D&D 5E Roleplaying the opposite gender

[TheCosmicKid]

I figured it was to model heroically strong extreme-outlier characters and to reward players for choosing to play warriors (Fighters, Rangers, Paladins). Similar to how only warriors could get extra HP bonuses for Constitution over 16. "Extreme stat bonuses" were kind of the warrior's thing.

Yeah, but it's weird when there's a whole extra ruleset that only matters for 1/216th of rolled characters. Unless the proportion is actually a lot higher than 1/216.

 

[Mercule]

Most biologists I know sound like that. An awful lot of people got into biology via chasing snakes around the backwoods of various flyover states (I'm a Nebraskan, I can say it). For real contrast, I'd have used that persona on a social scientist of some sort. Not that they can't also come from rural backgrounds, but I've yet to meet one who has kept the accent.

Yeah. I went to Iowa State University, which is known for 1) Ag Science and 2) Engineering. Now, most Iowans don't have much of an accent (aside from pronouncing "wash" as "wursh"), but there was a plurality of both groups that sounded like they were about to say, "Here, hold my beer and watch this, y'all." Many of them were brilliant, though.

To your second point, I ended up with with a degree in Political Science (started in chem engineering and did well, just didn't like it). I worked really, really hard to "standardize" my English. I never had much of an accent, but I purged what little I had. Killed the "um..." and "so..." type fillers, too. I imagine it isn't universally true for social sciences, but political science often goes with an interest in debate and public speaking. At the very least, you have to be able to have an "argument" with folks who aren't going to give you a bye on sounding like a hick. I can still add in an accent, even one I wasn't born with, and often do so unconsciously when around others who speak idiomatically. In some cases, I had to work to "dirty up" my language after graduation, because the real world isn't filled with academics.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah, but it's weird when there's a whole extra ruleset that only matters for 1/216th of rolled characters. Unless the proportion is actually a lot higher than 1/216.

(1) AD&D was not designed purely with gamism in mind. Some rules were invented to increase realism for the sake of realism, not strictly just for PCs. Consider the AC adjustments by weapon type tables.

(2) 3d6-in-order was not AD&D 1E's only stat generation method, or even its default stat generation method. Per http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_generation.htm 1E's stat generation Method I was the same as 5E: 4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste. That makes the chance of a warrior getting an 18 the same as 5E, 9.34%. (See http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/). It's very reasonable to have rules for something that affects 9.34% of all PCs.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah, but it's weird when there's a whole extra ruleset that only matters for 1/216th of rolled characters. Unless the proportion is actually a lot higher than 1/216.

Using the more common 4d6, drop low method, the odds are 1.62% (vs. 0.46%) -- pretty much exactly 3.5 times as likely. If you get six stats and arrange as you please, the odds of an 18 prime stat go up to 9.34%

That sounds like a lot: 934 out of every 10,000 characters -- almost one in ten. But, let's assume that the "big four" classes and their sub-types are evenly distributed. Maybe not strictly true, but close enough for rounding errors. That means 243 characters out of every 10,000 (2.43%). If each group played AD&D for 15 years and rolled 25 characters per year (which is high for my experience, but whatever), that's 375 characters over the span of the edition. Each table should have seen roughly 9 characters with exceptional strength. Probably not absurd to have the rules, but not worth a lot of space/effort, either. Best to have dropped it.

Yeah. I like statistics.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yeah. I went to Iowa State University, which is known for 1) Ag Science and 2) Engineering. Now, most Iowans don't have much of an accent (aside from pronouncing "wash" as "wursh"), but there was a plurality of both groups that sounded like they were about to say, "Here, hold my beer and watch this, y'all." Many of them were brilliant, though.

Fun fact: Everybody thinks they don't have an accent. But there's a little dialect band in Nebraska-Iowa-Illinois (I've seen other maps that basically put it just from Ames to Omaha) which linguists have identified as the speech most closely resembling Standard American English. So it was weird to learn that when I thought I didn't have an accent, I was actually right.

...and then I took higher-level Ling courses and started to identify distinctive features of the accent I "didn't have".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Using the more common 4d6, drop low method, the odds are 1.62% (vs. 0.46%) -- pretty much exactly 3.5 times as likely. If you get six stats and arrange as you please, the odds of an 18 prime stat go up to 9.34%

That sounds like a lot: 934 out of every 10,000 characters -- almost one in ten. But, let's assume that the "big four" classes and their sub-types are evenly distributed. Maybe not strictly true, but close enough for rounding errors. That means 243 characters out of every 10,000 (2.43%). If each group played AD&D for 15 years and rolled 25 characters per year (which is high for my experience, but whatever), that's 375 characters over the span of the edition. Each table should have seen roughly 9 characters with exceptional strength. Probably not absurd to have the rules, but not worth a lot of space/effort, either. Best to have dropped it.

Yeah. I like statistics.

I'll concede the math, but I maintain, as you say, "not worth a lot of space/effort".

Anyway: dudes playing ladies and ladies playing dudes. How 'bout that?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Anyway: dudes playing ladies and ladies playing dudes. How 'bout that?

Okay. Here's a thought: is that easier or harder than dudes playing Cthuloid horrors and ladies playing insectoid abominations? (Seeing as how this thread is about DMing, we can't just consider (N)PC classes, we have to think about everything the DM roleplays.)

I think the gender gap is easier in theory but more likely to cause difficulties in practice, because players don't seem to expect much characterization out of alien creatures, and wouldn't recognize it if they saw it. For an alien creature you just give it a gimmick ("never uses second-person pronouns, like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs") and call it good.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Using the more common 4d6, drop low method, the odds are 1.62% (vs. 0.46%) -- pretty much exactly 3.5 times as likely. If you get six stats and arrange as you please, the odds of an 18 prime stat go up to 9.34%

That sounds like a lot: 934 out of every 10,000 characters -- almost one in ten. But, let's assume that the "big four" classes and their sub-types are evenly distributed. Maybe not strictly true, but close enough for rounding errors. That means 243 characters out of every 10,000 (2.43%). If each group played AD&D for 15 years and rolled 25 characters per year (which is high for my experience, but whatever), that's 375 characters over the span of the edition. Each table should have seen roughly 9 characters with exceptional strength. Probably not absurd to have the rules, but not worth a lot of space/effort, either. Best to have dropped it.

Yeah. I like statistics.

I'd argue that the other 691 PCs who roll 18s are also affected by the exceptional strength rules, because they have the option of playing warriors with exceptional strength. It's a temptation, and potentially a strong one, because if you have another high ability score (Int 17?) you can always dual-class to get the best of both worlds. Fighter 9/Wizard X FTW!

And then there's multiclassing to consider too. It could be the case that 75% of all characters created at a given table have Fighter as one of their classes.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Okay. Here's a thought: is that easier or harder than dudes playing Cthuloid horrors and ladies playing insectoid abominations?

You're right: Chthuloid horrors are much more feminine.

 

[Mercule]

You're right: Chthuloid horrors are much more feminine.

We may have passed the point of rational discourse on the matter.