clerk).

I'm not trying to diminish him - and I'm not trying to put myself on his level across the board - he is a brilliant mind - but there is plenty of credence to the saying that "he who derives Pythagoras' theorum on his own has 'invented it' in the very same sense that Pythagoras did and must therefore be just as brilliant." What I am saying is that if someone understands what Einstein taught, you can make a good case that he has Einstein's Int score. Heck, most High School physics students have some concept of relativity. I should think that all college physics students do. That means that if we stick with the crude definition of Intelligence as "the ability to process and recall information," all college physics students should be up on a level with Einstein as far as slotting their ability scores into a "standard array."

To be honest, I think it is MORE than possible to "limit" human abilities to the 3-18 range. We just have to realize that in real human experience, this range is too granular - there are millions of levels, not just 16.

IOW, Einstein had an 18 Intelligence. An average college physics student has a 17.5 Intelligence, which rounds to 18. I maybe have a "14.4 plus pi" intelligence (just throwing this out here). That guy over there may have 17.88, the other guy may have 17.93. As far as the game is concerned, these are all "18's" because they are granular.

Also, consider that people specialize in different fields. Einstein could field physics questions all day - but try asking him a question about something like linguistics or basic economic theory or even the engineering marvel that is a hummingbird's wing.

The problem with "3-18" is not the upper and lower limits being a poor way to define the variations among humans - the problem is that the granularity is poor.

If you think the scale should be 3-30, why can't I just say, "divide by 5/3 - then you get appx 2-18 and things stay in the normal range")?

Also, bear in mind that the 3-18 range is supposed to represent "mature adults" of a species. Arguing that children may have lower scores or have not reached their potential is a spurious argument because by definition, children are excluded.

Also, we have to account for skill ranks, skill focus feats, and so on. ;-)

I'm done rambling now, hopefully my point was semi-clear.

--The Sigil

 

[Clear Dragon]

With all the discussions of standardized tests, Einstein and physics students I figure I better chime in with my two cents.
I am a National Merit Scholar entering my 4th year as an undergraduate physics student. I don't see myself as the smartest in my class by any stretch of the imagination. There are couple of students who are basically double majoring in math and or computer science too who blow my mind. Likewise with some of the faculty. Having a 3rd year electricity and magnetism class taught by a string theorist who lectures completely out of his head tends to make many of us in the class feal insignifigant in comparison. I agree with The Sigil, while the world would throw most of us into the 17 or 18th bin, within out nerdy subset one can feel the differences to be great. Then I come home and try to explain to my normal friends a joke someone told in class and realize that no one outside of the physics communtity would understand it. The irony, every day in class I feel dumb, but then the weekend rolls around and my friends claim I am a genius.

So here are my stats as near as I could figure:

Str 11
Dex 11
Con 13
Int 17.57 (rounds up to 18)
Wis 9
Cha 11

 

[Moulin Rogue]

Would anyone else be interested to see a well-researched book of historical figures with d20 stats to use as benchmarks and bases for fantasy equivalents? GURPS has a couple of those, doesn't it? Do they work?

Of course under d20's default setting a high-level Einstein would have built up a BAB high enough to just wail on a 1st level soldier, but I'd be tempted to say dang the torpedoes and let each individual DM's house rules tweak the combat stuff.

 

[hong]

Would anyone else be interested to see a well-researched book of historical figures with d20 stats to use as benchmarks and bases for fantasy equivalents?

Using d20 rules to simulate historical reality is like using a John Woo film to teach physics.

GURPS has a couple of those, doesn't it? Do they work?

That's slightly different.

 

[trimeulose]

First off everyone seems to be forgetting one of the most important rules of 3e, always round down. Even if Int was 17.99999999999999 you'ld have and Int of 17 not 18. I doubt einstein was just an Expert. The fact that he is well know means he has a few levels of PC classes. probably wizard (he was a wiz at physics).

I'ld have to agree with most points on Int vs Wis, but the main point I'ld like to make is that there is a difference between Int and Knowledge (math) or Knowledge (physics).

