RPG character sheets of famous people

[eternaltriangle]

I think we should celebrate our love of D&D by debating the character sheets of historical figures. I will do Richard Nixon first...

Alignment: lawful evil
Class: Thief/fighter
STR: 8 (he was pretty old)
CON: 14 (in his college days he was used as a tackling dummy. He was persistent too)
WIS: 6 (Nixon's paranoia really prevented him from being prudent)
DEX: 7 (Nixon was pretty Clumsy too)
INT: 16 (Nixon was very smart, and truly did rise from humble beginnings)
CHA: 10 (Nixon was not very good at connecting with Americans, though he did roll a 20 on the Checker's speech)

Ed Wood
Class: bard
Alignment: neutral good
STR: 14 (he was decent shape)
CON: 10 (he was an alcoholic so not that healthy for his age)
WIS: 1 (he didn't realize how crappy his movies were)
DEX: 14 (he could walk in heels fairly successfully after all)
INT: 8 (he was fairly dense)
CHA: 15 (he inspired fanatical loyalty from his cast of misfits, and manged to convince various financial backers - including the baptist church - to bankroll some of the worst movies ever made)

Eternaltriangle
Class: THREAD HIJACKER
Alignment: Chaotic Evil

[Rudy]

Brilliant idea! I'm using 3rd edition, fyi.

Richard Dawkins
Alignment: Lawful Neutral
Class: Wizard (The D&D equivalent of scientist)
Str: 7 (Doesn't seem like the kind of guy that does heavy lifting.)
Con: 14 (He's very healthy for his age.)
Wis: 14 (Find his musings in Unweaving the rainbow, and whatnot, to be very insightful. Others may disagree.)
Dex: 12 (I really don't have a good idea, but scientists tend to be slightly above average.)
Int: 19 (Brilliant Guy)
Cha: 8 (Not a great speaker, or good at relating to people.)

Christopher Hitchens
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
Class: Bard
Str: 12 (A bit above average, due to his frequent travels and time spend "roughing it" with the locals.)
Con: 16 (The man looks good for his age, and drinks like a fish without any apparent ill effect; it's quite remarkable.)
Wis: 12 (Insightful at times, but nothing amazing.)
Dex: 8 (He's a bit overweight, which slows him down.)
Int: 13 (Clever, but nothing stupefying.)
Cha: 18 (Hitchens' selling point is his charisma; he can turn on the charm to an absolutely astonishing degree, and wield words like a whip.)

[NoStoneUnturned]

Rudy Henkel
Alignment: Neutral good
Class: Bard
Str: 8-9 (He spends all day on the computer!)
Con: 11-12 (He looks pretty hearty)
Wis: 12-14 (Insightful at times, pretty intuitive)
Dex: 8-9 (I couldn't tell you his real dex, but i'll guess it's about 8-9. Maybe higher if he plays an instrument. He also doesn't paly sports...)
Int: 12-14 (I dont know what Rudy's real IQ is however an INT of 10 would = an IQ of 100. Therefore i'm guessing 120-140)
Cha: 15 (Everybody likes Rudy! The secret is his goatee of salvation!!! :) )

[Rudy]

Rudy Henkel
Alignment: Neutral good
Class: Bard
Str: 8-9 (He spends all day on the computer!)
Con: 11-12 (He looks pretty hearty)
Wis: 12-14 (Insightful at times, pretty intuitive)
Dex: 8-9 (I couldn't tell you his real dex, but i'll guess it's about 8-9. Maybe higher if he plays an instrument. He also doesn't paly sports...)
Int: 12-14 (I dont know what Rudy's real IQ is however an INT of 10 would = an IQ of 100. Therefore i'm guessing 120-140)
Cha: 15 (Everybody likes Rudy! The secret is his goatee of salvation!!! :) )
:laugh:

Strength, Wisdom and Constitution are probably about accurate.

My dexterity is higher than that due to DDR, mainly, as well as video games, and lots of Ping Pong. ;) EDIT: Piano helps too.

Intelligence is higher, mainly because your scale is inaccurate. If we assume a 3d6 distribution of scores among the general population, an 18 intelligence is 1 in 216. This corresponds to a 140 IQ, for example. It's roughly correct to take 10 INT = 100 IQ, and make a difference of 5 IQ points correspond to one INT point.

Charisma is probably lower, internet personality not withstanding.

