So yeah like the title says what would that be like. I think people would cry unfair if you want to play a class but don't want to be de-buffed for the gender you choose (most likely your own unless you want to play as the other sex) but to me it makes sense even in a real life situation. Men have muscles but even when i was in karate you could tell women can generally stretch easier and possibly do more flexible things with their bodies possibly due to lack of said muscles which possibly get in the way (normally at about black belt men were about as flexible but still probably not as good whereas low level belts you could easily tell that men were less flexible). In this sense men would be better fighters and tanks and women would be better rogues and archers and such. This to me would work provided it doesn't really bother any players that want to play a class and don't want penalties based on the sex they choose. So i figure the choice should be up to the GM and players (or video game setting features) if they so wish for the rest of said game. I figure the buffs and debuffs for each sex would be fairly small but significant enough to make a difference (for instance if a race gets +5 for magic in this case men might get +2 to strength and women +2 to dexterity).
Anyway i figure this makes more sense in some ways. A woman can still be strong just like in the real world but it's probably tougher for them just as it's tougher for men (at least at first) to do all those acrobatics and super dexterity heavy moves women can do a bit easier.
I think some RPG's already use stats to differentiate men and women anyways I don't feel one way or the other about so long as it's balanced. Also is this a thread about pen and paper RPG's, video-game RPG's or Rocket Propelled Grenades?
I prefer rocket propelled grenades, but I didn't think they separated them on gender? I mean, rocket propelled grenades are pretty egalitarian, after all, they all want the same thing and frankly they don't have time in their short, very exciting lives for such nonsense.
We should all strive to be like rocket propelled grenades. Loud, fast, and explosively exciting!
And ends in seconds. Just like any sex that includes me ! Ok i kid.
Also when did melissia start having emotions other than anger and the desire to kill.
@cheesecat: This is kind of for everything really whether video games or pen and paper rpg's. It's more just rpg's in general. Wasn't sure on the best place to put it but more after the fact is when i noticed. I think it could work as an option for games. Gives things a bit more depth.
They did it in oblivion - argonian women were better spellcasters by a long shot but the men were better rogues.
I think in an RPG its a bit pointless as while gender might favour some aspects the whole point of a good stat system is that it allows for the natural variety in humans
I like how Dragon's Dogma did things. Your character's abilities were not affected by your gender, but by your build. Tall characters had wider strides and thus walked faster. Heavier set characters recovered stamina slower, but could carry more. There were quite a few different bonuses depending on the specific size and shape of your character.
It was entirely possible to build uber muscular gigantic men and women (or super frail and tiny ones), and both ended up with a believable set of bonuses/handicaps that didn't feel arbitrarily tacked on because of their gender.
I never played 'dragon's dogma' partially due to lack of funds for games i want as is. That actually sounds pretty awesome.
I don't think the things i mentioned are terrible exactly but i do notice it seems to effect the sexes somewhat. Depending on how strong or flexible somebody tries to be through training they can make such advantages seem more trivial but without getting stronger or better at dexterity it seems to be somewhat more pronounced.
I have a reputation for being very flexible, moreso than most women, yet I also have a reputation for being quite physically weak.
Being unable to represent such a circumstance just because of some arbitrary gender discrimination is just a silly idea at best.
Meh, seems pointless to me. While women are inferior to man in regards to physics, they make up with cognitive advantages; but since that's just on average, there might (!) be a woman that's stronger than a man and vice versa
I would say that while there is a noticable 'real world' difference (i.e. our lab-devised tests can determine that because of XYZ men are less ABC than women, and men are better at DEF because of LMN), when you scale things into a video game, those differences become largely unnoticable due to abstraction models.
I would say that unless your working in a percentile (x/100) system, there would be little difference between male/female dexterity and strength, particularly in the living conditions expressed in most fantasy tropes.
Real world... look at a Kung Fu master and tell me that women are generally better than men at dexterity. Likewise a woman weightlifter would put me to shame on strength.
To talk D&D, I like the system where you can convert 2 for 1. So if you perceive that men are stronger than women, you could say -2 Dex and -2 Charisma and add +2 to Strength. It allows you to make the character you perceive in your mind but at a heft penalty. So you can guarantee an 18 strength but you may have straight 10s in all the other stats.
I like how Dragon's Dogma did things. Your character's abilities were not affected by your gender, but by your build. Tall characters had wider strides and thus walked faster. Heavier set characters recovered stamina slower, but could carry more. There were quite a few different bonuses depending on the specific size and shape of your character.
It was entirely possible to build uber muscular gigantic men and women (or super frail and tiny ones), and both ended up with a believable set of bonuses/handicaps that didn't feel arbitrarily tacked on because of their gender.
I like how Dragon's Dogma did things. Your character's abilities were not affected by your gender, but by your build. Tall characters had wider strides and thus walked faster. Heavier set characters recovered stamina slower, but could carry more. There were quite a few different bonuses depending on the specific size and shape of your character.
It was entirely possible to build uber muscular gigantic men and women (or super frail and tiny ones), and both ended up with a believable set of bonuses/handicaps that didn't feel arbitrarily tacked on because of their gender.
I didn't realize a game was actually that well designed. I wish everyone did that, that would be awesome.
I like how Dragon's Dogma did things. Your character's abilities were not affected by your gender, but by your build. Tall characters had wider strides and thus walked faster. Heavier set characters recovered stamina slower, but could carry more. There were quite a few different bonuses depending on the specific size and shape of your character.
It was entirely possible to build uber muscular gigantic men and women (or super frail and tiny ones), and both ended up with a believable set of bonuses/handicaps that didn't feel arbitrarily tacked on because of their gender.
I didn't realize a game was actually that well designed. I wish everyone did that, that would be awesome.
It's fantastic. My roommate recently got me playing it again after a long hiatus, and now I can't put it down. I can't wait for the new expansion/director's cut, Dark Arisen, to come out. And it really is quite amazing how they manage to go into so much detail in the game.
So does the OP assume that every man is strong and every woman is lithe? Because I know I am not as strong as my ex, she is a massage therapist, but I tend to be a bit more nkmble than her.
And I'm stronger than a lot of my male friends (I actually exercise regularly, for one... and a lot of them are out of shape).
My argument is a bit simpler though-- the player character is, by definition, an exceptional character. They are not normal. They're the player character. The Commander Shepard, the Jedi Exile, the Dragonborn, and so on. There's no need to apply cultural norms to them specifically because they AREN'T normal.
I have a reputation for being very flexible, moreso than most women, yet I also have a reputation for being quite physically weak.
Being unable to represent such a circumstance just because of some arbitrary gender discrimination is just a silly idea at best.
Yeah i understand completely that men or women can be strong or have a lot of dexterity. My point is if both didn't train it'd be more pronounced in some ways. If both did train the slight boost becomes almost invisible. I understand body shape and such matters too but i'd like to see a lot of this in a game. Normally there are more racial features with fantasy characters and to me in some ways that seems a bit ridiculous. While i'm sure a cat-man can see better in the dark and is probably more nimble it doesn't mean they all have to do that. It just happens that they're good at that overall.
Love that concept for Dragons Dogma, shame the game has no further appeal for me.
