Chop! Poison (and Death Rays)

[this is "Part 1" in a series of getting rid of saving throws in my new fantasy heartbreaker. You can look at the formative thoughts on this weird concept here and here]

Let's start with the save versus Death Ray, 'cause it's easy. I don't have "death rays" in the new game, so there's no need for any such save. There are spells that'll rip your heart out of your chest, but no death rays. That's an easy chop.

*CHOP*

Now, let's move on to Poison.

So many amazing things you can learn from this internet thingy when you start doing research. Things like the distinction between poisons, toxins, and venoms. Things like which creatures of the animal kingdom actually have venom (there aren't all that many). Things like what various poisons will do to the human body (and what they won't do).

Paracelsus wrote that everything is a "poison" if taken in the wrong dose...but for our purposes, we're not worried about excessive eating or drinking. We're talking about things like snake bites and "poison gas" and giant spiders and the occasional poisoned blade or arrow.

Right?

Let's look at normal animals first...and we can probably skip the platypus and poisonous fish. Things like snakes, scorpions, spiders, and lizards are staples of the dungeon-delving genre. These creatures...real life animals...have venom that is capable of killing adult human beings. Capable of killing a human, but death is not a certitude...which is probably part of the idea behind saving throws. For sure, it's a retroactive justification for the idea. A successful poison save (or fortitude save) means the creature didn't inject enough venom to kill the hearty player character. Instead, they just take "damage."

But how much damage do these animals do in real life? A snake can bite you 20 times (through your boots if not plate armor), but it's doubtful such bites would severely dent your "adventuring ability" (i.e. diminish your hit points). Spiders only inject venom on an "attack bite" (against prey they consider potential food)...spiders have a "defensive bite" when scared or threatened that contains no venom (they apparently have superior control of how much venom they inject)...but would such a venom-less bite do even a single point of damage?

To me it makes more sense to model venom in terms of actual damage...if a normal (non-adventuring) human has 1D6 hit points, than D6 damage would adequately model the random possible deadliness of an envenomed attack. A "6" roll would mean a dosage capable of felling a strong human, and a "1" would be a relatively mild (if still painful) shot.

"But my fighter has 20 hit points, JB! How could my character ever be killed by a king cobra?"

Well, you my lucky friend, have simply become the beneficiary of "dramatic license." I believe I previously mentioned that my new fantasy heartbreaker is not about scurrilous rogues, but bona fide Heroes. And heroes just don't "auto-die" from the bite of a black widow.

How many poisonings can a halfling survive?

Okay, so moving onto to LARGER envenomed monsters...giant snakes and such...hey, did you know that the majority of snakes are of the "non-venomed" variety? Instead being constrictors who use their bite (and fangs) to hold prey while they squeeze 'em to death? The things you learn, really...

*ahem* The venom from larger monsters can be extrapolated from the way we model normal animals. A giant viper, might have fangs the size of daggers (and inflict similar damage from a bite) and inject a larger amount of more virulent poison...doing more damage.

Because that's what poison does to humans...it damages them. And if it damages them enough, it kills them. That's pretty easy to model with hit points of damage.

Remember the origin of the poison save? A hypothetical "giant spider" in Chainmail that took out a piece that failed its 2D6 roll of 8+. In Chainmail, there aren't any "hit points"...you're either removed from the board, or you're still active. D&D (and its descendants) have done away with the one-shot-one-kill of Chainmail and instead provide individuals with hit points. Use 'em.

[also remember that Chainmail's giant spider doesn't poison anything but the rank-n-file pawns, instead melee-ing like a lycanthrope when engaged with other fantasy characters: heroes, wizards, and the like]

But what about reduced capability? Getting the shakes from that rattlesnake venom and whatnot? Didn't DND3 do a great job with that ability damage shtick?

