grognards.txt - sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > grognards.txt - sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world

«‹›5 »

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

So as I mentioned in the TG Chat thread, a dude on a mailing list I'm on decided to post Powers & Perils conversions of the races from FATAL. I am not sure if this is ripped straight from FATAL or not, but lemme tell you ...

quote:

Ogre, Kinder-Fresser

Also known as a kinderschrecker or child-guzzler, a kinder-fresser is an ogre who feeds on human children. Although a kinder-fresser will eat any human child, their favorite is a moral child. The voice of a kinder-fresser attracts human children who are prepubescent and virginal. If a prepubescent, virginal human child hears the voice of a kinder-fresser, the child must pass a ,Will /2 check, or believe that the voice heard is their parents, and will follow any command given by the kinder-fresser. Strangely, the voice of a kinder-fresser does not attract others. Since a kinder-fresser survives by eating human children, this creature attempts to reside nearby a significant human population. The favorite residence of a kinder-fresser is a cave close to a long, well-traveled road. Since a kinder-fresser has a higher Facial and Vocal Charisma compared to other ogres, victims and enemies are sometimes fooled into thinking the kinder-fresser is a gentle giant. The unfortunate child is fooled, lured, strangled, and swallowed -- usually without evidence. Human children smaller than 30 pounds are eaten whole; shoes are regurgitated 10% of the time, if applicable. In extreme cases, a kinder-fresser has eaten all the young humans of a village.
Physical Description: The tallest race that a player may select is an ogre. Male ogres average 9� in height, while females average 8�.

Heck of a PC race, gotta say.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2013 17:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:40

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Mors Rattus posted:

1. Does the game have an escalating Hit Point Mechanic? Examples: All D&D and its copies, Dark Heresy
2. Does the game have dice pools, non-standard methods of reading die rolls, or doe sit swap out die types? Examples: All WoD 3. games, Shadowrun, All versions of Deadlands
4. Does the game fail Simulation of Process such as To-Hit rolls which don't actually hit things or damage rolls that don't really cause damage? Examples: All versions of D&D, Dark Heresy
5. Does the game use Fate Point, Hero Points, Bennys and the like to balance an otherwise unbalanced system? Examples: Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Deadlands
6. Is it diceless? Examples: Amber, Theatrix
7. Does it include mechanics that control or limit role-playing choices? Examples: Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon
8. Does it fail to scale for the entire human (normal and heroic) range and at least near human superheroic? Examples: Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy
9. Does it include mechanics granting a player control over elements besides the decisions of his character? Examples: Hong Kong Action Theater
10. Does the game brag about 'getting out of the way' or being transparent? Examples: The Window, FUDGE
11. Does the system fail to support maps and minis? Example: HERO 6th Edition
12. Is the Pace of Decision too low? Examples: D&D, HERO using the published builds, Dark Heresy
13. Does the game rules reward non-genre behavior? Examples: D&D, Dark Heresy, Shadowrun... really nearly all of them.
14. Does the game focus on trivialities unimportant to the genre it's suppose to model. Examples: OSR Style D&D
15. Is the game system uninteresting to play outside the framing of a role-playing session? Examples: Just about everything

Ummm... What's left? This seems to exclude every rpg I've ever seen...

This is some bizarre grog, man.

Also...

quote:

People don't ever seem to have this problem when they play Star Wars, and the Jedi code is even stricter than the paladin code I think.

WHat makes it different? IF you want to play a Jedi you have to follow the code, if not you are no longer a Jedi. Add the alignment in there, and a bunch of people suddenly get all twisted up over it.

If you can play a Jedi, you can play a Paladin.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2013 20:44

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

quote:

Paranoia - I play RPGs to have fun, not go on a murder spree against other player characters which is what every Paranoia game eventually ends up. I also don't like the inherent DM against the Players atmosphere.

D&D 4E - Magic doesn't exist. It's just another word for "sword" or bow". Most powers are just a variant of X[W] damage and bad guy inconvenienced for a round. X slowly increases and the inconvenience progressively gets worse as the levels increase. The only difference between the damage is the 'color" - martial, fire, necrotic, etc. While the classes aren't exactly alike they are samey. "Magic item" is just another term for daily power, and you are limited to how many you can use. Except for a few like portable hole all are just +Xd6 damage of a "color". Healing potions aren't. They're just a means to have you spend a limited resource healing surge which you can do anyway. It just allows you for more than one healing surge in a combat. If you have no more healing surges, tough luck. No healing potion for you.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2013 21:50

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

GEExCEE posted:

Benoist

It's weird, because that's the exact opposite of how "moves" work in DW. How is it possible to get this so wrong?

The grog hate-on for DW is insane.

quote:

Why didn't your character run away? Why didn't the cleric heal him? Why didn't he buy better armor? Or learn to sneak around so as to avoid getting snarfed. Sudden death for no reason is precisely why you take such measures to survive better, that's part of the game! I saw characters die for dumb reasons and in great, epic, novel-like moments. Why should every PC death necesserily be epic? Are all character's actions epic, and worthy of a bard's tale? No.

I say let the dice decide your fate. If not, it's just a chose your own adventure. You tame the game when you remove all randomness. There are ways to boost your survivability, and if you fail at those but still wander off into that perilous forest...why does your character deserve to survive, again? Good men don't win in the end, and bad ones aren't punished.

The whole 4e-mentality of your get narrative epic deaths each time takes the meaning out of it, because if it all deaths are meaningful then none are. Some truly aren't. Bad stuff happens. Open up a beer, roll a new guy, and try again! I'm sure your old party mates will dig a fine grave. It would get really tedious if PCs could only die when their deaths can only be described using colourful, floury prose. I want my PC to be able to die in a ditch somewhere, for no good reason, like so many in real life even, so that when he does die right before saving the known universe, it feels special. The dice and RAW mechanics are 50% of what gives the game meaning. The rest is story. If you make the mechanics so fluffy so as to prevent random PC death, it makes the game feel like it's on rails like a child's pop up story book.

No thanks.

I just... I... poo poo, dude.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2013 22:13

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

ENWorld Mods on 4e...

quote:

I could say that Tide of Iron generated bolts of electricity that somehow do normal damage and not Lightning damage, though.

Or that it generated peals of flame that dealt normal damage.

Or that it involved conjuring 1,001 tiny leprechauns from an extradimensional space to tickle the target, and that's how they take damage. From their giggles. HP are emotions in 4e, yeah?

The story is completely superfluous to the mechanics. Which has good points and bad points.

....

Nah, they're just more rules that interact with each other and don't care about how you justify it. All lightning damage comes from tiny frogs. Thunder is the sound of one hand clapping. Ninjas are summoned with martial powers to do the work for you. None of that affects the mechanics.

4e is so different, you guys!!

# ¿ Apr 4, 2013 17:35

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

(topic: Paladins.)

"How about an option C? How about there isn't a right answer, but instead you choose whether the power offered by the divine being and it's desired approach are worth your obedience and service? If it gave you the power to enforce its will and you choose not to... why wouldn't it take it's power away (and I find it hard to believe that beings on a divine level would not have a fail-safe in place for traitors.)."

My thoughts exactly. If any servant of a god displeases them in any way, bam, powers/spells/whatever removed. Paladins should get extra boons that most can't attain, because they are not worthy morally, physically, or spiritually to be an earthly representative, or "avatar" if you will, of that god. The downside should be a strict code and if you don't follow it, you lose any magical powers until you atone. If you don't wish to play under such restrictions, don't play a paladin. (or cleric). I fail to see how / why an LG god about protecting the weak would be pleased if his followers were using his granted spells to burn villages, or steal, and so on.

And yes, in play, you often do see a dichotomy worthy of "fallen paladin needing to atone", even for unintentional things. You took that last piece of bread that belonged to an old man, he died, bam, you need to get on your knees and BEG for forgiveness. If you can't stomach it, join another church and "convert" to an order with a less strict code. RP restrictions don't need to be ridiculous, and yeah the "lawful" questions of which laws do you obey, the earthly laws or the divine ones, or some personal one, are up to the campaign DM and player to resolve, probably before swearing the oath in the first place. After all, you don't sign a contract without reading the fine print first, do you?

What I see a lot in this "let's remove alignment and all RP restrictions" is that players want to play brutal rogues who have paladin powers, i.e. false paladins. Nuh uh, your god knows what's in your mind, his eye is on the sparrow so to speak. And even if you do something wicked through negligence, that shouldn't automatically protect you from having to atone either. A stupid, thoughtless fool who isn't mindful of the repercussions of his actions isn't really champion material, is he.

Stat requirements should be, IMO, 14 10 10 10 12 14 for a paladin. You need to be strong to wield a sword in plate armor, first. You can't be a fool (int can't be negative, has to have some kind of wisdom), and must be charismatic but not necessarily Elvis. 4e incentivised you to pump charisma, even dumping str entirely (yuck), by giving you charisma-based attack powers. ugh...I knew at the beginning of playing my 4e paladin that cha builds were superior (before DP came out), but I could not force myself to do it. Charisma should be good mostly outside of combat, and perhaps useful to taunt during combat. But not to attack. I'm so glad melee attack stats are now strength or dex, period. Good fighters need to be strong or dextrous, and a paladin should be strong for sure.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2013 18:41

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

It's one thing to accuse grogs of being conservative with their elfgames rules. It's another when they just come out and say it themselves.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like this is sarcastic anti-grog, or grog-minimal at the worst. I hang my head in shame.

-=-=-=-=-

Also, one of the big risks with too much innovation in an RPG is where do you stop? And by stop I mean the point at which you can publish a playable game.

