[By Request] Real Life <=> AD&D Stats (How do you measure up?)
Dave Harper
========
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Stats: AD&D and reality
From: dha...@mustang.uwo.ca (Dave Harper)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:35:25 GMT
Having read with no little amusement the current thread of comparing
ourselves to AD&D, and noting the number of people with 18's in one or
more stats, I've decided to try and actually write a conclusive
translation table for AD&D stats into real life. Note that this will
be rough at best, and NOT a guide to who is superior to anybody else
in ANY way. I do not presume to call myself a trained statistical
psychologist, and no inferences should be made from this test. This
test is for entertainment purposes only, that's right, FUN.
In the last incarnation of this test (which is virtually unchanged
since then), responses ranged from people who felt the test was fairly
accurate, to those who thought it was too hard, to those who thought
it was too easy, and everything in between. Don't put any stock in
this test, just try it for fun...and PLEASE don't tell me how wrong I
am about something. I got enough of that last time. Just enjoy.
General notes:
For the purposes of die rolling, an 18 is considered to be not only
the maximum possible score, but also a result that is obtained 1 in
216 times. This dichtomy is possible because this test is supposed to
follow AD&D rules to the letter; according to AD&D rules, 18 is the
maximum possible score for a human being, and is also found amongst 1
in every 216 adventurers. (How common adventurers are in the general
population remains to be seen; a first edition rule allowed NPCs to be
rolled counting 1s as 3s and 6s as 4s, which pretty much made average
people 6-15). A 3 is considered to be the MINIMUM human score
obtainable, *not* a 1, and has the same chance of being "rolled" as an
18. This leaves us with 15 degrees of separation between the high and
low ends of the scale. Rolled randomly, a value of 10.5 becomes the
average; assume that 10 is average for the purposes of this test.
Because 1 in 216 is a huge number of people, this test also assumes
(for some stats) that further differentiations exist at 18; 18/50 is
rarer than 18, but less rare than 18/75, etc.
Finally, the following can be considered to be accurate for the
purposes of this test:
Value of statistic Description:
3 Lowest possible human score; 1 in 216
4-5 Very low
6-7 Low
8-9 Below average
10-11 Average
12-13 Above average; trained abilities
14-15 High; highly trained abilities; professional capacity
16-17 Exceptional; very high
18 1 in 216
18/01-50 1 in 512
18/51-75 1 in 1,024
18/00 1 in 21,600; absolute maximum human ability, Olympic ability
Strength:
Score Military Press Bench Press
3 10 lbs 15 lbs
4-5 25 lbs 38 lbs
6-7 55 lbs 83 lbs
8-9 90 lbs 135 lbs
10-11 115 lbs 173 lbs
12-13 140 lbs 210 lbs
14-15 170 lbs 255 lbs
16 195 lbs 293 lbs
17 220 lbs 330 lbs
18 255 lbs 383 lbs
18/50 280 lbs 420 lbs
18/75 305 lbs 458 lbs
18/90 330 lbs 495 lbs
18/98 380 lbs 570 lbs
18/00 480 lbs 720 lbs
This one is easy. Take the "press" tables in the main book (2nd
edition PHB is preferred, as shown above) and use your own military
press limit. I don't have my book on me, so I can't reproduce it
here. World records for weight-lifting should correspond roughly to
an 18/00 score.
A military press is the act of lifting something directly over your
head. A good rule of thumb is that you can military press 2/3 the
weight that you can bench press.
AD&D tends to lump scores in together (a 6 strength is no different
from a 7, for example). In such cases, you can either ignore it or
divide the difference so that the scores are more evenly divided. For
example, a 6 strength could press 40 lbs while 7 could press the full
55 lbs, or perhaps 6 could press 55 lbs while 7 pressed 73.
Example: I personally can bench press about 100 pounds (yes, I know
that's pathetic. Thank you for telling me, now I can properly behave
like a weakling). That means I could military press about 65 pounds.
That would put me at 7 or 8 strength. Just to make me feel better,
we're going to choose 8.
Dexterity:
Take this simple test. You start with a score of 9. There are two
sections of questions to answer. In the first section, subtract 1
point for every "yes" answer. In the second section, add 1 point for
every "yes" answer. (NOTE: this is *extremely* rough!).
First section: 6 questions
Do you often stub your toes/trip while walking?
Do you find it hard to catch an object (such as a ball) thrown at you?
Do you find it hard to catch an object (such as a ball) thrown/hit in
your general direction but not aimed for you to catch?
Are you NOT able to dance ably even when shown how?
Do you have a reputation for being clumsy, left-footed, or unlucky?
Do you break at least one object through clumsiness at least once
every three months?
Second section: 9 questions
Do you play any of the following games/have any of the following
hobbies?: baseball, basketball, skiing, soccer (football for
non-Americans), curling, figure skating, rollerblading, roller
skating. Do NOT award yourself 2 marks for practicing two or more of
these. Other sports or hobbies which require good manual dexterity
can be added to this list.
Do you play or practice any of the following?: Hunting, Archery,
Skeet Shooting, Nintendo or other hand-held video games (award this
last only if you are GOOD at it,enough to win most of the games you
own plus any other you've ever heard of). Any other hobby that uses
eye-hand coordination may be added to this list.
