Dwarves don't wear plate....

[Zapp]

To those insisting on the "realism" argument for slow Dwarves:

My point with bringing up Strength and women isn't to be misogynistic in any form or shape. I certainly don't advocate telling players wishing to play female PCs that they must accept a debilitating Strength penalty.

I am using the example as an analogy to show how illogical it is to slap a (significant) Speed penalty onto Dwarves without also slapping a (significant) Strength penalty onto females.

For the purposes of crushing the "realism" argument, that is, and for no other reason.

Feel free to have as slow Dwarfs as you like for all I care. Just don't kid yourself into believing that you made the "realistic" choice - unless you accept that you singled out this particular case and ignored others, including that of female strength. Out of a dozen physical "truths" begging for special rules treatment you picked one and ignored the others.

Secondly, I could argue that the average strength difference between males and females (in humans, at least; can't say much about imaginary races here...) is so pronounced that, for purposes of "realism", you should add that first, way sooner than any speed difference. The average female possesses much less muscle mass than the average male (yep, even in this age of office workers and rpg nerds!).

Thirdly, I could also bring up the argument that's already been made above: perhaps Dwarves are built differently than humans? How can you say it's "realistic" that they move slower than humans?! No of course you can't. You like it better so you (mis)use the word realistic to support your opinion.

What you can and should do is go "I prefer my Dwarfs to be slow" or "I like to go with genre conventions", dropping any pretense of "realism" and objective truth. What you prefer is none of my business, and thus it's perfectly okay to have slow Dwarfs but strong women.

Let me say that again.

TL; DR: It's perfectly okay - preferable even - to have equality between sexes and inequality between "races" (species really). Just don't bring out the "realism" card in one case when you aren't willing to do it in the other. Thank you.


Best regards and happy gaming
Zapp

[Zapp]

Sure, but using the map isn't a rule of the game, it's an option.

Certainly if they just said that dwarves were speed 4, humans 5 and elves 6 (although the elf is stil 50% faster), the representation on the battle map grid requires less overall movement.

We never play using optional battlemaps (and thus don't play D&D) so the movement is far more obvious.

Just a quick question, Hellebore. I don't follow you here -

Wouldn't movement be more "obvious" when represented on a battle mat than without a map?

I never used a grid before D&D4 and back then movement differences never was much of an issue. Unless movement was the focus of a scene (such as in a pursuit) or a magical effect gave a huge bonus (+50% Speed or more) everyone more or less was assumed to have adequate movement. The case of falling just one square short of reaching your target simply never came up - with no precise map representation, insisting on such a thing was considered cruel and petty by the GM.

In D&D4, however, every extra square of movement was HUGE. Falling "just one square short" is a big part of the tactical game - positioning yourself "just right" was a big deal, and counting to see whether a foe falls within or without a certain area or radius happens all the time. (Of course, all this contributed to me abandoning the game because combat took so long and here I am, but that's another story )

Just asking since my logic tells me the opposite of what you wrote...

[shonuff]

My point with bringing up Strength and women isn't to be misogynistic in any form or shape. I certainly don't advocate telling players wishing to play female PCs that they must accept a debilitating Strength penalty.

I don't think you were being misogynistic, but I do think your comparison is flawed. While men are typically stronger than women, women can be as strong as men, thus no bonus/penalty.

And even though this is a fantasy setting, it is realistic and logical to make extrapolations based on phenotype. Short, sturdy, stocky, and lives underground? I'm gonna guess that it's not as fast as others.

[Koeran]

While this is off topic, there is enough discussion on this point for me to want to throw in my opinion.

I can't remember the source. But I recall hearing/reading about a study which showed that on average, men are 10% stronger than women.
Once you reach the extremes of peak possible performance, that margin increases to about 20%. When comparing the weights lifted in the 69kg category of Olympic Records at least. When you also consider the overall size difference (men are on average larger, and have a larger maximum size), that margin increases yet again.

But that's just looking at one attribute.

