Does it matter if there's a table somewhere that maps strength scores to the weights lifted in real world competitions? The DM is still arbitrarily deciding how much things weigh, and the DCs or target numbers or whatever of the challenges. The precision and research is just a false veneer. Underneath, it's just still just arbitrary judgment calls.
And in almost all cases, the mechanics are completely divorced from reality. For instance, a lot of games have opposed strength checks where an ordinary person has a chance of beating a very strong person. That's not realistic. In reality, a really strong person will win an arm wrestling competition or whatever not just most of the time, or 99% of the time, but effectively 100% of the time. There are similar problems with skills. A lot of time it's whether you have advanced training or not.
If you want a greater sense of realism, then it's probably a lot more useful to look at how the system resolves comparative differences between different native or learned abilities than to just do something superficial like map them to real world equivalents. But I don't think most people want that. Games are more about mechanics that are easy to understand, the ability of the players or the GM to assess their chances, and how the mechanics create an interesting dynamic in play. The elements of simulation are just there to trick people into suspending their disbelief.
**************a quick glance at d20 games...
Rather than deriving ability modifiers thus: Stat -10, then divide by two. 20=+5, 18=+4, 16=+3...
try revising the math to have a greater reward for ability scores above 10 and punishing ability scores below 10.
Like this: ability modifier = Stat -10.
this makes every point count, including the odd numbers!
someone with a 15 can beat someone who has only a 14.
Someone with a 4, is beat by everyone with the same attribute being 10 or higher.
Pathfinder 2e, the proficiency rank mechanic:
untrained is 0 + ability modifier and other modifiers.
Trained is 2+ your level+ ability modifier and other modifiers.
Expert is 4+ your level+ ability modifier and other modifiers.
Mastery is 6+ your level+ ability modifier and other modifiers.
Legendary is 2+ your level+ ability modifier and other modifiers.
They haven't written "epic/mythic" play yet.
Anywho, during the playtest for PF2E, untrained was -2 and the proficiency ranks were only +1 per stage:
trained+1, expert+2, Mastery+3, Legendary+4.
in the current 2E Gamemastery guide, there are rules for NOT including the Level in anything.
let us combine these ideas and see what happens to the game play:
Stat-10= ability modifier, +2 for each proficiency rank, Not including level.
The effect is that your ability scores have a huge impact, and your proficiency rank with skills also matters.
Test:
Educated Genius (Int 18) Vs. uneducated Idiot (int 6)Idiot- rolls a 20, ability modifier is -4, training is 0= 16. The idiot can never get a "20" even rolling a 20!
Genius- Rolls a 10, ability modifier is +8, training is expert +4= 22.
now, a skill Expert average joe (int 11) Vs. Uneducated genius (int 18)Uneducated genius rolls a 10, +8 modifier, +0 for skill= 18
Average Joe rolls a 10, +1 modifier, +4 for skill= 15
The genius wins, but what if the challenge was neurosurgery?
the skill rules allow many things to be attempted untrained, and plenty more require training in the skill to even attempt.
Being untrained, the genius can still recall and reason, but won't have the knowledge to complete the task.
Being an expert "Average joe" has the knowledge but struggles to recall every step of the task and apply what he does know.
Now... Opposed arm wrestling. an "Athletics" skill check.
Hank has 18 strength and is an athletics expert +4.
Gustav has a 17 strength, and is also an athletics expert.
if they both roll the same on the d20, Hank will always be +1 ahead.
The effects on pathfinder 2e, Monsters of all kinds would be a threat regardless of level.
Being Min/maxed becomes important as a difference of +/-1 can decide who wins and who... doesn't.
With these rules in effect, the 3.0/3.5 magic item rules could make a comeback with some tweaking.
You would want high-level characters to have earned magic items that push their ability beyond the mortal limits.
thing is, this invalidates anyone who doesn't get specific magic items...
The idea of a "Character" to role-play is brushed aside by a shopping list of MacGuffins.
best not to do that then. winning "Bling" can be fun, but it too easily becomes "the point" of the game.
I agree, changing how the math is done, models a realistic outcome.
Personal experience; back in the sixth grade I had never learned how to "Block" in football games.
I got pit against a 6'4" at 320lbs giant. the result is that he flipped me out of the way everytime.
yet, another kid my size who did know how to block effectively was able to Keep the giant back, the giant couldn't take one step forward.
Training does matter. it is a HUGE difference.
Thank you for the insights, all of them!