Do you practice any of the following?: Acrobatics, Gymnastics,
Martial Arts. Do NOT award yourself 2 marks for practicing two or
more of these. Any other hobby or skill that uses full-body dexterity
and agility may be added to this list.
Can you juggle?
Can you juggle a 4-ball shower?
Can you juggle a 5-ball shower? (Note: this is extremely rare even in
professional jugglers; this one is a bonus that will allow you to
reach 18/xx scores)
Can you drive a car?
Can you navigate in a crowd (Christmas eve in a shopping mall) without
slowing down?
Can you perform sleight of hand tricks, including: the shell game,
simple magic tricks, making coins "dance" on your hands, making small
objects disappear up your sleeve, etc? Do NOT award yourself 2 marks
for knowing how to do two or more of these.
Do you have a reputation for being dextrous, a sure shot, graceful,
smooth, agile, or something related to dexterity not already covered?
Example: Personally, I'm not all that dextrous. I find catching a
ball somewhat difficult, though not by any means impossible, and don't
play too many sports as a result. I do play badminton, which I'm
going to count as good for dexterity. And I can also run through a
crowd without slowing down, something that seems to be hard to do. I
play video games, but I'm not *great* at them, so I award myself a
total of -2 points and +2, leaving me with a total of a Dexterity of
8.
Note: Skills were included because it's very difficult to measure pure
agility without asking people do put balls through hoops, move strings
around objects, and so on - none of which I can do over the e-mail.
Juggling took high precedence because in my experience, and those of
people I know who do juggle, the ability to juggle is easy if you have
the knack - i.e. the dexterity - but high ability in it takes practice
and skill, but also no small amount of dexterity - even trained
jugglers cannot usually get 5-ball showers.
Constitution:
Start with a base of 12. Subtract 1 point for every "yes" answer in
part one, and add 1 point for every "yes" in part 2.
Part 1: 9 questions.
Do you get sick at least once a season (three months)?
Do you get sick at least once a year?
Have you ever required an operation (tonsils removed, cancer, stomach
pumped, etc)?
Do you have a "glass jaw", i.e. you don't stand up in a fight long?
Are you very sensitive to pain?
Do you have any allergies (hay fever, lactose, bee stings, etc)?
Are you easily winded (out of breath - like after climbing two flights
of stairs)?
Do you quickly and easily become drunk (i.e. are you a cheap date?
Wait, that's not PC...umm, do you get drunk after only a few (under 4,
say) drinks?)
Have you ever suffered from alcohol poisoning?
Part 2: 6 questions.
Can you jog or swim for more than 15 minutes without stopping?
Can you run at FULL speed for more than 5 minutes?
Have you ever run a marathon successfully (i.e. completed it)?
Can you swim across the Great Lakes or perform any other act of
extreme physical endurance? (Swimming across the Great Lakes usually
takes over twelve hours even for trained swimmers, but swimming allows
you to float. Figure something taking four to six hours without
stopping on land)
Have you never gotten sick in your entire life?
Can you imbibe huge amounts of alcohol without suffering unduly from
it (it takes many, many drinks you get you drunk, and little hangover
effects afterwards)?
Example: Personally, a large leaf could probably blow me over. I tend
to get sick easily; maybe twice a year, but not once a season. I had
my tonsils removed as a kid. I'm pretty sure that if I got into a
fight, I'd last about 0.01 seconds, but I don't *know* if I have a
glass jaw - only ever got into one fight, and I won it. But I am
sensitive to pain. Tons of allergies. I get drunk quickly. On the
other hand, I have NEVER had a hangover, not from lack of trying. I
can jog and swim for more than 15 minutes. So that's 12, +2, -4, or
10. Not too bad.
Notes: Constitution was based on four things - stamina, the ability to
resist poison, the ability to resist disease, and the ability to
resist damage. Poison and damage are kinda hard to talk about in real
life, but I did the best I could. And yes, I AM a university student,
but that's not why I included alcohol - it's the only poison I know of
that most people take voluntarily.
Intelligence:
This one varies, depending on your interpretation, and is open to
debate. Here's a few suggestions:
IQ: Do not use the "10 IQ = 1 Int" scale, as it loses credibility
quickly when you realize that a 60 IQ human being is almost incapable
of tying their own shoes, and a 40 IQ human being IS incapable of such
a feat. Similarly, some notable human beings have reached IQs of 200
or even 300, which would ruin the top end of the scale.
Instead, use a bell curve. 100 IQ represents the mean score. Since
we don't know the standard deviation, we are forced to use an educated
guess, and divide the mean by 6 (for large values) to reach 16.7.
This means that roughly 66% of all human beings (and a minimum of 50%)
will have IQs in between 83 and 117, and that roughly 75% have between
66 and 133 IQ.
If I recall correctly, Mensa requires a 140 IQ for membership
(somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and they claim to represent the top
2% of human intelligence. Somebody with a statistics textbook could
figure out the z-score required for this to be true, but my textbook
is in my apartment in London. With some work, one could figure out
the AD&D equivalents using their rarity; an 18, being 1-in-216, would
be 0.0046 of the population, and hence roughly a 150 IQ or so. 18/00
would be 0.00005 of the population, and hence off the scale. Whoops.
