Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

[bcaplan]

When I was running some Hero sessions at GenCon, I found it hard to explain the system for ability checks. (What part of less or equal to 9+Score/5 on 3d6 don't you understand?) On the other hand, the grapple rules seemed pretty intuitive - roll d6 per 5 points of Strength, count the Body, and compare. Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

If you've played Hollow Earth Expedition, you might notice that my proposed mechanic is similar to HEX's "count the successes" method. But the count the Body method seems especially good for a generic system like Hero, where some characters really should be able to perform ability feats that are virtually impossible for lesser men.

Any thoughts?

[Derek Hiemforth]

It would reduce the range of possible results. There are six possible results for each d6 on a standard "count the pips" roll. There are only three possible results for each d6 on a "count the BODY" roll. Personally, I don't think cutting the number of possible results in half is desirable. I think it would make Ability vs. Ability contests too static.

[Sean Waters]

When I was running some Hero sessions at GenCon, I found it hard to explain the system for ability checks. (What part of less or equal to 9+Score/5 on 3d6 don't you understand?) On the other hand, the grapple rules seemed pretty intuitive - roll d6 per 5 points of Strength, count the Body, and compare. Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

If you've played Hollow Earth Expedition, you might notice that my proposed mechanic is similar to HEX's "count the successes" method. But the count the Body method seems especially good for a generic system like Hero, where some characters really should be able to perform ability feats that are virtually impossible for lesser men.

Any thoughts?

I think it would be nice to have a central mechanic running through Hero.

Personally I would like to see everything resolved the same way we resolve combat i.e. CHA/X (where X is probably 3 or 5) minus CHA/X as a modifier to a 3d6 roll, but Body counting is an option too, although (if it was the Hero Universal Mechanic (HUM)) that woudl involve a lot more changes.

[Sean Waters]

It would reduce the range of possible results. There are six possible results for each d6 on a standard "count the pips" roll. There are only three possible results for each d6 on a "count the BODY" roll. Personally, I don't think cutting the number of possible results in half is desirable. I think it would make Ability vs. Ability contests too static.

Well...at present 10 DEX v 30 DEX: is 3d6 + 2 against 3d6 + 6. That's a big enough margin that you rarely win with 10 DEX. Body counting it is 0 to 4 against 0 to 12, with the average values (2 and 6) extremely likely. Arguably a more realistic result...but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as this wouldn't be my personal pick for how we do it :)

[prestidigitator]

If you count success that way Hero actually looks VERY much like the World of Darkness games, right down to the number of dice you get for normal human and (almost) maximum human ranges. Multiply the number of dots in a WoD attribute by 5 (maybe 4) and you get the approximate Hero characteristic value. And then each dot in a WoD ability is like a +1 in a Hero skill as well. Interesting, no?

Anyway, I agree that there is a little more detail with counting the standard 3d6 pip total. Would you like to be confined to bonuses and penalties that are multiples of +/-3? That's pretty much what it would come down to, and it seems a little severe at least at the normal human type range of scores. Also, we often don't care only WHETHER we make a roll, but also by HOW MUCH. Sometimes it makes a difference in the system, and sometimes it's just awesome to know you made the roll by 5. ;)

[Sean Waters]

Thinking on this, is there any good reason we could not use several mechanics in Hero, and you pick the one you like the best for your game?

If you are keen on WoD then you Body Count, if you prefer a more traditional roll for success you roll 3d6. If you are a die hard 'back in the day' type you can even use 1d20.

There should be an official standard that we default to (3d6), but I can see no good reason why we should not spend a couple of pages covering the options (and that is all it would take - mechanics tend to be quick and easy to explain) - I'd like to see Hero become even more customisable, not just in terms of the characters we can build, but in terms of the GAME we can build.

[SteveZilla]

It would reduce the range of possible results. There are six possible results for each d6 on a standard "count the pips" roll. There are only three possible results for each d6 on a "count the BODY" roll. Personally, I don't think cutting the number of possible results in half is desirable. I think it would make Ability vs. Ability contests too static.

I think so too -- especially for Characteristics that aren't bought to Superhuman levels. At lower levels like 10 INT (2d6 with this method), they'd have to get boxcars (1:36) to have a halfway decent chance to beat a 15 INT.