[NoStoneUnturned]

:laugh:
Intelligence is higher, mainly because your scale is inaccurate. If we assume a 3d6 distribution of scores among the general population, an 18 intelligence is 1 in 216. This corresponds to a 140 IQ, for example. It's roughly correct to take 10 INT = 100 IQ, and make a difference of 5 IQ points correspond to one INT point.


weeeellll, if you wantz to get technical. I read that an INT 10 was "Normal". An INT 8 was slow and an INT 6 was as low as your character could go while being "functional". This seems to correspond with what IQ points read out (100, 80, and 60). As such, I figured the upper section would be the same.

[Rudy]

weeeellll, if you wantz to get technical. I read that an INT 10 was "Normal". An INT 8 was slow and an INT 6 was as low as your character could go while being "functional". This seems to correspond with what IQ points read out. As such I figured the upper section would be the same.
I do want to get technical. :) The problem mainly lies with the fact that Intelligence scores in D&D are not good at modeling the very high and very low ends. Too little precision.

Not to get too far off topic:

Adolf Hitler
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Class: Hmm... I say Cleric, because he fought for an ideal, which is best represented by Cleric in the D&D system. This doesn't fit well with his low wisdom, though; open to suggestions.
STR: 8 (Weak due to poor health)
DEX: 8 (Same.)
CON: 5/6 (Syphilis, other possible medical problems.)
INT: 14 (Crafty in many ways.)
WIS: 6 (Blinded by his ideology. Attacking Russia? Really?)
CHA: 18 (Hell of a speaker and motivator.)

EDIT: Storm pointed out that Hitler was weaker/unhealthier than I first thought. Corrections have been made.

[Tragic Hero]

Oh, have I missed another rite of passage. How late is too late to get into this D&D stuff.

My understanding of this is limited to this thread, but I like the description of Nixon.
And this....

WIS: 6 (Blinded by his ideology. Attacking Russia? Really?)

That's funny.

[Rudy]

Oh, have I missed another rite of passage. How late is too late to get into this D&D stuff.

It's never too late! But:

A Quick Description of this stuff for anyone who wants to understand these numbers without actually getting into D&D.

The six numbers are assumed to be distributed among the general population using 3d6, that is, three six sided die are rolled, and their total is added. Thus, normal scores range from 3 to 18, with the average being 10.5. Because of the way rolling multiple dice works, the numbers closer to the average will be more common, just as 7 is the most common roll when using two six sided die. 3 and 18 are the most extreme, and thus the most rare; each occurs in 1 of 216 rolls, or about 0.5% of the population. 3 represents an abysmal score; it basically means the person is completely non-functional in that area. An intelligence of 3 would indicate severe mental retardation, for example. An 18 intelligence would be a someone with an IQ of about 140-145. Scores above 18 exist, but they are very, very rare. 10 or 11 represents the average human in that area.

STR = Strength. Overall physical strength.
DEX = Dexterity. How agile, dexterous, and quick on your feet you are. Encompasses skill with your hands, balance, etc.
CON = Constitution. How hearty and healthy you are. Resistance to disease, ability to take hits, and endurance are encompassed in this.
INT = Intelligence. Analogous to IQ, more or less.
WIS = Wisdom. How insightful, wise, and intuitive you are.
CHA = Charisma. How well you deal with and/or manipulate others, essentially. Takes into account appearance, eloquence, charm, etc.

Alignment. Each alignment has two components.

Lawful/Neutral/Chaos

A Lawful person is inclined towards order and structure in society and/or in their own lives.
A Chaotic person prefers chance, going with the flow, etc.
A Neutral person has no strong inclination in either direction.

Good/Neutral/Evil

I'm oversimplifying, but:

A Good person (in this context) is willing to sacrifice to help others, even if se does not know them personally.
An Evil person is willing to bring harm to others in order to advance shimself.
A neutral person would sacrifice to help loved ones, but not strangers, but would not bring harm upon others for selfish reasons.

[Shorgenfunkel]

Frank Zappa
Alignment: True Neutral
Class: Bard
STR: 9 (Nothing to write home about.)
DEX: 16 (His self-taught guitar skills were amazing, although a bit lacking in the technical area. Synclavier work was very cleanly executed however.)
CON: 5 (Died in middle age of testicular cancer.)
INT: 18 (A brilliant political philosopher as well as musician.)
WIS: 6 (Wasn't particularly diplomatic, and didn't take care of his own body.)
CHA: 13 (Quietly confident and hilarious in interviews, but also ugly.)

