D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the most realistic method would be to reduce the amount of weight a female character could carry. A female might have Strength 18, but she's got a smaller frame and can't carry as much weight. (Of course, realistically, she wouldn't be able to hit as hard either. Now picture the rules mods for her plate armor... it would probably weigh less, but how much less? In fact, why doesn't armor have weight based on character size? Presumably it's just too complex to write such rules, normally.) A similar rule could be used for halflings (indeed, there is such a rule, before you take Strength penalties into account, although that's strictly size-based), children, and so forth.

I guess I don't really see Strength as having much to do with hitting. (The Alternity game system pointed out their version of Strength included many things that aren't normally associated with strength, such as ... precision.)

I think that would be too fine-grained for D&D, at least when it comes to combat rules.

Of course, I wouldn't actually propose writing such rules into the game. But we've already said that.

 

[Alzrius]

I think the most realistic method would be to reduce the amount of weight a female character could carry. A female might have Strength 18, but she's got a smaller frame and can't carry as much weight. (Of course, realistically, she wouldn't be able to hit as hard either. Now picture the rules mods for her plate armor... it would probably weigh less, but how much less? In fact, why doesn't armor have weight based on character size? Presumably it's just too complex to write such rules, normally.) A similar rule could be used for halflings (indeed, there is such a rule, before you take Strength penalties into account, although that's strictly size-based), children, and so forth.

I guess I don't really see Strength as having much to do with hitting. (The Alternity game system pointed out their version of Strength included many things that aren't normally associated with strength, such as ... precision.)

Well, by the time you've reduced encumbrance values and their to-hit modifier, that's essentially a Strength penalty in all but name (add in melee damage and that's pretty much everything Strength affects). I do agree that strength has exceptionally little to do with accurately landing a blow on someone else, per se, but much like with Charisma entailing physical beauty, it's probably best to take that one as a given (unless we bring back everyone's favorite: sub-ability scores!).

I think that would be too fine-grained for D&D, at least when it comes to combat rules.

Most likely, but I have to wonder if that's close enough to a Strength penalty that it wouldn't do most of what you're proposing anyway.

Of course, I wouldn't actually propose writing such rules into the game. But we've already said that.

Agreed. This is purely an intellectual exercise.

 

[Nellisir]

You were talking about 1e, I believe, where you didn't naturally gain stats. (Unless you did, never played that edition.)

Unearthed Arcana introduced cavaliers, who increased their Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution every level. The paladin became a subclass of the cavalier, and increased their Charisma every level. The character had a percentile score after their "normal" ability (ie 15/71) and added 2d10 every level to the percentile of each attribute.

 

[Sunseeker]

Do you mean Paizo's Iconic bard, Lem? There's something to be said for that, but as a class the bard can wear light armor, and has some degree of multiple attribute dependency (so they can't afford to focus solely on Charisma).

Her outfit is notably flamboyant, but the question was about the utility of armor; as a sorcerer, it's natural for her to eschew that, which means that from a practical standpoint, there's little difference between a dress and...whatever it is Seoni wears.

If you are a class which eschews heavy or highly durable armor, then reasonably, there's no real need to wear anything at all. The basis for most magic is some kind of connection and mastery of the magical forces of the world. Wearing anything particularly heavy interferes with that mastery and connection, to an extent this stems from classical mythology where the oracles and servants of various gods wore little to no clothing. It ties into why a lot of the "occult" is portrayed as doing what they do naked, or sexually.

If there was no, or minimal magical enhancement bonuses to armor then we'd have removed any mechanical reason for a character who can only wear light or no armor, to wear anything at all.

 

[TanithT]

insofar as the basic nature of creatures and things that do exist in the real world are concerned, some presumption of fidelity to their real counterparts is certainly not a vice.

In short, you're explaining as to how it's okay to say humans can have magic powers and cast magic missile spells, but not okay to say humans can be equally strong, because everything is supposed to work the way it does in the real world unless there is a good storytelling reason to say differently.

This says that you think there is no in-game reason for there to be any such thing as a female fighter who is as good as a man. And you're still good with the psionics and dragons and magic missile stuff, even though none of that is true in the real world.

Not finding this argument credible even when it uses more words.

 

[haakon1]

Oddly enough, a female gamer I know agreed that female PCs should have lower Strength. ... But I told her if she felt that way, she could simply assign a female PC lower Strength (through point buy or picking a lower die roll). Game rules aren't needed.

If a DM felt really strongly about that, they could have female NPC rogues or skirmishers be more common than female brute barbarian NPCs. Or something. But that's got nothing to do with how a person might play a female PC. Even if Brienne of Tarth is an uncommon archetype, you don't need the rules to "enforce" that.

