The Grammar Discussion

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by User3 »

Anyway, Crissa, those are averages, which don't have mechanical bearing on point buy, but yes, probably social issues.
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Catharz »

What the fuck is a "halterofilist"?
User avatar
NineInchNall
Duke
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by NineInchNall »

Someone who puts halter tops in order? I don't know.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by User3 »

Sorry, folks. It's only the more ironic that I wrote it almost the same as in Portuguese in the grammar discussion; it should've been "weightlifter".
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by tzor »

Librarians mantra: We never guess ... we look it up.

And so I did. IWF World Records

Looking at a common weight class (roughly, 56 kg for the guys and 53 kg for the gals) we see the following numbers show up

SNATCH
- 138 kg Men's
- 131 kg Men's Jr.
- 102 kg Ladies
- 100 kg Ladies Jr.

(138-102)/102 = +35%

C&J
- 168 kg Men's
- 165 kg Men's Jr.
- 129 kg Ladies
- 129 kg Ladies Jr.

(168-129)/129 = +30%

These are for the maximum values and cannot be reflective of the average of the human population.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by User3 »

Tzor: I went from memory - thanks for checking the exact numbers. And the idea is exactly to avoid the average and check the maximum (I doubt anyone is at all interested in the minimum ability value someone can have, not the least because it would require mentioning some really sad facts about which we - at least those who aren't health professionals - can't do anything about). Since weights, in general, fourfold every 10 Str and double every 5 Str, one could roughly call those variances a 2 Str difference, on the basis that 1,15^5 = 2,01, and 1,15^2 = 1,32. Then again, it's expected that deviation top at the upper ranges of a value, so the really workable case would be a 1-point Str difference. Who gets sexual ability modifiers doesn't matter for me, both because I won't be susceptible to people saying my gender loses 1 Dex and because I use point buy, but +1 Dex, -1 Str is easier because I see more guys than girls interested in having 18 Str - I wonder why ...
User avatar
Cielingcat
Duke
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Cielingcat »

If you really want to, you could give men +1 Str and women +1 Dex, so that everyone gets a bonus and no one gets a penalty.
CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN
Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by User3 »

The problem with all this isn't even that you're all being totally sexist (which you are). The real problem is that implementing any kind of option to trade str for dex via fluff will turn every optimized wizard and rogue female. As "empowering" as that might be for the ladies (especially at high levels), it's poor game design.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by User3 »

Heh, I consider that poor design too - I was just using Tzor's numbers to calculate what would be the correct modifier. Still, at least in a game set on real Earth, the fact that the maximum male Str is always 1 ahead of the female maximum, and the opposite for Dex isn't sexist - it's realistic (go accuse nature of being sexist if you want); the sole arguable thing is that it "should" work differently for fantasy. Anyway, just to be clear, I'm not using this; thanks anyway, Cielingcat; I'll point this to anyone who plans to do so.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by PhoneLobster »

What did I say a page or so back?

They aren't being sexist by ensuring that male characters always get superior strength, they are reality experts with their finger on the pulse of objective realism! They can't be wrong, or at fault...

Of course, their suggested game still hates women.

And no, a bonus that only goes to men IS a penalty to women, even if women get something else.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
Cielingcat
Duke
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Cielingcat »

Is the bonus feat that humans get a penalty to elves? The Con bonus Dwarves have a penalty to humans? The huge list of SLAs that some monsters get a penalty to PCs?

I will say, though, that I don't support such a system because it unbalances the game.
CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN
Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by User3 »

Lobster: I will not use it, nor will I ever tell someone who doesn't use any sexual adjustments to use any (being me the guy who posted right before you - maybe I should register, after all); the only things I'll do as far as this all goes are: a) recommend that both sexes gain bonuses instead of both a bonus and a penalty for one (2 reasons: it makes people feel better, and penalties matter less for point buy, since I don't think anyone will make a point of having 2 in any ability), and b) recommend 1-point adjustments instead of 2-point (since the latter is the difference between an human and a halfling). Also, should the human statblock read:

- has Str 2 lower than a half-orc;
- has Dex 2 lower than an elf;
- has Con 2 lower than a dwarf;
- has Int and Wis 2 lower each than a vanara;
- has Cha 2 lower than a spellscales?

