>"I mean I'm not telling you what you should play,

>>53460534
I agree with you. Now go away and stop baiting.

File: throw_bag_terrorist_weird_bomb.gif (2MB, 190x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 190x300px

What really bugs me in your example is the idea that playing a thief or a spellcaster somehow doesn't put said female character on the frontline.

Even if that female character is a thief or a spellcaster, SHE'S STILL ABOUT THREE TO FOUR SWORD LENGTHS AWAY FROM THE FRONTLINE!

It's a fucking dungeoncrawl group, not a fucking company of soldiers? The frontline is FUCKING EVERYWHERE! Playing a wizard or a rogue doesn't magically place you kilometers away from the frontline! Having a warrior doesn't magically stop your opponents from manoeuvring around, changing the location of the fronline!

>>53460598
I think the issue is less about women not fighting and more about women in heavy armor swinging huge weapons around.

File: 1492731446309.jpg (155KB, 960x850px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 960x850px

>>53460631
It's fantasy

>>53460534
You're assuming that those lines would be said by the exact same person 7 out of 10 of the time. There are imbeciles, but I would think that most people would not double-think that fucking hard.

>>53460746
You sweet summer child.

File: 1729550489.jpg (327KB, 1605x1056px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1605x1056px

>>53460789
I would think that they wouldn't expose their hypocrisy that easily. They would keep quiet or save their introduction for the next session, lest they damn themselves with their own foolishness.

>>53460855
A. They dressed like that because of the technology at the time.
B. They could afford to fight dressed like that because they used large shields and fought in a phalanx formation. Anyone who fights dressed like that and is not wielding a shield, or, god forbid, is not standing elbow-to-elbow with his/her comrades, is asking to have their arteries severed.
Full plate pretty much negates the necessity of a shield, and in an age where there is technology to produce full plate, armor like this is essentially obsolete.

Just give them -1 STR/CON. Maybe give them a persuasion bonus if female or whatever race they are. Could even go with intimidate if the bitch is all scarred and geared up. Stats are there for role play. You can be wise as fuck warrior that can barely hold a sword but can go for tactics and strategy.

If she only want's to be a stronk womyn dat don't need no man that throw a few encounters her way and make her play that role by charging into them and dying when they happen to be strong enough to just flick the sword from her hands.

>>53461819
>-1 STR/CON

Women are actually tougher than men, anon.

>>53461819
That's idiotic; a PC is an individual. Sure, in general, females may be observed to have less strength or constitution, but that doesn't mean a player's PC is automatically weaker than her male counterparts.

File: IMG_8359.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>53461837
Nice.

>>53461837
This is a complete myth.

>>53460534
Who do you think would win in a deathmatch: the average woman or a manlet?

There's your answer.

>>53461889
I know you don't want to hear this but depends on the setting. Normaly a female would need more exp to reach the same lvl of strenght a male can. Since you know that men need to grind less to encrease muscle mass. Constitution can be argued because i dont see how your muscles can help you stop a sword if the fucker got trough your armour. And sure if you spread stats you can have a lot of str as female. That's why i proposed a penalty. Because if not someone can be a gnoll or orc spellcaster with the same amount of int/cha as a human or an elf.

>>53462625
What the fuck is "manlet"?

>>53462625
a manlet, easily

>>53462694
It's a term /fit/ made up for short men.

>>53462736
Short, as in like five 5', but otherwise average?

Would probably win.

File: that_post_was_so_bad_i_am_sending_benoit_to_kill_you.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>53462693
>implying you can grind exp and level up in real life

Please tell me you're playing a bit.

>>53460534
You're boring and the thread you want to start is boring.

Any person who gets triggered by characters whose physical capabilities are unrealistic in a setting with giants, dragons, hydra, griffins, trolls, or similar monstrous creatures is either trying to push an agenda or is deep on the spectrum. In either case, they'll make any game they're a part of worse, and they should be removed as soon as they voice their complaint.

>>53462995
This is /tg/, threads are only as boring as we want them to be. If you want an interesting thread, derail it and make it so. You are no longer a passive observer, you are part of the funpost dillemma!

>>53462736
Pretty sure it was supposed to be specifically for short men that attempt to compensate the low self esteem brought on from their height by becoming a ball of muscle.

As all insults, it eventually degraded into a general concept.

>>53463044
That's old /tg/, which had quality material and quality posters to work with. You're on new /tg/, which has shit and shitposters to work with.

>>53462746
Short as in 5'10 and under. Honestly anything under 6' is literally woman height and you should just start taking HRT.

>>53463031
This is always a shitty argument: bringing up all manner of magic and fantasy creatures as an evidence to why the more down-to-earth things are allowed to be unrealistic is a false equivelancy.

We don't have any of these things in the real world at all, so the threshold for what we can accept is much higher than with, say, a petite moe girl in thick fullplate swinging around a battleaxe with blades the size of her head. Because we can in theory see a girl like that attempt such a feat in the real world, and know it wouldn't work.

File: manlet.jpg (150KB, 634x699px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 634x699px

>>53462694

>>53462694
Lurk Moar

>>53463076
Even if you're the same size as a woman, you still have more muscle to work with.

>>53462850
>Implying that that Gyms aren't Str and Con exp farming locations.

>>53463070
You can be the change you want to see, or keep whining and be part of the problem. Choose.

>>53463031
So I can rock into any game you're in with a male character that explicitly has a two foot cock and a backstory that mentions it repeatedly and you'd defend me vigorously?

Good to know that's entirely true!

>>53463197
>be the change you want to see

Didn't work for America. Didn't work for economic-left idealism. Didn't work for the old internet. Why the living fuck should I expect it to work for the ruins of 4chan?

>>53460534
>the dm has issues with the players character creation

just go write yourself a short story and fuck off you literal nigger. WORST KIND OF DM

>>53463088
We can extrapolate based on existing biological principles, though. In the real world anything with the mass of a lion would be incapable of flight, anything with the mass of an elephant would have to be a quadruped, and even creatures that can regenerate limbs have to spend months regrowing them. Which means fantasy settings clearly have different laws of biology than real world ones.

So if a giant can stand despite a similarly sized human collapsing, or if a dragon or griffin can fly despite its wings being absolutely unable to lift its mass, why can't a girl run around in full plate swinging a battle axe the size of her head?

File: 1493966137793.jpg (424KB, 514x836px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 514x836px

Jesus fucking Christ, humans have genetic variation! Sure, most women can't build muscle as easily as men, but some small number can! Some people are just mutant genetic abnormalities!

>>53460687
You wouldn't happen to have the peasant version of that image would you?

>>53460534
>implying those two things have ever been said by the same person

>>53463261
>Didn't work for America
Tell me, what did the average American voter do other than be pleased with mediocrity and do nothing about confirmed corruption because they were too busy with their bread and games? They only care if the MSM has an outrage over it. The Americans were whipped by their media masters into a frenzy against their oldest allies in 2003, but when it turned out those "cheese eating surrender monkeys" aren't totally retarded, there wasn't a single peep. Responsible citizens would demand that someone would be dragged to court for this downright forging of evidence (one small vial, remember?).

>Didn't work for economic-left idealism.
Marxism and al its toxic offshoots are poison. The only change it results in are political correctness, or in its more extreme forms the gulags.

>Didn't work for the old internet.
U wot lad?

>>53460598
>Playing a wizard or a rogue doesn't magically place you kilometers away from the frontline!
Apparently I've been playing Wizard wrong.

>>53463336
D&D isn't a game. It's autism given licence to dwell and fester within the flesh of man.

>>53463325
Yep, talk shit about shit you know nothing about while saying I can "be the difference" from shitposting. Good job, 10/10, sure convinced me.

>>53463088
Your pathetic inability to suspend your disbelief isn't going to restrict my games. Learn to be less autistic.

>>53463270
But if you really start to think scientifically, you'll be going down on a road with no end.

>>53463276
Nevermind that muscle doesn't mean jackshit in fights.

Lilly the daughter of Philip the grand fencing master will easily win from Pete the half-ogre ruffian.

Doesn't matter how hard you can swing a sword if your opponent parries. Doesn't matter how hard you can swing a sword if your opponent counters and easily slides their sword alongside your mountaincleaving swing into your eye socket.

>>53463491
Yeah, sure, but a certain amount of strength is still required to be able to lift the sword at all.

>>53463450
No one's restricting your games.

They're just calling them shitty.

Which they probably are.

>>53463491
Actually there gets a point where the force from the blow means that it CAN'T be parried, but that's excessive amounts.

>>53463491
>Nevermind that muscle doesn't mean jackshit in fights.

Well, obviously, you've never been in a fight before. And it's just adorable you think that.

>>53463517
By that point you stop talking about humanoids and begin talking about crocodiles, elephants, whales, dinosaurs, etc.

>>53463526
Newsflash, jamming 50 needles of steroids in your ass won't save you if you can't properly aim your fists into the face of your opponent.

File: doctor says it like it is.jpg (39KB, 442x536px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 442x536px

Is it stupid and unrealistic to play a warrior woman in plate armor and with a greatsword? Probably not: even real world had examples of these.

Should it be normal, though? Should there be a gender equality going on in the guard barracks? Should warrior women be as commonplace, and as ordinary, as they often are in the modern media? Surely not.

