I think (fear) that the Athas 3ed. conversion will use the same parametres for the acquisition of wealth and magic item worth with levels as the DMG suggests. Yes?
I know, of course, that not doing so would unbalance the D&D system from mid levels on, and especially at high levels.
However, doing so would completely tear down the feel of Dark Sun. Take this example (and I have readjusted metal equipment costs to fit):
Rikus, male mul gladiator level 15
Posessions: +3 shell armor, +2 wooden large shield, +2 metal bastard sword, +1 mighty composite longbow [Str18], 50 +1 arrows, fruit of moderate wounds, fruit of endurance, cloak of resistance +2, ring of protection +1, boots of speed, amulet of natural armor +2, fruit of heroism, eyes of the eagle,
I replaced some equipment with DS equivalents or lower cost non metal items using the NPC fighter of the DMG. Am I the only one who thinks that this cannot be the way Dark Sun goes???
In Beyond the Prism Pentad, Rikus was said to have a +1 metal longsword, and that's about it. His write up even states that his AC is only affected by his dexterity, and thus he wears no armor. I could very well do the same thing with every major Dark Sun heroes.
Also, that's only for NPCs! Imagine a 15th level PC with all the aforementionned stuff, but add 141 000 cp worth of magic items!!! (15th level NPCs only have 59 000 cp worth of equipment, while PCs have 200 000) That means a PC will essentially have 3 times as many items, or much more poweful items.
Completely wrong.
So, how could this be adressed? Frankly, I'm not sure... Without reworking the entire CR and XP system, it might be hard.
But I wonder just how exactly the magic items have been taken into account for CRs. The thing is, creatures who are not humanoids usually never have magic items, no matter what their CRs are. Also, when you look at Savage Species, magic items which are normally given to creatures (usually outsiders) are not taken into account for the level adjustement. So I wonder just how much of it counts towards evaluating the CRs and XP rewards. If we could figure that out, it might be good to have a variant "low-magic" system, or make small adjustments to ability values in CR.
For example, DR in Dark Sun could be less common. There are also many creatures which have "metal" as a criteria for overcoming damage reduction instead of magic bonuses. Magic bonus DRs could entail a higher CR adjustment than traditionnal D&D.
Any thoughts? How exactly does athas.org deal with this?
Hoard the magic items and wealth from the players. Then, when they reach mid levels and are 'technically' able to enter a den of tembo's and clean house, send them in and watch them get slaughtered in minutes. Try it. You'll love it ;)
Seriously, I've only done that once . . . well, maybe twice . . . . . okay four times. I did it to my players four times.
The real answer depends on the group I think. If your a stickler for mechanics, use the system of wealth distribution as per the DMG. Use the CR's as written. No problems.
If your a fan of flavor over numbers, then be stingy as all heck with what the PCs get over the coarse of their careers, but tailor encounters to the player's abilities and equipment more. Use CR's as a guide only, not a law carved in stone. Understand that at higher levels, the PCs are not going to be facing encounters that match their level to the CR of the encounter. Think ahead and start subtracting the CR's of more powerful monsters by 1 or 2 or more (more if your like me and reserve even metal items until around 5th or 6th level, and even then only a small amount of them within the whole party).
Pretty much, the only real solution would be to have a different CR system, one specifically tailored to Dark Sun as well as different guidlines on wealth and equipment given out during an adventure. Since the SRD doesn't really allow the Athas.org team to do this (or anyone else to do it and post it online), it means that the most that can be done is to use common sense. 7th level party enters den of tembo's, tembo's eat well that night. 14th level party enters den of tembo's, PC halfings eat well that night. 1st edition D&D didn't have such hard and fast rules about these things, yet everything generally worked out with people using their own common sense about what monsters were appropriate for the party. Just because 3rd edition has a rule to deal with this, doesn't mean it must be used or else. Its obviously something that is going to give the setting massive headahces, so ditch it (even if only in an unofficial sense).
PS. I formally and humble apologise to all those poor souls who ever participated in my Dark Sun campaigns. I vow never again to send any of you into a den of tembos . . . I like nightmare beasts much more now anyway :D
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Heh, my games are normally very dark, gritty, and serious affairs with a very mature slant on heroics and violence. That is, until someone decides that they'd rather be glancing at the TV since its only the 8,000th showing of Star Wars or after giving a synopsis of the last adventure every player looks over and says "Huh? What was that? I wasn't listening" or woe to the poor player who actually falls asleep at the table (even if he put in 74 hours of work that week and has a 1 month old at home, I still feel quite justified at having him become Hamanu's personal concubine while he slept). Really though, I joke alot on the boards and in real life, but most of our gaming is very dark, low fantasy, with tragedy and turmoil (just don't look at me during combat and quote "It was a boring conversation anyway *boom*, Luke! We going to have company!").