Personally, I think there's been far too much tinkering with Next already. Swords & Wizardry as a base, three new mechanics (backgrounds, advantage/disadvantage and maybe exploration) and publish the bloody thing.

dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 27, 2013

# ¿ Apr 26, 2013 14:51

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Tell me about that marvel heroes game that's getting canceled!

-=-=-=-

good riddance 2 bad rubbish, no? Wasn't fond of the Storygame mechanic. At all. I know many gamers felt as I do. How do you create a game with such a touchy level of gaming? How would you reach young gamers and "Trad" gamers embracing a heavy OSR revival?

Who can blame Disney or Marvel? They bet on an story-game horse & seeing it lagging, pulled the saddle off. That's wise by any account. I'm hoping they look to Arc Dreams or Green Ronin or Beyond Belief games to make that game they want.

MWP is out of touch with the current wave of tabletop roleplaying. Plain & simple. The Marvel "diss" reflects that, on top of MWP's problem with holding onto licensed RPGs. It was a nice idea, but failed, at its core.

OSR rules, and it's Steve Kenson understanding that which keeps him ahead of the the curve with his games. They reflect a strong understanding of what plays.

Weis & Dragonlance can burn away as far as I'm concerned.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2013 18:28

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

FMguru posted:

It's not quite as reliable an indicator that something terrible is going to follow that sentence as "I'm not racist/sexist/a pedophile BUT...", but it's close.

I have a theory that it's impossible for anyone but an actual biologist to use the word "lordosis" without sounding unbelievably creepy.

As for mine... Peak 3.5

quote:

What class are babies born into?
I was trying to figure out, as we have no level 0

What class are babies born in, do they instantly become commoners or aristocrats, or are some choose sorcerer due to the fact it is innate magic?

quote:

I had a thread a while back where I proposed that all adult humanoids should really start at 3 HD, with children, adolescents, and teenagers being 1, 2, and 3 HD with ability penalties, to better represent various stages of development. (plus it addresses that killer-housecat problem)

I said that infants where a special category of creature that had no class or HD, just 1 HP.

Because the proper solution to killer housecats is to give children hit dice.

quote:

[Que unpleasant stories of babies taking multiple points of damage without losing consciousness]

EDIT: You could always go Bethesda's route and just say "no, you can't kill children, you goddamn psychopath".

First paragraph, no, let's not. Second paragraph, it's sad that that was after the edit.

Hey, how about adding in sexism to this already terrible discussion?

quote:

Just apply the "Young" template to them twice, and add the ability to Fascinate adult members of the species at will.

quote:

Don't forget to give males a racial bonus to their save vs. that ability.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 23:02

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Plutonis posted:

I swear to god, invoking Saint Tolkien is worse than involking Saint Gygax.

The irony, of course, is that Tolkien understood that having Gandalf around makes every challenge dumb, so kept him away from the party most of the time, going so far as to "kill him off."

And later on, he split the party by their general competency level, with Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli, Sam/Frodo/(Gollum) and Merry/Pippin each going on their own adventures where they wouldn't overshadow or be overshadowed.

In other words, even though he was writing novels and not RPG rules, Tolkien understood balance better than grogs.

-=-=-=-=-=-

So let's talk about inclusiveness in D&D. Should D&D be inclusive?

ENWorld's Favorite Badposter posted:

The more female on female artwork the better. The other side of that coin, not so much.

Non-grog response posted:

Translation: "Hi, I am a privileged cisgendered heterosexual male. I want this game to be all about my porn (even though it mostly already is) and I will complain vigorously if even a small percentage of it isn't in line with my own sexual preferences. Me me me, mine mine mine. I don't care what anyone else wants. Your sexual orientations don't exist or don't matter, or they only exist if I think they're sexy. Mine is the only sexual orientation that actually counts. If I can't fap to you, then you shouldn't exist at all or be represented in my game."

Do you seriously have any idea how horrific and toxic a viewpoint that is to anyone who doesn't get to play the game of real life on the lowest difficulty setting, eg, as a cisgendered heterosexual male? Please go read some Scalzi before you put your foot in your mouth again.

And, give the rest of us some hot drow males in bondage ftw, please. Extra points if they are making out with other hot drow males. The folks who don't like it can go console themselves with the other 99% of fantasy art that already does cater to their homophobia and utter monolithic selfishness. Excuse me, to their personal preferences. I can't really tell the difference when it's stated like this.

In short, it's our game too. You are not ten years old and playing in the He-Man Woman Haters Clubhouse. Though it does sound a whole lot like you wish you were.

So let's let the badposter go off on a tangent about how the non-grog is now saying there should be porn in D&D books.

Badposter posted:

google buddy, its your friend for hot drow males in bongage. Seriously google it ( i just did) the art is there for you. No need to foolishly kill the D&D brand by forcing it on every suburban soccer moms 12 year old.

Badposter continues! posted:

Ahh but I'm not throwing a temper tantrum because my brand of porn isnt currently in the books and crusading to include it. I dont need to see porn in my PHB. Nor should anyone else because it would be the death of the brand no matter what flavor of porn it was.

And more importantly, do you really think you get the highest quality artwork by telling an artist exactly what to draw?

Artists as people make the best stuff when left on their own. If you tell an artist to draw their image of a gay, black, asian garbed warrior you'll very likely get a very different picture then if you told that artist to simply draw a cool looking warrior.

And theres a very good chance that no matter what the end outcome is the one he drew as just a warrior will be a better image truer to his artistic vision.

You cant force artists to produce the art you want. Art requires the artist to have freedom of expression.

That's right, you heard it here first. If you ask an artist to draw a "gay, black, asian garbed warrior" you will get a terrible picture because ARTISTIC VISION.

# ¿ May 21, 2013 06:12

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

ProfessorCirno posted:

Before I start can I just say that MOST of the posts in this thread were not awful. That said, this thread does not exist for those posts. It exists for these posts.

You fool! Look what has happened now!

quote:

D&D pronouns being 50-50% male-female pronouns seems a little like pandering to me, frankly. It's simply unbelievable that most battle forces inspired by medieval combat parties would follow modern labour hiring standards. Think Game of Thrones, women are tough and can be knights or warriors or leaders or killers, but most often, they aren't on the front lines for very obvious reasons. Now D&D is not Game of Thrones, and I want as many women to enjoy this hobby as possible (or at least tolerate it), I just think they've already done quite enough since 3.0 already. It was odd at first, seeing so many "she's" and hers in front of descriptions of knights and barbarians and so on, but after you get over that, you still must admit it is a little contrived to imagine a 50-50 split in every party of male to female characters, let alone players, to warrant the IMO extreme and very obvious way the authors are trying to bring an old-boys-club into the 21st century. I just don't see want authors of adventures to feel the need to walk on eggshells and portray warmongering orc tribes as being PC and respecting women, for example, because it might offend someone's sensibilities. Game of Thrones is terrific in this sense, and a model to follow. Women are strong and bold and fierce, sometimes, and men can be cowardly and cry and frail too, but 99.9999% of the time, knights and soldiers are men, and are the first ones to have their guts torn out on the battlefield. This is true in history as well, so it's no wonder our fiction reflects that. It is what it is. Fantasy doesn't need to conform to reality, and shouldn't, but there is a certain...contrivedness about trying to PC everything. I like strong female characters, but don't want sanitized adventures or text blocks that are so redacted as to not risk offending anyone, ever, because that is an impossible task. Tons of stuff offends me, I vote with my dollars. To follow that credo, if a gender-neutral "he" offends, perhaps boycotting the 99.99999% of human literature would be a better place to start than a hobby in which the stakes are so low.

I had to literally bribe and beg my last two girlfriends to even try D&D....let's face it, this game doesn't, and probably never will have broad appeal across all demographics. Being PC is good, but being overly PC is just annoying. Somebody, somewhere, will get offended by good literature. Tons of critiques of Games of Thrones are centered around its medieval depiction of women's roles in society, failing to grasp : that's the point. It's actually far more progressive than the actual middle ages were, even all the torture and violence and small-mindedness and bigotry had nothing on the real thing. Let's all be happy that we can laugh about it now.

Nobody's gonna die over a few pronouns or hurt sensibilities.

# ¿ May 21, 2013 23:48

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

ProfessorCirno posted:

The great thing about ENWorld's thread on diversity in D&D is that it isn't a whole thread of terrible, it's just like these two or three people who are consistently awful on all the threads they post on, yet have never been banned. I don't think ENWorld actually even bans people anymore.

Call me crazy, but I love having him around. He is a living, (mouth-)breathing straw man. The sort of guy who actively damages anti-4e arguments by his presence.

More joy from that thread:

-=-=-=-

WOW...! Equality is a myth and those that truely believe in it are truely living in a fantasy realm. As for gender bending...heck no! We have enough problems with players acting all wierd that WotC does not need to praise it in a rule set. In my campaings men have on average two extra points in strength and intelligence while women have two extra points of agility and charm. What is next....men and boy love societies in game???? Madness needs to end. What is the modern human condition...sick:.-(

# ¿ May 24, 2013 16:44

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

So this guy a few posts back?

grog posted:

WOW...! Equality is a myth and those that truely believe in it are truely living in a fantasy realm. As for gender bending...heck no! We have enough problems with players acting all wierd that WotC does not need to praise it in a rule set. In my campaings men have on average two extra points in strength and intelligence while women have two extra points of agility and charm. What is next....men and boy love societies in game???? Madness needs to end. What is the modern human condition...sick:.-(

I decided to follow him down the rabbit hole. Only 30-some posts. Didn't take long.

different grog posted:

Having just finished Bioshock Infinite I wonder how people handle racism in their games.
As BI showed, racism is a rather touchy and ugly subject but can help immersion quite a lot. Granted, it was a pseudo historical setting, so the racism displayed was a product of its age, but this also applies to fantasy settings.