[SteveZilla]

There should be an official standard that we default to (3d6), but I can see no good reason why we should not spend a couple of pages covering the options (and that is all it would take - mechanics tend to be quick and easy to explain)

Pages in an already really large book is like precious shelf space in a retail store IMO. If you're going to add something, you're going to need to either take something else out (or reduce it), or have a really, really... really good reason for expanding the store to hold the new merchandise.

[Sean Waters]

Pages in an already really large book is like precious shelf space in a retail store IMO. If you're going to add something, you're going to need to either take something else out (or reduce it), or have a really, really... really good reason for expanding the store to hold the new merchandise.

I take the point, but this sort of thing really does go to Hero's claim to being 'the ultimate toolkit'. If I were doing it I'd probably remove all the genre section and replace it with a guide to genre building, for example. That is personal preference only, but i believe it would make the book more generally useful and appealing - few new players (and not that many old players) actually need multiple genres but almost everyone will want to tailor the game they are actually playing to better fit their needs and expectations, and being able to change the mechanics you are using seems an integral part of that.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think so too -- especially for Characteristics that aren't bought to Superhuman levels. At lower levels like 10 INT (2d6 with this method), they'd have to get boxcars (1:36) to have a halfway decent chance to beat a 15 INT.

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

[Markdoc]

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

When the game is built so that the range runs from "twice as smart" to "more than 200 times as smart" ... then, yeah. I don't think it's a great idea to stack the odds against a success when you move only one step up on what's supposed to be a very long ladder.

I dunno if that's realistic (how exactly do we define "twice as smart" anyway?) - but from a gaming point of view it doesn't sound promising.

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

When I was running some Hero sessions at GenCon, I found it hard to explain the system for ability checks. (What part of less or equal to 9+Score/5 on 3d6 don't you understand?) On the other hand, the grapple rules seemed pretty intuitive - roll d6 per 5 points of Strength, count the Body, and compare. Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

If you've played Hollow Earth Expedition, you might notice that my proposed mechanic is similar to HEX's "count the successes" method. But the count the Body method seems especially good for a generic system like Hero, where some characters really should be able to perform ability feats that are virtually impossible for lesser men.

Any thoughts?


A) This isn't new, people have done this in the past.

B) I go the other way, I prefer to handle STR vs STR as 3d6 Roll Under / Degree of Success Opposed checks and reserve "count the BODY" for STUN damage.


The Count the BODY method drastically flattens opposed rolls and diminishes the difference between different levels of ability. It also doesn't allow SKILL to enter into the equation unless you allow +1's bonuses to translate into +1d6 (which has some weird statistical variance issues in the opposite direction since it fails to take into account the normal diminishing returns scale of the 3d6- bell curve).


Also, I don't understand how anyone could possibly _not_ comprehend the idea behind roll 3d6 and every point of difference between what you rolled and what you needed = more better if its under and more worse if its over. It's a really really really simple and flexible mechanic.

[Doc Democracy]

Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.


What effect would skill levels have on this - +1 BODY per level? +2??

Doc

[Maur]

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

But they aren't twice as smart. Just a bit faster thinking (at least according to the HERO 5th Ed Rev. book). INT isn't IQ.

[Hugh Neilson]

But they aren't twice as smart. Just a bit faster thinking (at least according to the HERO 5th Ed Rev. book). INT isn't IQ.

And doubled IQ is way more than twice as smart.

I still adhere to the old Hero theory that +5 doubles.

[SteveZilla]

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

Here we go again with the ubiquitous use of "+5 = x2". I don't prescribe to that rule for all cases in the system. And even if I did, that would mean that the smartest human around with a 20 INT is only 4x as smart as the average. That doesn't sound like a lot of difference between John Q. Public and Stephen Hawking.

[Derek Hiemforth]

+5 = x2 works for STR. I see no particular reason to believe it works for any other CHA.

If we're talking INT, I think INT = IQ/10 is at least as good a measure as +5=x2.

[SteveZilla]

+5 = x2 works for STR.

AFAIK, the only numbers that support this is the lifting capacity. But on the other side, damage potential (i.e., dice of damage) and leaping distance both increase linearly for some reason.

If we're talking INT, I think INT = IQ/10 is at least as good a measure as +5=x2.