Well, first off notice that the older editions don't really worry about this "reduced capacity" nonsense, at least with regard to poison (other than shadows, I don't think there's a monster in the core B/X books that reduce ability scores, though I may be forgetting something). Reduced capacity can be reduced to "color" just like any other wound ("that spear attack is dripping blood...you're walking with a limp now...your head really hurts after that orc clubbed you; might have a concussion"). It doesn't need to result in an actual mechanical penalty. The game is hard enough (well, without Monte Haul magic gathering and superhero-like feats and abilities)...but even if it isn't, what's to say that when the shit hits the fan and the PC's ass is on the line, he/she won't overcome the "shakes" of the poison or the pain of the wound. Your character will feel awful for hours, but in combat situations you pull yourself together, juicing on  adrenaline and your own heroic grit.

You don't need penalties.

Toxic plants, envenomed blades, and poisoned needles can all be treated the same...you're introducing a foreign substance into the character's body and your body is going to take damage as a result. Hopefully you haven't been reduced to a shambles by an encounter with troglodytes or something, because if you've already been beat to hell that little belladonna sprig might push you over the edge.

Poison gas? Well, what's it do? Is it some sort of nerve agent that kills you? Or (my son's favorite superhero trope) "sleeping gas?" Or is it some sort of medieval tear gas equivalent? If it's non-lethal and you spring it, then you should face its effects. If it's lethal (nerve gas and such is incredibly lethal) then maybe it shouldn't be in the campaign (*ahem*).

But assuming it makes sense to include such a lethal trap, then on a case-by-case basis you might have a die roll to "save." Not to resist the poison, but a chance to hold one's breath when the trap is released. Heck, treat it like an encounter: roll for surprise. Characters that aren't surprised can have the chance to hold their breath (smart players will probably volunteer to do just that) and retreat from the area. Give the thing a range of lethality (so PCs on the outskirts might not be wiped out). If the denizens of the area are aware of the trap (because they created it/set it themselves) they probably have some sort of antidote lurking around (and nearby) for any such accidents.

You really don't need this saving throw.

*CHOP*

How to Chop Saving Throws

DM: "Black Dougal, you find out that you missed a tiny discolored needle in the latch. Roll a saving throw vs. Poison, please!"
Dougal (rolling): "Missed it!"
DM: "Black Dougal gasps 'Poison!' and falls to the floor. He looks dead."

Hot on the heels of yesterday's post (just in case you missed it, though of course you didn't, O Valiant Reader!), I'll move from the why of saves (and why to get rid of them) to how we chop 'em from the game.

Or did I give adequate reason as to "why?" An exchange like the quote above (from Tom Moldvay's Basic book) isn't terribly unusual in a B/X game...but then, traps in B/X are the most uniformly deadly of any edition. I've written before that I don't have a problem with this kind of thing (or a variety of other "mess up the PC" game effects because the game provides methods of overcoming these effects. Poison can be neutralized, curses can be removed, levels restored, and dead characters raised. Finding a way to un-petrify a beloved 8th level character (since stone to flesh is only available to 11th level magic-users) can provide impetus for its own fantastic adventure.

At least, that used to be the case. But then, back in the days of my youth, we had a lot more time on our hands to game on a regular basis. We'd game at school (at recess or study hall breaks) we'd game over the phone (with three-way calling using landlines...no worries about expending "minutes"), we'd game in the evenings and weekends. Back in the day, we didn't have significant others or kids or jobs. Chores and homework were the main responsibilities...even things like Boy Scouts and soccer practice were only a couple-three days a week (and since we gamed with the same people we could talk about and plan and scheme during these extracurricular events, too).

Now, though, time is limited for the average adult gamer (and even youngsters, too). Maybe people don't want to spend a helluva' lot of time sidelined from the game. What happens to Black Dougal's player after his character dies? Does he spend the rest of the session rolling up a new character? Does he make a beer run for the group?

Depending on party size.

One of the last things I mentioned yesterday was that I like characters to "suffer." Perhaps part of that is my latent sadism, but my intellectual take is something along the lines of this: things that we suffer for make us appreciate (or value) the reward for that suffering all the more.