[LaoTzu]

Don Cherry
Alignment: Lawful Good
Class: Paladin (A fighter in his heart, a Deity among Canadians)
STR: 10 (He's 75. I still wouldn't want to piss him off...)
DEX: 6 (see above...)
CON: 12 (He's looks better now than he did in the 70's)
INT: 9 (Sorry Grapes... :) I can't picture him reading much of anything... )
WIS: 15 ( Seriously. Love him or hate him, he's usually right )
CHA: 18 (Too much? He really is kin to Royalty here in Canada. A love-able misfit of a man)

[ranwayslo]

Chuck Norris
Alignment: Lawful Good
Class: Paladin (A fighter in his heart, a Deity)
STR: 10,000 (He's 75. I still wouldn't want to piss him off...)
DEX: 10,000 (see above...)
CON: 10,000 (He is made of diamonds)
INT: 9,999 (You can't have everything)
WIS: 10,000 (I dare you to try and guess his next move. You will be on your back before you can say roundhouse kick)
CHA: 10,000 (Anyone who disagrees gets dead, so...)

[NoStoneUnturned]

chuck norris
alignment: Lawful good
class: Paladin (a fighter in his heart, a deity)
str: 10,000 (he's 75. I still wouldn't want to piss him off...)
dex: 10,000 (see above...)
con: 10,000 (he is made of diamonds)
int: 9,999 (you can't have everything)
wis: 10,000 (i dare you to try and guess his next move. You will be on your back before you can say roundhouse kick)
cha: 10,000 (anyone who disagrees gets dead, so...)

It's OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!!





NoStoneUnturned added to this post, 70 minutes and 15 seconds later...



The six numbers are assumed to be distributed among the general population using 3d6, that is, three six sided die are rolled, and their total is added. Thus, normal scores range from 3 to 18, with the average being 10.5. Because of the way rolling multiple dice works, the numbers closer to the average will be more common, just as 7 is the most common roll when using two six sided die. 3 and 18 are the most extreme, and thus the most rare; each occurs in 1 of 216 rolls, or about 0.5% of the population. 3 represents an abysmal score; it basically means the person is completely non-functional in that area. An intelligence of 3 would indicate severe mental retardation, for example. An 18 intelligence would be a someone with an IQ of about 140-145. Scores above 18 exist, but they are very, very rare. 10 or 11 represents the average human in that area.


I still disagree with you, BTW. However, I do not care enough to dust off my D&D books to develop context references, which is what it would have to come down to....


Anyway,

Obama
Alignment: Lawful Good
Class: Bard (I forget if these can be lawful... I never actually played a bard)
Str: 10 (skinny but tall so it's hard to place him against average)
Con: 9 (old and skinny, but one point because he did play sports)
Wis: 17 (He went to Harvard law)
Dex: 10-11 (Shooten some b-ball)
Int: 12-13 (Basted on my system of 1 point = 10 IQ points, he went to Harvard law)
Cha: 18 (First African-American president. Obama girls. Repeat, Obama girls)

[Rudy]

I still disagree with you, BTW. However, I do not care enough to dust off my D&D books to develop context references, which is what it would have to come down to....

A few simple examples to make my point.

Consider INT 16.

10 out of 216 randomly generated characters has an INT of 16 or above. This is 4.63%
.003% of the population has an IQ of 160 or above.
3.3% of the population has an IQ of 130 or above.
Which is a closer match?

Consider INT 14.

35 out of 216 randomly generated character has an INT of 14 or above. This is 16.2%
3.8% of the population has an IQ of 140 or above.
9.1% of the population has an IQ of 120 or above.
Which is a closer match?

EDIT: One More

Consider INT 17.

4 out of 216 randomly generated character has an INT of 17 or above. This is 1.85%
.00015% has an IQ of 170 or above.
1% of the population has an IQ of 135 or above.
Which is a closer match?


Through all these examples, we see that 1 INT point = 5 IQ points provides a much, much, much closer match to the actual distribution of people than does I INT = 10 IQ points.

[Latro]

Seems like, from that data, that 1 INT=4 IQ points might actually be closer...only problem is that you'd probably need to extend the scale out beyond 18, which would screw things up...

[Rudy]

Seems like, from that data, that 1 INT=4 IQ points might actually be closer...only problem is that you'd probably need to extend the scale out beyond 18, which would screw things up...