Figure around 250 IQ?
Example: I don't know my own IQ, as I've never taken a test. However,
I count pretty highly, judging from my SAT scores, secondary education
and general knowledge. I got in the top percentile for my SATs, so I
can assume that I'm a 17 (3 in 216, or about 1.3%).
Linguistic: AD&D has a handy scale of languages known.
Unfortunately, it's by no means correct. I don't know about limits,
but I've heard of professional translators who can speak no less than
27 different languages. This is for a couple reasons, but mostly
because languages are all the same in certain ways, some more than
others. English, French, and Spanish are all incredibly easy to learn
if you know one, because they're so similar. Japanese and Korean are
the same in that respect. However, languages are probably akin to
skills; you can learn more at cost, but not naturally. At the same
time, not all highly intelligent people speak other languages,
especially Americans, who have a disparate proportion of unilinguists
(shun them! shun them!)
So ignore this one. No, really.
Knowledge: One could assume that the level of education is an
indicator of intelligence. One would probably be wrong, but if you
want to do it, be my guest. If nothing else, it would probably count
well for S&P's Knowledge attribute. A doctorate (PhD) would probably
count as a 16-17 Intelligence; a master's degree as 14-15, an
undergraduate or apprenticeship as 12-13, high school as 10-11, junior
high as 8-9, elementary school as 6-7, and no schooling as 4-5. For
those people who have two or more degrees of the same (highest) level,
use the following scale: for two degrees of the same level, add 1 to
the effective intelligence (i.e. undergraduate is 12-13, two
Bachelor's degrees would be 13-14). However, you must double the
number of degrees to get another point, and double it again ad nauseum
to increase it further. That is, somebody with a PhD in physics and
biology would have a +1 to the PhD level (16-17, +1) and somebody with
*4* PhDs would automatically have at least an 18 and possibly an 18/50
with this scale. You can do the same for degrees of a lower level
than your highest, but use the level of the multiple degrees as a
base, +1 for every level of degrees higher than it; i.e. a person with
4 undergraduate degrees and 1 master's would normally have a 14-15 for
one master's, but chooses to use the undergrad level (12-13) +2 for
the four degrees, plus 1 for having a master's, for a total of +3
(15-16). Obviously, this is only effective if you have at least four
lesser degrees, or two and two levels above it). An alternative way
of doing this uses the honour system (like any of this doesn't?!?).
Use the highest level of education you think you COULD get, or ARE
planning on getting.
Example: Using this system, with my unfinished bachelor's degree, I'd
count as Int 11. Since I'm planning on getting my Master's in future
(but probably not PhD), that would put me at a 14 instead.
Total: Oh, I have no idea how intelligent I am. I suppose I could
take an IQ test, but it has no relation to real life. I could take
one of those three scores, or an average of two or all of them
combined, or I could just say "oh heck, you are all idiots" and
declare myself to have a 16 intelligence. Yeah, I like that way.
Simple and easy, and probably better, come to think of it. <g>
Wisdom:
Start with a base of 11.
Part 1: 8 questions.
Do you often forget things after "just having them in my
hand/pocket/coat"? (your keys, etc)
Are you bad at remembering a name or face?
Do you often forget about an appointment or duty (returning library
books, job interviews, buying groceries, doing the laundry, picking up
the mother-in-law at the airport, etc)?
Do you find it difficult to stick to a diet, regimen, or scheduele
and/or do you find it difficult to budget your time and/or money
successfully?
Do you often buy things from salespeople even though you don't need
the product simply because you have a hard time saying "no"?
Do you gamble often?
Do you get involved in "flamewars"?
Do you get lost often?
Part 2: 7 questions.
Do you have a "photographic" memory?
Are you able to criticize yourself?
Are you able to listen to others?
Can you hold your temper under fire?
Do you have a reputation for good, wholesome common sense?
Do you listen to your gut reactions?
Do your guesses usually prove to be right?
Example: Okay, lesse. I forget keys in the door. I forgot my
backpack in the snow once. I forget things, period. I forget names
like you wouldn't believe. I find it difficult to get up on time, and
I buy things when they come out if I like them. I get lost with MAPS
in my hand. In cities I know. In cities I was BORN in. And I do
anything the salespeople say and thank them for it. That's -6,
or 5 total so far. On the plus side, I can criticize myself, I listen
to others, I can hold my temper, and I listen to my gut instinct. The
fact that they are always wrong means nothing, nothing I tell you!
That's +4, or 9. Hmm. That sounds far too high for the reality. Oh,
well.
Charisma:
You know the drill by now. Start with a base score of 7.
Part 1: 4 questions.
Do you have fewer than 3 people you can confide in?
Do you have fewer than 5 close friends?
Are you frequently turned down when you ask somebody out?
Do you have a reputation for being annoying, disruptive, antisocial,
wierd, or repulsive?
Do you subscribe to AOL? (No, no, no, that's mean. Ignore this
question).
Part 2: 11 questions.