Playing a game of D&D is an exercise in risk-reward. Well, it was...now it's about making good tactical choices in order to achieve victory. But we're talking about "the Old Way" of playing, right? SO...risk-reward. Making choices based on that risk, determining if the reward is worth it. Taking on risk DOES involve suffering: mental suffering in the form of stress.

[gaming should not involve physical suffering. Feed your players and don't hit them with sharp objects, please!]

Will my character die? Will I make/miss my saving throw? Do we have enough arrows/torches/HPs to survive this dungeon delve? Should I have purchased iron spikes or garlic instead of that extra throwing axe? Do I stick my hand in the pool of mysterious liquid to get that gold key? Do I waste time rigging up some sort of "claw" on the end of my ten foot pole, knowing that there are wandering monsters just lurking around the corner? This element of risk leads to stress, leads to fear, leads to adrenaline...hopefully making victory (when it comes) more savory to the palate.

Does the saving throw add to that?

I'm not sure it does...as one comment pointed out, saving throws are binary: you take the brunt of the attack (being poisoned or paralyzed or turned to stone or whatever) or you don't. The "half damage" thang (from dragon breath and damage-dealing spells) is the weird, odd-man-out mechanic.

[speculation will cause a wild digression so I'm hold off on exploring the concept]

Many times, the saving throw requested is of a "surprise! resist this!" nature. The captured damsel turns out to be a medusa. The lock turns out to be poisoned. The ghouls jump out of the closet and grab you. And if there's no anticipation of risk (except for the player's perspiration while rolling a D20), then where's the real suffering? Just a *whew* I made it! if the roll comes out okay. And sometimes sudden and sidelining effects with a failure.

So let's fix that.

Hmmm...actually, maybe the best way to look at this is to examine each saving throw individually. Otherwise, this is going to get really long.

Saving Throws - Eh. Who Needs 'Em?

Saving throws. Do you really need 'em?

I've blogged about saving throws before, if a long time ago: what they mean, they're abstract nature. Haven't thought about them much since...well, except for when I'm creating various saving throw tables for my RPGs (5AK, Cry Dark Future, whatever). Then yesterday I read Lord Gwyd's latest blog post about saving throws in 5th Edition, and...in addition to instilling a bit more disgust in the revamped system (for a couple different reasons which aren't pertinent to this post)...it got me thinking about the origins of saving throws and whether or not they are, as a mechanic, truly necessary to the game.

In designing the new FHB, I've yet to come up with a new saving throw matrix for the game, so maybe this line of thinking is just an "out" for me...I don't need to wrack my brain to create arbitrary "save tables" that have a modicum of logic. But if so, well, so be it...this is my SECOND heartbreaker after all; let me slide on a couple things.

The first appearance of "saving throws" is in Chainmail, the basic mechanic from which OD&D blossomed. Admittedly, my copy is the 3rd edition (which, I am told, was published after OD&D), so I may be mistaken. Perhaps Chainmail was backward engineered to add saves, but until I see a copy of an earlier edition, I'll proceed with my assumption.

Chainmail limits its dice use to D6s, so a save looks different from the D20 roll that D&D players are accustomed to seeing. However, there are very few "saves" in Chainmail. They include:

• saves versus the "auto-kill" fireballs and lightning bolts of wizards,
• saves versus the fiery breath of a dragon,
• saves versus the turn to stone effect of a basilisk,
• saves versus poison (as an example only) for a hypothetical giant spider

That's it. Other wizard spells (like Cloudkill) offer no saving throws, although the presence of a magic-user on the opposing side allows a counter-spell attempt which could be considered a saving throw of sorts (albeit, a conditional save).

For the most part, saves are only provided for exceptional fantasy units: heroes, superheroes, wizards, and powerful monsters like dragons, giants, and wraiths. Rolls to save are given for certain special effects that would otherwise auto-kill (i.e. remove from the gaming table) a piece. Dragon fire, for example, destroys

"any opponent it touches, except another Dragon, Super Hero, or a Wizard, who is saved on a two dice roll of 7 or better."