If you're going to include the differences in strength between sexes, then you should also include all the other differences. Like the larger fat reserves that women have (they're going to live longer when the party runs out of rations, and maybe stay warmer when exposed to extremes of cold (although muscle mass creates heat (at least when used) so that may balance out). Women are also significantly more adept at social situations than men (on average). Likely much more than the 10-20% Strength advantage than men get.

Which is scarier, a guy with big muscles who want to kill you? Or a woman with the social savvy to convince 20 guys with big muscles to want to kill you?

Not to mention there are additional differences between sexes that you'd have to also include. It would be mechanically complicated, and not to mention it wouldn't be much fun either.

In the end though, I find the whole sex superiority argument to be exhausting and naive (not that that's what's been going on here). Yes, Men and Women have their strengths and weaknesses. But we're far stronger working together than any society made of only one sex could ever be. Even if we could use science (ie test tube babies of some sort) to render sexual reproduction unnecessary.

[shonuff]

Which is scarier, a guy with big muscles who want to kill you? Or a woman with the social savvy to convince 20 guys with big muscles to want to kill you?

You left out the ability to nag...

Not to mention there are additional differences between sexes that you'd have to also include. It would be mechanically complicated, and not to mention it wouldn't be much fun either.

Most likely higher HP and Willpower to account for a greater pain tolerance.

I've seen several systems try and account for differences between men and women, but most have felt very forced because the differences aren't consistent. Not every woman is weaker than every many. Not every woman is more charismatic than every man.

[Loswaith]

...

Why elves are inherently faster than humans I dont fully see but assumed it was to play up the lithe and nimble aspect that elves portray (though for my own games have made thier speed 10, and have a movement focus).

The knife ears provide an extra amount of lift.

Very ammusing

[Zapp]

My point with bringing up Strength and women isn't to be misogynistic in any form or shape. I certainly don't advocate telling players wishing to play female PCs that they must accept a debilitating Strength penalty.

I don't think you were being misogynistic, but I do think your comparison is flawed.

Oh, I should probably clarify that I didn't write that because I felt accused of misogynia - I wrote that purely as a preemptive measure, so to hopefully avoid having this interesting discussion veer off into that particular direction.

While men are typically stronger than women, women can be as strong as men, thus no bonus/penalty.

And even though this is a fantasy setting, it is realistic and logical to make extrapolations based on phenotype. Short, sturdy, stocky, and lives underground? I'm gonna guess that it's not as fast as others.

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

The average strength difference between human genders is pronounced, and, as I'm arguing, definitely noticeable enough to warrant being selected for inclusion in a game before targeting dwarf speed.

That it (a Str diff) isn't done is because it simply is no fun; and similar thinking needs to apply to any other racial or gender difference.

Again, I'm not saying this because I want you all to ditch Dwarf speed and/or add female Strength modifications. I'm saying this to make you realize you can't play the "realism" card in just one case, and that you preferably should ditch that particular card altogether and replace it with the "this is what I like best" card or the "we have more fun this way" card.

[Zapp]

I've seen several systems try and account for differences between men and women, but most have felt very forced because the differences aren't consistent. Not every woman is weaker than every many. Not every woman is more charismatic than every man.

And you'd be right.

The truth is - there is no balance between men and women (for rpg purposes).

Any game attempting to compensate females for a lower Strength with a higher something else (Willpower, Charisma or whathaveyou) simply comes across as uninformed and stereotypical.

I guess there is no way to wrap this, so I'll simply say it. The only significant difference - for a "realistic" game - between a male and a female is that the male should have a considerably higher raw strength score on average. All other characteristics should remain equal (have equal potential).

"Realism" doesn't particularly care for game balance. Instead, "realism" places a much much higher emphasis on propagating your genes: bearing children. Something most (all?) RPGs count as worthless or even a "hindrance". If Nature used point buy to build the "human male" and the "human female" bearing children is a perk/edge/feat that costs a LOT of points. And those points mainly come from raw muscle strength.

Of course, I'm aware that many think males are more extreme in general; for better or worse. But I have no problems with waving away those arguments: partly because any such differences are difficult to quantify, but also because historically men have had far greater opportunities to become both geniuses and madmen. Compared to the obvious and large strength difference, I mean.

