D&D 5E 5E AD&D Restricitons

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

That isn't realism, though. Is it realism to say that, outside of divine intervention, a human female cannot possibly be stronger than 18(50) while a human male cannot possibly be stronger than 18(00)? Absolutely not. It is bizarre silliness that doesn't even relate to any of Gygax's primary goals

And it doesn't even mesh with Gary Gygax's foreword in the PHB where these limitations originate: "You will find no pretentious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength."

The actual limits in place are neither baseless nor arbitrary, so they're well in line with Gygax's words. The only "bizzare silliness" is getting hung up on the actual numbers.

 

[JonnyP71]

Has there ever been any evidence that women avoid playing D&D because their strength limit was a bit lower than men's?

There are several women in my groups, they play male PCs sometimes, they play female PCs other times. The guys in my groups - they play male PCs sometimes, they play female PCs other times. We play 1E (with stat limits based on gender included), we play MERP (with carrying capacity based on bodyweight, and female PCs being lighter than males therefore having a disadvantage), and we play 5E (no female nerfing!).

Nobody, either male or female, has commented, grumbled, pulled a face - or even let it affect their decision whether to play male or female character!!!

It's a total non-issue.

 

[delericho]

Let's not go too far. A committed simulation of the human species would have to stat women as generally underpowered in physical activities compared to men.

Such a "committed simulation" would presumably also have the players first roll to determine their character's social class and wealth growing up? Because those factors will significantly affect the character's diet growing up, which is likely to have a profound effect on ability scores - and not just on Strength.

If Red Sonya or Brienne of Tarth cannot possibly achieve a Strength higher than 18/50, neither can a boy growing up homeless in Waterdeep.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Such a "committed simulation" would presumably also have the players first roll to determine their character's social class and wealth growing up? Because those factors will significantly affect the character's diet growing up, which is likely to have a profound effect on ability scores - and not just on Strength.

If Red Sonya or Brienne of Tarth cannot possibly achieve a Strength higher than 18/50, neither can a boy growing up homeless in Waterdeep.

Why roll? Are you going to roll for character sex as well?

Social background and similar features could be represented by tables with appropriate bonuses and penalties, where the players pick what they want for their characters and live with the consecquences.

And STR 18/50 seems right for Brienne of Tarth. She's very strong but not on the same level as The Mountain, that's where 18/00 comes in.

 

[delericho]

Why roll?

Because the social classes aren't, and can't be, balanced. In terms of ability scores, nobles will be better than peasants across the board.

Social background and similar features could be represented by tables with appropriate bonuses and penalties, where the players pick what they want for their characters and live with the consecquences.

Appropriate bonuses, sure. There aren't any appropriate penalties - by virtue of their better diet, those with a privileged upbringing would high higher Str, Con, and Int limits, and probably Dex and Cha as well. Plus better starting wealth and, probably, the use of inherited magic items.

Anything else is fantasy - which is appropriate to the genre, but not to a "committed simulation". (And if we're allowing fantasy to handwave away the enormous benefits of being born rich, surely we can likewise handwave away the relatively smaller differences between sexes?)

And STR 18/50 seems right for Brienne of Tarth. She's very strong but not on the same level as The Mountain, that's where 18/00 comes in.

Assuming the Mountain is 'only' as strong as the actor playing him, he's higher than 18/00.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Because the social classes aren't, and can't be, balanced. In terms of ability scores, nobles will be better than peasants across the board.

You sure about that?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Because the social classes aren't, and can't be, balanced. In terms of ability scores, nobles will be better than peasants across the board.

But why is balance important to a simulation? If we allow players to freely choose to play stronger males then why not apply that to everything? In fact, rolling for social background means you will easily end up with a party that has no reason to be toghether, having players pick their background is important to enable compatible characters.

 

[delericho]

You sure about that?

In terms of maximum capability, yes. Having a maximum cap of 18 doesn't help you if those 4d6 all come up 1's.

 

[delericho]

But why is balance important to a simulation?

Fine. Leave aside the rolling.

When D&D applies maximum ability score caps for different social classes, it can claim some justification for doing the same for different sexes. Until then, claiming some sort of "committed simulation" or "nod to reality" as a fig-leaf doesn't wash.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Fine. Leave aside the rolling.

When D&D applies maximum ability score caps for different social classes, it can claim some justification for doing the same for different sexes. Until then, claiming some sort of "committed simulation" or "nod to reality" as a fig-leaf doesn't wash.

"fig-leaf"? Exactly what do you mean? Are you suggesting there is some other reason for the STR limits for female characters in 1E AD&D than a wish for some amount of realism?