Doc, what about strong language in the race chapter of the PHB that explicitely makes all PHB races optional, depending on world and even specific campaign, with examples of how dragonborn might not fit into a low fantasy Tolkein-ish game, or teiflings might not make sense in a game where devil blood would inescapably make someone evil, with no abillity to fight that evil, etc, and reminders of things like Dark Sun's lack of gnomes?
Also, warlocks only came out hurting once everyone got ahold of crazy damage stacking capabillities for their ranger, really. Before that, the warlock was fantastic, as long as you realized that the "striker" tag didn't mean that the class was as focused as the ranger or rogue on single target damage.
Basically, in the PHB you have two Strikers that are either so strongly primary strikers that there's no real secondary (ranger) or striker with some non striker tricks, but still heavily focused on being an all out striker (rogue), and then a striker controller (warlock).
All three contributed meaningfully to encounters and adventures.
Doc, what about strong language in the race chapter of the PHB that explicitely makes all PHB races optional, depending on world and even specific campaign, with examples of how dragonborn might not fit into a low fantasy Tolkein-ish game, or teiflin
I'm confused with where you are going with this paragraph. The books say tieflings are the target of prejudice, the books say shardminds are rare (and thus unlikely for anyone to know what they are), etc.
Am I playing the game wrong by using the default fluff?
Nope. Teiflings are mistrusted and suffer from prejudice, and any perception that they don't is not based on actually reading the books.
I'm confused with where you are going with this paragraph. The books say tieflings are the target of prejudice, the books say shardminds are rare (and thus unlikely for anyone to know what they are), etc. Am I playing the game wrong by using the def
Doc, what about strong language in the race chapter of the PHB that explicitely makes all PHB races optional, depending on world and even specific campaign, with examples of how dragonborn might not fit into a low fantasy Tolkein-ish game, or teiflings might not make sense in a game where devil blood would inescapably make someone evil, with no abillity to fight that evil, etc, and reminders of things like Dark Sun's lack of gnomes?
Also, warlocks only came out hurting once everyone got ahold of crazy damage stacking capabillities for their ranger, really. Before that, the warlock was fantastic, as long as you realized that the "striker" tag didn't mean that the class was as focused as the ranger or rogue on single target damage.
Basically, in the PHB you have two Strikers that are either so strongly primary strikers that there's no real secondary (ranger) or striker with some non striker tricks, but still heavily focused on being an all out striker (rogue), and then a striker controller (warlock).
All three contributed meaningfully to encounters and adventures.
I just wish 4e wore the optional tag a little clearer, which is a mild criticism. Perhaps having articles in the magazines on these races right off the bat on how they can be put into these settings would please me. Maybe it's the fact I rather dislike races being shoehorned through retcon and contradiction. This also stems from slight frustration of adapting low fantasy and horror when these concepts simply didn't mesh with the game world. If the horror comes from the NPCs and Monsters in reaction to the PCs rather than the other way around... I have a problem. But, I digress. Now, striker-controller seems to fit for the warlock (even though I never cared for roles.) The warlock was always an interesting kettle of fish there. But, I suppose themes can help flesh out the warlock in one direction or another.
I just wish 4e wore the optional tag a little clearer, which is a mild criticism. Perhaps having articles in the magazines on these races right off the bat on how they can be put into these settings would please me. Maybe it's the fact I rather dis
Actually, to note, Athas (the world where Dark Sun takes place) had many races in the past. They got genocided by the current big bads in an event called the Cleansing Wars. Orcs, Gnomes, Pixies, Trolls, ect... were rendered past tense by The Forces of Evil and Racism. That the world then (largely as a result of the horrifically enviornmentally unfriendly magics used in these wars) became almost unlivable only aggrivated these issues (not only are all Elves disease ridden whores and thieves, but they also take up precious water.)
I mean, having read the backstory, what seems on the surface like Mad Max beyound Thunderdome meets Conan the Barbarian, becomes this roaring tirade/cautionary tale against the evils of racism and despoilation of the environment.
Actually, to note, Athas (the world where Dark Sun takes place) had many races in the past.They got genocided by the current big bads in an event called the Cleansing Wars. Orcs, Gnomes, Pixies, Trolls, ect... were rendered past tense by The Forces o
Nope. Teiflings are mistrusted and suffer from prejudice, and any perception that they don't is not based on actually reading the books.
There's a very thick line, however, between 'mistrust and prejudice' and 'torches and pitchforks'.
I would say that "suffer from prejudice and mistrust" is more of a continuum. Villager A may be "we don't serve droids here, you'll have to wait outside." Villager B may be "we think you are unfairly treated, come have a beer and lets shake the wag." Villager C may be "torches and pitchforks."
No need to cookie-cut the response of every villager.
If your point is that "torches and pitchforks all the time with no other reaction" is wrong, then I fully agree.
There's a very thick line, however, between 'mistrust and prejudice' and 'torches and pitchforks'.[/quote]I would say that "suffer from prejudice and mistrust" is more of a continuum. Villager A may be "we don't serve droids here, you'll have to wai
I mean, having read the backstory, what seems on the surface like Mad Max beyound Thunderdome meets Conan the Barbarian, becomes this roaring tirade/cautionary tale against the evils of racism and despoilation of the environment.
I believe it was Troy Denning who said with Dark Sun they were going with medieval fantasy meets Mad Max/Road Warrior.
And yeah, Athas had this one dude, Rajaat, who thought the original progenitor race: Halflings, should rule all, so started a genocidal-type freak out.
I believe it was Troy Denning who said with Dark Sun they were going with medieval fantasy meets Mad Max/Road Warrior.And yeah, Athas had this one dude, Rajaat, who thought the original progenitor race: Halflings, should rule all, so started a genoci
* Off-topic: If you think my writting isn´t too good it would be better you don´t imagine my oral English.
----
Fantasy and sci-fi fictional races need a special identity, a archetype, a style...
...but.. sometimes it becomes a stereotype because it´s too popular.
We can change the background like we want, for example a setting where the skrowers are a orc high civilitation and the elves are primitive savage anthropophagite tribes, but publishing companies usually will not do it because readers aren´t used to it. What no-franchise fantasy novels or games with fictional races don´t use those steryotypes?
Only we need racial traits can be enough flexible to can be changed, for example you could choose a racial feat or a racial power for gnomes.
* Off-topic: If you think my writting isn´t too good it would be better you don´t imagine my oral English.----Fantasy and sci-fi fictional races need a special identity, a archetype, a style......but.. sometimes it becomes a stereotype be
Nope. Teiflings are mistrusted and suffer from prejudice, and any perception that they don't is not based on actually reading the books.
There's a very thick line, however, between 'mistrust and prejudice' and 'torches and pitchforks'.
Sure. I've never argued in favor of the pitchforks, and have vehemently argued against.
My comments were in response to people who think that the 4e books make teiflings normal, with no mistrust or prejudice or stigma.
People are freaked out a bit by their devilish appearance, their history, and the character of many of their fellows, but because they have a long history, and most halfway reasonable people know that history has featured both good and bad teiflings, just as it's featured villainous humans, the prejudice is not kill on sight extreme.
Basically, there are a lot of racists that hate them, and even more people that are uncomfortable with them, or mistrust them, but not outright hatred, but everyone knows that they're a race of mortals with free will. It's more like humans that come from a cultured with a villanous history, combined with an alien culture, or something, rather than seeing a gnoll, which are members of a race that has to actively fight against the urge to rampage and slaughter, and rarely produce well intentioned individuals that anyone has ever heard of.
All of which makes sense.
The pitchfork thing only makes sense if you arbitrarily decide that in your game world they are very rare, people don't know what they are, and/or nearly every one anyone has heard of has been evil and dangerous. In other words, if you deviate from the standard assumptions.
There's a very thick line, however, between 'mistrust and prejudice' and 'torches and pitchforks'.[/quote]Sure. I've never argued in favor of the pitchforks, and have vehemently argued against. My comments were in response to people who think that th
Doc, what about strong language in the race chapter of the PHB that explicitely makes all PHB races optional, depending on world and even specific campaign, with examples of how dragonborn might not fit into a low fantasy Tolkein-ish game, or teiflings might not make sense in a game where devil blood would inescapably make someone evil, with no abillity to fight that evil, etc, and reminders of things like Dark Sun's lack of gnomes?
Also, warlocks only came out hurting once everyone got ahold of crazy damage stacking capabillities for their ranger, really. Before that, the warlock was fantastic, as long as you realized that the "striker" tag didn't mean that the class was as focused as the ranger or rogue on single target damage.
Basically, in the PHB you have two Strikers that are either so strongly primary strikers that there's no real secondary (ranger) or striker with some non striker tricks, but still heavily focused on being an all out striker (rogue), and then a striker controller (warlock).
All three contributed meaningfully to encounters and adventures.
I just wish 4e wore the optional tag a little clearer, which is a mild criticism. Perhaps having articles in the magazines on these races right off the bat on how they can be put into these settings would please me. Maybe it's the fact I rather dislike races being shoehorned through retcon and contradiction. This also stems from slight frustration of adapting low fantasy and horror when these concepts simply didn't mesh with the game world. If the horror comes from the NPCs and Monsters in reaction to the PCs rather than the other way around... I have a problem. But, I digress. Now, striker-controller seems to fit for the warlock (even though I never cared for roles.) The warlock was always an interesting kettle of fish there. But, I suppose themes can help flesh out the warlock in one direction or another.
Well, let's not worry about 4e for the moment. That ship has sailed. In Next, if the game makes it abundantly clear that all races are optional, and their inclusion depends on the world/campaign, would that satisfy you, rather than excluding non "classic/standard/whatever" races from the core books, or putting them in a different section, or any of that?
I just wish 4e wore the optional tag a little clearer, which is a mild criticism. Perhaps having articles in the magazines on these races right off the bat on how they can be put into these settings would please me. Maybe it's the fact I rather dis
Nope. Teiflings are mistrusted and suffer from prejudice, and any perception that they don't is not based on actually reading the books.
There's a very thick line, however, between 'mistrust and prejudice' and 'torches and pitchforks'.
Sure. I've never argued in favor of the pitchforks, and have vehemently argued against.
My comments were in response to people who think that the 4e books make teiflings normal, with no mistrust or prejudice or stigma.
People are freaked out a bit by their devilish appearance, their history, and the character of many of their fellows, but because they have a long history, and most halfway reasonable people know that history has featured both good and bad teiflings, just as it's featured villainous humans, the prejudice is not kill on sight extreme.
Basically, there are a lot of racists that hate them, and even more people that are uncomfortable with them, or mistrust them, but not outright hatred, but everyone knows that they're a race of mortals with free will. It's more like humans that come from a cultured with a villanous history, combined with an alien culture, or something, rather than seeing a gnoll, which are members of a race that has to actively fight against the urge to rampage and slaughter, and rarely produce well intentioned individuals that anyone has ever heard of.
All of which makes sense.
The pitchfork thing only makes sense if you arbitrarily decide that in your game world they are very rare, people don't know what they are, and/or nearly every one anyone has heard of has been evil and dangerous. In other words, if you deviate from the standard assumptions.
As bad as this will sound, don't take it as a negative, it's not meant to be, just an observation of sorts. I don't mean it in bad taste, but as a statement about our unfortunate reality, and how it is oddly reflected in a fantasy race. I really hope this doesn't touch off any nerves. That really isn't my intent.
