Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5562217" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I'm going to attempt to respond to you (Pawsplay) as in-depth as I can, because we seem to be doing a lot of talking past one another for some reason. I think we're both reasonable and intelligent people. I see you in a positive light. I'd like to keep up on the productive conversation when possible. As I said, I just feel like we're talking past one another.Okay, that's understandable. As I cannot distinguish your intentions easily (obviously) without them being stated, can you let me know when you're doing this? I just assumed you were discussing the specifics I mentioned when you quoted my text, especially since I had previously tried to bring attention to it twice before (admittedly to the thread, and not necessarily to you in specific).Currently, yes. I'd like to address them, and tweak the ideas or spread out from there. I think to continue to drift towards the repercussions of any theoretical mechanical implementation that deals with feelings and not with crunch is useful, but to focus on it is not.The mechanical ramifications are more important to me than the continued focus on "some people might not like it" or "it's not very realistic." Those thoughts are worth considering, but the continued focus is the opposite of productive. More thoughts to come on this.Sure, let's start here and work. I thought we'd refined it more along the lines of number 3 by now.It's really not important. I suppose, simply, some broadly non-offensive mechanical difference in sexes that somewhat mimics perceived differences in fantasy.It's not meant to be all-encompassing. It's a game. Again, past a certain point, you say "and for simplicity's sake, we leave it at that" and then you move on. The premise we're working with is exploring mechanical differences if you did want to differentiate the sexes somehow. That's what I'm going for, at least. It seems very on-topic for the original post.I'm not overly concerned with typical female archetypes. Most of the fantasy I've read has depicted women as more cerebral and less physical than males. I'm not going for that feel, as I don't think it falls under the "broadly non-offensive" umbrella.Taking the Endurance feat gives you a +4 bonus to the following Constitution checks and Fortitude saves:(1) checks made to continue running(2) checks made to avoid nonlethal damage from a forced march(3) checks made to hold your breath(4) checks made to to avoid nonlethal damage from starvation or thirst(5) saves made to avoid nonlethal damage from hot or cold environments(6) saves made to resist damage from suffocation.It strikes me as odd that in a game where such a small difference in attributes is so hotly debated, any character can spend a feat to effectively have a +8 bonus to Constitution for the above checks is fine. Especially considering how unrelated they are.The point: past a certain point, you go for simplicity. It's okay for things to not be amazingly accurate if everyone is pretty happy with the game. I understand that people are happy with the game now, but if the point of the thread is to explore potential and theoretical mechanical differences between the sexes, I'd like to see how to do it as broadly non-offensive as possible.The point of the thread is to explore theoretical mechanical differences. That's why we're discussing things. I'd like to see something that makes the genders different, both nice to play, and that the differences are seen as broadly non-offensive.This isn't it. I hope I've explained my motives adequately.It's also the method I'm currently most satisfied with, though I think the "optional character traits" method has been woefully under-explored. I think there's a lot of potential there. Also, the bonuses we've been talking about so far have a lot of potential room for improvement.I'll let you deal with these. They're straying too far from my focus. I don't see them as particularly relevant after I've expressed my vague pseudo-goal.My players would probably think the females got the better deal. Swim checks are rare, forced marches are common, and large physical obstacles are often either ignored or bypassed through the use of fly magic. Before that point, there might be a few rolls, but as I said, the forced march checks would be more common in my games.Just a playstyle difference. Our mileage has varied.I like the idea of physical being balanced with physical. Especially when the bonuses we're talking about are fairly small. I'm not against a +1 bonus to Tumble on top of it. Though as I said, my players would probably think the females already had the better deal. They wouldn't object to any of this, though, so who knows.I hope I've been concise enough to keep us on the same page for now. Thanks for the conversation thus far <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification