Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6846372" data-attributes="member: 42582">Can you actually state which editions you mean?The ones for which I think there is no rule that IQ = INT*10 are OD&D, AD&D (at least 1st ed, maybe 2nd as well), 4e, 5e, and Moldvay/Marsh/Cook B/X. The remark by Brian Blume in a semi-humorous article, written at a time when the main function of Dragon was to publish house rules and advice, is not a rule for any edition of the game (though perhaps Blume handled things that way at his table).Is the above relevant to the discussion with  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] about IQ?IQ scores provide a ranking, and also indicate a likelihood - so IQ 180 means that X% of people will be at or above that IQ (for some relatively small X, many decimal places less than 1).So does the 3d6 roll: only 1 in 216 (= (1/6)^3) people will have INT 18.But 1 in 216 is approximately 0.5%; hence an 18 INT is far more common, in the imagined population of D&D PCs, than is 180 IQ in the real population of human beings.As far as I can tell, nothing in the above reasoning requires treating IQ, or INT, as measuring some quantity; nor does the notion of a "normal distribution" play a role in the reasoning; nor does the reasoning require treating the mean or SD of any data set as meaningful in the way that you are objecting to.I'm not a mathematician or statistician, but to me it seems to be a rather straightforward argument about likelihoods.(And since writing this reply, I see that  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has said the same thing as above in post 816.)</blockquote>

Verification