Tieflings are like Muslims (here in the U.S. anyway). Most people (I'm speaking in generalities here) view them with distrust and automatically believe the worst of these poor people when more than likely they had absolutely nothing to do with the bad thing that some of their kind did. Are some of them possibly tied into what happened? Sure, it's possible. But more open minded people won't hop on that bandwagon without getting to know the individual first.
So tieflings are just humans that did a bad thing once, got marked and cursed by it, and some of them still have ties to that (if they're Infernal Warlocks for example), but most of them don't, and are trying to just live their lives as best they can despite the fact that most people want to hurt them on sight because their people (in general) did a bad thing once.
There's a very thick line, however, between 'mistrust and prejudice' and 'torches and pitchforks'.[/quote]Sure. I've never argued in favor of the pitchforks, and have vehemently argued against. My comments were in response to people who think that th
As bad as this will sound, don't take it as a negative, it's not meant to be, just an observation of sorts. I don't mean it in bad taste, but as a statement about our unfortunate reality, and how it is oddly reflected in a fantasy race. I really hope this doesn't touch off any nerves. That really isn't my intent.
Tieflings are like Muslims (here in the U.S. anyway). Most people (I'm speaking in generalities here) view them with distrust and automatically believe the worst of these poor people when more than likely they had absolutely nothing to do with the bad thing that some of their kind did. Are some of them possibly tied into what happened? Sure, it's possible. But more open minded people won't hop on that bandwagon without getting to know the individual first.
So tieflings are just humans that did a bad thing once, got marked and cursed by it, and some of them still have ties to that (if they're Infernal Warlocks for example), but most of them don't, and are trying to just live their lives as best they can despite the fact that most people want to hurt them on sight because their people (in general) did a bad thing once.
Pretty much, yeah. I'd like to think that most people aren't automatically distrustful of Muslims in America, but...I'm not sure that's a realistic thought, unfortunately.
Pretty much, yeah. I'd like to think that most people aren't automatically distrustful of Muslims in America, but...I'm not sure that's a realistic thought, unfortunately.
Just reminds me of why it is I don't have people mistrust tieflings and such in my game world. I see enough of that stupidity in the real world, why would I want it to infest my escapist entertainment?
Just reminds me of why it is I don't have people mistrust tieflings and such in my game world. I see enough of that stupidity in the real world, why would I want it to infest my escapist entertainment?
Just reminds me of why it is I don't have people mistrust tieflings and such in my game world. I see enough of that stupidity in the real world, why would I want it to infest my escapist entertainment?
I enjoy the occasional racist paladin, sexist priest, or bigotted royal in order to remind characters that what one person perceives as evil another might perceive as good. Remember the good old days when killing goblin babies was considered the act of a righteous man? I enjoy the moral quandaries in DnD. Gives the PCs something to roleplay. Otherwise a dungeon crawl is just an exercise in rolling dice.
I enjoy the occasional racist paladin, sexist priest, or bigotted royal in order to remind characters that what one person perceives as evil another might perceive as good. Remember the good old days when killing goblin babies was considered the act
Just reminds me of why it is I don't have people mistrust tieflings and such in my game world. I see enough of that stupidity in the real world, why would I want it to infest my escapist entertainment?
Yeah I can see that and agree with the sentiment. However, there are people even in my own group who like their games gritty and like to deal with those sort of moral/ethical issues, though not usually in D&D. We play White Wolf for that. But if a player did approach me about wanting to play a tiefling/drow/goblin or what have you and they expect their character as a role-playing thing to be prejudiced against, then I will make it happen for them, but I don't go out of my way to antagonize someone with NPCs constantly because they are playing a certain race.
Yeah I can see that and agree with the sentiment. However, there are people even in my own group who like their games gritty and like to deal with those sort of moral/ethical issues, though not usually in D&D. We play White Wolf for that. But if a pl
just a note on bows. proficiency in them involves a certain musculature that results from the training required to get good with them. so unless something supernatural is happening with how their muscles develope, it makes no sense for them to all be proficient, even without ever having picked one up.
The point I was trying to make is that while this is true in RL for humans, whether or not it is true for say elves in a world of made belief is entirely up to whomever is designing the world. Granted, basing the designs on RL is a good idea, and I am using a rather extreme example to make a point, but it is just an example.
The point I was trying to make is that while this is true in RL for humans, whether or not it is true for say elves in a world of made belief is entirely up to whomever is designing the world. Granted, basing the designs on RL is a good idea, and I a
just a note on bows. proficiency in them involves a certain musculature that results from the training required to get good with them. so unless something supernatural is happening with how their muscles develope, it makes no sense for them to all be proficient, even without ever having picked one up.
The point I was trying to make is that while this is true in RL for humans, whether or not it is true for say elves in a world of made belief is entirely up to whomever is designing the world. Granted, basing the designs on RL is a good idea, and I am using a rather extreme example to make a point, but it is just an example.
Wasn't contesting your point. Just making a note about bows. And seriously, unless their musculature and bone structure developes with the bow in mind as a genetic trait, they aren't born to be proficient with a bow. I don't think anyone is really going to agree that that is the default norm.
The point I was trying to make is that while this is true in RL for humans, whether or not it is true for say elves in a world of made belief is entirely up to whomever is designing the world. Granted, basing the designs on RL is a good idea, and I a
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."
I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality.
I would prefer if males of some races have some advantage physically (such as strength) but then give females advantages in other areas (perhaps charisma, wisdom, or dexterity). Of course, other races could give females the physical advantage.
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality. I would p
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
Yes, but caps for physical scores for females is none too popular.
Yes. I would prefer a point buy system where you were handicapped in purchasing ability scores by your race and gender. You could still have a female halfling with an 18 strength but it might cost you all your point buy. It would be much cheaper to get an 18 dexterity for the female halfing.
No absolute maximum but a progressive system which gave a balanced preference to certain ability scores based on race and gender.
Yes, but caps for physical scores for females is none too popular.[/quote]Yes. I would prefer a point buy system where you were handicapped in purchasing ability scores by your race and gender. You could still have a female halfling with an 18 stre
Draconborn is a good example about the background can be changed. Rebember "Races of dragons".
* If tieflings have got a bad fame, do rebember only a "bad appel" can spoil the reputation of throusands honest ones
* Stereotypes can be annonying sometimes, but it isn´t racism. A Brazilian who loves soccer, Asian martial artist, the rappers from MTV, the Texan cowboy, a Englishman with bowler hat and umbrella are topics, clichés, but it isn´t racism. If D&D were racist, Warcraft, Warhammer, Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls, Everquest and the rest of fantasy franchises would be racist too.
---
For me the best fantasy equivalent to Muslim are the freemen from planet Arrakis (and the jihad of muad´dib) and skrulls for "Secret Invasión" by Marvel Comics ("He loves you")
(Off-topic: Here we can talk about History sometimes, but I offer you a deal: You don´t talk about Islamophobia and I will say nothing about the kaffirphobia, Asia Bibi, dooms by Boko Haram, Egyptian copts´ "apartheid", honor murders/honor killing, battle of al-Yamal, the pirate Hayreddin Barbarrosa, Ibrahim I the Arrage and the kafes).
Only I say thre last things:
The 99 is a comic by and for Muslims but it is forbbiden in Saud Arabian because wahabbism/salafism is too radical.
If music with voice (for example by singer Britney Spear) is haram (a Algerian said me it) you can´t suposse they don´t like any RPG.
Do you think my opinion is based on ignorance and predjudices? Read Sura 5, Ayah 51 and after we could talk.
Draconborn is a good example about the background can be changed. Rebember "Races of dragons".* If tieflings have got a bad fame, do rebember only a "bad appel" can spoil the reputation of throusands honest ones* Stereotypes can be annonying sometime
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."
I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality.
I would prefer if males of some races have some advantage physically (such as strength) but then give females advantages in other areas (perhaps charisma, wisdom, or dexterity). Of course, other races could give females the physical advantage.
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
Wow. That's so completely backwards, it hurt my head.
I ... don't think I want to read anything you post again, after something so ridiculous. Auf Weidersehn.
Wow. That's so completely backwards, it hurt my head.I ... don't think I want to read anything you post again, after something so ridiculous. Auf Weidersehn.
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."
I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality.
I would prefer if males of some races have some advantage physically (such as strength) but then give females advantages in other areas (perhaps charisma, wisdom, or dexterity). Of course, other races could give females the physical advantage.
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
Wow. That's so completely backwards, it hurt my head.
I ... don't think I want to read anything you post again, after something so ridiculous. Auf Weidersehn.
I don't object to gender or racial caps BUT I do object if it is always assumed that every race should be the same e.g. that all women of all races have lower strength than males on average. In 1e drow females had higher caps on strength and wisdom while males had a higher intelligence caps. I'm far from convinced that female dwarves or dragonborn should have a different strength cap. I don't object to caps being 2 or 3 points below 20 (very few players would want to burn points to achieve this anyway) as long as the caps have a degree of logic.
Caps are not so terrible that people have to froth at the mouth because a player will still have points to spend on other abilities. Penalties allowing players to reach the same cap by spending more points is more unfair.
Wow. That's so completely backwards, it hurt my head.I ... don't think I want to read anything you post again, after something so ridiculous. Auf Weidersehn.[/quote]I don't object to gender or racial caps BUT I do object if it is always assumed tha
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."
I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality.
I would prefer if males of some races have some advantage physically (such as strength) but then give females advantages in other areas (perhaps charisma, wisdom, or dexterity). Of course, other races could give females the physical advantage.
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
I'm not sure why you decided to start an argument about my forum signiture, but since you did, no.
First of all, equality =/= sameness or symmetry of abillity.
Second, the game shouldn't mess with any of that. It's unecessary, is pretty much never done well, and adds complexity with absolutely no addition of value.
I'm not sure why you decided to start an argument about my forum signiture, but since you did, no. First of all, equality =/= sameness or symmetry of abillity. Second, the game shouldn't mess with any of that. It's unecessary, is pretty much never do
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."
I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality.
I would prefer if males of some races have some advantage physically (such as strength) but then give females advantages in other areas (perhaps charisma, wisdom, or dexterity). Of course, other races could give females the physical advantage.
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
I'm not sure why you decided to start an argument about my forum signiture, but since you did, no.
First of all, equality =/= sameness or symmetry of abillity.
Second, the game shouldn't mess with any of that. It's unecessary, is pretty much never done well, and adds complexity with absolutely no addition of value.
If you want gender to provide a mechanical difference rather than just a meaningless detail, it can add to customization. I definitely agree that not all females need to be smaller than males. Many species are just the opposite, particularly if females defend their young from aggressive males or if the leader of a group is female.
I would prefer a mechanical difference in gender but that of course could foster stereotypes. Of course, this is no different from real life.
I'm not sure why you decided to start an argument about my forum signiture, but since you did, no. First of all, equality =/= sameness or symmetry of abillity. Second, the game shouldn't mess with any of that. It's unecessary, is pretty much never do
"More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century."
I agree that balance is essential but not necessarily equality.
I would prefer if males of some races have some advantage physically (such as strength) but then give females advantages in other areas (perhaps charisma, wisdom, or dexterity). Of course, other races could give females the physical advantage.
If you watch the Olympics you will realize that in most physical sports, men and women are simply not equal.
Wow. That's so completely backwards, it hurt my head.