So how do you handle racism in you games? Does it even exist? At which degree? And how does it influence the PCs?

this grog posted:

My son plays the new Bioshock Infinite and I love the world in the clouds. I my opinion multiculturalism has ruined America like it has ruined the Roman Empire. The Bioshock world is wonderful and full of hard hitting themes. If all races were meant to be equal than we would all be the same... In my games race and culture matter as does the person's gender.

(and for the record, he's been modded for both these posts, which is ... something? but it's just thread bans, so...)

# ¿ May 24, 2013 22:22

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

dwarf74 posted:

(and for the record, he's been modded for both these posts, which is ... something? but it's just thread bans, so...)

Oh, look! This guy actually got banned for his Stormfront rhetoric. Not permabanned, but... eh.

More grog! Stat penalties for women!

quote:

I see when the you quoted me, you left out the key portions of the post regarding "equality" and "identical-ness".

So, you're basically saying if you can't make them equal, you have to make them identical?

How about for other groups like the elderly, obese, or ugly? Does there have to be an "equalizing" offset? Should we forbid any penalties for being old, overweight, or ugly?

Are we only allowed to recognize differences when there's a convenient offsetting benefit?

# ¿ May 25, 2013 02:38

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Erebro posted:

You know, I just want to state my thankfulness to the existence of this thread.

I am one of the grogs quoted (not pointing it out, no cross-forum drama) and seeing it here, making me realize exactly why it was bad, and helped me become a better person.

You didn't get the memo that this is the most terrible of terrible places, populated by Goons who are not honorable?

(Seriously, though, very nice!)

But let's talk about Tome of Battle (you know, the 3.5 book that said "swordy guys don't need to suck!")

quote:

I'm of the ''I don't like giving martial character's spells''. It is a bad system. Worse, it is way too much for a DM to keep track of in a game. Spells are easy to keep track of as they follow the normal rules. And most of all a player can't change spells, unless they tell the DM. But the whole ToB is just broken. Like the classic ''DM-The wolf trips you! Tob player-"No way! I'm standing on my left foot and that makes me strong like a mountain and immune to trips!" "Dm-what? Sense when?" "ToB player-"Oh, i was standing on my left foot right after the battle with the goblins..."
...
And sometimes...really almost all of the time, change is bad. It is rare that things get changed for the better..... But that so many people just say ''oh some other people just don't like change'' automatically is silly. We all would love good change (say no more income tax), but don't like things like (say the 3300 page law that adjusts taxes...somehow).

ToB sucks because change is bad. You heard it here first.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 03:46

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Re: Rocks fall, Everyone dies?

Yes, all the time. . Though I'm an old school killer DM, so it is not like it's shocking or unusual.

A classic is simply picking the wrong portal and ending up in a very hostile place.

Though often enough death is just the beginning. For example: one group failed to stop the plans of a lich to take over the valley. And they were quickly killed in the 'final battle', though they did not really get to fight. Then we advanced the game a couple years and they had to stop the lich as the children of the dead heroes. (And just to note, no they did not know the plan all along. I never do that. The whole idea that the players just ''play along with a storyline'' is lame. It has to be 'real' for the players all the time. And in the end it gives the most fun.)

# ¿ May 29, 2013 23:48

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

ProfessorCirno posted:

Reminder: all of this is still the same poster being really mad that people don't want chainmail bikinis and porny slave girls in D&D.

The more I read Gorgoroth's posts, the more thankful I am that he exists. Because all of his ideas are terrible, and he just brings down whatever side of any argument he's on.

-=-=-=-=-

Grog! I just don't know what the gently caress...?

quote:

If the axiom that all 4chan's /tg/ browsers also browse /d/ is true (No Shame! Cobra Kai!) then you've probably heard of the concept of Goo-Girls (Though they can be amel or female, Goo-Girls are just more common in the parlance), humanoid versions of the classic RPG slime monster made for the purposes of fetish fuel. But, I do wonder, do any of you think the concept is valid enough to exist in mainstream fantasy, not just the fetiish-y kind.

I mean, the idea of a humanoid made of malleable slime and based off of a relatively iconic/minor monster-type does seem like it has a lot of hooks for worldbuilding, and the idea does have precedent in D&D (The Slyths, Gahanadauans and, to a lesser extent, Magens), and it might be nice to add a new archetype to the "stable" of fantasy races.

So, do you think the concept could become a "thing" beyond the fetish fuel of lonely nerds (NO SHAME! COBRA KAI!)?

# ¿ May 30, 2013 17:27

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Uh oh! The guys who think titty pics in D&D are sexist are the REAL sexists!

quote:

I find this entire thread sexist because it supposes that women do not like or enjoy seeing hyper-sexualized women, because only men can have libidos I guess.

Sexy people sell products. Not just to teenagers but to everyone. Sexy women appeal equally to both sexes. Men like being around sexy ladies (or imagining being around sexy ladies) and women like being sexy ladies (or imagining being sexy ladies). To deny this is to fight human nature. I also love the amount of mad and butthurt whiteknighting tumblrjustice this 55 page train wreck contains. Please keep it up.

# ¿ May 31, 2013 01:56

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

The grog mine has struck gold..... (bonus points for unironic use of "coloured" and "oriental")

-=-=-=-=-

You can't talk about D&D Next without some knowledge of prior editions of D&D... if you don't have that, why are you trying to steer the product to your way of thinking? This thread is for fans to state their preferences for the future direction of the product that they love.

I bring up race because this thread is about race primarily. Sexism in D&D is a dealt with problem, it is extremely unlikely that Wizards will go back to an older school depiction of women (i.e. were not in the 70s any more and all that goes with that). Back in the 90s this was a real problem, but it's been solved already. Go do some google searches on women depicted in D&D to see the comparisons. Today, even the Harpy is drawn covered up, mermaids have appropriate PG angles etc etc.

So that leaves race. 4E and 3E don't really tackle this very well, although 4E tries to. Clearly, D&D Next is going to go further, but the real question is... why? Considering that D&D is fantasy and not real, considering that D&D is played by people of all races, considering that D&D depicts and features fantasy races, should it really matter? Well to some it does. Some people just don't want to see white folk when they open a book up, I guess. But considering that D&D is a western RPG it would look kind of commical if everybody you saw was oriental, wouldn't it.

Key to understanding D&D is to remember: 1) it's fantasy 2) it's not representing the user base and 3) it's resilient because of these. If the aim is to kill D&D, by all means, change it's artwork to coloured dwarves, oriental halflings and get some elves in wheel chairs. For D&D to survive it needs to stay out of these highly political issues and just be what it set out to be: a fantasy world toolkit that is a break from reality.

# ¿ May 31, 2013 15:32

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Holy poo poo that ENWorld thread went from nice to grog mine. I mean... This dude is loving nuts over people saying dnd books shouldn't be spank rags.

-=-=-=-=-=-

[QUOTE]Yeah, it always makes me laugh when I hear american media get into an uproar about wardrobe malfunctions, not realizing they are making fools of themselves with the puritanism. (and hypocrisy)

Every time I see people say we should limit our discourse "for the sake of the children", I see society regressing. Let parents decide what's appropriate for their kids, and not buy the books. As a 13 year old, I never had any difficulty finding pornographic material on my own (this was back in the era of BBSes!), and certainly no force on earth could have prevented me from acquiring a copy of the 2nd edition PHB when it came out.

Extreme forms of political correctness reduces all of us, because it enforces a warped / skewed view of sexuality based on shame, which creates far more problems than it solves. Humans are born naked, we all have bits n pieces, it's ludicrous to cover up Sirens and Harpies...If the D&D artwork were published in Europe, like Age of Conan, we could enjoy the hobby as adults without being patronized by the sanctimonious censors. When society gives into fringe puritanism, it limits the product choices that ADULTS make.

Who said that D&D is G-rated? PG-13, maybe, but I personally PG-13, if anything, should include (tasteful, and artful) nudity. It speaks volumes when I hear people say PARENTAL GUIDANCE - 13 to mean : good for a 5 year old's birthday party, without any supervision whatsoever.

Removing all nudity from D&D books, have long since been purged. Why? Because middle america is puritanical. That's a known fact. Several of the opinions here, despite disavowals, are transparently repeating those assumptions without admitting to it. I have nothing against showing male nudity either, where appropriate. The kind of society you have when you cannot trust parents will use oversight to judge what they buy their children, meaning that adults should have to be treated all as children, leads to a sort of hypocritical perversion that frankly, is reminiscent of Dark Age mentality.

Protecting women from nudity (oh my) is the same. Ask yourselves, who are in favor of having sanitized art, is it for the children, or it to avoid offending women? (or both? i.e. seeing/treating women as children, who need to be protected from the scourge of Big Bad Nipples!!! and needing protection like a knight in shining armor, riding in to protect their purity and honour from the filth of sexual thoughts and mummy-datty bits being portrayed in art).

Anyone who thinks mythological creatures don't belong in D&D Monster Manuals, so long as they're merely murderous and scary, rather than seductive and scary, are the very definition of puritanical and biased. Denying it seems to be wanting it both ways. You get to whitewash art from generating "bad thoughts" (highly subjective that a scary monster is better for a child's mind than a boobie), while at the same time, pretending like you support freedom of thought! It's perfect! I'd never imagined that puritans could also be hypocrits! //sarcasm

We had 2000 years of art and literature being censored, and some of us enjoy living in the free, modern world. This type of "cleansing" is happening and does happen. Calling it "marketing" is a cop out : until we see the data of D&D book sales being hurt by showing Harpies or Sirens or Succubi as being nude, it is pure conjecture to assume that it's increased market share. The last time I checked, art schools weren't exactly devoid of women. I guess it's a popular thing.

