Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836984What did it say about the other stats? Like low WIS.

BX only qualifies Intelligence in that way.
Every other stat simply states a +/-
So wisdom simply states a +/- to magic saves

Quote from: Matt;836976You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days. Maybe that has changed.

I've only ever played OD&D, B/X and AD&D, and 10.5's always been average. I thought you might be referring to some modern edition of the game!

Quote from: S'mon;836985I know in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual "average" Intelligence is 8-10, AIR human intelligence is "average to high". Where else is 9 given as 'average'?

Ah - I've never noticed that! What an odd list.

Another way of rolling stats I heard of is 2d6+4. A narrower range, giving you stats between 6 and 16.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837001Another way of rolling stats I heard of is 2d6+4. A narrower range, giving you stats between 6 and 16.

Never seen that. I'd rather risk a 3 and be able to get an 18!

Doesn't Call of Cthulhu do 2d6 + 6 for some stats?

Quote from: Matt;837004Doesn't Call of Cthulhu do 2d6 + 6 for some stats?

Yes, for INT and SIZ.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836930Is 3 even functionally human? Someone with 3 INT, for instance; I'm pretty sure a dog would have higher.

If the INT stat is assumed to be equivalent to our IQ distribution, then a character with 3 INT is roughly equivalent to 61 or less in IQ. An 8 is roughly 90/91 IQ. I think Runequest got it right by using 2d6+6 to give a low of 8 so characters are at least at the low end of average. Normal population could be 3d6 like the real world, but in my opinion adventurers should at least be draft capable.

Quote from: Omega;836971In D&D? Yes. :cool:

aheh. In BX monsters did not have stats so a a dog or cat could be whatever you wanted it to be really.

In 5e a 3 INT is apparently the threshold between relatively non-intelligent and the greater grasp of the world. An ogre has an INT of 5 and are often depicted at the stone-age level. Lizard men have an INT of 7 and seem to be at the threshold of bronze age if given a chance. Kobolds are an 8 INT, which is the same as a human tribal warrior in the MM. INT 8.

Make of it what you will.

Wisdom is the really interesting one in 5e. Quite a few normal animals in 5e have wisdom scores over 10. A few have scores of 14. Which fits as in 5e Wisdom covers senses and awareness as well as common sense. And really, most animals have more common sense than most humans...

Well except for one of my cats who liked to rub up against lit candles... errrr... :eek:

Some of that might get my "anthropologist" heckles up. the idea that non-literate tribal groups are less intelligent is somewhat akin to Nazi Eugenics.....

The fact is that most roleplayers have a narrow band they role play in and actually playing a 4 int character like Hodor would be really challenging so they don't.

Wisdom is now very problematic. What is now covers is so wide a topic because there is no perception stat that its almost impossible to define.
Remember in 1e where Wisdom was the dump stat for weak willed theives (a character with 5 or lower Wis could only be a thief) now that woudl imply that Thieves need the lowest perception and awareness of any class ... hmmmm...... and Priests are all Recon Special ops

Quote from: ptingler;837022If the INT stat is assumed to be equivalent to our IQ distribution, then a character with 3 INT is roughly equivalent to 61 or less in IQ. An 8 is roughly 90/91 IQ. I think Runequest got it right by using 2d6+6 to give a low of 8 so characters are at least at the low end of average. Normal population could be 3d6 like the real world, but in my opinion adventurers should at least be draft capable.

this is where the topic of stats becomes most interesitng though and why I listed out genre as tied to stat generation.

Are we saying that Adventurers are exceptional just because they are adventurers but they have the stats of anyone or are we saying adventurers become adventurers because they are exceptional.
In some Genres having all PCs as normal makes absolute sense. Zombipocalypse, CoC etc actually benefit is the PCs are normal people (god how I hate the player when asked to create a normal PC for a modern horror game insists that their normal PC used to be Delta force special ops ..) but some games, Supers, 007, modern mercenary special ops simply don't. If I am playing a game based on the Expendables where the PCs are all larger than life former special ops Delta Force guys I don't want a bunch of people who are below average across their stat range a guys who is 11,12,8,8,10,13 is not going to be get entry into the Para's, selected and trained by the SAS and then go on to survive 8 years as a mercenary in Angola. So then the generation of PCs needs to be contextualised by the genre.
Sometimes we want to play Johnny English but some times we actually want to play James Bond.

Quote from: jibbajibba;837041this is where the topic of stats becomes most interesitng though and why I listed out genre as tied to stat generation.