But by that measure, 20 INT (200 IQ) is only as "smart" as 10 INT (100 IQ). Which IMO is even further off -- but again, that's my opinion that 20 INT is *more* than 4 times as smart as a 10 INT (judging by those I would prescribe these values to).

If you watch Eureka (Sci-Fi Channel), it's about like saying Nathan Stark is only 4 times as smart as Jack Carter.

[Killer Shrike]

But they aren't twice as smart. Just a bit faster thinking (at least according to the HERO 5th Ed Rev. book). INT isn't IQ.

Exactly. INT really just drives PER checks and some skills and that's it. It measures "thinking on ones feet" and being observant, not raw intellect.

[Sean Waters]

AFAIK, the only numbers that support this is the lifting capacity. But on the other side, damage potential (i.e., dice of damage) and leaping distance both increase linearly for some reason.

.................


Arguably the RESULTS are somewhere between linear and exponential: the EFFECT of damage goes up far more than linearly, because the damage applies to defences, which means a small increase in damage can have a big effect (there is a good chance it will ALL go to damage through defences). Also the effect of damage can increase significantly for a small increase in the value - an extra few points can push your opponent into STUNNED/KO'd or even DEAD.. Also leaping goes up linearly, but you actually need more than a linear progression in the force you use to get you further.

I try not to worry too much about if +5=x2, but it is something that I often use in other areas of Hero and is a handy rule of thumb.

[Sean Waters]

Exactly. INT really just drives PER checks and some skills and that's it. It measures "thinking on ones feet" and being observant, not raw intellect.

Unfortunately it also covers things like knowledge skills, so it seems to me it has a significant memory component. We really ought to think about seperating INT and PER.

[SteveZilla]

Arguably the RESULTS are somewhere between linear and exponential: the EFFECT of damage goes up far more than linearly, because the damage applies to defenses, which means a small increase in damage can have a big effect (there is a good chance it will ALL go to damage through defenses). Also the effect of damage can increase significantly for a small increase in the value - an extra few points can push your opponent into STUNNED/KO'd or even DEAD.. Also leaping goes up linearly, but you actually need more than a linear progression in the force you use to get you further.

I try not to worry too much about if +5=x2, but it is something that I often use in other areas of Hero and is a handy rule of thumb.

Including the target in the "calculation" to determine the amount of power in an attack is not warranted, and muddies the water. 8 sticks of TNT have the same power whether they're used on dirt, on concrete, on water, or on steel.

Thus you either have to eliminate the target entirely, or presume it's either 0 DEF or infinite DEF (effectively removing it), or arbitrarily pick some target in between those two values (which skews the results around a breakpoint).

IMO the only way to codify such a random value as the damage from #d6 is to look at only the average damage roll for that # of d6. And adding each d6 adds a linear 3.5 STUN and 1 BODY to the result.

On the Leaping distance: If I exert twice the F on the same M, do I not achieve twice the A (A=F/M)? Twice the A would translate (in simple terms) to twice the distance since it achieves twice the velocity.

[Derek Hiemforth]

AFAIK, the only numbers that support this is the lifting capacity. But on the other side, damage potential (i.e., dice of damage) and leaping distance both increase linearly for some reason.Essentially, it works on damage too. Each +5 STR gives +1d6 damage, which equates to 1 more BODY rolled (on average). At the same time, +5 points of Growth gives you +1 BODY and 2x Mass. And on 5ER page 447, it notes that each doubling of mass is +1 BODY when determining the BODY of an inanimate object. So each +1d6 of damage does double how much mass it overcomes, because the BODY of the damage increases at the same rate as the BODY due to mass doublings.

[Derek Hiemforth]

But by that measure, 20 INT (200 IQ) is only as "smart" as 10 INT (100 IQ). Which IMO is even further off -- but again, that's my opinion that 20 INT is *more* than 4 times as smart as a 10 INT (judging by those I would prescribe these values to).IQ increase is geometric, not linear. Someone with a 200 IQ is orders of magnitude smarter than someone with a 100 IQ... not just twice as smart.

[Killer Shrike]

Unfortunately it also covers things like knowledge skills, so it seems to me it has a significant memory component. We really ought to think about seperating INT and PER.

Actually, all skills can be assumed to succeed at routine tasks given sufficient time or if they aren't dramatically important to the story. The primary purpose of having high KS's is to access knowledge in combat time / under heightened circumstances / when success is uncertain. Also, KS's can be GENERAL or INT based. Making them INT based is an upgrade, and is useful for characters that _also_ have a high INT in _addition_ to having a KS.