The chance of rolling a seven on 2D6 is about 58%. An 8th level fighter (a "super hero") in B/X or OD&D needs a 10 or better on a D20...that's a 55% chance. A wizard (11th level level in OD&D) news an 11, which is a 50% chance...much closer to that 7+ roll than an 8+ roll (which would be a 42%). To me, it seems obvious that Gygax and company tried to make it pretty close to the original Chainmail.

However, in Chainmail lesser character types...like Heroes (the equivalent of a 4th level fighter in most every way) don't receive a save versus dragon fire. The nice, heroic part about D&D is that the game gives ALL player characters a chance to be "saved" from kill effects, not just the best of the best and the strongest of the strong. And if you're going to have any kind of save in an RPG, that's a pretty smart way to go.

But let's look at those specific saves again.

Magic spells: in Chainmail, wizards main attack lies in their ability to throw a fireball or lightning bolt (only one or the other) every turn, during the missile phase. This magical missile auto-kills any unit except the following: Heroes, Super Heroes, other Wizards, Wraiths, Dragons, Giants, and Elementals. Dragons, Giants, and Elementals cannot be killed, only "driven back;" the others receive saves of 9, 6, 7, and 7 respectively. Other magical spells, only three of which specifically target an enemy (slowness, confusion, and cloudkill) do not allow saving throws.

Dragon Fire: as stated, this is simply a "save or die" roll.

Basilisks: these petrify "anyone, except a magic user or Super Hero (can be saved by a two dice roll of 6 or better) who looks at their face." There is a separate save for those that touch the creature...interestingly, Giants and Treants need 10s to save while most others save on a 7 or better.

Giant Spiders: again this is listed as a hypothetical possibility whose stats "should be decided upon prior to the game" in which they will be used. As an example, "a giant spider might be unkillable by normal men, but will kill them unless they roll a save of 8 or better, and it would combat fantastic opponents as if it were a lycanthrope."

What does that mean? It means that against non-Heroes (and non-Wizards and non-Super Heroes) the spider simply carries a 40% chance of "save or die." That's like saying: there's no roll to hit; YOU roll a D20 and try to his a 13 or die (a 1st level fighter in OD&D save versus poison on a 12 or better).

If we're talking about one of the "heroic" characters, than the onus is on the hypothetical spider to land a killing attack. Using the Lycanthrope line, a 2D6 roll of 8 is needed to kill a Hero, and an 11 or better needed to kill a Super Hero or Wizard...pretty long odds for that "poison" to work its evil. If we  look at that in reverse (the spider "fails" to poison on a roll of 2-7, or on a roll of 2-10), that's the equivalent of giving these heroic types a D20 "save versus poison" of 10+ for the Hero or 3+(!) for the Super Hero and Wizard.

OKAY...so OD&D gives us five saving throws: Death Ray & Poison, Wands, "Stone," Dragon Breath, and Staves & Spells. These are the same in B/X except that Turn to Stone is combined with Paralysis...a sad confusion, to be sure (does this include "hold" spells? Wands of paralysis? Or only the paralysis that occurs when one is scratched by a ghoul?). But I suppose the same issue applies with regard to the spell, Flesh to Stone?

"Death Ray" also is a little weird...it would seem to apply only to the "anti-cleric's" Finger of Death spell. Why wouldn't this save fall under the "Staves & Spells" category? Because it's auto-kill and the designers want to give PCs a break (Death Ray has an easier save than Staves & Spells)? Then why does Disintegrate get saved as a "spell" and not a "death ray?"

ANYWAY...a lot of questions there and 3rd Edition's choice to limit all saves to a static three (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) was a pretty valiant attempt to simplify the mechanic and eliminate the confusion. Not that the ability to mix-n-match classes (and save bonuses) didn't add it's own bit of chaos (along with various bonuses and penalties...racial, situational, synthesis, and whatnot).

I go back to my original question: do we really need saving throws? That is to say, do we really need class/level/category-based saving throws? How many effects do you really want to have saves versus?

What does the Kraken need to save? A 4? 