And before anyone repeats the meme that it isn't censorship to draw over parts of classic creatures, it IS. You have the choice to live in a cave and not expose yourself to the big bad world, just don't deny me the right to boldly go out there and open my eyes and ears. It's amazing to me, the idea that people think limiting everyone else's experiences to be somehow moral. Let alone liberal.

If you're a quaker and afraid of D&D showing greek sirens, turn off the TV, turn off the internet, and just hide in your basement. The big bad world is out there, waiting to corrupt your innocent minds.

# ¿ May 31, 2013 20:48

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Why do women want to be equal with men? Why do men want women to be considered equal to women? Society is all messed up and now our games need to reflect this? If I was a woman I sure as heck would not want to be the same as a male... Wonder why God, gods, alien overlords or whatever destroyed mankind in the past just to start over...?

# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 14:36

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

I'm actually a little sad. This is much less epic a flameout than I expected. He got all sadface that Morrus red-texted him about responding to strawman arguments of his own design.

quote:

Sanitizing art to avoid offending people is morally no different than burning books.

Morrus, this will be my last post here, but I will post the article I came across since apparently some of you think it's creepy that some of us, you know, read.

People referring to a scientific study as "creepy" says more about them, that I. It's certainly pointless for me to continue debating this, for one, it's not my field (nor any of yours' obviously, considering how blithely ignorant of the topic you all are), and I don't call it censorship when mods step in and assert their own opinions are more valid than mine, I call it water cooler bullying, which is, to answer your question, why I ignore it.

You are not the boss of me. Delete this account, thanks. I won't make a new one.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2013 01:13

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

ProfessorCirno posted:

SKR is and always will be perhaps the worst game designer in the entire industry. He's wonderful, a gift that keeps on giving. Every quote he makes that involves any sort of game design or game philosophy can be read as a cautionary tale. He exists in the industry because and only because he made the right connections. Note, here he is openly stating that they intentionally make no only weapon choices, but then large feat trees and classes and archtypes devoted to those weapons, and all of them are intentionally made to be weaker then other given choices. And, of course, that the player is never told of this.

When Monte Cook wrote his thing on Ivory Tower Design and player traps he did so to call it a massive mistake, one of the biggest flaws in 3e. SKR looks at that and nods, and thinks, yes, let us add more of this to the game.

Yeah, that pretty well sums it up.

This is what happens when you ask people about 4e at GiantITP in the 4e forum.

quote:

Well to be fair, a LOT of people never liked (and still don't like) 4e. 4e was a rather radical departure from what D&D had been for decades and was designed to be rather combat centric than previous versions. Personally if I want to play an MMO I'll log on to WoW or SW:TOR, not pick up a copy of 4e.

quote:

While I have a dislike for 4e (specificly because it WAS designed to be a table top MMO) I'm willing to hear other opinions. I'm willing to offer my opinion and listent to differeing opinions expressed intelligently and I'm willing to let those opinions soften, or even change my opinion. Unlike some.

Also there are other questions...general RPG questions posted in the 4e thread that can be discussed with out going too much into specific 4e rules.

And because this particular thead, by an a player more familiar with other editions asked for opinions, and it's not really fair and unbiased to load him down with answers from the 4e cheering squad.

Pointing out that 4e is more combat centric, or that each character has a load of "powers" that run on cool-down timers is a simple statement of fact. Pointing out that 4e departs from traditional D&D, even to the point of changing, adding and/or removing player races that have been part of the game since its inception, while adding even more "racial" powers to the mix is a statement of fact.

If you disagree, then present an intelligent counter argument.

All written in 2013 as if it were still 2008.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 22:57

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

quote:

That seems very anachronistic to me. I see the term "Dungeons and Dragons" as a nod to heritage, not a mission statement. Certainly, I don't use dungeons, and I would be pretty insulted if I showed up to a game and they started me on an old-school dungeon crawl.

"I find it insulting if you include dungeons and dragons in your dungeons and dragons game."

It is so anti-grog it circles back to grog. It's "get your old school and 'adventuring' notions out of my finely tuned fantasy world simulator. This elfgame is serious."

# ¿ Jun 25, 2013 02:02

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Rasamune posted:

There is one argument for why 4E isn't really D&D.

When someone says, "we're going to play D&D" there are a coupe of things I assume.

1) There is going to be a Wizard who memorizes spells from a spellbook on some kind of Vancian schedule.
2) There is going to be a Cleric who is like the Wizard, except he can fight in melee, and turn/control undead, and he memorizes his spells from Prayer.
3) There is going to be a lame rear end fighter of suck, who tricks you into thinking he might be cool, but isn't.
4) There is going to be a Paladin class with some flavor of Lay on Hands and limited clerical spells.
5) I am going to have str, dex, con, int,wis,cha and maybe one or two more stats rated 3-18+ based on 3d6 rolling.
6) There are going to be HP.
7) There is going to be AC. (even if the whole thac0 thing changed between 2nd and 3rd, we still had AC)
8) I'm going to have to roll saving throws.

These are things I can count on in D&D. This is true of every single edition from 1st to 3rd. It doesn't really count for OD&D but lets be honest, how many gamers under 40 have even played OD&D once. When I say D&D, people think 1st-3rd and 4th.

Very few of those actually apply to 4th Edition. It's a vastly different game than 1st-3rd.

So, in other words ... if you collect an arbitrary list of stuff you look for in D&D, it means that something else isn't D&D? Holy crazypants.

GROG TAX!
-------------

quote:

Simultaneous action can and has been represented quite well. Burning Wheel did it. Fudge did it. FATE did it. These are well respected games, widely considered to have good mechanics - and they somewhat suggest that "impossible" is questionable analysis at best.

Actually no. To 90% of people who sit down to play TTRPG's those games dont even exist, they have never heard of them and dont know jack about them. At least half of the current D&D players still dont know anything but the vaguest rumors of 5e and its been out in playtest for a year (seriously, go to some local D&D meetups and ask about about it, you'll be shocked how disconnected your average gamer is from the hobby). And to the 10% who do know what they are their reception is quite mixed.

The only people who consider those games to have good mechanics are half or less of the handful of people who play them, the larger number of people who bought the system and never played it with a group but want to seem more uber nerd then the next guy online and so talk about it like they have played it even though they havent, and 50% or less of internet reviewers, who are just the 2nd group on crack.

I've tried them all the best of the bunch is Fudge and its such a disjointed mess that I would rather sit down and play go fish.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2013 02:01

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Thats because pathfinder players like the game we have. We didnt go looking for a new system, D&D came crawling to us after 4e failed. So searching for "solutions" to things we dont see as problems are not gonna do it.

It 5e wants to get 3e PF players it needs to take the things that that system does well and jack them up to the next level, and spend a little effort minimizing what its not great at it. But dont worry much about that. We've had more then 10 years to figure those things out, they arent problems for us, dont try to solve them. Take the good stuff and make it better.

5e is running as fast as it can to 1e style play, which isnt a 180 from what we like, but its probably a 140, or more.

The failure here is in understanding your target audience

---------------

"You don't need to fix your game if you just sell the same poo poo you've been selling to customers who fired you, because they know how to fix it."

# ¿ Jul 10, 2013 02:03

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

That doesnt bother me. He likes 4e and that was the oddball outlier that failed. Frankly he's the backwards mutant, he's just not self aware enough to realize it. So I get more of a chuckle out of that tone then offended.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 22:50

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

I don't particularly look forward to anything about the New New New New Realms. Which is distinct from the New New New Realms (4e), the New New Realms (3e), the New Realms (2e) and the Realms (1e). Mostly because, to be honest about it, the 4th edition changes basically ruined the setting for me, introducing a series of very needlessly mean-spirited ideas in their destruction of almost everything and then trying to shoehorn in concepts that were never meant to be there in the first place like the Dragonborn and Eladrin.

In the latter case making it a big sweeping retcon that all of the high elves, those being moon elves and sun elves, were originally eladrin to begin with. Which meant that almost all of the elven characters we'd seen up until that point, due to the focus solidly being on those subraces, were now suddenly something known as 'eladrin' despite the mentions of eladrin prior to that being a reference to the type of celestial in 2e and 3e and which form one of the cornerstones of the Planescape campaign setting.

Which I had adored, by the way. Until the 4th edition ruined that as well.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2013 00:28

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

In my game, the Rogue has recently got past 6th level and gained the Trap Spotter Talent, which means I need to make a Perception check automatically when he comes within 10ft of a trap. I'm a bit concerned about it and momentarily considered banning it because he never ever has to say again "I'm looking for traps". I'm worried that it will make exploration and traps less interesting because they simply don't need to think about them any more. It's almost the same as not having traps in the game from now on. An additional thing that I do, in a bit of a lesson from what I've heard about D&D Next, is that I ask him top describe what he's doing when trying to find the trap, and if its appropriate to the trap, I have him find it automatically without having to roll a check.

When a trap is present, I always give the party some sort of clue, so they don't need to search every 10x10 square of the dungeon for traps. They only search when there is a likelihood of there being one around, and that seems to me like the way it should be - traps become interesting and thought about during certain moments, and fade into the background for the rest of the time. I do like the fact that he has chosen a non-combat feat as I try to emphasize that combat is not the only way to "win". It certainly does make him a valuable person to have around, doing something that no-one else can do, so the has an opportunity to shine, so I can see the good aspect of it.