[Killer Shrike]

IQ increase is geometric, not linear. Someone with a 200 IQ is orders of magnitude smarter than someone with a 100 IQ... not just twice as smart.

It's acutely geometric, which is why its so painful for really smart people to deal with not so smart people....

















Whut???? ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Here we go again with the ubiquitous use of "+5 = x2". I don't prescribe to that rule for all cases in the system. And even if I did, that would mean that the smartest human around with a 20 INT is only 4x as smart as the average. That doesn't sound like a lot of difference between John Q. Public and Stephen Hawking.

I'd put Steven Hawking into the Legendary range, so that bumps it up. And what is "twice as smart", anyway? What's his mental equivalent bench press? And don't normal humans have an 8, not a 10?

[And don't get me started on WHERE we measure...]

+5 = x2 works for STR. I see no particular reason to believe it works for any other CHA.

If we're talking INT, I think INT = IQ/10 is at least as good a measure as +5=x2.

Does anyone have a 200 IQ? My understanding is that 145 - 150 is MENSA material, and that's at or above the 98th percentile. How smart (or how many times smarter than John Q. Public) does someone have to be to join MENSA?
Mensa Canada (http://www.mensacanada.org/prioren.htm) lists some sample test results here. A 130 - 132 IQ is mensa material. The US site (http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm) notes similar scores 13 INT to be in MENSA, the top 2% of the population?

Essentially, it works on damage too. Each +5 STR gives +1d6 damage, which equates to 1 more BODY rolled (on average). At the same time, +5 points of Growth gives you +1 BODY and 2x Mass. And on 5ER page 447, it notes that each doubling of mass is +1 BODY when determining the BODY of an inanimate object. So each +1d6 of damage does double how much mass it overcomes, because the BODY of the damage increases at the same rate as the BODY due to mass doublings.

Of course, this also implies that, if you hit a 20 BOD target and inflict 1 BOD after defenses, a second hit of the same magnitude should reduce him to 0 BOD. But I still like the concept of "+5 = double" for most stats. It's a nice shorthand. "With the strength of 10 ordinary men" pushes one into the Legendary range, though only just.

[Maur]

Unfortunately it also covers things like knowledge skills, so it seems to me it has a significant memory component. We really ought to think about seperating INT and PER.

Doesn't seem to drive mine. I have a character with a Per of 13- (18 INT) and most of the knowledge skills he picks up are 11- when bought as a full skill.

[Killer Shrike]

Doesn't seem to drive mine. I have a character with a Per of 13- (18 INT) and most of the knowledge skills he picks up are 11- when bought as a full skill.

You are buying them as GENERAL, not INT based. There's a drop down box in HD on the skill dialog box. INT based has a cost premium associated with it.

[Killer Shrike]

SNIP

Different tests are scored differently, but 130 to 132+ IQ on the Stanford-Binet scale (depending on which particular test) is MENSA material.

On the other hand the Triple Nine Society (for people above the 99.9th percentile) requires a 146-151+ on the Stanford-Binet scale (again depending on which particular version).

There's a big gap between 130ish and 146ish, percentage of the population-wise.

Of course, the higher you go, the more extrapolated the numbers are due to insufficient population base to form a statistical norm. There's quite a bit of controversy around particularly high-IQ's, but basically once you get past the 140 level it's more or less moot; you're really frickin smart.

[Sean Waters]

Actually, all skills can be assumed to succeed at routine tasks given sufficient time or if they aren't dramatically important to the story. The primary purpose of having high KS's is to access knowledge in combat time / under heightened circumstances / when success is uncertain. Also, KS's can be GENERAL or INT based. Making them INT based is an upgrade, and is useful for characters that _also_ have a high INT in _addition_ to having a KS.

Sure you can buy KS as general or INT based, and that deals with my concern. Hero defines INT as the ability to take in and process information rather than the ability to absorb and recall information. Of course that doesn't really explain animals - in Hero they have low INT, which means they have low PER. If it is all about the ability to think on your feet an be observant that does not make a lot of sense - animals are perfectly capable of reacting quickly to situations, even unfamiliar ones, and they are usually obsevant (apart from one of our cats).

