|
12 months ago ::
Jul 16, 2012 - 11:49PM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 12:08AM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
* 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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 12:15AM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2012
|
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 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
Are you playtesting? That means playing by the rules as given by WoTC. If you are house-ruling, then perhaps the rule needs fixing. Tell someone. I am.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 12:30AM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 1:08AM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
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.
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 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.
Now so that this post isn't completely off-topic:
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 11:40AM
#156
|
|
|
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.
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 could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 5:25PM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 9:21PM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 10:35PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 17, 2012 - 11:33PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
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. 
|
|
|