Still sounds like I would enjoy myself.
So if she wants to be strict, he can be. If he wants to be throwing magic items out left and right, she can. This is 3e, with the transition you are going to lose some things, just something you have to deal with. I myself plan to use this control, and give the characters magic items and such when I see fit and ad hoc the hell out of the CR system, that's why that ability is there and is so great, you can ad hoc as you go even if the actual CR numbers are wrong, abeit a small amount.
However, I'm not against variant rules. Right now we are more worried about core getting out. If you want to write up a variant rule go ahead and do so and send it to us, if it works and we like it then we will post it in the article section and give you credit, if we like it but have to tweak it some, then we will, and still post it. That's what that section is for, so we don't have to spend all our time adding upteen million variant rules to core just to make everyone happy. :D
Note: This post conforms to the gender usage rules of D&D 3e/d20.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
[Note: This post conforms to the gender usage rules of D&D 3e/d20.
Heheheh...
If you looked at my stuff, you'd notice I did the same thing! ;)
However, I also provided a variant gender ability adjustment rule in my Description Chapter (Chap. 6) That's less d20 (more realistic though...)
/me reflects back at what happen last time someone did different stats and such for different genders
Nothing like debating with people who try to argue that women are just as strong as men.
Either you americans have really big women, or we canadian men are really strong! :D
As long as you don't give the female gender the advantage of child birth like some fool did in an issue of Dragon I read. As any woman will tell you, that is not an *advantage*, heh.
On a genetic level, a topic I love to debate/discuss/whatever, I can see where you are coming from though.
Do I want that realism in my games? No, but to each their own.
Female senses are genetically more accute than male, for humans at least. The difference is negligeable, but it still is there. Also, their is a common belief going on about women intuition, which is probably nonsense, but in a fantastic setting, why not? +2 to wisdom represents this.
Also, females (GENERALLY) have a more gentle temperament, and a more pleasant demeanor. This is not genetic, its cultural, for occidental and oriental women, at least. Socme societies might escpae this rule, but for most of the patriarchal societies (which is most societies, including the north american society) women have a much less aggressive nature than men, simply because of the social values our societies impose on both sexes. +2 to charisma.
However, for strength, men are clearly stronger. I KNOW THAT SOME WOMEN ARE STRONGER THAN SOME MEN!!! That is NOT an argument!!! Its the same thing as saying that women are shorter than men. Some women are taller than some men, sure, but on average, their is a good difference, and the tallest man is taller than the tallest woman. This is even more true with weight. As far as I know, D&D has accepted this difference, so why not strength?
As men are broader, taller and heavier, on average, it also grants them a strength advantage. The strongest male is undoubtably stronger than the strongest female. Human females cannot develop the same upper body strenght as males, given the same conditioning, see the Mr and Miss Universe contests. Or the olympics. Most of the time, female athlethes could not even QUALIFY for the competitions of their male counterparts.
The only problem with this is because strength is valued as something prestigious, and thus, acknowledging that women are physically weaker than men is politically incorrect. It is still very much a reality, or as I said, we have very, very strong men up north... or weak women... hmm... ;)
Anyways, I gave a -4 Strength penalty to females. Yes, its harsh. D&D would probably be more accurate with -2, but the racial Strength adjustments are more important in my conversion.
Also, note that this adjustment is only good with human females. Dwarven females, for example, are not considerably weaker than their male counterparts. However, they are not really more sociable either, nor or they less stubborn. As such, dwarven females have -2 str, +2 wis. All races have specific adjustments like that. Thri-kreen have none.
And no, female gamers are not afraid of this rule, at least, not in my groups (I have two, one with one female player, the other with 2). In fact, it better serves them, as they are drawn to classes and abilities which usually are not brawny fighter type. For example, a popular archetype of a female fantasy character is the priestess. These gender bonuses help her a lot in that. As such, females have a comparative advantage on their male counterparts.
And it just makes more sense! It's always a nagging feeling that you get when you're a ranger with 13 strength and the sorceress at your side has a 12!
Anyways, I was never one to uphold political correctness against logic, and I do always try to get my RPGs to be as realistic as possible (in the confines of that world's reality, at least). And may I add that Dark Sun is far from being a politically correct setting, anyways. ;)
Originally posted by Shei-Nad
Also, note that this adjustment is only good with human females. Dwarven females, for example, are not considerably weaker than their male counterparts. However, they are not really more sociable either, nor or they less stubborn. As such, dwarven females have -2 str, +2 wis. All races have specific adjustments like that. Thri-kreen have none.
Interesting way of doing it. It sounds like you are fair with it at least.
And no, female gamers are not afraid of this rule, at least, not in my groups
Heh, guess you didn't read that Dragon issues I read then (can't remember the issue #
) but every woman they had to retort the guy who posted this thing in the first place hated the idea, whether it was with the ability adjustments or the advantage of bearing children.As for why D&D has always done the height and weight thing and not the gender thing, I have no idea other than to not step on anyone's toes and stay as PC as possible in an attempt to get more female gamers to join the fray.