And not because it's unrealistic, or because it would break someone's suspension of disbelief. But rather because it's boring.

It's a situation brought up by those who think "equality" means women should be going out there fighting just as much as the men. And all that does is turn your adventuring women into men, even disregarding all the realism issue that'd claim they would also be slightly worse at being men. It makes it look like the only way you can contribute to a story is by beating the shit out of a lot of people.

Why not have women do something else instead? Why not have them be priests and wizards more often than warriors - and why not have the few women that choose to be warriors anyway (or men that decide to learn magic) gain attention, mostly negative, for their choice, adding a new roleplaying element? Why not make the choice of genders something that actually matters, something that adds depth to the game and the campaign world?

Or shall we just keep on arguing about realism and strength? I guess that works too.

>>53463580
Yeah, but grabs/hugs/tackles/bodyblows make this pretty fucking irrelevant.

Some uppity cunt hits a big cunt repeatedly? The big cunt grabs the small cunt-- Because it turns out someone with a big reach and big hands and big digits is still fast enough comparitively that the "big" matters more than the "fast"-- lifts them like six fucking inches, tilts them slightly, and drops them HARD. And the fight's fucking over.

Moreover, this is completely ignoring that seperating DEX/STR in the first place is completely fucking retarded. Muscles make you move faster until you hit a really hard to hit limit. Ever seen a professional boxer? Ever seen a professional boxer's footwork? Go youtube that shit then shut the fuck up.

>>53463622
Problem, if you've been hit with a melee weapon once, you're dead, dying or already functioning on half capacity because you're leaking vital fluids, or using one hand to stop leaking vital fluids.

And fuck off with your DEX bullshit. You can be the most dextrous person in the world, but if you've never had any swordfighting training, you're still going to get gutted like a pig.

>>53460855
Buddy, I lived for seven years with someone who would say something, and then claim they never said it in the NEXT SENTENCE THEY SAID when it turned out they were wrong. To the point of denying a recording of them doing this was real.

Yes, people can and will be that blatant.

>>53463621
I like GRRM's and Kentaro Miura's take on it.

That way, when you see a girl or woman with a weapon, you know shit's going down. This isn't some D&D Dungeonpunk Medieval America where everything is in some kind of meta-magical place that runs on cartoon logic, you know what I mean?

>>53463621
>Is it stupid and unrealistic to play a warrior woman
Yes.
>B-But this one obscure meme-turned-legend from some 5th century scroll!
Yeah, and we had some guy using a fucking claymore in WW2. Doesn't mean trying to play a knight in fullplate during the Battle of Kursk doesn't make you a retard.

>>53463695
>swordfighting training
>implying there was one kind

Yeah, I'd actually take my bets on a full plate clad motherfucker with minimal training over someone that'd learned to use a rapier to gut people in duels over and over.

>>53463468
>We should think scientifically!
>B-But only when it agrees with me, otherwise you're thinking too much into it!

>>53463748
Oh, sure. I mean when women warriors are special, they really -are- special: they don't show up often at all, turn heads when they do, but you don't want to get in one's way because you know they've had to work hard to get to where they stand.

>>53463748
>This isn't some D&D Dungeonpunk Medieval America where everything is in some kind of meta-magical place that runs on cartoon logic, you know what I mean?

I mean I'm on your side regarding this specific debate but I don't know what you mean and I honestly think you've been exposed to more stupid arguments on the internets about RPG systems than games in play themsleves.

>>53463788
Never fight an old warrior or trust a young mage, for one knows what he does and the other does not.

>>53463776
And if you don't bet on the woman in full plate with a longsword against a big and tall ball of muscle with a rapier, you're stupid as shit.
Don't bring armor into this, dipshit. It's on a different league entirely.

>>53460534
>Wanting to play anything other than a Sikh Warrior
I guess if you want to actually lose on occasion.

>>53463844
Nigga, armor might be light by the standards most folks are thinking of, but if you've walked a decent distance with a weight training vest or a suit of rec chainmail on, you'd damn well know that strength-- or at least stamina-- and armor were conflated for a reason.

You can't do *shit* after walking too long with even a slight burden. It's like the old adage about long distance running, where an ounce at the start is a pound by the finish.

>Select all images with suits

...Nigga, I ain't that classy, I'm arguing with a cunt on the internet. Fuck you, robot.

>>53463912
And it has NOTHING to do with the discussion.
OF FUCKING COURSE someone in full plate is gonna wreck someone who got nothing, that's not a big scoop.

But someone who never wielded a sword in life, and who isn't wearing armor, is gonna get wrecked by someone who has actual training with a sword. The strenght is relevant once you actually know how to wield correctly the fucking weapon.

>>53463282
I know I have but fuck it's deep lost in my image folder
if you don't mind waiting a bit I will find it

>>53464055
I don't mind waitin mang, I fuckin love that pic. I thought for sure I already had it, but I guess not.

>>53463966
>Completely ignoring half the argument

What'd I expect from someone defending women fighting in combat, lol.

>>53463093
>James Lusted
Apparently.

File: peasant.jpg (179KB, 778x658px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 778x658px

>>53464080
this what append when you're too lazy to rename your files

File: kprvOV7.jpg (88KB, 800x519px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x519px

>>53464358
Bless you mate, your a cool guy.

>>53464178
>Moving the goalpost over and over again
What I expected too, "lol"

>>53460534
-4 Str is a lot to overcome

>>53460534
If you are a woman you are objectively shit. If you are under six feet tall you are a manlet and should be put to the torch. The only exception is dwarfbros.

I have spoken.

As much as I like to stress how different women are to men, I'm not this autistic. I mean, realistically a women trained in military combat would outclass a man who's not. Although maybe not in physical strength, but most certainly technique which I find is more important.

>>53462694
School let out early this year, huh?

>>53462693
are you litterally comparing woman to a different race? Jesus christ anon did you at least get to hold hand with a girl once?

>>53461572
>comparing shields to armor and implying they can replace each other.
So you get all your knowledge from video games I presume?

>>53465844
As opposed to your vast real-world experience with armor and shields

>>53465772
elves have -2 str
women have -4 str

So yes?

>>53463088
The myths and legends that form the basis of magic and fantasy creatures also have people performing all sorts of physical feats that are not realistic, you're just choosing to arbitrarily ignore or disregard it for some reason.
I mean you're literally pulling this "down to earth" category straight out of your ass and using it to mean whatever you personally want.

Your inability to conceive of things that can be found throughout myth and media is more a personal issue of yours, perhaps of the autism spectrum.

>>53463245
Sure, but if we're playing FATAL then don't forget to roll for anal circumference too!

I impose a -4 Str and +4 Cha stat change on females of races with sexual dimorphism favoring physicality in males, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

Also, my humans have stat caps of 18 which cannot be exceeded naturally. This means that females can easily reach 18 Charisma but cannot ever exceed 14 Strength naturally, shifting females into "party face" or spellcaster roles.

This has never been a problem, and if you play with non-tumblrites literally nobody cares, and it opens up room for diverse class/race/sex roles. The party tends to be wary around higher leveled female fighters, because their high level implies they're either sporting powerful magic items or have hidden support that outweighs any power that 2 Str mod might give them.

>>53463491
You are all fucking idiots.
A male Olympic fencer will wrek a female one every fucking time.
They are better at spacial awareness and shit.

File: deal.jpg (390KB, 860x590px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 860x590px

DEAL WITH IT

>>53463491
So your argument is that a trained swordsman will beat a thug with a strength advantage. Well duh. But on equal skill levels muscle DOES change things, so you're a fucking retard. Muscle means things in fights, skill ALSO means something in fights. It's not SKILL EXISTS THEREFORE MUSCLE REDUNDANT, it's a combination of both increasing your overall potential. You could be the best master swordsman in the world, but if you don't have the physical strength or endurance to actually parry or deflect that "mountaincleaving" swing it's gonna go through your face or break your arms.

File: la jaguarina.jpg (27KB, 280x392px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 280x392px

>>53467535
> olympic fencing being worth shit

But if you want to play games like that, I can think of two champion swordswomen who were undefeated by a bevy of male challengers, La Jaguarina/Ella Hattan, and Julie d'Aubigny/La Maupin.

Now waiting for you to explain why they 'don't count'

>>53467627
>that fat sack of shit beating anyone
Carnival tricks from the 1800s doesn't mean shit son.
Just like andy Kauffman being undefeated by putting plants in the crowd.

File: winter.jpg (80KB, 563x800px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 563x800px

>>53460687
THIS. We all know that women don't make good soldiers, but we also know that fairies and giants couldn't exist in real life. It's okay to not follow reality in fantasy games.

>>53467648
>Carnival tricks from the 1800s doesn't mean shit son.
And on cue: I-i-it doesn't count!

Even though she was recorded as having fought against multiple US soldiers during an era when fencing was a prime sport in the United States military and beat all of them, and was trained by one of the recognized greatest fencers in America up until that point, its just c-c-c-carnival tricks!

File: Untitled-1.jpg (249KB, 998x343px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 998x343px

reminder if things were equal there wouldn't be different gendered leagues in any sports.

>>53467648
>everything that's not my opinion is f-f-f-fake!

shouldn't you be on /x/ arguing that the earth is flat?

>>53467705
So the guy that trained her never beat her?
I bet you think bruce lee would be undefeated in the UFC in 2017 as well.

