Real Man's D&D

[Gnaeus]

And after you highlighted what you found insulting you went on to say that to get the Tolkien and Howard feel he should be racist. Being insulting right back after he offered to change the offending statements is well I'd go into what I think it is, but I already have 2 strikes against me on this board already and don't want to push my luck.

I never at any point attributed any such belief to him. If you believe that I am insulting Howard or Tolkein unjustly, I can cite sources. I made that suggestion not in the serious belief that he would go be racist, but to clearly point out that basing your game on literature from the 30s is not always a good idea.

The following suggestions, rule adaptations and the like are based on the assumption that a good fantasy game should capture the feel of good and iconic fantasy literature.

His assumption is inaccurate. I have already pointed out some of the reasons why. There are some elements from literature that should be captured, some that certainly should not, and lots that are up to personal opinion.

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, I find that 4E does everything that 3E did well, but better.

I can think of a large number of things with which they are completely incompatible (starting with "a modicum of realism" and working up from there,) but the fact is that level-based systems are only really compatible with Sword and Sorcery as long as- as has been pointed out already- you chuck out most of the actual levels. In which case, why have them at all? What actual benefit do they confer to this kind of play?

I'm afraid, Jill, it is quite obvious that we will never see eye-to-eye on this.

Rolemaster has the most "realism" (sic) I've seen in any RPG, and that is a level based-system.

Personally, I find 4E did nothing better than 3.5 does do except balance between the characters, and that to the point of homogenity. I've played 4E as a player, and I was not impressed (and most of our group were actually happy to get back to play their 15th-17th level 3.5 party¹). I will play 4E, but no force on Earth will make me DM it, as I find it's game design philosphy is completely contrary to my own.

3.5 is best-suited to my and my group's preferences, despite it's flaws. I am not going to about to adopt E6 (which throws out half of the interesting mechanics of the game) nor I am going to switch systems for an inferior set of rules when 3.5-with-modifications will be just flat-out better than an inferior-system-with-modifications (for my personal purposes). Especially if it means wasting all that money spent on 3.5 priorly and more on a new system; which won't have even remotely the same breadth of options and flexibilty as 3.5 has.

No system is perfect; in fact most set of rules, RPG or wargames both are crap. If you don't worry too much about that sort of thing, e.g. if you want a fairly heavy RP-based campaign where you don't need to rely on rules as much, that fact matters less, so long as the rules are at least functional to within your tolerances. You can have a perfecly good RPing game just using say, HeroQuest, because you don't need rules to roleplay. (They can contribute, but they aren't required.)

I personally want to have a set of rules suited to my purposes, which does include levelling and a heavy combat element (as well as RPing.) Overall, the base mechanics and structure of D&D currently do that best for me. If it means some fluffing or adjustment (or a lot of same), then fine. No problem there. No different to any other rules system. So far, there are just a handful of rules sets; 3.5 (slash D20), followed by Rolemaster that I consider to be optimal. If 3.x never existed, I'd be playing Rolemaster exclusively.

As it does, I shall continue to modify, tweak and enhance 3.5 up the wazoo until as and if I discover something I consider to be better suited, and then I'll modify, tweak and enhance that up the wazoo.



Anyway, to comment, Satyr on your actual rules mechanics, that doesn't seem to unreasonable. It's sort of similar to what I've done on my own world, which is to raise the average level to 2-4, not 1 and go from there. I like my Tolkien-style Elves, so I achieved making them Better Than You Mortals by simply reasoning by the same logic that if your average farmer goes up a level or two over the years, a long-lived creature might be more (so their average level is 6-8). Elf PCs are thereby going to be young Elves (as dragon PCs - which I also have - are young dragons). It works nicely, and has the advantage of not requiring any rules changes.

You might want to consider better scaling environmental hazards (e.g. traps, lava, falling, tunnel collapses) if you plan to use them with any regularity, since under current rules, they aren't lethal threats towards the upper half of the current level count (which I consider a flaw in the rules), but it depends where you want to set the "superhuman" barrier, really.