Are we saying that Adventurers are exceptional just because they are adventurers but they have the stats of anyone or are we saying adventurers become adventurers because they are exceptional.
In some Genres having all PCs as normal makes absolute sense. Zombipocalypse, CoC etc actually benefit is the PCs are normal people (god how I hate the player when asked to create a normal PC for a modern horror game insists that their normal PC used to be Delta force special ops ..) but some games, Supers, 007, modern mercenary special ops simply don't. If I am playing a game based on the Expendables where the PCs are all larger than life former special ops Delta Force guys I don't want a bunch of people who are below average across their stat range a guys who is 11,12,8,8,10,13 is not going to be get entry into the Para's, selected and trained by the SAS and then go on to survive 8 years as a mercenary in Angola. So then the generation of PCs needs to be contextualised by the genre.
Sometimes we want to play Johnny English but some times we actually want to play James Bond.

Average intelligence, sure, but I just don't see playing a mentally retarded adventurer as plausible. That's why I think the range works better as 90 IQ and up.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836984What did it say about the other stats? Like low WIS.

Nothing, Intelligence was the only one that had that distinction. Everything else was mechanical notes. Interestingly Strength in BX did not equate to lifting and carrying ability. All characters could carry the same weight limits, about 160lb in gear and/or stuff and still be able to walk slowly.

Quote from: ptingler;837044Average intelligence, sure, but I just don't see playing a mentally retarded adventurer as plausible. That's why I think the range works better as 90 IQ and up.

The logical extension of that is that a secret agent in a James Bond game should have above average intelligence, reflexes and possibly willpower or Charisma.

You can go on and do this for a range of genres.

So this leads to the implication that the Chargen system you use should match the genre you want to play.

Going back to D&D therefore, if you want to play a fantasy genre like Lord of the Rings you need certan sorts of stats, even the hobbits have great willpower and perserverence (Frodo probably has "willpower" close to maximum and great consitution). If you want to play a game like the musketeers you need a different games of stats.

The standard 3d6 straight assign as rolled model really only creates characters that fit D&D's own internal genre or possibly a game set in Joe Ambercrombie's Union.

Quote from: jibbajibba;837037Some of that might get my "anthropologist" heckles up. the idea that non-literate tribal groups are less intelligent is somewhat akin to Nazi Eugenics.....

The fact is that most roleplayers have a narrow band they role play in and actually playing a 4 int character like Hodor would be really challenging so they don't.

Wisdom is now very problematic. What is now covers is so wide a topic because there is no perception stat that its almost impossible to define.
Remember in 1e where Wisdom was the dump stat for weak willed theives (a character with 5 or lower Wis could only be a thief) now that woudl imply that Thieves need the lowest perception and awareness of any class ... hmmmm...... and Priests are all Recon Special ops

1: Yeah, Kefra got a chuckle from that. Shes from Africa and a tribal background of some sort. But studied in a US college before returning.

2: Id say more that some have really variant ideas on stats and character than others do. Like some of the discussions here have shown. Some players pretty much ignore their stats. Others play to their stats as the limiter on their acting, others use the stats as a guideline on how to play the character, and so on.

3: 5e pretty much places the traditional thieves routine of trap detection and lock picking into anyones hands who has the thieves tools proficiency. And yeah, the druid in our group is the point for trap detection. Appropriate as she took the Criminal background.

Quote from: jibbajibba;837047Going back to D&D therefore, if you want to play a fantasy genre like Lord of the Rings you need certan sorts of stats, even the hobbits have great willpower and perserverence (Frodo probably has "willpower" close to maximum and great consitution). If you want to play a game like the musketeers you need a different games of stats.

Frodo actually shows a kinda low willpower as he succombs to the rings tricks early on and it gets worse from there. Sam resists it better than Frodo! Hobbits in general in LOTR were noted as overall mildly resistant to Saurons influence by Gandalf. In general all of the characters in the books are pretty flawed. But either very competent, or near supernaturally lucky.

As for stats mapping to real world. They do. But depending on the edition, it varies wildly and tends to be pretty loose and "make of it what you will" sort of generalization. That and the variance between the PCs and the common folk has shifted from edition to edition.

Seems like in 5e we are back to adventurers being not much different from the general populace.

Quote from: Omega;837049Frodo actually shows a kinda low willpower as he succombs to the rings tricks early on and it gets worse from there. Sam resists it better than Frodo! Hobbits in general in LOTR were noted as overall mildly resistant to Saurons influence by Gandalf. In general all of the characters in the books are pretty flawed. But either very competent, or near supernaturally lucky.

Frodo had the ring for years and wore it (for the most part around his neck, although he did use it a fair bit) for a long time even when he was really close to Mt Doom.
Sam only wore it for MAX a day and and he was getting pretty tempted to use it already.