Zapp

PS. Let me insist on including a bit of boilerplate in every post: I'm not saying this to convince you of adding Strength modifications between genders. I'm ONLY bringing it up to contrast it with the racial Speed modifications that some of you feel is oh-so "realistic". And I'm only bringing up THAT to ask you to change your rationale for having it, not to remove it.

[Zapp]

But there is one point I need to address:

When you give a ability modifier or penalty, don't view that as "every member of that group is stronger/faster/etc".

It's the AVERAGE that is shifted by such a modifier.

So don't say that "not every woman is more charismatic than every man" when a Charisma bonus for females is discussed. The person who suggested that only intended to make the AVERAGE charisma for females higher than that for males.

You can still have a female rolling a -1 which after modifications become a +1 (assuming a +2 Charisma modifier). And you can still have a male rolling a +4, which is way more charismatic that this particular female.

Just saying (I still agree compensatory bonuses are ungrounded in science). Thanks.

[Zapp]

Okay, so let me move my participation in this discussion a bit further by giving some constructive feedback.

It just so happens that I think hard bonuses (or penalties) are, for the most part, unrealistic and not cool.

Such bonuses move the entire bell-curve way too much. Instead, I propose to skew it but keep the end points.

For instance, if I were to ever add a strength difference between the sexes (which I certainly don't recommend), I wouldn't actually go "females get -2 Strength" or somesuch. There simply is no good reason for having women with -4.

Instead, it would be better to say something like "a starting female character is limited to Strength +2 or lower, before modifications for background and random rolls."

This would mean that, on average, women would be noticeably weaker than men. But it would still allow human females starting with Strength 4 (unless I remember wrong, an Avvarian gets +1 and could get another +1 from random rolls). Even if I do remember wrong, I'm sure you see the general picture...

The proposal about making Speed into a Talent, and give out Novice and Journeyman levels to Elfs for free, to account for them having greater speed than Dwarfs is a great idea. It simply means that the player wanting to play a Dwarf that relies on good Speed can play that character while still explaining a world where most Dwarves are slower than most Elves! A good compromise in my book.

Let me write up that last part:

1) All player humanoids have base speed 8.
2) Your actual speed is modified by any AP (Armor Penalty). Dex does NOT modify speed.
3) Let there be a Movement Talent as follows:
Novice Level: You gain a +2 speed bonus (i.e your Speed is 10)
Journeyman Level: You gain another +2 speed bonus (i.e your Speed is 12)
Master Level: Your speed is instead base speed modified by your Dexterity (minimum +4).
4) Humans start with the Novice level of this talent; Elves with Journeyman. Dwarves start with no levels of this talent, but can purchase them normally (I'm thinking Rogues can take this talent).

This keeps Speed much more manageable. There is a reason most other games (read D&D) don't let Dex modify your speed just like that.

With this proposal, only those taking the Master level of the Movement Talent gets to add their Dex to Speed. And it doesn't do them any good unless their Dex is at least 5.

And it means that Elves, while ahead on Speed when the game starts, can't run circles around those Dwarves that focus on getting up a good Speed.

They can still run circles around MOST dwarves, which really is all that's important (for verisimiltude reasons) while still allowing that exceptional Dwarf to catch up (for play-fun reasons).

This is because, and this haven't been discussed much so far, speed in a small-scale skirmisher type of game (like most rpgs) include much more than merely leg length. Speed can be seen to contain many more variables, things like "ability to act under stress" or "ability to move while heavily loaded" or "ability to move efficiently in rough terrain". trying to reduce Speed into a measure of leg length only doesn't seem worthwhile to me...

All these things make it so that the idea that all elves are always much faster than all dwarves doesn't sound very realistic to me. fantasy rpgs are much about fulfilling your potential - and what could be more realistic than allowing a Dwarven Runner type of character to achieve Speed 13* if that's what her player wants?

*) Dexterity 5 plus Master Movement.

[Lynata]

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

I guess that is so.

