How would you rate your basic 6 abilities ?

Remove all ads!

No ability is constant, ever. Intelligence is no more constant than physique, wisdom, charisma, etc. There is no constant parameter. Everything changes and evolves. I really can't find a more simple way to put this.

To say intelligence is a constant, something that will never change from the moment the genes of the child are known, is just ignorant. In general, defining intelligence is impossible without information. It's like trying to say which man is stronger without ever putting them to a test of strength simply because you believe that test would prove nothing of the "constant" true potential of strength lying beneath (not a bad idea, replace intelligence with physique in this case of Africans vs industrialized nations, and the situation will be reversed too... now try to prove the claim wrong using the methods seen above during this entire debate). Impossible, and as such, irrelevant. The only way intelligence could be "constant" was if the brain of a human was like a computerchip, unchanging. But the brain of a human develops all the time throughout his life. The ability to understand, to learn, and to calculate changes is not constant, but depends on multiple things such as nutrition, hormones, outside interferences, internal disorder (disease), and information etc.

Classically speaking, I have to say that at this point I "agree to disagree". Quite frankly I find the view of intelligence being some God-given trait that is unaffected by anything, amusing at best. Especially since from what I've learned about psychology, I *know* intelligence is affected by one's surroundings early on in life. Most of that "knowledge" of mine may be more or less theories of others, yes. But to me all that makes pretty much more sense than the alternative proposed here.

 

No, you misunderstood me. "You" as a being, you have your intelligence limit. That is the unwritten rule of nature, somewhat, a dogma of sort, an axiom, if you want. This refers to my "constant", and "boost and decrease" refers to what you do within that limit. ^.^ Sorry for wasting your time with this comment, but I guess it will prove useful to other people. ^_~

(( reading over ))

Hmph, I really did wrote it inaccurately..dumb me...

 

...And that limit really is no different from the ultimate limit of your other traits. Which is why discussion of intelligence should be treated as a discussion of dexterity. Using not the theoretical maximum potential, but instead the current measurable level.

There, we come back to where we left. That is, tests made by industrial nations are not objective. But in my opinion, even if they were, someone with not enough tools to increase their active intelligence, such as an average African, cannot surpass the intellegence of the average industrial nation's man.

Come to think of it, these last two posts of ours make a whole lot more sense than the blabbering I just went through before. Thanks for making the initiative to draw a conclusion.

Now, back to the heroistic stats of these people here.

 

Aye. ^.^

 

Uh, there was a point that though. Should we grade ourselves higher in intelligence (i.e. every industralised person gains +2 to intelligence) because on average we are more intelligent than the rest of the world.

If 10 is the 'middle-ground' what is it the middle ground of? All humans? All western humans?

 

9-10-11-12 are all humans.

 

These "meanings of the stats" discussions have popped up before. My position has always been that the stats in the end only have meaning relative to the stat checks in the game. Why? Because it is almost impossible to define *any* of the stats. Intelligence is the classic one here; you can find a *huge* literature on intelligence tests, how they were developed, what they were used for, what they were supposed to mean, the things they left out, etc. The abstract/mathematical reasoning (partially) tested by IQ tests, etc., is only one of many different kinds of human intelligence; in the end, the tests are only backed up by some statistical analysis which correlates success in school (grades) with test scores, although this correlation is by no means as strong as it could be. IQ tests most strongly test one's ability to take IQ tests, one could say. Not to say that they aren't useful, especially when organizations (schools, armies, etc) must sort through large applicant populations; they need something to go off of. But I know of a number of top-level grad school science labs that routinely reject their highest-grade-point applicants, as they assume that these applicants often don't have the practical intelligence necessary to do research.

Another example: having watched the olympics, how would you rate the abilities of any of these athletes? Are the strongest atheletes the weightlifters? Or what about the wrestlers? Both of these require strength, yes, but they would also seem to require a great deal of dexterity and constitution as well, and perhaps even intelligence, wisdom, and even charisma, insofar as these affect the athlete's abililty to train, use of strategy, willpower, force of personality, etc., all important abilities. Neither weightlifting nor wrestling are simple applications of strength; they are, rather, highly trained and refined abilities. Having wrestled, I know that a great deal of this sport is mental, in some ways almost like a chess match.

Or what about the difference between sprinters and distance runners? Both of these require strength, dexterity, and constitution, but probably different ratios of each. There is a difference between explosive strength (often called 'power') and the ability to exert a lesser amount strength for long periods of time.

These subtleties are not reflected in the DnD stats, though they can be worked out in roleplaying. For example, one high strength character could be RPed as the standard large brute, while another could be seen as an more average-sized guy who happens to be an outstanding athlete, with outstanding muscular coordination.

Wisdom and Charisma are also incredibly hard to quantify. Someone posted a "what are your stats" type test, which viewed Wisdom as a kind of logic (like an IQ test). Charisma was judged almost according to the book "How to win friends and influence people," and seemed to judge Charisma based on how well someone could stay on topic in a business meeting. Of course, if you consider actors, rock stars, etc. to have high Charisma, there's obviously something different at work here...

