Technically I am too, as even a day is over.  I have been at it more than 2 tough per week, but tough is relative (as i had a grade 3 pec tear for 1.5 years that sidelined a lot of exercises, i have just recovered and rehabbed from surgery and am cleared for all athletic activity) and progress is relative as much of it is returning to baseline.  Once I am back at baseline, I can judge better.  However, given my weekly activities, there is no way between resistance exercise and BJJ I will be 2 days a week.  That is why where I think a reference poiny as to what is tough would be relative though.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 28, 2022, 11:39:29 PM
In no event ought you to make yourself or game group members as characters, though. It just leads to tears of woe, self-pity, and "ACKSHUALLY"-type self-delusion.

In particular, never ever make yourselves as player characters if you're playing Call of Cthulhu.

People were either disturbed as we armed ourselves to fight cultists via a trip to the mall, or genuinely upset when they got killed by said cultists.

(I was not the GM, it's not my fault!)

No, because it's irrelevant in the context of the game. 1 is weak, X is strong, X + N is very strong. Trying to tie objective measurements is fruitless

Do Ability Scores determine whether or not the character can do some task?
Are some of those tasks things someone might do in the real world?

If yes to both, then it's unavoidable that Ability Scores WILL be comparable to some real world metric.

I think it's more a matter of which metric.

In all my years of playing RPGs, I don't know that I've ever played in or run a game where any character ever performed a military press. Or tried to take the SATs. So the metrics for which we have a lot of real world data may just be entirely irrelevant to the RPG.

That doesn't mean Ability Scores won't end up linked to some real world metric.

Consistency schmonsistency. It's not something I see any need in worrying about. Because there is also a skill and practice component to a given task, and so there's no reason why you can't have skill stack on top of ability. Once you bring in multiple variables, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove or disprove consistency anyway.


What I like is for first average capacity to be spelled out. For instance, for underwater swimming, the average capacity might be swimming 200 feet in 40 seconds, then resurface, with each second of major (violent) exertion reducing breath time by 1 second. And then have that modified by skill or attribute. For unimportant (0th level) NPCs, I can just assume average capacity without having to mess with stats.

Note that some tasks (such as the underwater swimming example) can have multiple dimensions to them. You could have one character who has high Speed (+20%), thus they are able to swim 240 feet in the same 40 seconds, then resurface. And you might have another with high Stamina (+20%), thus they are able to swim for 48 seconds without having to resurface. Each of them can swim the same 240 feet between breaths. The first guy just gets the job done faster. But the second guy has an advantage of any major exertion needs to occur. Yet a third character might be average in Speed and Stamina but be an exceptionally skilled swimmer, gaining +20% to both swimming speed and breath capacity, thus able to swim 288 feet in 48 seconds.

Quote from: SirFrog on June 08, 2022, 10:47:09 AM
No, because it's irrelevant in the context of the game. 1 is weak, X is strong, X + N is very strong. Trying to tie objective measurements is fruitless

Partially false.

You need a metric for players to get a handle on how the stats work. Otherwise they are little more than meaningless numbers.

In AD&D some of the stats map to within a more or less human range 3-18. A person with a STR of 3 can not even carry 35 lb unencumbered or 140lb vastly slowed down and hindered, meanwhile a STR 18/00 can carry 335lb unencumbered, 440lb vastly slowed down and hindered. INT scores map vaugly to IQ and CHA has a sort of metric in the DMG.

That is not always the case though of course as in BX STR has no impact on carrying capacity. But INT on the other hand impacts your ability to even speak, with a score of 3 for example reducing the character to cave-man level.

These all give a overall frame of reference for players to get a handle on. Meanwhile stats like Wisdom tend to never get really explained and even in 5e its mostly ambiguous what WIS's metric is past the inferrence that it maps on one side to perception and senses animals have for example as alot of animals in 5e have WIS scores of 10 or better. A person with a WIS of 10 is going to spot things better than someone with a WIS of 3.

But system and setting as ever can and oft will have an impact on this. Compare BX or AD&D stats that capped mostly at 18 to 5e's stats that cap at mostly 20, and then 3e stats which I am not even sure had a limit? 35? As the settings drift from low fantasy up to high fantasy the stats have shifted in what a 10 score even means. In 5e a STR 10 means you can carry unencumbered up to 50lb, whereas in AD&D its 35lb.