The way I see it, it's pretty simple: Whilst on average, men have a tendency for superior strength, it is quite possible for a woman to be stronger than a man. Hence any "need" of a modifier is a non-issue, as the players can simply assume that the female character in question is one such individual whose strength can hold up to the rest of the party.

I don't understand how this is even remotely comparable to dwarven speed, unless we assume that there are dwarves in Thedas whose legs are as long as those of a human. Which I don't.

Any game attempting to compensate females for a lower Strength with a higher something else (Willpower, Charisma or whathaveyou) simply comes across as uninformed and stereotypical.

This I would dispute, though it may depend on the setting and its culture. Things such as maternal instincts on one side and the males' tendency to compete for "breeding rights" on the other can easily result in notable differences in social interaction based on gender, and even though this is greatly affected by upbringing and social stigma, Thedas (and a number of other fantasy worlds) do have nations where such requirements are or at least were recently cultivated. See: the tale of Aveline.

In our own world, the introduction of female soldiers into military squads has also yielded some interesting results, and soldiers generally agree that females bring different social elements into play, such as a calming or even encouraging (as they tend to perform twice as hard to prove their worth) influence on their squadmates resulting in increased unit efficiency.

For more modern/sci-fi games, there's also the scientifically proven fact that females are better able to handle G-stresses, and there are military studies that suggest they are superior pilots (and better drivers, according to recent insurance statistics). This in turn could result in respective bonuses or foci when handling vehicles such as attack fighters etc.

(that reminds me that I'd love to see a Mass Effect version of the DARPG...)

Sexes are not the same, but obviously muscle strength is just one of many aspects where there's a difference. This has not to do with balancing alone (although it is of course a welcome effect), but plain and simple going the whole way and not just focusing on a single cliché whilst omitting the traditionally downplayed advantages of the female gender.

Instead, it would be better to say something like "a starting female character is limited to Strength +2 or lower, before modifications for background and random rolls."

An interesting and feasible idea - close to something I have thought about myself, actually. In a similar discussion about FFG's version of a 40k P&P I proposed rerolls (and then taking the higher roll) for "gender-benefited" characters, or a modification of the "dice range" that has all characters start with the same minimum but allows for rolls closer to or (if very lucky) even slightly above the normal maximum.

Not that I have any desire to see such system introduced, as it doesn't swing with the usual depiction of protagonists in classic fantasy or sci-fi settings (-> the same thing that makes me think dwarves need to be slower) ... but it is an interesting thing to discuss either way.

Boy did we get off-topic.

[Loswaith]

There are a million things we can say need to be taken into account if we are worried at all about realism at its basic level, or use to justify using it in one area and not another. The simple fact of the matter is RPGs are completly abstract in their nature, they have to be to play well without major complexities.

So the realism we take from it are those aspects that when portrayed feel 'right', thus the feeling of realism is more the actual factor rather than any actual realism. Dwarven speed to most people is one of those things. The dwarven descriptions and design cause incontinuity if they have the same movement speed as humans or elves because they are portayed as being short and stocky, and as humans we immediately take general examples from our own experiences, in that when people are short and stocky they are actually slower than people that are taller and not stocky. Likewise we have little problem in seeing elves as being just as fast or faster than humans given their descriptions, even if they are shorter, because they are portrayed as being lithe and slender, traits that are often associated with someone being fast.

The reality of the matter is movement speed has to do with not just ones dexterity/agility (which realy plays one of the smallest roles) but also inclusive of things like strength and body build, with the more important factor of technique and training. Almost all of which is abstracted away when it comes to RPGs.

As to the differences in gender, it is one aspect that is abstracted away for a more simpler system because it can degenerate into a very complex system, and also brings up factors such as the effects of nature and nuture.
One also has to take into the account of a culture/species for history and evolution that isnt the same or similar as our own (as most fantasy RPGs fall into that category).
Many cases of animals show us that it is the females that are stronger and larger than the male, so it is quite possible for a human culture to have developed that doesnt share the same break down between gender traits that we have.

That said, RPGs typically use ourselves as the basis for humans (most often having us portray the same generalities) because we have no other guidlines to go on, but many factors could change or alter that which would need to be considered if we are to actually be realistic.