I ... don't think I want to read anything you post again, after something so ridiculous. Auf Weidersehn.
Did you need an aspirin? Political correctness isn't always reality.
Wow. That's so completely backwards, it hurt my head.I ... don't think I want to read anything you post again, after something so ridiculous. Auf Weidersehn.[/quote]Did you need an aspirin? Political correctness isn't always reality.
Dear God I just sat through an episode of the Walking Dead where one of the female characters argued with another character because she spent her time guarding the encampment putting more pressure on the remaining women to do the cooking ad the cleaning! She even accused her to sitting and working on her tan while on guard duty! Wtf?
I know these characters are supposed to be hicks but really, even in a sexist version D&D, there are plenty of women, adventurers and rulers, who buck the stereotype. I don't think a slight degree of gender inequality in a game is so terrible but that kind of sexism is lamentable in a 'modern drama'.
Dear God I just sat through an episode of the Walking Dead where one of the female characters argued with another character because she spent her time guarding the encampment putting more pressure on the remaining women to do the cooking ad the clean
Dear God I just sat through an episode of the Walking Dead where one of the female characters argued with another character because she spent her time guarding the encampment putting more pressure on the remaining women to do the cooking ad the cleaning! She even accused her to sitting and working on her tan while on guard duty! Wtf?
I know these characters are supposed to be hicks but really, even in a sexist version D&D, there are plenty of women, adventurers and rulers, who buck the stereotype. I don't think a slight degree of gender inequality in a game is so terrible but that kind of sexism is lamentable in a 'modern drama'.
Considering that both in the comic and in the show Lori is most of the time an annoying unlikable bitch whatever she opposes - it's like advertising it.
Considering that both in the comic and in the show Lori is most of the time an annoying unlikable bitch whatever she opposes - it's like advertising it.
Dear God I just sat through an episode of the Walking Dead where one of the female characters argued with another character because she spent her time guarding the encampment putting more pressure on the remaining women to do the cooking ad the cleaning! She even accused her to sitting and working on her tan while on guard duty! Wtf?
I know these characters are supposed to be hicks but really, even in a sexist version D&D, there are plenty of women, adventurers and rulers, who buck the stereotype. I don't think a slight degree of gender inequality in a game is so terrible but that kind of sexism is lamentable in a 'modern drama'.
Sometimes characters are going to have unpopular or flawed opinions. That doesn't mean that the author or creators endorse these opinions, they just acknowledge they exist. It's the same within a campaing setting. Not everyone is goig to have the same elegantarian mindset, ijust don't like the notion that the default mindset has to be that of ingrained racism or sexism because "that's how it was back then" There doens't seem to be any real justification for mechanical differences between genders either. The base mechanics aren't granular enough to represent any significant differences with out distorting them.
Sometimes characters are going to have unpopular or flawed opinions. That doesn't mean that the author or creators endorse these opinions, they just acknowledge they exist. It's the same within a campaing setting. Not everyone is goig to have the sa
I suppose my objection is that there is no counterpoint. Andrea is a pretty poor example of an emancipated woman. More generally, the more educated characters killed themselves last season. I can't help but get the feeling that the writers are trying to make a Lord of the Flies type point that only violent, ignorant, gun-toting red-necks can survive in zombie land, as long as their women are at home to cook them a meal, and brains and a conscience just get you killed.
As far as mechanics go, I think it might be because I'm not, nor will I ever be an optimiser. It makes sense to me that the strongest human woman cannot be as physically strong as the strongest human man and the strongest halfling cannot be as strong as the strongest human woman. I do think some of the 1e limits were ludicrously low (e.g. Str14 for halfling women; or Wis 13, Ch12 for half-orcs) I don't think that an ability cap as low as 17 would be unbalancing, unfair, or unrealistic.
I suppose my objection is that there is no counterpoint. Andrea is a pretty poor example of an emancipated woman. More generally, the more educated characters killed themselves last season. I can't help but get the feeling that the writers are try
I suppose my objection is that there is no counterpoint. Andrea is a pretty poor example of an emancipated woman. More generally, the more educated characters killed themselves last season. I can't help but get the feeling that the writers are trying to make a Lord of the Flies type point that only violent, ignorant, gun-toting red-necks can survive in zombie land, as long as their women are at home to cook them a meal, and brains and a conscience just get you killed.
Keep watching. I would die to say more, but I don't want to spoil it. ("It" getting introduced in season 3)
As far as mechanics go, I think it might be because I'm not, nor will I ever be an optimiser. It makes sense to me that the strongest human woman cannot be as physically strong as the strongest human man and the strongest halfling cannot be as strong as the strongest human woman. I do think some of the 1e limits were ludicrously low (e.g. Str14 for halfling women; or Wis 13, Ch12 for half-orcs) I don't think that an ability cap as low as 17 would be unbalancing, unfair, or unrealistic.
Yup, but when you make caps/modifiers small enough to make almost no difference you have to ask yourself why bother? Better just drop it, so the system is simpler and some people who are touchy on the subject are not antagonized. If someone wants weaker women he is free to not assign his highest stat to str when he is creating his/her characters.
Keep watching. I would die to say more, but I don't want to spoil it. ("It" getting introduced in season 3)Yup, but when you make caps/modifiers small enough to make almost no difference you have to ask yourself why bother? Better just drop it, so th
I suppose my objection is that there is no counterpoint. Andrea is a pretty poor example of an emancipated woman. More generally, the more educated characters killed themselves last season. I can't help but get the feeling that the writers are trying to make a Lord of the Flies type point that only violent, ignorant, gun-toting red-necks can survive in zombie land, as long as their women are at home to cook them a meal, and brains and a conscience just get you killed.
Keep watching. I would die to say more, but I don't want to spoil it. ("It" getting introduced in season 3)
As far as mechanics go, I think it might be because I'm not, nor will I ever be an optimiser. It makes sense to me that the strongest human woman cannot be as physically strong as the strongest human man and the strongest halfling cannot be as strong as the strongest human woman. I do think some of the 1e limits were ludicrously low (e.g. Str14 for halfling women; or Wis 13, Ch12 for half-orcs) I don't think that an ability cap as low as 17 would be unbalancing, unfair, or unrealistic.
Yup, but when you make caps/modifiers small enough to make almost no difference you have to ask yourself why bother? Better just drop it, so the system is simpler and some people who are touchy on the subject are not antagonized. If someone wants weaker women he is free to not assign his highest stat to str when he is creating his/her characters.
I think I know what you are hinting at but I know very little detail as I don't read the comics. Hopefully things will liven up a bit...
Ok, you've convinced me. Halfling characters really do need that 1e 14 strength cap. I never liked 4e halflings - they are scary tough. I prefer my halflings weak and cowering. Ability caps are definitely going to be in my 5e campaign! :P Hear the lamentation of the women!
Keep watching. I would die to say more, but I don't want to spoil it. ("It" getting introduced in season 3)Yup, but when you make caps/modifiers small enough to make almost no difference you have to ask yourself why bother? Better just drop it, so th
If there is no difference in genders then there doesn't need to be racial differences in ability scores either. We wouldn't want to offend people who prefer to play a specific race. Let's have PC-PCs (politically correct player characters). We wouldn't want to offend someone by actually allowing gender or race to affect game mechanics.
If there is no difference in genders then there doesn't need to be racial differences in ability scores either. We wouldn't want to offend people who prefer to play a specific race. Let's have PC-PCs (politically correct player characters). We wou
Actually, this does raise 1 serious question. This post may get lost in the noise but we'll see.
We have racial bonus's. But could we get 'class bonuses'? IF a person is a wizard, they don't just wake up one morning and think "Let's see. I need to go to the shops and buy some butter and milk. And you know what, maybe todays the day. I'm a wizard".
A player character is meant to be that step above 'just a commoner'. They have spent some time practicing their art. Whatever it is.
Can't we get some 'class modifiers'?
Fighter? Here's +1 str and +1con Rogue? Here's +1dex and +1wis
So on and so forth. Nothing to ground breaking, but perhaps reduce the bonuses and penalties of the races and put them into the class instead.
Actually, this does raise 1 serious question. This post may get lost in the noise but we'll see.We have racial bonus's. But could we get 'class bonuses'? IF a person is a wizard, they don't just wake up one morning and think "Let's see. I need to
If there is no difference in genders then there doesn't need to be racial differences in ability scores either. We wouldn't want to offend people who prefer to play a specific race. Let's have PC-PCs (politically correct player characters). We wouldn't want to offend someone by actually allowing gender or race to affect game mechanics.
For me it's not really about being offended. It's just being wrong gender/race/nationality/size (and associated stereotypes) is kind of problems I deal with in real life. In my escapist entertainment I'd rather worry about a dragon.
For me it's not really about being offended. It's just being wrong gender/race/nationality/size (and associated stereotypes) is kind of problems I deal with in real life. In my escapist entertainment I'd rather worry about a dragon.
If there is no difference in genders then there doesn't need to be racial differences in ability scores either. We wouldn't want to offend people who prefer to play a specific race. Let's have PC-PCs (politically correct player characters). We wouldn't want to offend someone by actually allowing gender or race to affect game mechanics.
For me it's not really about being offended. It's just being wrong gender/race/nationality/size (and associated stereotypes) is kind of problems I deal with in real life. In my escapist entertainment I'd rather worry about a dragon.
I have no problem putting realism into roleplaying. If a race or gender is generally larger or stronger, let's make it larger and stronger in a fantasy setting. Halflings are given strengths and weaknesses. Tolkien recognized the value in picking hobbits as his protagonist in telling a story. He didn't shy away from their weaknesses in order to be politically correct. Perhaps allowing race or gender to influence game mechanics should be an option for people who enjoy the touch of realism.
For me it's not really about being offended. It's just being wrong gender/race/nationality/size (and associated stereotypes) is kind of problems I deal with in real life. In my escapist entertainment I'd rather worry about a dragon.[/quote]I have no
* Stereotypes can be annonying sometimes, but it isn´t racism. A Brazilian who loves soccer, Asian martial artist, the rappers from MTV, the Texan cowboy, a Englishman with bowler hat and umbrella are topics, clichés, but it isn´t racism. If D&D were racist, Warcraft, Warhammer, Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls, Everquest and the rest of fantasy franchises would be racist too.
To point out - Dragon Age and Warhammer are both dark fantasy games and racism is massively rampant in both.
In Dragon Age elves are viewed as little more than second class citizens in Fereldan and in some nations (like Tevinter) they are outright slaves. They do not have a high standing in any society except the rare Dalish nomadic tribes, but even those are hunted and mistrusted. The Avvars and other tribal societies are often seen as little more than savages, and dwarves are seen by humans as little more than greedy merchants.
In Warhammer absolutely no race trusts another completely. Even the dwarf-Empire alliance is tenous at best. Elves believe themselves superior in all things and see humans as children flailing around blindly (especially when it comes to magic), and we won't go into their views on dwarves. Hell even the humans of the Empire are racist (or more to the point regionist I guess) against their own people. Liv ein the North? You're probably Chaos tainted. Live in Altdorf? Then you're stuck up and haven't seen a 'hard day' ever.