Given the 'animal intelligence' disadvantages and the lack of KSs, there would be no need for animals to be built with low INT if your thesis were correct. They can apply their available knowledge quickly - instinctively, in fact - and generally have senses as or more acute than humans. Most animals should have 10+ INT by that argument.

Also having to build a methodical but unobservant genius scientist with an INT of 5 just rankles, frankly.

I think the problem is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, it is not straightforward. You call a characteristic 'intelligence' and people unfamiliar with the game are going to make assumptions. I know what Hero means, but it is not intuitive.

[Hugh Neilson]

Different tests are scored differently, but 130 to 132+ IQ on the Stanford-Binet scale (depending on which particular test) is MENSA material.

On the other hand the Triple Nine Society (for people above the 99.9th percentile) requires a 146-151+ on the Stanford-Binet scale (again depending on which particular version).

There's a big gap between 130ish and 146ish, percentage of the population-wise.

Absolutely, And now we're down to 1 person in 1,000 having an INT pushing 15. I agree that, if you have an IQ of 150, you're really frickin' smart. Would you describe a character with a characteristic of 15 as "really frickin" high in that characteristic? I'd say someone with an IQ of 150 is pushing into Legendary status, and should at least represent a 20 INT.

Based on this, I maintain that 1/10 IQ is not a reasonable baseline for INT. It would mean a normal (8 INT) is pretty dumb, first off. And it doesn't modify INT fast enough to account for normal human IQ ranges.

NOTE: I don't believe KS was proposing, or arguing for, the INT = IQ/10 model, but his additions to the IQ discussion are even more effective at blasting it out of the water.

Of course, the problem comes down to assessing what "twice as smart" means, or how rare that NCM 20 INT really is. Is "twice as smart" 75th percentile? 90'th percentile? 99.9'th percentile? You can measure lifting capacity for STR and reaction times for DEX. The rest of the stats seem considerably less measurable in any manner that could say "this is twice as much as that".

[Sean Waters]

INT does a lot. Most people are not equally smart at all mental tasks. Moreover they tend to be consistently good at some and consistently less good at others.

That makes me think that intelligence is a very hard thing to simulate with a single characteristic. Even IQ tests just measure an individual's average intelligence - probably.

We deal with this by broadening the scope of INT, using it to measure observation and fast processing. INT and IQ do not seem to be the same thing at all. I'm not sure there really is a test for what we call INT.

[Hugh Neilson]

INT does a lot. Most people are not equally smart at all mental tasks. Moreover they tend to be consistently good at some and consistently less good at others.

DEX does a lot. Most people are not equally proficient at all physical tasks. Moreover they tend to be consistently good at some and consistently less good at others.

Most characteristics have this issue.

That makes me think that intelligence is a very hard thing to simulate with a single characteristic. Even IQ tests just measure an individual's average intelligence - probably.

IQ tests are often broken down into components of intelligence, as well as a gross IQ score. Even then, the components measure an array of items.

[Killer Shrike]

Absolutely, And now we're down to 1 person in 1,000 having an INT pushing 15. I agree that, if you have an IQ of 150, you're really frickin' smart. Would you describe a character with a characteristic of 15 as "really frickin" high in that characteristic? I'd say someone with an IQ of 150 is pushing into Legendary status, and should at least represent a 20 INT.

Well, one of the odd things about the HERO System and INT is that the AGE Disadvantage actually raises the INT maxima, even though in the real world due to the measurement of IQ _against_ age IQ is more likely to drop as a quotient.

Of course, there is considerable controversy around how accurate IQ tests really are at measuring true intelligence, and also how intelligence is even defined.

All of which means nothing in the context of a roleplaying game.

Ultimately, the purpose of INT in HERO is functional. It directly or indirectly drives only a handful of things. It makes a character more or less likely to notice things in "heightened circumstances", and it may make a character more capable (statistically speaking) of success at some "intellectual" abilities such as Deduction, and including basic knowledges if a cost premium is paid. Some GM's also use INT to break DEX tie offs, but that's pretty edge case.

In every case where INT has an effect there is also other mechanisms in place to allow the same statistical outcome. Bonuses to skills can be bought directly on individual skills, on groups, and overall. PER bonuses can be bought separately, and even by specific sense. Even assuming a GM uses INT for such, DEX tie-offs can be somewhat avoided with more DEX or Lightning Reflexes.