[shonuff]

So the realism we take from it are those aspects that when portrayed feel 'right', thus the feeling of realism is more the actual factor rather than any actual realism. Dwarven speed to most people is one of those things. The dwarven descriptions and design cause incontinuity if they have the same movement speed as humans or elves because they are portayed as being short and stocky, and as humans we immediately take general examples from our own experiences, in that when people are short and stocky they are actually slower than people that are taller and not stocky. Likewise we have little problem in seeing elves as being just as fast or faster than humans given their descriptions, even if they are shorter, because they are portrayed as being lithe and slender, traits that are often associated with someone being fast.

Not only are they short and stubby, their bodies look out of proportion to me. But not only is it a "realism" issue, I see it as a game-balancing one, as well. Offhand, dwarves get a decent resistance to magic, so it's relatively fair that it is coupled with a hinderance, as well.

Many cases of animals show us that it is the females that are stronger and larger than the male, so it is quite possible for a human culture to have developed that doesnt share the same break down between gender traits that we have.

For the most part, though, those are insects and fish. I believe most male birds are the larger, and I cannot think of a single example where a female mammal is larger than the male.

[Lynata]

I guess it comes down to how exactly our individually perceived clichés look like - when we think of dwarves, of elves, or of men and women ... how do we think they "should" differ? Just look at DA2's redesigned elves and how they were received; even though no such thing as "elves" exist in real life, a very vocal majority of people argued that DA2's elves did in fact not look "elfish" because they (quite deliberately, as per their designers) differed from what people were used to (which is to say "humans with pointy ears").
And I agree with the criticism. When you make a game that has dwarves and elves in it, then you're pretty much bound to fulfill certain expectations. Want to make something different? Then come up with another name.

Perhaps the roots of the debate can be found in what sort of material we have read or watched that served to shape our personal preferences on the depiction of fantasy races, much like hearsay/upbringing and real-life examples shape our opinion of gender capacities.

For the most part, though, those are insects and fish. I believe most male birds are the larger, and I cannot think of a single example where a female mammal is larger than the male.

I had to think of spiders first on the topic of larger females. As for mammals, your comment actually prompted me to do a quick google search on "larger female mammal" and this is what came up. I wasn't aware of this myself.

[Zapp]

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

I guess that is so.

The way I see it, it's pretty simple: Whilst on average, men have a tendency for superior strength, it is quite possible for a woman to be stronger than a man. Hence any "need" of a modifier is a non-issue, as the players can simply assume that the female character in question is one such individual whose strength can hold up to the rest of the party.


I don't understand how this is even remotely comparable to dwarven speed, unless we assume that there are dwarves in Thedas whose legs are as long as those of a human. Which I don't.

I dont understand your argument.

Sure there are women as strong as, or even stronger than, men (especially weak men), there are some dwarfs faster than humans. The rules themselves make it so: a dwarf with Dexterity 4 is faster than even an elf with -1.

How does that differ from the situation with women?

The And the answer is: it doesnt. Its just that the game designers have (wisely) chosen to implement one aspect while ignoring the other.

Simply acknowledge that the Dwarf issue is in your game *because you like it*, and the issue with females isnt, and this discussion is done...

Which is fine. The one thing you cant do, however, is to claim its in the game purely because of "realism", because that should logically mean we should expect the other too (along with a host of others).

[Zapp]

Any game attempting to compensate females for a lower Strength with a higher something else (Willpower, Charisma or whathaveyou) simply comes across as uninformed and stereotypical.

This I would dispute, though it may depend on the setting and its culture. Things such as maternal instincts on one side and the males' tendency to compete for "breeding rights" on the other can easily result in notable differences in social interaction based on gender, and even though this is greatly affected by upbringing and social stigma, Thedas (and a number of other fantasy worlds) do have nations where such requirements are or at least were recently cultivated. See: the tale of Aveline.

In our own world, the introduction of female soldiers into military squads has also yielded some interesting results, and soldiers generally agree that females bring different social elements into play, such as a calming or even encouraging (as they tend to perform twice as hard to prove their worth) influence on their squadmates resulting in increased unit efficiency.

