GMs altering established campaign setting elements to suit players?

[SWBaxter]

I've found myself much more willing to change rules than to change established elements of my gameworld mid-campaign, although I was happy to de-emphasise elements I found it impossible to retcon it, to say "Ok, X doesn't exist". Many 'corporate' fictional universes like Star Trek or Marvel Universe seem happy to retcon though - is it an 'auteur' thing?

It's kind of a fine line to walk; on the one hand, I like a relatively coherent campaign setting. OTOH, as soon as my group starts gaming in a setting, it's a collaborative effort, not a single-author endeavour, and I try to listen to what they say. The approach I usually take is to let my players try to change that which they find objectionable within the context of the campaign. Of course, if I know there's something that really bugs them before we start, then I only include it if I want the campaign to revolve around eliminating the objectionable practice.

 

[RFisher]

Whether they see a certain book in front of me or recognize elements from published settings in a game I'm running, the PCs should never assume that my world conforms to someone else's depiction.

Most changes I would make would be to suit me, but sometimes a change that suits the players also suits me.

 

[S'mon]

. I don't like the current fashion of political correctness at all...

Well my player who had a problem was among the most right-wing (in an Ayn Randian sense) people I've ever met. We had communication difficulties that went beyond the game I think, but the specific complaint was that female PCs found it harder to be taken seriously in the rather patriarchal quasi-medieval-medieval-city-state campaign area, and that she didn't like this. Specifically, male warrior PCs with big weapons (hi Hong) got to command armies, were showered with wealth and approbation, and her druid-witch didn't. Her PC _was_ becoming a respected and powerful advisor to the local ruler - at least, that's how I saw it, either she didn't or this wasn't good enough.

 

[S'mon]

In D&D 3.5 terms, men should be from 2 to 4 points stronger than women at the average and maximum (based not only on olympic records but military studies on strength), which is fairly substantial in game terms. Strength is a function of size, body fat percentages, hormones, and a few other issues that favor men with respect to strength to a significant degree.

IMC female NPCs average STR 7-8 where men average 10-11, adventurer types are not average of course, a female melee fighter probably deviates from the norm more than a male melee fighter does, and a typical strong NPC female fighter IMC will have STR 16 to the strong male fighter's 18 (or ca 12 vs 14 for the more typical warriors); but there are good balance reasons not to apply sex stat bonuses & penalties to PCs unless you don't wan't female melee fighters. Demihumans are a bit different but even there they cause problems with eg far too many (IMO) half-orc barbarians in many campaigns.

 

[John Morrow]

IMC female NPCs average STR 7-8 where men average 10-11, adventurer types are not average of course, a female melee fighter probably deviates from the norm more than a male melee fighter does, and a typical strong NPC female fighter IMC will have STR 16 to the strong male fighter's 18 (or ca 12 vs 14 for the more typical warriors);

In any society where there is a strong bias against female fighters where they are relatively rare, it would be reasonable to assume that the average woman warrior is better than the average male warrior because she has to be to be take seriously and the pool that they are drawn from is smaller and closer to the top. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that any female fighter has a STR in the 14-16 range while the average grunt male fighter has a STR in the 12-14 range. That's one of the things that can make this sort of flavor interesting.

but there are good balance reasons not to apply sex stat bonuses & penalties to PCs unless you don't wan't female melee fighters. Demihumans are a bit different but even there they cause problems with eg far too many (IMO) half-orc barbarians in many campaigns.

Part of that will depend on whether you use a cap or a modifier. A cap, especially one that lets you move the excess points into other attributes, doesn't necessarily discourage female fighters unless you play in a group that just has to have a 17 or 18 STR to play a fighter. A modifier also might not be a problem if, for example, you offset a -2 STR with a +2 DEX (and posibly the Weapon Finesse feat for free), which would encourage Weapon Finesse-based female fighters . What original AD&D did, though, with a cap and no offsetting compensation was clearly not the way to do it.

 

[S'mon]

In any society where there is a strong bias against female fighters where they are relatively rare, it would be reasonable to assume that the average woman warrior is better than the average male warrior because she has to be to be take seriously and the pool that they are drawn from is smaller and closer to the top. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that any female fighter has a STR in the 14-16 range while the average grunt male fighter has a STR in the 12-14 range. That's one of the things that can make this sort of flavor interesting.

