D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Gradine]

The question always needs to be: "Why make this choice?"

There's always this appeal to either "historical" or "scientific" "reality" when defending what are generally unpopular or controversial decision. But this doesn't really justify anything. It is impossible to properly model every piece of reality in a role-playing game; many, many things are going to fall through the cracks. Every designer is going to have to make choices about what they are going to model and what they going to ignore.

So why is "women are less strong than men" the mechanic you've chosen to model in your game, as opposed to, say, realistic models of cleanliness? Why do you feel it is important enough to plant your flag on the hill for? What is your game communicating by modeling this when many other games have long since moved on from it?

Like or not, these are the kinds of questions you're going to be asked when you make those kinds of choices.

 

[Sadras]

The fact that imposing realism-based penalties on one sex but not the other, thus treating one differently than the other because of their sex, is darn near the very definition of sexual discrimination is not "playing the victim card."

Okay, perhaps I have misunderstood.

You're not ok with:
Male PCs: no stat change
Female PCs: -1 STR, +1 CON

You're ok with:
Male PCs: -1 CON +1 STR
Female PCs: -1 STR +1 CON


Am I correctly understanding you?

 

[Sadras]

EDIT: All the posters questioning this RL reasoning seem to forget there was a fan-guide made in 2e which dealt with cleanliness, and this was in particular important for adventuring Paladins (LG) who needed to appear and be pristine at all times. This is the level of RL some gamers were incorporating into their games. People need to stop this "you hate women" rhetoric.

So why is "women are less strong than men" the mechanic you've chosen to model in your game, as opposed to, say, realistic models of cleanliness?

Found it!
The more or less complete guide to AD&D Hygiene by Desmond Reid

Its chapter headings include (but are not limited to):

When do Aventurers go to the Bathroom?
Dirty Adventurers aren't Lucky
Paladins and Cleanliness
The Dentist and Teeth: Smile when you say that.
Clerics and Waste.
State-of-the-Art Waste Disposal.
A Monster that keeps the House Clean
Even a Mage does Laundry

Will be happy to email it to anyone who wants a copy. Its good for a laugh!

 

[MechaPilot]

This is out of my depth, but I'm not sure if being unable/unwanting to express yourself means you automatically read people worse.

Because emotions are so important to us, we tend to pay more attention to them, and we tend to be better at picking up on the cues people give off when they aren't hiding their emotions well.

Okay, perhaps I have misunderstood.

You're not ok with:
Male PCs: no stat change
Female PCs: -1 STR, +1 CON

You're ok with:
Male PCs: -1 CON +1 STR
Female PCs: -1 STR +1 CON

Assuming that I were inclined to have sex-based attribute modifications (where there is no bizarrely extreme sexual dimorphism) and I were choosing from the two options you provided, I would pick the second one.

Here is why:
1) It treats the genders equally by giving each a penalty and a bonus.
2) It doesn't enshrine maleness as the default by forcing all of the modifiers (regardless of there being a mix of bonuses and penalties) on the females.

Also, I will add that even the option you gave that I find less favorable is WAY ahead of the old rule that did nothing but penalize one gender and not affect the other.

 

[Sadras]

Assuming that I were inclined to have sex-based attribute modifications (where there is no bizarrely extreme sexual dimorphism) and I were choosing from the two options you provided, I would pick the second one.

Here is why:
1) It treats the genders equally by giving each a penalty and a bonus.
2) It doesn't enshrine maleness as the default by forcing all of the modifiers (regardless of there being a mix of bonuses and penalties) on the females.

Also, I will add that even the option you gave that I find less favorable is WAY ahead of the old rule that did nothing but penalize one gender and not affect the other.

You do realise that all the posters that were thinking of incorporating sexual dimorphism in their games were thinking along these lines. That is why I reacted to Sailormoon's comment. It served no purpose given the discussion.

As I stated before I would first start with 'fixing' races and then move onto age affecting abiities. Sexual dimorphism mechanics are the least of my concerns.

My rough thinking cap STR for halflings at 16, humans 18 and half-orcs 20 with counter benefits for halflings and humans. IMO, @Yaarel had a great suggestion earlier in the thread with how to deal with STR for halflings and half-orcs.

 

[MechaPilot]

You do realise that all the posters that were thinking of incorporating sexual dimorphism in their games were thinking along these lines.

Maybe. I can't specifically say what they were thinking.

That is why I reacted to Sailormoon's comment.

Do mean MoonSong? I probably missed a few posts if you meant Sailormoon (at least, I certainly don't recall reading a post by someone called Sailormoon. But then, I'm also reading a tax treatise at the moment, so when it comes to space in my brain talking with people online takes a backseat to learning for my chosen profession).

 

[MoonSong]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] , <strong><font color="#EE88DD">what I wanted to say was that regardless of intentions, symbols can communicate unintended messages depending on the context. No matter how balanced, having sex dependent pluses and minuses causes an unintended message and it isn't a nice one. 'Men are (physically) stronger' is an obvious difference, any possible differences in favor of women aren't that obvious, risk stereotyping, and can be quite offensive or off-putting. Even though it is an unintended message, it is a perceived message, and not a nice and inviting one. I wasn't trying to imply you yourself thought this, sorry for that. (Talk about being self demonstrating n_n) <br>
<br>
I myself am not that concerned with being PC, but there is a clear divide between not caring if you risk offending people and doing something you are sure will offend people. This is a game that you can only win by not playing. It isn't worth it. I would argue that a 20 strength woman (just like a halfling stronger than an half-orc) is a corner case, not something so common that you'd need to worry about it. And even if it was common, players play individuals not platonic archetypes. </font></strong>

 

[Maxperson]

'Far' stronger? The living heck are you talking about? I'm going to have to ask for some sources to back that up, cause, uh, nope?

Mind as an Australian I know the entire spectrum of women from 'Frail old lady' to 'Athletic go-getter' so I'm curious what you're defining as 'average' in this?

Now unfortunately as you've now said its a 'fact', you're going to have to obtain some peer-reviewed papers about this so we can see the exact difference and the exact measurement you define a level of strength to be. I'm genuinely curious what you consider the exact measurement of a point of strength to be

(don't actually do this as you will only dig your grave deeper and deeper as I basically tear simulationists to shreds, laughing at their attempts to model real life in a series based off not modelling real life in the slightest and drinking the tears of their agony as I point out impossibilities. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you've made the terrible idea of calling my bluff here)

The average untrained man can squat 125 pounds. The average untrained woman can squat 59 pounds. Google is fun.

Oh, and feel free to try and tear simulationists to shreds. I'm not arguing for simulation. I'm currently discussing real world facts.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, "lore" is the emperor's new clothes. It's a series of decisions about what will be in the game world, which all come down to "because we wanted it to be in the game world."

Of course that's what it is. That's the point. What is decided as being a part of the game world becomes realistic inside that game. They decided dragons have a flux capacitor or whatever else and that allows them to fly, so it does and is now realistic for the game. Halflings have no such thing, which is why the game is broken when it comes to halflings and strength.

The fluff describes them as small gives them the appearance of weakness, the rules don't. That disconnect is the game breaking at that point. Admittedly, it's a very small break, but it's a break none the less. Fluff and crunch have to match up where appropriate. Not all rules have fluff attached to them.

 

[cbwjm]

Out of curiosity, how many people have created strength focused halflings?