In general I am of the same camp as Mel, the PC characters in general are portrayed as nearly always the height of their racial species, or the potential for it and any further restrictions/changes based on gender would be pretty much superfluousness to the game.
It's also going to 'risk' causing needless offence, so why would any games company want to potentially antagonise parts of their fan base?
Putting my mod-hat on for a sec, this is a fair subject, however it could easily turn into a gathering point for triangles of friendship, so please be aware of what you are posting and keep any 'ism' out of the thread.
I prefer games were you have some latitude in choosing your stats etc. regardless of gender.If I take a tank and want to put all my points into magic then that should be my choice, no matter how stupid
I thought WoW's approach was a great model. Minor stats differences to accentuate the traits of race right off the get go, but really, apart from the racially specific abilities, there wasn't a whole lot of differences between the races and genders by the end of the game. That was of course original WoW and Burning Crusade; I don't even know what they've done to the game since WoTLK.
The only major difference between races in WoW are the actual racial abilities, which do make a huge difference in certain cases and lead to a serious imbalance between races and factions for min/maxing. Humans are better for PvP, Trolls have one of the best (imo the best for casters) racials for PvEDPS, and Night Elves have a nice PvE tanking racial.
I don't think any differences between genders is a good idea. Too many PC problems.
Melissia wrote: And I'm stronger than a lot of my male friends (I actually exercise regularly, for one... and a lot of them are out of shape).
My argument is a bit simpler though-- the player character is, by definition, an exceptional character. They are not normal. They're the player character. The Commander Shepard, the Jedi Exile, the Dragonborn, and so on. There's no need to apply cultural norms to them specifically because they AREN'T normal.
Skyrim does actually change your stats if you are male or female, though it's different per race and not just limited to Dex/Str.
Well like i said i felt the difference should be entirely the player's choice in the options menu whether to turn 'on' or 'off'. A small boost doesn't take away your ability or inability to do something. You can be a strong woman in the real world just as you can be a a dexterous man. It's all your choice what you want to become good at. That's why eventually it's mostly pointless.
Agreed. That's why I like games like Fallout, Dark Souls and similar; the only real difference is how several conversations change, and how Fallout let's you sleep with different people.
I mean personally this is just like how race/skin color and gender matters to a degree but mostly to stuff that's not a huge deal or really negative or positive. Even things which a sex generally seems more common in or better at doesn't mean the other sex couldn't do it better due to working hard.
If you go into different species however differences become more pronounced. Sure dogs and rats may have better hearing (possibly due to their ears) or have a wider range of hearing or can hear higher pitched noises but even a fairly unknowledgeable human could in general learn more. Humans have a greater capacity whereas on a very basic level of intelligence animals seem to be about as good as people and possibly more so when it comes to survival considering how we are now reliant on society for our needs. That said we have a higher capacity mentally for some of these things.
To say all people have the same abilities or every sex or species is equal would be ridiculous. You can't compare a man's strength with that of a bear, lion or gorilla and esp. not a whale. In the same sense we have use of our hands and thumbs where most species we know of don't. Life is an interesting thing even though i hate biology ;P.
I'm not saying one species is better or worse than any other but when you have a great society populated in the billions that spans the whole world and even has gotten into space when others have been met have not it does give a sense of superiority. I do not doubt this sense of superiority helps cause the worse treatment of other types of peoples as well as the supposedly inferior animals of the world.
Skin color doesn't matter. People are under the illusion that skin color matters because various racial groups (race is such an outdated term) have tendencies towards certain skeletal structures that are advantageous for various athletics. If you look at the top one hundred sprinters in the world, they all have a similar skeletal structure, it just so happens that those of West African descent appear predisposed to that build. Asians typically have a poor build for sprinting, but have an excellent build for Olympic Weightlifting which is big part of the reason they have been dominating the lighter weight classes in recent years.
There is really no reason to bring these differences up in video games though as it is a sore spot for many and often a limiting factor. Race and gender should not be rewarded or punished in video games, let the play decide, don't force xir into a predetermined path.
I think it's kind of silly, for the reasons pointed out - we're dealing with extraordinary people either way. And frankly, slightly better flexibility in general should not buff dexterity - of which flexibility is only part - to any mechanically relevant degree.
And then you bring up archery - which is horribly misused in games - Archery is very demanding in the physical strength department. You are basically lifting a weight in a linear fashion, from the shoulder, over and over again. The amount of weight you can lift- the draw strength of the bow you are using - effectively limits the range and speed of the projectile you are able to shoot.
Dexterity can arguably apply to gunslinging, but not to archery, I agree.
Hell, people using a longbow are really goddamned strong. It's one of the few things that DnD gets right, with their composite bows-- strength adds to damage witht hem, and IIRC you need to be strong enough to actually use them.
Bromsy wrote: I think it's kind of silly, for the reasons pointed out - we're dealing with extraordinary people either way. And frankly, slightly better flexibility in general should not buff dexterity - of which flexibility is only part - to any mechanically relevant degree.
And then you bring up archery - which is horribly misused in games - Archery is very demanding in the physical strength department. You are basically lifting a weight in a linear fashion, from the shoulder, over and over again. The amount of weight you can lift- the draw strength of the bow you are using - effectively limits the range and speed of the projectile you are able to shoot.
This doesn't sound accurate to me. IIRC, English Longbowmen were taught to put their body into the draw, just using the shoulder seems horribly off.
Edit: There is also a great deal of debate over the draw weight of a longbow.
Well having tried archery myself, I do know that it at the very least takes a lot of endurance to do for any extended period of time. Much more than most people have, even athletes.
The only thing I've done recently was a crossbow and I don't recall the draw weight.
Medieval English Longbows were anywhere from 40 to 140lbs more draw weight than modern ones. IIRC, it was enough to warp a longbowman's skeletal structure.
I often think that historic people's were much stronger than we give them credit for. If it truly took several years to train a proper longbowman, I have no doubt they were certainly strong. I know endurance played a big part in it and that they would pace themselves as it was easy to wear out loosing multiple arrows per minute.
Certainly they were. Most peasants-- both men and women-- worked all day in the field most days, and had a great deal of physical endurance despite the occasional malnutrition. And the idea of a person in full platemail being a slow, walking tank is inaccurate-- the knights in that armor were actually quite mobile, being strong enough for it and having enough articulation in the armor for it.
That has nothing to do with strength. The armor and weaponry were much lighter than is often claimed. The idea that claymores and bastard swords were forty pounds is ludicrous. ASFAIK no weapon was over ten pounds aside. I think armor was under sixty pounds, if even that, for full plate. The swords were beautifully balanced as well.
And to prevent this being a waste of a post I will make an on topic comment.
While gender dimorphism is very significant in certain species, it is not extremely (IMO) in humans and as such can be troublesome if made so in fantasy humanoid species. I actually bothered to look at the stat differences between genders in the various TES races for Morrowind and Skyrim. Bethesda does a poor job handling this imo and gives females too many dumb points in things like personality in order to make up for reduced stats in key melee stats. This can however be a boon in that ASFAIK mages outscale warriors in most RPGs. Certainly seems to be the case for Blizzard, Bioware, and Bethesda in my experience. I don't really play enough games by other developers to say.