>>53467737
>So the guy that trained her never beat her?
Kid, coaches don't usually challenge their students to duels. It's not how things are done.

But keep displaying your ignorance.

>>53467627

Incredible skill will typically offset any direct physical advantage that an opponent might have, ESPECIALLY for a low-strength, high-risk fighting style like fencing.

It is biological fact that males are typically about 40-60% stronger than women in the upper body due to muscle density. It is also biological fact that men have superior spacial awareness as a result of sexual dimorphism and hundreds of thousands of years of genetic adaptation towards hunting and physicality.

In reality, there isn't much difference between Strength, Constitution and Dexterity, and they can't really be categorized as such. For a well-balanced (meaning a regular person, not a super-massive bodybuilder), Strength means both power and speed, and constitution as a measure of physical health isn't realistic. Consrtitution would have no equivalent in real life, except maybe overall health, which would be tied into both physical fitness and absence of illness.

Your example of your female fencer would be like comparing a 20th level fighter to a 5th level fighter. She may only have 14 Str compared to the dude's 18 Str, but when her BAB is 20 and his BAB is 5, of course she'll outwin him in duels based on merit of her skill.

>>53463076
So how's YOUR HRT coming along, miss?

File: roids.jpg (125KB, 611x590px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 611x590px

>>53467726
>opinion
learn some physiology.
Show me one female who holds records over males in current fucking history where things were recorded accurately.
Any women have the world record in deadlifts? Squats (since women are lower body dominant)? boxing? even SHOOTING?

nope.
Even roided out women can't train with just armature men.
Sure SOME women can beat SOME men, but at high levels a man will always out perform a woman at any sport.

File: 51m1xqLFpzL._AC_UL320_SR258,320_.jpg (33KB, 258x320px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 258x320px

>>53467759
>ignorance
You are so fucking dumb it's not even funny

If I cared this much about realism, I'd stop anyone from ever wearing studded leather armor and make spears basically flat superior to all other weapons

But that's not fun, so I don't do that, and neither should you

>>53467597
>>53467714
so angery /pol/v/r9k/ shitposters finally found the thread?

File: pdwm.jpg (28KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x333px

>>53467627
not the samefag but if you honestly think that porker wouldn't get winded against a thinner opponent you are in denial my dude. Male or female.

My absolute favorite thing is when people say "it isn't historically accurate!" in settings that aren't at all historical.

>>53467920
>it isn't historically accurate!
>now let my elf wizard roll for fireball damage

>>53463031
Have you seen tigers play tug of war at the zoo? You need to stack 5+ people to even come close to the tiger's strenght.
Animals are different, genders and ages are different too. We're not equal, that's wage slavery bullshit pushed to homogenize workforces. We are individuals and while yes, some women may be able to lift as much as the average male, that doesn't mean we can't point out that most can't lift shit.

In fact women who lift love to point out how weak the average woman is in reality.

>>53467996
>that doesn't mean we can't point out that most can't lift shit.
Which isn't relevant for the well above average PCs that make up the vast majority of games. Most characters, male or female, are not "normal" and are often well above the tip top of normal ability for anything even slightly similar to their own race.

>>53467920
>>53467953
Hell, some are even saying that it doesn't matter even if it happened irl because they don't like it so it's not believable and shouldn't count, see >>53463771

>>53463622
>Ever seen a professional boxer?
Yeah, they're 5'8" and 140lbs.

>>53468061
One strong woman is cool. An army of strong women is bullshit that negates the PC's uniqueness.

>>53468274
An army of strong women only makes sense if it's an amazon society

Otherwise it's just less sustainable than an all-male army in the long run

>/tg/
Since women are smaller, consider a point cap at 16 str and scale the costs accordingly in point buy while giving constitution / charisma advantages to offset this if you want to keep it mildly realistic. Steve says that it should be 14, IDGAF, do whatever your conscience allows you to. Women are the exception when talking about soldiers and warriors, but adventurers are exceptional anyway. Just don't go full SJW on me, keep muh gender threads to a minimum and we're cool.
>/pol/
Since women are smaller, do not play with any warrior women at all. There hasn't been a single successful warrior women in history cause I say so, deus vult, and no one should play with one ever, even if it's not in my group. Let's also completely forget about the kobold part of the argument

Same starting premise, at least?
But all of /tg/ is always /pol/ rite guys? guys?

I'm confused by this thread. Are there people seriously autistic enough to insist on gendered stat penalties for female characters? Women are generally physically inferior to men, but I just cannot even begin to understand the mindset of a person who will make a big deal out of it at the table. Is this like those people that get angry at the monk class in D&D because fighting with your bare hands is "unrealistic" or "historically inaccurate?" Like why choose that hill to die on?

A GM saying anything in OP's post is a big enough red flag I'd probably get out of there immediately. No game is always preferable to bad game.

>>53467819
> literally 'no u'' reply

kek

>>53460562
Fpbp
>>53462694
Oh yeah summer just started didn't it

File: 3.5 races.jpg (41KB, 500x348px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x348px

D&D has consistently portrayed perfectly ordinary, typical orcs as having muscle mass on par with some of the strongest humans in all of history. If you use orcs as a level 1 encounter, you have already conceded that realistic depictions of the impact on strength to a fight isn't something you give a single fuck about. Forget "PCs are exceptional anyway," if an orc does not represent an overwhelming threat to a standard male soldier you have completely tossed biological plausibility out the window from the word go and all-female armies are already no less plausible than the shit your setting is getting up to.

>>53463088

Hercules.

Atalanta.

>>53469303
Not all creatures have the same mass/strenght factor as humans. A 3'2" 140lbs chimp is as strong or stronger than a 6'1 200lbs human male.

>>53467996
And yet in the average game of D&D, the party fighter is probably capable of wrestling tigers once he hits level 5 or so, depending on the exact edition.

At that point, when a PC is going to be out-muscling jungle cats or ogres or whatever else with a sword, does the difference in strength between a man and a woman make that big of a difference?

If a woman is .5 and a man is 1, but a tiger is 5, and you're expected to fight things stronger than tigers, who fucking cares about representing that .5 in a meaningful way in game?

File: oGKJAd1.jpg (143KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1680x1050px

Hey let the women have equal stats already.

>>53460534
sometimes i'll, as a friend recently enlightened me to this term, cross-play (playing a female even though i am a male) becuase the group will be all male and, depending on the size of thw group, i will play a female just because 'fuck it, this group needs a chick'. im not trans or wanting to be a chick or anything, i just do it because, like i said, sometimes a big group should at least hvae 1 female
nobody ever brought up that the female part was a bad thing for the class i was playing, they only brought it up like twice when they were uncomfortable with me rp;ing as a female in some charisma based scenarios
ive been a female ranger, druid, sorceror, and fighter, and the class has neever been a problem. even when i was the fighter i was the tank because i decided to use 2 shields and luckily got a magic item that allowed me to basically do 5e monk weapon attacks as both magical and with a headbutt
i, as a dm, have never brought tat up as an issue. i did have 1 dm that did bring that up during an atomic highway game and i told him i can keep playing or i can change my character a bit to make it seem more 'realistic; for the setting and he said i should change it to be more realistic for the setting and i just didnt show up. and when the others asked why i didnt come in showed them the messages they also stopped going and it kind of made a rift beteen some of us since we were all friends but the rest of us kinda decided to not include him as a dm anymore for our games and i, personally, have decided to never dm if he is a part of a game that i am dm'ing ever. though it also stem back to him not waiting his turn to speak and when asked to rpeat what he said he either doesnt or will just say it blandly, like its everyone else's fault they idnt here him when he said something when the dm or someone else is talking, like he thinks he has charisma 20 irl, but has more charisma 12 and wisdom and intelligence 8
CONT

>>53467864
How are they wrong though, anon?

>>53469815
when you play dnd, or any tabletop game for that matter, youre supposed to have fun. heck, youre even supposed to have fun in dark souls.
that dm guy i was talking about would be too harsh on us, the players, and would keep punishing us by either giving us cursed weapons or by (literally randomly) giving us diseases every few days. the best magic weapon we got from him was a +2 javelin of lightning (that would also only do the extra lightning during a storm or very cloudy weather, which was only 3 d6's) that had a 1x per day charge

>>53460534
I think as long as it's not a regular thing that the women are stronger (i.e. the npcs that are strong are written as men while the pcs can be whatever) it's totally cool.
Though this is probably a bait thread

>>53464704
It was never -4 str. It was and always will be -4 to max str, which only affects a tiny fraction of rolled characters anyway. Because women can be strong warriors, but they can't be Conan strong.

>>53469570
Orcs are humans with green skin, pointy teeth, and bulging muscles who have a demonstrated capability to interbreed with humans. It's a huge stretch to suggest that they're anywhere near as genetically distinct from humans as an animal isn't even in the same genus.

Even if we assume, for some reason, that orcs aren't actually significantly stronger than humans despite bulging muscles being one of their most prominent features, it is madness to suggest that a nine-foot tall, eight hundred pound ogre isn't enormously stronger than a human being. Ogres are consistently depicted as low-level threats. In 3.X, a captain of the guard statted as a level 3 Fighter is a match for an ogre. In 5e, a bandit captain and a cult fanatic are CR'd as a match for an ogre, and a knight is CR'd as more dangerous than an ogre.

