|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 12:21AM
#161
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 12:56AM
#162
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:18AM
#163
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 7:48AM
#164
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
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.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 1:04PM
#165
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 1:12PM
#166
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 1:27PM
#167
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 2:29PM
#168
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 4:06PM
#169
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 6:37PM
#170
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
