Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

[Wicked Lurker]

Originally Posted by trooper6

[Quote 3] B14: "10: Average. Most humans get by just fine with a score of 10."

Just technically this doesn't mean most humans do have a score of 10 though.. right? (but that is more of a nitpick)

Wasn't 10 the average for healthy men ready for military service or something?

Otherwise: Women have less ST than men, children less ST than adults, elderly probably lower DX, ST. If you put these demographics together, a score of 10 being average would mean most men are stronger than ST10.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But even if we were to compare only those NPCs who appear on multiple occasions, that still doesn't make equal point costs anything close to equal utility. In the case of PCs, that is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that a PC will generally only select a trait if he foresees some use for it. For NPCs built to be as realistic as possible, many expensive traits will be irrelevant to the character.

I don't think my players mostly do things that way. Certainly in Whispers we saw skill rolls against Cooking, Artist, Musical Instrument (Saxophone), and Professional Skill (Parenting), among others. Of course, the fact that those rolls were made could be taken as saying that the skills had "utility," but on the other hand, I allowed those rolls and fit them into subplots because the players had built characters who were good at doing those things.

In any case, I find total point cost somewhat useful for NPC design, not as a precise measure of combat capability, but as a rough estimate of narrative weight. If it doesn't work for you there's no reason you should use it. But there's also no reason you should discount the statements of people whose experience is different from yours.

Bill Stoddard

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Wicked Lurker

Wasn't 10 the average for healthy men ready for military service or something?

Not in this edition, and considering that the whole nature of ST has changed between the editions, I would recommend tossing out 3e ideas about ST distribution and how its intended.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I don't know how you read those statements, but here is how I read them. Most humans (rather than Orcs or Elves) have attributes that fall between 8 and 12 [Quote 2]. Those are your general limiters. Within that span, not only is 10 the human average [Quote 1], but most humans also have a scores of 10 [Quote 3].

I interpret that as '10 is adequate for most people', not 'most people have a 10'. I don't actually have a problem with most people having a 10, it just requires a standard deviation of 1.47 or lower. If you're curious about what that means:
11+: 1/4
12+: 1/11.5
13+: 1/48
14+: 1/300
15+: 1/3,000
16+: 1/45,000
17+: 1/1,000,000
18+: 1/38,000,000
19+: 1/2,160,000,000 (3 alive)
20+: 1/194,000,000,000

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The Bell curve that runs so much of the game suggests that in while 10 would be the most common numerical statistic, a majority of people would have stats other than 10 in one or more of their characteristics.

This-does-not-follow - how does the success resolution mechanic have anything to do with the distribution of scores those successes are tested against? A bell curve on success rolls does not extend to a bell curve on attributes, or skills.

Especially skills, due to the big gap between minimally trained (has a point in the skill) and untrained (running off of default, and usually about 4 below the minimally trained point). Since skills are so strange in distribution, and are what get tested against in most situations rather than raw generic attributes, it's extremely hard form to extrapolate that the 3d6 curve describes distribution of base attributes at all.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by trooper6

i don't read the phrase "8-12 range" as being equivalent to "8-12 average."

(8+9+10+11+12)/5 = 10

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

(8+9+10+11+12)/5 = 10

Yes, but then you are assuming a non-skewed distribution. There's nothing in the RAW that warrants such an assumption.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

(8+9+10+11+12)/5 = 10

'8-12 average', to be interpreted sensibly, has to be referring to the mode, not the mean.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Anthony

'8-12 average', to be interpreted sensibly, has to be referring to the mode, not the mean.

Sure, I was just doing a basic example of how 10 can be average without everyone having 10s.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

(8+9+10+11+12)/5 = 10

(8 + 9 + 9 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 11 + 11 + 12)/11 = 10 as well. Average implies nothing about distribution.