Are we playing D&D here? 
Maybe we should be paying more attention to the relative scores Dopers give themselves rather than what the statistical ramifications are.
Please also keep in mind that for the most part, in AD&D 1 and 2, high statistics didn’t provide any significant bonuses or advantages until at least 15. Meaning, if someone is **noticeably **strong, smart, dextrous, etc. - that likely reflects a score near or above 15.
D_Odds, you’re reading assumptions into the design that the designers never made. The default rolling method in 1e was 3d6, straight down. Producing ‘schmoe on the street’ scores. PCs weren’t supposed to be the heroic ideal, they were supposed to be former farmers struggling to survive in a world designed to crush the life out of them at the slightest mistake. And ‘schmoe’ rolling STILL produces an 18 one out of every 216 times.
I stick by the 18 Int. Percentiles are the only reasonable conversion metric that makes any sense at all.
Long time DM here…
In 1st/2nd editions, 18’s were only meant to reflect the human peak range, with statistical variance, but not meant to be superhuman or unique. Superhuman/divine attributes went up to 25. Legolas’ LOTR movie antics, for example, I would rate around 22 on the dexterity scale. In the Deities/Demigods core book, there were some exceptional legendary human heroes that had 19’s, but these were legendary mortals outside of scope of a mere player character.
For strength, a basic 18 was peak physical condition, and went into percentile 01-100 “exceptional strength” before hitting superhuman 19.
So with that in context, I’d say every typical professional soccer player today would be rated as having an 18 dexterity when compared statistically against the general population.
Using the previous Michael Jordan example, I’d say basic 18 STR (but with no extra percentile), 18 DEX, and 18 CON.
This thread got too nerdy for me somewhere between post 55 and 62. And that’s saying something.
See, man! THAT’S why this is a biased sample! 
Maybe you should make a Fighter instead of a Wizard then. I mean, your INT score must be wrong or something…
I am old enough to remember that. I also remember the scores of gamers I’ve been associated with through the years working around that so that the PCs would actually be exceptional. I think the work-arounds and alternate rolling methods were being published in Dragon before the ink dried on the first printing of Dungeons & Dragons. 
It was a classic case of the designers not truly understanding the audience, even though they were part of the audience. It’s why, to this day, whenever I hear someone use the justification “but the designers intended” my reflex is to smack them in the head with a rolled up magazine, even if they do have a salient point.
They even put the new methods in those new hard bound Advanced books they came out with! You know, the ones I bought so that I could dump my old blue book versions?
(showing why I didn’t inflate my WIS score - I should have kept my blue books)
Strength: 18/00
Dexterity: 18
Constitution: 18
Intelligence: 18
Wisdom: 18
Charisma: 18
I agree. If a score of 18 were supposed represent the near unattainable pinnacle of human existence, paladins would be so rare as to be nearly extinct. Since you need a charisma of 17 or 18 just to get started as a first level, there would only be one or two paladins in the entire world if the bell curve were that steep.
Strength: 13. I don’t lift weights, but I do exercise
Dexterity: 16. Ten years of competition level Men’s Gymnastics, FTW
Constitution: 12. Prone to colds/flues
Intelligence: 12. I wonder…
Wisdom: 11. I choose… poorly
Charisma: 14. (+2 against women, -2 against men)
Since people are complaining about inflated scores, I went a took the first two tests I found by Googling “d&d stats real life.”
The first one gave me the following scores:
STR:9
INT:13 (stupid, as measures formal education level)
WIS:8
DEX:11
CON:7
CHA:11
The second (has popups possible if you aren’t protected) gave these:
STR:5
DEX:9
CON:6
INT:15 (15 on test, 14 on survey)
WIS:12
CHA:14
Based on my opinions of the test, my cumulative average is:
STR: 7
INT: 15 (1st test discarded as education != intelligence)
WIS: 10
DEX: 10
CON: 7 (rounded up since it’s so low)
CHA: 12 (rounded down based on my own judgment)
Using your second test, BigT, I got
STR: 10
DEX: 12
CON:11
INT:10 (13 on test, 8 on survey) :eek:
WIS:15 
CHA:12
I’m very surprised by part 2 of the INT survey, very surprised by the Wisdom score, and moderately surprised by the charisma score. Interesting.
Missed the edit window. At this site, I got:
STR:13
INT:13
WIS:12
DEX:10
CON:11
CHR:6
So there, I’m a troll :D, which is just as surprising as the 12 in the earlier test.
And my alignment, according to this site is Neutral. So I’m a troll druid. 