¹And for the record, I have no problems with characters at that level-range being borderline or striaght-out superheroes. But I don't envision my cleric/monk, at 8th level, just coming into reasonable mechanical effectiveness, being able to beat Conan to death; nor my 12th level Pale Master being able to single-handledly beat the Fellowship of the Ring. The six 17th level killing machines I'm currently DMing for? Yeah, those guys I'd see tackling, say, the X-Men or something.

[The Big Dice]

I learned D&D much quicker than GURPS.
CONCLUSION: D&D is simpler. and not in a bad way.

After not playing the game more than once or twice in the past 10 years, I can still "think" in GURPS terms. After 5 years of playing pretty much nothing other than D&D, I still have to look up grapples, bull rushes and a few other things.

Conclusion? GURPS is simpler, more internally consistent and less awkward than D&D.

It's also (to me, after having played it almost exclusively for the best part of a decade) the gaming equivalent of white rice. It's filling, but the amount of effor it takes to make something tasty out of it is just too much.

[Dienekes]

I never at any point attributed any such belief to him. If you believe that I am insulting Howard or Tolkein unjustly, I can cite sources. I made that suggestion not in the serious belief that he would go be racist, but to clearly point out that basing your game on literature from the 30s is not always a good idea.

Why should I care what long dead men believed on race, or be offended if you insult them? They mean nothing to me. However when you claim (as you appeared to earlier but have since cleared up) that the old ones were racist and therefore their style of play is worse than the new that is hilarious as it is wrong. Saying that personally I like this new style and your game system is not for me, also these passages seemed offensive is a perfectly rational and dependable belief.

His assumption is inaccurate. I have already pointed out some of the reasons why. There are some elements from literature that should be captured, some that certainly should not, and lots that are up to personal opinion.

His assumption is accurate to him, which makes sense when he's writing the system. If you don't follow his assumption (since it is an assumption and noted stated as a direct fact) I don't see what your problem is.

Anyway, we're starting to go around in circles so I'm dropping out of this topic. I do wish to see what Satyr draws up though, if it's any good maybe I'll borrow some concepts.

[Satyr]

Also, if capturing the feel of Tolkein and Howard is your main goal, you can start with giving stat penalties to female and non-white characters, because Tolkein and Howard? Kinda racist and sexist. Just because something was an archetype of fantasy literature 60 years ago does NOT make it a good idea in a modern RPG.

I don't even know what to say to this. Seriously. I never thought of that. I don't even think that "Racism sucks, Sexism is bad" does even need to be said explicitly. This should really, really go without saying.

BTW: Harry Potter included something like seven magical items, if you don't include the wands, and there are several situatiuons in the books where I honestly asked myself how all these wizards became the luddites they seem to be.
Esme Weatherwax doesn't have any magical items, as far as I can tell - the more hero-style characters like Captain Carrot don't have any ones, either. Besides, she really is the evil witch, but decided not to be the antagonist, so I guess she's somewhere in the grey area here.
I haven't read the Wheel of Time, so I can't say much about Mr. Al-Thor, so I cannot comment on that.
And Harry Dresden was the most fun when he had a crippled hand and before the power creep accelerated that much, but here again, problems are solved with dedication, smarts and the occasional chainsaw, not only magic.
Not one of these characters - as far as I can tell - works similar to a D&D wizard.

The thing is - there is very little fantasy literature at all where characters have the aboundance of magical items which appear in D&D. From a dramaturgical perspective, this happens for a reason, because all too powerful McGuffins can be poisonous for the tension of the plot, and create the feeling, that it's not the protagonist but the item that solves the problem which degrades the supposedly protagonist to an extra. Used magic sometimes have a similar tendency, and is often used better when it is used more subtly.
From a game perspective alone, the suggestions in this thread are targeted on creating characters which are awesome because they are strong, fast, smart, headstrong and cunning, not because they have the Doilee of Ultimate Power.
But, if you take away the toys, you hurt the mundane characters a lot more than those who don't need magical items to do magical stuff, so you need a way to solicit this already existing power gap. I decided to do this with the power of TESTOSTERONE! and in reminescence to a character which is actually a ridiculous Mary Sue - Conan - but who is so cheesy and over the top that it is actually enjoyable again.

[Draz74]

I wondered for a moment what the Queen has to do with magic.

