D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

[Crimson Longinus]

And, again, an INT of 6 means you suffer a -10% penalty on tasks that require Intelligence. Do you think an ape, or a 4 year old, has about a 10% penalty for Intelligence tasks?

Conversely, a 14 is as far from average as a 6 is. Does a 14 mean that you are as much more intelligent than a commoner, than a commoner is compared to an ape? Because that would be super-genius level.

The mechanics of attribute scores make no sense logically, and simply cannot be used to say anything definitive about the fiction.

The only thing we know for certain is that a 6 imposes a -2 penalty. How you interpret that is entirely up to you.

I mean sure, it is up to interpretation, though ideally I feel that all people in the table should have at least somewhat similarish interpretation.

In any case, D&D obviously does not attempt to accurately simulate real life, it tries to simulate some sort of fanciful action adventure story. As a result, probabilities are truncated. Worse scores make you less likely to succeed at things and better ones make you more likely to succeed, but to far lesser degree than would be realistic. This is common in action movies; untrained people manage to disarm bombs, fight off superior opponents etc. Still, I feel that the scores must tell us something about the fictional reality too, or there really is no point in having them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No one in this thread can come up with a meaningful definition of "roleplaying" that could not immediately be countered by a different meaningful definition. And, no, "role playing is playing a role" is not a meaningful definition -- it's begging the question.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've read "role playing is literally playing a role" as a precursor to the unrelated claim that a low Intelligence attribute must be role-played a certain way.

 

[jgsugden]

And, again, an INT of 6 means you suffer a -10% penalty on tasks that require Intelligence. Do you think an ape, or a 4 year old, has about a 10% penalty for Intelligence tasks?

For ones that do not require language, that is what it means. Intelligence does not stand on its own.

Conversely, a 14 is as far from average as a 6 is. Does a 14 mean that you are as much more intelligent than a commoner, than a commoner is compared to an ape? Because that would be super-genius level.

It is intended to approximate a 140 IQ, which is ion the fringe of genius.

The mechanics of attribute scores make no sense logically, and simply cannot be used to say anything definitive about the fiction.

The only thing we know for certain is that a 6 imposes a -2 penalty. How you interpret that is entirely up to you.

No - it mechanical. Are the mechanics a simplification? Sure. Do they perfectly model the world? No. The fireball spell does not model an explosion, either. A crossbow and a longsword do very different things when used in combat, but they deal the same damage in D&D.

However, fireballs and weapons are not character defining. Ability scores - expressly - are intended to do just that - define your character's capabilities. That is absolutely clear in the definition of what they are.

Again, you can ignore your character's definition of a role, which in D&D comes from many things - but absolutely includes their ability scores - but when you ignore it, you stop playing the role defined by the game, and thus stop playing the role playing game. You're using part of the game, but not the entire game. You may be having fun, but you are not role playing.

I agree that a game doesn't need mechancis to define a role. I agree that mechanics may not perfectly simulate a role. However, when they expressly are designed to be role defining elements, and they are ignored... not role playing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

BTW, non-human great apes are much smarter than most humans understand. That they cannot speak makes us underestimate them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean sure, it is up to interpretation, though ideally I fell that all people in the table should have at least somewhat similarish interpretation.

In any case, D&D obviously does not attempt to accurately simulate real life, it tries to simulate some sort of fanciful action adventure story. As a result, probabilities are truncated. Worse scores make you less likely to succeed at things and better make you more likely to succeed, but to far lesser degree than would be realistic. This is common in action movies; untrained people manage to disarm bombs, fight off superior opponents etc. Still, I feel that the scores must tell us something about the fictional reality too, or there really is no point in having them.

Either that or they don't have as exaggerated a meaning as your want to believe.

Ok, for argument's sake let's say that 6 Int does accurately describe Ape-like intelligence, and the flaw is in the modifiers, not the scale. Rolling 3d6 for NPCs, that means that nearly 10% of adults would be no more intelligent than an ape.

Sorry, but you are trying to invest too much meaning into attributes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Either that or they don't have as exaggerated a meaning as your want to believe.

Ok, for argument's sake let's say that 6 Int does accurately describe Ape-like intelligence, and the flaw is in the modifiers, not the scale. Rolling 3d6 for NPCs, that means that nearly 10% of adults would be no more intelligent than an ape.

Do you read the news? This doesn't seem particularly unrealistic to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It is intended to approximate a 140 IQ

[citation needed]

 

[jgsugden]

Ok, for argument's sake let's say that 6 Int does accurately describe Ape-like intelligence, ...

Koko, the gorilla, had an IQ estimate as 75 to 95. Koko: Gorilla who mastered sign language dies in California Koko was a smart gorilla, so your typical 'ape' might well be in that range of 60 IQ - but it isn't a completely fair assessment as it is an assessment tied to humans, and was not meant to assess apes.

 

[jgsugden]

[citation needed]

How Does Intelligence Relate to IQ?

www.superdan.net

The original AD&D ruleset actually addressed this in the core rulebooks. Each of the AD&D 1st Ed. Monster Manuals included the assertion that "Intelligence indicates the basic equivalent of human 'IQ'" (MM p. 6, FF p. 7, MM2 p. 6, Deities & Demigods p. 6). Some slight restatement of this assertion appears in the later references; the DDG page adds a clause that the ratings specifically do apply "in monsters", while the FF page adds the parenthetical note "at least in concept even if IQ itself appears now to be much disgraced". Presumably this equivalence would be for intended for adult IQ scores.

The attributes have not changed, in concept, since they were introduced, outside some refinement.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The knife cuts both ways:

Roleplaying literally means playing a role. If you use dice to determine if your character knows something then you are not roleplaying. Rather you are abdicating your roleplaying to the dice. You are playing a board game.

And it's fine to play board games. It's just not roleplaying.