Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mythago" data-source="post: 6203712" data-attributes="member: 3019">Some of us are, yes. That's not about "rank", whatever that's supposed to mean; it's an observation that women-in-gaming is, for many gamers, not an abstract discussion about somebody else.WRT things like upper strength limits: unless a GM is trying to run a rigid historical simulation or some kind of Beyond Harn realistic modeling, certain things are going to be kept or discarded in the name of "realism" and mimicing what humans actually can and can't achieve. Few GMs, I'm guessing, require PCs to roll on the Burn Scars Table every time they survive a fireball, or cap hit points at a level that insures living through a 50' fall is a miraculous event and never 'yeah, pretty good odds'. Despite the fact that urination is an absolute biological fact of human existence, nobody has tables that instruct characters on how often they have to pee with CON rolls required for a character who forgot to go before they went into the dungeon.Virtually all GMs who run D&D seem pretty happy with the preference for cinematic/heroic over realistic modeling - as we know from the fact that elves, magic missiles and worshippers of Pelor did not exist in actual 15th-century Europe. Rules systems, and individual GMs, decide to keep certain things as 'realistic' and important to the game, and reject other things as cumbersome, boring and unimportant. When a rules system, or a GM, insists that one of the things they must keep is strength differentiation between men and women, that is saying something about what is thought important, what does not detract from the game.</blockquote>

Verification