Hmmm, I wondered rather when the woman he intended to indicate moved south from Scotland.

[Gametime]

Levels, classes, HP and XP serve a valuable purpose in a particular form of play: team-based powergaming against a steadily escalating sequence of waves of dispensable cannon-fodder. Nothing wrong with it, but it has little or nothing to do with the stories which ostensibly inspired it.

I'm not sure whether you intend for this remark to have the negative connotation that "powergaming" so often implies. I hope not, since I'm sure you can understand how being reduced to, apparently, nothing but powergamers makes those of us who enjoy D&D feel.

At any rate, I don't think that getting gradually stronger over the course of an adventure is an abomination, or even antithetical to the telling of a good fantasy story. I'm not sure where the idea that sword and sorcery characters don't get stronger comes from; Conan shows a vaguely defined but nonetheless obvious progression of power from the earlier stories. When he's a thief, he's still strong enough to fight off several men; when he's a reaver or pirate, he's capable of fighting of several trained soldiers; and by the time he's a king, he can not only lead an army to victory, but kill a dozen trained assassins and a magical hellbeast in the span of a single hour.

I don't think levels are required to have a good system to emulate fantasy. I don't think they're detrimental, either, and I think your dismissal of them is based more on personal preference than any accurate portrayal of the genre.

Also, hit points? What system doesn't have some sort of numerical abstraction to represent health?

...Simpler than quantum phisics maybe. D&D isn't a simple system in the slightest. First off, look at the sheer volume of required reading. Then look at the complex interactions and the many strange and counter intuitive constructs the game has. Two doubles becomes a triple? Where did they study maths?

It's actually a completely mathematically sound rule, if you view doubles and the like as bonuses to damage. Two 100% bonuses to damage become a 200% bonus to damage. Since multiplication is more intuitive, though, they continue to use doubling and tripling and just introduce that rule to ensure that the damage doesn't scale faster than necessary.

D&D is the Windows of the Roleplaying Games world. It's ubiquitous because it often seems to be the only option. But it's really not that great and if you look around, there are other ways of reaching the same end in much more satisfying and less complex ways.

I can see that. And, like Windows, there are some people who are informed and still prefer the ubiquitous system despite everyone telling us that it's terrible.

On an unrelated note, re: Conan's level, does anyone else think the fact that the wizards Conan faced don't seem to be beyond 9th to 11th level is excellent proof that he is 18th to 20th? After all, we've all seen the threads discussing what level wizard could defeat what level fighter; clearly, since he's victorious, he must be several levels higher!

[potatocubed]

This is totally off-topic, but are there any chances of you ever posting any of those?

Hmm... I dunno. Most of the adventures I write are one-page scribbles with no maps, since I hold a lot of what I'm going to run in my head and tend to generate maps on the fly by drawing on the battle mat. I do write some ideas up as proper adventures, but those are mostly things I hope to sell so posting them online for free would be counterproductive.

If I ever finish writing up my collection of 4e monsters I might stick them up somewhere.

[kjones]

On reading this, it seems like a lot of posters have thin skins and chips on their shoulders.

The OP defining the game as a "Real Man's D&D" doesn't mean that only men can play it or that if a man doesn't, his masculinity is up for question. It refers to the time period where fantasy WAS about the might of men overcoming terrible powers through brawn, brain, and skill - mundane, martial skill, not happening to know the right spell. Even certain mundane tricks, like distracting your opponent so you can get in a lucky strike, were frowned upon.

It harkens back to an age most of us, even the OP I bet, never were around to actually witness, but instead these fans wrapped themselves up in them in pulp graphic novels they swiped from their grandfather's collection and read up in their attics.

In a way, it was a dinosaur age, where things were big and terrible and awesome without flashy lights and complicated politics. As a "dinosaur age", this was both cool and boring - cool, because killing a carnivorous apatosaurus-like monster with nothing but a huge double-bladed axe and a loincloth was an grown man's dinosaur-boy's fantasy - boring, because after a while, subtlety and complexity and more developed characters became as sirens to lure the fans away.

