D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

Dannyalcatraz · May 25, 2013

(that 13 year-old benching close to 200 lbs is crazy. I'm thirty-one, been training for close to six years, and I plateau'd at maybe 250.)

Part of that is individual genetics- I went from a 160lb bench to over 300lbs in one semester.* But my family is built to bulk up. I come from a long line of men built like fireplugs. I imagine that any of the women in our lineage would have had a similar advantage in bodybuilding.

* my roomie, over the same time period, putting in the same hours AND adding Joe Wieder shakes to his diet went from a bench of 115lbs to 160, and added 5lbs to his body mass.

Nellisir · May 25, 2013

It’s easier to tell the same stories everyone else does. There’s no particular shame in it.
It’s just that it’s lazy, which is just about the worst possible thing a spec fic writer can be.

deserts = pyramids, ninjas = asians, barbarians = vikings.....

OK, just finished it. That was a good essay. A really good essay. It made some things clear that hadn't, and showed the author's own failings, which is reassuring.

Also, it features the truth about scaly cannibalistic llamas, which is important.

MrHemlocks · May 25, 2013

The Choice said:
No, it's not. If you had seen the inside of a gym in the past decade, you'd know that women can develop pretty much the same strength that men can. They just won't develop the same muscle size.

The SOLE reason more women (who want to train or lose weight) don't hit the weight room as hard as men do is because they've been taught (wrongly) that lifting weights will make them "ugly" and "bulky" (not true, unless they down supplements like crazy and dehydrate themselves dangerously).

So, in a universe where civilization is under threats from ogres, orcs, trolls, and all sorts of vile nasties, and where every sword-arm is required to protect the cities and towns, you're telling me that a girl who chooses the path of the soldier, who's going to train from the age of 12, 13, 15 tops to be apt at fighting, wearing armor, etc. is going to be less strong than her male counterparts. That's simply not gonna be the case.

Here are a few exemples to educate yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzLpODqxrE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StkKrqvD7l
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqDEeIv8Rd4

(that 13 year-old benching close to 200 lbs is crazy. I'm thirty-one, been training for close to six years, and I plateau'd at maybe 250.)

You are so wrong. Women have less dense bone structure, thinner skin, and less muscle mass...to name a few. Not to mention male hormones and ... Women can not get as strong as a man...simple. Unless the man never does anything but eat pizza and play games all day. Did I forget to mention women have bones, in their arms, that are curved so as to better hold/nurture babies. WOW...we are not equal but that does not mean we need to not get along.

Nellisir · May 25, 2013

MrHemlocks said:
Did I forget to mention women have bones, in their arms, that are curved so as to better hold/nurture babies.

I need CM-grade emoticons for this one, but I'll make do with this.

WheresMyD20 · May 25, 2013

Morrus said:
Penalising the characters that half the player base identifies with? Yeah. That's not equality. To the players, let alone the characters.

By all means mess around with fictional things like orcs and elves. Prescribing limits for groups who exist in real life and are hopefully at that very game table? No; I'll never be on board with that. That sends a message to women (or whatever other group bring penalised) that they're not welcome.

So you'd also advocate no penalties for age, physical appearance, body type, or disability? You wouldn't want to prescribe limits for those real-life groups either, right?

In other words...
A female barbarian should be just as strong as a male barbarian.
An elderly rogue should be just as nimble as a young rogue.
An ugly bard should be just as charming as a handsome bard.
An obese fighter should be just as effective as a fit fighter.
A blind ranger should be just as accurate as a sighted ranger.

Is that what you're advocating? Because you sounded very critical of that before, but now you're saying that you don't want to prescribe limits for real-life groups.

Umbran · May 25, 2013

Nellisir said:
I need CM-grade emoticons for this one, but I'll make do with this.

As MrHemlocks could not follow simple instructions, he won't be around for a while. However, I should take the time to make something abundantly clear:

1) DO NOT FEED TROLLS.

2) DO NOT ACCUSE TROLLS.

If you feel someone is trolling, the appropriate response is to report them, and then to ignore the crap out of them.

That's clear enough, yes? Anyone need to discuss it, please take it to PM or e-mail with the mod of your choice. Thanks, all!

Umbran · May 25, 2013

And, as a less-moderatory addition...

Folks, while it may be possible, it is going to be extremely difficult to argue in support of gender-based stat modifiers in a way that the mods will not find sexist.

I would take it as a personal favor if you all just drop that line of discussion - this thread isn't supposed to be about sex-based stats. Can we please leave it that way?

WheresMyD20 · May 25, 2013

delericho said:
That's a bad example, though, because in every instance where the limits are different, the female limit is lower. That's pretty unambiguously unequal, and the removal of those limits is therefore a set forward for equality.

I see when the you quoted me, you left out the key portions of the post regarding "equality" and "identical-ness".

So, you're basically saying if you can't make them equal, you have to make them identical?

How about for other groups like the elderly, obese, or ugly? Does there have to be an "equalizing" offset? Should we forbid any penalties for being old, overweight, or ugly?

Are we only allowed to recognize differences when there's a convenient offsetting benefit?

bogmad · May 25, 2013

WheresMyD20 said:
In other words...
A female barbarian should be just as strong as a male barbarian.
An elderly rogue should be just as nimble as a young rogue.
An ugly bard should be just as charming as a handsome bard.
An obese fighter should be just as effective as a fit fighter.
A blind ranger should be just as accurate as a sighted ranger.

How about:
A barbarian with 17 strength should have str 17
A rogue with 14 dexterity should have dex 14
A bard with 12 charisma should have cha 12
etc, etc.

You get to make up just how old, fat, or blind your character is.

It's not highly accurate applied physics. It's a game.

TanithT · May 25, 2013

On that whole historical accuracy thing in games and arguing that the material in our games should totally reflect reality, I can think of a very historically accurate and realistic game that Hasbro could try to market. It would be set in the Confederate South, with PC's as bounty hunters tracking down escaped slaves. White characters would have ability scores; non white characters would have monetary value scores. The game would be called "(N-Word) Hunter" and feature liberal use of historically accurate language in reference to the objects of the game.

Very historically and factually accurate. And utterly unplayable. At least I sincerely hope it would be. You could make this game all right, but I don't think anyone is likely to find personally inspiring stories in it, or a world they want to explore.

Do we really need our games to reflect the ugliest things that human history has done, and argue vociferously for our own limits as a species? Or do we want to tell stories that are better than that?

D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Nellisir

Hero

MrHemlocks

Banned

Nellisir

Hero

WheresMyD20

First Post

Umbran

Mod Squad

Umbran

Mod Squad

WheresMyD20

First Post

bogmad

First Post

TanithT

First Post

Similar Threads