Let's look at our B/X chassis for a moment: does level drain receive a save? Does mummy rot? Does a shadow's strength drain? Lycanthropy? The hug of a bear (or owl bear)? How about the dissolving powers of slimes and oozes and puddings? How about the attack of a rust monster? The whirlwind of a djinni?

No, they don't. Why not? Why does paralysis get a save? If a gelatinous cube paralyzes creatures with its touch, why doesn't a successful attack automatically paralyze its opponent? If a spider's bite delivers poison, why doesn't a successful bite poison the its victim? Why do we give saves for some and not for others? Because they stop a player from playing (either killing or paralyzing or petrifying)? Because its a form of de-protagonization while other attacks reduce and diminish a character but still allow them the freedom to act?

Well, okay, maybe that's valid...getting your armor rotted off doesn't automatically make you "sit on the sidelines" like other effects. But my experience has been that players tend to retreat from the dungeon when their strength or level has been drained sufficiently...or when their equipment has been destroyed by these various "screw you" monsters. And doesn't being afflicted by a curse like lycanthropy or mummy rot have a deprotagonizing effect? PCs that fall under DM control (because they're now a werewolf, for example) isn't much different from being under the influence of a vampire's charm spell, as far as I can see.

Personally, I'm coming around to the idea that if you don't want something to happen, you probably shouldn't put it in the game. My concept of a ghoul doesn't include a paralyzing touch so (in 5AK for example) there's no paralysis attack from the creature. But if you don't want players to become paralyzed (because such an attack can easily result in a Total Party Kill), then why even stick the power on the monster?

[just FYI, Chainmail lumps "ghouls" in the same category as "wights" stat-wise and then says that WIGHTS paralyze opponents they touch...which, by the way, models the barrow wight attack from Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring. In OD&D, the designers gave wights level drain instead and left the paralysis for ghouls alone...and it's stuck ever since. BTW, in Chainmail? No saving throw versus this ability...but then, it doesn't affect heroic characters at all!]

Let's look at dragon fire for a moment. What do you want dragons to do? Do you want them to offer a  sufficient risk/reward to justify "huge damage" versus "huge treasure?" Ok, why not go the Chainmail route and say, 'roll a 7+ on 2D6 or die if you're caught in dragon fire?' Just have it as an effect of the monster. Forget these saving throw categories with these tables of numbers that slow down the gameplay with their search & handling time.

All right, this is running long (again) and I'm out of time (again). I'll try to write a bit more on this later. However, let me just finish up by saying that at this point I am strongly considering having all "saves" be effect based, rather than character-based. But there will be a lot fewer "effect-based" saves (or saves of any kind) in the new FHB.

Why? Because (in my opinion) most of the things requiring saves just aren't very interesting. Certainly they're uninteresting if the player saves (and nothing happens), but even their failures (especially the ones that "sideline" players indefinitely) are uninteresting. I still want to make characters suffer (because I think suffering is part of what makes the heroic journey interesting), but I want that suffering to be interesting and (perhaps more importantly) "un-savable."
: )

Damn Wood Elves

Congrats to the San Diego Chargers in beating my beloved Seahawks. For various familial reasons I was unable to see most of the first half (just the 1.5 minute scoring drive by the 'Hawks at the end). I'll have to re-watch it this morning, but the defense looked slow and sluggish in the heat. The offense scoring quickly didn't help when the Chargers weren't giving them any breathers, sustaining long drives in the 110 degree sun.

Tricksy elves. Saw they chose to wear white at home, too.

Have you ever played one of those Blood Bowl games where you have a smashy-type team against O So Breakable hobbits or skaven or wood elves and just...can't...get...casualties due to an off-night of dice rolling? Frustrating. That was what it felt like watching the Seattle defense struggle against the twinkle-eyed Phillip Rivers. Ugh.

But it's a long season, and I'm not worried yet. Besides, watching the Niners game did a lot to restore my good humor.
; )

So enjoy it, Bolts. You're the first team to knock off the champs.

Elfin? Yes. And Antonio Gates is ancient.

Wizards and Warriors

Sometimes, it is about nostalgia.

