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

Sacrosanct · May 21, 2019

acpitz 1 said:
Different beings can have completely different physique. Take a look at chimps for example. They are way more powerful compared to their size than humans are.

You cannot compare like that.

Sure I can. I think there's this myth that Chimps are small creatures that are 10x stronger then people, pound for pound. A quick google search reveals it's only 1.5 times that of humans, pound for pound, and chimps can get to be 130 pounds.

Halflings are 45 pounds. That's the weight of my girlfriend's 3 year old. Well, he just turned 4 last week, but he's up to 55 pounds now. There's nothing to suggest that halflings are some weird super species that has a higher count of fast twitch muscle fibers than any other mammal in existence.

Point is, is that if a halfling can have a strength score very high in comparison to body mass and no one really cares, then the idea that women need to be limited is a pretty eccentric.

acpitz 1 · May 21, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Sure I can. I think there's this myth that Chimps are small creatures that are 10x stronger then people, pound for pound. A quick google search reveals it's only 1.5 times that of humans, pound for pound, and chimps can get to be 130 pounds.

Halflings are 45 pounds. That's the weight of my girlfriend's 3 year old. Well, he just turned 4 last week, but he's up to 55 pounds now. There's nothing to suggest that halflings are some weird super species that has a higher count of fast twitch muscle fibers than any other mammal in existence.

Point is, is that if a halfling can have a strength score very high in comparison to body mass and no one really cares, then the idea that women need to be limited is a pretty eccentric.

Chimps are real in the real world. Hobbits are fantasy. They can have things like hairy feet and such. Also they can eat like a small village.

Of course if you want to make it like that, then by all means. There is nothing to stop you. Sometimes disadvantages are good for the role playing you know.

It everybody in the game would be mr. manhattan kind of guys. It would be boring don't you think? Differences makes depth in the story.

Tony Vargas · May 21, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I suppose this whole topic begs the question, "if you're going give stat limits based on sex, does that mean halflings max out at 5 strength (since they are the size of a toddler human).

FWIW 1e halflings had a lower max STR than other races.

Though, that's for the benefit if the younger generation out there - I obviously don't need to tell you that, since, as I understand it, you still run 1e by preference?

Sacrosanct · May 21, 2019

acpitz 1 said:
Chimps are real in the real world. Hobbits are fantasy. .

That's kinda the point. D&D is fantasy. So who cares if human women can have the same strength as human men. To apply that specific area of realism in a heroic fantasy game seems to defeat the point of heroic fantasy, and TBH, a bit disingenuous if you don't apply the same standard to other races in the game that don't have any explict reasons why said race would have unusually high stats for their body mass

Tony Vargas said:
FWIW 1e halflings had a lower max STR than other races.

Though, that's for the benefit if the younger generation out there - I obviously don't need to tell you that, since, as I understand it, you still run 1e by preference?

I know they had a strength cap, but I'm talking about ratios, here, not flat numbers. If a 45 pound halfling can have a 17 strength, it makes zero sense to cap a 150 pound human female at 18/50%

*edit* going back and looking, a 45 pound male gnome has the same strength cap as a 150 pound human woman. It's just dumb.

Celebrim · May 21, 2019

acpitz 1 said:
Chimps are real in the real world.

The study cited suggests that chimp muscle fiber strength is 'only' 50% greater than human muscle fiber strength. It didn't in fact do anything to overturn earlier estimates that chimp strength is pound for pound about 3 times that of humans - it just overturned our assumptions about why they had that much strength. Turns out bone structure, tendon strength, and ratio of fast to slow twitch muscle explain a larger share than we had realized. But the examples of chimps moving weight and exerting force well beyond what a human of the same size could manage are still there and aren't overturned.

Every time one of these discussions start, I think I know at the beginning what side of it that I'm on. Like I said, I'd never introduce such a rule in a fantasy game, and I see no reason to have it in a 'Conan' game. I've vaguely uncomfortable with genre emulation of Howard's work anyway, probably never would choose to play a 'Conan' game, and would tend to focus on areas where he explodes to one extent or another his own stereotypes if I was designing one. I started out this thread disagreeing with the OP's premise.