Amaya wrote: This can however be a boon in that ASFAIK mages outscale warriors in most RPGs. Certainly seems to be the case for ... Bethesda in my experience.
Not so much for Bethesda. In TES mages could do a handful of tricks, all of which involved kiting and all of which required largely static spells. In Morrowind a powerful mage could be absolutely awesome, particularly if you exploited alchemy, enchanting, and spells that buffed magicka then intelligence (which let you restore your magicka, to anyone who doesn't know the trick; basically you added a static number (N) to your magicka for one second, then immediately buff your intelligence which applies a modifier (M) to your magicka, then you subtract N followed by division by M: the result is your magcka pool being increased by the difference between N and N*M). Oblivion greatly nerfed full mages, making them much weaker than an equivalent melee or stealth oriented character. Skyrim buffed mages back up a bit, mostly as a matter of fixing the godawful balance issues Oblivion had, but straight up combat was still the most powerful build (in my experience), aside from the ridiculous 30x sneak attack mod you could get with a knife. Heavy armor and a warhammer, combined with a rabid frontal assault was the absolute easiest way of dealing with anything; the armor made you all but invincible once you got to a good armorer level, and the warhammer (with the "ignore 75% of the enemy's armor rating" perks) could one shot almost everything, sometimes multiple things at once. You could fight giants in melee and come out on top, provided you remembered to block their attacks.
So far as the thread goes: while there are differences in average characteristics between genders, averages are far too rough a number to add into base stats for a character in an RPG, and none are so pronounced as what +2 represents in a d20 system.
RPGs with a point-based stat system already tend to allow you to assign these points yourself - symbolizing the extent of training and experiences your character has accumulated before you begin playing him/her - so why add a modifier on top of this?
If people are really interested in realism, it would make far more sense to introduce gender-based stat caps, for it is the upper range where you will notice the differences.
Of course, by the same token you could do the same thing based on ethnicity. Some might argue that the Olympics should have a special discipline just for runners from Africa.
I won't lie. Part of the reason i made this topic was because of that but i wanted to make it fair for both sexes whereas they have -4 strength for women and constant r*pe. Yeah i'm surprised other nerds told me about it. I'm glad that game died. Faith in people is somewhat above absolute zero now.
I won't lie. Part of the reason i made this topic was because of that but i wanted to make it fair for both sexes whereas they have -4 strength for women and constant r*pe. Yeah i'm surprised other nerds told me about it. I'm glad that game died. Faith in people is somewhat above absolute zero now.
For FATAL to die it would have to have been alive to start with. It's been a derided joke since before day one.
And its modifier was something like -20, -4 STR is faulty reference to something that tried to reference D&D, but confused it with a different system wherein females got -5% on some specific check. Some old edition of D&D had -1 to -3 modifiers, depending on race (human females got -2, halflings -3, dwarves -1). According to 1d4chan's page on -4 STR, at least.
Yeah, older editions of DnD were kind of stupid at times. I know a lot of people liked them, but they were incredibly restrictive in terms of character creation and development and I just can't stand them. I similar complaints about the constraints of DnD 4th edition, mind you, but then again it's basically an MMO made in to pen and paper form.
Gygax wanted humans to be the dominant race in D&D and restricted the abilities of other races significantly. ASFAIK humans are still the best race for min/maxing purposes.
Melissia wrote: Dexterity can arguably apply to gunslinging, but not to archery, I agree.
Hell, people using a longbow are really goddamned strong. It's one of the few things that DnD gets right, with their composite bows-- strength adds to damage witht hem, and IIRC you need to be strong enough to actually use them.
You have no idea how much this annoys me in fiction. Introduce a frail non-combat type of character (often, but not necessarily, a woman) who can't even wield a sword...then inevitably the go-to solution is always to hand them a bow, give them a couple lessons, and suddenly they're Legolas. ...apparently these people never read Homer's Odyssey...
To be fair i love how our heroes start out as noobs and manage to get good within a space of no time at all whereas people have trained for years and are mere fodder in comparison to you. Gotta love rpg's.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, older editions of DnD were kind of stupid at times. I know a lot of people liked them, but they were incredibly restrictive in terms of character creation and development and I just can't stand them. I similar complaints about the constraints of DnD 4th edition, mind you, but then again it's basically an MMO made in to pen and paper form.
Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.
I disagree invisibility, teleportation, flight, transformation, lighting up rooms, making false sounds, etc can be used for non combat purposes.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.
I disagree invisibility, teleportation, flight, transformation, lighting up rooms, making false sounds, etc can be used for non combat purposes.
And plenty more are stuck as "rituals" with ridiculously high costs, stupidly long casting times, and other such restrictive nonsense. And even if you have those, again, every single wizard, without exception, is a battlemage in fourth edition.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.
I disagree invisibility, teleportation, flight, transformation, lighting up rooms, making false sounds, etc can be used for non combat purposes.
And plenty more are stuck as "rituals" with ridiculously high costs, stupidly long casting times, and other such restrictive nonsense. And even if you have those, again, every single wizard, without exception, is a battlemage in fourth edition.
What do you mean by battlemage? As I've already mentioned several way in which wizards can use there spells in non-combative ways.
Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.
nomotog wrote: Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.
Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.
If you want to make things more reasonable men should have a boost to Strength and if present Size stats without a corresponding advantage for women.
Yes you can get strong ladies, but if she were XY and worked out as much she would be stronger. The difference in genders is 10% on average. Those are the flat facts.
You have three ways to run with this information:
1. Ignore it. This works with PC stats but as the character profiles apply to everyone its a cop out.
2. Apply the +1 strength and settle the matter. This offends feminists and may cost sales.
3. Include the less well used balancing stats. Women are clearly advantaged in Mental Constitution (which isn't Wisdom, Willpower or Constitution) but refers to pain tolerance and stress tolerance.
nomotog wrote: Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.
Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.
Some form. Your class list was 99% ways to kill people. Your feats where 99% ways to kill people. Your skills... Well skills where still noncombat if a little pared down. You can use the argument that you don't have to use your vast killy power, but it sure takes up the majority of your sheet and sends the message that it's your job to kill things.
Also the rules for non combat where quite crappy. At the start anyway. Did they every get better?
nomotog wrote: Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.
Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.
Some form. Your class list was 99% ways to kill people. Your feats where 99% ways to kill people. Your skills... Well skills where still noncombat if a little pared down. You can use the argument that you don't have to use your vast killy power, but it sure takes up the majority of your sheet and sends the message that it's your job to kill things.
Also the rules for non combat where quite crappy. At the start anyway. Did they every get better?
I don't see what was wrong with the rules outside combat just make sure you eat, sleep and drink regularly and most of the stuff outside combat it's just role playing anyways with a bit of dice rolling when using skills and abilities.
Melissia wrote: Quite simply, every wizard in 4th edition is a combat spellcaster. No exception.
This is fine for the balance of 4th edition. But it isn't always what I'm looking for in a roleplaying character.
What does 3.5 wizards do that distinguishes themselves as non-battlemages?