When I was a kid, I absolutely loved any kind of "fantasy" stuff I could find, and it seemed like what I could find was pretty scarce. Movies that had magic or dragons or whatnot in it were "must see" films for me (provided I was old enough that my parents would let me see it). Star Wars was a big deal back then (and I was, of course, a fan), but I would much rather have seen a dude in armor wielding a real sword than a spaceship or laser gun.

On TV, such stuff was even more rare, and a television show like Wizards and Warriors was a fantastic find for my nine-year old brain. I remember very little of the show (though in later years I ended up modeling several RPG characters on Dirk Blackpool), but I do remember the following:

• I considered it to be "my favorite show on TV."
• I knew enough to know the channel and time slot and was diligent in having my ass in from of our (7"? 9"?) color TV in time to watch.
• The show constantly being preempted for shit like ice skating.

[no, ice skating isn't really "shit" ...but find your own damn timeslot, huh?]

Anyway, as with many "lost treasures of my youth" I've kept half an eye/ear open for any word of availability for this show. Partly for the sake of nostalgia, partly for closure (let me see the episodes I missed!), partly out of curiosity (the things I've read about the show on-line have piqued my interest). Regardless of how dated it might seem today (I realize many of my "faves" as a youth don't hold up in the light of adulthood), I'm interested. Plus, my own children might be interested in watching it when they're old enough.

[I was watching a video clip today of the intro to the old cartoon Thundarr the Barbarian and my boy came along and started watching. He made me replay it, and then told me, "Papa, let's buy that movie!" A kid after my own heart]

Only took 30 f'ing years!

Last night, I was taking a look around the 'net for clips of the old W&W and Lo & Behold, I found that Warner Brothers just released a DVD of the complete series July 29th (a "burn on demand" deal). Right the heck on! While I am, of course, still in Paraguay, I plan on putting in my order ASAP to get a copy of this lost piece from my childhood; I'll pick it up when I'm back in town November. I am soooo totally stoked!

Next up: Tales of the Gold Monkey and when the hell are they going to re-release the animated Hobbit on DVD? Ooo-oo...maybe Matthew Star or The Phoenix!

: )

Fighting Women (Redux)

[checking my privilege as I walk through the Valley of Darkness]

So in the comments section of this morning's post explaining my reasons for male-female specific mechanics (found in the chargen section of ability scores), Monkapotomus wrote the following:

"Ultimately I suppose it is no different than racial caps on attributes but it seems strange to me that you would have a specific type of female character in mind that you want to model but not a specific type of male character you want to model."

Ouch. That hurts.

What Monk has hit on, is a basic in fallacy in my thinking and design process. "Justified" or not, my design choice places a restriction on the character concepts of half the population...and no corresponding restriction on the other half.

Yes, any player can choose to play a character of either sex. Over the years, I've had several players (both male and female) choose to "play for the other team." But the majority of the time, my players (both male and female) have preferred to play characters with whose sex they gender-identify. All the women with whom I've played (more than a dozen as I count in my head), more often than not, chose to play female characters...regardless of whether they were straight, bi-, or gay.

[yes, even when playing fighters in 1st edition AD&D with its sex-related strength restrictions]

As Monk says, it's not really the arbitrary cap that I'm using that's a problem...especially considering I have a particular concept that I'm trying to model. But I'm only trying to model something for female characters...characters that will (probably) usually be played by female gendered players. And yet, I'm saying to the male folks, "Have at it! You can do anything you want! You're male, after all!"

Which is, of course, unfair.

So much as it irritates me to A) admit I was wrong, and B) change my carefully crafted mechanics (I thought it was a pretty neat effect/cool, myself), I will be rewriting this part of the book. Players can still swap (one) ability score for another, so I'll leave it to them to decide what they want to model conceptually. And that freedom of choice will be the same for all players, regardless of gender.

Sorry for my short-sightedness. Thanks for calling me on it.
: )

Stop looking at me like that! It's being changed!