There's no getting around the fact that D&D is consistently portrayed as a world where experienced but otherwise unexceptional combatants are a match for creatures who are clearly far stronger than them, and that orcs who are clearly depicted as being much stronger than humans (no matter how many stupid mental gymnastic you go through to try and pretend they aren't) are not significantly more dangerous than regular soldiers.

>>53470110
Horses and donkeys aren't the same animal but can still breed.
The way I see it ogres have osteoporosis, limited movement and bad density/force dynamics.

And a 800lbs animal being a pussy doesn't excuse gender dimorphism on humans even if these are special humans that can kill ogres. A woman warrior would still be a handicap as soon as the party faces other humans rather than greenskins.

>>53463781
>b-but only until we jump conclusions I like then we should STOP

Can I imagine a girl running around in full plate swinging a battle axe the size of her head?
Sure. She's some weird race with cat-like increased muscle density or whatever. That'll be +2 ECL thank you very much AND male counterparts of her race are still better than she is on average at said running around.

On the other hand, can I imagine a vanilla human girl doing that? Nope, and if you would follow your scientific reasoning to the end, you wouldn't either.

>>53470151
>experienced human, man or woman, can beat an ogre in hand to hand combat
>therefore, such a woman is a liability against bandits who are even weaker than ogres

I'm not following you

>>53460562
fp

bp

>>53470170
I pity your imagination if the only way you can imagine a woman being strong is with that weirdness.

Somehow you are not only incapable of imagining a woman swinging an axe, but you're also incapable of imagining a fantasy version of a woman that would swing an axe as well as a man without having a penalty attached and still being weaker than other, even stronger men?

Maybe RPGs just aren't for you.

>>53470170
>>On the other hand, can I imagine a vanilla human girl doing that? Nope
So you can't imagine something rather ordinary that happened in real life?

Either you've never heard of women Black Agnes or Jeanne la Flamme, or you'll invent reasons 'they don't count'. Hell, even Jeanne D'arc, stereotyped as a 'cheerleader' by neckbeards, still wore full plate without any difficulty and she was a teenage girl.

>>53461837
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-YeWnIJfU

If that's not enough, the highest weight class in women's weightlifting in the Olympics is 75+kg, the closest comparison is the men's 77kg. The woman with the highest total weight in the 2016 games, the GOLD MEDALIST Meng Suping, had a score of 307. The men' gold medalist Nijat Rahimov, who set a clean&jerk world record by the way, had a total of 379. Not just higher, but hilariously higher. The idea that women are as physically capable as men is pure idiocy.

PS, she weighed 265lbs at the time, he weighed 168. She was BIGGER THAN HIM, and he still lifted more. Women, stronger? No, not even close.

File: Jeanne_Hachette.jpg (96KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x600px

>>53470170
>Can I imagine a girl running around in full plate swinging a battle axe the size of her head?

Jeanne Hatchette was a real person, anon.

>>53470232
- cannot imagine a human girl running around in full plate running around swinging battle axe the size of her head
- this clearly means I cannot imagine a woman swinging an axe
Fuck off you goal-posts-moving dipshit, go peddle your shitty medieval america equality bullshit somwhere else.

>>53470288
Full plate is not as heavy or as cumbersome as you seem to think it is. It doesn't take much strength to wear it.

>go peddle your shitty medieval america
The irony is palpable, considering you don't know anything about medieval history or its arms and armour based on the stuff you've been saying.

>>53465844
Anon, why do you think two handed weapons were even a thing? Because once your armor was good enough, you didn't need a shield.

>>53461889
The average woman is weaker than the average man. A strong, fit woman i weaker than a strong, fit man. A woman adventurer is weaker than a male adventurer. A female adventurer may be stronger than a PEASANT man, but not a fit one.

>>53470151
>Horses and donkeys aren't the same animal but can still breed.

Horses and donkeys are in the same genus, dumbass (see also: tiger and lion). There's a reason I brought genus up. The gap between humans and chimps is larger than that between horses and donkeys.

>The way I see it ogres have osteoporosis, limited movement and bad density/force dynamics.

No one gives a shit about your fanfiction. Ogres are clearly portrayed as being strong as fuck. Being big, strong bruisers is their entire schtick.

>>53470251
Yeah, all three women you mentioned were TOTALLY running around in full plate swinging batlle axes. TOTALLY. I bet you can find me some citations on that. Protip: just 'dressed in battle armor' and 'commanded the fight' means she was standing behind not moving much.

Also, when I was talking about 'girls', I was fucking talking about 12 years olds not 19 years old. Can a 19-year-old human female don a fullplate and run around swinging a battle axe? Likely yes, if she had a corresponding training regime. I doubt people here deny that. But guess what, her male counterpart will be much more effective at it -- on average -- he will run farther and faster, swing harder and do more swings, he will even land more swings, which will give him -- on average -- an insurmountable advantage in combat.

God you medieval liberal muh equality faggots are annoying.

>>53463450
That's not even autism, friendo.

Why is it so difficult to just have women and men be approximately equal in strength in a fantasy world? It's a fucking fantasy world

>>53470357
>Protip: just 'dressed in battle armor' and 'commanded the fight' means she was standing behind not moving much.
Protip: Jeanne Le Flamme lead from the vanguard.

You should read a couple of history books some time.

>Also, when I was talking about 'girls', I was fucking talking about 12 years olds not 19 years old.

Ah yes, the average age of a DnD adventurer. Keep on shifting those goal posts.

>>53470375
Because /r9k/ thinks ruining people's fun with their stupid political agenda is okay when they do it.

>>53470357
>God you medieval liberal muh equality faggots are annoying.
Yeah, facts that are inconvenient to my preconceived sense of reality piss me off too.

>>53470383
>Jeanne Le Flamme lead from the vanguard.
And she was fucking older than 30 when she did it.

>Ah yes, the average age of a DnD adventurer. Keep on shifting those goal posts.
When I say 'girl', I mean 'adult female'. Because then I can claim that my ridiculous statements are actually accurate.

Whatever, let's assume that words mean whatever you want them to mean. Can I imagine adult human female running around in full plate swinging an axe the size of her head? Sure, why not. The barracs are still male-only in my setting because on fucking average the males are better at that sort of things.

>>53466188
>elves have -2 str
You're thinking of Con, not Str. Elves are as strong as humans. Well, unless you're looking at 1e, where male elves can reach 18/75, half elves 18/90, dwarves and half-orcs 18/99, and humans 18/00. But that's a cap, not an adjustment, and certainly much less consequential than -2.

>>53470188
If normal humans like knights can beat an ogre, then the experienced bandits that can beat a knight can also beat an ogre and therefore are more dangerous.
Humans in general are more dangerous than the shit ogre, or the world has no internal consistency.

>>53465844
Get a load of this fucking retard.

>>53470403
>preconceived
Gender dimorphism in regards to physical strength and fighting ability is preconceived. You should try harder.

>>53470331
>A female adventurer may be stronger than a PEASANT man, but not a fit one.
And "may" is the operative word here. Female athletes have been beat by amateur men fairly often.

>>53470375
Because normativity ruins heroics.
If everyone can kill an orc this isn't LotR, it's cripple genocide.

You want a female warrior, make a real fucking good reason why she can even compare to the average male and people will not only not whine but actually like her.
Make it so "women are as good as silly boys desu" and people will be praying for her (or the faggot playing "her") to fail her saves.

>>53470513
You'll want to look up what "preconceived" means.

>>53470535
>everyone can kill an orc
No they can't. Badass fighters can, regardless of gender. Normal people are fucked

>>53470761
Why would he do that when he can just keep shitting himself in public view?

>>53460534

It always makes me feel vaguely uncomfortable to see women in frontline combat, because having them take brutal hits is a bit weird.

Like, if they're in the middle of bone-crunching attacks or have an axe smacked into their gut, it's hard not to feel uncomfortable. Men are expected to take hits, get all bloody and messy and come back for more, but a woman having her guts carved off strikes me as hard to communicate.

>>53470810
Even regular soldiers of the line kills orcs in LotR though.

>>53470959
I can guarantee that if you got an axe smacked into your gut you'd feel uncomfortable regardless of gender.
Why do you hate men?

Sometimes I wonder why I stopped regularly browsing /tg/, and then this tired, dead horse of a thread that was already wizened 4 or 5 years ago crops up and I remember.

Are people having fun? Does the realism of the game type require it? (High fantasy vs low fantasy, etc.) does it make any sense to impose mechanical penalties for gender if you're just houseruling it and don't realize the optimization clusterfuck you're making? Does it affect anyone's actual character and concept? You've got to ask yourself these questions before this thread's premise can even come up.

>>53470992
>Why do you hate men?

Whether it's because of biology or centuries-old gender preconceptions and traditions, it's the position men are often put, while women are not. Just having women go into the fight the same way, without anyone batting an eye to it or indeed not feeling uncomfortable in any way, would be dealing away a great deal of good roleplaying opportunities.

>>53470992

I don't. I'm a guy. But as a GM, describing a man having his throat slit and a woman having her throat slit is very different. If I used the exact same description of bloody and violent death for the latter, people would claim it's fetishistic.

>>53463491
>dexfags believe this

>>53471025
>If I used the exact same description of bloody and violent death for the latter, people would claim it's fetishistic.
If that's actually true, then either your friends are retards, or your description was fetishistic to begin with. Are you perhaps Matt Mercer?

