D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Mirrorrorrim]

To you. Other people feel differently, and that's okay.

This is a hot button issue for me. I will never accept any game that is designed for females to be weaker. Designers design games based on their own predilections and prejudices. In fantasy there is no truth, only perspective and preference. And I will avoid, and judge, any game, designer, or DM who chooses to place those limitations in a game. That's a me thing. And that's okay.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

If Str 1 is a spider, and Str 30 is literally god, then I think males and females having the same strength score on average is correct. Whether you're going by game mechanics or real biology.

Even if I believed men and women should have different strength values in game due to irl biology (I don't), DnD just doesn't have the range of numbers required to represent it.

Edit: Nope a house spider is apparently str 2. No clue what's str 1 in game.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If Str 1 is a spider, and Str 30 is literally god, then I think males and females having the same strength score on average is correct. Whether you're going by game mechanics or real biology.

Even if I believed men and women should have different strength values in game due to irl biology (I don't), DnD just doesn't have the range of numbers required to represent it.

And that is an argument coming from a mechanical perspective that I can accept. It certainly has a better chance of winning over the opposing position, compared to my own rhetoric, which I know would not. Thanks for your insights.

 

[Alzrius]

This is a hot button issue for me. I will never accept any game that is designed for females to be weaker. Designers design games based on their own predilections and prejudices. There is no truth, only perspective and preference. And I will avoid, and judge, any game, designer, or DM who chooses to place those limitations in a game. That's a me thing. And that's okay.

You're absolutely free to judge other people's character by their fantasies and the works of fiction that they create, though I think that's a poor metric for doing so (see above, with regard to people writing/playing/enjoying works where the protagonists do things that aren't acceptable in real life) since in my experience it doesn't return very accurate results. But like you said, that's a "you" issue.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, there's three problems with this:

The first I already wrote about. It's a fantasy world. There are going to be "unusually" strong women because of some fantastic element in their background, such as a distant ancestor who was a giant, being blessed by a god of strength, magical accident in youth, ate the berries of the Power Tree, was conceived in a temple to the elephant god, weird random mutation caused by normal DNA in a magical universe, etc. So it's actually more realistic for there to be no cap.

Unless, of course, you're playing D&D in a setting with no magic, no non-human races, no fantastic plants or animals, and no gods. Because there are so many of those D&D settings.

Second, all your examples are already going to be extremely rare because they will be limited to the PCs, and there, maybe even a single PC since it's unlikely that every female PCs will be playing a warrior. So one "extremely strong woman" out of how many millions of women on this planet? Already rare enough without a cap.

Third, women are, realistically, more agile and healthier then men are, so for the sake of "verisimilitude" men would have to have caps on Dex and Con... yet somehow, I don't think most men who advocate for Strength caps for women are going to be happy with those limitations.

So basically, your choice is: make your world incredibly unrealistic for the sake of pure sexism, or don't.

You seem to be making several false assumptions here:

1.) Assuming that supernatural effects cannot remove a cap. In the contrary, this is what Girdles of Giant Strength have always done: allowed superhuman feats of strength that go beyond normal limits (ability "cap"). Getting blessed by a god of strength or eating the berries of a Power Tree, etc. falls under this category: exceeding the cap.

2.) Assuming that only PCs exist or roll stats. "Second, all your examples are already going to be extremely rare because they will be limited to the PCs," you say, but this isn't true at all. NPCs play by the same rules as PCs in these sorts of games--it's not uncommon for one character to flip back and forth between PC and NPC depending on the situation, but the stats don't change. If Holga the Barbarian dies and the DM tells Holga's player to take over Bob the Lanternman for the rest of the session, Bob doesn't suddenly grow superhuman muscles... but at least the player is still participating in the roleplay and dialogue.

3.) You're assuming that I'm not okay with sexual dimorphism when I already showed you by example that I am. In my example it was a Wisdom cap (in part because women tend to have better occipital lobes = better night vision = better Perception checks, but I'm not married to that choice), whereas you're conjecturing that I'd be averse to a Constitution or Dexterity cap--on what grounds? As long as it's realistic it's fine by me.

I think you're assuming bad faith where there is none.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

You're absolutely free to judge other people's character by their fantasies and the works of fiction that they create, though I think that's a poor metric for doing so (see above, with regard to people writing/playing/enjoying works where the protagonists do things that aren't acceptable in real life) since in my experience it doesn't return very accurate results. But like you said, that's a "you" issue.

I have no patience for a game or a DM telling me that if I want to play a female character that I cannot aspire to the heights of my fantasy in ways that a male character could.

Remember that this isn't a scripted novel or a tv show we are talking about. It's a universal game structure for building diverse stories. Limiting ability scores for genders or races in the structure itself limits storytelling in ways that are only negative. It doesn't make you feel better that a female can't be as strong as a male character. It can only make the person who wants to play a strong female character feel bad. And that is bad design (IMHO). However if it does make you feel better... that says a lot too.

 

[Umbran]

You need that emphasize in PHB to play that kind of character?

"Need"? No. Need is a super-strong word that probably doesn't apply.

Think it is useful to have that present? Sure.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I generally believe people when they inform me in good faith that something hurts them.

I also want D&D to grow with the times and to not be a permanent relic of the ethics of the suburbs of the 1970s.

Or of the Medieval to Renaissance periods most people play in?

Maybe sometimes a fantasy monster is just a fantasy monster used as something to progress the story and characters and not an allegory of the real world. A rose is just a rose.

 

[Alzrius]

I have no patience for a game or a DM telling me that if I want to play a female character that I cannot aspire to the heights of my fantasy in ways that a male character could.

Limitations are the norm for games; virtually all of them will constrain aspects of play in some regard. If a particular game doesn't (easily) allow you to do what you want, that just means that it's not the game for you.

Remember that this isn't a scripted novel or a tv show we are talking about. It's a universal game structure for building diverse stories.

Actually, this presumes quite a few things, such as that the purpose of the game is to construct a story (i.e. narrativism) and that it's meant to be "universal" (i.e. that it's allows for all genres and conventions), both of which can be argued against on their merits.

Limiting ability scores for genders or races in the structure itself limits storytelling in ways that are only negative.

Again, "storytelling" isn't necessarily the be-all, end-all of what the game is for, and limits as to what the game engine can do are part-and-parcel of the experience. As for any of those limits beng "only negative," that's a judgment call that's up to each individual to make, rather then being declared objectively.

It doesn't make you feel better that a female can't be as strong as a male character. It can only make the person who wants to play a strong female character feel bad. And that is bad design (IMHO). However if it does make you feel better... that says a lot too.

It actually doesn't say a lot. Remember, this is a "you" issue with regard to being judgmental toward other people for their recreational fantasies. Hence why that's such a poor metric for understanding other people.

 

[Incenjucar]

Or of the Medieval to Renaissance periods most people play in?

Maybe sometimes a fantasy monster is just a fantasy monster used as something to progress the story and characters and not an allegory of the real world. A rose is just a rose.

You mean where they would torture and burn to death people for being accused of casting spells?