Well, IQ = 4 works better for the low end, but not for the high end. 5 is better overall, I think. There are scores higher than 18, they are just considered to be extraordinarily rare in the general population, and so are not included in the generation process. Thus, it's okay to assign scores greater than 18 to historic figures, but only if you think they were truly amazing in that area. An 18 corresponds to 1 in 200, a 19 (very roughly) could be said to correspond to 1 in 1000, and it goes on from there.

Someone who was literally the smartest person on earth would have an intelligence score in the high twenties, for example. Those people you see lifting cars in world's strongest man competitions would have strength scores in the 20s as well. Most Olympic athletes are going to have Strength, Dexterity or Constitution scores ranging into the low 20s, at least. A great number of public entertainers are probably going to have Charisma scores exceeding 18, simply because that is one of the criteria upon which they thrive. Wisdom is the hardest score to judge, simply because it depends so much on your personal philosophy. Buddhists would consider Buddha to have an astronomical Wisdom score, whereas Christians would say the same of Jesus.

Scores into the 30s are generally reserved for deities in the D&D game. :)

This is all using 3rd edition D&D.

[Rudy]

George Washington
Alignment: Lawful Good (Pretty much led a pristine life; liked order and tradition.)
Class: Fighter/Paladin
STR: 14 (He was a general, messing up the brits, and was very physically active his whole life. )
DEX: 12 (Again, military man; good with guns.)
CON: 14 (Crossing the Delaware in the winter, fool.)
INT: 14 (A clever man and tactician, though not a genius.)
WIS: 15 (Served very wisely as president, establishing many good precedents.)
CHA: 17 (A leader in every sense of the world, though reserved.)


Thomas Jefferson
Alignment: True Neutral (Not a bad man at all, in fact one of my heroes, but we cannot say he shone with virtue in all things.)
Class: Wizard
STR: 10 (Healthy, but was strictly white collar; didn't act as a soldier, either.)
DEX: 13 (He was an inventor and hands on scientist in many ways, so I'm guessing he was a bit more dexterous than the average person.)
CON: 12 (Lived to be 83, so he was decently hearty.)
INT: 20 (Often argued to have been the most intelligent of American presidents. Jefferson achieved distinction as, among other things, a horticulturist, statesman, architect, archaeologist, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia.)
WIS: 17 (Many will disagree with me, but I consider him to have been incredibly wise, with exceedingly good foresight in many areas of governance.)
CHA: 8 (Somewhat cold and reserved.)

[NoStoneUnturned]

A few simple examples to make my point.

Consider INT 17.

4 out of 216 randomly generated character has an INT of 17 or above. This is 1.85%
.00015% has an IQ of 170 or above.
1% of the population has an IQ of 135 or above.
Which is a closer match?


Through all these examples, we see that 1 INT point = 5 IQ points provides a much, much, much closer match to the actual distribution of people than does I INT = 10 IQ points.

Dammit Rudy, you're making me slap my head every time I read this. I don't like slapping my head.

I think your inability to realize that the Dungeons and Dragons playable-characters are above average, results in you inability to see the reality of the situation. The Playable characters are the heroes the average person looks up to. Therefore, it is highly plausible for their intelligence to be scaled on a genius level.

If you had a Dungeon Master who made many common NPCs with high intelligence, he was likely not the best DM..

Furthermore, this link explains the history better then I would ever care to know:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rudy]

NPCs, are supposed to be generated with standard 3d6. Many DMs, myself included, use alternatives such as 4d6 drop one to generate above average characters. The general population, it is made very clear, is modeled after the standard 3d6 model.

Thus, when generating average villagers, 1 in 216 of them will have an 18 intelligence. 3 in 216 will have a 17 intelligence. 6 in 216 will have a 16 intelligence, etc.

If we follow your method, and say that 1 INT point equals 10 IQ points, we are basically saying that about 15% of the population of these fantasy worlds are geniuses in our real world terms. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. If some authority says it should be what you say, then they are wrong. What matters is what works, and 10 IQ points per INT point simply does not work for modeling the general population.

[NoStoneUnturned]

NPCs, are supposed to be generated with standard 3d6. Many DMs, myself included, use alternatives such as 4d6 drop one to generate above average characters. The general population, it is made very clear, is modeled after the standard 3d6 model.

Thus, when generating average villagers, 1 in 216 of them will have an 18 intelligence. 3 in 216 will have a 17 intelligence. 6 in 216 will have a 16 intelligence, etc.