For more modern/sci-fi games, there's also the scientifically proven fact that females are better able to handle G-stresses, and there are military studies that suggest they are superior pilots (and better drivers, according to recent insurance statistics). This in turn could result in respective bonuses or foci when handling vehicles such as attack fighters etc.

(that reminds me that I'd love to see a Mass Effect version of the DARPG...)

Sexes are not the same, but obviously muscle strength is just one of many aspects where there's a difference. This has not to do with balancing alone (although it is of course a welcome effect), but plain and simple going the whole way and not just focusing on a single cliché whilst omitting the traditionally downplayed advantages of the female gender.

I do not disagree - there are plenty of differences between the sexes, some subtle, some not.

I do maintain, however, that if we restrict ourselves to differences that are 1) clear and significant and 2) easily encodable in rpg rulesets - that is "differences suited to rpg inclusion" there is one difference that is load and clear: the purely physical difference in height/mass leading to a substantial raw strength difference.

Most other differences are either too complex to represent easily, too subtle to warrant inclusion in a simple game, or quite frankly a difference more on the individual level than something clearly attributable to gender.

Again let me insist none of the above should be interpreted as support for the idea to make women weak in your game - I only bring it up to show how arbitrary the "Dwarfs are slow" mechanism really is.

Z

PS. Do note - it's entirely possible you could successfully argue there are more gender differences on par with the strength issue. My point is certainly not that Strength is the only possible such difference - I only wanted to explain why I brought that one up and no others.

In fact, the more such differences you find, the more illogical it feels NOT to include them in your game. If you include Dwarf speed for "realistic" reasons, that is.

[Zapp]

Instead, it would be better to say something like "a starting female character is limited to Strength +2 or lower, before modifications for background and random rolls."

An interesting and feasible idea - close to something I have thought about myself, actually. In a similar discussion about FFG's version of a 40k P&P I proposed rerolls (and then taking the higher roll) for "gender-benefited" characters, or a modification of the "dice range" that has all characters start with the same minimum but allows for rolls closer to or (if very lucky) even slightly above the normal maximum.

Not that I have any desire to see such system introduced, as it doesn't swing with the usual depiction of protagonists in classic fantasy or sci-fi settings (-> the same thing that makes me think dwarves need to be slower) ... but it is an interesting thing to discuss either way.

Boy did we get off-topic.

Indeed we did...!

If you want to say that you include slow Dwarfs to meet genre expectations then I should probably clarify the obvious: I have no quarrel with you.

Remember, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea. Just the "its because its realistic" justification.

[shonuff]

But the slowest cheetah will probably outrun the fastest lion. Realistically speaking, some things are just faster than others, and a dwarf with high dex will be faster than a human/elf with low dex, although as Loswaith pointed out there isn't a true correlation between dex/speed. However, this is a game, so you're right in saying that not everything is 100% realistic. But the other dwarf benefits, IMO, account for the low speed.

Any game attempting to compensate females for a lower Strength In fact, the more such differences you find, the more illogical it feels NOT to include them in your game. If you include Dwarf speed for "realistic" reasons, that is.

This is still a game, and while there should be some differences, too many make for a complex mess, IMO.

[Zapp]

So the realism we take from it are those aspects that when portrayed feel 'right', thus the feeling of realism is more the actual factor rather than any actual realism.

Thank you.

I completely agree and this is my entire point - most of the time people throw about the "realism" argument, they really mean "it feels better for me".

When I use the "realism" argument I imply I'm more right than you, because I have objective truth on my side. Seasoning my argument with mentions of physical fact, such as dwarf leg length, only reinforces this notion.

But when I feature slow Dwarves in my game, without also featuring weak(er) women (on average) I try my best not to point towards "realism", since I know it's mostly personal preference why I feature one and not the other.

Best Regards,
Zapp

[Zapp]

This is still a game, and while there should be some differences, too many make for a complex mess, IMO.

I definitely agree.