I don't believe the OP meant "Real Man's D&D" in a way to dismiss any other style of D&D, but that it was a "macho" game without being sexist, a game where it was okay to have a damsel in distress just as much as you have an Amazon warrior who is dressed in an animal skin breast-band and loincloth and nothing else, unlike that leather-chic-dressed warrior princess-wanna-be.

This kind of gaming reflects a gritty, grim style that is still over-the-top without necessarily being dark fantasy. People WILL still die in this, sometimes horribly, but it is more by tooth and sword than by poison and magic. There is a kind of tribal feel to this, even when you are talking about empires, a place where 300 IS an army, and not just an over-glorified macho-fest with hints of homo-eroticism.

I've got more comments, but I'll save them for now...

This, this, this. Satyr - keep doing your thing, pay the haters no heed. I'm listening.

[Friend Computer]

It really bothers you that much that someone you'll likely never meet, much less ever game with, wants to modify his game to suit his personal preferences, which yours apparently differ from? Really?

Granted, Satyr might have been better served in working on balancing his variant mechanics (which is actually what the thread is supposed to be about, not the ensuing debate about the fact he apparently shouldn't be doing it) by posting in the Homebrew forum, but still...

You must think me a terrible troll, as well then, since I don't play D&D the way you do, either. I am genuinely sorry that his and my version of fun is so disconcerting to you.



Edit: I might pinch the ToB class errata myself, actually; I keep meaning to work it out but never remember at a convieniant juncture.

I don't care that the OP is homebrewing a system to their taste, and to say that is a gross misrepresentation of my posts. If they feel the E6 is the power level they want, but instead want it spread out over 20 levels and are unhappy with the way Conan does this, then I hope they get it right for their taste. That has nothing to do with my posts. My posts have been about the OP declaring 3.5 wrong and broken because his favourite characters are not the most powerful. About the OP declaring that only a subset of fantasy is worthy of D&D. About the OP's sexist assertion that their game is for 'Real Men' and that other games must be for girls or sissies. That after complaining about the powerlevel of D&D going way over what he wants, the OP does not cap power at the supposed 'Real Man's Fantasy' level nor address the reasons why level 6 is 'mundane epic' in the new 'Real Man's Fantasy' nonsense, but instead lets it go on as before with no meaningful difference between martial level 20 in this system to RAW D&D. The OP is therefore not interested in changing the power level of the (non-magical) game and the complaints have no reflection in the rules changed, and the confrontational, sexist nature of the complaints made shows that the OP was only interested in stirring up trouble.

[okpokalypse]

Also, if capturing the feel of Tolkein and Howard is your main goal, you can start with giving stat penalties to female and non-white characters, because Tolkein and Howard? Kinda racist and sexist. Just because something was an archetype of fantasy literature 60 years ago does NOT make it a good idea in a modern RPG.

Not for nothing, but since basic D&D I have given a Str Penalty to Female Human builds, and they get the option of getting the penalty back to either Wisdom or Charisma (Determined Randomly).

I'm not being sexist, but if you think that Human women and men have equal strength both on average and as an attainable natural maximum, you're delusional. Men and Women are just plain different biologically, and one of those keen differences is Strength.

[Shademan]

After not playing the game more than once or twice in the past 10 years, I can still "think" in GURPS terms. After 5 years of playing pretty much nothing other than D&D, I still have to look up grapples, bull rushes and a few other things.

Conclusion? GURPS is simpler, more internally consistent and less awkward than D&D.

It's also (to me, after having played it almost exclusively for the best part of a decade) the gaming equivalent of white rice. It's filling, but the amount of effor it takes to make something tasty out of it is just too much.

hm, I learned D&D first. so i guess it's all about old dogs not learning new tricks or something...
And if I implied that GURPS is bad I didnt mean it. it is awesome. what I meant is that GURPS is MUCH more detailed than D&D. in both combat and character creation. which is GREAT fun. but in D&D I can throw up a character or NPC or something twice as fast.

[kjones]

Before this thread gets locked due to flinging about accusations of sexism, let me just point out that the "Real Men" thing is a reference to this classic classification scheme.

[PersonMan]

Not for nothing, but since basic D&D I have given a Str Penalty to Female Human builds, and they get the option of getting the penalty back to either Wisdom or Charisma (Determined Randomly).