Fighting Women

[in which JB starts down the road to crucifixion]

Forget Robert E. Howard's Conan character for a moment. Or Karl Wagner's Kane character. Protagonists that are uber-strong, super-cunning, catlike in their speed, steely-thewed, and charismatic "leaders of men." In other words, forget the characters that (if modeled in D&D) would not only have a high level and (perhaps) multiple classes, but exceptionally high ability scores across the board. Forget that.We used to see the occasional character like that back when we used the ability score tables from the 1E Unearthed Arcana (Type VI method of generating abilities? I think that's what it was called), but since then I've seen very few uber-statted character's rolled up at my B/X sessions. Maybe one (named Farnsworth). And he ended up down four levels to a vampire and fleeing for his life, so I'd hardly compare the dude to "Conan."

Heroes in fiction are known for being exceptional...usually in one or two ways...but for me, the best heroes aren't exceptional in every regard. They have some normalcy that we can relate to (if not outright weakness). Superheroes are fun and all, but if they are infallible godlings most of the time...well, they can get boring.

In the new FHB ("fantasy heartbreaker") I'm writing, I have players (mostly) roll 2D6+6 for their ability scores  (this is something I've started to incorporate in all my "B/X based" designs lately. Um...a total of three, at the moment). This gives a range of 8 to 18 for player character ability scores with an average rating of 13. Since the normal human range of ability is still 3 to 18 (average 10-11) this makes the heroic player characters a "cut above" the average slappy.

Mechanical bonuses for ability scores start at 13. Exceptional range of abilities is 15 to 18. Since a player would need to roll a 9 or better on 2D6 to hit 15 (a 28% chance), most PCs on average will have one or two "exceptional" attributes...like the fictional heroes I prefer.

Please note: there is no mechanical disadvantage for a low ability score. The game doesn't even have a "roll under ability" mechanic, so there's really no penalty for having a low score. You just don't receive any bonus.

Now, I did said "mostly." As I wrote in yesterday's post the exception to this is female characters (not players) who roll 2D6+3 for their strength (STR) score. This is done with the purpose of reducing the average strength of a female character (from 13 to 10) and capping a female character's maximum strength at 15. Now there is some recompense for this...female heroes have learned to compensate for their lesser muscle mass in other ways, and receive 3 bonus points to distribute among their ability scores (which is pretty good since each point increase above 12 is it's own "breakpoint").

Why would I do this? And no, I don't just mean, "why would I open myself to criticism" (I can be something of a masochist at times). Instead, I mean:

"Why bother to write sex-specific game mechanics in a day and age when we are striving for inclusivity and working hard not to be part of the problem by carrying forward old fashioned stereotypes into fantasy tropes...especially given a fantasy setting with magic and dragons, etc.?"

[notice, I said "sex-specific," not "gender-specific." Spent half a day yesterday researching transgender lingo to make sure I've got my brain on straight when it comes to sensitivity. "Sex" is considered distinct from "gender" because the former is a product of biology and the latter is a mental-societal construct and, thus, open for interpretation: see Uruguay for the logical reinterpretation of this census datapoint. Regarding my game mechanic: it doesn't matter what gender the player or the character consider himself/herself to be, the mechanic is tied to the biological status of the character's sex: male or female]

*ahem* Where was I? Oh, yeah...why would I do this? Well, two reasons: one good and one bad.

The Bad: I hate Wizards of the Coast. Well, "hate" is probably too strong a word, but they have been rubbing me the wrong way for years now. And their abstract ability scores that (in 3rd-4th edition) went "to infinity an beyond" with no real rhyme or reason or justification just bugs the hell out of me. What does it mean that a 16th level elf girl fighter has a strength of 22 (for example) and a burly half-orc dude has a strength of 17? Not a blessed thing. It's just abstract numbers giving you a mechanical bonus that makes ability scores O So Important for killing folks and collecting those XPs.

[yes, I realize ability scores are capped in the new 5E rules]

So given a choice between being like WotC and "doing something different," I usually opt for the latter (usually...I'm totally stealing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic for Cry Dark Future). I want ability scores to represent something...and if a character can have a strength of 20-30, just what does that represent? By my game's definition of the Strength ability score, that would be "one big honking brick shithouse of a person." Which leads me to my better reason...

