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

Are we going to tackle the horribly racist D&D next? It's not as if there has ever been an edition where all racial abilities were equal.

Could you share a little bit about our planet's history of oppressing/subjugating elves and orcs?

Considering our planet's long history of oppression of women has helped inform our stereotypes as to what women can do and achieve, your analogy to race here would be more illuminating if you talked a little about how dragonborn and gnomes have endured similar oppression in our history.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It isn't like that. The opposite, maybe you are not familiar with it, but feeling 'othered' is never a nice thing.

I don't know what "that" points to. Please link your pronoun to something.

I don't particularly like inventing new words to describe old problems, but without getting too much into my private affairs and without knowing much about you, I can bet with some degree of certainty that I know more about what it is like to be "othered" than you do. That's of course a claim I might be wrong about, because I don't know you the individual and everyone is different. But please don't make assumptions about me, because if your assumption is that I don't know what it is like to be belittled, rejected, abused, and ostracized, because I'm a male, then I think you need to rethink your worldview.

Placing male as the default...

Who said anything about making male "default"?

....and female as the other with penalties -and only penalties- others women.

And who said anything about "penalties"? You are imposing a language here that I'm not using. In the language and practice of D&D, you'll note that as a matter of actual fact, I haven't imposed anything on choosing a female character. But please back away from the tree and look at the forest. Do you really believe real women are penalized merely for being women? I don't mean penalized by society or social expectations, which we both presumably agree does happen and has happened consistently in many cultures, but rather are actually "penalized" (your concept) by the fact that they are for example, on average smaller than men. Is this a "penalty", and is it a penalty if our system - like the real world - has physics that depend on mass and size to determine outcomes? Because if you think that it is literally a "penalty" (your concept) to be say 5'4" instead of 5'10", then it would seem to me that you are saying that in the real world women are inferior.

It doesn't matter if most women will be playing rogues and spellcasters with low strength, having that -2 in the playbook sends the message -intended or not- "you are not welcome".

Do you also feel this way about life itself? You are imposing on the game system this idea that it is unwelcoming if female characters are on average smaller and less strong (since mass and strength correlate strongly) than male characters? Are you also deeply troubled by the fact that in real life they actually are? Do you feel real life has this quality of making you feel "you are not welcome", if you don't adhere to some standard of being massive and physically strong?

If only male characters can be the best warriors, you are forcing women to play a male character if they want to be the best warriors, which is unfair -and at least to me offputting.

Do you feel this way about real life as well? If only male persons can be the best tennis players, soccer players, martial artists, and warriors, are you supposed to feel envious of men and uncomfortable with being feminine? Because I can't think of anything that is more hateful to women than imposing that set of beliefs on them, that they are somehow imperfect men, and because they can't be men they are somehow less good.

And while life is unfair, RPGs are games and games have to at least feel fair.

Why? Or to put a emphatic point on it, why the hell why? Does an RPG really have to "feel fair" and by what standard of fairness? Is it "fair" that in Skyrim for example, as strictly objective fact, your character is "better" (by at least one standard, ability to inflict damage), if your character is female? Should I feel offput? Othered? Outraged? Life is not fair. If RPGs cannot deal with that fact as well, then they are less than worthless and we should all give up the hobby as a vanity of vanities unworthy of our time and energy.

More so, escapist fantasy has to be fair.

I don't accept that literature, even fantasy literature, is inherently 'escapist'. But I also don't understand why even if this is escapist fantasy it has to be "fair". What I think would be a stronger claim, and I should note that I've already agreed with this claim, that in escapist fantasy there is no necessity of conforming to human limitations. We should be happy to accept that the answer to the question is "magic", and that there are in our escapist fantasies characters like Wonder Woman who are as strong as any man. What I reject is that the existence of this fantasy is necessary to be comfortable as women, which seems to be the subtext of a certain sort of argument being offered here.

I can only finish Oliver Twist knowing that there's got to be a happy ending, otherwise there's only relishing on human misery and there's plenty of that in the real world.[/COLOR][/B]

And again, that may be true of you, but I would be very unhappy indeed if we said that literature could only have happy endings, or even that if it did not have a happy ending that the point of the story had been to relish on human misery - which I emphatically reject.
 
Last edited:

The strongest real world women have something 23 strength in 3.X terms. That's much higher than the normal PC caps. Add to that that in fantasy game you are quite capable of assuming that any particular character does not have merely mortal heritage (Heracles for example is stronger than any mortal man, because he's not a mere mortal man), and I see no reason why you can't play Xena Warrior Princess.

What I am saying is the non-existence of Xena Warrior Princess in the real world doesn't make women in the real world inferior.

Why do you keep bringing up real world examples when we are playing a fantasy game? I'm not sure why you think they are relevant.
 