I'm not being sexist, but if you think that Human women and men have equal strength both on average and as an attainable natural maximum, you're delusional. Men and Women are just plain different biologically, and one of those keen differences is Strength.

Yes, but those are normal people. These are people who run around killing monsters and breaking the laws of physics multiple times before lunch. At higher levels, they can do completely absurd things like fall from >9000 feet and live without much trouble. What people aren't playing is Average Joe/Jill, they're playing Exceptional Bob/Sarah. And as far as I know, there isn't a maximum for any stat in DnD, anyways.

But let's not discuss this. I'd rather not have the thread locked, so let's get back to talking about Sword&Sorcery and the like.

[Gametime]

Not for nothing, but since basic D&D I have given a Str Penalty to Female Human builds, and they get the option of getting the penalty back to either Wisdom or Charisma (Determined Randomly).

I'm not being sexist, but if you think that Human women and men have equal strength both on average and as an attainable natural maximum, you're delusional. Men and Women are just plain different biologically, and one of those keen differences is Strength.

Average discrepancies do not translate to upper bounds, and as far as I know there is no evidence suggesting a great disparity in maximum upper body strength between men and women.

Suggesting that heroes - who are, by their definition, exceptional - conform to averages and norms is bizarre, at any rate, and balancing out mechanical disparities by introducing more sex-linked character attributes is problematic for any number of reasons.

[Oslecamo]

From a game perspective alone, the suggestions in this thread are targeted on creating characters which are awesome because they are strong, fast, smart, headstrong and cunning, not because they have the Doilee of Ultimate Power.
But, if you take away the toys, you hurt the mundane characters a lot more than those who don't need magical items to do magical stuff, so you need a way to solicit this already existing power gap. I decided to do this with the power of TESTOSTERONE! and in reminescence to a character which is actually a ridiculous Mary Sue - Conan - but who is so cheesy and over the top that it is actually enjoyable again.

Except that Conan and many other ancient heroes did have rows of magical items. You may know them better as "minions", "expendable allies" and other such names.

Pretty much all of Conan adventures have him befriend a bunch of people who are then conveniently sacrificed one by one (or by the droves) to allow him to suceed. Nevermind how he's always stumbling upon trinkets that allow him to bypass his next oponent's defenses.

Ulisses cheats, backstabs and literally feeds his own companions to monsters to keep them busy while he escapes. No, he's not even worried about glory. He just wants to get back home and is only on the Illiad war because the other "heros" threatened to kill his son. Yes sir, an heroic spirit among brave "larger than life" characters reduced to holding little kids hostage.

Oh and to set sail on the first place? Had to sacrifice a princess. Another heroic deed for the records!

Meanwhile Acquilles thinks he's the strongest one there is, and probably is, but that doesn't save him from being killed by an arrow. He doesn't die in an epic duel, overwhelmed by impossible odds or fighting some epic monster. He's sniped at range by one of the most coward greek "heros" that sacrificed his city and family so he could brainwash the prettiest woman in Greece.

Where's your TESTOTERONE power now?

So no, "fantasy heros" are not just muscles and brains. Fantasy heros use every means at their disposal to achieve victory. And I bet that if Ulisses or Conan had cheap magic item shops available, they would gladly spend their loot there. Heck, Ulisses does pray to get the god's help plenty of times!

[Arbane]

Not for nothing, but since basic D&D I have given a Str Penalty to Female Human builds, and they get the option of getting the penalty back to either Wisdom or Charisma (Determined Randomly).

I'm not being sexist, but if you think that Human women and men have equal strength both on average and as an attainable natural maximum, you're delusional. Men and Women are just plain different biologically, and one of those keen differences is Strength.

Oh, goodie. These discussions NEVER devolve into horrible flamefests!

As PersonMan pointed out, there's NOTHING 'normal' or 'average' (or even terribly 'realistic') about adventurers who can shrug off a battleaxe to the face, fracture the laws of physics by waving their hands, and/or dodge 30'-wide explosions. I say let the wimminfolk go everywhere, fight everyone, and kill everything the men get to.

But hey, it's your houserules. How many female players do you have?

[Coplantor]

Can we please stop summoning the thread lock?