>>53470992
If you kill a man you're a normal criminal, if you kill a female you're deranged.

One more reason to hate female PCs as a DM. You literally have to let them live through failures in combat, otherwise you're "weird" at best, and a mysoginist rapist serial killer at worst.

>>53463276
>but some small number can!
You mean like, three people out of eleven billion?

>>53463491
>Nevermind that muscle doesn't mean jackshit in fights.
This is a ridiculous statement. Your entire post is unbelievably ridiculous.

>>53471106

But I AM a...Oh, good point.

>>53467777
>It is biological fact that males are typically about 40-60% stronger than women in the upper body due to muscle density.
And note that this is for *normal*, 5' something manlets. Any guy who's actually tall and strong is going to outstrip a tall and strong woman by even more.

I'm still 100% fine with female martial characters, mind. Realism is the dumbest concept to have ever entered role playing.

>>53469570
This really just exarcebates the problem. Have you seen the stats for a gorilla? In real life, a gorilla is up to 20 times as strong as a man, but their strength in DnD is only in the low twenties.

>>53471278
>their strength in DnD is only in the low twenties
>only

I think anything above 20 is pretty damn good actually, and probably represents "20 times stronger" better than literally giving them 200 strength average.

>>53470970
It depends on what your threshold for "badass" is. Regular line warriors are pretty badass compared to 0-level commoners.

>>53471308
Have you seen the movies? Read the books? In LotR regular soldiers are conscripts, not professionals.

>every post that asks "why should it be realistic, none of it is" is outright ignored since you can't apply /r9k/ logic to these simple facts

Like pottery.

Also don't the setting guides for RPGs usually explicitly say "IN X, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CAPABILITIRS OF MEN AND WOMEN"

meaning from the outset it's established normal rules don't apply

>>53471004
>>53471025
>>53471106
So what about gender equality and all that? No, when I DM (and I often do, being foreverDM of main play group) I always treat male and female PCs the same.
Except yeah, particularly nasty enemies can decide to not kill females so that they can rape them later, of course. Then again, a capable warrior is probably too dangerous to keep alive that long anyway.

>>53471355
>Eomer's host
>Knights of Dol-Amroth
>Citadel Guard
>Conscripts

While the Battle of Helm's Deep in particular does depict Rohan calling up absolutely every remotely able-bodied man they have available, and the (detailed and thorough) list of soldiers raised to defend Minas Tirith does include about 10% of their forces being just random farmers, fishers, and hunters who picked up an axe and helped out, the majority of soldiers in LotR have in fact received training in battle. The movies don't ever depict any of the especially old or especially young conscripts actually fighting (unless you count the old guy who accidentally loosed an arrow at the start of Helm's Deep), but it certainly implies that these poor bastards are little more than cannon fodder against the uruk-hai, primarily there to tire the enemy out before and distract them during fights with the real warriors, and maybe get a few lucky kills of their own. Employing them was a measure of desperation taken because, if Helm's Deep fell, everyone was going to be butchered anyway, so they may as well get butchered on the front lines where they have a chance of saving someone else's life.

The orcs aren't portrayed as being particularly dangerous to the trained soldiers, though.

>>53460534

Oh come the fuck on. No one has ever said this ever. Stop making shit up. I refuse to believe in your artificial scenario.

Everyone replying should feel bad.

>>53463276
>but some small number can!

If you place those outliers against the outliers of very low test males probably.

On average men will have an easier time building athletic ability and conditioning than women and will have an easier time recovering from injury.

>>53463491
>Nevermind that muscle doesn't mean jackshit in fights.

This is wrong to a certain degree.

>Lilly the daughter of Philip the grand fencing master will easily win from Pete the half-ogre ruffian.

Not necessarily. If given two people, A and B, A is skilled in some form of combat and B is athletically superior. As you increase the amount of training and experience B gets the likelihood of A winning due to that skill gap closes exponentially.

>Doesn't matter how hard you can swing a sword if your opponent parries.

Actually it does. If you've ever done any HEMA and you've sparred against someone bigger and more athletic than you who is aggressive AND has some technique they can blow right through anything you put up with, for example, German longsword.

And you're ignoring that your only real response to that kind of pressure is versetzen which is itself an aggressive, strong parry. Absetzen and trying to play eye poke is just going to get your sword blown through and you're taking a shot to the head.

I did it plenty of times as a larger and more athletic guy (with a lot of experience in other stuff, wrestling, kickboxing, MMA, Judo, BJJ) when I first started with HEMA. People who had been training longer than me and had done pretty well in tournaments I could blow through their parries and guards and then rush to grapple having only learned the cuts and guards.

>>53471405
If you ever have to describe a female being murdered while there's a woman at the table I guarantee your playgroup will disorganize and eventually collapse from then onward as she convinces everyone else that you are creepy and personally have it against her and shit, even if the dead character was an NPC.

>>53471405
>So what about gender equality and all that?

Equal doesn't mean identical. It means both men and women get to be treated much the same in day-to-day situations, get the same opportunities for adventure, equal share of coin, etc. It doesn't mean women as warriors wouldn't draw some looks, that men wouldn't want to instinctively keep them out of harm's way, or that it wouldn't bring up some comedic situations out in town.

Why do you want to get rid of good roleplaying opportunities and background fluff, in favor of making all men and women so much as genderless puppets?

>>53465844
>So you get all your knowledge from video games I presume?
Apparently you do.

It's pretty well accepted that historically (in Europe) as the quality and coverage of armor increase the size and use of shields decreased.

>>53471483
I think the problem Is you are playing with shitty people.

Ive run games with women in more often than I've run games without, and that has literally never happened once

>>53471365
People almost never read the rules or the setting. They go in with a lot of assumptions, one of those being that fantasy humans are much like real humans, and for real humans, women are more weak and frail, more important to protect, etc.

>>53471483
She me on the doll where the tumblrina hurt you.

>>53471494
>bring up some comedic situations out in town.

Oh, boy. I can't wait to see what shitty anime """comedy""" you think is worth taking up table time for.

>>53471422
Did we even see the same movie? Or read the same books?

>>53471539
>I play exclusively with other /r9k/ shut-ins and they all agree that my extremely specific obsession with realism makes the most sense!

And that's if we're being generous enough to assume that you 1) aren't just assuming that your weird personal hang-ups are totally normal and not at all a sign of your own deep insecurity, you guys, seriously, and 2) you even have a group at all, neither of which are safe assumptions.

>>53471483
But to have done that several times. Play group has been running for years now. Your guarantee isn't worth shit.

>>53471555
Are you gonna point to a specific scene or passage that contradicts what I said? 'Cause I've been citing specific scenes and information from the movie and books and so far you're just bullshitting. What part of the movies or books made you think that Lord of the Rings used primarily conscript armies in any battle but Helm's Deep, and what part made you think that those conscripts were doing as well as the professional soldiers? Tolkien tells us exactly what Gondorian forces show up to defend Minas Tirith, and "fishers," "farmers," and "herdsmen" are specifically called out as being separate from "soldiers."

>>53471466
Lucia Rijker the best female fighter in history lost to a kickboxing amateur who has no other memorable fight to his name and notoriously held back, the olympic female soccer team lost to a SoCal male high school team, Karsten Braasch beat the Williamas sisters one after the other without even trying.

Women at the very apex of their talents are worse athletes than male teenagers. If they can easily kill orcs in 1v1 martial combat, then orcs are not dangerous.

>>53471278
>a gorilla is up to 20 times as strong as a man, but their strength in DnD is only in the low twenties

In 3.5, having a strength of 22 means you can carry 173 lbs without being the slightest bit encumbered.

That's pretty fucking strong.

>>53471301
Untrue. According to lifting and carrying rules in DnD, I would have 22 strength. A gorilla is roughly 16 times as strong as I am.

>>53463093
>5ft 8in
>average female height
What a spicy image.

>>53460534
So many people missed the point of OP's post, which was less "women<men" than "player who claims women<men plays trope breaking hypocrite character after saying women<men"

>>53462625
Here's the thing, I got 2 short friends whom I kid you not, both look like and act like standard fantasy dwarves.

>>53471872
All manlets with beards are secretly dwarves trying to learn the secrets of nuclear fusion from mankind.

>>53471863
Yeah, but that makes for a less of a shitstorm so who cares.

File: 45382b94816a046d7df9251f2fe9487f.jpg (73KB, 640x462px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x462px

>>53460534

File: myth-busters-2016[1].jpg (162KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1200x600px

>Suspension of disbelief makes it so I can ignore things about physiology that are blatantly wrong
>Also women are just as tough as men, and they deserve to be frontline warriors
No

>>53471568
About half of my group are women though

>>53471603
When I come home I will check the books again and post a reply.

>>53471886
I wouldn't be surprised if one of them already knows. They both spend most of there time making all kinds of weapons and armor from scrap, blowing shit up with fireworks and belching while drinking beer.

>STR (and maybe CON) is capped at either 16 or 14 if you wanna go full realism
>In exchange, women can add a free +1 or + 2 to DEX, WIS, INT, PER
>Make it clear RP wise warrior women are a rare sight in the setting unless you're doing an Amazon thing. Don't need to be a dick and hammer this in but a passing comment here or there works
There, I think that should solve the issue. Since from a gameplay perspective it's kind of weird to play a character who is 'objectively inferior' and just gets a malus with no upside to them. And of course ooc it may rub the players the wrong way you're insisting that women are 'objectively inferior' via the mechanics of the game.

