NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5563745" data-attributes="member: 59506">Yeah, I understand how changing anything in a set of rules has ripple effects out to other rules. In fact I said that exact thing to Elf Witch just a few pages back.  However, for those who like to tinker with rules, we usually don't mind this kind of work (personally, I seriously enjoy it). But that's not the point of what I'm asking. The majority reason presented in this thread against such differentiation (and I believe your reason also), hasn't been a mechanical objection, but a moral/sexist based objection (with a reduced fun in gameplay as secondary). So, in that context: Do those that oppose such differentiation, have a problem (on moral/ethical grounds) with reducing female character lifting/carrying capacities by 40%, without applying a Strength penalty or cap?  And if not, do you feel it would reduce your enjoyment/fun of playing the game with such a rules modification in effect?  (And please try to be objective and give reasons - not just a flat No.)     As concerns your persistant queries of Why? Whether you see value in extensively writing/rewriting rules, or would be willing to do that, there are people who not only will rewrite a system from the ground up, but actually enjoy doing it.  But, after over 300 posts in this thread, I think the reasons for why people want to do this, and why others don't want to do this, have already been stated extensively (as have my reasons for wanting to do this).  It's comprehensive enough by simply reading through the thread. What I don't understand is why you have such a problem accepting that there are people who play differently than you, and want different things than you from RPG's, whether you understand or not?!?! The simple fact is, there are people who do want this, and they don't necessarily want this due to some sexist bias or agenda.  Accept it or not - but continuing to entreat as to why in an increasingly desperate and strenuous manner, is starting to hint at an agenda that seems less about understanding than it is about winning. And we all know just how futile trying to win on the internet is...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

Verification