For example, I am currently playing a necromancer that has only a single directly damaging offensive spell (chill touch). At level six, she will obtain her first prestige class level, and from there, advance in a unique wizard path, taking necromancy within herself to become a Pale Master.
Looking through 4e.... there's no path for necromancers, or specialists at all, really. Animate dead is gone. As in, no longer exists. Neither does create or control undead, or even detect undead. Clerics don't get a single necromantic spell until level 27. Hell, there's barely even any path for utility mages. Comprehend language goes from taking a half-round action to cast, to taking ten minutes. Same with Knock, Detect Secret Doors, Detect Object, and tons other. Gentle Repose takes a full hour, as do many, many others. "Hey, our thief epically failed at picking the lock so we can get away, but don't worry, give me sixty rounds of combat and I'll get it open no sweat!" Some of them take up to eight hours to cast, and all of them have their price increased.
Wizards are just generic and samey now. They're all combat casters and battlemages, and basically useless in any sort of time-restricted mission. Hell even the non-combat spells that AREN'T rituals are fething useless now, and you can't specialize in them at all-- utility spells are something all wizards get and you can't get any more of them.
Don't get me wrong, I liked playing DnD 4e. But it's very restrictive and limiting.
Melissia wrote: Quite simply, every wizard in 4th edition is a combat spellcaster. No exception.
This is fine for the balance of 4th edition. But it isn't always what I'm looking for in a roleplaying character.
What does 3.5 wizards do that distinguishes themselves as non-battlemages?
For example, I am currently playing a necromancer that has only a single directly damaging offensive spell (chill touch). At level six, she will obtain her first prestige class level, and from there, advance in a unique wizard path, taking necromancy within herself to become a Pale Master.
Looking through 4e.... there's no path for necromancers, or specialists at all, really. Animate dead is gone. As in, no longer exists. Neither does create or control undead, or even detect undead. Clerics don't get a single necromantic spell until level 27. Hell, there's barely even any path for utility mages. Comprehend language goes from taking a half-round action to cast, to taking ten minutes. Same with Knock, Detect Secret Doors, Detect Object, and tons other. Gentle Repose takes a full hour, as do many, many others. "Hey, our thief epically failed at picking the lock so we can get away, but don't worry, give me sixty rounds of combat and I'll get it open no sweat!" Some of them take up to eight hours to cast, and all of them have their price increased.
Wizards are just generic and samey now. They're all combat casters and battlemages, and basically useless in any sort of time-restricted mission. Hell even the non-combat spells that AREN'T rituals are fething useless now, and you can't specialize in them at all-- utility spells are something all wizards get and you can't get any more of them.
Don't get me wrong, I liked playing DnD 4e. But it's very restrictive and limiting.
Yeah, that's one thing that annoys me in 4e is there's no necromancer class or paragon path, especially considering it's a common RPG archetype I disagree that that non combat spells are useless invisibility, transformation, levitation and teleportation are very useful.
nomotog wrote: Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.
Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.
Some form. Your class list was 99% ways to kill people. Your feats where 99% ways to kill people. Your skills... Well skills where still noncombat if a little pared down. You can use the argument that you don't have to use your vast killy power, but it sure takes up the majority of your sheet and sends the message that it's your job to kill things.
Also the rules for non combat where quite crappy. At the start anyway. Did they every get better?
I don't see what was wrong with the rules outside combat just make sure you eat, sleep and drink regularly and most of the stuff outside combat it's just role playing anyways with a bit of dice rolling when using skills and abilities.
Well they just don't have many rules. I mean they had zero guidelines for the diplomacy skill. I liked things in 3 where they had a ton of examples of DCs.
Melissia wrote: Most non-combat spells are rituals, and thus useless.
Those were utility powers, I'm going off memory as I haven't played DnD 4e in over a year so I maybe full of gak.
I know. THe ones I mentioned weren't.
Knock, for example, cost 150(ish?) gold coins to cast, and took 10 minutes to finish casting. In that time, you might as well just let the rogue take twenty-- it'll be faster. Most rituals are the exact same, they take so long theyr'e not worth using. In 3.5e, it costs nothing, and you cast it in half a round-- three seconds.
Even Invisibiltiy is less than it was before. You have to maintain it now instead of casting it and having it last for the duration, and that means drastically reduced actions. They made wizards less versatile in exchange for making wizards more hardy and more combat focused . Which is fine for a hack and slash like 4e, but it's not what I'm looking for when I want to play, say, a scholarly character.
I think the invisibility was a sustain major (maybe minor) which would means you could still use a movement and minor action plus it would a little OP if you could attack while invisible so it's not that limiting and it lasted till the end of the encounter.
When your complaints are all I don't like x in 4e, it is like this in 3.5, it certainly seems that in the end your argument boils down to 4e not being 3.5. I'm not being defensive, I just find the argument that rituals are clumsy from someone that keeps bringing up 3.5 to be a bit disingenuous, as 3.5 is itself clumsy at it's core.
Ahtman wrote: When your complaints are all I don't like x in 4e, it is like this in 3.5,
I have a lot of complaints about 3.5e. I mean, despite my complaints about how wizards are hugely simplified in 4e.... they're also hugely simplified in 4e. Wizards don't have to pay ~350 gp, roll two tests (one of them rather hard), and spend two days doing nothing just to learn a new level two spell any more (and let's not even get started on higher level spells, the cost in time and money increases quite a bit), for example. At the same time, swordmages in 4e are quite possibly the best example of magical melee fighters in the game-- just an awesome and very well done class (it was in the Forgotten Realms supplement I think).
My complaints have more to do with the fact that, with the simplification, a huge amount of variety was also gotten rid of. It was somewhat unavoidable though, I guess, when you make such a huge change and attempt to balance everything out properly.
The difference between Wizards in 3.5e and 4e is really rather simple. Actually, the difference between the games is simple.
3.5 is more versatile and varied in what you can do. 4e is far more balanced. Wizards are indeed far more simplified and basic than the potential godmoding melon-fethers they were in 3.5. Their sheer versatility over the other classes made them numero uno for the munchkin player, with Clerics and Druids falling somewhat behind.
Balance IMO is less an issue is tabletop RPGs because it involves interacting with hopefully a group of peers, where you can all work to build characters that contribute to the game without one assclown making the rest of the party his own personal audience. The GM as well acts as a sort of all-powerful party balancer.
On the OP's question, I think you have to consider how much things like stats for gender and other things actually limit character design rather than improve it.
Basic reality of gaming is that people make choices to make their character effective. Maybe not goofball min-maxing (charisma is my dump stat) but they certainly pick different options with power in mind. Classic example is a Dark Heresy game I was in a while back, where the GM used special rules for different background stories - you get a special rule based on the background you pick. The rule for Gunmetal City was really nice for pistol wielding scum, so sure enough both scum characters in our party said they were from Gunmetal City. In the vast Imperium I guess it's possible, but when both Tech-Priests came from Tarsus (I think it was Tarsus)...
Can't blame them, they all wanted effective characters, but what was meant to be a cool little bonus ended up just ends narrowing the millions of possible character set ups to a narrow range of optimum builds.