Yes, Realistically women are more than disadvantaged to be in such physically demanding occupation but so is the sickly wizard with like 5 CON who somehow manages to not pass out and die when the party marches 30 miles in a day. And design wise you should always get something to offset a malus in character creation.

>>53471900
There's always an abnormal exepction when it comes to gender and race especially IRL.
Thing is that when you are playing the "adventurer" you are usally playing an abnormal special snowflake person so anything goes really.

I think the problem with what OP means is that he hates hypocritical people whom state "this gender is weird for X while other race which literally has non complacent stats for X is a great idea"

>>53472063
Have you played Mount & Blade? Because that's almost exactly what Mount & Blade tells you on char gen when you get to pick a sex.

>>53472154

Doesn't fuck with your stats though does it, I thought it was just people just treat you like shit.

Which is actually hilarious when uppity nobles insult you and you can duel them for honour and fuck them raw

>>53472063
Your suggestion would make women objectively superior, since casters are better to begin with.

>>53472220
Depends on the system.

>>53472198
You can change your stats around, but men get IIRC a free point of Strength and a powerstrike skill, and females get a free point of Intelligence and a surgery skill.

You can alter all stats though, so it's really more of a thematic guideline. You can build your own sneaky weakling commander dude or your own HULKINA SMASH Amazon warrioress.

In my homebrew system, men get +2 bravery, +1 strength on 0-8 scale.

I think it is much more realistic than -4 strength for women in 3-18 scale.

>>53472227
Isn't the guard egalitarian by design, tho?

>>53472346
What do women get?

>>53472382
Justice bias when vying for children custody and a lifetime supply of financial support.

>>53472389
Do those things come up a lot in the games?

>>53472422
Games?

File: IMG_1342.png (646KB, 1050x1050px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1050x1050px

>>53461837
Not even close.

>>53471903
>My Canadian girlfriend likes it when I give her stat penalties! And so does her sister, and they're both totally hot and we do it all the time!

>>53470151
>The way I see it
Nobody gives a fuck, buddy. You're backpedaling to get out of this guy's argument. Fantasy creatures like orcs and ogres are strong and scary to humans, that's their thing. Yet they aren't stronger than a fucking knight in the actual mechanics. Who gives a shit about your "well maybe ogres have a disease" or "Maybe orcs muscle density blah blah"

>>53471025
If your description was fetishistic for the female, it's fetishistic for the male. Faggot.

>>53472647
>stat penalties
What? Why would I do that?

>>53463491
Have you ever been in a real fight, twig?

>>53472928
Clearly you never have been in a real fight. I'm a big dumb gymrat, and I can't fight for shit, because it doesn't matter I can ram a dent in a gym locker, if my fists don't connect to your face, you're not going to feel any pain.

>>53469303
>gnome taller than halfing
wha

>>53472346
>>53472382

Men get -4 to max wisdom?

>>53472382
Nothing, human women are baseline.

>>53461889
That isn't an argument though, especially when you have racial stats. Being an Elf doesn't mean you're automatically weaker than an Half-Orc, but guess who's getting +2 at STR.

>>53473069
Why would men get a wisdom penalty?

>>53463093
Who uses Imperial measurements and spells it "colour"

If you're going to shop fake text on an image, use your brains!

File: 0nRaL1r.gif (492KB, 500x232px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 500x232px

>>53473094
All of D&D is now measured by human women. I like it.

>>53473134
For missing the obvious.

>>53473147
Fairly certain the British do.

>>53473147 >>53473194
Canadians tainted by americans do that as well.

>>53473194
The elderly still do, yeah. Metric system's been taught in schools for ages now.

>>53473167
That should probably be skill penalties, Wisdom's too tied to other things like willpower and intuition to justify a whole-stat penalty.

>>53473243
>>53473223
>>53473194
Let me rephrase that.

No competent press writer uses Imperial measurement and spells it "colour".

If you're going to shop fake text on an image, use your brains!

>>53473385
>Welsh news
>competent

>>53460534
Well if we were doing realism women would have no class skills sept for sucking ducks and bluff.

>>53473418
And all men could do would be to drink beer and scratch their balls.

>>53473124
What if you left racial bonuses but capped everyone at 18 for level 1?

Might be a bit awkward for rolled stats but it keeps the freaks of nature on a level playing field while leaving the average joes distinct.

>>53473435
That's wildly untrue, I know some men who don't drink.

File: Actually+it+might+not+be+heresy+it+s+been+stated+in+_8b0656027a40b3f32d5f5df4e73fd0c8.png (46KB, 212x200px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 212x200px

>>53473373
When did D&D get a "making good decisions" skill? Because I'd agree with you if there was one. I'd also like to submit >>53473418 stunning comment as case evidence.

>>53473435
t. womyn

>>53473491
>What is a humorous retort

>>53473511
>You
>Knowing comedy
Pick one

>>53473487
Are you implying that women are on average better at making decisions than men? Because that seems a fair bit more difficult to substantiate than a comparison of muscle power.

Also, the initial stat line already gave men +2 bravery.

>>53473547
There's a reason why men pay more for insurance then women, just saying.

Your homebrew is your deal, but we're talking about stupid D&D rules from ages ago. If you've got a statline describing morals do women get a +2 to compassion? Or a +2 to fortitude? If it doesn't I'd question why you were building a game that was intentionally unbalanced.

>>53470492
That's anon's whole point. The ogre is less dangerous than humans despite being overwhelmingly stronger physically. If the mechanics don't really care about what would be "reee-uh-lis-tick", then it shouldn't matter in less extreme instances either. That is to say, the difference between an ork and a human is greater than between a man and a woman. The game doesn't care about the former distance, so it shouldn't care about the latter.

>>53460534
I seriously hope you don't play with that player anymore. Anyone who correlates class with character depth is clinically retarded.

>>53473767
>I seriously hope you don't play with that player anymore.
Anon, this might be hard to hear, but OP didn't actually experience the things he wrote about. He wrote those things just to sow discord on /tg/.

>>53473670
It's not my homebrew, I'm just noting that 'bravery' seems like a pretty good substitute for 'makes bad decisions' without actually being a negative stat.

And men pay more for insurance because they die earlier, which is only the result of bad decisions if you count being born male or getting a labour-intensive job as bad decisions, since it's in large part driven by workplace accidents and higher elderly mortality rates.

>>53473811
I have no way to verify that. Just speaking from my experience in case people here hold onto bad players in fear of losing game that they probably won't enjoy much because of said players anyway.

>>53465844
>>53466164
>>53470497
>>53471525
>>53460855
pssstttt . . the joke is in that it's real armor being nitpicked by very intelligent idiots who just know enough to get themselves into trouble but not really know whats up.
But then, I'm here assuming this is in anyway not a bunch of trolls trolling trolls ad infinatum

>>53473822
>And men pay more for insurance because they die earlier, which is only the result of bad decisions if you count being born male or getting a labour-intensive job as bad decisions, since it's in large part driven by workplace accidents and higher elderly mortality rates.
Men pay more for car insurance because they tend to be more reckless drivers and get into accidents at higher rates than women.

>>53460534
>It's a FANTASY setting, so it doesn't have to line up with reality all that much, and it's not like there were never female fighters on the front line in real life either.

>>53473822
If we can convert "making bad decisions" into a "bravery" stat then we should be able to switch -4 to max str into another stat as well, that way both genders dont suffer a malus but still get something unique.

Men also pay more for insurance because they engage in more at-fault risks. Things like drinking, smoking and reckless endangerment. They also dont tend go to the doctor when they have an issue and heaven forbid they ask for directions every once and a while.

I will but a big caveat to this and say that alot of that is a cultural thing where we except this from dudes.

>>53473894
Only under the age of 25, which is when both men and women tend to make different kinds of equally stupid decisions.

>>53462694
First time here? Go find out what 'kys' means.

>>53473894
>Men pay more for car insurance because they tend to be more reckless drivers and get into accidents at higher rates than women.
As opposed to what? Women who get into accidents because they had to take a selfie or text their friends?

>>53473939
>Only under the age of 25
That's a large part of it that gets the ball rolling, but not the only factor. Men have a greater tendency to buy showy "performance" cars that can only be insured at higher rates.

>>53473959
>As opposed to what?
...As opposed to women who get into accidents at lower rates than men?

I don't know what you're trying to say, anon. You look like you're trying to argue, but your post was phrased so retardedly that it doesn't make any sense in context.

>>53472560
Why the fuck would you pick grip strength and not something like lifting capacity or punch force? Because I've never thought, "I'm not sure she'd be up to the task, because it doesn't look like she can *grip* shit powerfully enough." I have to believe that other studies have performed related to more useful criteria. So why is it that it's always this one study on grip strength that gets referenced? Is it a case of cherry-picking? Is grip strength in particular more strongly skewed? It just seems like a weird metric to me.

>>53474015
I'm saying that both sexes are capable of being fucking stupid behind the wheel, it's why most car insurance companies shit on new drivers so much and people under the age of 30.