Do you feel this way about real life as well? If only male persons can be the best tennis players, soccer players, martial artists, and warriors, are you supposed to feel envious of men and uncomfortable with being feminine? Because I can't think of anything that is more hateful to women than imposing that set of beliefs on them, that they are somehow imperfect men, and because they can't be men they are somehow less good.
Dude, this is a bucket of nonsense, and I think you know it. First, we're talking game design. Second, WHAT?

In D&D the game, a character's Strength score directly informs their capability as warriors. If there are caps or penalties on womens' Strength scores, that will directly influence their mechanical competence as warriors. This is not a philosophical discussion; it's a direct result of the mechanics laid out.

Why? Or to put a emphatic point on it, why the hell why? Does an RPG really have to "feel fair" and by what standard of fairness? Is it "fair" that in Skyrim for example, as strictly objective fact, your character is "better" (by at least one standard, ability to inflict damage), if your character is female? Should I feel offput? Othered? Outraged? Life is not fair. If RPGs cannot deal with that fact as well, then they are less than worthless and we should all give up the hobby as a vanity of vanities unworthy of our time and energy.
"Should an RPG feel fair?" Um, yeah?

What I reject is that the existence of this fantasy is necessary to be comfortable as women, which seems to be the subtext of a certain sort of argument being offered here.
Literally nobody is saying this. Literally nobody.
 

Why do you keep bringing up real world examples when we are playing a fantasy game? I'm not sure why you think they are relevant.

Of course reality is relevant to a fantasy game. Every RPG I've ever played, in every single genera, has a metarule that is so basic to who the game is expected to be played that it doesn't even need to be stated, and generally is so obvious that the designer never even thinks to state it. And that metarule is that wherever the rules are silent, arbitration/resolution of proposition/action works as it would in reality. So even fantasy games are heavily informed by reality.

Beyond that, I've been playing RPGs a long time, and while current design has largely moved away from this, from the late 70's to the early 90's, the strongest focus of game design was toward making them more and more realistic. Realism was fetishized as a design concept, on the grounds that it was believed that most problems that a game had and most table conflicts were the result of rules improperly resolving situations because they were not realistic enough. Thus, designers dutifully tried to make systematic resolution even in fantasy games as 'realistic' as possible. At their heart, almost all RPGs began as grand programs to simulate whole worlds coherently and realistically. This includes D&D. I suggest you read, "Playing at the World" by Jon Peterson.

Beyond that, suggesting that strength caps are not necessary because they are not realistic neatly dodges the complaints of both sides of this debate. That is to say, D&D is already casually realistic even without strength caps, because women can in reality achieve strengths above 18.

But perhaps even more to the point, you are now being totally disingenuous. What you are quoting was in response to this question: "Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?" You are the one that brought reality in to the discussion. You must have thought reality was relevant when you asked the question. It is of course a valid response to the question, "Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?", to respond, "Well, actually, they are that strong. Or at least, strong enough."
 

But perhaps even more to the point, you are now being totally disingenuous. What you are quoting was in response to this question: "Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?" You are the one that brought reality in to the discussion. You must have thought reality was relevant when you asked the question. It is of course a valid response to the question, "Are you saying I can't because women aren't actually that strong?", to respond, "Well, actually, they are that strong. Or at least, strong enough."

Nope. My point was that using real world examples to justify anything in a fantasy game is foolish. (Also you were writing pages and pages about real world examples before I said anything to you, so saying that I brought the real world into this is completely false.)

The point of a fantasy game is that it doesn't mirror reality. It doesn't have to because it is a) a game, and b) a fantasy.
 
Last edited:

Dude, this is a bucket of nonsense, and I think you know it.

It's not a bucket of nonsense, or at least, my response to it is not a bucket of nonsense. I have a daughter that is a soccer player. The corrosive woman hating crap you've been spreading in this thread is the sort of thing that has impacted my daily life. So no, I'm dead serious about this subject.

First, we're talking game design.

Yes, but what's going on is now you are insisting this corrosive woman hating nonsense has to inform every single game else it is "sexist". But let me back up and explain myself.

Increasingly in our society we are trying to be affirming of women, and that's all to the good. But, unfortunately, increasingly the touchstone of how we are affirming to women is to show women not as they are, but solely as the exist in a fantasy that is either unrealistic or simply not available to 999,999 out of every million women. That touchstone is that we portray women as "kick butt" action heroes, and not merely kick butt action heroes, but specifically as persons who despite weighing 130 pounds can wade into a room full of burly men and toss them around without any real effort. This portrayal is increasingly not confined even to fantasies like "Wonder Woman", but is pervading more and more of fiction, including fiction that is ostensibly realistic.

