ti-legacy.com

Hey guys,

So I've been wondering lately what exactly our stats mean. The effective range for a PC is between 35 and 100, but without some context, it's hard to extrapolate the numbers on score into actual feats.

I think there's a common feeling that 50 is 'average', which if so provides a starting point, but there are still some big questions there. Even knowing an average doesn't define the issue if you're not sure of the variation you can expect within the population.

So I'd like to have some benchmarks for what various levels in various stats mean, in terms that might make sense to people. Both descriptions, and information that's in familiar numerical scales when possible (the easy carrying ability of someone with a certain strength, a rough IQ equivalent for int - yes I know IQ is flawed, but it's instinctively clear to most people due to experience.)

Does anyone else think this would be helpful/want to weigh in on how they conceptualize stats?

HERE THERE BE ENTIRELY OPTIONAL MATH:
It's often considered a default expectation that variables are normally distributed - i.e, that they fit what's known as the Bell curve, with a lot of people in the middle and not a lot of people at the ends. Now, this doesn't fit our PCs, of course - but I subscribe to the theory that PCs are meant to represent exceptional, extraordinary individuals, hence why so much happens to them compared to Joe Peasant.

So, assuming a normal distribution, I think of 50 as average across the whole population, with perhaps standard deviations of 20 - what this would mean would be that 84% of people would be below a 70, and 95% of people would be below a 90. For stats nerds, yes, this does mean that 100 would be only better than 99.38% of people, but hey, let's not sweat the small stuff. ;)

In PCs, 60 is about the average stat - or was before we altered stats to the new schema.

Yeah, I feel like that's more ammo for the "PCs aren't a representative sample of the population" idea. 60 being the -actual- average seems quite high on a scale of 1-100. But if PCs are generally on average better than the normal population, it works out.

60 on a scale of 0-100 seems like a fair average, actually; assume that having any stat 0-10 would be a defect that is just not survivable in the setting, skewing the average adult up slightly.

I generally like to think that most PCs are a little out above average, certainly they are played as such.

I see the skill levels myself as something like:

0-10 Challenged:
Being challenged in a skill would mean that person was completely useless at it. A person who is blind might have a perception of zero. Someone who was very frail and was very sickly (and likely soon to die) might have a constitution of 5.

11-50 Ordinary:
The majority of the population would have maybe all but one skill within this range.

51-70 Substantial:
A typical woodsman might have a substantial strength, a scribe substantial intelligence.

71-85 Gifted:
A skill level well above ordinary, to have a gifted skill would indicate you're one of the top if your field.

86-95 Heroic:
The stuff bard retellings are made of.

96-98 Legendary:
The stuff of legends. Rarely seen in reality. One in every few generations.

99-99 Mythic:
The stuff of mythos.

100+ Godlike?

With 35 being the minimum a PC can have, I think we have to assume that 35 is actually the level below which somebody is pretty challenged.

So I might say below 35 is challenged. I also think that if we went this way with things, we'd want more even categories, rather than lumping increasingly smaller amounts together. I.e, the gradients should maybe be 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, 85-94, and 94+?

35-44: Below Average
45-54: Ordinary
55-64: Above Average
65-74: Gifted
75-84: Heroic
85-94: Legendary
94+: Mythic

Of course, then some actual benchmarks'd have to be put onto that...

The granularity, imho is too high. I'd go for something like:

<35 : pathetic
35-50: below average
50-70: average
70-90: gifted
90-95: exceptional
95+: legendary

All players are guaranteed at least ONE stat in the 90s if they pump stuff into stats, and can get two. I don't think having two stats in the 90s ought to make 90s legendary or mythic b/c that'd mean all players have the potential to be mythic. I also side on players generally being the higher side of normal as opposed to 'just average' or 'exceptional by nature'.

Just personal opinions though!

I think I would tend towards agreeing with Kinky. I don't think all PCs should be guaranteed to be exceptional by definition, and having the potential to be mythical should be more rare than 'a given'. If someone wants to create a generally average character in everything, they can split all their stats evenly and get 60 in each. So this should fall in the average range, rather than above average. If they want something significantly above average, they have to have some give in other areas.

If we want to say 60 is average, I can go with that... but I do think we need a lot more granularity than just saying 50-70 is all average if we want to be able to use stats as a guide to actual capability, which was my initial hope.

Why do we need more granularity? I think when you start getting too granular, the differences begin to fail to be meaningful. Eg, the difference between 22 and 24 skill wise in game isn't worth noting. Also, I think it's harder to comprehend the span of what is realistic once you get more than 5-6 categories. The only reason the span is 30 points is the whole bellcurve issue too - where things in the middle have a wider swath of possibility than at the extremes.