Do you have friends of both sexes?
Have you ever had an argument with someone and convinced them to see
your point of view?
Have you ever convinced someone of something even though they know it
to be wrong, logically?
Do people often confide in you?
Do people ask your advice?
Will people who have never heard of you obey your commands, follow
your advice or listen to your opinions?
Have two or more people ever fought over your attention/company
before, in your presence?
Regardless of your choice of social life and your personal feelings
towards such attention, are you often asked out/hit on by/invited to
attend social functions by other people?
Do you have a reputation for being "slick", "charming", or "dear"?
Are you considered to be attractive by members of the opposite sex?
Are you considered to be attractive by members of the same sex?
Example: Let's see...I have tons of friends, more than I need,
actually. =( I can confide in about 4 or 5 people. I don't know
whether I would be turned down most of the time or not, because I can
never get my courage up to ask! <shaking head> I'm going to count
THAT as an automatic -2, to make 5. Now for the plusses. People
confide in me like you wouldn't believe. They listen to my advice
(!), but they don't usually ask for it. I have more friends of the
opposite gender than my own. I HAVE convinced people to see different
points of view, although not often. People I've never met tend to
listen to me as much as anybody else. I don't naturally become
leader, and I think I'd do a pathetic job anyways. <g> I'm invited
to parties and such, but not on a regular basis, so I'll say "no" to
that one. Two+ people have fought over me, and I didn't like it
whenever it happened. <shudder> Still, that's another point. I have
great manners. Parents LOVE me. I'm told I have good fashion sense;
I'm also told I look handsome, but I disregard that, because it's from
my sister, and she's obviously biased. However, I have the odd
distinction of being a heterosexual who looks good to homosexuals.
Okay, I think that leaves me with...um...12? 11? Shoot, I should've
kept better count. Hmm. Let's call it 12. Yeah. That's it.
<charming innocent boyish grin>
So here's what we get for The Dave (tm). The first numbers are my
scores. The numbers in parentheses are my own estimates.
S 7-8 (7)
D 8 (8)
C 10 (7)
I 17/11/14 (16)
W 9 (6)
CH 12 (12)
Okay, that's it! Let me know how it works out...
Dave
"She said role-playing games were the creation of Satan. Dead
clever of him. I mean, sitting down there in Hell, working out
all the combat tables and everything. I bet he used to really
*swear* every time the dice caught fire..."
-Only You Can Save Mankind, Terry Pratchett
"That's it! Zombies are made from corpses! Yes! Hahaha!
I've done it! Only 1/3 the cost! I'm a genius! Hoo-hoo-hoo!"
-Actual text in my game design notes
The scary part: I understand it
Rob Sanders
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 03:48:37 GMT, dha...@golden.net (Dave Harper)
wrote:
> Having read with no little amusement the current thread of comparing
>ourselves to AD&D, and noting the number of people with 18's in one or
>more stats, I've decided to try and actually write a conclusive
>translation table for AD&D stats into real life. Note that this will
>be rough at best, and NOT a guide to who is superior to anybody else
>in ANY way. I do not presume to call myself a trained statistical
>psychologist, and no inferences should be made from this test. This
>test is for entertainment purposes only, that's right, FUN.
Cool -- good job, Dave
And heeeeeeere's Rob :)
S 13
D 13
C 10 (although I think your Con test was a little too rough :)
I 16
W 9
CH 11
>
> So here's what we get for The Dave (tm). The first numbers are my
>scores. The numbers in parentheses are my own estimates.
>
>S 7-8 (7)
>D 8 (8)
>C 10 (7)
>I 17/11/14 (16)
>W 9 (6)
>CH 12 (12)
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
Tim Breen
> If I recall correctly, Mensa requires a 140 IQ for membership
> (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and they claim to represent the top
> 2% of human intelligence.
This depends on the test (Mensa accepts a huge list of different tests).
Their only criterion is placement in the top 2% of the general
population on whatever test you took (even the S.A.T.). Personally, I
think they should be pickier. <grin>
-- Tim
Personal: http://personalweb.lightside.com/Pfiles/breen1.html
Gaming: http://www.rpga.org/Home.html
To subscribe to the RPGA-Talk mailing list, send a blank message to
requ...@lists.consultantalliance.com with a subject of "subscribe
RPGA-Talk" (no quotes).
Mike (Leszek Karlik)
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:23:06 GMT, robsa...@mindspring.com.antispam
(Rob Sanders) wrote:
<test snipped>
Cool. I like it.
And, BTW, I already did something like that on the Star Wars RPG
mailing list...
So, here's me (note: first, I just guesstimated my attributes and put
them in parentheses, than I used The Test)
Str (8 - weakling) 8
Dex (14 - I have very good agility and coordination) 14 - can I get
two points for driving a manual-gear car? :>
Con (10 - uff... I get winded very quickly.. But I do last long in a
fight.) 10 - pretty much as I thought... I get sick, but alcohol's no
problem...
Int (16 - I'm smart, and you're stupid <g, d & r>) I never took an IQ
test. I do know 2 foreing languages, and understand 3 others,
though... Well, I'm smart! :>
Wis (10 - weak memory unless concerning RPG; good willpower unless it
goes against laziness) 12 - well, turned out better than I thought...