What is your experience with Trap Spotter?

-----

Because nothing is more fun than making a player tell you he's checking for traps every ten feet, and there's no such thing as a wand of Find Traps.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2013 05:39

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Some guy posts his 4e character up on SpergsITP. He's got high stats that he rolled, because that's how his DM wanted to do things. And holy loving poo poo look at this.

holyfuckingshit posted:

As someone with a good grasp of probabilities, I don't believe you.*

In 3.5 it was common to 'fudge' the dice rolls even though you'd use something like roll 4d6 take the best 3. This was because stats were overly important in 3.5. You don't need to do that in 4.0, because point buy is more than good enough.

*Amongst other things, if you used the 4d6 method your average would be 12.5. You have only one stat that is below that, and not terribly far below it. This is analogous to tossing a coin six times and getting heads five times and tails once. The odds of that happening are 6 in 64, so if you told me you did that I'd say (on balance of probabilities) that I didn't believe you. It's when you play in a group and there are six people in the group and everyone has five heads and only one tail that it becomes especially egregious. Would you expect to toss a coin thirty six times and only have it come up tails six times? Of course not, yet that is what seems to happen in every group that rolls dice.

Or go back and look at your last six characters. I bet you a donut that every single one of them has a starting total of attributes of 80 or up. Again, it's the same thing. Flipping a coin and having it land tails only ten times out of a hundred? While it could happen theoretically, it is much more likely that there is something wrong with the coin.

On average half your stats should be 12 or below. I don't see that here. I bet if you look at your previous characters you won't see it either. At least half your characters should have half or more of their stats below 13s. I bet you two donuts that isn't even close to being true.

Check out http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php

Click on the '4d6 drop lowest' link to have your mind blown.
In the long run you should have as many 6s as you have 18s.
You should have as many 3-7s as you have 17 and 18s.

Even with 4d6 drop 1 you only have a 23.2% chance of rolling a 15 or higher, and yet somehow you've managed to do that 4 times out of 6.

If we related your stats to individual d6s in a caster level 6 fireball, you'd have done 31 damage.

In summary, if we try to reverse engineer your stat generation method, it looks a lot closer to 7d6 drop 4 than it does 4d6 drop 1.

Now, regarding the importance of attributes in 4.0: please consider the following differences between 3.5 and 4.0
In 4.0 when you bump your stats by +1 you get to pick two
In 4.0 anytime you do anything relevant to a stat you're already adding half your level anyway
In 4.0 defences, e.g. AC actually stay relevant. In 3.5 defences went wonky very quickly. You could have an unhittable level 1 character, but that same character at level 20 might have monsters that blow through his AC, or monsters that can't hit it at all so they ignore it. (This is why things like T-Rexes are only CR11 in 3.5, and it's why the most common advice regarding AC in 3.5 is 'ignore it and go for miss chance instead')
In 4.0 the save or dies are gone, in fact saving throws as you know them are gone. There is a mechanic in 4.0 called the saving throw, but it's not the thing. This is not a bad thing either. In 3.5 melee was useless because they were rapidly (i.e. at level 1 and it only got worse after that) eclipsed by the casters, in 4.0 Fighters have a pretty strong argument for being the best class.
In 4.0 as a Fighter your dex isn't going to help your AC. But that's okay, you already get an AC bump in the heavy armours. Consider taking a heavy shield and spend a feat to get platemail. Your AC will be high enough to actually reliably tank.
In order for encounter scaling to actually work (which it usually does) (certainly much much enormously much better than 3.5) there are certain implicit assumptions, one of which is how many pluses you are getting to your rolls from your stats.
The game is already heavily weighted in favour of the party (if it wasn't and you had a 50% chance of a TPK in every fight, campaigns wouldn't last very long). Having ridiculous stats will reduce the amount of challenge even further.
In 4.0 it is common for all your powers and abilities to key off one statistic. For a wizard (for instance) Int is both attack and damage (similar to the way that in 3.5 Str effects both to-hit and damage, which makes it overly important in melee builds (hence the domination of 2H barbarian builds)). Then you have a secondary stat, which determines 'rider' effects. E.g. you might use Wis for attack and damage, but Con for how far they get pushed, or Dex for how far you can teleport. So you might be looking at powers and going 'this looks cool, but I need Wis, oh, and this other thing looks cool, but I need Con... why not both?'. But in fact because you're pumping two stats, in the long run you can't be good at everything. You have to make choices. Yes, that power might look juicy, but there are heaps of other powers to choose from, so just do what everyone else does, and when you see an agent you run. No wait, just pick two stats, and then powers that key off those two stats. Yes, it's going to mean you actually have to make meaningful choices. Consider it a character building experience. (sic)

Executive summary: Use point-buy. It will make you a better person. It will also improve your game.

Point buy makes you a better person.

A reasonable reaction (*cough*):

quote:

Don't accuse people of cheating if you weren't there.

You can play whatever you want, but I will sperg out about whatever I want.

quote:

Why not? If you show me a character rolled with 3d6 and claim you have six 18s, I'll call you a liar. 1 in 100 trillion chances aren't worth even acknowledging as possible.

4d6 drop one is easier to get good scores on, but at some point they stretch credibility as well. Those stats don't, quite, to me. Setting up a spreadsheet to quickly roll out 1000 characters, 52 of them (5.2%) had scores that totaled 85 or higher, like this example has; it's like rolling a 20 on a d20 with one shot; unlikely, but not impossible. But I have yet to see anyone write in with a question about character building who had scores anywhere near the rolled average, and certainly not below. That does suggest that at least some of them are discarding poorly rolled characters.

People can play however they like, it's no skin off my nose. They can pull numbers from hats, roll dice, or just pick them. Doesn't really matter. But I would argue that it is reasonable to accuse people of cheating when the probabilities are low enough. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 is infrequent enough in my book that I think it's very likely. 1 in 20 isn't.

Even though I said "point buy will make you a better person" and "I don't believe you" I didn't call you a cheater"

quote:

Let's be very clear. I DID NOT ACCUSE HIM OF CHEATING.

I just said that statistically speaking I didn't believe that he rolled those naturally, and then threw a lot of evidence around to show why. Fiddling the stats is a nearly universal practice in 3.5 and earlier, and it's tempting to nudge the stats in certain directions (e.g. towards even numbers in 3.5). A player might 'shave' a 13 down to a 12 and then feel like it's 'okay' to bump a 15 to a 16.

Cheating means breaking the rules, and if his DM is okay with him 'massaging' the stats then he's not cheating.

So you sat down and rolled a bunch of 15s big whoopy doo. Let's hear about the other characters that people rolled.

Did anybody at all at your table end up with four or more stats below 13? That's the standard of proof that you're doing it without 'assistance'.
Out of that batch of characters do you have as many 6s as you have 18s?
Do you have as many 3-7s as you have 17s and 18s combined?

No? If not, why not?

You can't impress me with allegorical tales of high rolls, if you want to impress me you need to tell me about the low rolls from the same batch.

If you rolled six characters, the total combined attributes (before racial mods and so forth) should come out very close to 450 (six lots of 75), however in groups where people fiddle the numbers, you'll consistently see 500+

Even comparing it to what this other fellow is claiming, the particular character you're referencing has TWO stats below average, not just one, hence it's more plausible. Also, 15s are more believable than 16s, because (surprise!) statistically they happen more often.

Another reason that 3.5 is much more prone to this sort of thing is the dex to AC (and especially touch AC), and con to HP on level up. There's always that little bit of extra incentive to have a little bit of stats creep.

Because what this needs is a chart.

quote:

For 4d6k3

Each line is a separate stat, dark blue being the lowest, light blue being the highest. Find the dice value along the bottom, and the height of the stat line is how often that stat should be at or below that value. Ex: the lowest stat should be at or below 8 50% of the time, while the highest stat should be at or below 15 45% of the time. (note how the old 'elite array' falls right along the 50% mark)

For 18,16,18,13,16,10, Assuming 16,16,16,16,13,10 before racials:

The second 16 alone puts this array above the 95% mark, the third makes it 99.63, the fourth puts us into the 99.99% rank. But, Hey: the 13 and 10 are only in the 97.6% and 84.8% bracket for their respective rolls!

Could it happen? Yes.
Is it likely to draw attention? Yes.
Should we be surprised at suspicion of cheatingfudging? No.
Would this all have been avoided by using the primary method listed/suggested in the PHB (point buy)? Double Plus Yes++!

OP posted:

TL;DR for the past 20 posts or so - I clicked "Roll stats" once in the 4E character creator. That's what came up. I don't care if you believe it or not. But get back to discussing sword and board use, please.

How dare you TL;DR my sperging out about your stats!

quote:

I understand your defensiveness, but asking for advice and then going "TLDR, give me more advice"? How rude is that?

Why? If you're not going to bother reading it (which is what Too Long Didn't Read or TLDR stands for just btw) then why should we throw out pearls.

NB: for those complaining that the discussion needs more sword and board and less statistics, we're done on that topic. the thread already contains everything you need to know.

Q: is sword and board viable in 4e?
A: yes.

... aaand we're done, nothing to see here, move along ...

(If you want a detailed breakdown of every power, race and feat, try googling "4e fighter guide" to find a certain CHARacter OPtimisation board. I'd link to it but it's probably verbotten. Also, you're not going to actually read this far, so ... whatever)

And now, on to the truly interesting part of the discussion: Maths!

