IQ to INT equivalent

[Chun-tzu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: IQ to INT equivalent

With an IQ/10 assumption, anyone with an Int score of 7 or lower is retarded.

A score of 5-7 means Mild retardation. Capable of social and vocational adequacy with proper education and training. Frequently needs guidance when under serious social or economic stress.

A score of 4-5 means Moderate retardation. Capable of self-maintenance in unskilled or semi-skilled occupations; needs supervision and guidance when under mild social or economic stress.

A score of 2-4 means Severe retardation. Can contribute partially to self-support under complete supervision; can develop self-protection skills to a minimal useful level in controlled environment.

A score of 2 or less means Profound retardation. Some motor and speech development; totally incapable of self-maintenance; needs complete care and supervision.

These descriptions are taken from an article in the American Journal of Mental Deficiency by Sloan & Birch, and reprinted in my child assessment textbook. These are the descriptions for adults, not children.

Note that anyone with an Int score of 7 or less becomes an extremely poor adventurer. Retarded persons function best in a structured environment, as a general rule, do not handle stress very well. The severely retarded Fighters and Barbarians with an Int score of 3 or 4 can't even put their own armor on. And whille such low Int scores may be rare among core races, we're now looking at entire races of retarded humanoids (e.g., Ogres have an Int of 6).

 

[Xeriar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: IQ to INT equivalent

What!? You're the one who pointed to the article...

Remove that faulty assumption, and the whole shaky basis for the "match the bell curves" theory disappears. Hence we're left with the simple, easy-to-apply method actually specified by the authors of the game.

Why does it need to be a faulty assumption?

I think the fualty assumption is that you can define the human range of abilities on a 3d6. In my never so humble opinion that's selling humanity so far short as to insult the species.

In the same paragraph you insinuate that seriously taking the 20-plus year-old word of the authors of a game two or three editions older than the one we are currently discussing is not faulty.

By your method, someone with an IQ of 200 will fail to outsmart someone with an IQ of 10 8.75% of the time.

Personally, I fail to see the need to make d20's flaws any more dramatic.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IQ to INT equivalent

With an IQ/10 assumption, anyone with an Int score of 7 or lower is retarded.

A score of 5-7 means Mild retardation. Capable of social and vocational adequacy with proper education and training. Frequently needs guidance when under serious social or economic stress.

Precisely, whereas under the "match-the-curves" formula, Animals with an Int of 1 or 2 have an IQ of 48 or 53, which absurdly puts them in the exact same category.

The former is far more sensible than the latter.

 

[Chun-tzu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IQ to INT equivalent

Precisely, whereas under the "match-the-curves" formula, Animals with an Int of 1 or 2 have an IQ of 48 or 53, which absurdly puts them in the exact same category.

The former is far more sensible than the latter.

Seeing as a moderately retarded person can barely take care of himself under the best of circumstances, and most animals can take care of themselves quite well, I don't really see a problem with that. Adaptability is one of the defining characteristics of Intelligence. I find the bell curve conversion much more realistic.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Re: Re: Re: IQ to INT equivalent

It also caused roleplaying issues when you think of it being that extreme. Have you ever met someone that smart?

Chances are pretty good that you don't know anyone who knows anyone of that calibre, even.

But you've probably met someone whose met someone whose met someone whose met someone who is that smart. (6 degrees of seperation)

Bringing this back to D&D and some of my personal feelings. I do not see character creation of all people in a world as equal. Heroes are heroes and should use a 3d6 or 4d6 method. Using the racial equivalent a human should be straight 10s almost all of the time. I do find it difficult to believe that 1 of 1296 people are the most intellegent, strong, or wise. I was hoping for something more substantial in the beginning of this post. Something I could apply to a group of people in a small geographic area and be able to produce realistic NPCs at least where their stats are concerned. This shouldn't just be a IQ vs INT thread but a more broader subject encompassing Strength vs Bench Pressing amounts, Con vs marathon running times or how long a person can remain conscious in a bout. I understand that the stats are a very general way of looking at a persons strengths and weaknesses and how the skills really do apply and that using a more exact science of IQ testing (more exact not totally accurate) can make it difficult, but what I'm hoping for is a group to walk into a town of mine and not have every 216th person with a 18 stat I believe that 18s should e a little more sacred. But not everyone in town should have a 10 Int or strength. Imagine the strapping young man arm wrestling an old woman and only winning 50% of the time.

Maybe there could be different determinations of stats based on a bell curve. 1d4+8 for 68%, 1d8+6 for the 95% and 2d6+4 for the 99%. The rest are considered heroic PCs or NPCs thus receiving the 3d6,4d6 or point buy systems used.

 

[tarchon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: IQ to INT equivalent

Allow me to emphasize an important point in the article Chun-tzu quoted above:



Do the demographics of the fantasy world's ability scores have to match the roll-3d6 method of determination? No, they do not -- that's a faulty assumption. Roll-3d6 might be used in some circumstances, perhaps the common NPCs that players meet, without any requirement that that match the demographics of the population at large.

In the 3E DMG it actually says that "average" (as opposed to PC-like "elite") NPCs get 3d6 (p. 48), and it clearly indicates that the vast majority of creatures in the game are not elites, which has been the assumption in D&D for at least the last 20 years.
The only way IQ could possibly be Int x 10 is if you mean "real-world-relative IQ," in which case D&D character Ints have twice the relative standard deviation that real people's IQs do (neglecting of couse the bias introduced by the presence of "elites."), but still the IQ within the context of the D&D world would follow the formula relating the means and SDs. You just can't get around the fact that IQ is defined as a statistical parameter and nothing else.