But the longer people keep talking, the more I feel like the crux of the argument is some people are offended by reality. Invariably the conversation shifts from something like 'its demeaning to fantasize about women as purely sexual objects to be possessed' - something I agree with - to something like 'its demeaning to portray women realistically'. And at that point, I become baffled. Isn't it demeaning to even suggest that it would be demeaning to portray women realistically? Are we going to be like the person who stormed out of an academic conference because someone suggested that on average and in the extreme, men are taller than women? Ia any difference between the sexes - however obvious those differences might be - now become taboo to mention? I feel sometimes like we've become Victorian prudes concerning reality, and even very basic and obvious observations about it are now unmentionable.

I support the USWNT. I love watching them play. I love them enough that I go to their games when they play locally, and it's not cheap.

But I'm also aware that a typical local club team of 15 year old boys can defeat them in soccer. Is it offensive to say that?

I'm OK with people being offended by various parts of Howard's fantasies. I am as well, even as the needs of a free and diverse society require I tolerate their preferences and be cognizant of the potential that is I and not they who are in the wrong.

But I draw a line at people being offended by reality and who insist that we live in their fantasy.

Tony Vargas · May 22, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
*edit* going back and looking, a 45 pound male gnome has the same strength cap as a 150 pound human woman. It's just dumb.

I suppose you could make some arguments about leverage and so forth...

…

but, nah "just dumb" sounds 'bout right. If you're gonna cut the gnome some slack 'because fantasy,' you might as well cut the amazon some slack 'because fantasy.'

If you're not, well, "realism kills," as my BBS tagline used to say.

MGibster · May 22, 2019

Celebrim said:
But the longer people keep talking, the more I feel like the crux of the argument is some people are offended by reality. Invariably the conversation shifts from something like 'its demeaning to fantasize about women as purely sexual objects to be possessed' - something I agree with - to something like 'its demeaning to portray women realistically'. And at that point, I become baffled. Isn't it demeaning to even suggest that it would be demeaning to portray women realistically? Are we going to be like the person who stormed out of an academic conference because someone suggested that on average and in the extreme, men are taller than women?

Very often people have used realism as a defense for restricting the types of people who can be represented in games which understandably raises some hackles. Given that we're talking about realism within the context of a fantasy setting doesn't it seem odd that we draw the line in the sand when it comes to stat differences between men and women? "Oh, no. I can certainly accept an army of skeleton warriors that sprang up from those dragon teeth I sowed but a female character with the same strength as my male character? Humbug! There's fantasy and then there's fantasy, folks!"

In real life there are plenty of examples of men and women bucking averages in exceptional ways. There's no reason to tell a woman getting into RPGs that her fighter, who is also a woman, can't be as strong as a male fighter. It really doesn't add anything to the game and just alienates the player.

Edit Reason: Changed the word same to sand.

Immortal Sun · May 22, 2019

Nagol said:
I've had players who ended up not being protagonists because they refused to do anything adventurous or tried and were wiped out before accomplishing anything. Neither leads to a strong campaign.

Sure, I've had the former, they're no longer my players and my Session Zero now includes a caveat "please create a character who is interested in adventuring". Players who don't get one warning "Okay, your character leaves the party and goes off to do his own thing, please create a new character interested in being with the party and doing adventuring things." If they don't, they're asked to leave.

I find the latter is a result of one of two things, or a combination of the two:
First: Bad luck. Sucks, but that happens.
Second: Poorly tuned encounters. Yes, I believe some areas are more dangerous than others and I will kill players who think I'll go easy on them, but in this case I'm referring to areas that were intended to be at-level challenges and just didn't work out that way. CR is a fickle mistress.

But from an in world perspective, those people tried maybe they didn't become Hercules or Achilles or whatnot, but they did try.

There are other adventurers, but generally not very many who are able/willing to respond where the PCs start. Most people have better things to do with their time. Adventuring (especially early adventuring) tends to be desperate work done by desperate people when envisioned in that sort of world.

I'm not saying adventurers need be around every corner, but it seems reasonable that "normal folks" have attempted the same sort of "starter quests" players get, and in some cases probably succeeded. They may not have become heroes of legend, but they still might be locally famous for even small jobs.

