Ability scores in practice

Remove all ads!

Well, we can always agree to disagree...

I think the core books are silent on the above interpretation of DnD fighters as being magical; while they don't say that fighters learn a kind of magic, they don't preclude that interpretation either. And it seems to be easy to believe that in a world animated by magic, that someone growing in power, surrounded by magical items and creatures, etc., would draw on it in some way, that's all.

And you don't explain how you would then justify having massive amounts of HPs, something obviously unrealistic in RL.

Non-magical weapons may be non-magical, but spell components are also non-magical, though they end up focussing magical energy in the course of casting a spell.

The three examples you offer of strength are by no means equivalent. Bench-pressing a given amount of weight involves a very specific kind of muscular strength in the arms and chest; carrying stuff involves muscular exertion spread about the body, particularly in the legs, and involves a greater degree of muscular endurance (one carries one's stuff all day); while increases in to hit/damage roles involves muscular coordination and power (again, power is measured somewhat differently than lifting strength).

And different forms of exercise develop strength in different ways: weightlifting develops strength through muscular contraction, while yoga develops strength through muscular extension...

For sake of argument, though, imagine two characters, Arnaud and Bertrand. Arnaud is physically quite large, and capable of carrying a huge amount of stuff, but is otherwise physically clumsy. While this might translate into a low Dex, it would also translate into lower to hit and damage with melee weapons: while Arnaud is physically strong, he has less muscular power than you would expect, because he cannot effectively leverage his strength in combat, so his hits don't hit as hard. Bertrand, who is perhaps an elf, is much smaller, and can carry far less. He is, however, a superb natural athlete, who can strike fast and hard, and who hits much harder than one would expect from his size. In a DnD game, I would have no problem with roleplaying Bertrand as having a higher Str than Arnaud, just as I would have no problem with saying that Arnaud has a slightly higher Str, while Bertrand has a higher Dex. The point is, the rules allow alot of flexibility here.

Finally, to say that Str is only relevant to game mechanics isn't at all to say that it's irrelevant. Maybe this is just a 'positivist' interpretation of the game mechanics; briefly, in philosophy of science, positivism posits that we can only know the world, in a meaningful way at least, through our theory of the world. A given hypothesis is thus not considered meaningful by virtue of its consistancy with the world, by rather by its consistancy with our theory of the world. While we can say anything we want to about the world outside of our theory of it, these statements wouldn't be meaningful because they're not posed within the terms of our theoretical meaning. In this view, "truth" is a matter of theoretical consistancy. I'll avoid going further into the ways theories might change, etc. But I think of DnD game mechanics as the theory of a DnD game world. Its "truth" is stats, HP levels, etc. Each of these has a defined value while one plays the game, and defines the meaningful events that occur in the course of the game. But much of the fun of DnD is speculating about the game world (that is, roleplaying), and imagining things about the game world that are not covered by the game theory or mechanics. A character's Str stat has an absolute value with respect to game mechanics, but it seems to me that there is alot of room for speculation as to how it can translate to either a) the game world, or b) the real world.

 

Agreed on absolute values. Stats are not quotients and they, therefore, must have some fixed rules and boundaries. Where the problem begins is probably the fact that they are, or can be seen as, a median value of some other values.

However, a median still comes from something, so it's not like a character with a greater STR stat can fall behind a lower-STR character in many regards. Granted, pressing... or lifting... or hitting, or high jumping or whatever. But not all at once. But then, you probably agree with me on this one.

As for magic, you're quite right that all mundane items may be infused with magic (at least in theory) or even channel magic if properly prepared for the purpose, or properly mixed etc. Well, right. Still, there's some "Force" required, a proper person performing the act, specific words said, divine focus, or whatever.

Intepretations may vary and may indeed be quite loose, so ultimately it always comes down to some kind of wishful thinking, anyway. I would only just refrain from the most daring ones. I mean, for common use let's just stick to what's there or can be easily interpreted out of the core material. I'm not saying that some bold concepts are unfounded. Heck, even I have a collection of those. Just... well, it's the books where we all "have to" agree.

Another thing is that it shows how stats in d&d aren't the most reliable of measures and how largely pointless they are.

 

Ability scores shouldn't be compared to RL. They are far, far too general. It is only for the sake of simplicity and thereby flow that most gamers take ability scores for granted, I feel. Making it more specific and more realistic would be complicated, and more numbers would probably not make the game more fun for most people.

My point is, take them as a guideline. Skills and feats help flesh it out, but when you come down to it the fact that it's a mere game still keeps it from attaining reality.

Reality is far too complex to be described by a (reasonable) pnp gaming system. For example, I have a friend who is only a little bit shorter than me and a few pounds heavier, and he has always been a much better jumper than I. I am the one who exercises regularly (he rarely does) and in contests of strength I invariably dominate him. But in D&D, jump is str based. I have had more training in jumping than he, being a martial artist and ex track and field long jumper.

Another little example: This same guy, he has much better reaction time and hand-eye coordination than I do. In D&D terms, by this example, one would suppose he has a point or two more dex than I. But then I am far better at manipulating a Balisong than he is, and always have been. We both started learning the same day, and practiced about the same amount, but I progressed much farther and faster in the art. Nimble fingers and reflexes are two very different things, both governed by the same ability score.

Therefore, characters are somewhat limited in their uniqueness in this regard. But it makes the game simpler. Therefore, I gladly take this limitation.

 

Cool, fun topic.

I do think that speculation on the relationship between the game world and RL can be productive though. I've always enjoyed those campaigns the most that paid the most attention to the actions of characters on their off-time, or between adventures. This would really allow the DM to flesh out the game world and the player to flesh out their character, and often provide cues for which way the campaign will end up going. And a good DM will generally allow the rules to be stretched when it contributes to a good game...