If you give stat bonuses for gender, then characters will make gender just another part of the optimising process. If they need Str for their build, then they'll play a guy. If they need Dex for thievery then they'll play a girl. Parties will always have a guy fighter, and a girl thief.
And that's way less realistic than having girls that can be just as strong as boys.
The solution really is to de-couple background and fluff elements from character design. Let the player choose their background freely based on what's the most cool and exciting, and build an effective character in stats independant of that.
The other thing is to really think about why stats are even worth bothering with, in a game where class will so narrowly define which attributes you have to specialise in. I mean, what's the point when every D&D 4th ed character specialises in their key stat, puts enough points in their secondary stat, and then just dumps as little as possible in the rest? Every Ranger ends up statted playing like every other ranger, so why even have the stats at all?
That said, D&D 4th ed does do quite nicely with the bonuses given out for race. They stand aside from stats and basic character actions, so for instance every class can benefit from the Dwarf's ability to heal as a free action (some more than others, but all can benefit to enough of an extent that you are free to pick a Dwarf as any character class without feeling like you're being left behind in power level).
Void__Dragon wrote: The difference between Wizards in 3.5e and 4e is really rather simple. Actually, the difference between the games is simple.
3.5 is more versatile and varied in what you can do. 4e is far more balanced. Wizards are indeed far more simplified and basic than the potential godmoding melon-fethers they were in 3.5. Their sheer versatility over the other classes made them numero uno for the munchkin player, with Clerics and Druids falling somewhat behind.
Sexism frequently insults both genders. I've had debates with numerous people on this forum about how they were acting as if all men were unintelligent, irrational, rabid sex fiends who couldn't be expected to control themselves, even in disciplined places such as the military...
Melissia wrote: Sexism frequently insults both genders. I've had debates with numerous people on this forum about how they were acting as if all men were unintelligent, irrational, rabid sex fiends who couldn't be expected to control themselves, even in disciplined places such as the military...
Considering that some men willingly rape other ones in prison..
I don't think you should underestimate the desire of certain males to put their sausage in a bun.
People in the past have said that I am like that, because I am a gamer who happens to be female.
During my thousand or so hours of playing TF2, I recieved that accusation many times, because I used feminine pronouns and suffixes to refer to myself (such as jokingly changing my name to "The Immortal God-Empress of Mankind") and asked them to stop refering to me as "he" ("there are no girls on the internet" is thankfully not as popular any more, although it is still in play).
Melissia wrote: Sexism frequently insults both genders. I've had debates with numerous people on this forum about how they were acting as if all men were unintelligent, irrational, rabid sex fiends who couldn't be expected to control themselves, even in disciplined places such as the military...
Considering that some men willingly rape other ones in prison..
I don't think you should underestimate the desire of certain males to put their sausage in a bun.
Actually i remember when another person told me to watch 'scared straight' and in one part i remembered the prisoners reading records of women that raped other women in prisons. Women rape people too it's just you never hear about it. It might even happen less but the sad truth is if a man is being beaten by a woman or supposedly being sexually assaulted by one then he'd feel society would laugh at him for even making such a claim. It doesn't matter if the woman is stronger and in fact you'll be made fun of if they are even if they're a boxer or kickboxer. TV and other sources of media as well as society in general perpetuate these sorts of thoughts. It's not men holding down women or women holding down men or even the same sex holding down the same sex but society and their opinions as sort of a mass which hold back the individual. Often times society can make you feel bad for things that they say are wrong when in reality what's right and wrong is an illusion of your mind. I mean you can hurt people and they'll hurt you back but in general my way of doing things is if you hurt people it's generally not acceptable but if not it's usually fine. Of course sometimes you can hurt people without meaning to or by being ignorant to the consequences of what you just did do. Then in some ways of thinking it's totally ok to hurt people to get to the top and to us that's wrong. Meh how is it right for any person to judge another person and their set of rules and perceptions to be wrong or societies judging other societies. I mean maybe a society that developed in different conditions has different rules and morals but it works for them and anybody imposing their rules on another just angers the people with the rules being imposed on. I dunno. This is just what i feel.
On the subject of society it is also the case for women to be asked out by men so i find it odd when guys are doing what guys are expected to do that they'd get insulted for trying to pursue such a thing. Meh maybe i just do it wrong or i'm not great enough looking to get away with it (though i can tell on a good day i'm not a bad looking guy but probably between a 6 or 7 out of 10 in my opinion as far as looks go). I also see people that are pretty getting away with being terrible people because they can (like my roommate who is a dude and cheats on women that are his girlfriend of the time and does it frequently). I suppose the whole women like *ssholes thing seems to forget that generally women like men tend to like pretty people and often times those people can get away with being *ssholes more. Then again maybe it's less pretty people and more people that can get whatever gender sexually that they desire as rich and famous people can do it too. I suppose that makes more sense then.
Also honestly i find it weird whenever a girl/woman is asked to tell a woman's perspective on something. Yeah it's there and yeah it matters and is a bit different but the more you announce these differences the less integrated they can become to whatever group they're trying to be a part of. This is why i don't understand the idea of all girl teams or having a woman's perspective on something. Does anybody give a sh*t to hear a man's perspective or a black man's perspective on say video games? I don't think so. So yeah just ignore some of it and eventually things will adapt to it.
@melissia: I know you once talked about girls getting more crap on the internet and xbox live but here's the thing. Often the people that are jerks online or any of these places are jerks everywhere or to most people. Maybe a woman touched them wrong or something weird but usually most dudes won't have a problem with just women. I have gotten sh*t thrown at me for being a noob many times. Getting crap for being a woman is just one more thing for people to complain about. Also often times people give much less of a crap unless a woman is pretty and often times she gets attention everywhere anyway. Also if it's in a place like say 'a warhammer forum' and the women are gamers and pretty she'll get more attention due to her rarity of being a pretty girl that is also interested in the same hobby. I also don't mean to be too terrible about it but of all the GW's i've been to there's only been like one or so pretty women that have been there and played or stayed more than 5 seconds there. Maybe that's just the michigan area. The one girl that was pretty was a store employee at another store i never went to and in general i think the problem is often times everybody tries being too nice to said pretty woman in hopes of something most will never get. Honestly it isn't easy for any dude to try to find a war gamer girl i think. It's a contest for scores of dudes to get one decent looking girl with the same interests. So in short things are hard for everybody. The woman probably gets way too much attention good and bad which isn't always sincere when it's good but is when it's bad. The dudes on the other hand have to work for their attention in a place where there are dudes everywhere. Honestly in some forums if i wasn't crazy and at times funny i'd be overtaken and join the waves of sadly unknown members mostly because there are a lot more guys than girls in all the forums i'm a part of. Also if you're a pretty girl in a forum with few girls you get instant popularity without trying and you might not even be that pretty. Meh but whatever.
On the subject of pretty people sometimes they're treated unfairly but some people aren't too happy with them because often they get so much
According to your 'sig' you don't mean to offend and neither do i. I'm sorry if i did but if women are a big part of a place (at least 1/3 of the people) then things will be a little fairer. Men and women are also usually into different things in general. I dunno i've tried being friends with some people in general and we often both like each other but have nothing in common so end up going our separate ways for having nothing to do together. For me that's how i am with women possibly as a guy but it's the case with most of them. If i ever come off not too great with women online i have my reasons but one is that i am attracted to women that like what i like as well as have decent looks. Sadly these women seem to be much rarer and more sought after so i have more to lose than they do.