I disagree with your reasoning. IRL we (western society) has a bias against female fighters, albeit weaker than previously. IME (I knew a lot of female soldiers when I was in the army reserve) female fighters are stronger than average women, and very frequently stronger than the average man, but they are not stronger than the average male fighter in a similar role. Maybe they are 'better' overall than the men, but they're not stronger. I agree that the stronger the bias the more exceptional (deviating from the norm) the individual will be. There's a strong argument that in eg business sectors with strong anti-female gender bias the average (rare) female exec will be superior overall to the average male, though it's always unwise to assume someone's better just because they're female (poor Carly Fiorina). - in fact if it's generally assumed eg that women are better (rather than worse) at a job, the ability imbalance may reverse. So eg males working in female dominated professions may be better than average at their jobs.
I noticed when I was doing temping work like data-entry in Coventry (UK) that the Asian female line managers always seemed the smartest & most effective, I guessed that if they were white, male and had the same abilities they'd be of a higher rank. Likewise IMC the female fighter guard-captain in a sexist area will tend to have a better overall stat array than the male guard-captain of the same rank, yup.

 

[S'mon]

Part of that will depend on whether you use a cap or a modifier. A cap, especially one that lets you move the excess points into other attributes, doesn't necessarily discourage female fighters unless you play in a group that just has to have a 17 or 18 STR to play a fighter. A modifier also might not be a problem if, for example, you offset a -2 STR with a +2 DEX (and posibly the Weapon Finesse feat for free), which would encourage Weapon Finesse-based female fighters . What original AD&D did, though, with a cap and no offsetting compensation was clearly not the way to do it.

Yes, I agree with this - the only justification is simulationist, but simulation doesn't necessarily make for a good game. IMCs we tend to have de facto caps for PCs - eg when playing my female human melee Fighter PCs generally have STR 16 & good DEX, which is viable IMO especially with point-buy. I wouldn't stop a player playing a 1st level female human with STR 18 (it's certainly well within real-world parameters, as noted) but they better not make her a 95lb waif. Make her 200lb & 6'6" and I'm fine with it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDIT: I originally posted something about how those accusing others who become uncomfortable at certain topics (rape, most particularly) around the gaming table of being some form of PC-crazed hippies are less intelligent than need be.

It's not worth it.

 

[S'mon]

You don't have to be a PC-crazed hippy to object to certain things, yup. There's plenty of things I'd object to in a game. Vampire protagonists, for instance.

 

[John Morrow]

I disagree with your reasoning. IRL we (western society) has a bias against female fighters, albeit weaker than previously. IME (I knew a lot of female soldiers when I was in the army reserve) female fighters are stronger than average women, and very frequently stronger than the average man, but they are not stronger than the average male fighter in a similar role.

The point I'm trying to make is that the "average male fighter" can come very close to being "average male" when the normal ranks of fighters are drawn from the general population while "average female fighter" can come very close to being "strongest female" when the pool is small and drawn mainly from the top. I'm not talking about the demographics of a modern military (I'm well aware of what they look like from looking into military studies on the subject) but more of the sort of situation where the a large segment of the male population becomes Fighters but only a small segment of women -- the Xenas, Red Sonjas, etc. -- are warriors.

Maybe they are 'better' overall than the men, but they're not stronger.

An exceptional woman can clearly be stronger than an average man. All it would take for the average woman fighter to be stronger than the average male fighter is for the average female fighter to be drawn from the exceptional pool near the maximum and the average male fighter to be drawn from closer to the average. That could easily happen in a situation where the average male fighter is drafted and trained to be part of an army or guard unit while the average female fighter has to fight her way into her profession.

I agree that the stronger the bias the more exceptional (deviating from the norm) the individual will be.

And all I'm really saying is that at some level of bias, the women who enter the profession would be exceptional to the point where they could exceed the abilities of their unexeptional and potentially average male counterparts. I'm not saying that it has to be this way. I'm saying that it could be. In fact, you'll find this sort of thing in genre fiction.

There's a strong argument that in eg business sectors with strong anti-female gender bias the average (rare) female exec will be superior overall to the average male, though it's always unwise to assume someone's better just because they're female (poor Carly Fiorina). - in fact if it's generally assumed eg that women are better (rather than worse) at a job, the ability imbalance may reverse. So eg males working in female dominated professions may be better than average at their jobs.

Absolutely. And there is some interesting role-playing potential there, too, in a woman warrior who is simply a poser who intimidates people into thinking she's exceptional by the way she acts, even though she lacks the strength and skill to back it up.

Likewise IMC the female fighter guard-captain in a sexist area will tend to have a better overall stat array than the male guard-captain of the same rank, yup.

That includes level as well as attributes.