So in the end, I think stats mean whatever the game mechanics think they mean, and anything beyond that is up to you and your DM. I tend to think that stats have something to do with one's given talents, potentials, or gifts, with character development having something to do with how these talents express themselves. Nearly anyone, with enough training, could reach an above average strength, but of course, it will be much, much easier for some people than for others. So, in one of my campaigns, I could easily imagine a 10th level fighter with a Str of 12 besting a 5th level fighter with a Str of 15 in a test of strength, due to the greater training and conditioning of the 10th level fighter as reflected in the better THAC0/BAB. Just as in real life, I could imagine that a highly educated person with a 12 Int would score much higher in an IQ-test than an uneducated person with a 15 Int, and could, for example, pick up computer programming as a profession much more easily...

 

**Thinking deeply**

I don't see a damn point in what you said. Or, I do, but I don't see why you stated it.

 

A note on Wisdom: Most (if not all) people on the boards are wise. This is a feat you pust possess when playing D&D-related games. Declaring yourself wiser than everybody will get you a wisdom of 0: insanity. But even then... Anyhow, bragging is for the foolish, but only the foolish lend their ears to other fools, and... oh well...

Bottom line is: These scores are based on nothing. There is no standard for them and they only serve as a base for gaming. In stories they aren't even used. Solely for determining stats that you need to play games. You can say what your strong points are, but it serves only for yourself. Spread out your points if you must, but you can rather rate them with a single word. Like with me.

STR - Worst of 6 DEX - Below Avg CON - Mediocre
WIS - Best of 6 INT - Above avg CHA - Mediocre

What I wonder is how a being can attain high in all areas? I think it is possible, however. Take Elminster for example. He's intelligent and charismatic, and wise because he's old. You are only wise through experience. Elminster lacks strenght because he's old. His dexterity begins to fade away as well. As stated in the tables in the D&D-manual, with age your first 3 stats lower and WIS/INT, if not CHA increase. Therefore, you cannot score high in all 6 areas like some people claim.

EDIT: Foolish me. I didn't even read the first post... And excuse me for trying to explain what has already been explained in a better way (and in correct grammar by someone who actually knows English). Sorry.

[ August 24, 2004, 00:38: Message edited by: Nizidramanii'yt ]

 

Shadow Cougar:

Nataben1314 responds:

Something's wrong with you or the tests, I tell you.

My Charisma now probably drops to 4 and my Wisdom to 6, my intelligence was already low, but high enough to know that 28 and 21 are both above 20...
What does that mean?
I can count!

 

weelll, the ability to count is no mean feat, sure enough, but it doesn't seem to be of much help in the humorous department, hm?

Ah, those stats threads really bring out the best in us. My own stats are somewhere near Splunge's. Almost the same, incidently. Just swap INT with STR and it reflects me.

 

Sorry, that was me. MoN forgot to logout last time he was here.

After all, we all know Master of Nuhn can't count past 4.

 

LMAO! That wasn't a smart thing to do Far, but it surely cracked me up, couldn't breathe for er... 4 minutes.

 

We are walking through the wrong paths, people...

 

Well, okay. Here comes.

Str 10
Dex 9
Con 11
Int 12
Wis 13
Cha 13

All raised and buffed, of course.

 

Str 11
Dex 9
Con 11
Int 11
Wis 14
Cha 10

 

If he can't count over 4, he shouldn't be able to realize that 28 is more than 20. ^.^

 

Realistically...

STR: 9 - I'm not a big guy, in fact I'm pretty scrawny, really. For some reason, people always call me when they're moving house though, so maybe I rate a 10.

DEX: 15 - I may not be big, but I'm extremely quick. I remember that in Vampire, three dots in agility meant "You were always last out in dodgeball". Quite literally, I always was.

CON: 12 - I very rarely get sick, and I'm good at pushing myself beyond what I think I'm capable of. That said, I'm no marathon runner.

INT: 15 - I started my Masters at 21. Academically, I'm fairly strong...

WIS: 9 - unfortunately, I wouldn't consider myself wise. I can hand out wise advice, but I really should start taking my own advice before I dispense it.

CHA: 13 - for some reason, I'm able to BS my way through just about anything, people look at me as a decisive person, and people are willing to follow my lead. I'm not a "natural born leader", but I'd argue that I'm more charismatic than the average berk.

Total: 73. Not phenomenal, but not too shabby, either. Maybe I'm rating myself a little too highly.

 

str- 10
dex-14
con-9
int-15
wis-11
cha-19

oh wait...on second thought i'm all 26's!!

all in all
i would make a good bard who could do a little thievin'!

another thing..i can't believe all the Steven Hawkings (sp) on this site!

i've truly committed to geekdom responding to this post......

 

1, 20, 28, 4! Easy as a pie of cakes...

@Sauron the Puppy:
I don't know who Steven Hawkings is, but you probably mean all the guys with Charisma of 16 and above

It's funny, by the way, that people rate their stats by the things they have done, rather than judging those actions by their qualities.
I mean, I write poems, but the fact that I write poems says nothing about my wisdom. You could however judge my wisdom by reading the poems.
"Ack, ock, ick. Boy I feel sick" Now I have writen a poem. Am I a wise man now?