'Realistic' Arrangement of Ability Scores

[silentspace]

There is definitely a difference between fine motor control (dexterity) and gross motor control (agility), but I'm not sure the difference is great enough to separate out into two separate stats. Unless of course you do the same for strength (slow-twitch strength vs fast-twitch) and constitution (toughness vs endurance).

 

[silentspace]

Learning (Cleric/Wizard bonus spells, skill points, Appraise, Craft, Heal, Knowledge)
Wits (Wizard spell DC, Search, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Survival)
Perception (Listen, Spot, Initiative)
Empathy (Druid bonus spells, Handle Animal, Ride, Sense Motive)
Willpower (Cleric/Druid spell DC, Sorcerer bonus spells, Will save, Concentration)
Presence (Sorcerer spell DC, most social skills)

I like this. A lot.

 

[silentspace]

In the real world, humans from across cultures largely agree on who's attractive and who isn't. In a fantasy world of many species ("races") this pattern may or may not hold.

I think the key word here is "largely". I believe one study distilled it down to only one trait that could be termed "universal", and that was the proportion of waist to hips in females. Other than that, there are many huge differences in the perception of beauty. Just to knock a few off the top of my head, there are the south-asian women with the rings that extend their necks, the old Chinese practice of foot-binding, the elongated lip plates in some African tribes, the list goes on and on. In our times, many different (sub)cultures in the U.S. will tell you that what the majority finds attractive is very different than what the (sub)culture finds attractive. This is true with virtually every (sub)culture here.

 

[mmadsen]

Has anyone boxed? Or is anyone a boxing fan? If you are, you'll know that size/strength/toughness does not equate to power.

If it did, they'd have to do something drastic, like weight-class the athletes...

 

[silentspace]

If it did, they'd have to do something drastic, like weight-class the athletes...

Yeah, good point. I was thinking inside weight classes, but of course, you're right.

 

[silentspace]

Actually, even so, I think I'd have to say that strength and coordination is still more important than size. In boxing, of course, the heavier weight-classes are stronger. It's not size so much as strength. This doesn't translate into d20 though, as a 40 pound halfling could have a strength of 18.

Edit: Err, actually 16, but you get my point.

 

[Sejs]

Sounds like we've got a Gurps player on our hands...

Uh, but wait.. Gurps has seperate Strength and Health stats...

In our times, many different (sub)cultures in the U.S. will tell you that what the majority finds attractive is very different than what the (sub)culture finds attractive.

Example: ghetto booty.

 

[mmadsen]

There is definitely a difference between fine motor control (dexterity) and gross motor control (agility), but I'm not sure the difference is great enough to separate out into two separate stats.

It depends on what we want to model. Do we want a system where you can easily build an expert archer (or rifleman) or craftsman who isn't nimble? If so, you'll probably want to break out Dexterity and Agility.

Unless of course you do the same for strength (slow-twitch strength vs fast-twitch) and constitution (toughness vs endurance).

Toughness and Endurance (as in aerobic fitness) are two very different things with little correlation. It makes sense to separate them.

On the other hand, if you're modeling "soft" civilized city folk versus "hardened" barbarians (or cowboys, or soldiers), that one stat could define the difference.

As I've stated before though, Toughness correlates highly with Strength; being big and muscular means you can take more physical beating. Who's more robust, a powerlifter or a marathon runner? If it weren't for game-balance issues, I'd expect to see Toughness and Strength wrapped into one state, with a separate stat for Endurance -- and a few feats to enhance either Toughness or Strength without the other.

 

[silentspace]

Agreed. My only question was how finely you want to slice it/how many attributes you want to have.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I think the key word here is "largely". I believe one study distilled it down to only one trait that could be termed "universal", and that was the proportion of waist to hips in females. Other than that, there are many huge differences in the perception of beauty. Just to knock a few off the top of my head, there are the south-asian women with the rings that extend their necks, the old Chinese practice of foot-binding, the elongated lip plates in some African tribes, the list goes on and on. In our times, many different (sub)cultures in the U.S. will tell you that what the majority finds attractive is very different than what the (sub)culture finds attractive. This is true with virtually every (sub)culture here.

My understanding is that symmetry is the universal trait for "beauty". If you take the ideas of beauty within each culture, the more symmetrical people are considered beautiful. This is independent of cultural practices (rings, foot binding, what-have-you).

Sounds like we've got a Gurps player on our hands...

Thanee already answered for me. D&D character creation assumes all characteristics
have roughly equal weight in the game. If you want to drastically subdivide the
characteristics then some will be only occasionally useful to any character, and
will become universal dump stats.
--Ben

Roughly is a little inaccurate here. Both Strength and Dexterity are worth twice the other stats.

On the general discussion, probably the simplest and most accurate method would be to get rid of stats altogether. For the most part, the raw stat score is rarely used in the game. Oh, once and a while a character might have to make a strength or intelligence check, but for the most part a character uses skills, feats, and derived values to accomplish their goals. So instead of having stats which affect skill, BAB, etc. why not just use them directly and advance those derived abilities that best represent your character ?

For example, if your character is strong, instead of having a strength score he instead has higher values in Jump, Climb, Melee Damage, Carrying Capacity, Swim, etc. You could then more custom tailor where your character talents are. Maybe your character has a strong upper body compared to his lower body. He would then put more emphasis on Climb and less on Jump.

I posit that ability scores are unneeded. Instead let’s have the capability to modify the direct values of the game instead of deriving them from six scores that don’t really do a good job of modeling characters anyway. Given the number of arguments about what ability is best used with a given skill (Intimidate comes to mind) removing the abilities would step-side this whole issue. The problem is not going to completely go away, because then there will be discussions about what skills, feats, etc. should be in the game – the correct answer is the ones that will be used.