The Good (or, at least, "Justifiable in My Mind"): I'm trying to model something specific. 

No, no, not that "women are the weaker sex." Even if that is a biological reality (across most of the animal species on planet Earth), we're still talking about a fantasy game. There's no reason to say that women (or for that matter, men) of a certain subset can't grow to a size and muscle mass of equal proportion to any NFL linebacker. Call them the "titan" sub race of humanity. I can even picture them: they are all (male and female) around 7' tall with big hair (80's style), anime-fantasy garb, and sporting two-handed great swords in back sheaths that "normal" humans couldn't even lift. They only live in the southeastern part of the continent, but some have emigrated to other portions of the game world where they mix and mingle freely with other humans. People with strength over 15 are presumed to have at least some "titan blood" in their ancestry.

See how easy that is? Easy-shmeezy.

What I'm trying to model is what I see in fantasy fiction: the heroic female adventurer. They're there, though sometimes it can be hard to find them. Teres in Wagner's Bloodstone. Jirel of Joiry. Howard's Dark Agnes de Chastillon and Red Sonya of Rogatino (and their directly inspired Red Sonja...she really deserves her own post) as well as his character Valeria from Red Nails. Eowyn. Lythande and (many) other characters by MZB. Aspirin's character Tananda (from the Myth series). Kildee Wu (from Steve Perry's otherwise fairly bland Black Steel novel; I haven't read the other Matador books, but they appear to feature female assassins as protagonists). "Harry" from Robin Kinley's The Blue Sword (and Aerin Dragon-Killer from the prequel-sequel). And, sure, Brienne of Tarth.

Ride, Harry, Ride!

These are all "warrior women" of some form or another. There are other female sorcerers and thieves and minor "adventurer" characters scattered through fantasy literature (Cythera from David Chandler's Ancient Blades trilogy comes to mind as a good one), but right now I'm just talking about good fighters in fantasy fiction...fighters that happen to be female.

Some are exceptionally clever, some are fairly ignorant and uneducated. Some are charming seductresses, some are awkward with potential partners. Some are lesbians, though not the majority. Some use magic or sport "psychic powers." All are deadly combatants in hand-to-hand.

None of them are iron-thewed, 'roided-out monsters.

But then, my new fantasy heartbreaker doesn't require a character to have a high strength to be deadly in combat. "Fighting skill" (that is, one's capability in mortal combat) is a product of the character's experience...i.e. the character's level. And remember, a character that gets a better "roll over" result on his or her attack is going to score more damage. Strength does not add to one's attack roll (though a character with "exceptional" (15+) agility does receive a +1 bonus); instead, it simply increases the maximum damage the weapon can do. You still need to hit...and hit well...to do that damage.

My purpose here is to model the types of female adventurers one finds in fantasy fiction. Outside of video games and the superhero genre, I don't generally see super strong or brawny heroines. Instead, I see highly capable women who use their other attributes...brains, fighting spirit, whatever...to make up for any "deficiencies" their lack of muscle might cost them. And that's what I want to represent. Not all male adventurers are "brawny" types either (see Elric, for example)...but then, that's why all players have the option to swap an ability score to better fit their character concept, right?

But perhaps, perhaps, perhaps I am being insensitive here or marginalizing female players by having sex-specific creation mechanics. Because even though a male or female player can choose to play a character of either sex, real live people reading the game book are going to say, "O look...girls are so weak!" and we will have all sorts of mayhem ensue because of it.

If that's the case, um...sorry? Should I put in some sort of disclaimer in the book? Or essay? Or apology? Because I really, really don't want to change the mechanic. I have another B/X game (a more pulpy action game) that doesn't even have a "strength" score because, you know, who cares how much Indiana Jones can bench press? Fitness and physical prowess are better ability scores for that type of genre...and in such a game, biological sex really doesn't matter.

Okay...gotta' go. Please comment as I'd like to hear folks thoughts. Thanks!