[PersonMan]

Can we please stop summoning the thread lock?

+1

Let's get back to Conan and swords and magic and stabbing. And houserules. And...whatever we were talking about.

[arrowhen]

Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...

Kid #1: I'm gonna take my castle Legos® and build a sailboat out of them!

Kid #2: What!? How dare you say that sailboats are cooler than castles? That's factually incorrect!

Kid #3: Lego® brand building blocks are about imagination, not mechanics. If you can't just throw your castle in the bathtub and pretend it's a sailboat, you fail at creativity!

Kid #2: Yeah! I'm not playing Lego® wrong, you are!

Kid #4: What a waste of time. You should just buy a toy sailboat.

Kid #5: Noobs! Both castles and sailboats are suboptimal. You should build a cable-stayed suspension bridge.

Grognard: Bah. The original 1913 Erector Set was the last true edition of building toys!



To the OP: don't listen to these naysayers. Keep tinkering -- and sharing -- to your heart's content.

[Morty]

So no, "fantasy heros" are not just muscles and brains. Fantasy heros use every means at their disposal to achieve victory. And I bet that if Ulisses or Conan had cheap magic item shops available, they would gladly spend their loot there. Heck, Ulisses does pray to get the god's help plenty of times!

I think that's kind of the point here - heroes in myths, legends and fantasy literature had to use their wits, play to their strengths and generally use every resource at their disposal instead of punching through anything with Magick or "sheer awesomeness".

[Coplantor]

Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...

Kid #1: I'm gonna take my castle Legos® and build a sailboat out of them!

Kid #2: What!? How dare you say that sailboats are cooler than castles? That's factually incorrect!

Kid #3: Lego® brand building blocks are about imagination, not mechanics. If you can't just throw your castle in the bathtub and pretend it's a sailboat, you fail at creativity!

Kid #2: Yeah! I'm not playing Lego® wrong, you are!

Kid #4: What a waste of time. You should just buy a toy sailboat.

Kid #5: Noobs! Both castles and sailboats are suboptimal. You should build a cable-stayed suspension bridge.

Grognard: Bah. The original 1913 Erector Set was the last true edition of building toys!



To the OP: don't listen to these naysayers. Keep tinkering -- and sharing -- to your heart's content.

And thus! A sig quote is born!

[Caphi]

I think that's kind of the point here - heroes in myths, legends and fantasy literature had to use their wits, play to their strengths and generally use every resource at their disposal instead of punching through anything with Magick or "sheer awesomeness".

We try to use every resource at our disposal. Some guys just have more different resources at their disposal than others. That's what the tier system is. A sorceror can be forced to rummage through her toolbox for a way out of a jam as much as a fighter can - but the two's situations will look quite different, and many things that would challenge the latter so are just annoyances to the former.

[Heliomance]

Borrowing. Flight. Bringing people back from the dead. Blessings and curses that then come true. She mostly USES headology, because being a good witch means knowing when not to use magic. But she has it at her disposal.

Borrowing I mentioned. She can't fly under her own power, the broom is a magic item. She didn't bring anyone back from the dead, she bargained with Death for them, a feat which can be done by anyone with big enough cojones that can see Death. As for the blessings and curses, I'm blanking on any that came true that weren't either self-fulfilling or came true because she manipulated people.

[kjones]

Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...

Kid #1: I'm gonna take my castle Legos® and build a sailboat out of them!

Kid #2: What!? How dare you say that sailboats are cooler than castles? That's factually incorrect!

Kid #3: Lego® brand building blocks are about imagination, not mechanics. If you can't just throw your castle in the bathtub and pretend it's a sailboat, you fail at creativity!

Kid #2: Yeah! I'm not playing Lego® wrong, you are!

Kid #4: What a waste of time. You should just buy a toy sailboat.

Kid #5: Noobs! Both castles and sailboats are suboptimal. You should build a cable-stayed suspension bridge.

Grognard: Bah. The original 1913 Erector Set was the last true edition of building toys!



To the OP: don't listen to these naysayers. Keep tinkering -- and sharing -- to your heart's content.

This reminds me quite a bit of Wired's article about if D&D books were cookbooks.

[potatocubed]

Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...