And there is nothing wrong with "kick butt" girl as escapist fantasy, but as it becomes increasingly the universal depiction of what it means to be an empowered woman - indeed as what it means to be a valued and valuable woman - it's increasingly striking me as being actually disparaging of real women, because in reality no woman can actually meet that standard. Worse, kick butt action girl almost invariably still looks exactly like a Barbie doll. So now I have to put up with this sort of crap becoming the standard that my very real daughters are judging themselves by because its the standard that they see being defined for women.

And so yes, I'm rather bothered by this crap, especially as I see it pushed more and more as a universal standard for what makes something sexist or not sexist (which is as much to say what makes it actually moral).

In D&D the game, a character's Strength score directly informs their capability as warriors. If there are caps or penalties on womens' Strength scores, that will directly influence their mechanical competence as warriors. This is not a philosophical discussion; it's a direct result of the mechanics laid out.

First of all, that's irrelevant. The thrust of my question was do all RPGs have to conform to permitting this escapist fantasy, else they ought to be condemned as sexist. Second of all, melee warrior is not the only way to contribute as a D&D character. Vastly more characters at my table treat Strength as a convenient dump stat than as an essential feature anyway. So, lets say the game isn't D&D, would it be fine if for whatever reason if you wanted to play as a female character, you had to find an alternative approach to contributing in combat than assuming you were the strongest person in the room? Because, out in the real world, real female police officers really do have to deal with this real life, and really don't have to have their ego's petted about being just as strong as men to value themselves as police officers and women. So to me, if you are insisting that the game has to do this because of some excuse like "escapist fantasy" (which is a crappy excuse), you are devaluing actual real women because you prefer fantasy women to real ones.

"Should an RPG feel fair?" Um, yeah?

Why? Seriously. Why? Stop giving me this axiomatic crap like it doesn't need an answer, because I think that it's far from obvious that an RPG - which is a cooperative pastime - has to feel "fair" in the sense you are using the word. It's not even clear to me that not being able to be the strongest character in the game because you are female isn't "fair", because in the real world you just can't, and it's certainly not clear to me that every RPG has to not be informed by reality. But to the extent that RPGs must not be informed by this particular reality, again it strikes me that you are devaluing real women because you prefer fantasy ones.

Literally nobody is saying this. Literally nobody.

Let me reinforce this again. I believe if you are saying, "Female characters have to be allowed to be just strong as men, otherwise they are unattractive as a choice", that what you are saying is equivalent to saying "women aren't as good as men". And there does seem to be a lot of people who are saying, "Female characters have to be allowed to be just strong as men, otherwise they are unattractive as a choice", so I am hearing a lot of people saying "women aren't as good as men". Challenge me on that equivalency as you like, but do not assume I am not being serious.
 
Last edited:

Nope. My point was that using real world examples to justify anything in a fantasy game is foolish.

Ok, in that case, I disagree.

The point of a fantasy game is that it doesn't mirror reality.

I disagree.

It doesn't have to because it is a) a game, and b) a fantasy.

And I agree that it doesn't have to, but not because it is a game or a fantasy. More to the point, I don't agree that it is required that it does not mirror reality. And more importantly, see my above discussion about why I'm particularly troubled by a blanket assertion that one particular aspect of reality cannot be simulated.
 

Ok, in that case, I disagree.

Go ahead. Doesn't make you right.

I disagree.

*shrug* You may have trouble separating fantasy and reality, but I don't.

And I agree that it doesn't have to, but not because it is a game or a fantasy. More to the point, I don't agree that it is required that it does not mirror reality.

I never said it was "required". Once again, you misunderstand.

And more importantly, see my above discussion about why I'm particularly troubled by a blanket assertion that one particular aspect of reality cannot be simulated.

Sorry, your wall of text was just way too boring to get through. You really need to work on being more succinct.

Besides, you are still not understanding. I never said it cannot be. It just doesn't need to be - again, this is a fantasy game. It's supposed to be fun. Does adding sex specific attribute modifiers enhance the enjoyment of the game? For many (most?) people, the answer is: "No. In fact it would detract from my enjoyment."

And what do you know...there are no sex specific attribute modifiers in the current edition of the game. Which shows that they really aren't needed and don't add any value to the game (in the eyes to the designers and enough of the players to matter). All your arguments are irrelevant in the face of that simple fact.
 
Last edited:

And what do you know...the are no sex specific attribute modifiers in the current edition of the game. Which shows that they really aren't needed and don't add any value to the game (in the eyes to the designers and enough of the players to matter). All your arguments are irrelevant in the face of that simple fact.
I presented some arguments as to why mechanical differentiation between genders can beneficial to my game, and I think some of them still applies to D&D.
It just got lost in the thread.
And I think you touched in an important question [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] .

P.S.: to be fair, the more we discuss, the more I like the idea. I just don't know why.
 

Remove ads

Top