I bet there's something wrong with the test...
Cha (8 - I'm told I'm cute and sympathic, but I'm an introvertic
loner) 7 - well, a good result. I have 1 real friend (me - OK, maybe I
do have 2 or 3 good friends...), I don't get turned town simply
because I don't ask and I generally isolate myself from the society
(and boy, I LIKE it! :> ).
--
Mike (Leszek Karlik) - tr...@polbox.com; http://www.polbox.com/t/trrkt
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, GRD(Sith) {IWATS-IIC} (Emperor's Hammer)
Star Wars junkie and Amber fan.
David Callander
dha...@golden.net (Dave Harper) (Fri, 13 Jun 1997 03:48:37 GMT)
wrote:
> Having read with no little amusement the current thread of comparing
>ourselves to AD&D, and noting the number of people with 18's in one or
>more stats, I've decided to try and actually write a conclusive
>translation table for AD&D stats into real life. Note that this will
>be rough at best, and NOT a guide to who is superior to anybody else
>in ANY way. I do not presume to call myself a trained statistical
>psychologist, and no inferences should be made from this test. This
>test is for entertainment purposes only, that's right, FUN.
Well, I did you test and found it to be, as you say, very rough at
best. I'm not quite sure how the Military Press thing is done
(standing still and pressing from your shoulders without any momentum
from your legs?) and the PHB seems a bit vague on this one too. It
could easily be interpreted as being more like Clean and Jerk or the
Snatch of Olympic Lifting, in which case lifting 220 pounds above your
head isn't so hard.
Anyway, I used the Bench-Press numbers you gave (has anyone ever
actually benched 720 pounds before? I forget...) and this is how your
little test scores me:
Str 14 (15-16)
Dex 10 (9-10)
Con 11 (10-11)
Int 16 (15-17)
Wis 16 (15)
Cha 11 (12-13)
The numbers in the parentheses are what I'd actually guess for myself.
Interesting, but not scientific by any means...
David.
[DM for The Land, home of The Place and other imaginitive locations]
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33a85d3d...@news.canterbury.ac.nz>, dha...@golden.net Dave
>
>> Having read with no little amusement the current thread of comparing
>>ourselves to AD&D, and noting the number of people with 18's in one or
>>more stats, I've decided to try and actually write a conclusive
>>translation table for AD&D stats into real life. Note that this will
>>be rough at best, and NOT a guide to who is superior to anybody else
>>in ANY way. I do not presume to call myself a trained statistical
>>psychologist, and no inferences should be made from this test. This
>>test is for entertainment purposes only, that's right, FUN.
ACK! I didnt get this message but it sounds very interesting.
Dave, could you please repost your stat tests?
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
Guilds: fighter/mage/thief/cleric/psion/bard/alchemist/shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
http://www.athens.net/~aristotle/threshold (WWW Incomplete! Beware!)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
telnet://mud.chelmsford.com -or- telnet mud.chelmsford.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bill Mullen
In <33a55...@news.athens.net> thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE)
writes:
>ACK! I didnt get this message but it sounds very interesting.
>Dave, could you please repost your stat tests?
Same here! I want to check it out--I usually just give myself 18s
down the board (hey, I give myself the benefit of the doubt ;)), but a
real test/indicator would be supercool. Ok, ok... Maybe I've only got
a 17 Str (but 18s in everything else!) :)
Peace :)
Bill
maxpot46
KLINT
You know, one good way to measure intelligence would be an IQ test. You
would divide IQ by 10 to come up with a number between 1 and 20. An
MMPI (If you want to get expensive) Minnesota Multi-Phasic Inventory
could do well to determine Wisdom and Charisma. You would simply score
according to the applicable parts of the test. STR could be measured
using barbells and determining max military press, bench press, etc.
Dex and Con would be a toughy, but most Police Departments use physical
agility tests to qualify applicants, a rating from a test like that
could be used. Con might just have to be a derivative of STR.
David Callander
KLINT <kl...@prodigy.net> (Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:37:02 -0800) wrote:
> [...] Con might just have to be a derivative of STR.
If you want to test Fitness, I believe there's a pretty standard test
that involves running back and forth between two points to the tune of
beeps that get faster and faster. You have to get to the other point
before the next beep.
Of course, Con isn't just Fitness, but that would be a good start.
Certainly Con does not equal Str in many many cases. What sort of Con
would Arnie have? I myself an fairly strong (certainly stronger than
any of my friends), but my Con is probably no better than average.
David Martin
David Callander (D.Cal...@Mang.Canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
:
: Str 14 (15-16)
: Dex 10 (9-10)
: Con 11 (10-11)
: Int 16 (15-17)
: Wis 16 (15)
: Cha 11 (12-13)
:
: The numbers in the parentheses are what I'd actually guess for myself.
:
: Interesting, but not scientific by any means...
:
And from another Dave from the land down under...
Str 13 (I bench pressed 95kg last week after a long abscence from
gym, I STILL hurt :) Ummmm is that the correct lbs to kilo ratio, I am
not too sure.