So, ultimately, INT is a really unimportant statistic in the bigger picture. If you simple removed it altogether, a few skills would need a new base (or just be GENERAL) and the ability to up PER directly could benefit from a little bit more attention drawn to it but ultimately it would have minimal functional impact.

In the argument against INT you can take it even further from a realistic point of view. In an analysis about the nature of game INT you invariably bump into the fact that a character is simply a vehicle for a player to act thru vicariously. No matter how "smart" or "dumb" a character is supposed to be, the portrayal of that "smartness" or "dumbness" is almost certainly inexact and flawed unless the player is either extremely good at acting or happens to be equivalently smart or dumb to the character they are portraying. You can dress it up, wave your hands, song and dance around it any way you like but the bottom line is a player with a room temperature IQ simply cannot accurately portray a Hawking /vos Savant level intellect in anything other than an abstract way (i.e. by relying on dice rolls and unusually high levels to ensure success arbitrarily via probability).

Quite often, in my experience, even when a smart player plays a dumb character their portrayal is either only skin deep (they put on a good show, but ultimately make better decisions and think further ahead than a dumb person likely would), or else contrived (they do things pretty much randomly with the assumption / explanation of "thats the kind of dumb stuff dumb people do"). Similarly when a not so smart player plays a character who is supposed to be smarter than themselves, they are simply incapable of it since they themselves cannot conceive of or function at the level a person of that intelligence should be capable of.

So, as a simulationist tool INT fails to really deliver and as a mechanical tool it is hardly necessary but serves ok for lack of a better mechanic and is tolerable.

That's why I ultimately attach very little significance to it beyond its mechanical effects, and to resolve the occasional situations where it is not unreasonable that a character with a higher INT should "seem" more intelligent, or just grok something relatively obvious, or to offer a raw INT roll to get past some story element that inconveniencing the flow of the plot or whatever.

But, if I were to sit down and try to map real world IQ to INT, even though I don't think that INT equals a measurement of IQ, then we run into the automatic problem that the 9+Something / 5 model isn't granular enough to truly model the full IQ scale of even a basic Stanford-Binet spread from the perspective of a BELL CURVE distribution.

However, accepting that this is a VERY LOOSE and INEXACT match up with no value other than to present a FRAME OF REFERENCE, then:

Assuming average INT = 8 not 10, and that 90-100 IQ is average, and operating on a basic Stanford-Binet range:


3d6
Pct IQ
3 0.5% 20
4 1.9% 30
5 4.6% 40
6 9.3% 50
7 16.2% 60
8 25.9% 70
9 37.5% 80
10 50.0% 90
11 62.5% 100
12 74.1% 110
13 83.8% 120
14 90.7% 130
15 95.4% 140
16 98.1% 150
17 99.5% 160
18 100% 170+

So, a character with a 20 INT would map out at around 120 IQ --> extremely smart, but not a genius. A character with a 25 INT would map out at around 130 IQ --> MENSA material. A character with a 30 INT maps out to around a 140 IQ --> totally brilliant.

Characters with equivalent chances of success via advanced skills, skill levels, and so forth can be equated as well using the basic average of their general skill...i.e. a "genius" scientist with low INT but a strong core of SS's hovering in the 15- range could be considered to have a 140 IQ functionally even though they aren't real quick on the upswing (low INT). Alternately they might be portrayed as a savant, some kind of autistic or aspie, or a stereotypical bumbling professor type. Whatever; it makes no difference -- the mechanics are what they are, but if a player wants to say their "scientist" has a genius level IQ they feel better.

If one of you don't like my numbers / mapping then assert your own. I really don't care to argue about it since the entire subject is without consequence for me (and that's not directed at anyone in particular ~cough Sean cough~ ;) ).


{shrugs} Much ado about nothing, really.

[Sean Waters]

You make some excellent points (I particularly liked age) and, although there are doubtless those who might consider it somewhat invidious to give us over 1000 words and then say you don't want to argue about it, I, for one, will respect your wishes.

Night night.

[Killer Shrike]

you make some excellent points (i particularly liked age) and, although there are doubtless those who might consider it somewhat invidious to give us over 1000 words and then say you don't want to argue about it, i, for one, will respect your wishes.