If this forum had reputation, you'd get a +1 for that.

But it doesn't, so you'll just have to imagine it instead.

[Kylarra]

So no, "fantasy heros" are not just muscles and brains. Fantasy heros use every means at their disposal to achieve victory. And I bet that if Ulisses or Conan had cheap magic item shops available, they would gladly spend their loot there. Heck, Ulisses does pray to get the god's help plenty of times!

I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but for the record, Conan's hatred of magic and magical things is pretty well established, even his friends that are spellcasters are only grudgingly trusted and he still has issues with them casting "buffs" on him.

[Optimystik]

Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...

Kid #1: I'm gonna take my castle Legos® and build a sailboat out of them!

Kid #2: What!? How dare you say that sailboats are cooler than castles? That's factually incorrect!

Kid #3: Lego® brand building blocks are about imagination, not mechanics. If you can't just throw your castle in the bathtub and pretend it's a sailboat, you fail at creativity!

Kid #2: Yeah! I'm not playing Lego® wrong, you are!

Kid #4: What a waste of time. You should just buy a toy sailboat.

Kid #5: Noobs! Both castles and sailboats are suboptimal. You should build a cable-stayed suspension bridge.

Grognard: Bah. The original 1913 Erector Set was the last true edition of building toys!



To the OP: don't listen to these naysayers. Keep tinkering -- and sharing -- to your heart's content.

I'm Kid #4.

[arrowhen]

I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but for the record, Conan's hatred of magic and magical things is pretty well established, even his friends that are spellcasters are only grudgingly trusted and he still has issues with them casting "buffs" on him.

Which is why barbarians in 1st ed. AD&D had strict limits on magic item use and hanging out with spellcasters.

[okpokalypse]

Oh, goodie. These discussions NEVER devolve into horrible flamefests!

As PersonMan pointed out, there's NOTHING 'normal' or 'average' (or even terribly 'realistic') about adventurers who can shrug off a battleaxe to the face, fracture the laws of physics by waving their hands, and/or dodge 30'-wide explosions. I say let the wimminfolk go everywhere, fight everyone, and kill everything the men get to.

But hey, it's your houserules. How many female players do you have?

Quite a few actually over the years. And it's never been a real problem simply because not one Female player I've play with has EVER wanted to play the huge hulking human female warrior. In fact, any female human warrior I've ever encountered has been finesse-based for the most part, be it archery, dervish or the like... And in that regard, they all work wonderfully.

Average discrepancies do not translate to upper bounds, and as far as I know there is no evidence suggesting a great disparity in maximum upper body strength between men and women.

There is immesurable and unrefutable evidence that there is a wide gap. Just look at powerlifting records by gender. Men have 30%-40% more Lower-Body Strength and 50%-60% more Upper-Body Strength co-relating the to differentials at almost any time period in the last half century or so. Men also have nearly 100% more (double) joint strength than Women.

My nephew, a former Army MP and professional bodybuilder could, at the age of 24, Clean & Jerk 500 Lbs. He weighed 245 Lbs then. There is currently only 1 woman in the world that can Clean & Jerk 400 Lbs (She's 270 Lbs) - and she's the Olympic Gold Medalist. Ironoically, my nephew wouldn't even come close to being able to compete at an Olympic Level with that lift. Not. Even. Close.

Men, because of heightened testotsterone levels, grow larger, have more muscle mass both generally and in proportion to body weight, have more lung capacity (thus greater endurance), have greater muscular hypertrophy (enlargement of muscular cells) and have greater bone density.

I don't want to cause a gender flame-war here, but it's just the facts of human biology. Anything to the contrary is largely based on sentiment.

As it pertains to Gaming, sure - it really doesn't matter. If you want to play a woman that has a Million Lb carrying capacity and can lift a small town on her shoulders, all the best. All I'm saying is that she makes her initial start at a -2 on her quest for 77 Strength (Yes, that's > Million Lb Heavy Load) and she is (randomly) more wise or personable than her male counterparts.

EDIT: This is my last post on the gender topic. It's way off base here and no adding anything.

EDIT II: The OP may want to start a new thread that we all agree to not mangle with regard to the accusations of sexism, racism or any other ism...