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

[The Crimson Binome]

The first and last parts of this sentence are in conflict. "It is meaningless, but also here's how it happens."

I edited my post to make it more clear. The point is just that the narrative is our observation of what happens, and doesn't exert influence of its own upon the processes. Everything that actually happens within the game world is a result of causal processes internal to the game world.

If a human female character can't have Strength 18/00, then she can't do those things which require Strength 18/00 to do (lifting a particular rock, I guess). She also can't fly, or swim through lava. Everyone in the world is equally constrained by the limits of their physical body, unless they use magic to overcome those limits. If I recall correctly, using the Maul of the Titans required a character to be at least six feet tall, so a human female who was six feet tall could use it while a human male who was 5'11" could not (assuming other requirements were met).

 

[Obryn]

If a human female character can't have Strength 18/00, then she can't do those things which require Strength 18/00 to do (lifting a particular rock, I guess). She also can't fly, or swim through lava. Everyone in the world is equally constrained by the limits of their physical body, unless they use magic to overcome those limits. If I recall correctly, using the Maul of the Titans required a character to be at least six feet tall, so a human female who was six feet tall could use it while a human male who was 5'11" could not (assuming other requirements were met).

I am definitely not following the sidetrack into your assertions about how games must necessarily follow your view of simulation other than: Nope.

The key here, of course, is that human males also can't fly or swim through lava in D&D. Which is the starting point of this discussion, so I don't know why we're circling back around to statements of first principles.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I am definitely not following the sidetrack into your assertions about how games must necessarily follow your view of simulation other than: Nope.

Not all games. Only RPGs are defined by the fact that their rules reflect the reality of the game world. There are plenty of games that don't constrain themselves in such a way.

The key here, of course, is that human males also can't fly or swim through lava in D&D. Which is the starting point of this discussion, so I don't know why we're circling back around to statements of first principles.

If you want to play a character who can lift a 500lb rock (or whatever), then you make it a human male. (From what I recall, even half-orcs were shut out from the highest strength bracket). If you want to play a character who might eventually wield the Maul of the Titans, then you make them at least six feet tall. If you want someone who might wield a Holy Avenger, then make a paladin. Likewise, if you want to play a character who can fly, then you make an aarakocra or an avariel or something else with wings.

You don't make a dwarf and then lament their ability to fly or wield the Maul of the Titans, so don't blame the system for saying that a pixie is limited to Strength 12. It just means that the system isn't suited toward generating the kind of narrative that you want it to tell - the reality of the game world simply doesn't work that way.

 

[Caliban]

You don't make a dwarf and then lament their ability to fly or wield the Maul of the Titans, so don't blame the system for saying that a pixie is limited to Strength 12. It just means that the system isn't suited toward generating the kind of narrative that you want it to tell - the reality of the game world simply doesn't work that way.

Unless the DM decides that it does. One of the perks of the job.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless the DM decides that it does. One of the perks of the job.

Right, of course. Whoever is in charge of setting design gets to decide what all of the racial modifiers and abilities are, so if you want to have dwarves that fly, or tie ability scores directly into your hair color, then that's an option.

 

[Obryn]

Not all games. Only RPGs are defined by the fact that their rules reflect the reality of the game world. There are plenty of games that don't constrain themselves in such a way.

Yeah, as I said, absurd nonsense.

(e: For anyone lost and/or confused by this, Saelorn is essentially saying, "Games which have narrative mechanics - like Fate Core, Apocalypse World, Cortex, and possibly even D&D4e and FFG Star Wars - aren't real RPGs, and when you sit down to play them, even though you think you are playing an RPG you are actually wrong and you are playing something else." Which is why I don't think it even merits an argument; it's just absurd nerd-gatekeeping nonsense.)

If you want to play a character who can lift a 500lb rock (or whatever), then you make it a human male. (From what I recall, even half-orcs were shut out from the highest strength bracket). If you want to play a character who might eventually wield the Maul of the Titans, then you make them at least six feet tall. If you want someone who might wield a Holy Avenger, then make a paladin. Likewise, if you want to play a character who can fly, then you make an aarakocra or an avariel or something else with wings.

You don't make a dwarf and then lament their ability to fly or wield the Maul of the Titans, so don't blame the system for saying that a pixie is limited to Strength 12. It just means that the system isn't suited toward generating the kind of narrative that you want it to tell - the reality of the game world simply doesn't work that way.

Which is again repeating the first principles of the whole discussion.

 

[Caliban]

Right, of course. Whoever is in charge of setting design gets to decide what all of the racial modifiers and abilities are, so if you want to have dwarves that fly, or tie ability scores directly into your hair color, then that's an option.

Kind of brings things full circle - why would the DM (or game designer) choose to include a sex based modifier in a fantasy game? It's not something that happens by chance.

It's a design decision to make the world work that way. Maybe it was an attempt to recreate a specific type of fantasy narrative - brave knights rescuing damsels in distress. Since the game was created and played by wargaming nerds, it's not surprising that they wanted to slant things in favor of the role they saw themselves in. Who knows at this point.

But that was 40 years ago. Today, the gamers want the game to support a much wider variety of stories. So 5e puts the least amount of restrictions - any race can be any class, any class can be any alignment, and there is no game mechanic differences between the sexes.

Any such restrictions are now the domain of the DM, not the base game system. And if they want to go back to the "Big strong knights rescuing the delicate damsels in distress" type of story, they can change their game to enforce it.
But I wouldn't expect a lot of modern players to really appreciate it, male or female. I play a fair number of female characters - some delicate and pretty, others as strong as any man. I don't want a game that restricts my choice that way.

 

[Maxperson]

It depends. Are the upper bounds on strength that limit female PCs the only sex-based modifier? Because that's really a big part of what the problem was with the old D&D rule: that reality as it related to a PC's sex only applied to limit female PCs. And, frankly, if you're modeling real-world limits on one sex while not doing so with the other sex, yeah, that's sexist. Literally. It's failing to treat people equally (via failing to apply reality-modeling penalties to both sexes) on the basis of their sex.

Technically it's only treating pieces of fiction unequally, not anything that has a real sex. I've seen women play male PCs and vice versa. They have equal choices at PC gender.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a combination of different measures, and as I said way upthread at this point, there's no reason for it to be limited purely to raw lift/press/grip strength. The other stats are pretty broad umbrellas, after all. (Charisma for example is somehow 'social proficiency,' 'command,' 'musical talent,' and 'innate magical wellspring'.)

Yeah, you can say "she's pretty strong!" and people will know what you mean - but you can also say "she's pretty smart!" or "she's tough!" and people will also know what you mean.

Strength isn't divisible like that, though. It really is just brute strength. Most, if not all(I'm not going back to look) of your other descriptions involved leverage or technique, which are not strength.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quick thought on this:

1) Males and females on earth have several physiological and morphological differences.
2) Generally, males VO2max (average and peak), skeletal size/bone mass, muscle size and explosive force production exceeds females on earth.

None of this is controversial.

3) This is surely the product of the 200 to 300 k years of evolution.

4) Whatever fantasy setting you're playing in need not mirror the inputs of (3) above and therefore need not yield the outputs of (2) above.

5) Further still, if your fantasy setting contains stock D&D tropes and monsters (arthropods that are non-magically larger than chickens, gargantuan + avian beasts with impossible, and mundane, flight characteristics, etc), then your world already (mundanely) captures very little (or outright inexplicably violates) many of the earth physics and biological processes that are inextricably tied to 1-3 above.


So...I guess, figure this out at your table...because no interpretation or table consensus makes any more or less sense than any other.