AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[Jahydin]

While strength is the obvious culprit, the problem extends throughout the system. A character with 18 CON has about twice as many hit points as a character with 14 CON. A 14 Charisma gives you basically a +1 bonus on checks. An 18 charisma gives you basically a +8 bonus on checks. A 14 Dexterity gives you basically nothing, while an 18 Dexterity gives you a +4 bonus and a whole levels worth of improvement to your thief skills. A 14 wisdom gives you basically, nothing, while a 17 wisdom is basically required to unlock the upper levels of cleric just as high intelligence is required to usefully function as a M-U.

Huh. For me, this is exactly how a bell curve distribution of bonuses should work.

 

[Celebrim]

Huh. For me, this is exactly how a bell curve distribution of bonuses should work.

Define "should"? Also, your claim isn't my experience with the real world. That is to say, the difference between 8 and 10 and 10 and 12 is still quite telling and impactful in my experience.

Also, there are lots of bell curves, and it's not at all clear that your model of what a bell curve should look like is the correct (and certainly not for all things being modeled). It could be still a bell curve and the maximum change in the bonuses occurs between 10 and 14, and the advantage tapers off after 14. So appealing to math here as if that was definitive is well, very much not definitive.

 

[Jahydin]

Define "should"? Also, your claim isn't my experience with the real world. That is to say, the difference between 8 and 10 and 10 and 12 is still quite telling and impactful in my experience.

I just mean in terms of percentage. Since an 18 would represent 1 in 216 chance (0.5%) it should be a much higher bonus than 16, since it's about 6 times less likely to be rolled. That's all.

Since 9 - 12 makes up almost 50% of the population, it makes sense to have the bonus at 0, since that is the "average" you're using as the baseline for the game.

Also, there are lots of bell curves, and it's not at all clear that your model of what a bell curve should look like is the correct (and certainly not for all things being modeled). It could be still a bell curve and the maximum change in the bonuses occurs between 10 and 14, and the advantage tapers off after 14. So appealing to math here as if that was definitive is well, very much not definitive.

Only one bell curve for 3d6 and it's not my creation. Regardless, I did say, "For me," in my post. Wasn't looking to change your opinion, just sharing my thoughts on why AD&D bonuses are the way they are.

 

[Celebrim]

View attachment 432718
I just mean in terms of percentage. Since an 18 would represent 1 in 216 chance (0.5%) it should be a much higher bonus than 16, since it's about 6 times less likely to be rolled.

Why? That doesn't make any logical sense. Just as a reward?

Since 9 - 12 makes up almost 50% of the population, it makes sense to have the bonus at 0, since that is the "average" you're using as the baseline for the game.

Again, why? We are modelling real world dynamics here. I guarantee you the difference between the top of the bottom quartile and the bottom of the top quartile in anything is enormous.

The worst professional soccer player is closer in skill to Lionel Messi than you or I is to that player.

Only one bell curve for 3d6 and it's not my creation.

So you are actually arguing that real world distributions of ability mimic a 3d6 distribution? Why not a 5d6? Why not a 100d6? Why not a 5d20? The 3d6 distribution is an artificial abstraction and the numbers assigned to the bonuses are equally artificial and arbitrary, reflective of nothing. No one actually went out and did measurements of real-world populations to figure out what the bonuses should be, much less what sort of peak and what sort of standard deviation we ought to have.

Regardless, I did say, "For me," in my post. Wasn't looking to change your opinion, just sharing my thoughts on why AD&D bonuses are the way they are.

That's fine. You can have your opinion: I can have mine. But don't expect me to respond to your opinion with anything more than "Huh. I don't see why you think that at all."

 

[Jahydin]

I don't think we're quite on the same page, but will attempt to answer.

Why? That doesn't make any logical sense. Just as a reward?

The reason you roll 3d6 is to determine where you fall on a normal distribution curve. Half the population (in game) will have a score 9 - 12, so no bonus or penalty would apply, since that is "normal" and a bonus/penalty signifies "not normal". As you roll higher or lower, the differences between numbers become more significant, i.e., 12 compared to 13 is not the same as 16 compared to 17 despite both sets having a difference of 1, therefor the bonuses should be more significant as well to reflect this. I think Gary had a strong handle of math and the kind of game world he wanted, so was able to flesh out each attribute in specific detail.

Again, why? We are modelling real world dynamics here. I guarantee you the difference between the top of the bottom quartile and the bottom of the top quartile in anything is enormous.

The worst professional soccer player is closer in skill to Lionel Messi than you or I is to that player.

I think there might be some confusion here. Let's take a grading distribution, for example:

We're talking about the difference between a C-student and a C+ student essentially. I think it's fair to say they're both about "average" in their subject.

So you are actually arguing that real world distributions of ability mimic a 3d6 distribution? Why not a 5d6? Why not a 100d6? Why not a 5d20? The 3d6 distribution is an artificial abstraction and the numbers assigned to the bonuses are equally artificial and arbitrary, reflective of nothing. No one actually went out and did measurements of real-world populations to figure out what the bonuses should be, much less what sort of peak and what sort of standard deviation we ought to have.

The focus was on the 3d6 distribution and why Gary chose the numbers that he did. Everything here is kind of "out of scope" and not where I was going at all.