(Btw, I am not* talking about the game mechanics themselves. I'm talking about the various ways we all explain or rationalise why we include or exclude them.)

* mostly not, in any case - I did give an example of a Strength mechanism above, for instance...

[Zapp]

I guess it comes down to how exactly our individually perceived clichés look like - when we think of dwarves, of elves, or of men and women ... how do we think they "should" differ? Just look at DA2's redesigned elves and how they were received; even though no such thing as "elves" exist in real life, a very vocal majority of people argued that DA2's elves did in fact not look "elfish" because they (quite deliberately, as per their designers) differed from what people were used to (which is to say "humans with pointy ears").
And I agree with the criticism. When you make a game that has dwarves and elves in it, then you're pretty much bound to fulfill certain expectations. Want to make something different? Then come up with another name.

Perhaps the roots of the debate can be found in what sort of material we have read or watched that served to shape our personal preferences on the depiction of fantasy races, much like hearsay/upbringing and real-life examples shape our opinion of gender capacities.

Some excellent points.



Let me just add that while "come up with another name" is a reasonable suggestion sometimes, it isn't always. After all, you don't want to see the criticism "those xxyyzzes are only elves with a stupid name".

If it is an Elf you're gunning for - call it an Elf. Even if you paint them yellow or give them antennae.

Each time I see a fantasy game with a new unpronounceable name only to realize they're Orcs I groan. Especially if they're "wise gentle Orcs".

See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... eDifferent

[Lynata]

I dont understand your argument.
Sure there are women as strong as, or even stronger than, men (especially weak men), there are some dwarfs faster than humans. The rules themselves make it so: a dwarf with Dexterity 4 is faster than even an elf with -1.
How does that differ from the situation with women?

It differs in that there can indeed be women who are larger and/or more muscular than men - yet I have never seen a dwarf who is as big as a human, which renders your comparison inaccurate. There's a fundamental difference between the overlap that exists between genders "validating" a neglection of strength (or other) differences and a distinctive racial trait that makes all members from one species clearly differ from another. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than this other than uploading pictures of muscular men and women compared to short people.

That as per the DARPG's rules dwarves can overcome this inherent disadvantage (either partially or fully) by investing advancement points into the Dexterity stat only means that height and build aren't everything, which is realistic as well.

Simply acknowledge that the Dwarf issue is in your game *because you like it*, and the issue with females isnt, and this discussion is done...

Didn't I say so already when I pointed out individual perceptions of realism? In the end, this is no different from you saying this is a problem just *because you like it* (referring to faster dwarves). We all have our own opinions on how things should look like, and henceforth how we'd prefer things to be.

I do reject any attempt to diminish my argument by suggesting that the motif I presented is a lie, though. If you absolutely cannot see why a number of people in this thread disagree with your comparison or why some people think that certain fantasy clichés deserve representation in the game mechanics as well, that's fine, but as I said the end result is that we can only agree to disagree. You should at least acknowledge this.
At this point we pretty much seem to argue for the argument's sake.

After all, you don't want to see the criticism "those xxyyzzes are only elves with a stupid name".

Hmm, I've never personally subscribed to such notion myself (personally, I'd simply see unique names as a cultural designation - would anybody call the Orlesians French?), but I have seen it being thrown around. That said, I always thought that terms such as "space elves" for Warhammer's Eldar, Master of Orion's Elerians, Star Wars' Sephi (etc.) were more like a benign nickname rather than honest criticism.
Meh, even if I was wrong, I'll just continue to use it as such.

As for expectations, maybe it also depends on how exactly the differences look like. Skin colours, for example? Sure, no prob, dark elves and grey elves exist in numerous settings. But distorting their faces in a way that makes them look weird or even hideous to a lot of people, this is just something that breaks the stereotype in a negative way. Unlike a number of other things, "elves look pretty" seems to be pretty established as a law in fantasy clichés.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I swear DA2 elves were an attempt at making them a little anthro, either to appeal to fans of cat-people or to swim in the wake of that Avatar movie's popularity (see: Na'vi).

[Zapp]

It differs in that there can indeed be women who are larger and/or more muscular than men - yet I have never seen a dwarf who is as big as a human, which renders your comparison inaccurate.