I can also point out that racism is actually fairly prevalent in Warcraft, Everquest and Elder Scrolls as well. In Warcraft racism is one of the focal points of the two factions - Horde and Alliance. In everquest if you're a Dark Elf, Ogre, or Troll and haven't built up your faction, you'll be killed on sight by the guards outside of Qeynos, Kelethin or any other 'good' aligned city. And in Elder Scrolls one only has to look at the most recent game - Skyrim to see racism. The Stormcloaks were all about 'the purity of the Nord race and their traditions' and pushing anyone who wasn't a Nord out of the region.
To point out - Dragon Age and Warhammer are both dark fantasy games and racism is massively rampant in both.In Dragon Age elves are viewed as little more than second class citizens in Fereldan and in some nations (like Tevinter) they are outright sla
I don't see any problem with it. At the end of the day, if there wasn't some form of conflict then our PC's would have to get a 9-5 job to make ends meet.
When there are forms of hatred betweens species, it becomes another tool a DM can use to weave a story.
It needs to exist.
But it becomes painful when "This race is best for this". OK. Great. Elves are great spellcasters. But surely, as a race, they have a standing army right? Fighters and rogues and so on. Right?
This is kind of why I think attribute bonuses should be tied to the class rather than the race, and 'special features' tied to the race. (eg. Elves = low light vision and immune to sleep. No +/- on attributes. Fighter? No need for intelligence, but need for strength and con. +1 str and con and -1 int)
This is just winging it on the spot. Not house rule or anything.
AD
Actually, it's more "Species-ism".I don't see any problem with it. At the end of the day, if there wasn't some form of conflict then our PC's would have to get a 9-5 job to make ends meet.When there are forms of hatred betweens species, it becomes a
I have no problem putting realism into roleplaying. If a race or gender is generally larger or stronger, let's make it larger and stronger in a fantasy setting. Halflings are given strengths and weaknesses. Tolkien recognized the value in picking hobbits as his protagonist in telling a story. He didn't shy away from their weaknesses in order to be politically correct. Perhaps allowing race or gender to influence game mechanics should be an option for people who enjoy the touch of realism.
And it's cool. I'm not telling you how to play your game, just stating that I'm not intrested in race/gender being big part of character optimization and I find systems that make big deal out of it annoying.
And it's cool. I'm not telling you how to play your game, just stating that I'm not intrested in race/gender being big part of character optimization and I find systems that make big deal out of it annoying.
I suppose my objection is that there is no counterpoint. Andrea is a pretty poor example of an emancipated woman. More generally, the more educated characters killed themselves last season. I can't help but get the feeling that the writers are trying to make a Lord of the Flies type point that only violent, ignorant, gun-toting red-necks can survive in zombie land, as long as their women are at home to cook them a meal, and brains and a conscience just get you killed.
This isn't actually a spoiler, but it's off topic.
I don't think the authors inted you to generalize like that. At least with the comics, Robert Kirkman (the writer) said in interviews that he really wanted the characters to be individuals – this is a story about these characters in this situation, not about anybody else in any other situation. I don't get the feeling from the show that the female characters or the male characters are meant to represent "males" and "females." That the women are pretty dependent on the men is just the way this group panned out. The show is emphasizing this by introducing several of the same characters from the comics, and then killing off the ones who lived in the comic. For example, Lori's sister and Dale both survive much longer in the comic while Lori dies early. Her sister is a much stronger character who becomes one of the party's most valuable protectors. I'm not really a fan of the show, only caught a few episodes in the second season, but I like that the show is playing out as a sort of "what if" alternate universe from the comics, as in "What if Lori had survived instead of her sister?" Since half the group is the same as the comic and half is different, it will be interesting to see if it diverges further from the comics and how as crucial characters are missing from pivotal scenes. I think the kind of imbalance in perspective you describe is necessary in order to create the feeling that this is a truly random group of individuals from the countryside around Atlanta. If they had tried too hard to work too many widely disparate viewpoints into such a small group of people it would have felt like the Real World Zombie Apocalypse.
If D&D tried to portray all races as developed and free willed, it would reduce many Adventuring parties to little more than Murder-Hobos. Homeless drifters, wandering through communities, killing indiscrimently for the hope of getting enough pocket change off corpses to fund their next alcohol and hired company binge. When all the victims in one area are gone, they move on to the next. Or better yet, they are the private military contractors hired to ruthlessly slaughter the minorities who are upset that large corporate entities are muscling in on their less advanced society.
Who really wants to play a game like that?
This quote reminds me of those religious people who say that without god everybody would just go around killing and raping everybody they see because there are no consequences. Maybe, just maybe, developing characters instead of races will lead to more involved, complex, and interesting stories. If the choice is between fully developed cultures without an alignment scrawled on the tin and the crap story you just outlined, I know which I prefer.
This isn't actually a spoiler, but it's off topic.Spoiler:
Show
I don't think the authors inted you to generalize like that. At least with the comics, Robert Kirkman (the writer) said in interviews that he really wanted the characters to be in
If there is no difference in genders then there doesn't need to be racial differences in ability scores either. We wouldn't want to offend people who prefer to play a specific race. Let's have PC-PCs (politically correct player characters). We wouldn't want to offend someone by actually allowing gender or race to affect game mechanics.
There is an obvious difference, that I must assume you are intentionally avoiding.
That is, unlike in human "races", dnd races are members of different species. IRL, humans are all humans, there is so little difference between us that there's really no way to express it mechanically.
You are using the slippery slope fallacy.
Further, there is no gain from including gender based mechanics. Luckily, it's simply not going to happen, so there's no real need to discuss it, either.
There is an obvious difference, that I must assume you are intentionally avoiding. That is, unlike in human "races", dnd races are members of different species. IRL, humans are all humans, there is so little difference between us that there's really
We have racial bonus's. But could we get 'class bonuses'? IF a person is a wizard, they don't just wake up one morning and think "Let's see. I need to go to the shops and buy some butter and milk. And you know what, maybe todays the day. I'm a wizard".
A player character is meant to be that step above 'just a commoner'. They have spent some time practicing their art. Whatever it is.
Can't we get some 'class modifiers'?
It looks like the playtest characters were created with a +1 to their class's primary ability score.
It looks like the playtest characters were created with a +1 to their class's primary ability score.
I still don't understand why it is taboo to give males and females different advantages for each race.
Studies show that women: Live longer, better immune systems, graduate from college more, invest better, cleaner, more organized, manage better, eat healthier, rated more attractive (by both men and women), better penmanship, and other advantages over men.
Human males are larger and stronger than human females. Human females might be given better scores in dexterity, constitution, intellgence, wisdom, or charisma in exchange.
Other races might flip roles.
I like variety. Gender can add variety.
If not in ability scores maybe in other mechanics, such as skills.
I still don't understand why it is taboo to give males and females different advantages for each race. Studies show that women:Live longer, better immune systems, graduate from college more, invest better, cleaner, more organized, manage better, eat
Taboo? Not really. I would say it's more about choice, and rpg ability of being what we can't in real world.
In real world I can't be a mage, an ogre, I can't fly and I sure as hell would stand no chance against fire breathing lizards big as a plane even if there were some. When I get into rpg world I can be all of that, and none of what I am IRL matters anymore. I can be a cripple, yet here I am an orc berserker slaughtering everything in my path. I can be a social outcast, yet play a silver-tongued bard. I am completely mundane but in a game my body gets infused with capability to cast spells. I transcend all the barriers with rpg. Unless I'm a woman. Then I'm stuck with -2 str modifier and being sucky at combat. Seriously if we can get over the fact that in fantasy world human body shoots fire out of fingertips, or is capable of getting hit by a mother-fricckin ten-ton lizard and not fall to pieces but we can't get over a woman playing 18 strength barbarian without having to awkwardly role-play opposite gender? So what that women are usually weaker IRL? I'm a man and I'm like short and wimpy. Yet I can play 18 str barbarian, nobody bats an eyelash. Then a woman sits next to me (she might be bigger than me even, we have one in our group that is) and she can't. She has to play str 16 barbarian cause the mighty rulebook says so. (Or would if this kin of views were more prevalent in the industry)
Oh and it works both ways. If for example female versions would get -2 str +2 wisdom I would, as a man, be quite upset that I can't be as powerful priest as a chick next to me cause I happen to have a penis IRL. I believe that having or not having a penis IRL should not limit my choice of effective class builds in an rpg.
And for the sake of variety we can always add cultures. Especially if it's only skills. And you can create as many diverse cultures emphasising different skills as you want. Or themes or backgrounds, or magical influences, or ancient curses or advantages/disadvantages system like in WoD or anything really. There is so many sources that can let you slap +2 -2 modifiers on a character in a fantasy world you can write a whole book (or at least a solid chapter) with nothing but +2 -2 templates. There is no reason to make my characters work at certain classes better or worse based on the contents of my pants.
Taboo? Not really. I would say it's more about choice, and rpg ability of being what we can't in real world.In real world I can't be a mage, an ogre, I can't fly and I sure as hell would stand no chance against fire breathing lizards big as a plane e
I think some folks cling to old notions out of habit. Sometimes it leads to irrational situations that defies logic.
Case in point: I was at a convention a while back playing a character that can switch genders. This ability gave no mechanical advantage what so ever, and I thought it was pretty cool.
However, when I mentioned it to the table most folks simply shook their head thinking it was too strange. The loudest protest came from a 20 something year old player who declared, "Eww that is so gross!"
What made me laugh was that the protesting player's character was a doppelganger.
I think some folks cling to old notions out of habit. Sometimes it leads to irrational situations that defies logic.Case in point: I was at a convention a while back playing a character that can switch genders. This ability gave no mechanical adva
Unless I'm a woman. Then I'm stuck with -2 str modifier and being sucky at combat. Seriously if we can get over the fact that in fantasy world human body shoots fire out of fingertips, or is capable of getting hit by a mother-fricckin ten-ton lizard and not fall to pieces but we can't get over a woman playing 18 strength barbarian without having to awkwardly role-play opposite gender? So what that women are usually weaker IRL? I'm a man and I'm like short and wimpy. Yet I can play 18 str barbarian, nobody bats an eyelash. Then a woman sits next to me (she might be bigger than me even, we have one in our group that is) and she can't. She has to play str 16 barbarian cause the mighty rulebook says so. (Or would if this kin of views were more prevalent in the industry)
Oh and it works both ways. If for example female versions would get -2 str +2 wisdom I would, as a man, be quite upset that I can't be as powerful priest as a chick next to me cause I happen to have a penis IRL. I believe that having or not having a penis IRL should not limit my choice of effective class builds in an rpg.
This is why ability caps work better. The player who wants that 18 strength female barbarian can still have her at no additional cost. However, only a male character can have that strength 20 barbarian together with the penalty of the higher cost and less effective saving throws overall. The female character will have those additional points to spend on her other ability scores and the gender stereotype is preserved. This system would penalise rolled stats but you can always apply a penalty retrospectively and apply the points elsewhere if you use that system. All it does is steer the player away from unrealistic extremes. I'm totally against stat penalties based on gender and I'm ambivalent about stat penalties based on race.
This is why ability caps work better. The player who wants that 18 strength female barbarian can still have her at no additional cost. However, only a male character can have that strength 20 barbarian together with the penalty of the higher cost a
This is why ability caps work better. The player who wants that 18 strength female barbarian can still have her at no additional cost. However, only a male character can have that strength 20 barbarian together with the penalty of the higher cost and less effective saving throws overall. The female character will have those additional points to spend on her other ability scores and the gender stereotype is preserved. This system would penalise rolled stats but you can always apply a penalty retrospectively and apply the points elsewhere if you use that system. All it does is steer the player away from unrealistic extremes. I'm totally against stat penalties based on gender and I'm ambivalent about stat penalties based on race.