Dex 13 Martial arts (Though taking a rest) and stacks of hand to eye
stuff (ie shooting, almost got my crossed rifles in the army (Ie 200-200
for a steiyer, got 179 without zeroing and 160?-180 for the SLR's score
147). Balance is reasonable and have fun during footy. Love manual cars
and can dodge pretty quickly.
Con 12 Get a tad sick during the year because of the weather here
in Armidale and as a student I don't really eat that healthly. I also
have a few allergies though to weird drugs in hospitals. However
when I do become unwell, I shake it quickly and heal quickly and
I can drink far too much :) (Though that maybe because of my size
and I am an Aussie :) My fitness is above reasonable, though needs
improvement as always.
Int 10? I am not too sure as the HSC or the equivilent to SAT's (?)
is scaled, ie you can be pulled down as much as you can be
pulled up. Average I guess. Yet I am completing a triple major in
geology, geophysics and physcial geography this year and will
off to Hon next year. I don't really know about this one. *shrugs*
Wis 15 I am a little silly at times with car keys etc but as far
as gut feelings go and retaining tempers I am good. I also found
out that my will power is lacking in some areas (ie going for
runs at -4 at 5am) but I have slept in mud, lacked sleep for
72 hours in shear hell during officer training and didn't loose
my bundle too much so I did ok. (Though I still didn't make the
grade *ruful grin*) I am very down to earth. I also tend
to notice alot of 'undercurrents' between people and realise what
often is being said means something else.
Chr 14 I have quite a few friends and get on pretty well with
everybody. I am good at public speaking and enjoy debating.
I am not too crash hot in the looks department but personality has
to develop instead I guess :) The thing about confiding in the number
of friends and how many close friends I thought a little strange.
There will always be stacks of aquantances during your life, but
ery rarely someone that you could trust your life and secrets with.
Hells bells, it sounds like an add to a lonely persons agency.
*chuckle*
So Over all...
Str 13 (14-15)
Dex 13 (10-11)
Con 12 (10-11)
Int 10? (?)
Wis 15 (15-16)
Chr 14 (11-12)
A good priest perhaps? Or if I get better looking a paldin?
Actually looking at everyone elses I think I may be a tad
Munchkin *laughter* oh well I had ball doing this :) Thanks
David.
D from Une...
Matt
David Martin wrote:
>
>
> Con 12 Get a tad sick during the year because of the weather here
> in Armidale and as a student I don't really eat that healthly. I also
> have a few allergies though to weird drugs in hospitals. However
> when I do become unwell, I shake it quickly and heal quickly and
> I can drink far too much :) (Though that maybe because of my size
> and I am an Aussie :) My fitness is above reasonable, though needs
> improvement as always.
>
Perhaps Aussies should get a +1 Con racial bonus. And (don't flame me,
I'm joking) the French could receive a -3 penalty to Cha when dealing
with outsiders. And all Americans would definately receive a -6 Int
penalty when dealing with VCRs.
Ever Pondering,
Matt
The Amorphous Mass
KLINT (kl...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>You know, one good way to measure intelligence would be an IQ test.
*gag*.
> You would divide IQ by 10 to come up with a number between 1 and 20.
And then you'd have a much coarser measure of your IQ, which is a
number of dubious worth.
> An MMPI (If you want to get expensive) Minnesota Multi-Phasic Inventory
>could do well to determine Wisdom and Charisma.
I don't know what that is, but I would be amazed if it's even remotely
accurate. How do you measure charisma?
> STR could be measured using barbells and determining max military press,
>bench press, etc. Dex and Con would be a toughy, but most Police
>Departments use physical agility tests to qualify applicants, a rating
>from a test like that could be used.
Physical attributes aren't that tough to measure, although Dex gets tricky
because it combines large and small muscle coordination (in my case, I have
very good fine muscle coordination and iffy large muscle coordination), and
it ties into strength and intelligence as well. Con can also be tricky.
I *never* succumb to flus or allergies, I have a very high pain threshold
and I recover very quickly from wounds, but don't ask me to run more than
about 150 feet.
--
The Amorphous Mass If I knew what I was doing,
amo...@avalon.net it wouldn't be research.
http://www.avalon.net/~amorph
Dave Harper
Following the agenda of the New World Order, KLINT <kl...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
>You know, one good way to measure intelligence would be an IQ test. You
>would divide IQ by 10 to come up with a number between 1 and 20.
AIIIEE! Not *again*!!
There's a problem with that method. Mainly, a person with 40 IQ is an
idiot incapable of tying their own shoelaces - well below the "3" in
AD&D. And there have been people who've scored over 300 on IQ tests
before.
>An
>MMPI (If you want to get expensive) Minnesota Multi-Phasic Inventory
>could do well to determine Wisdom and Charisma. You would simply score
>according to the applicable parts of the test.
I've studied the MMPI, and haven't seen anything that has to do with
wisdom or charisma. But then, I was studying disorders at the time.
<g> Still, how can you state conclusively what is wisdom, when human
beings fight over that all the time? As to charisma, my little thread
on the subject seems to have snowballed...and a lot of both wisdom and
charisma has to do with how other people react to you. <shrug> You
could try it...