Aww, come on.

You have seen women more muscular than some men, but you haven't seen women more muscular than the most muscular man.

Imagine two bell curves, one shifted to the right. One for females, one for males.

Sure there are a subset of (stronger) females stronger than a subset of (weaker) males, but that doesn't mean a general strength mechanism isn't warranted (regardless of its actual implementation).

AND IT IS THE SAME WITH DWARVES, just as the rules make clear. Two bell curves where the upper values of one beat the lower values of the other. And just as with the gender diagram, the fastest humans remain faster than any dwarf.

yet I have never seen a dwarf who is as big as a human, which renders your comparison inaccurate.

1) I have never seen a Dwarf, period.
2) I wasn't discussing their size, but their speed, and their effective speed in tense situations to be precise.

I maintain that the two cases are functionally similar.

Sure, they're not identical. I have no problem accepting a worldview where dwarves are slower than females are weak, if you see what I mean.

But they are both significant enough to warrant inclusion even in a simple game. If you subscribe to the "realism" reason, that is.

That you (and I) in practice will only have one and not the other has nothing to do with this. I just brought up the case to show that when you (or I) include slow Dwarves but not weak females, we do so for a host of reasons, none of which logically can involve "realism" or "objective truth".

Cheers

[Lynata]

You have seen women more muscular than some men, but you haven't seen women more muscular than the most muscular man.

So? It doesn't take much to simply assume that player characters fall in the overlap region of strong women and average men. Equality reached, problem solved, erosion of realism averted.

If this doesn't work for you ... well, it doesn't work for you. I for one have no problem with it.

AND IT IS THE SAME WITH DWARVES, just as the rules make clear. Two bell curves where the upper values of one beat the lower values of the other.

Only once you factor in Dexterity advancements which increase speed as a side effect. Yet the reasoning behind dwarven speed (as I understand it!) is not a lack in dexterity - it's their size/build, and here I am not aware of any overlap between dwarves and humans. Just because it exists in one factor (Dex) doesn't mean the other needs to be neglected.

1) I have never seen a Dwarf, period.
2) I wasn't discussing their size, but their speed, and their effective speed in tense situations to be precise.

1) You're playing a Dragon Age RPG. In this setting, dwarves and their build are clearly defined, period.
2) Speed is affected by size, at least according to my interpretation of realism.

But they are both significant enough to warrant inclusion even in a simple game. If you subscribe to the "realism" reason, that is.

I think that in this aspect, our interpretations of realism (and fantastic realism, when it comes to dwarves or elves) are simply incompatible. This argument could go on forever without coming to fruition.

As I have nothing more to add (and I don't think you have, either, as we've been dancing in circles for the last few posts), I'll go ahead and simply drop it here. Feel free to add any closing words if you wish, but I shall try and take a step back from the discussion. Peace?

[Zapp]

Let me use pretty ( ) pictures...

Here are three pairs of bell curves. Which one do you feel best matches your views on dwarf/human speed and female/male strength respectively (from a purely "realism"-related point of view)?


I'd guess you would go for diagram 'B' or 'C' for both. Then there is no logical reason to have one in the game and not the other. There is no fundamental difference between diagrams 'B' and 'C' you see - it's all gradual, and including one but not the other is then inherently an arbitrary decision.

Except that you probably don't want to use "realism" as your filter.

If you use any other filter, such as "gameplay fun" or "modern views on equality" or whatever, then you're free to include only one and not the other, and still making perfect sense!

Hope my reasoning is clear now


Zapp

PS. Only if you truly believe one or the other pairs is best represented by diagram 'A' could you make a case of including one but not the other. If all dwarves are slower than all humans then I could accept the argument "I'm only including modifiers for fundamentally different sets of values, I'm not bothering with relatively small such differences".

But we agree the strongest woman is stronger than the weakest man, so diagram 'A' it isn't for "gender strength".

And the game itself makes it clear that the fastest Dwarf is faster than the slowest Human or Elf, so it isn't 'A' for "species speed" either.