To make an 18 on four dice, there are 21 possibilities out of (IIRC) 1296

6 6 6 1
6 6 6 2
6 6 6 3
6 6 6 4
6 6 6 5
6 6 6 6

6 6 1 6
6 6 2 6
6 6 3 6
6 6 4 6
6 6 5 6

6 1 6 6
6 2 6 6
6 3 6 6
6 4 6 6
6 5 6 6

1 6 6 6
2 6 6 6
3 6 6 6
4 6 6 6
5 6 6 6

To make a 6 on four dice, there's 21 possibilities:

1 1 1 4
1 1 4 1
1 4 1 1
4 1 1 1

3 2 1 1
3 1 2 1
3 1 1 2
1 3 2 1
1 3 1 2
2 3 1 1
1 2 3 1
2 1 3 1
1 1 3 2
1 1 2 3
1 2 1 3
2 1 1 3

2 2 2 1
2 2 1 2
2 1 2 2
1 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

Thus, in fact you should have exactly as many 6s as 18s

The probabilities are 1.62037% for both

If you're going to reroll ones, I think you have to take a step back and ask yourself what the point of the exercise is. And if you're happy with rerolling ones, why not reroll 2s? After all, the lowest stat will then be a 9, which is pretty close to what all the point buy systems give, right? Right?

But rerolling ones certainly doesn't buy you anything in terms of high moral ground or any of that yackety yack, because now we just say that there should be almost as many 6s and 7s as 18s

And because I'm not done, here's a second post in a row.

quote:

Originally Posted by PHB p18
If the total of your ability modifiers is lower than +4 or higher than +8 before racial ability adjustments, your DM might rule that your character is too weak or too strong compared to the other characters in the group and decide to adjust your scores to fit better within his or her campaign preferences.

You can�t roll ability scores for a character you plan to use in RPGA events.
Thus, even according to the rules, the stats 'rolled by the character builder' should be rerolled because they are improbably good.

Fascinating. Interesting that the possible point buy values all fall inside the range of 5-8 for net modifiers.

So... what insanely good set of stats set off the spergfest?

STR 16, CON 15, DEX 16, INT 13, WIS 15, CHA 10

That's right. Two 16's, two 15's, a 13, and a 10.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2013 21:58

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Tribute- an Effects-Based RPG based on Kabbalah. (under development)

I've been working on Tribute -my holy grail game- for years, but it's only within the past few months that its finally begun to come together. A few years back I hit on the idea that I wanted an Effects-Based system that allowed you to build your own effects from scratch. It would have to be more "atomic" than games like Mutants and Masterminds, GURPS or Hero when it came to Powers and Effects. What I mean by that is that rather than choosing the power of Mind Control off the rack, you might build it as follows:

ATTACK "Mind" { ANNEX FORCE of "Mind" [8]. }

The value "8" is a placeholder, and stands for the potency of the ANNEX Effect's ability to overcome obstacles in its attempt to link the two minds and overpower the target character's mind. Believe it or not, all of the rules of this version of mind control are covered in shorthand in the "Tribute Expression" above. Such an expression can fit on a character sheet.

Another Example is the power of Flight:

MANEUVER "Body" { RELAY "Body" via CHANNEL ("Air") [10]. }

In this example, 10 represents the speed of the RELAY effect, while CHANNEL ("Air") represents the medium through which the Effect is achieved. Simply by changing the CHANNEL you can convert flight into burrowing, swimming, or movement through any other medium (such as mirrors or shadows...) These CHANNELS aren't just arbitrary words; each is defined as needed, determining the side effects of using it.

Anyway, those words in all caps are called "Elements" in Tribute. Each Element is a word that is simultaneously a noun and a verb so it can be used as either in an Expression. Elements have a page or so of rules attached to them that determine how they can be used, but once you know those rules you shouldn't need to refer to them in play.

As you can see, it looks a lot like a syntactic magic system from games like Ars Magica, except it is expanded to cover every type of effect that a generic game needs.

So far there are about 29 Elements (and some useful non-element words), but aside from the dice mechanics, those will be all the rules in the game. A lot of elements do many things; the RELAY element above covers any form of motion in the game, from moving as described above, to throwing a rock to shooting a gun.

As for the Kabbalah connection, it's a long story, and I cover it in my Design Blog. I will say that I'm not pushing an agenda of faith or mysticism with the game- I'm an agnostic and it just turned out that the system of classifying phenomena in Kabbalah worked for my needs. Additionally, I mean no disrespect to anyone who does have faith.

Anyway, thanks for reading, and I hope you drop by the blog. There are about 7 articles, giving a full overview of the Elements. I can answer any questions you might have here as well, of course

http://tributerpg.blogspot.com/2013/09/an-introduction-to-game-and-its-designer.html

# ¿ Sep 7, 2013 15:59

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Razorwired posted:

EDIT: One quote was me misinterpreting snark chat. Removed

You suck because I had hope there for a while.

And NOW! From a thread that I thought would be a lot more terrible than it is on Dragonsfoot...

Is your campaign socially modern or socially medieval?

OP posted:

Is your campaign socially modern? I mean that are women 2nd class citizens as was assumed in previous eras? Is your campaign ethnically diverse? Culturally diverse? Religiously diverse? Is it possible to change castes and walks in life? Is it modern in the sense of social issues?

Or is your campaign more medieval in social norms? Women aren't important. Religion is a closed book affair. There are strict caste structures.

I expected a lot of shitposters, but really it was confined to two.

Grognir posted:

Don't doubt for a second that the "horrors" of Medieval society have been grossly exaggerated in the name of Political Correctness. That said my campaign is 16th century Europe.
...
Human nature hasn't changed from Medieval times. I'll leave it at that.
...
The idea of conscripting teenage girls for combat is no less abhorrent now than it was 1,000 years ago. If that's your idea of "Progress", I want no part of it.

"Girls?" What you really mean is that conscripting teenagers or children of any kind is abhorrent, right?

Grognir posted:

No. I have a healthy level of respect for women with warriors' hearts, but I have absolutely no respect for the culture that would send them into battle.

I believe that the only time women should have to fight, is in defense of themselves and those unable to defend themselves (like children). Any society that willingly would send its young girls to be butchered in mass slaughter is terminally sick.
...
I agree; and sending women into battle is even worse.

I know the mods may politely tell me to keep my strongly held opinions to myself, but I'd just like to point out that some people (like the OP) may not realize that the issues they're bringing up are as contentious as they are, and others may not share the worldview they take for granted. I hope my responses haven't caused too much strife.

But what if the girls want to fight?

Grognir posted:

"They"? Who do you mean by "they"? Do you mean the aging feminist activists who have pushed for young women to have the "opportunity" to be maimed and killed for their country's foreign policy decisions? Because those "they" aren't going to be convinced to join the military (or conscripted against their will), then be sent stumble over landmines and catch shrapnel in the happy wonderland that is the battle-field.

No the "they" you're talking about are young girls, criminally mislead by a society more concerned with "Equality (an abstract concept, a word), and its own self-righteous sense of its "Progress", than the gruesome consequences that will befall a portion of female soldiers.

There's a concept known as "Informed Consent". Society, in the name of Equality, has made no effort to accurately inform young girls of what being a soldier can actually mean. What happens is that society tells them that Equality is the highest god (not that military policy is determined by women aged 18 to 35). Meanwhile fanatics work their whole lives to "fix" the "under-representation" of women in the military. People in general (and young people in particular) are neither adequately informed, nor do they have any meaningful ability to consent (or not consent) when it comes to public policy.

But going back, when you said "girls" do you really mean that conscripting any kind of child into war is equally bad?

Grognir posted:

quote:
GlindaTheGhoul wrote:
More [wrong] than its little boys?
Yes.

Besides, he knows something you don't know. You're the real misogynists.

quote:

Misogyny (noun) - hatred of or hostility toward women.

I don't think we're speaking the same language. You see, I'm the one who doesn't want women to be sent to Hell-on-Earth. Maybe If I hated women, I'd spend my time and effort promoting Equality in the morgue.

Quick Anti-Grog Break!!

AntiGrog posted:

quote:
mordrin wrote:
Most campaigns I've seen are definitely more modern/progressive than medieval. Just a matter of how much.

Many players don't have the stomach, patience, or desire to play within the misery, ignorance, elitism, and brutality of the Middle Ages.

Illiteracy, superstition, ignorance, and lack of education
torture
lack of health care and hygiene
larger gulf between haves and have nots
lack of democracy and cruel whims of the aristocracy
short lifespans
misogyny
racial and national prejudices
For some of us, though, we do not play within the misery, ignorance, elitism, and brutality of the Middle Ages because we are not playing a Middle Ages Role Playing Game. We are playing a Fantasy Role Playing Game. There is a bit of a difference there.

MoreAntiGrog! posted:

Pretty much, the female STR limit was the probably the first BtB RAW item that was overruled back in 1981 when everyone in the group was in high school or junior high.

My cousin rolled up a female paladin or fighter and rolled 18/90 or something like that, she got very annoyed with getting her characters STR cut back to 18/50 according to BtB RAW. She made a good argument that the rule was exceptionally bad clearly intended to force her to play a male PC or be penalized. This flew "BtR RAW rule" all over her as she had joined the Army recently. She was cute and so was her friend. The group wanted the two girls to play and the rule was dumped. I can still hear the scorn heaped on the STR rule, comments like: "it's a game with magic, elves and dragons and you accept that but you can't accept the idea of a woman being a man's equal even in a pretend game!? I should be able to play her without penalty. For christsakes, I joined the Army..." I think her argument was sound so the rule has been STR abilty is the same for male or female characters. She won the regular group of teenage boys over and it was a non-issue ever after. She also played in our group until time to go to boot camp and later played some D&D while in the military said the others were amazed she was familar with the game.