The stats I gave myself:
STR: 10 - Not weak, but wouldn’t call myself strong
DEX: 9 - Slightly clumsy, but okay hand-eye coordination
CON: 7 - Catch every damn cold that comes my way
INT: 12 - Above average, but not near genius level
WIS: 14 - Pretty good common sense and ability to keep a cool head
CHA: 14 - Not that I’m handsome, but I’m pretty persuasive and diplomatic
The stats the test gave me:
STR: 7 (I guessed at the weight thing; I wouldn’t know a press if it bit me)
DEX: 7
CON: 7
INT: 13
WIS: 15
CHA: 15
STR: 17 I’m 6’4" 260 lbs. and muscular. I’m stronger than 99 out of 100 people I meet.
INT: 11
WIS: 6 I don’t think I’ve made a single good decision in my life.
DEX: 13 I can draw a portrait of a person and have it come out with a good likeness. I’m a decent mechanic. Good at video games etc.
CON: 14 Hardy.
CHR: 9 I don’t play well with others. I often feel awkward in my own skin.
Yeah, I’d be a fighter. Boring.
Count me in the “heroic ideal” camp. Obviously Gygax and co. weren’t thinking of creating a statistically weighted, completely accurate representation of the proper distribution of abilities across the human race. If they were, 1/216 would not have been the formula they chose.
Instead, they were making a game. A game where the odds were great that you’d end up with some pretty high scores (and some low ones to balance). You weren’t creating schmoes off the street, you were creating legendary heroes, or at least, people who would become one through play.
Personally, I never played (nor DM’ed) a game that didn’t include a “gimme” mechanic of throwing out one low score / rolling more dice / re-rolling dice, etc. The game played better when people had more heroic, bonus-providing scores than a bunch of guys & girls playing with 5s and 7s. None of us are fighting dragons, but our characters had to. For every schmuck civilian Hobbit, you had mythically powerful wizards, dwarves, elves, and human fighters.
Anyway, again, count me in the “No one here is an 18 in anything” camp. Choose whichever example works for you, but they do exist: Stephen Hawking is an 18 INT, George Clooney is an 18 CHA, Arnold Schwarzenegger back in his Pumping Iron days is an 18 STR, Michael Jordan has an 18 DEX, etc. Posters here on the SDMB? Half of us haven’t had a decent tan in our lives :).
Weird!
The first site found LINK gave me
Your stats are:
STR:15
INT:17
WIS:14
DEX:15
CON:13
CHR:17
I would have given me
STR:15
INT:16
WIS:14
DEX:14
CON:15
CHR:14
I guess being able to bench press 275# is extraordinary by this gauge, but it sure isn’t at my gym, and I can only do that twice (MAYBE) on a good day.
My usual reps are about 225# for 5 times.
That site only uses your degree level to define INT which is pretty lame.
I mean, I KNOW some guys with doctorates that are NOT a 17 INT.
The KevinHaw site gave me:
9
14
10
13
9
10
The second site gave me:
10
12
12
18/14
16
15
10
My opinions:
STR: 10. I thought I was weak, but the tests count pushups and such, which the Army trained me to do. So I guess I’m stronger than I thought.
DEX: 12. I can shoot, do card tricks, and navigate a crowd easily but I can’t judge lofty flying objects like a popup baseball or a lobbed football. I can, however, throw.
CON: 8. I have rheumatoid arthritis and a stomach of a toddler, but I can hike long distances, stay up late, or run without tiring.
INT: 17. I graduated 20th in my class and scored in the 99th percentile on every standardized test. I’m enough of a geek to put “Chess” in my username.
WIS: 11. People ask me for advice, but it’s mainly due to my INT. I’m young but experienced for my age.
CHR: 10. I have an average face but I’m well-built and thin. My personality is hit-or-miss and does well in certain circles, but I can’t seem to fit into a work environment. I keep treating coworkers like friends and that puts off some people.
I don’t know why everyone keeps getting up in arms about the INT scores. Can anyone name a Doper that they think is in the 3-9 range? Smart people congregate here. Get over it. I’d bet that 80% of Dopers were in the top 15% of their high school classes, intellectually. So I’d expect 15-18 stats as a group.
Well, there are at least eight people on the planet smarter than me, so by your logic they’d have INTs of 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, and 11, respectively?
People can have different levels of ability and still be represented by the same score. There aren’t 16 perfectly defined tiers of human ability. The scores just aren’t as granular as you and some of the others are trying to assume they are. Stephen Hawking might be an 18, but just because he’s a lot smarter than me doesn’t mean I’m not also an 18. It’s just an artifact of the way this particular model of ability works.