>>53473959
No no, Women get into accidents as well, but they tend to get into alot less. If Women have to deal with the ol'-4 to str then men have to deal with going 40km over the speed limit in the rain well blasting CCR.

>>53471607
I'm not sure how this is a counter to my point.

>>53472962
>I'm a big dumb gymrat, and I can't fight for shit, because it doesn't matter I can ram a dent in a gym locker, if my fists don't connect to your face, you're not going to feel any pain.

Now step into a real boxing gym, like Freddie Roach's place in Vegas, for a few months and maybe get a few amateur fights under your belt.

That would go a long way to you winning over someone significantly lighter than you.

This is entirely for demonstration and made up numbers:

You weigh 250 pounds and are 6'2" tall. You have a 0 in Fighting Skill. You are at 0% chance to win.

Your opponent weighs 140 pounds and is 5'6" tall and has 10 in Fighting Skill (let's say he's a Golden Gloves boxer). His chance to win is 100%.

Now every time you gain a point in Fighting Skill the chances of you winning are increased by 5% x [skill level+2%bodyweight]. There's going to be a point where the lighter guy, regardless of having a higher concrete level of skill, is going to be on the wrong side of that probability and it's going to come fast.

>>53473511
>>What is a humorous retort

Women aren't funny though.

>>53473930
Were someone to put a gun to my head and force me to add gender differences to a setting I'd give NPC men +1 Str, NPC women +1 Cha, and then completely ignore that for actual PCs. I just found the idea of slapping a -4 to Wis on someone much worse than -4 Str because at least the latter doesn't claim anything about their brain.

Lol. /tg/ is so triggered by the idea of women fighting.

PC's don't need to (and probably shouldn't) reflect the general populace. You may be taking a more exclusive sample of women (maybe the top 1% in fighting ability compared to the top 10% or even 30% for men). You may even be taking a slice within those samples that favors upper body strength (or whatever) in women. And that's ignoring different societal and evolutionary pressures in our fantasy world (in a world without the same distinct gender roles we're used to, where as many women as men have been warriors since time immemorial, we could expect physical prowess and fighting ability would be selected for in women as strongly as for men). And even basic biology may work different in Magic Land where humanity was created from the tears of the earth goddess after blah, blah, blah. So there should be absolutely no problem with treating women identically to men as far as attributes go.

With that said, differentiation is not necessarily something to avoid. I sometimes like to give a token difference to make the sexes stand out from one another, something like: +1 strength for men, +1 dexterity for women (or +1 dexterity, -1 strength for women, with men are serving as a baseline). Maybe even double that could be warranted, though you might have to increase the adjustments you give to demi-humans to compensate. But at the end of the day, if somebody came to me and said they really, really wanted their female character to be as strong as a man, or their male character to be as dexterous as a woman, I'd probably given in and let them use the adjustment for the opposite sex. Gender differences can be interesting, but I'd ultimately like my players to be able to have the kind of character they want.

>>53474257
>Were someone to put a gun to my head and force me to add gender differences to a setting I'd give NPC men +1 Str, NPC women +1 Cha
Charisma primarily pertains to leadership ability, and I really don't think that men are at a deficit there.

>>53474053
>If Women have to deal with the ol'-4 to str then men have to deal with going 40km over the speed limit in the rain well blasting CCR.
So what you're saying is that if women have -4 str, the only adventurers will be men?

File: 1748916-gutsvsserpico.jpg (262KB, 618x508px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 618x508px

>>53463491
>strength doesent matter

you know if you swing hard enough, your opponent cant parry.

>>53463093
If that dude's 5'8" then I'm an immortal space wizard

>>53474261
>Lol. /tg/ is so triggered by the idea of women fighting.
I don't think it's so much that as that /tg/ is so starved for quality threads these days that we all leap at the chance to shitpost in yet another -4 STR thread.

>>53474324
>If that dude's 5'8" then I'm an immortal space wizard

Yeah it turns out just any old person can edit text and post it online these days.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/10/dwarf-handed-crayons-and-colouring-book-as-couple-sat-down-for-romantic-dinner-4900432/

>>53474257
I'd do the same. Im just angry because of comments like >>53473418 Im not even all that pissy about the original -4 to max strength because of D&D roots in wargaming. I think it would be an interesting roleplaying opportunity. But once again, people like >>53473418 make something interesting into something abusive.

>>53474289
No. Im saying that if women get -4 to STR then men get -4 to WIS for all the reasons above.

>>53474285
Charisma mostly deals with the conversational ways in which you convince other people you're right. Actual leadership skills after you have people willing to listen would come from int and wis, which aren't at a disadvantage. That's also ignoring all the possibilities for cultural and religious barriers that shift it from the average woman always talking her way into a leadership position over the average man (or keep it there in a society where, say, the complexities of female politicking are keeping equal or better-suited men from holding office).

File: 1420483228278.png (148KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 300x300px

>>53463076
>Honestly anything under 6' is literally woman height and you should just start taking HRT.
If only that were true

>>53474419
I was just saying that nearly all adventurers are already doing the setting's equivalent of breaking the speed limit while drunk off their asses.

File: giphy.gif (431KB, 245x200px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 245x200px

>>53474500
5'11. Better grow some breasts.

>>53474500
At least they're not Parisian feet. Poor fucking Napoleon.

File: 1409716031749.png (133KB, 401x400px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 401x400px

>>53474536
>tfw manlet but too tall to be a cute girl

File: 1433442561_11113614_705623596234853_7073463046177666202_n.jpg (35KB, 490x388px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x388px

>>53474506
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe that's why the vast majority of PC's are edgy murder hobos.

>>53474573
Isn't it sad?

File: 9gvpHRVmN3u4ldCPLa2xRtqddaaTXDxGn2BapORvWkE.jpg (72KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x666px

>>53474573
Hey. Hey. You listen to me. Im just a hair less then 6ft. When I tell people im trans they assume im moving from female to male. You can do it. You can do almost anything you put your mind to. Screw the haters. You do you Boo.

>>53463076
So for most of human history, everyone should have been a woman?

Maybe Japan has it right.

>>53474641
You're a womyn?

File: 1485616475518.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>53474862
I'm a badass.

I don't get why /pol/fags propagate the -4STR meme I mean I'm a /pol/fag myself but I try not to be too overt about it
It's like adding niggers to your setting so you can complain about niggers and hey, look at all the story opportunities you get from being confronted by niggers in town because you went into the wrong neighborhood!
It's a fantasy game why not just leave the fucking niggers out of it we have enough of them in real life just like we have enough worthless females in real life just use orcs and elves instead

>>53474043
>I'm saying that both sexes are capable of being fucking stupid behind the wheel,

The people with the actuarial tables disagree.

>>53475016
No, he's right, more than zero women act stupid behind the wheel.

It's just that the point is irrelevant to the statistical averages.

>>53463371
No anon, the autism was in you all along. "Normal" roleplayers have normal games. People shitposting on /tg/ all day autistically obsess over retarded shit.

>>53470254
>Strength equals toughness
lmao

>>53468099
Google Mike Tyson or the Klitschko brothers. Just names literally everyone knows. I'd also bet on a 5'8" pro boxer against your dumb sedentary ass.

>>53463491
Thing is strength comes from muscles. So does speed and endurance. Acuracy comes from neurological connections and you strengthen those by using the muscles conected to them.

IRL strength, stamina and skill all come from the same source and even if you focus training on one you end up getting all the others.

>>53475205
>IRL
Irrelevant when talking about fantasy games.

>>53471777

>i would have 22 strength by the lifting and carrying rules

Bullshit

Post vid of your 520 lb OHP, your 1040 lb dl and your 2600 lb sled pull, ill wait because im excited to see hecules irl who has an almost wr dl and above a wr ohp

>>53475205
>>53475257

Suspension of disbelief only works when logical consistency is kept throughout the whole narrative. Without that -4 to STR alot of the european ideals of chivalry that D&D based its morality off of come off as illogical. That being said, mechanically incentivising play is a core component for game design, and asymmetrical design makes for more interesting tactics.

>>53475422
>Without that -4 to STR alot of the european ideals of chivalry that D&D based its morality off of come off as illogical

Name one ideal of chivalry that D&D has based its morality off of.

File: 1463075417508.jpg (12KB, 239x211px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 239x211px

>>53472560
>grip strength

>>53470970
LotR orcs are much smaller than humans, large mordor Uruks and Uruk-Hai being (almost) man-sized. Dunedain etc. are much bigger and stronger than them, more intelligent, likely better trained and with (arguably) better equipment.

>>53475641
In D&D a facet of Good understood as protecting those weaker then yourself. Both stem from christian understanding of the relationship of God to Man and consequently how those with power should treat those under them. This is clearly articulated in the fluff for paladins, as D&D is a game based off of objectivist Christian morality. If you remove the inherent physical power imbalance between men and women alot of the traditional narrative devices fantasy stories use such as "knight quests for damsel" become illogical.

>>53475785
>If you remove the inherent physical power imbalance between men and women alot of the traditional narrative devices fantasy stories use such as "knight quests for damsel" become illogical.
Why? Just because women aren't inherently weaker than men doesn't mean that there couldn't be a relatively weak and sheltered princess that needs rescuing by a knight. Or are you claiming that -4 STR is the only thing standing between all of us being awesome warrior badasses?