Night night.

:eg:

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, one of the odd things about the HERO System and INT is that the AGE Disadvantage actually raises the INT maxima, even though in the real world due to the measurement of IQ _against_ age IQ is more likely to drop as a quotient.

I had forgotten the issue that IQ is typically measured within your age group, making it an even worse indicator of an overall game stat. A 6 year old with a 120 IQ is not the intelllectual equal of a 30 year old with a 120 IQ

Of course, there is considerable controversy around how accurate IQ tests really are at measuring true intelligence, and also how intelligence is even defined.

Maybe that makes it a better indicator of Hero INT - seems to me there is considerable controversy around how accurate INT really is at reflecting true intelligence, and also how intelligence is even defined.

But, if I were to sit down and try to map real world IQ to INT, even though I don't think that INT equals a measurement of IQ, then we run into the automatic problem that the 9+Something / 5 model isn't granular enough to truly model the full IQ scale of even a basic Stanford-Binet spread from the perspective of a BELL CURVE distribution.

However, accepting that this is a VERY LOOSE and INEXACT match up with no value other than to present a FRAME OF REFERENCE, then

I like this approach. It also demonstrates that it's not so simple as 1/10 IQ = INT.

Characters with equivalent chances of success via advanced skills, skill levels, and so forth can be equated as well using the basic average of their general skill...i.e. a "genius" scientist with low INT but a strong core of SS's hovering in the 15- range could be considered to have a 140 IQ functionally even though they aren't real quick on the upswing (low INT). Alternately they might be portrayed as a savant, some kind of autistic or aspie, or a stereotypical bumbling professor type. Whatever; it makes no difference -- the mechanics are what they are, but if a player wants to say their "scientist" has a genius level IQ they feel better.

This highlights another issue of IQ - it's a blend of intelligence in various different areas. It's quite possible to have a much higher score in some areas than in others, and that may very well be where this scientist lies.

If one of you don't like my numbers / mapping then assert your own. I really don't care to argue about it since the entire subject is without consequence for me (and that's not directed at anyone in particular ~cough Sean cough~ ;) ).

{shrugs} Much ado about nothing, really.

For someone who doesn't care about the subject (or even someone who does), I think your analysis is excellent.

[Sean Waters]

Hehe. Might explain why a lot of uber-brains are weedy, socially inept and ugly*. They built themselves with 5 INT, (INT based) science skills and then bought them up yo 15-, at a cost of 8 points per skill. They've got no points left over for looks, health any partay skills. The idiots.

Someone should have told them they were playing Hero. :D




*No offence, guys.

[Istaran]

On the Pro side of the equation for switching to CHAR/x d6 for ability/skill rolls:
This would allow more granularity in the attributes feeding the rolls. For example, assuming we keep 1d6 per 5 pts, the odd 3 pts is worth a half die. That doubles the number of break points for characteristics for this purpose.

Also, as someone else pointed out: a 15 INT person would almost always outthink a 10 INT person. Shouldn't that be the case? And shouldn't a 10 INT person have an advantage over the 8 INT person?

I'm not convinced overall, but it has some interesting aspects to it. To a certain degree it's a question of how broad should the range of a characterstic like this be in practice? If 0-20 is our range, the current system leaves the least intelligent among us outthinking the most intelligent among us on a fairly regular basis all things concidered. But if we're looking at more of a 0-100 range in characteristics, a system that is less responsive to small changes in the characteristic may be preferable (should the 100 INT character be that much smarter than the 95 INT character? I don't know! Of course it seems to me that the count BODY system will give the 100 INT character a less total advantage over the 95 INT character than the 10 INT character has over the 5 INT character.. somehow this strikes me as right.)

[SteveZilla]

If it was Stat/5 d6, count the Pips (not Body), then I think it could work.

The question is how to factor in bought-up skills and skill levels...

[Istaran]

Count the pips has the further advantage of allowing the 1 pip step, so 3 out of 5 increments on the characteristic are meaningful, like how STR applies to punching.

[Maur]

Sounds like you are just wanting to rebuild things as they existed in D6 (e.g. Star Wars from WEG, D6 Legends (Xena & Hercules, Ghostbusters, etc...) and the current releases). Attributes/Skills are Xd6+Y, roll and total and compare against diff or opposed roll.