>STR could be measured
>using barbells and determining max military press, bench press, etc.
>Dex and Con would be a toughy, but most Police Departments use physical
>agility tests to qualify applicants, a rating from a test like that
>could be used.
Physical tests have always been easy. Except, er, not in a paper
examination.
>Con might just have to be a derivative of STR.
Maybe...but AD&D uses it to deal with disease, system shock and poison
as well.
Dave
"What's for dessert?" -Me
"AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" -My mother
"YOU *NEVER* ASK FOR DESSERT!!" -My father
"Space aliens have taken my child!" -My mother
"So, is there any pie left?" -Me
Dave Harper
Following the agenda of the New World Order,
>Well, I did you test and found it to be, as you say, very rough at
>best. I'm not quite sure how the Military Press thing is done
>(standing still and pressing from your shoulders without any momentum
>from your legs?) and the PHB seems a bit vague on this one too. It
>could easily be interpreted as being more like Clean and Jerk or the
>Snatch of Olympic Lifting, in which case lifting 220 pounds above your
>head isn't so hard.
>Anyway, I used the Bench-Press numbers you gave (has anyone ever
>actually benched 720 pounds before? I forget...) and this is how your
>little test scores me:
>Str 14 (15-16)
>Dex 10 (9-10)
>Con 11 (10-11)
>Int 16 (15-17)
>Wis 16 (15)
>Cha 11 (12-13)
>The numbers in the parentheses are what I'd actually guess for myself.
>Interesting, but not scientific by any means...
Oh, well. Scientific would take thousands of man-hours and quite a
lot of money. ;-) I'm content with what I've got. And hey - it came
close, didn't it?
Dave
>David.
>[DM for The Land, home of The Place and other imaginitive locations]
"What's for dessert?" -Me
Ryan P Arndt
Dave Harper wrote:
> There's a problem with that method. Mainly, a person with 40 IQ is an
> idiot incapable of tying their own shoelaces - well below the "3" in
> AD&D. And there have been people who've scored over 300 on IQ tests
> before.
A more appropriate method may be to base your INT on your University
entrance score (or local equivalent).
In NSW and Victoria (and a couple of other states), school leavers are
given a rank based on there final year school and exam assessments. This
is as a % of how many people you are better than (other states have
different methods, but conversion tables are published). So, if you get a
score of 50%, half the people your age in the state are dummer than you,
the other half are smarter. This translates to an INT of 10 or 11. (The
original post had a conversion of %better than you --> AD&D stat)
Gygaxe Tanal half-elven god of justice
>Perhaps Aussies should get a +1 Con racial bonus. And (don't flame me,
>I'm joking) the French could receive a -3 penalty to Cha when dealing
>with outsiders. And all Americans would definately receive a -6 Int
>penalty when dealing with VCRs.
Hey, I resemble...er....resent that
remark....12:00....12:00....12:00....12:00 :)
Mark Campbell
"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."
Former US Vice-President Dan Quayle
ThresholdMURPE
In article <5ocbi7$3...@excalibur.avalon.net>, amo...@arthur.avalon.net (The Amorphous Mass) wrote:
> I don't know what that is, but I would be amazed if it's even remotely
>accurate. How do you measure charisma?
Okay, here is what you do. You stare into a mirror and examine yourself in
great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle, feature,
blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or reduces your
physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
Then you get a tape recorder, start recording, and you procede to argue
persuasively the side of a political issue that you do not agree with. Then
you play back the tape and see if listening to the tape changes your mind.
Then rate exactly how convinced you were. Give yourself a score between
1 and 20.
Get in your car, get behind some really tough looking person in some kind of
construction vehicle, and lay on the horn incessantly until they pull over.
Get out of your car after the other person gets out of his car. Try to talk
your way out of the situation. Give yourself 20 points minus one point for
every broken bone or bruise larger than 2 inches in diamater.
Divide your score by two. Thats your charisma.
Mark Campbell
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>In article <5ocbi7$3...@excalibur.avalon.net>, amo...@arthur.avalon.net (The Amorphous Mass) wrote:
>> I don't know what that is, but I would be amazed if it's even remotely
>>accurate. How do you measure charisma?
>Okay, here is what you do. You stare into a mirror and examine yourself in
>great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle, feature,
>blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or reduces your
>physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
Cominess is physical Attractiveness not Charisma, try reading the
description. Unless youre using the new substats in Skills and Powers.
Dave Harper
Following the agenda of the New World Order,
Um, well - to save bandwidth, why don't I just e-mail it to the two of
you? Sound good? Good!
Dave
Burghy
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> > I don't know what that is, but I would be amazed if it's even remotely
> >accurate. How do you measure charisma?
>
> Okay, here is what you do. You stare into a mirror and examine yourself in
> great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle, feature,
> blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or reduces your
> physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
>
> persuasively the side of a political issue that you do not agree with. Then
> you play back the tape and see if listening to the tape changes your mind.
> Then rate exactly how convinced you were. Give yourself a score between
> 1 and 20.
>
> Get in your car, get behind some really tough looking person in some kind of
> construction vehicle, and lay on the horn incessantly until they pull over.