If we follow your method, and say that 1 INT point equals 10 IQ points, we are basically saying that about 15% of the population of these fantasy worlds are geniuses in our real world terms. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. If some authority says it should be what you say, then they are wrong. What matters is what works, and 10 IQ points per INT point simply does not work for modeling the general population.

well, not everything is black and white. I would argue that one has to take some initiative-based intuitions to shape their world to make it more realistic.
The game is flawed on many levels, however, the rules of the game are centered around 1 INT = 10 IQ points. Therefore, I believe if anything should change it is the random generator, which by the way, I would rarely ever use.

[Rudy]

well, not everything is black and white. I would argue that one has to take some initiative-based intuitions to shape their world to make it more realistic.
The game is flawed on many levels, however, the rules of the game are centered around 1 INT = 10 IQ points. Therefore, I believe if anything should change it is the random generator, which by the way, I would rarely ever use.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. At least, in 3rd edition, the rules do not define a relationship between intelligence score and IQ. They do, however, define the distribution of intelligence scores in the general population. That is: the 3d6 model. This is defined.

All I am trying to do is fit this distribution of intelligence scores to the distribution of IQs in the general population as best as possible. Nothing I am suggesting violates any actual rules. Yet, you suggest a better alternative would be to change the rules of random generation so that they better fit your conception of 10 IQ points = 1 INT point?

You say that one must take initiatives to make the game more realistic; that's exactly what I am trying to do. I'm trying to make sure there are a reasonable number of actual geniuses in the game, as opposed to 15% of the population.

[NoStoneUnturned]

I'm afraid that's incorrect. At least, in 3rd edition, the rules do not define a relationship between intelligence score and IQ. They do, however, define the distribution of intelligence scores in the general population. That is: the 3d6 model. This is defined.

All I am trying to do is fit this distribution of intelligence scores to the distribution of IQs in the general population as best as possible. Nothing I am suggesting violates any actual rules. Yet, you suggest a better alternative would be to change the rules of random generation so that they better fit your conception of 10 IQ points = 1 INT point?

You say that one must take initiatives to make the game more realistic; that's exactly what I am trying to do. I'm trying to make sure there are a reasonable number of actual geniuses in the game, as opposed to 15% of the population.

1. The random generation I know is a tool, not a rule.
2. All the monsters that the players fight against are measured against the 10 IQ rule of thumb, therefore pretty much making it a rule.
3. The Official D&D FAQ says this: "A character with an Intelligence score of 3 is smarter than most animals, but only barely... Ten points of IQ per point of Intelligence is a good rule of thumb, so your example character has an IQ of about 30." (D&D FAQ, Version 3.5; Update Version 09/28/05, p. 2). This was found on that website I listed.

[Rudy]

1. The random generation I know is a tool, not a rule.
2. All the monsters that the players fight against are measured against the 10 IQ rule of thumb, therefore pretty much making it a rule.
3. The Official D&D FAQ says this: "A character with an Intelligence score of 3 is smarter than most animals, but only barely... Ten points of IQ per point of Intelligence is a good rule of thumb, so your example character has an IQ of about 30." (D&D FAQ, Version 3.5; Update Version 09/28/05, p. 2). This was found on that website I listed.

3d6 is meant to represent the spread of the general population. That's why the DMG suggest alternate methods, such as 4d6 drop one, to generate "heroic" characters.

If we accept the 10 IQ points = 1 INT point, then about 15% of the population suffers from mental retardation. Does this make sense to you? Whoever wrote that FAQ clearly does not understand IQ scores.

[NoStoneUnturned]

I don't ever recall reading that 3d6 = general population, in concrete terms. I've always seen it as just a tool to help with the D&D world. The system is flawed, I'll give you that, however, I still believe it is the way you implement characters into the world that should change, not the world itself. By changing what the stats mean, you begin to change the D&D world since most of the monsters and diplomats that the players play against are pre-made, using the opposing system.

Even more, some don't even use dice to create a character anymore. Other methods in the book involve a point system, instead, to develop character stats.

[eternaltriangle]

1. Intelligence (and the other attributes) are normally distributed so any XIQ points = 3d6 points system is going to be wrong. I posted elsewhere that you need to look at standard deviation in order to make inferences about the population and percentiles.

2. I agree with nostoneunturned that D&D characters are not typical but rather above average people - though this depends on the DM. If the DM say, rolls stats for all peasants, than yes, adventurers are the same as the general populace. If he/she assigned 8 to all the peasant's stats - which is closer to what I do - then it would be flawed to assume that party members = general populace.