If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be?

lowkey13 · May 17, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Satyrn · May 17, 2019

My cat was so pretty, my neighbour found it inconceivable that he was male.

(His breath was most definitely not pretty. Yes . . . my cat's breath smelled like catfood)

Satyrn · May 17, 2019

lowkey13 said:
That at least I didn't go with Chandler?

Hey now. Chandler landed a babe who turned down a billionaire.

lowkey13 · May 17, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Nagol · May 17, 2019

Probably a game based in a culture with strong restrictions/expectation for gendered roles AND where the genre emulated reinforces this societal position. Something like a game based on Pride and Prejudice (but not the infinitely improved Pride and Prejudice and Zombies).

Umbran · May 17, 2019

CapnZapp said:
If we're using 5E D&D as our example game (not because it does Conan particularly well, but because it's the game most people are familiar with), I'd probably go with -4 to Strength (minimum 8).

No compensation. (That doesn't mean I'm dismissing findings of other gender-related biological differences, just that I don't consider them significant enough in this context).

Remember, the goal is very simple, very direct: if your hero is a hulking brute in this universe, he's male. Every other archetype is left unregulated.

Red Sonja thinks this is a bad idea, which probably isn't as consistent with Howard's writing as you present here.

steenan · May 18, 2019

I'm not against making some character concepts gender-specific.

But I'm definitely against making some character concepts legal, but painfully suboptimal. It wastes time for players who need to filter out such options and is a trap for these who start with a concept and don't notice in time that it doesn't work.

The alternative is making restrictions hard and explicit. In a PbtA setup, you may have most playbooks with different gender options, but "Muscled barbarian" is always male and "Seductive sorceress" is always female. The barbarian has moves spotlighting how strong and tough he is. The sorceress has movs spotlighting how she plays with passions of men. Other characters may be strong or manipulative, but these two have direct tools for showing it in play.

This way you can avoid creating player traps and causing unnecessary frustration. You also openly communicate things about your game's setting and style instead of forcing players to guess it from the numbers.

CapnZapp · May 18, 2019

You have a point.

If your players can't tell from the stat penalty, you should definitely make it more explicit that they should build a dex Fighter (again talking 5E just as an example).

acpitz 1 · May 18, 2019

CapnZapp said:
In my case, however, it would be rpgs about Conan.

Of course you can have differences what ever game you are playing. That should be obvious. It IS a game after all, it's fiction. It has nothing to do with anything but having fun with friends.

Or that's what games was ~30 years ago when I, for example, started playing.

But reading these replies I get the feeling this has changed a bit. Still every came has stereotypes. They always have and always will have. Dwarfs are short and chubby with big beards, Elfs are lean and tall and beautiful, Orcs are stupid and ugly and smell ... and so on.

I see nothing bad about having differences since it's part of the world that particular game is set. It doesn't matter what game it is it's still a game.

Conan would always slap Red Sonja around no matter how stupid sword she is wielding. Just like that spoiled brat prince in that movie is very annoying and stereotypical spoiled brat prince. Using these as example since those were mentioned. No need to mix Kalidor and Conan if that wasn't clear to someone ... they same even they are set in same universe and look exactly alike. Also one need to remember that Red Sonya is the original character that Red Sonja is based on. Red Sonya wasn't any part of Conan universe.

It's quite ok to have stereotypical characters in your games. It's just a game after all, right?

Immortal Sun · May 18, 2019

I would definitely NOT do any of this in a system that has explicitly evolved away from this. 5E, for example, has specifically evolved away from this, diversifying both its sex and racial imagery throughout its books, it explicitly lays down a system that is intended to be equal in nature. It is worsened by the fact that D&D has typically made the characters exceptions to the norm rather than traditional examples of members of their race/class/culture/society.

As mentioned above if you want to do this you need a game for it. Men can only be barbarians, warriors, raiders, women can be sorceresses, seducers and priestesses, the fact that each side gets stat penalties or bonuses is sexist yes, but plays into the fact that it's a very highly role-oriented system. Men can't be sorcerers. Women can't be warriors. You can't have a game that on one hand says "anyone can be whatever they want!" then turns around and says "yeah but we're going to punish you for coloring outside the lines!" You want a game that explicitly tells people that they are not exceptions, if they're men they're strong, if they're women they're seductive.

If everyone comes to the table willing to buy into this world that's great.

But I mean, you're not going to be producing high art here. Your game naturally wont have the same appeal as another game without those things. People are going to recognize that this is something of a cheeseball game that promotes cheeseball steretoypes that aren't healthy for gaming as a whole.

And I'm not even going to touch what this would look like if you included non-white races as playable.