I do agree that ability caps would be less penalizing and thus less annoying. However in DnD there are just so many biological absurdities that we casually glance over because we are used to them that I really don't see a reason to get hung up on this issue. Especially since it could be as well resolved with one fluff sentence "In this fantasy world the humanoid races evolved without significant gender dymorphism". Blam, solved for me, if I can accept magic and elves and orcs I sure can accept that.
I do agree that ability caps would be less penalizing and thus less annoying. However in DnD there are just so many biological absurdities that we casually glance over because we are used to them that I really don't see a reason to get hung up on thi
There are some cases where sexual dimorphism is ok.
For example, in Talislanta, there is a race called the Batrians. The women are small and pretty, while the men are like Sasquatch. In the game, the men are given high strength and dull wits, while the women are pretty and smart. The book even goes on to explain how the ladies try to use their charms to get adventurers to take them away from their brutish mates.
In RL, the difference between male and female Black Widow spiders comes to mind.
In certain cases, such things can really add flavor to a setting, however, to make differences between the sexes the norm for all races is not necessary.
Frankly, I am fine with dropping many stat limits on different races too. After all, while most orcs are stronger than a halfling, why can't there be a very strong halfling, or a weak, but charismatic orc? Since a player can pick whatever he wants, the limits on race and gender don't make sense, unless we are talking extreme differences, say the strength difference between a gnome and a stone giant. In that case it makes sense, but with races physiologically close to each other, it becomes harder to justify.
There are some cases where sexual dimorphism is ok.For example, in Talislanta, there is a race called the Batrians. The women are small and pretty, while the men are like Sasquatch. In the game, the men are given high strength and dull wits, while
I don´t know about any RPG or videogame where characters have got different stats because players have chosen male or female (but any excepcional fantasy races). And don´t forget a gamer can play a female character who is just, simply the strongest woman of that region, any additional explanation isn´t necesary.
If there aren´t higher number of female bodybuilder warriors it is only because they aren´t too popular, but it isn´t forbidden.
I don´t know about any RPG or videogame where characters have got different stats because players have chosen male or female (but any excepcional fantasy races). And don´t forget a gamer can play a female character who is just, simply the
So if players want a strong halfling or a barbarian woman and don't want any minuses on strength, I guess gender and race should be stripped of all ability modifiers. If the point is to prevent min/maxing I guess I can see where this might be useful. I still like my choices for race and gender to influence the mechanics in some way. Not sure how that would be however to satisfy both sides: people who want no advantages or disadvantages due to race/gender and those who want some mechanical difference when making choices.
So if players want a strong halfling or a barbarian woman and don't want any minuses on strength, I guess gender and race should be stripped of all ability modifiers. If the point is to prevent min/maxing I guess I can see where this might be useful
If there aren´t higher number of female bodybuilder warriors it is only because they aren´t too popular, but it isn´t forbidden.
The issue isn't whether you can have a strong halfling or a strong human woman, the issue is whether the strongest female bodybuilder or the strongest halfling should be as strong as the strongest human male bodybuilder. It's not a major issue for me but I'd be fine if human women, elves, and half-elves were capped at 18 or 19 strength and halflings and gnomes were capped at 17 etc. It makes sense and as long as they keep a lid on ability score bonuses to attack, it shouldn't gimp any player. I'd be uncomfortable with any cap below 16.
The issue isn't whether you can have a strong halfling or a strong human woman, the issue is whether the strongest female bodybuilder or the strongest halfling should be as strong as the strongest human male bodybuilder. It's not a major issue for m
So if players want a strong halfling or a barbarian woman and don't want any minuses on strength, I guess gender and race should be stripped of all ability modifiers. If the point is to prevent min/maxing I guess I can see where this might be useful. I still like my choices for race and gender to influence the mechanics in some way. Not sure how that would be however to satisfy both sides: people who want no advantages or disadvantages due to race/gender and those who want some mechanical difference when making choices.
Well there is a way to achieve gender variety without limiting players access to effective class builds based on their gender. You can make some races that reflect our species gender dymorphism and (sub)races that are directly opposite. Bonus points if you manage *not* to make the gender-subverting (sub)races evil or monstrous, but something a player might actually want to play. Let's say typical humans are more like us with men being stronger, but elves are directly opposite with females being as strong as human males. Could be pretty cool roleplaywise and would add more variety to the game than just slapping human specific gender dymorphism on all/most of the player races (same old same old). And wouldn't limit women to play weaker characters as they could choose to play an elvish raging 18 str warrior woman.
Well there is a way to achieve gender variety without limiting players access to effective class builds based on their gender. You can make some races that reflect our species gender dymorphism and (sub)races that are directly opposite. Bonus points
I notice the word 'minuses' keeps cropping up. Nevermind that the latest iteration of D&D did away with ability score penalties based on race. There were only bonuses, and honestly, that's how it should be.
I notice the word 'minuses' keeps cropping up. Nevermind that the latest iteration of D&D did away with ability score penalties based on race. There were only bonuses, and honestly, that's how it should be.
So if players want a strong halfling or a barbarian woman and don't want any minuses on strength, I guess gender and race should be stripped of all ability modifiers. If the point is to prevent min/maxing I guess I can see where this might be useful. I still like my choices for race and gender to influence the mechanics in some way. Not sure how that would be however to satisfy both sides: people who want no advantages or disadvantages due to race/gender and those who want some mechanical difference when making choices.
Let's say typical humans are more like us with men being stronger, but elves are directly opposite with females being as strong as human males. Could be pretty cool roleplaywise and would add more variety to the game than just slapping human specific gender dymorphism on all/most of the player races (same old same old). And wouldn't limit women to play weaker characters as they could choose to play an elvish raging 18 str warrior woman.
Once again, a cap does not prevent you having your 18 strength female barbarian. I think I'd be ok for some non-humans to have equivalent stats but I always liked that Drow women were stronger and wiser than the males.
Let's say typical humans are more like us with men being stronger, but elves are directly opposite with females being as strong as human males. Could be pretty cool roleplaywise and would add more variety to the game than just slapping human specific
I don´t know about any RPG or videogame where characters have got different stats because players have chosen male or female (but any excepcional fantasy races). And don´t forget a gamer can play a female character who is just, simply the strongest woman of that region, any additional explanation isn´t necesary.
If there aren´t higher number of female bodybuilder warriors it is only because they aren´t too popular, but it isn´t forbidden.
You have obviously never played an Asian grinder MMO like Perfect World. In those games, the class you choose determines the gender. For example, you want to be a barbarian? You have to be male. If you want to be a pet class like the Venomancer, your toon will be a chick, no choice. In general, many Asian MMOs have magic type classes as being female and combat oriented class as being male. And yes, the stats between the two genders are very different (to support the classes mostly).
They also hype up marriage between the players, with their item malls selling expensive marriage packages (for RL $$$). Same sex marriage is never allowed in these games.
In these games, the armor each gender gets are very different: Men get armor, and women get...uhm...well, mystical lingerie.
Frankly, I think the above strictures and stereotypes suck, but what do I know? After all, millions of people play them.
You have obviously never played an Asian grinder MMO like Perfect World. In those games, the class you choose determines the gender. For example, you want to be a barbarian? You have to be male. If you want to be a pet class like the Venomancer,
I personally feel that ability scores should have less effect on game mechanics. Experience should have a greater effect than strength or dexterity. I dislike systems where you need to maximize one score to create a more ideal character. When a 20 strength gives an extra 5% chance to hit and an extra point of damage or more, it makes sense to create the maximum character.
You could then set min/max ability scores or bonuses/penalties by race/gender without angering anyone who wants to play a halfling/female fighter or a male/orc wizard.
I personally feel that ability scores should have less effect on game mechanics. Experience should have a greater effect than strength or dexterity. I dislike systems where you need to maximize one score to create a more ideal character. When a 20
* She is the strongest woman of the region because madam Obelixa fell into the druid´s cauldron when she was child. More explanation isn´t necesary, OK?.
* She is the strongest woman of the region because madam Obelixa fell into the druid´s cauldron when she was child. More explanation isn´t necesary, OK?.
The thing is natural human males are more likely to be taller and have a higher muscle density, this is not true of all races since sometimes this is switched, equal does not equal the same. Now i do not think it should be a feature forced on you, but difference in gender do exist, however there are also tall and strong females, though the strongest woman is probably not as strong as the strongest man that doesn't matter since women in general have other things which balance that out, but i do belive there should be caps for race instead of stats, and the stat bonuses should come from class, if you want to show that lifestyle effects you more than your race.
The thing is natural human males are more likely to be taller and have a higher muscle density, this is not true of all races since sometimes this is switched, equal does not equal the same. Now i do not think it should be a feature forced on you, bu
* She is the strongest woman of the region because madam Obelixa fell into the druid´s cauldron when she was child. More explanation isn´t necesary, OK?.
I agree that there should be no hard cap for those that want to use magic or destiny to exceed racial norms. That's actually a lot of fun. I'd be happy with a cap as a guideline saying that these are expected norms but with a caveat that any gender or race can exceed them with an in-story excuse. Why can't the halfling irradiated by gamma rays in that wizard's lab have 20 strength - he can - but he will be flagged as an oddity among his people. Sounds groovy to me.
I agree that there should be no hard cap for those that want to use magic or destiny to exceed racial norms. That's actually a lot of fun. I'd be happy with a cap as a guideline saying that these are expected norms but with a caveat that any gender
I still don't understand why it is taboo to give males and females different advantages for each race.
Studies show that women: Live longer, better immune systems, graduate from college more, invest better, cleaner, more organized, manage better, eat healthier, rated more attractive (by both men and women), better penmanship, and other advantages over men.
Human males are larger and stronger than human females. Human females might be given better scores in dexterity, constitution, intellgence, wisdom, or charisma in exchange.
Other races might flip roles.
I like variety. Gender can add variety.
If not in ability scores maybe in other mechanics, such as skills.
Most of the things you list for women are likely products of societal influence, rather than genetics.
Further, the actual physical differences between men and women are small enough that to compare them to the differences between an elf and a human is preposterous. It's like claiming that men and women are as different as border collies and mastiffs.
On average, men have a stronger hand grip, tend to be taller and have more muscle power. Now, unless you have a pocket world that no one knows about that is not like ours, where women have been discouraged from exercising physical strength for thousands of years, with a change in that being only a few decades old, at most, then you don't know how hard coded that difference is. For all we know right now, an aggressive ad campaign that encouraged young men to find larger, more athletic women attractive, and encouraged women to look at slimmer, more bookish men could completely change that in a matter of a few generations.
The actual difference is that small, and that much a matter of averages.
It's not worth making mechanics for, when those mechanics would annoy a large part of the community, and add more restrictions than real benefits to the system. At the DnD level of precision, men and women are the same.
Most of the things you list for women are likely products of societal influence, rather than genetics. Further, the actual physical differences between men and women are small enough that to compare them to the differences between an elf and a human
Here is a chart that shows benchpressing capacity. I would say these differences in strength are quite significant. Certainly they would be easily applied in an ability score such as strength.
In 3.5E, a 10 strength can lift 100 lbs over his/her head. A 15 strength can lift 200 lbs over his head.