Trust me, they are a rare breed up here, and if you do fine some, they either LARP Vampire or something else, or are only playing because their boyfriend/husband/whatever is playing. Finding one that plays D&D is even more rare. Maybe I am totally wrong here, I have only actually lived in two states, so maybe I was just always in an area where they are a rare breed. :shrug:
Anyways, I was never one to uphold political correctness against logic,
I'm the same way, but I try not to step on toes or do it in a way where I might get my butt kicked because of it. Any other issue though and I will make an ass of myself just to prove a point, heh go figure.
and I do always try to get my RPGs to be as realistic as possible (in the confines of that world's reality, at least).
Ugh, I use to be that way, then I saw that it took from the game some so I toned it down a bit.
Dark Sun is far from being a politically correct setting, anyways. ;)
Amen to that.
HOWEVER, i would offer this one observation. in order to represent the differences between male and female (humans, anyway) in stat terms, you have displayed a certain distinct sexism that i find ironic, given your general level of awareness and fairness. what i mean is: you have set males as the average, and applied ability modifiers to the female humans, and none to the males. your discussion of biological v. social effects on mental and physical capabilities was quite well-thought-out, but you missed that just over 51% of the population (plus or minus a half-percent, depending on where you get your figures) is female, not male (on earth, anyway). this is mostly true for social mammals (and especially primates). the _norm_, if there is going to be one, is the female, not the male. as you said, most human societies that have any level of technology above the tribal, "stone and wood", are patriarchal. however, that does not make males the unmodified norm. ergo, it should be males with the -2 WIS, -2 CHA, and +4 STR, not the other way around... i'm really not trying to flame. like i said, you're clearly educated and aware and "progressive" in all the good senses. i just thought it ironic that you had made such a well-thought-out case, with a base that was slightly counter to your argument...
anyway, cheers,
ajakutty
EDIT: the statistics on population come from a combination of biology and anthropology. first, babies are indeed slightly more likely to be born as female than male. the difference is tiny, but present. second, as is common knowledge, females are genetically more "sound". that is, they have higher pain tolerance (by a LOT, at least that's what the research suggests), live longer (also by a large amount), are less likely to suffer from speech disorders or "insanity", etc. third and finally, males in most patriarchal societies (read: most of the societies on earth) are more likely to be fighters, hard laborers, and hunters - all occupations that lead to both physical strength, and a higher likelyhood of physical exhaustion and death. why the world-wide population difference between males and females isn't bigger is a mystery to me.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
As for why D&D has always done the height and weight thing and not the gender thing, I have no idea other than to not step on anyone's toes and stay as PC as possible in an attempt to get more female gamers to join the fray.
Trust me, they are a rare breed up here, and if you do fine some, they either LARP Vampire or something else, or are only playing because their boyfriend/husband/whatever is playing. Finding one that plays D&D is even more rare. Maybe I am totally wrong here, I have only actually lived in two states, so maybe I was just always in an area where they are a rare breed. :shrug:
I don't know Nyt, there is 3 women in my group who love DnD. Then there are the larpers and a lot of them play DnD as well. *shrug*
Of the other two women who remain, they simply don't want to deal with that level of realism in a roleplaying game - the other GM's wife being the first and foremost to speak against gender-specific stat adjustments (and she can get quite hostile). It's not that she believes that genetically men & women are the same, just she doesn't want realism to detract from playability & her enjoyment.
Mach and Nyt, I'd be more than happy to welcome you to my homeland: Québec.
In an hour, our national day starts too! Come practice your french, drink our strong beers, eat some poutine and of course, enjoy our good-tempered women! :pOn the standard thing, men being standard, I had thought of that believe it or not, and I do know your intent is not to flame, only to make a point. And I agree with you. Implementing this system does in fact "discriminate" since it makes males "normal" and females "different". As such, I know it also could probably not be implemented on a large scale.
However, the only reason its drawn up that way is because, like Nytcrwlr wisely observed, most RPGamers are guys, which makes it easier that way.
That said, I would note that even D&D is discriminatory gender-wise and mechanics-wise for some of their races. Look up entries regarding humanoids in the Monstrous Manual. It will give the statristics for a warrior of this race, but if large groups are encountered, it will almost always state, especially in adventures, that a portion of the group (20 to 50%) is composed of women and children, and are non-combattant.
So.
But lets be politically correct on the political scene, and play as we like at home.
Oh, and don't worry Nyt, 2 of my girl gamers play because their boyfriends do, and the other is my ex-girlfriend, which began playing because I did, and continued now. She also plays in Vampire Live.
So you see! Women DO have racial traits which are specific!!! :p