Levels IRL

[freyar]

Thanks for all the comments so far, everyone!

If we assume that ordinary individuals are 1st and 2nd level, then we are dealing with in a 20th level fighter someone that could face 300+ opponents in melee combat and defeat them handedly. We are dealing with someone who can fall from tall places reach terminal velocity and for whatever reason (destiny, superhuman toughness, luck, whatever hit points represent) and not be in mortal peril. We are dealing with someone that can easily and reutinely defeat a dozen well trained armed individuals with his bare hands.

Point taken about that!

By the book, absolutely none. Since this answer doesn't reflect our experience, it probably reasonable to suggest that there are ways of obtaining XP which are not reflected in the rules because they don't reutinely come up in play. For example, training. Simulated challenges overcome are still challenges overcome. They may not grant you XP at anything like a rate that would profit adventurers compared to killing things and taking thier stuff, but they are probably out there.

I'd argue that the RAW actually suggest that overcoming any sort of obstacle (or even facing it) is sufficient for XP gain, and it doesn't have to be a life-or-limb-threatening obstacle. For example, you don't have to defeat an NPC or monster, just get around them on your way wherever you're going. (Then there are traps...) So IRL, I'd suggest that education (possibly even at the HS level) grants some experience. I'm not sure the rate, though, still thinking about it.

The question of how much XP you obtain for training of a particular intensity is an interesting one, but since we've no widely accepted rules, it won't really help us answer what level Einstein was. A better approach is the pair of questions: "Is there anything Einstein did that the suggested character cannot do?" and "Is there anything that the suggested character can do that Einstein cannot?"

I'd agree, though I guess we might be starting at different comparison points. More below.

In the case of Einstein, I believe that my suggestion reflects Einstein about as well as the D&D rules can. A +22 bonus to a Knowledge skill means that you can sit down with a paper and pencil, 'take 10' and answer even the hardest and most obscure questions about that field of knowledge (DC 30). By taking 20, Einstein could answer questions of DC 42, which is a reasonable DC for hard problems for which no one has the answer too. But this is hardly the hardest problem that Einstein can answer. By taking 20, with the aid of an assistant such as his wife (+2 bonus from 'Aid Other'), books and journals in physics (+2 bonus from masterwork physics kit) or a lab, and other means of obtaining bonuses, the suggested 'Einstein' can answer questions approaching DC 50. I have no problem believing that solving even the most sophisticated problems can be considered to be succeeding in a series of smaller DC 50 challenges.

Just looking up the Knowledge and Profession skills, I'd like to suggest that this is more of a Profession check, since it's research, not recall (which is what Knowledge seems like). But this is a trivial point. The important thing about taking 20 is that it would take a lot of time. In 1905, Einstein published 4 papers solving 3 problems which had stumped all of the world's physics community for years. Not that I have experience solving that kind of problem (I only wish, since it would make finding a permanent job much easier! ), but even the best case scenario IME is months per problem. Maybe that's taking 20, though I'd feel more comfortable saying that's taking 10. And given the success rate of others, I'd peg this at quite a hard DC.

Incidentally, I'd say that taking 20 is comparable to Einstein's work on General Relativity, which took more than a decade.

I would go further than that. My Einstein plays the violin (usually badly), has a reasonable amount of time invested in skills he's picked up from doing all the things that he does when he's not doing physics - like working as a patent clerk, for example. And he still has enough skill points for all of that, even as a 'lowly' 8th level character. So no, within the limits of the rules, there is nothing that Einstein could do that the suggested character couldn't do, and furthermore there is very little that the suggested character could do that Einstien couldn't do. The suggested character is somewhat better in combat than I would be perfectly happy with, but neither is that character a match for any sort of trained martial character.

True, you've done quite a good job. I guess my main quibble is with the degree of separation from everyone else and what the level of everyone else is. Based on the "community modifiers" and "highest-level locals" tables in the DMG (pg 139), a metropolis can easily have a 19th level expert (or higher), and I'd suggest this is perhaps the kind of spread we're supposed to expect. Anyway, I'd put Einstein higher than your average expert in a metropolis. So it's a matter of what we think the appropriate DC is.

BTW, very interesting comments about XP from education, commoners vs. experts, etc. And to everyone! I'm inclined to agree that the industrialized world has a bias toward experts, though there are probably quite a few commoners, too. Maybe divide into service/technology vs production sectors? I don't know. But I'd argue that most people (ignoring combat status) are beyond 1st level, though. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

theirs too many conflicting factors to calculate. Someone can be very smart, but in d&d, apparently getting smarter also means getting more hit points, and we all know thats crazy in the real world. their is no relationship to real world people and d&d levels.

 

[Thunderfoot]

But none of this changes the fact that our society is designed to churn out 'experts' rather than 'commoners' and that this is no small part why we are wealthier today than then (or there).