Lets say that Arcana is now physics and like subjects. What if Einstein was a 30th level wizard with an int of say 20 and had max ranks in Knowledge (arcana). You might say, but what about his spells. Couldn't we say that most "spells" in real life were just exageration of abilities and understanding. Maybe Einsteins 12th level spell was Greater Meteor Swarm (aka Nuke'em).

That seems to have the most confusion. The difference between knowledge and Intelligence. Intelligence is your potential capablilty to have knowledge (or more simply your ability to learn), and knowledge is that amount of potential that has been "realized" and brought to life.

Wisdom more simply put is your ability to understand. How well can you answer the question "Why?", not "if?" or "how?"

Joke: A compound is any substance that an Organic Chemist can turn into an obnoxious odor.

IF you got that you have either an Int of 14 or at least 4 ranks in knowledge (chemistry).

 

[Avatar_V]

I think that saying 3-18 works if you have scores of 17.85 or something makes perfect sense (anything would work with fractional steps, at that point the upper and lower limits are arbitrary), so I guess I'll have to agree that 16 steps just don't work. As far as wis vs. int, though, I've always thought that stanardized tests were supposed to basically measure IQ. And I've always thought IQ was in indication of intelligence. Now, there are other indications (artists certainly have a high IQ and they may not score as well on a test as a logician) but I think that wisdom is completely seperate. Wisdom has some base in knowledge and experience, but that's not what IQ is supposed to consider (or what the tests are supposed to consider), and wisdom also seems to be the more intangible side of the mind. It's intuition, if you will, understanding more abstract things on an abstract level. Whereas int is more crunching numbers, logic, tactics and words. Sure there's a connection, but I've always thought the divide was very logical.

And yes, Einstein's special relativity isn't that hard to stumble upon. But consider that most people are preconditioned to look for it, and that Einstein came up with the photoelectric effect (which netted him a Nobel prize, I believe), special relativity and general relativity all in just a year or two while he was effectively removed from an academic environment! That's the amazing part to me; he wasn't hobnobbing with other physicists, he doesn't even cite any other papers in his relativity stuff! I have nothing but respect for that guy.

On a somewhat different note, let me also agree wholeheartedly with whoever commented on the problems of balance and eye-hand coordination being both rolled up into dexterity. The problems are certainly out there. Using my system, I was trying to stat myself and generally it went pretty good. The one problem I ran into was constitution. See, I'm a sprinter and consider myself to have pretty good strength, but I'm very bad at distance running. I can't go much over half a mile before my times get pretty pathetic. This would imply a low constitution but high strength. The problem is, I very, very rarely get sick. So, what's that mean? Eh, I don't know, this is starting to turn into a rant on a system that I think is generally very good But, does anyone employ any variants in their campaigns they'd like to share about how to counter this? btw, I love the Babe Ruth's dex example

 

[Umbran]

...I've always thought that stanardized tests were supposed to basically measure IQ. And I've always thought IQ was in indication of intelligence.

Oi, here's an old argument.

First, the majority of standardized tests an American takes do not measure IQ. They attempt to measure more focused things - language skills, math skills, and the like.

IQ tests are a very specific beast, a beast that has fallen out of favor. There's no longer much confidence that you can reflect "intelligence" with a single number. There's nowadays even less confidence that IQ tests ever measured anything at all.

 

[Vaxalon]

According to one scholar, there are seven different kinds of intelligence.

1. Linguistic
2. Logical-Mathematical
3. Bodily-Kinesthetic
4. Spatial
5. Musical
6. Interpersonal
7. Intrapersonal
   [/list=1]
   
   1, 2, and 4 are subsumed in INT
   3 is split into STR and DEX
   5 doesn't really have an attribute
   6 is CHA
   7 is WIS
   
   And even Gardner will admit that his system is merely a convenient way to think about intelligence, and you could probably refine them even further.

 

[Umbran]

5 doesn't really have an attribute

In D&D it does - Perform Skill is Charisma based, isn't it?

 

[Vaxalon]

True enough... so 5&6 are CHA.

In any case, at least according to Gardner, the DnD attribute system probably isn't "realistic".

Is that a problem?

I don't think so.