-----------------------
I was in the middle of editing a whole lot of crap and just decided turning it into two posts at the ends of both of yours made it seem simpler somehow.
Amaya wrote: Considering that some men willingly rape other ones in prison..
I don't think you should underestimate the desire of certain males to put their sausage in a bun.
Prison rape is generally not about sexuality, but about establishing dominance. Ever seen dogs hump other dogs, even dogs of the same gender, even when they've been desexed? They're establishing dominance, showing the pack what the pecking order is.
Notice, for instance, how a group of highschool nerds with zero chance with the ladies don't just start raping each other. This is because there really isn't a thought process in men that goes 'hmm, I can't have sex with a woman, so I'l just start raping nearby men'. Doesn't happen.
But in a situation where there is a constant fear for personal safety, well then you get primitive tribal behaviour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: The majority of female gamers I've known neither bragged about being female or being a gamer.
So evidently there is, you just may be a tad jaded.
There's a lot of screwed up and just plain weird gender behaviour in gaming groups (the worst probably being groups that form around one girl as a kind of queen bee), but for the most part things are getting much better. And the complaints about girls constantly going on about being gamers... well the only place I've noticed that is with girls that aren't really gamers, but almost-models who've just targeted geek culture as an easy market. And really, it's the guys who ate that bs up that are to blame.
Those nerds you mentioned also have access to HD porn on their laptops. And once you experience the actual thing, the loss of it becomes much more jarring. Sexual pleasure is involved. It may not be the sole cause of course, but it is there. Honestly, you can argue a lot of male on female rape is nothing sexual at all, but about dominance, violence, or vengeance.
It is very complex. This isn't really the place to discuss it. I agree entirely with your second paragraph, but I have seen it used by girls in WoW for in game favors.
Melissia wrote: People in the past have said that I am like that, because I am a gamer who happens to be female.
During my thousand or so hours of playing TF2, I recieved that accusation many times, because I used feminine pronouns and suffixes to refer to myself (such as jokingly changing my name to "The Immortal God-Empress of Mankind") and asked them to stop refering to me as "he" ("there are no girls on the internet" is thankfully not as popular any more, although it is still in play).
'The Immortal God-Empress of Manking'? Sounds like somebody is going rule 23 here (gender switch i think). Sometimes it disturbs me how you've probably delved into 4chan infinitely more than i have. Maybe that's a reason for all the anger and hatred. Can't say i'd blame you. I mean it feels like all the worst of nerd culture esp. all the horrible aspects of anime and fan fiction ends up there.
I kind of wish more women played games. As i said if nothing else it'd give me more chances to find a girl i like that's interested in the same things. Maybe they're all anonymous in gender. Can't say i can always blame em. I'd rather see a girl into stuff like half-life or command and conquer or duke nukem rather than said the millionth call of duty game (seriously at this point 'modern warfare' may as well have you flying away in an escape mission with jetpacks streaming red, white and blue smoke and killing an entire small to medium sized army with like 2 dudes in a scene that smells so much of hollywood action movies they may as well have michael bay direct the action scenes already). At least we're passed the time of the WWII shooter saturated market. I suppose it's preference. I always prefered cold-war and soviet-esque timelines though i can't say i'm as much a fan of using AK's as i am of seeing them on the enemies i lay low.
Amaya wrote: Those nerds you mentioned also have access to HD porn on their laptops. And once you experience the actual thing, the loss of it becomes much more jarring. Sexual pleasure is involved. It may not be the sole cause of course, but it is there.
You might not have been around before like 1997, but I can assure there was a dark time, before porn, before the internet... and still nerds didn't just flip over to raping their nerd mates.
Honestly, you can argue a lot of male on female rape is nothing sexual at all, but about dominance, violence, or vengeance.
I understand that observation is made a lot by people who study these things.
It is very complex. This isn't really the place to discuss it. I agree entirely with your second paragraph, but I have seen it used by girls in WoW for in game favors.
Sure, flirting for favours happens all the time, no reason to assume it wouldn't happen in games.
sebster wrote: You might not have been around before like 1997, but I can assure there was a dark time, before porn, before the internet... and still nerds didn't just flip over to raping their nerd mates.
Anyway, on topic: I do not like this idea. It looks silly to me. Stats should depend on class, and not gender. I'm sure a guy mage would be weaker than a warrior woman.
Might as well get back on topic. Not only is the idea sexiest, It's also a little pointless. I already find that players follow this theme by themselves.
Ironically you might be able to justify a mage of any type being physically stronger than a warrior.
Real life example, if you see a huge, ripped soldier he's probably a POG and actually has time to go to the gym and train. Infantrymen are rarely physically impressive speciments. If anything there is a serious upper limit on the importance of raw strength as a melee fighter. Your heaviest sword is going to top out at around 10lbs, which isn't much at all. Endurance, grip strength, agility and skill will be much more important than raw strength. Especially since some weapons are actually absurdly sharp (such as Obsidian) and will cut through flesh effortlessly.
Also, just like in science fiction, magic warriors can often have assistance, such as through enchanted armor and weapons or alteration/enchantment spells, to make them stronger or to make their equipment feel lighter in their hands (oftentimes ONLY their hands).
Amaya wrote: Ironically you might be able to justify a mage of any type being physically stronger than a warrior.
Real life example, if you see a huge, ripped soldier he's probably a POG and actually has time to go to the gym and train. Infantrymen are rarely physically impressive speciments. If anything there is a serious upper limit on the importance of raw strength as a melee fighter. Your heaviest sword is going to top out at around 10lbs, which isn't much at all. Endurance, grip strength, agility and skill will be much more important than raw strength. Especially since some weapons are actually absurdly sharp (such as Obsidian) and will cut through flesh effortlessly.
That's the modern soldier. Who isn't a focused melee fighter.
In melee combat, physical strength frankly plays a very important role, not as much as skill, but in actual, historical medieval combat with a longsword, do you know what one of the most essential aspects of the German School of Swordsmanship was?
Wrestling, pinning your opponent, and finishing him off with a dagger. Indeed, wrestling, or "Ringen", was essential to swordplay.
Ten pounds doesn't sound like much (And indeed, most zweihanders are not that large), but carrying and wielding it for an extended amount of time, and swinging it consistently with speed and precision, takes some amount of strength.
Obsidian will cut through flesh easily. It is indeed extremely sharp. But it is also brittle, much moreso than steel or even iron. And because of that, it would be very unreliable as a weapon for cutting through armour, especially say, plate mail, which an RPG warrior is likely to use and encounter. They dull very quickly.
Not to mention someone being "ripped" is frankly a poor indication of whether or not they are physically strong or endurant. Also, my computer seems to think endurant is not a word, but a quick google search told me it is.
Suck it Windows!
