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.

 

[Celebrim]

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

I'm struggling not to be insulting here, but I got you the first time. I'm not behind you in understanding of probabilities. I've taken the college level course and got an A if I recall correctly. I've got 30 hours of college math. I've worked professionally in bioinformatics.

You are just repeating yourself and adding no new information. I understand what you believe. It's absolute and utter bollocks but you seem to find it charming, so go ahead.

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".

Well, you might as well argue that grass is green because doghouses aren't made of pancakes. Both statements are true, but they don't have a logical connection. Let's say we had a "Speed" attribute and it modelled the 100 meter dash. If you measured 10,000 people's 100 meter dash time and then plotted it on a curve grouping according to same distribution as a 3d6 roll, you'd not find the "law" you think you are describing to hold true. The gap between the 12 and 13 group would be bigger than between the 17 and 18 group. The bonuses as translated to how much better you were than the group next to you would start out very large and gradually shrink over the course of the graph. The size of the groups would probably fit well in your normal distribution (in how rare a particular time was) but the "bonuses" would not. The middle 68% would cover a huge range of like between 16 and 45 seconds, while the top 5% would narrow down to a difference in just a few seconds or even factions of a second. (I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but the general idea is true). Thus "bonuses" we'd need to describe this variation wouldn't follow your RPG created biases.

You seem to forget that the numbers are intended to describe something.

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.

No. That's illogical. It might be true of somethings, but it's not a generally true observation. Just because something is a statistical outlier in terms of probability, doesn't mean that the variation is necessarily increasing. Like it's almost certainly true of something like height (just guessing) because length is something that I imagine fits a gaussian curve pretty well, but as the sprinting example showed it's not generally true of everything we're trying to measure. If I was trying to be realistic, I'd have no idea without study what numbers I should like for a given normal distribution.

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

I assure you, I'm not confused.

View attachment 432722
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.

But it's not fair to say that the gap in ability between the upper and lower end of that range is smaller than the gap in ability between students at the high end of the range. For math it might be, but mostly because humans are terrible at math and actual mathematical ability is practically a mutant superpower in humans. But depending on the task involved, the gap in actual performance between the average person and a person in the 75% percentile might be bigger than the person in the 75% and the 100%.

Gygax's numbers don't come about by thoughtful understanding and measurement of the thing being modeled. They come about by the coarse granularity has available to him using small integers. They have to be small relative to a D20. They have to be meaningfully different than each other. But they don't actually represent anything.

UPDATE: And there is an actual RPGism that doesn't follow this "law" you think you've discovered because you've over generalized how it might work for "height" - the ability score check. In an ability score check the bonus you have to the task is linearly increasing even though the grouping you are in follows the gaussian curve. 3's are a lot rarer than 4's but the delta of the bonus is the same there and everywhere else. "Threes" complete the task 20% of the time and "fours" complete it 25% of the time because they have a +1 bonus compared to a "3". In fact the gap here if you want to think of it that is decreasing as we go from left to right on the chart. Fours are 25% better at the task than threes, but 18s are only like 5.8% better at the task than 17s. And for a lot things this is perfectly cromulent rough modeling of how it really works. For something though, the difference in success rate might actually be decreasing faster than that. 18's succeed only 1% more often than 17's, who succeed only 2% more than 16's, and so forth. There isn't a law on task resolution that says the more of a statistical outlier you are, the bigger the gap in success between you and the nearest statistical group is.

 

[Mannahnin]

Can you elaborate on this, please - what 'math shuffle' are you referring to?

The by the book 1E initiative rules say that the side rolling higher acts first, starting on the segment indicated by the die result of the losing side. So if the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 3, the PCs win and start acting on segment 3. If the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 5, the PCs go first and start acting on 5.

If I follow correctly, Fuindordm is suggesting the simplication of just having low roll win and start on their own die result. So if you win the initiative roll with a 1, you start acting on 1.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, how many wishes does it take to go from 18 to 18/00 strength - which is the same you admit as going from 18 to 24. The answer is 10.

Wishes are 1 tenth of a point, not 10%. The distinction is important, because the 10th wish would make the strength 19, not 18/00. So the PC would go from 18 to 19, with no percentile improvement in-between. A 2nd wish would improve strength to 18.2, not 18/20.

 

[Celebrim]

Wishes are 1 tenth of a point, not 10%. The distinction is important, because the 10th wish would make the strength 19, not 18/00. So the PC would go from 18 to 19, with no percentile improvement in-between. So the 2nd wish would improve strength to 18.2, not 18/20.

I think it's fairer to say that the rules here are vague regarding how things interact because they are not written up as a unified whole. You are certainly free to make that argument, and I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's obvious that there is a correct interpretation here.

My actual point (well one of them) is that Gygax saying you needed 10 wishes to go from 16 Strength to 17 Strength was a very Gygaxian version of saying, "No", since spending 10 wishes that way would be insane even if you ever got to point where you had 10 wishes to spend which, you probably wouldn't.