Racial STR limits remained. If a real elf or hobbit shows up and makes as good an argument as my cousin did then racial STR limits will be lifted, until that happens they will remain.

But wait! A familiar face approaches! It's my old favorite MrHemlock, he who scorns multiculturalism and flings about random xenophobic and skinhead poo poo all over the place!

MrHemlock posted:

For starters I do not believe in the modern idea of needing to be politically correct..in game or out. That is just a bunch of BS. My campaigns are medieval (based) with men and women having different roles...along with various races. My campaigns are fun and the players, men and women, enjoy them.

If want to learn more about the lies and disinformation of political correctness follow the link. And by the way, just because someone is not politically correct does not make them an 'evil' person like the leftist media tries to proclaim. http://www.brucesallan.com/2012/01/21/t ... rect-lies/

What we need are more real-world politics, though.

Back to Grognir posted:

I must have just gotten accustomed to the the term "Queen of England" sometime in my childhood, back before the Act of Union in 1707. Man I'm getting old.

I think it's best we don't discuss what I call Barack Obama.

But I'm sure he's a progressive at heart?

Grognir just can't quit posted:

Societies and cultures that don't have healthy instincts go extinct, much like "Progressive" European society (with birthrates lower than 1.5 babies per woman) is going extinct and being replaced with non-European populations in Europe.
...
There is an enormous difference in taking up arms in self-defense and in being a soldier. Self-defense is always a last resort. Historically war has had more to do with the aspirations of power, glory and wealth on the part of a leader, and less with defending your village against the Mongols. Advocates of "Equality in the Morgue" tend to ignore this distinction.

Wait, no. Now we're into :tinfoil:

territory. But how does this inform his D&D game?

Grognir posted:

The problem with the strength penalty in AD&D is that a fighter with a less than exceptional strength is at a considerable disadvantage. You need a strength of 16 to get even a meager +1 bonus to damage. The Ability modifier scheme in AD&D practically forces characters to have high stats to be reasonably effective.

Compare this with BECMI, where characters get a +1 bonus to hit and damage at 13-15, a +2 at 16-17, and +3 at 18. This means your fighter doesn't have to be Hercules to be effective.

Using the BECMI-type modifiers, I cap female Strength at 16, where they can still get the +2 bonus to hit and damage, without the silliness of a non-magical human female being as strong as the strongest man on Oerth. To offset this limitation, at character creation the player may choose to swap the character's Strength with that of any other Ability score of lower value, or to trade some points of Strength to raise another Ability score on a 1:1 basis.

Because strong women don't exist in real life, you see. Not that they should be adventurers, though, because we should protect women from dying, or else we're the real misogynists, as we already learned.

Surprisingly (at least to me) you can't grog like this at Dragonsfoot without being called out on it.

AntiGrog Response posted:

...and this part is rubbish.

I don't play in a historical world; I play in a fantasy world. And allowing Panthesilea to be as strong as Odysseus is no sillier than anything else in D&D.

I mean shoot, you've already got 'non-magical' human males who can somehow be stronger than 10' tall trolls...somehow that's cool, but letting a girl do it, that's just silly? Get real...or better yet, get fantastical, and let heroes be heroes regardless of what's in their breeches.

Grognir's not done, though. You see, you can still be a hero if we ding your stats for being a wilting whoreflower!

Grognir posted:

While I have no idea who Panthesilea is, I know that no human female can even approach the brute strength of males in the top 75% or so. It would take magic or considerable genetic engineering to close that gap. Is Panthesilea the daughter of Zeus, Athena or Ares? If so fine, otherwise I expect some magical justification.

Do trolls in your campaign have a maximum strength of 18 or less!?

A person doesn't need the raw strength of an olympic powerlifter to be a hero.

That's right. Suck it up and take the penalty, girls.

The thread is still going on. It may be one to watch.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 04:06

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Saguaro PI posted:

Did that guy seriously make the claim that 75% of men are literally stronger than every woman ever?

I ... think? I don't know. The constant strain of, "women must be protected, and they are not my equals, and that's because I want to protect them from dying" is such insane bullshit that I can't follow it.

But leave it to another board to hit the 3.x sperg point.

quote:

I'd be okay with "female" being a +0 LA template that provides -2 STR and +2 CHA.

e: wow.

quote:

Ehh... I'd say it's wrong as long as it's not true. As far as I can tell, it's not true (Or at least not in the manner predicted). There ARE undeniable physical and mental differences between males and females. I am not qualified to say what they mean, though, because it's a lot sketchier (Aside from females having load-distribution issues along the spine males don't, and, without medication, have serious once-a-month problems that screw up the mind and body and are responsible for all sorts of horrific myths. Unfortunately, I'm not as aware if males have any issues as obvious and personality-and-behavior-affecting as the female reproductive cycle's affect on the mind and body)

I need more study in neuropsychology and physiology.

dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Sep 8, 2013

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 06:11

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Holy poo poo, GiantSpergITP is a bigger grogmine than Dragonsfoot!

quote:

Precisely. We aren't talking about the real world. Therefore a real world human female has no personal reason to take offense about the stats of pretend world human female. If the DM houserules that human females have less STR than human males, then in that world it is a fact that human females have less STR than human males.

Is it good gameplay? I've already said I don't care for it, because it's neither well thought out nor conducive to the things I value in the game. There are people who really enjoy simulationist things, though, and it is not mine to deny them that.

If said person won't alter the rule if it bothers a player? Then he's probably not that great of a person.

Is it sexism/does agreeing to play by that rule indicate that you're a bad person? Not at all.
...
In a fantasy game, humans are a fantasy race. Can you cleave men in two with a sword? Slay dragons? Cast magic spells? No, because human(real life) != Human(RPG).

Sexual dimorphism exists. It can't be sexist, because sexism is a human concept that has no bearing whatsoever on biology. Being offended by a fantasy portrayal of sexual dimorphism that may even be accurate in reality is absurd. You might as well insist that human females should have Y chromosomes. Equal, but different, y'know?

"Separate, but equal" is a time-honored tradition you see.

quote:

quote:
Originally Posted by Rhynn View Post
So you're saying that representations in media have no relation to the real world?

I think you lack the background information for this discussion.

The short of it is that women (or people of color, etc., etc.) in media (comics, movies, games, etc.) are representations of women (or people of color, etc., etc.) in the real world, and their portrayal echoes attitudes/memes from the real world as well as reinforces them by repetition.
I'm saying that it upsets me when militant feminists (and supporters of any good cause who go too far) start insulting people who don't agree that the tiniest perceived 'slight' against them is grounds for outrage. It is an absolutely true and sad fact that women (or people of color, etc., etc.) are depicted to be inferior sometimes and it's true that allowing that perpetuates the problem. My stance is not that of misogyny or even anti-feminism. My stance is that sexual dimorphism is not sexism. Further, that it cannot be.

The theoretical DM is short-sighted, kind of bad at making up houserules, and wants to play the game, as the above poster put it, in an overly simulationist kind of way that doesn't appeal to me and many of the other posters here. This is all indicative of exactly one thing: if you don't like it, you should move on. Attacking the moral fiber of the theoretical DM and anyone that would continue to associate with him/her despite the fact that everything about him/her, but this one fact, is completely unknown is a worse crime against humanity than the DM's portrayal of sexual dimorphism is against women.

quote:

I did not say the reaction is disproportionate, because I firmly believe the reaction is entirely irrational. If you'd point out what I said that gave you a different impression I will correct it. If it was the quoted text that gave you that impression, note the word "perceived" signifying that I don't recognize it as a true offense. Further, I never said there's no reason, I've said there's no rational reason. Anyone can be upset about whatever they choose.

Since this discussion has begun, I decided to look for studies that attempt to discover the truth of the matter. From what I've read, it seems that men are in fact generally more physically capable than women. Now that I have read of those studies, I believe that. Is anyone offended by that fact, or that I believe it? I'll allow that it's unfair, but it wasn't my decision any more than it was yours. I'll also posit that it's an absolutely wretched tool to measure human value with, and that there is in this male-dominated, fellow-nerd-populated thread, at least one woman with more physical strength than me.

I'm not an enemy, and I'm not ignorant. Neither of you have expressed the tendencies I'm standing in opposition to (attacking the theoretical DM's person/that of those associated.) I don't require that you agree with me that it's irrational to be upset by it. We're not perfectly rational beings. It's when irrational offense turns to misplaced scorn that I can't abide.

quote:

This houserule is pretty stupid, but I don't really have a problem with the sentiment. There are real differences between men and women on several levels and sure, you might decide to reflect this in a role-playing game. Not that one is not equal to the other, just like a Wizard and a Cleric are equal to each other as well, but also different.

quote:

Honestly? I wouldn't even bat an eyelid, and find ~95% of people in this thread to be hilariously sanctimonous and over-reacting.

This is one detail. It isn't enough to judge game as a whole. To use it as a reason to walk off a table is ridiculous.

It's one thing if the game master constantly displays sexism or other disagreaable trait constantly. It's entirely another if the game and/or game system doesn't adhere to political correctness. I'm fine with playing a nazi and joking about gassing jews; that doesn't mean I condone holocaust. This kind of thing is not even a blip on my radar.

Also, I find many counter-arguments towards "realism" to be offensive. This is the general roleplaying forum, not the D&D subforum. You can't use idiosyncracies of one system to state that realism has no place in all games. I've seen and played a lot of games where exaggerated sexual dimorphism is in play, and they still don't come off as sexist or misogynist.

quote:

Yes. If that's your biggest problem with your DM, get gaming. Gygax himself used such a rule.