>>53471886
WE'VE BEEN FOUND OUT! SHUT IT DOWN, GIMLI!

>>53475785
>Both stem from christian understanding of the relationship of God to Man and consequently how those with power should treat those under them.
That's what the Church said.

The real reason why they made protecting the weak a part of chivalry was to stop the nobility of Europe from raping and pillaging their own subjects. But mostly to stop the nobility from killing and stealing from the Church under the excuse that the Church they were looting was on the land of Lord Dickbag, and they were at war with Lord Dickbag so anything connected to Lord Dickbag was free to loot.

>>53460534
What a retarded situation.

Either you have a girl in your group, which is unacceptable, or a guy that likes to play as girls. Which is also unacceptable.

>>53460534
>girls
>warriors
Pick one.

>>53475785
All this shit is incoherent nonsense. You're not making a point, you're just free associating. Protecting the weak is in no way necessarily a Christian moral, and D&D in no way presents protecting the weak as being somehow Christian, which should be obvious because D&D has a completely different pantheon and Gary Gygax rooted the setting pretty firmly in the works of Conan et al, who had a pretty pagan bent. When you talk about "D&D" having a strong Christian flavor, you are actually talking about Dragonlance. The majority of settings released for D&D as well as the general tone of the majority of general rulebooks and sourcebooks made for the game take the approach of either pagan morality by way of Conan the Barbarian or else that of clearly modern morals informed by but distinct to Christian morality and having almost nothing to do with medieval chivalry.

And then from there you jump to the total non-sequitir of "knight quests for damsels" as somehow being wholly dependent upon sexual dimorphism because, apparently, all males are equally strong to all other males, and all females to all other females?

Arthurian Mtyhs aren't the bedrock of D&D, they're the inspiration for a couple of splatbooks, and those mostly from 20+ years ago.

>>53474500
Where I live (Northern England) everyone's short. 5'4 is a decent height for a woman and most men are around 5'10. It all depends on where you're talking about.

Does /tg/ even play games anymore or do you guys just bitch about other people playing games wrong?

>>53476238
Does it have to be one or the other?

>>53475829
Neither? For this to work you need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Let me make my point more clear. The Knight saves X thing has staying power because it's grounded in the truth that men tend to be more physically powerful then women. If you remove that axiom from your story you need to dismantle the implications that come from it. Or atleast realign them to be justifiable.

>>53475874

I think you should double check how this all hangs together. Im pretty sure you're putting the cart before the horse on this one.

>>53476255
I don't know whether any functional work-going adult would have the time to waste on both.

>>53476255
Given how badly misinformed the average fa/tg/uy is on basic mechanics of the games they trash, yes.

>>53476281
It's simple. Shitpost after work, play on your day off.

>>53476274
If the nobility was nice from the getgo, chivalry wouldn't have been created by the Catholic Church.

File: 1401045903444.jpg (273KB, 960x895px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 960x895px

>>53460687

>>53476099
I disagree with you. Power dynamics are a key part of Christian theology. Christian Orthodoxy tends towards modeling "good" morals as one that has others as their focus.

Im curious though, why do you think I was saying that "Protecting the weak" was a virtue only regarded by Christians?

D&D is tied to Christianity because both of its creators, Dave Arneson and GG were Christian. They're ideas on objective morality have an impact that lasts into 5th edition via that pesky moral alignments chart. All of the "Conan" aspects are judged in light of Dave and Gary's understanding of what was objectively morally good, which they got from their understanding of christian morality.

I agree with you, if Arthurian Myths ever were the bedrock of D&D they arnt anymore. But some of the core questions and assumptions that motivate those stories are super general and have a place today.

>>53476339
Sorry to break it to you, chivalry isn't a creation of the Church. The church had influence over parts where it could but yeah. But I agree with you, people are dicks. The wiki entry on it has a pretty nice overview of how "romantic chivalry" became what we think of it today. read it, its cool as hell.

>>53476016
Obviously, anon. Gotta wait until they're grown women.

>>53476238
Neither. We bitch about other people bitching about playing games wrong.

>>53476274
The "knight saves damsel" story has staying power because of the culture and biology of the players sitting around the table. It's not a philosophical plot hook that falls apart if you shuffle around the premises, it's a basic power fantasy that depends solely on its surface elements to function. The only thing required for a damsel in distress plot to be as compelling as it's going to be to your audience (as a general rule, not very - it's an extremely worn out plot device in general and while it's been given enough of a rest recently that some people are ready for it to come back, most aren't) is that one specific damsel be in distress and the players have it in their power to save her. That's it.

File: 200w.gif (1MB, 200x267px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x267px

>>53476643
This made me laugh. Have well deserved (you) and a .gif of a cute baby.

>>53467793
This image is an example of there being no problem with a woman with super high strength. Your point was that a woman would never get to that guy's bulk. Perhaps you are right. Still, you could say both those people are past 20 strength.

>>53476588
>I disagree with you. Power dynamics are a key part of Christian theology.

The way you put both of these sentences next to each pretty heavily implies you think that I, at some point, made some kind of statement about Christian theology and power dynamics. I did not actually do that at any point. This is more free associating word salad. You aren't building to a coherent point, you're making statements pretty much at random. The only point you ever touch on the actual subject of discussion is when you say this:

>I agree with you, if Arthurian Myths ever were the bedrock of D&D they arnt anymore. But some of the core questions and assumptions that motivate those stories are super general and have a place today.

Which is just stating your (incorrect) conclusion without providing any support for it at all.

>>53476684
I agree with you 100% if we said a literal knight saves a literal damsel. But I think the more general element of "someone strong saves someone Weak" stick around because they resonate with us.

>>53476890

So, you're conceding the point that women being weaker than men has fuck all to do with the validity of the damsel in distress plotline, then? Since there are obviously still ways to make people weaker than each other even if the setting ignores or explicitly removes sexually dimorphic strength.

I look forward to the glossolalic response in which you try to remember the actual subject of conversation is and why the "damsel in distress" plotline came up in the first place.

>>53476779
>Protecting the weak is in no way necessarily a Christian moral

What did you mean by this? I thought you were making a claim about Christian moral teaching.

If you dont understand me that's ok, we can work through that, but please dont insult me for trying to talk with you.

I stand by the point about christianity's mechanical influence on the system.

>Which is just stating your (incorrect) conclusion without providing any support for it at all.

OK, you're right about this. I was getting settings and mechanics mixed up with plot and themes, which I think a bunch of our disagreement is coming from. As a concrete example, Questions like how responsibility for the actions of others are you, are still relevant today, which is one of the huge struggles in Lancelot's story.

>>53477099
>What did you mean by this?
Pretty sure anon meant "strictly" or "exclusively" when he said "necessarily".

>>53476969
No I dont concede the point. The plotline has relevance because its relevent to our human experience. For example, even though I work out, I'm weaker then most men. Nothing i'm going to do will change that. This trope has staying power because it taps into something real, even if I dont like it.

>>53477099
>What did you mean by this? I thought you were making a claim about Christian moral teaching.

Well, let's take a look at the complete sentence you are quoting a fragment of and see if that demystifies anything:

>Protecting the weak is in no way necessarily a Christian moral, and D&D in no way presents protecting the weak as being somehow Christian, which should be obvious because D&D has a completely different pantheon and Gary Gygax rooted the setting pretty firmly in the works of Conan et al, who had a pretty pagan bent.

Golly, it looks like "defending the weak isn't exclusively Christian" and "D&D makes no effort to tie that moral to Christianity" were both part of a general point about how D&D just saying "defending the weak is good" in no way implies any kind of Christian morality at all. In fact, D&D morality is at least as much in line with pagan philosophers pre-dating Christianity by centuries as it is with Christianity.

>If you dont understand me that's ok, we can work through that, but please dont insult me for trying to talk with you.

I'm not insulting you for trying. I'm insulting you for your incapability to keep track of the subject of discussion and write sentences that actually build on or relate to one another. When I read your posts, I shouldn't be immediately confronted with the riddle of why you thought half the shit you said had anything to do with what we're talking about.

>I stand by the point about christianity's mechanical influence on the system.

Good for you. Did you want to provide any evidence at all that there is anything particularly Christian about it? Like, real, actual evidence and not just unrelated (and sometimes counterfactual) statements that float in the general vicinity of claims that your conclusions are correct.

>>53477228

What the fuck do you think this has to do with the conversation we're having?

>>53477515
Fuck it. You win. You've insulted and berated me me into conceding. Congrats. I withdraw my arguments, points and personal experience.

>>53463734
You lived with my dad?

>>53477829
Nah, he lived with my sister.

Trumpkins sure do sperg out over a game of pretend.

>>53478391
>>>/pol/

File: the scribe.jpg (68KB, 736x966px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 736x966px

So, another troll mill is drawing to a close.

Did you learn anything in this thread, /tg/? Were you exposed to strange new thoughts and opinions that broadened your world view? Did you come to have new insight on the people around you? Or were you just here to waste time and troll people?

How would you rate the thread?

>>53478894
0/5. Feminists are much, much worse on /tg/ than /pol/.

>>53478894
Confirmed my longstanding belief that I would never want to play with almost anyone from /tg/. That there might be real actual people autistic enough to try and force -4 STR into an actual game is a deeply disconcerting thought. I don't know who these people are, but I hope I never end up at the same table as them.