Ok, when you put it that way, I can see why you said it. I will say this, it is interesting to see how people feel about certain aspects, like S'mon equating regular Army military experience with Warrior instead of Fighter, I am unsure if I agree, but I definately understand the attitude. Its one of the reasons I got out. And then then there's Presto2112s ideas on college; again, harkening back to my original post, the field of study and the individual application of effort skews the XP chart in my mind.

A streetwise kid could easily have better business sense than that of a college business major, in fact I've seen it first hand. Many 'woodshedding' musicians are much better performers than the 'learned artists' at some music establishments, but again, natural talent and extra effort are the keys there. There is no way I could agree to set levels for every achievement, but I do believe that the exercise isn't in futility, it validates a system that people have called antiquated and proves that abstract is sometimes just as good if not better than hard fact.

As for HP in relation to levels, remember HP is not health per se, it is the aggregate sum of smarts, learned response and general toughening of ones self due to continued exposure to certain stimuli. Basically 1 hp is deadly at 1st level and but a scratch at 10th, numerically nothing changed, but the representation did - again, representative versus hard fact. C'mon people, am I the only one that read the 1E AD&D hp description?

 

[painandgreed]

I've always equated level 1 with a college graduate. Finished training but no real experience. That's with minimum work as some people may do thing outside such as jobs or such and be at a higher level upon graduation, but the college expereince is meant to get you to 1st level equivilent. Commoners are level one but they have no training which is the bonus IMC as commoners need no training to go up in level. Expert 1 would be a trade school or apprenticeship. From there it's a new level every few years. Most people might make it to level 5 or 6 well before retirement but simply stop facing challenges that they might get XP for and don't seek them out, pretty much stopping their advancement. Others are always pushing the boundries and continue on.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Another possible way to estimate a person's level is to compare their gear to the wealth by level guidelines... Although this might be equally as difficult to nail down as some of the other game mechanics that we're looking for, since its difficult to tell if someone is wealthy because they're high level, or if they're wealthy because they've got a monte haul DM.

Later
silver

 

[DarkKestral]

The important thing about taking 20 is that it would take a lot of time. In 1905, Einstein published 4 papers solving 3 problems which had stumped all of the world's physics community for years. Not that I have experience solving that kind of problem (I only wish, since it would make finding a permanent job much easier! ), but even the best case scenario IME is months per problem. Maybe that's taking 20, though I'd feel more comfortable saying that's taking 10. And given the success rate of others, I'd peg this at quite a hard DC.

Einstein had been working on those 3 problems for years. He had been conducting thought experiments that would test the assumptions of Newtonian physics for most of his life prior to that year. He was known to be doing that since his high-school days. So I think we could say that he 'took 20' on those specific problems. I don't think it would be a Knowledge (physical sciences) check, since you can't take 20, but possibly a craft (mechanical) check or craft (writing) though the GM's probably bending the rules for Einstein's player's sake.

 

[pawsplay]

A Bachelor's or Master's probably translates into Skill Focus, probably still level 1. Level 2 or higher means experience.... professionals who have completed their supervision, soldiers who have done tours of combat duty, and the like.

Strictly by the numbers, if you count the number of life threatening situations someone survives, and throw in some 1/2 XP major challenges like competitive job inerviews, most people hit level 2 in their 30s, and a few make level 3 or 4 before they retire.

Miyamoto Musashi claimed to have one 40 duels... assuming they were equal CR encounters, we know only that he must have been at least 7th level.

 

[wingsandsword]

The d20 Modern rules are probably better for this than the D&D rules. Table 1-10 on page 39 of the d20M core rules has a good estimator of levels for modern-day people.

d20 Modern assumes that everyday life experience does get people levels and progression (albeit in NPC classes, it says elsewhere that only about 5% of people have Heroic/PC class levels). It gives estimates based on age category.

In most of the d20 Modern books and adventures, typical people with any real experience or training are at least 2nd level. Since we've been using education and academia as examples, here are some example levels from the Menace Manual of people who would have or be working on degrees:

Graduate, Law or Divinity Student/Research Assistant: 2nd Level
Registered Nurse: 2nd Level
Physician in Residency: 6th Level
Professor (newly hired, working on Tenure): 6th Level
Professor (experienced and Tenured): 10th Level

 

[Umbran]

I think the level mechanic defines a world that either works rather differently from our own, or best describes a sort of person who is a rare beast in our world.

Albert Einstein was not high-level, in that he didn't have lots of hit points, good saves, or Most of the things we attribute to a high-level character (even a commoner). In almost all ways, he was just this guy. He happened to have a miraculous ability with theoretical physics (and I mean that almost literally), and some interesting philosophy, and an occasional way with words. This sort of thing just isn't modeled very well by D&D - or most game systems, in general.

But that's okay, because sitting around writing papers about the structure of space time may be highly engaging for the right kind of person, it isn't something that's particularly interesting to simulate in an rpg.