Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7262084" data-attributes="member: 6801845">There was a long argument the last time this came up.  Suffice to say I agree - that as flawed as IQ is, it's the best we've got.  The range matches up rather well IMHO, high is around 180-200, average is a little over 100, minimum is around 30.  So just take IQ and divide by 10, right? Use something like:[ATTACH]90247[/ATTACH]To get something like[ATTACH]90246[/ATTACH]I would be OK with that.  Match up the distributions, roll a percentile dice for your average Joe or Jane.  For reasons I still don't quite get, this was a controversial opinion.  IIRC correctly it had to do with standard deviations, etc. etc.  To be honest I just got tired of arguing about it.One issue is that it's generally agreed nowadays that IQs below 55-ish and above 155-ish start to get kind of meaningless.  Some people estimate Einstein's IQ at 185 for example (seems about right) but others ... well let's just say that IQ scores are controversial.  So if you fudge a little bit with the standard deviation breakdowns to convert to 3-18 scale, I'd be OK with .1% having a 3 or an 18.  Roll a D1000 and get a 1000? You have an 18 int.The issue would be the numbers between no bonus or penalty and that +/- 4.  I don't think that adds any real value to the game, but if I had to generate ability scores for my NPCs, this would be my starting point.</blockquote>