Find me 1 woman who can lift 200 lbs over her head and I'll find 100 men who can (every man on every college football team in the USA). I can lift 200 lbs over my head. My wife is in great shape, exercises, and lift weights but she would have no chance of it.
I disagree that those things I listed as advantages for women are societal rather than genetic. Most researchers feel there is likely a genetic component in all of those.
To say there is no differences between men and women is simply not true. To say that a game system will ignore those differences reflects a desire to represent a fantasy situation rather than reality.
As I have played D&D over the years, I have played both male and female characters. I admit, if one gender would optimize my character towards a certain class that I wanted to play, I would take that gender.
Why take a male drow if a female drow was superior? I would like subtle differences in gender though just to add flavor.
Average Good Great Excellent Males under 220 lbs 1.25x Bodyweight 1.5x Bodyweight 1.75x Bodyweight 2x Bodyweight Males over 220 lbs 1x Bodyweight 1.3x Bodyweight 1.6x Bodyweight 1.85x Bodyweight Females .5x Bodyweight .75
To say there is no differences between men and women is simply not true. To say that a game system will ignore those differences reflects a desire to represent a fantasy situation rather than reality.
Replacing reality with fantasy? Sounds exactly like what most of the rpgs excell at doing, especially, the ones of the *fantasy* genre. Last time I checked DnD was not grim-n-gritty science fiction.
Replacing reality with fantasy? Sounds exactly like what most of the rpgs excell at doing, especially, the ones of the *fantasy* genre. Last time I checked DnD was not grim-n-gritty science fiction.
To say there is no differences between men and women is simply not true. To say that a game system will ignore those differences reflects a desire to represent a fantasy situation rather than reality.
Replacing reality with fantasy? Sounds exactly like what most of the rpgs excell at doing, especially, the ones of the *fantasy* genre. Last time I checked DnD was not grim-n-gritty science fiction.
Let's just admit though that part of the reason DnD is making the game gender neutral is to be politically correct. I like customization though. I realize that men and women are different.
My preferred bonus system for ability scores would be: 1-4 = -2 penalty 5-8 = -1 penalty 9-12 = no bonus or penalty 13-16 = +1 bonus 17-20 = +2 bonus
Male humans: +1 str Female humans: -1 str, +1 wis, +1 cha Male high elves: +1 dex Female high elves: +1 wis Male drow: +1 int Female drow: +1 cha Male Orc: +2 str, -1 int, -1 wis, -1 cha Female Orc: +1 str, +1 con, -1 int, -1 cha etc.
Class: Fighter: +1 str Cleric: +1 wis Mage: +1 int Thief: +1 dex Monk: +1 con Bard: +1 cha
If the effect of ability score was minimized, min/maxing would not be so desirable. A person might like a 20 str just to be stronger than an 18 str even if there was no mechanical advantage.
Replacing reality with fantasy? Sounds exactly like what most of the rpgs excell at doing, especially, the ones of the *fantasy* genre. Last time I checked DnD was not grim-n-gritty science fiction.[/quote]Let's just admit though that part of the rea
Penalties are bad. They still let your woman obtain 20 strength but she's penalised more on her other stats. Caps are better and you can keep your racial and class bonuses to make it easier to reach your cap:
Male humans: 20 str 18, wis 18 Cha Female humans: 18 str 20 Wis 19 Cha Male high elves: 19 str 20 dex Female high elves: 18 str 19 dex 20 wis Male drow: 17 str 20 int Female drow: 18 str 20 wis 20 cha Male Orc: 20 str, 19 con, 18 int, 17 wis, 16 cha Female Orc: 19 str, 19 con, 19 int, 18 wis, 17 cha etc.
Class: Fighter: +1 str Cleric: +1 wis Mage: +1 int Thief: +1 dex Monk: +1 con Bard: +1 cha
You can make the caps as simple or as complex as you like. In previous editions the only gender cap was on strength (except for the drow) and that could work ok in 5e - female characters would end up with more points to spend in other abilities leading to subtle gender stereotypes. I do think it would only be fair if attack bonuses and penalties were never more than +/-2 but I'd be ok sticking to the full damage bonus.
Penalties are bad. They still let your woman obtain 20 strength but she's penalised more on her other stats. Caps are better and you can keep your racial and class bonuses to make it easier to reach your cap:Male humans: 20 str 18, wis 18 ChaFemale
My preferred bonus system for ability scores would be. . .
I don't see WotC changing the ability score bonus pattern when it has existed that way throughout at least 3 editions (AD&D 2e, 3e, & 4e). In light of that, instituting ability score differences for genders would only increase the min/max-ing.
I would also like to point out that your male/female stat modifiers never has women being stronger than men. Why? The different races are different species. Why must non-humans obey human gender stereotypes?
We all realize that. A lot of us just don't think it matters, or should matter, enough to be represented in a game about fantastic heroes.I don't see WotC changing the ability score bonus pattern when it has existed that way throughout at least 3 ed
My preferred bonus system for ability scores would be. . .
I don't see WotC changing the ability score bonus pattern when it has existed that way throughout at least 3 editions (AD&D 2e, 3e, & 4e). In light of that, instituting ability score differences for genders would only increase the min/max-ing.
In fact in 1e and 2e the bonuses to attack in melee were flatter until you got to exceptional % at 18. Dexterity bonuses to attack were slightly better but did not add to damage.
I'd prefer to see attack rolls rise more due to level rather than at level 1 due ro high scores and dueto so-called optional magic items.
We all realize that. A lot of us just don't think it matters, or should matter, enough to be represented in a game about fantastic heroes.I don't see WotC changing the ability score bonus pattern when it has existed that way throughout at least 3 ed
My preferred bonus system for ability scores would be. . .
I don't see WotC changing the ability score bonus pattern when it has existed that way throughout at least 3 editions (AD&D 2e, 3e, & 4e). In light of that, instituting ability score differences for genders would only increase the min/max-ing.
In fact in 1e and 2e the bonuses to attack in melee were flatter until you got to exceptional % at 18. Dexterity bonuses to attack were slightly better but did not add to damage.
I'd prefer to see attack rolls rise more due to level rather than at level 1 due ro high scores and dueto so-called optional magic items.
It's been years since I've played AD&D 2e (I no longer have the PHB, DMG, or MM for that edition), so I don't recall the exact bonus/penalty pattern (I seem to recall the init bonus from Dex being similar to the +1 per 2 points pattern). I do recall the 18/% strength being where the bulk of the available bonuses were for melee (which, to me, feels a lot like just another way to screw non-casters over).
We all realize that. A lot of us just don't think it matters, or should matter, enough to be represented in a game about fantastic heroes.I don't see WotC changing the ability score bonus pattern when it has existed that way throughout at least 3 ed
It's been years since I've played AD&D 2e (I no longer have the PHB, DMG, or MM for that edition), so I don't recall the exact bonus/penalty pattern (I seem to recall the init bonus from Dex being similar to the +1 per 2 points pattern). I do recall the 18/% strength being where the bulk of the available bonuses were for melee (which, to me, feels a lot like just another way to screw non-casters over).
I think 2e was almost identical to 1e in most attribute effects. Percentile strength was a terrible idea. The gulf between fighters who did and did not have 18 strength could become huge and that worries me even more if their system is to be bounded this time around. Halving attack bonuses on all ability scores prevents your strength 14 fighter like Tika Waylan from being totally screwed over for her entire career. Now of course Tika was also a rogue and wielding her shortsword as a finesse weapon would give her +3 to attack and damage in 5e, while her frying pan can just be a reflavoured club or mace with +2 to attack and damage. Even so, evening out the attack bonuses can make wielding different weapons more viable.
The bonuses only really start to bite at the upper end of the scale, much like dear old percentile strength (and +5/+5 still has a more stark effect than the +3/+6 of 18/00).
I think 2e was almost identical to 1e in most attribute effects. Percentile strength was a terrible idea. The gulf between fighters who did and did not have 18 strength could become huge and that worries me even more if their system is to be bounde
Here is a chart that shows benchpressing capacity. I would say these differences in strength are quite significant. Certainly they would be easily applied in an ability score such as strength.
In 3.5E, a 10 strength can lift 100 lbs over his/her head. A 15 strength can lift 200 lbs over his head.
Find me 1 woman who can lift 200 lbs over her head and I'll find 100 men who can (every man on every college football team in the USA). I can lift 200 lbs over my head. My wife is in great shape, exercises, and lift weights but she would have no chance of it.
I disagree that those things I listed as advantages for women are societal rather than genetic. Most researchers feel there is likely a genetic component in all of those.
To say there is no differences between men and women is simply not true. To say that a game system will ignore those differences reflects a desire to represent a fantasy situation rather than reality.
As I have played D&D over the years, I have played both male and female characters. I admit, if one gender would optimize my character towards a certain class that I wanted to play, I would take that gender.
Why take a male drow if a female drow was superior? I would like subtle differences in gender though just to add flavor.
PPOR.
And no, I don't find those differences significant enough to be represented as mechanical restrictions. I know at least three women who can lift 200 lb over their heads. One of them plays arena football.
Start raising women to think of football as a cool thing for them to do, and the numbers will change.
The rest, like being more likely to graduate from college, is purely societal. To suggest otherwise is scientifically unfounded.
PPOR. And no, I don't find those differences significant enough to be represented as mechanical restrictions. I know at least three women who can lift 200 lb over their heads. One of them plays arena football. Start raising women to think of football
There should certainly be races where females are larger and stronger than males. There should also be races where males and females are identical although this seems rare in reality. I don't quite understand why penalties are worse than maximums. Maximums would seem far worse particularly if they were held to be absolute. I guess starting maximums would be less restrictive. I wouldn't mind if a gender mechanics system were available but optional. I am guessing WOTC is afraid to go there and risk insulting someone. Not sure why they are willing to have different heights and weights but not other stats.
There should certainly be races where females are larger and stronger than males. There should also be races where males and females are identical although this seems rare in reality. I don't quite understand why penalties are worse than maximums. Ma
I am guessing WOTC is afraid to go there and risk insulting someone. Not sure why they are willing to have different heights and weights but not other stats.
No one is bound to the heights and weights given. In fact, they are purely fluff that can be ignored and has no impact on other game elements. To put it another way, you don't get bonuses to hit or damage or dodge enemies that are 3 inches shorter than you.
No one is bound to the heights and weights given. In fact, they are purely fluff that can be ignored and has no impact on other game elements. To put it another way, you don't get bonuses to hit or damage or dodge enemies that are 3 inches shorter
Start raising women to think of football as a cool thing for them to do, and the numbers will change.
Of course they would.
But how much would they change?
Do you think that the average woman would be as strong as the average man?
The biology of childbirthing... promotes/requires stamina and pain tolerance..*(stamina muscles are leaner less burst power capable) reduce that requirement might allow more bulk muscle genetics on the female side of the gene pool, males may prefer trim females with wide hips and breasts because those that didnt didnt/dont... will not get there genes passed on as much.
Of course they would.But how much would they change?Do you think that the average woman would be as strong as the average man?[/quote]The biology of childbirthing... promotes/requires stamina and pain tolerance..*(stamina muscles are leaner less burs
Honestly, its a game. PC's are heroes. They are exception not average. Averages, means, norms in the population are irrelavent. Do you seriously believe penalizing a player because he or she chose to play a female character (or a character of a specific race) is a good thing? If you do then we are not playing the same game.