> Get out of your car after the other person gets out of his car. Try to talk
> your way out of the situation. Give yourself 20 points minus one point for
> every broken bone or bruise larger than 2 inches in diamater.
>
> Divide your score by two. Thats your charisma.
I got 2. Huh?
--
(remove 'BLA' to reply) | "Lies, damn lies, and
The Attack Dog: Red Alert | homepage webcounters."
http://home.hkstar.com/~luibr/ |
Night Owl
> >> I don't know what that is, but I would be amazed if it's even remotely
> >>accurate. How do you measure charisma?
>
> >Okay, here is what you do. You stare into a mirror and examine yourself in
> >great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle, feature,
> >blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or reduces your
> >physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
>
> description. Unless youre using the new substats in Skills and Powers.
>
> Mark Campbell
--
Dude,
it was a joke. Try reading it. A joke.
lighten up....
Dan Furman (The Night Owl)
Sir Launcelot, the brave.
Sir Galahad, the pure.
And Sir Robin, The not quite so brave as Sir Launcelot
More Holy Grail
ThresholdMURPE
In article <5ohmt5$8...@snews1.zippo.com>, ncc1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Okay, here is what you do. You stare into a mirror and examine yourself in
>>great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle, feature,
>>blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or reduces your
>>physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
>
>Cominess is physical Attractiveness not Charisma, try reading the
>description. Unless youre using the new substats in Skills and Powers.
SHEESH! Give me a break! Did you read the entire post? That paragraph was one
third of my description of charisma. Some people will SEEK OUT a way to nit
pick even when it makes no sense. Furthermore, physical attractiveness IS in
fact part of charisma. Think Kennedy.
ThresholdMURPE
>> >Okay, here is what you do. You stare into a mirror and examine yourself in
>> >great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle, feature,
>> >blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or reduces your
>> >physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
>>
>> Cominess is physical Attractiveness not Charisma, try reading the
>> description. Unless youre using the new substats in Skills and Powers.
>>
>
>
>Dude,
>it was a joke. Try reading it. A joke.
>lighten up....
>
>Dan Furman (The Night Owl)
No kidding. Whats up with that guy? SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mad Hatter
Burghy wrote:
>
> ThresholdMURPE wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know what that is, but I would be amazed if it's even
> remotely
> > >accurate. How do you measure charisma?
> >
> yourself in
> > great detail. You analyze every line, curve, streak, wrinkle,
> feature,
> > blemish, etc and determine whether each one contributes to or
> reduces your
> > physical attractiveness. Give yourself a score between 1 and 10.
> >
> argue
> > persuasively the side of a political issue that you do not agree
> with. Then
> > you play back the tape and see if listening to the tape changes your
> mind.
> between
> > 1 and 20.
> >
> > Get in your car, get behind some really tough looking person in some
> kind of
> > construction vehicle, and lay on the horn incessantly until they
> pull over.
> > Get out of your car after the other person gets out of his car. Try
> to talk
> > your way out of the situation. Give yourself 20 points minus one
> point for
> > every broken bone or bruise larger than 2 inches in diamater.
> >
> > Divide your score by two. Thats your charisma.
>
> I got 2. Huh?
>
beauty contest: 7.
persuasiveness: 15.
fast talk: 20.
7+15+20=42/2=21.
I got 21!!! I'm a GOD!!!
(I didn't get bruised at all, I told the 180 pound lady, that I saw
black smoke coming out from under her engine, and thought there might be
a problem :) ).
--
I haven't lost my mind - It's backed up on tape somewhere...
Mad Hatter
Naw, repost it, or email me as well, I'd love to see it again.
Lost my old copy (dumb, dumb computer).
Aardy R. DeVarque
Mad Hatter <st...@cryptont.REMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
>Dave Harper wrote:
>> Following the agenda of the New World Order,
>> maxp...@ix.netcom.com(Bill Mullen) wrote:
>>
>> >In <33a55...@news.athens.net> thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE)
>> >writes:
>>
>> >>ACK! I didnt get this message but it sounds very interesting.
>> >>Dave, could you please repost your stat tests?
>>
>> > Same here! I want to check it out
>> Um, well - to save bandwidth, why don't I just e-mail it to
>> the two of
>> you? Sound good? Good!
>
>Naw, repost it, or email me as well, I'd love to see it again.
>Lost my old copy (dumb, dumb computer).
People, people, people.
It's called DejaNews. http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnsetfilter.html
And you can get just about any rgfd post from the last two *years* there, as
well--so "I missed it" just isn't an excuse if you have a web browser, even
Lynx.
:)
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Bruce L. Grubb
> It's called DejaNews. http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnsetfilter.html
>
> And you can get just about any rgfd post from the last two *years* there, as
> well--so "I missed it" just isn't an excuse if you have a web browser, even
> Lynx.
While the database is for two years how much any particular group seems
depends on its load, c.s.m.c for example seems only go back seven months.
So I wouldn't count on the two years stated in dejanews.
Aardy R. DeVarque
When last I checked (about a month back), DejaNews had rec.games.frp.dnd
archived back to March of 1995.
'Nuff said.