Personally I have never found the need for such a rule, as players tend to give female characters a lower strength score, on average, even without a specific rule.

quote:

But what if you aren't?

That is the prime problem with "realism has no place in games!" argument. The second problem is that sexual dimorphism isn't always about realism.

In my setting, humans are different. There are at least four distinct subspecies with differences as great as neanderthals and cro-magnons. These differences are based on real, researched differences between ancestral strains of human, albeit exaggarated for purposes of the game. Does this lead to conclusions that are not always politically correct? Yes. But if you take offense to that, you're missing the god-drat point. Examining societal implications of those exaggarated traits form majority of the roleplaying part of the game.

Same goes for Conan d20, or Noitahovi. Are settings of those games horribly sexist and occasionally racist? Sure. But they're that on purpose. The purpose of Conan d20 is to model the world of Conan the Barbarian short stories, which was violent, miserable and politically incorrect in every respect; trying to clean that away would be injustice to the source material. Noitahovi, meanwhile, is about turning many male-dominated fantasy tropes on their head, but it's not an inversion. It seeks to create an authentic, obviously historically inspired setting where women are in power despite biology being just the same, not because some arbitrary "women can be just as good!" sentiment. In fact, Noitahovi's setting couldn't exist under such sentiment. It relies on the thoughts that men are physically more imposing, but it's women who hold spiritual and social power, while men are impotent in those.

I'm sorry, but this whole "I want everyone to be welcome to my table" undercurrent running through this thread stinks of political correctness. Smoothing over inequalities and evils of fictional settings in order to make people "happier" precludes a metric ton of possible settings, scenarios and roles. It flat-out prevents serious examination of social ills through roleplaying.

I understand if that's not what everyone wants to play. Nazi jokes and dead baby comedy are not a thing for everyone either. But I, at least, can distance myself from fictional events to the point where I can laugh with the audience at jokes aimed specifically towards making me feel bad. I read Sinfest, after all, and still enjoy it.

quote:

But it's not arbitrary. In real life, women as overwhelming trend are physically weaker than men, to the point they have different standards for fitness tests and excersice regimens.

That is the rationale given in the original post; if you deny that, you are denying reality. The core complaint through this thread has been that "reality" has no place in unrealistic games, which I contest as well.

Are there, in real life, women who are stronger than some men? Certainly. But the maximum strenght records for women and men are still far apart. That is a fact, absent of any value judgement whatsoever. The core fallacy underlying this thread is that anyone who introduces rules like this is automatically making a value judgement about female characters, which isn't necessarily the case.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 15:36

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Chaltab posted:

Right, it only took the greatest hero of the Greeks take her down. What a wimp, amiright?

God, the thread on the same topic over at GiantITP is like the seeping anus of grogdom right now. It's worse than Dragonsfoot, which ... well, I knew it was spergy over there, but... I just can't post all of it. There's too much. So, some random samples.

quote:

I dont have any houserules to that regard but any player who would even consider leaving because of one to that regard should just GTFO and save us all some time and hassle.

I will not conform my world to your fantastical notions of politically correct gender equality.

quote:

Sport fencing has no relevance to this discussion.

Real fighting is up close, brutal and nasty. A heavily armored combatant isnt going to fence some girl trying to kill him. He's going to use his armor and shield as they are intended to be used and gut her. He's going to close, bash her with his shield and swing overhand as hard as he can because she simply cannot stop the momentum and force of a hard blow sent that way. Especially after being smashed in the face with your shield.

That blow is going to land hard on her collarbone and even if she's armored its going to break it. and then she has one arm (probably the shield arm) and he's going to kill her.

Fencing has rules for equality. Combat does not.

quote:

What would be the objectionable motive though? Is it sexist to believe that men are stronger than women? Is it bad to want to bring a sense of realism to some aspect of the game? If that is bad why should we have great swords do more damage than daggers? Is she trying to make playing unpleasant for females? That would seem odd considering she is a female.

I just don't see why everyone assumes that the motive for this must be sexism, even if a woman did it.

quote:

I hadn't originally thought it was a good idea to have such a house rule, and have never included one in games I have run, though upon reading this thread I may have to reconsider that. Instituting this rule may help to weed out some of the overly zealous politically correct types, assuming I am playing with people I am unsure of.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2013 06:34

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Chaltab posted:

Oh my god, you aren't kidding.

It's the perfect storm of youth + geek + devotion to a simulationist school of thought X aspergers = how dare you decline to play in a sexist DM's game, you bigot.

Such as...

quote:

Thing is, we keep redefining what qualifies as "racism" and "sexism" to the point where there is valid debate whether the efforts at removing them are in fact imposing them in the opposite direction. But your suggested refusal to even discuss it because your version of it is so obviously right means that you feel justified in ever-more-militant "social pressure" to get what YOU believe is right, and never discuss it with anybody because anybody who disagrees at any point is a bigot who is undeserving of debate.

That's the trouble with blanket labels and assertions such as "you can't reason with bigots." You are become the bigot, yourself.

Oh, and let's not stop at caps or small penalties, either.

quote:

So you would refuse to play the actual core rules for 2nd edition d&d, huh?

there is no comparable cap for men versus women, unfortunately. there is little to nothing that women have a significant advantage over men in the standard attributes in most RPGs. Maybe wisdom, since women do tend to be more pious on average. But for the most part, only strength is significantly different between men and women. It would be far more significant than -2/+2 as well, more like -4/+4.

dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Sep 9, 2013

# ¿ Sep 9, 2013 18:37

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

...and it's locked. 20 pages late. But not before a few choice bits. However, so very few of them are referencing D&D directly that most are not suitable for grogs.txt...

But! One final shot. "Chicks get -2 to Strength is not evidence of sexism."

quote:

Well, then I did, apologies there's been a lot of content in this thread and I've read drat near all of it. Nonetheless, I don't find sufficient Bayesian evidence to conclude the DM is sexist, and so I object to the idea that it is "probably, has to be" the case. If you do, I fear your evaluation differs from mine in some way that would be rather impractical to reconcile.

Strength caps aren't sexist because :biotruths:

quote:

Ah. So because a discrepancy of physical strength between genders, either in average, peak or both, has been used as a rationale for sexism it is taboo to repeat it? Even if it is factually accurate?

I'm going to make a point now. It is a very important point and the world would be much better if everyone understood it.

If it is true, it isn't sexist.
If it is true, it isn't racist.
If it is true, it isn't this-ist, that-phobic and what have you.

A sexist person might believe the truth. A racist person might believe the truth for racist reasons(like assuming someone is a criminal solely because of the colour of their skin. That's racist, even if said person coincidentally happens to have robbed and murdered a poor old grandma the day before).

But the truth itself is never bigoted. It is a contradiction of terms.
So if you want to claim that ascribing different strength caps to men and women is sexist you first have to proof that it is factually wrong.

quote:

an interesting question; what adjustments for sexual dimorphism would be fitting? I know women have a lower center of gravity; i'm not sure if that should affect tripping or not; though it certainly changes how you do certain throws for leverage. It certainly could in principle affect combat maneuvers;
I don't have good cross-cultural data on a lot of things.
Might there be one point differences in some skills?
I wonder what class distributions would tend to look like.
From the people I know, the women tend to have higher Sense Motive; but that could easily be cultural training patterns more than anything intrinsic; and I could just be wrong about the people I know.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2013 00:18

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

quote:

You see, this is why 4e is decried as being so Video Gamey;
Not only is the world Protagonist-centric, it's mostly shaped by how well your Heroes can kill things!

Dungeons and Dragons is more than "How do I reduce this thing's hit points to Zero," it's an exercise in creative problem solving!

For instance, just today I've been thinking about how to show players what kind of Dungeon Master I would be; Having them roll up an extra set of expendable Characters to send into the Kobold's Volcano den first, since those character ARE going to DIE.

It's not due to any malicious intent, it's just to spring on them the fact that the Kobolds have rigged all their stone-hewn entry tunnels to be flooded with Lava, Dwarf Fortress-style!

This says, "No, I am not going to let you just murder hobo your way through Encounters, you are going to have to THINK drat it!"

My conceive solution would be to trick the Kobolds into flooding ALL of the Entry Tunnels, trapping them inside with the fiery crater as the only means of escape, but who knows what my players might try?

The best way to teach my players not to murder hobo is to murder them, thereby teaching them who wears the Viking hat at this table.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2013 20:19

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

What D&D sacred cows should be slaughtered?

quote:

The idea that D&D as a whole has sacred cows that deserve to be slaughtered for no reason other than change for changes sake.

That sort of design should be limited to campaign-specific tweaks, and rarely or never undertaken for a campaign setting that existed prior to sending whatever particular cow to the slaughter.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2013 00:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:40

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Hahaha... Libertad took his rpg.net feminism post and dropped it on GitP.

First reply:

-----

If we're going to feel offended for the sake of being offended . . .

I'm offended pronouns are almost always female.

I'm offended in 3E D&D there exists a plethora of female-only prestige classes but the one male-only prestige class is the Eunuch.

I'm offended whenever there's a matriarchal society in some DM's game it's always She-Woman Man Hater. I acknowledge Rashemen of Forgotten Realms isn't so bad.

I'm offended fluff text will discuss "sisterhoods" alone but never "brotherhoods" alone. It's always "brotherhood and sisterhood" or "brothers and sisters".

# ¿ Oct 19, 2013 06:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > grognards.txt - sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world

«‹›5 »