TjD
Honestly, its a game. PC's are heroes. They are exception not average. Averages, means, norms in the population are irrelavent. Do you seriously believe penalizing a player because he or she chose to play a female character (or a character of a s
Start raising women to think of football as a cool thing for them to do, and the numbers will change.
Of course they would.
But how much would they change?
Do you think that the average woman would be as strong as the average man?
It's entirely possible. Already I've seen studies showing that the hourglass figure is becoming less common, with more women developing the more v-shaped body type we normally think of as masculine, probably as a result of a couple generations of it being fairly common for women to work the same kinds of jobs as men.
I've also known at least a dozen women who could play football, soccer, baseball and/or hockey just as well as any guy on their highschool's team, but haven't been allowed to play because of their gender, a few women who can lift me like a sack of potatoes (I weigh a little over 250), or perhaps more relevant to a dnd related discussion, fight with a sword and shield just as well or better compared to the men with which they compete.
Even if we consider these women exceptional, they exist. That means that hard limits based on gender do not make sense.
Honestly, its a game. PC's are heroes. They are exception not average. Averages, means, norms in the population are irrelavent. Do you seriously believe penalizing a player because he or she chose to play a female character (or a character of a specific race) is a good thing? If you do then we are not playing the same game.
TjD
Also, this. this is very relevant.
Of course they would.But how much would they change?Do you think that the average woman would be as strong as the average man?[/quote]It's entirely possible. Already I've seen studies showing that the hourglass figure is becoming less common, with mo
It's entirely possible. Already I've seen studies showing that the hourglass figure is becoming less common, with more women developing the more v-shaped body type we normally think of as masculine, probably as a result of a couple generations of it being fairly common for women to work the same kinds of jobs as men.
I've also known at least a dozen women who could play football, soccer, baseball and/or hockey just as well as any guy on their highschool's team, but haven't been allowed to play because of their gender, a few women who can lift me like a sack of potatoes (I weigh a little over 250), or perhaps more relevant to a dnd related discussion, fight with a sword and shield just as well or better compared to the men with which they compete.
Even if we consider these women exceptional, they exist. That means that hard limits based on gender do not make sense.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993): “The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men.”
Further: “The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
“Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
“In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.”
From the same report: “Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
“(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
“(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
“(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
“(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge….”
From the Wikipedia (yeah, I know...) entry on the topic:
The difference (in strength) is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.
While the strength of the average female human might be expected to increase somewhat as a result of greater cultural acceptance of girls and women engaging in athletic pursuits, etc, I think it's highly doubtful that the average woman will ever be as strong as the average man.
All that said, I do not support imposing a strength penalty or cap on female human characters. However, I am content to admit to myself that the reason for not doing so is because we don't want to make female characters automatically sub-par, not because I actually believe that the average woman truly is as strong as the average man. This is one area in which I don't mind realism/verisimilitude taking a back seat; after all, as someone else stated above, the PCs are supposed to be exceptional.
Personally, being a devotee of lower-powered fantasy campaigns/games, I am just as irritated at seeing every single male Fighter sporting 18 Strength as I would be at seeing every female Fighter with 18 Strength.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993): “The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pound
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" /> Personally, being a devotee of lower-powered fantasy campaigns/games, I am just as irritated at seeing every single male Fighter sporting 18 Strength as I would be at seeing every female Fighter with 18 Strength.
Attribute scores are arbitrary. Yes, it does seem a touch unrealistic that every fighter is the (or very near) peak human capability, but that’s where simulationism and gamism diverge. If allowed to elect his own ability scores the fighter is far more heavily rewarded for maximizing his strength than creating a more rounded individual. An individual DM can remedy this, but if this occurred more likely than not, the phenomenon would most likely not exist. As it stands a fighter has one basic job, hit things and hit them hard. A fighter with a lower than possible Strength score is not hitting things as often or as hard as he could be. Outside of combat the bulk of a fighter’s skills rely on his strength. With a low stretch he cannot perform these abilities as well either. A fighter with a low strength may very well have a slightly above average intelligence or charisma score, but it’s unlikely that he’ll get the most use out of this compared to his fellow party members better suited to take advantage of these stats. Therefore, the fighter’s players begin to view the character simply in terms of his short comings, with no real way of overcoming them. The canned response to such assertions will almost invariably “roleplaying” , but how enjoyable is it really to role play a character that’s horrible at the one thing they are expected to be good at, especially when even characters who excel in that field get quickly overshadowed. Since “power” in this case is a comparison between the overall efficacy of the PCs and their opponents, there are more elegant ways to achieve a “low power” game than expecting players to elect sub-par ability scores.
Attribute scores are arbitrary. Yes, it does seem a touch unrealistic that every fighter is the (or very near) peak human capability, but that’s where simulationism and gamism diverge. If allowed to elect his own ability scores the fighter is
....there are more elegant ways to achieve a “low power” game than expecting players to elect sub-par ability scores.
Quite so.
I prefer that my players randomly generate their ability scores; I do not permit them to "elect" their scores.
Isn't sub-par below 9? That's pretty low.
My preferred rolling method of score generation is the 4d6, droppping the lowest die. You get plenty of 18s, but lots of characters without them. I actually have a mini-fantasy of playing a character using the 3d6 method, just for fun.
Quite so.I prefer that my players randomly generate their ability scores; I do not permit them to "elect" their scores.[/quote]Isn't sub-par below 9? That's pretty low. My preferred rolling method of score generation is the 4d6, droppping the lowest
....there are more elegant ways to achieve a “low power” game than expecting players to elect sub-par ability scores.
Quite so.
I prefer that my players randomly generate their ability scores; I do not permit them to "elect" their scores.
Isn't sub-par below 9? That's pretty low.
My preferred rolling method of score generation is the 4d6, droppping the lowest die. You get plenty of 18s, but lots of characters without them. I actually have a mini-fantasy of playing a character using the 3d6 method, just for fun.
You know, I try to be understanding and diplomatic here. But for once I'm going to blunt and call bull on this. I have played in a great deal of games and with a wide variety of players, and I've yet to encounter any one who reveled in being horrible at the game. Yes you can tell me all about this wonderfull version of Dungeons and Dragon's where ability scores don't matter, but 1) that's not the game D&D was created to be and 2) if stats don't matter then why have them at all? ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Quite so.I prefer that my players randomly generate their ability scores; I do not permit them to "elect" their scores.[/quote]Isn't sub-par below 9? That's pretty low. My preferred rolling method of score generation is the 4d6, droppping the lowest
I actually have a mini-fantasy of playing a character using the 3d6 method, just for fun.
Tried that in Stormbringer... one guy cheated another actually got lucky and the other was bland. Fricken increase in dm workload.... forced artificial behavior and quite annoying.
Tried that in Stormbringer... one guy cheated another actually got lucky and the other was bland. Fricken increase in dm workload.... forced artificial behavior and quite annoying.
You know, I try to be understanding and diplomatic here. But for once I'm going to blunt and call bull on this. I have played in a great deal of games and with a wide variety of players, and I've yet to encounter any one who reveled in being horrible at the game. Yes you can tell me all about this wonderfull version of Dungeons and Dragon's where ability scores don't matter, but 1) that's not the game D&D was created to be and 2) if stats don't matter then why have them at all?
If lower abilities are how the party is written up, it is the DMs job to provide an appropriate challenge level. Plus, since the goal of the game is to role play and have fun (i.e. it's not supposed to be how quickly and efficiently PCs can kill monsters in combat) being statistically weaker doesn't make one "horrible at the game". The stats are meant to be a record of your characters abilities, not a scorecard of how well you're doing at the game.
And by the way, 3d6 placed in order is "exactly" the game D&D was created to be. I've ever played that way, and to be sure, no one following the current edition of the game would do so, but there is nothing "wrong" with that style of play.
If lower abilities are how the party is written up, it is the DMs job to provide an appropriate challenge level. Plus, since the goal of the game is to role play and have fun (i.e. it's not supposed to be how quickly and efficiently PCs can kill mons
It's entirely possible. Already I've seen studies showing that the hourglass figure is becoming less common, with more women developing the more v-shaped body type we normally think of as masculine, probably as a result of a couple generations of it being fairly common for women to work the same kinds of jobs as men.
I've also known at least a dozen women who could play football, soccer, baseball and/or hockey just as well as any guy on their highschool's team, but haven't been allowed to play because of their gender, a few women who can lift me like a sack of potatoes (I weigh a little over 250), or perhaps more relevant to a dnd related discussion, fight with a sword and shield just as well or better compared to the men with which they compete.
Even if we consider these women exceptional, they exist. That means that hard limits based on gender do not make sense.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993): “The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men.”
Further: “The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
“Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
“In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.”
From the same report: “Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
“(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
“(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
“(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
“(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge….”
From the Wikipedia (yeah, I know...) entry on the topic:
The difference (in strength) is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.
While the strength of the average female human might be expected to increase somewhat as a result of greater cultural acceptance of girls and women engaging in athletic pursuits, etc, I think it's highly doubtful that the average woman will ever be as strong as the average man.
All that said, I do not support imposing a strength penalty or cap on female human characters. However, I am content to admit to myself that the reason for not doing so is because we don't want to make female characters automatically sub-par, not because I actually believe that the average woman truly is as strong as the average man. This is one area in which I don't mind realism/verisimilitude taking a back seat; after all, as someone else stated above, the PCs are supposed to be exceptional.
Personally, being a devotee of lower-powered fantasy campaigns/games, I am just as irritated at seeing every single male Fighter sporting 18 Strength as I would be at seeing every female Fighter with 18 Strength.
You realize that none of that even interacts with what I've said in any meaningful way, much less contradicts any of it, right?
I say, there are averages, and it is possible that they are only there/only as noticable as they are as a result of factors X and Y. If you respond by quoting studies that point out the averages we were already discussing, you've potentially provided us with more precise numbers we can use instead of the vague terms normally used, but that's it.
Those differences would not necessarily be anywhere near as noticeable in a population that expected men and women both to work and fight for hundreds of years. I'm not talking about evolution in the greater sense, either. I'm talking about small scale adaptation. Things on the same level as body types of a population changing with a significant change in diet.
The muscle systems of men and women aren't noticeably different. Men produce more testosterone, and tend to be taller and broader. Those are actually fairly trivial traits, and if you change them (which is easily done over just a few generations) you will see dramatic changes in the strength related averages.
I'm not going to get into the last part of your post, because I'm not sure what you're even talking about, or how it could possibly be irritating that a character has high stats in the thing they are most focused on. It's like saying that it's weird for an Olympic gymnast to have a very high dexterity.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993): “The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pound
You know, I try to be understanding and diplomatic here. But for once I'm going to blunt and call bull on this. I have played in a great deal of games and with a wide variety of players, and I've yet to encounter any one who reveled in being horrible at the game. Yes you can tell me all about this wonderfull version of Dungeons and Dragon's where ability scores don't matter, but 1) that's not the game D&D was created to be and 2) if stats don't matter then why have them at all?
If lower abilities are how the party is written up, it is the DMs job to provide an appropriate challenge level. Plus, since the goal of the game is to role play and have fun (i.e. it's not supposed to be how quickly and efficiently PCs can kill monsters in combat) being statistically weaker doesn't make one "horrible at the game". The stats are meant to be a record of your characters abilities, not a scorecard of how well you're doing at the game.