I completely agree. When I use random determination for gender and race of specific warrior types, I make them ~80% male. But that's different from 0% female. And it's not necessary to have WOTC preach on what the right ratio is.

For other classes, I do more like 50/50. One of my players (who in real life is a devout member of a faith with only male clerics, that I also grew up in) thought I was messing with him when I had two clerics in a row that his cleric PC had to deal with be female church leaders. I told him, nope, it didn't even cross my mind that a goodly number of cleric leaders in D&D shouldn't be female.

 

[Blackwarder]

[h=2]Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?[/h]

No.

Warder

 

[Ari Kanen]

The problem with asking questions like this is that no one wants to respond in the negative regarding values that are widely held as being virtuous. We embrace the idea that life imitates art because art creates and reinforces social values, so those who object to seeing those values promoted in artwork are held as not wanting to see them promulgated in society at large.

I personally don't care for that mode of thinking, as I believe that the relationship regarding the influence of passive media on social mores and attitudes is overstated. Moreover, believing that art has such a powerful influence on attitudes and perceptions encourages people to hold fiction to the same standards as reality, which I think leads to bad places (e.g. the demonization, if not criminalization, of certain attitudes, even when held to be in a fictitious context).

I find that really interesting, why do you think it leads to bad places?

As such, my answer to the OP's question is as follows: I don't think that fiction in general or games in particular should concern themselves with being instruments of social change. Rather, I think that they should be designed around whatever goals will best serve their primary purpose (e.g. to have fun).

The same can be said of any medium or mode of expression that passively or actively condones racism/sexism or pretty much any -ism. And it pretty much has been. Most forms of effective -isming that I've seen hides behind good intentions, or portends be free of responsibility in the name of art, fun, or I'm kidding.

I know that the popular counterargument to this is that "fun" is best served by not running against popular tastes in what's perceived as being socially conscious, but I believe that real-world ethics and morals shouldn't apply to fictitious scenarios - that is, that the people reading/watching/playing them are best served by keeping their ethics and morals in check for the duration of their participation.

I respectfully disagree here. Mostly because I'm not sure it's possible. What aspects of your personality is engaging with the fiction/game or whatever? Really, I'm curious.

If fantasy means being free from the constraints of reality, that should also mean being free from the social constraints that reality imposes on us as well. (And no, this is not an excuse for doing something that upsets the other players at the table; that's back to interacting with reality, not fiction, and so the usual set of ethics and morals should and do apply.)

Though the intention is to not upset other players at the table, I think what the OP is asking about is - Are the designers not excluding the participation of under represented groups in order to avoid this possibility by drawing a particular picture of heroism, that does not include them. Which, if this type of question is asked enough, may help move us towards a more inclusive perspective and thereby strengthen the industry, financially and morally.

I'll eat the fact that DnD and Pen and paper RPGs is dominated by hetero white males, but I think this line of questioning should be seriously engaged unless you are completely okay with that. I think it's one of the reason I don't publicly admit to being and DnD gamer, which sucks (because I would like to). Meaning, that even if you are racist and sexist (not meaning you at all, because I think your coming from a good perspective) there is a lot of self interest possibly by solving this.

 

[Ari Kanen]

I completely agree. When I use random determination for gender and race of specific warrior types, I make them ~80% male. But that's different from 0% female. And it's not necessary to have WOTC preach on what the right ratio is.

For other classes, I do more like 50/50. One of my players (who in real life is a devout member of a faith with only male clerics, that I also grew up in) thought I was messing with him when I had two clerics in a row that his cleric PC had to deal with be female church leaders. I told him, nope, it didn't even cross my mind that a goodly number of cleric leaders in D&D shouldn't be female.

Briene (sp?) of Tarth would kick my ass. And I've won physical fights with other dudes...

So I just don't understand the logic here. Is Briene (from Game of Thrones) a completely unrealistic character? I mean if wizards can cast magic spells, women who succeed into a class (meaning not a NPC class) can't be imagined to have equal strength?

 

[Ari Kanen]

People are way to sensitive about stuff in a fantasy game.
I would love to see a campaign world where the following existed:
> a few kingdoms females could not own land
> an amazonian society where men are only seen as slaves for labor or breeding
> a city with no orc blooded signs posted at the local taverns and stores
> a society that keeps halflings as house servents and sold on slave ships [they take up less space]
> where a church of a good religion persecutes those with alternate sexual preferences or identities
> a kingdom of elves that treat humans as slaves and considers them non people

There are a few campaigns that feature this, especially the last one, which is almost cliche now. And I appreciate them precisely for the reason you mention. But...this is a challenge for Wizards and DnD, but probably because it is geared towards children.