Celebrim · May 22, 2019

MGibster said:
Very often people have used realism as a defense for restricting the types of people who can be represented in games which understandably raises some hackles. Given that we're talking about realism within the context of a fantasy setting doesn't it seem odd that we draw the line in the same when it comes to stat differences between men and women? "Oh, no. I can certainly accept an army of skeleton warriors that sprang up from those dragon teeth I sowed but a female character with the same strength as my male character? Humbug! There's fantasy and then there's fantasy, folks!"

Well, I sort of agree with you here, but that's because you are responding tangentially to the point I raised. Yes, I somewhat agree that in a fantasy game the issue of what is realistic regarding human strength isn't that important - this is afterall the position that I staked out at the beginning of the thread. That said, I really don't think that there is any reason anyone has to be purist about what realism that they care about, although it would be somewhat weird if human sexual dimorphism was the only realism that they cared about.

However, again, you are in responding how you have, not really addressing my complaint. I'm not complaining about any claim that human sexual dimorphism shouldn't matter in a fantasy. I'm already on "that side" of the debate. But the longer the debate goes on, the more I'm getting a sense that there are some that are suggesting that the problem with representing human sexual dimorphism in a fantasy is that it isn't realistic. Yes, in real life there plenty of example of men and women bucking averages in exceptional ways. The silliness of sexism involves treating people as groups and not individuals. There would be nothing sillier than bragging about your manliness because the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, when you were an obese out of shape fat guy that couldn't lift a quarter of what that strong woman did. You don't get to inherit his strength just because you happen to share his gender, etc. But, at the same time, the strongest man is a good deal stronger than the strongest woman. You can look at all the records for strength, and men beat women in those records by considerable margins, both within similar weight classes and absolutely. So hopefully when you are saying, "there are plenty of examples of men and women bucking averages in exceptional ways", you aren't arguing that thinking that men are stronger than women on average and in the exception is wrong headed or something. What's wrong headed is thinking that this in some way is a credit of you if you are a man or a discredit if you are a woman.

What do you mean by "In real life there are plenty of examples of men and women bucking averages in exceptional ways"? Do you mean that there are women smarter, stronger, faster, and more athletic than me? That's hardly exceptional. What are you trying to convey in saying that?

There's no reason to tell a woman getting into RPGs that her fighter, who is also a woman, can't be as strong as a male fighter. It really doesn't add anything to the game and just alienates the player.

I suppose. I probably wouldn't introduce a man or woman into RPGs via a setting that was exploring among other things historical gender and sexual roles, and certainly not in an overt manner. That seems a heavy and heady topic to introduce to a newbie that probably just wants to kill things and take their stuff. I am hesitant though to go as far as being able to claim "it doesn't really add anything to the game" or to say anything about what does or doesn't alienate "the player". Alienates some people? Certainly. Worth avoiding? In a fantasy game meant for a general audience, definitely. But none of that really touches on the problem I have with arguing about chimpanzee strength in this context.

Nagol · May 22, 2019

Immortal Sun said:
Sure, I've had the former, they're no longer my players and my Session Zero now includes a caveat "please create a character who is interested in adventuring". Players who don't get one warning "Okay, your character leaves the party and goes off to do his own thing, please create a new character interested in being with the party and doing adventuring things." If they don't, they're asked to leave.

I find the latter is a result of one of two things, or a combination of the two:
First: Bad luck. Sucks, but that happens.
Second: Poorly tuned encounters. Yes, I believe some areas are more dangerous than others and I will kill players who think I'll go easy on them, but in this case I'm referring to areas that were intended to be at-level challenges and just didn't work out that way. CR is a fickle mistress.

But from an in world perspective, those people tried maybe they didn't become Hercules or Achilles or whatnot, but they did try.

I'm not saying adventurers need be around every corner, but it seems reasonable that "normal folks" have attempted the same sort of "starter quests" players get, and in some cases probably succeeded. They may not have become heroes of legend, but they still might be locally famous for even small jobs.

Sure! Probably several have. A bunch never came back and are assumed dead. Some were somewhat successful and retired; inn and tavern ownership is a common retirement option. Others found a 'real job' that doesn't require constant violence under threat of death or worse for lottery-style paydays. Maybe a couple were successful enough to leave the area with their gains. Like I wrote, the starting PCs are pretty much just like their neighbours mechanically. PCs are just reckless/desperate/stupid/hungry/idealistic enough to try to seize opportunities others refuse.