And by the way, 3d6 placed in order is "exactly" the game D&D was created to be. I've ever played that way, and to be sure, no one following the current edition of the game would do so, but there is nothing "wrong" with that style of play.
With all due respect to what Gygax and Arneson, thank god the game has evolved beyond its initial designs. D&D has always assumed the party was realtively competent at thier endeavors, not so much that there was littel or no risk or chance of failure, but the early math didn't always support that. You are right though, the game is about having fun, and its not fun failing at most everythign I attempt becasue the little bits of plastic with numbers on them say I suck. I really want to know what kind of games rely on the PC's inneptitude to drive conflict , create challenges and present opourtunities for roleplaying. Constantly putting the PCs up against obstacles they are not capable of overcoming just brings the game to a grinding halt. The answer here will almost certainly be "but roleplaying", yet roleplaying isn't talking your way around every obstacle, ability scores be damned.
If lower abilities are how the party is written up, it is the DMs job to provide an appropriate challenge level. Plus, since the goal of the game is to role play and have fun (i.e. it's not supposed to be how quickly and efficiently PCs can kill mons
With all due respect to what Gygax and Arneson, thank god the game has evolved beyond its initial designs. D&D has always assumed the party was realtively competent at thier endeavors, not so much that there was littel or no risk or chance of failure, but the early math didn't always support that. You are right though, the game is about having fun, and its not fun failing at most everythign I attempt becasue the little bits of plastic with numbers on them say I suck. I really want to know what kind of games rely on the PC's inneptitude to drive conflict , create challenges and present opourtunities for roleplaying. Constantly putting the PCs up against obstacles they are not capable of overcoming just brings the game to a grinding halt. The answer here will almost certainly be "but roleplaying", yet roleplaying isn't talking your way around every obstacle, ability scores be damned.
First off, to clarify a typo, I've *never* played under the 3d6 system, though I have played under other rolling systems that were weaker than the 4d6 system. In my last long-running campaign I had a Samurai with my highest score (Strength) at 14, and had one score under 9. That was typical in the party, and we had no problems.
Clearly you and I seem to have a diference in opinion of what constitutes "relatively competent". Having scores that are only modestly above average does not seem to me to constitute "PC ineptitude". Besides, how is putting PCs against obstacles they cannot overcome because of the level of thier ability scores any different than giving them challenges above their level? Both are faults of the DM.
To me, roleplaying means that you put more of an emphasis on the stories you tell, rather than the monsters you kill, or the skill rolls you make. Not that those things have no importance in D&D, but I think it's good to have perspective - not having an 18 or 17 does not make a character unplayable.
First off, to clarify a typo, I've *never* played under the 3d6 system, though I have played under other rolling systems that were weaker than the 4d6 system. In my last long-running campaign I had a Samurai with my highest score (Strength) at 14, an
With all due respect to what Gygax and Arneson, thank god the game has evolved beyond its initial designs. D&D has always assumed the party was realtively competent at thier endeavors, not so much that there was littel or no risk or chance of failure, but the early math didn't always support that. You are right though, the game is about having fun, and its not fun failing at most everythign I attempt becasue the little bits of plastic with numbers on them say I suck. I really want to know what kind of games rely on the PC's inneptitude to drive conflict , create challenges and present opourtunities for roleplaying. Constantly putting the PCs up against obstacles they are not capable of overcoming just brings the game to a grinding halt. The answer here will almost certainly be "but roleplaying", yet roleplaying isn't talking your way around every obstacle, ability scores be damned.
First off, to clarify a typo, I've *never* played under the 3d6 system, though I have played under other rolling systems that were weaker than the 4d6 system. In my last long-running campaign I had a Samurai with my highest score (Strength) at 14, and had one score under 9. That was typical in the party, and we had no problems.
Clearly you and I seem to have a diference in opinion of what constitutes "relatively competent". Having scores that are only modestly above average does not seem to me to constitute "PC ineptitude". Besides, how is putting PCs against obstacles they cannot overcome because of the level of thier ability scores any different than giving them challenges above their level? Both are faults of the DM.
To me, roleplaying means that you put more of an emphasis on the stories you tell, rather than the monsters you kill, or the skill rolls you make. Not that those things have no importance in D&D, but I think it's good to have perspective - not having an 18 or 17 does not make a character unplayable.
Than what you're basically sayin is that PC's ability scores don't matter becasue a good DM will scale challenges accordingly. In that light reveling in having low ability scores is just as pointless as reveling in particularly high abilties. What I disdain is the holier than thou attitude a lot of gamers present when disscussing how much better roleplayers they are for having low ability score.
First off, to clarify a typo, I've *never* played under the 3d6 system, though I have played under other rolling systems that were weaker than the 4d6 system. In my last long-running campaign I had a Samurai with my highest score (Strength) at 14, an
Than what you're basically sayin is that PC's ability scores don't matter becasue a good DM will scale challenges accordingly. In that light reveling in having low ability scores is just as pointless as reveling in particularly high abilties. What I disdain is the holier than thou attitude a lot of gamers present when disscussing how much better roleplayers they are for having low ability score.
I think that's 100% true. Apologies if I come across as holier-than-thou, but we all have particular ways to play. I have always preferred "low fantasy" where the party is made up of guys/gals trying to scrape by and make a living (and keep on living). I've never been as interested in the whole save the world by finding the 5 artifacts sort of thing, or the idea that the PCs tower head and shoulders over the average NPC. Lots of players do want to play that way, and I'm OK with that. I've played in those sorts of campaigns, and I had fun, but they're not my preference.
I don't know if low scores are any better or worse, but to me, the one thing the low scores can sometimes do is underline the fact that the ability scores do not define how much fun you will have.
I think that's 100% true. Apologies if I come across as holier-than-thou, but we all have particular ways to play. I have always preferred "low fantasy" where the party is made up of guys/gals trying to scrape by and make a living (and keep on living
Strike the Next out of the title of the Thread and you will own the truth of it. D&D is, was, and likely always will be a game of racial advancement and demonization. In fact, D&D has almost universally maintained that your race determines whether you are good or evil. Genocide is heroic, so long as it is against these foul beasts which are evil, made by evil gods to do evil things.
Why? Because it makes for easy iconography. It's a game. It is far from realistic. It strives towards the absurd half the time (I'm looking at you Bat Guano napalm). Need evil for your good guys to crush? Cause not everyone role plays to have deep philosophical considerations about the morality of racial motivated slaying, we have pre-packaged evil. Those who enjoy moralising largely jumped to games that actually focus on that when they became available. D&D doesn't need Gang-bangers, Nazis, or Commies. They have Orcs, Goblins, and Drow. That's right, you can tell if an Elf is evil by the colour of their skin (unless they are a male with twin scimitars, but even he hates his own people). This is all convienently colour coded for your smiting ease. If D&D tried to portray all races as developed and free willed, it would reduce many Adventuring parties to little more than Murder-Hobos. Homeless drifters, wandering through communities, killing indiscrimently for the hope of getting enough pocket change off corpses to fund their next alcohol and hired company binge. When all the victims in one area are gone, they move on to the next. Or better yet, they are the private military contractors hired to ruthlessly slaughter the minorities who are upset that large corporate entities are muscling in on their less advanced society.
Who really wants to play a game like that?
No, we want to feel good and justified about our characters killing sprees. We don't want to agonize over whether that orc-spawn could have been innocent. We want our slaying and then we want our pay out, and we want to feel good about it.
D&D Next, as I understand stated goals, is really, D&D Come Back people who jumped ship when WotC took over, or 4E came out. The emphasis on nostalgia and harkening back to "what is Iconic D&D" is not looking to grab new players. It's putting the family back together. That family was built on (justified in setting) racism.
OK, I think that is one of the funniest titles ever given to adventurers: "murder-hobos". You win MY approval, good being.
OK, I think that is one of the funniest titles ever given to adventurers: "murder-hobos". You win MY approval, good being.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">All that said, I do not support imposing a strength penalty or cap on female human characters. However, I am content to admit to myself that the reason for not doing so is because we don't want to make female characters automatically sub-par, not because I actually believe that the average woman truly is as strong as the average man. This is one area in which I don't mind realism/verisimilitude taking a back seat; after all, as someone else stated above, the PCs are supposed to be exceptional.
I agree. I also think it's important to point out that the fantasy world isn't necessarily our world. Just as what is mundane is subject to variation between the real world and the fantastical ones, so too can gender variations/stereotypes be variable between them.
Personally, being a devotee of lower-powered fantasy campaigns/games, I am just as irritated at seeing every single male Fighter sporting 18 Strength as I would be at seeing every female Fighter with 18 Strength.
That doesn't bother me if it's arrived at through point buy, because I know they sacrificed some potential elsewhere to get it.
I agree. I also think it's important to point out that the fantasy world isn't necessarily our world. Just as what is mundane is subject to variation between the real world and the fantastical ones, so too can gender variations/stereotypes be varia
One of my most morable characters was a wizard with a STR 3.
Could not carry his own spellbook. It was literally 1lbs shy of his max lift.
He was encumbered if he carried more than a dagger.
But man was that 18 INT worth it in 2e!
I've played 3d6 play where they lay.One of my most morable characters was a wizard with a STR 3.Could not carry his own spellbook. It was literally 1lbs shy of his max lift. He was encumbered if he carried more than a dagger.But man was that 18 INT
What is the point about discussing averages while PCs by definition are not average? As a player I have no problems if the designers actually create a race with very big morphological and intellectual differnces between the sexes (they are reasonably common in RL*), or in fact, design races that are a bit more than a simple variation on humans. I find the idea of codifying such differences for humans a bit odd since ultimately the difference between an average human and an average PC is like night and day and avoiding a rather sensitive discussion by ignoring it a good choice.
* Although we have no comperative material, so we don't know how important things like living in small social groups with parent-child care and more or less similar sexes are to developing intelligence Than again, there is no argument about the existence of gods and magic in most fantasy settings if you don't want to, so whether or not evolution (or whether or not evolution exists in the first place) would allow intelligent ants is moot
What is the point about discussing averages while PCs by definition are not average? As a player I have no problems if the designers actually create a race with very big morphological and intellectual differnces between the sexes (they are reasonably
*10th Doctor Voice* "It's political correctness gone mad!"
Perhaps I'm trolling. I have to laugh whenever a system is developed where every fighter is a dwarf, every wizard is an elf, and every halfling is a rogue.
I'll bet halflings feel they are often unjustly profiled and incarcerated based on the assumption that all halflings are rogues.
Are they really going BACK to this? I think the whole point of providing a CHOICE of ability bonus in 4e was to get away from stereotypes?
Perhaps I'm trolling. I have to laugh whenever a system is developed where every fighter is a dwarf, every wizard is an elf, and every halfling is a rogue.I'll bet halflings feel they are often unjustly profiled and incarcerated based on the assumpt
Yes, like a half-orc barbarian. It's almost too easy to fall into stereotypes. But at the same time there are recommended class-race combos. So it can be tricky.
Yes, like a half-orc barbarian. It's almost too easy to fall into stereotypes. But at the same time there are recommended class-race combos. So it can be tricky.
Than again, there is no argument about the existence of gods and magic in most fantasy settings if you don't want to, so whether or not evolution (or whether or not evolution exists in the first place) would allow intelligent ants is moot 