Strength is not everything, but it is a very useful tool to have in martial combat. As much as skill? No. But I'd say it is equal with agility, honestly, and is, if you're doing it right, related to endurance. There is an important distinction between the pseudo-bodybuilder muscles you seemed to be talking about, and the muscle of a strong, trained warrior, or for a modern example a Strongman.
Also, I figure I might as well post on-topic once in this thread.
Why? If the game lets you determine your starting characteristics, then gender doesn't need to play a role, and shouldn't because it will be limiting for your options. The only real exception I have in mind for differences between gender stats is the Elder Scrolls, which aspires to start you off as a typical member of your race and gender, a sort of everyman (Or woman, heh), who becomes something great. Which has been a theme since the beginning. Though interestingly, even then, strength was rarely differentiated between gender. Imperials in Oblivion and Morrowind I remember started with 40 strength, both gender. Nords with 50. Orcs with 45. IIRC Redguard did have a difference, 50 for the male, 40 for the female, but that is the only strength-based one I recall.
A strongman would be a terrible melee fighter in sustained combat. This has been show many times before by such athletes attempting to cross over into the MMA and getting winded in the first round. In an open environment, I'll take the medium sized fighter with endurance over the massive brute twice his size that can't handle running a half mile.
From my understanding, once you get past the lower levels, the choice between endurance and brute strength can often be mutually exclusive.
Then again, to bring up MMA again, the womens' MMA fights often only lasted one round. This wasn't because the women didn't have the endurance, it was because the women were a thousand times more aggressive than the men. Mental aggression combined with discipline is probably the most important thing for a fighter regardless of if it's sword-swinging or gun-slinging.
Many people here probably have never had a heavy job. There's no way that any of the girls I know could do my job, though I'm sure there are plenty of women who could. And it is *much* easier for men to gain muscle than for women.
Whether or not you should express such in an RPG is debatable. I'd prefer to leave it to roleplay simply because to base it on gender would be perceived to be sexist and any company/game maker doesn't want to put off female gamers.
Amaya wrote: A strongman would be a terrible melee fighter in sustained combat. This has been show many times before by such athletes attempting to cross over into the MMA and getting winded in the first round. In an open environment, I'll take the medium sized fighter with endurance over the massive brute twice his size that can't handle running a half mile.
I decided to actually look up notable strongmen to actually see their fight records.
Most don't have any, but of what I saw, one went into boxing, has fought three matches, and won them all. One was a former kickboxing champion in his younger years. Mariusz Pudzianowsski has an MMA record that is more or less decent. He also beat up Butterbean, which I find kind of funny for whatever reason.
Many of them however seem to also serve as firefighters or policeman, weirdly, and the former especially requires a great deal of endurance.
Not to mention, many modern, successful MMA fighters are physically very strong, and make use of that. Cain Velasquez, current UFC heavyweight champion, outpowered Brock Lesnar, himself definitely a very physically powerful man, for example.
Also, do you intend to actually address the rest of my post, or no?
BryllCream wrote: Many people here probably have never had a heavy job. There's no way that any of the girls I know could do my job, though I'm sure there are plenty of women who could. And it is *much* easier for men to gain muscle than for women.
Whether or not you should express such in an RPG is debatable. I'd prefer to leave it to roleplay simply because to base it on gender would be perceived to be sexist and any company/game maker doesn't want to put off female gamers.
Don't even go there.
I've worked three summers moving furniture, dug holes all damn day as a plumber's apprentice, worked with a contractor doing all the physical labor his diabetic obese behind couldn't handle, and have probably spent more time under a barbell in the past year than most people do in a decade. Just because I'm advocating gender equality on a wargaming website doesn't mean I'm some skinny fat prick who thinks women are equal because some cheerleader beat me in armwrestling.
Given the amount of veterans on this site and other individuals who I know/am pretty sure have done physical labor or played football/rugby making such an accusation is asinine and rude.
BryllCream wrote: Many people here probably have never had a heavy job. There's no way that any of the girls I know could do my job, though I'm sure there are plenty of women who could. And it is *much* easier for men to gain muscle than for women.
Whether or not you should express such in an RPG is debatable. I'd prefer to leave it to roleplay simply because to base it on gender would be perceived to be sexist and any company/game maker doesn't want to put off female gamers.
I unload trucks of often heavy freight for a living at the moment, some individual pieces weighing nearly 300 pounds (Which you should team lift, no one doubts your might, but doing that gak regularly without aid can feth your back up), so I can see what you are saying. I can think of no women in my life off the top of my head as strong as me (Though I do set an impossibly high standard, being the mightiest being in creation), but IMOPCs are, in most games, meant to be exceptional. A cut to strength for women is too restrictive for character-building, IMO, to implement in most scenarios.
Amaya wrote: A strongman would be a terrible melee fighter in sustained combat. This has been show many times before by such athletes attempting to cross over into the MMA and getting winded in the first round. In an open environment, I'll take the medium sized fighter with endurance over the massive brute twice his size that can't handle running a half mile.
I decided to actually look up notable strongmen to actually see their fight records.
Most don't have any, but of what I saw, one went into boxing, has fought three matches, and won them all. One was a former kickboxing champion in his younger years. Mariusz Pudzianowsski has an MMA record that is more or less decent. He also beat up Butterbean, which I find kind of funny for whatever reason.
Many of them however seem to also serve as firefighters or policeman, weirdly, and the former especially requires a great deal of endurance.
Not to mention, many modern, successful MMA fighters are physically very strong, and make use of that. Cain Velasquez, current UFC heavyweight champion, outpowered Brock Lesnar, himself definitely a very physically powerful man, for example.
Also, do you intend to actually address the rest of my post, or no?
No. You assumed I was refering to bodybuilders, which isn't entirely true and it was mainly things I agree on. You need some strength, but it has diminishing returns after a point and can come at the cost of endurance and quickness.
Anyways I've changed my position on this it does seem arbitrary and pointless to have these stat differences and besides RPG's are about creating the character you want.
Void__Dragon wrote: Perhaps for those too weak of mind to have it all, like I do.
Physical endurance is not equivalent to mental strength.
Some of the most powerful minds humanity has ever produced and, the most unbreakable wills humanity has ever had, have been in some of the most ill and fragile bodies.
Void__Dragon wrote: Perhaps for those too weak of mind to have it all, like I do.
Physical endurance is not equivalent to mental strength.
Some of the most powerful minds humanity has ever produced and, the most unbreakable wills humanity has ever had, have been in some of the most ill and fragile bodies.
We're not going to get into doctor X from x-men are we? Of course he isn't real but i'm just saying.
Personally i find going through a lot matters more. What i find most pathetic is when somebody brags and brags with all their various muscles and they end up being more cowardly than anybody else. Don't boast unless you can back it up. It sickens me greatly honestly. For instance my roommate is kind of a d*uche and he is a fairly strong guy and boasts a lot but despite me hating scary things more he freaks out infinitely more often and easily and often says things aren't scary when he's scared. As his brother said he's the biggest bullsh*tter he knows (or of all time). That has to tell you something.
On that subject i kind of hate my new roommate or hate living with him but he does bring some good things and isn't a d*ck to me. He sounds like a generally terrible person to women and weak men in general though. You know a typical d*uche type *sshole that eats some of my food without asking first but at least admits it. I let him stay here because he needed an apartment to stay in though i'm sure he's just using me. Honestly though he's decent to me it sort of destroys me watching him hurt others that he says he's going to hurt and he doesn't feel a thing for it and doesn't care because he has the looks to get away with it.
-------------------------
If you want to take strong minds take people that are tortured or have been through concentration camps or otherwise lost a lot. I've lost a lot myself by most first world people's standards and i'm just a skinny 140-150 lbs guy. Most people haven't had to lose their mother when they were still living at home and then forced to live halfway across the country with people they see once every 3 years for a 2-3 day span as the closest people they know. Seriously i didn't know anybody including the people taking care of me. It sucked. Losing your family members to cancer like i lost my mom sucks and yes she did suffer a lot. I could tell the full story but i don't want to think about it. It happened 6-7 years ago that all this took place when she died and i'm 25.
Even worse is that my mom's mom died from cancer in the same way and that's how she didn't want to die but did anyway. I don't like my sister and i know people say it doesn't pass down through family (maybe cancer isn't as easy to get rid of in women currently) but maybe my sister will die of cancer too. I don't want to see that happen.
All that said i've met people that have lost more (and i've lost more than i mentioned) so when i see others complain about less i generally feel insulted.
BryllCream wrote: Many people here probably have never had a heavy job. There's no way that any of the girls I know could do my job, though I'm sure there are plenty of women who could. And it is *much* easier for men to gain muscle than for women.
Whether or not you should express such in an RPG is debatable. I'd prefer to leave it to roleplay simply because to base it on gender would be perceived to be sexist and any company/game maker doesn't want to put off female gamers.
Or, as I already explained, just speculating about simulation like making men stronger, without any consideration for how people build characters, is absolutely terrible game design. Because the reality is that players don't sit down and make character choices based on what they want to play, and delight in all the realistic simulation the system is producing. They look at the system, and figure out how to make an effective character. Now that doesn't necessarily mean twinking the system to build some ridiculous munchkin abomination, but power level is certainly a factor - nobody wants to play an ineffective character.
And what that means is that if you give stat bonuses for things like gender, then people will choose whatever gender makes them more effective. If they want to play a thief then they will likely be looking to pick whatever bonuses boost their dexterity, and if that means being a chick so be it. Oh look, now you've got a game where every player character thief is always woman.
If you played D&D then you would have noticed that halflings were only ever thieves, and almost every thief was a halfling.
Point being, just speculating about what is realistic and building game mechanics, and paying no attention to how those game mechanics will be used by players in the game is terrible, terrible design.
Void__Dragon wrote: Not true, just look at the people who play Monk in DnD 3.5.
True.
And yeah, there'll always be the person who tilts at windmills. I've got a mate who takes the Dwarves in Smallworld all the damn time, just to prove to the rest of us that they can be made to work. And hey, sometimes they do.
But to get really boring and ruin your joke (sorry), that kind of thing is the exception, not the rule, and the most popular choices are far and away the most common. So despite Shadowrun having magic capable characters across most races, I don't think I ever played in a game where the caster wasn't an elf. They were just the best way to make casters, so that's what everyone did.
I've seen games from the 70s and 80s where they limit the maximum a stat can go for women. I think their Str was limited, but I can't remember the 'balance' stat.
But, a better way to go is not to do it with hard limits. If a woman can't have her highest stat in Str, it still lets her max it if she has 2 maximum stat scores.
The trouble is, a stat isn't everything about that part of a character. A little old woman might be able to shift a hay-bail on her back, but has trouble opening a jar of pickles.
Cyberpunk 2020 worked out running speed as [something] +[Dex mod] -[Str mod], I think. Women ended up being faster, because of the way people built their character.
Skinnereal wrote: I've seen games from the 70s and 80s where they limit the maximum a stat can go for women. I think their Str was limited, but I can't remember the 'balance' stat. But, a better way to go is not to do it with hard limits.
That's like saying "a better way to punch yourself in the face is with full knuckle".
Skinnereal wrote: I've seen games from the 70s and 80s where they limit the maximum a stat can go for women. I think their Str was limited, but I can't remember the 'balance' stat.
But, a better way to go is not to do it with hard limits. If a woman can't have her highest stat in Str, it still lets her max it if she has 2 maximum stat scores.
The trouble is, a stat isn't everything about that part of a character. A little old woman might be able to shift a hay-bail on her back, but has trouble opening a jar of pickles.
Cyberpunk 2020 worked out running speed as [something] +[Dex mod] -[Str mod], I think. Women ended up being faster, because of the way people built their character.
They where given a bonus to wisdom. The intent being to push female players into being clerics.
Yep. It's strange how people keep dragging gender stereotypes around. Even when they fail to make sense anymore. I recall I was talking to someone about a si-fi setting where people all had there arms and legs replaced with robot parts. They where trying to argue that women couldn't be warriors because they don't have the arm power of men. I couldn't convince him that he made no sense.
Void__Dragon wrote: I dunno, I've always had groups who sometimes deliberately play unexpected characters, like, Halfling Frenzied Berserkers. Just because.
"Sometimes" is, of course, exactly what I meant when I said "that kind of thing is the exception, not the rule"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skinnereal wrote: But, a better way to go is not to do it with hard limits. If a woman can't have her highest stat in Str, it still lets her max it if she has 2 maximum stat scores.
That's just adding rules on top of rules, to 'solve' a problem that doesn't actually exist in play. And I say the problem doesn't exist in play, because no-one in the history of gaming has ever said 'oh this system is unplayable and every session has been unenjoyable because the female character is the strongest one in the party'.
But I know a lot of games that have broken down because the system has amassed a bizarre collection of rules about all kinds of pointless minutiae until no-one can be bothered any more.
The trouble is, a stat isn't everything about that part of a character. A little old woman might be able to shift a hay-bail on her back, but has trouble opening a jar of pickles.
Good point, and one that I think gets to a major part of the overall issue. We're not dealing with hyper detailed, accurate simulations that simulate every part of an attribute on a bio-mechanical level. We don't really care about the difference between upper arm strength and carrying strength and striking strength... we're just talking about a general descriptor. We just want to be able to say 'this guy is hulking brute' or 'this guy is quick on his feet'.
We're dealing with broad descriptions that help us, more or less, create characters that are about as detailed as characters in genre fiction. And that means defining a person in terms of what they're good at, and then getting on with it and seeing them do it.
But I know a lot of games that have broken down because the system has amassed a bizarre collection of rules about all kinds of pointless minutiae until no-one can be bothered any more.
Leigen_Zero wrote: I would say that while there is a noticable 'real world' difference (i.e. our lab-devised tests can determine that because of XYZ men are less ABC than women, and men are better at DEF because of LMN), when you scale things into a video game, those differences become largely unnoticable due to abstraction models.
I would say that unless your working in a percentile (x/100) system, there would be little difference between male/female dexterity and strength, particularly in the living conditions expressed in most fantasy tropes.
Sooooo, Leigen Zero Wins the thread in the first page, yet people are still yapping on about this?
! Ok i kid.
...apparently these people never read Homer's Odyssey...
True.