The game hates humans, right? Finally, thanks for putting the claim of expertise into my mouth, since, at least about Str, I went from real-world upper ranges (by the way, I dread imagining what I'd have had to hear - er, read - should I didn't mention any bonus for women). If you have better actual data*, feel free to supply it; but, if I tell you the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, how does that make me sexist?

Finally, given D&D's objective reality, as already said, such an idea, if put in practice, should merit accusations of loving women (well, I could even confirm it, but I don't think this has anything to do with my D&D).

*: I sure can be at fault - if that's the case, prove it.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by tzor »

OK here is the problem. Comparing max strength (and really we are not comparing max strength unless the actual sample size of male and female weight lifters are the same and I have the feeling that they are not) is useless in 3E where there are no max limits on stats.

But if you want ... I shall consult the Book of Gygax

Female Human: max Strength 18:50 or +1/+3
Male Human: max Strength 180 or +3/+6

Under 1E human females could be no stronger than small chubby male gnomes. Women had a max weight allowance of 45 kg while men had a max weight allowance of 136 kg. This is similiar to the snatch number. If we use the same snatch number for the women then the max women's strength should have been 18:99 not 18:50. Thus the max stat numbers were massively biased in 1E against women. Q.E.D.

By the way the strongest female in 1E, the Half Orc could only be 18:75.


Note: weights in 1E are based on the GP, which is 0.1 lb.
User avatar
Cielingcat
Duke
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Cielingcat »

Holy shit those were some big coins.

Oh, and Gygax was (and maybe still is) an ass.
CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN
Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by User3 »

Tzor: the comparation was less about size than about "if a man spends his whole life, he ends able to lift more than a woman who does the same", which seems at least vaguely sensical with data on the best athletes ever.

Cielingcat: he seems to still be - check Col Pladoh at EN World if you want; and I don't think the hype on him there particularly helps too.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Draco_Argentum »

PL, how about posting something that isn't ad hominem? I suggest either asking for the Olympic weightlifting results to be averaged for each year based on sex and then plotted verses time or pointing out that being 4ft tall is -2 STR.

Then you'd have a logical arguement rather than a WotC boards namecalling session.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Maj »

Guest 1 wrote:The problem with all this isn't even that you're all being totally sexist (which you are). The real problem is that implementing any kind of option to trade str for dex via fluff will turn every optimized wizard and rogue female. As "empowering" as that might be for the ladies (especially at high levels), it's poor game design.


I hate words like "sexism" because they are used both realistically and derogatorily, and so some people react badly, and others don't care.

Merriam-Webster wrote:Main Entry: sex·ism
Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: 1 sex + -ism (as in racism)

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
- sex·ist /'sek-sist/ adjective or noun


So yeah... Regardless of positive or negative stereotypes, those people who want to give bonuses to gender that may result in min-maxed classes of a specific gender are being sexist.

So what?

Guest 2 wrote:in a game set on real Earth, the fact that the maximum male Str is always 1 ahead of the female maximum, and the opposite for Dex isn't sexist - it's realistic (go accuse nature of being sexist if you want)


By virtue of the fact that men cannot bear children, and thus women's stereotypical role is as a mother, Nature is being sexist.

One could try to argue that D&D fosters racism by having favored classes for the races: Orcs can be wizards, but they're sucky at it, while halflings are wonderful rogues, but not so great whatevers. It's just that no one really gives a damn because they're imaginary races.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being biologically different from someone else. The problem is when you're treated as though your life is somehow less valid because of it. Too many people don't want to admit the former because they're afraid of the latter.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
bitnine
Journeyman
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by bitnine »

Heh, looks like this has segued into a discussion about sex modifiers for D&D, the type of discussion I absolutely love. I'm against the bonuses themselves, as I think they add a needless layer of skew and complexity to a game that posits much more fantastic deviations from real life than having a class of individuals (adventurers) in which sex does not have a distinct enough impact to have mechanical representation. Instead, I just love the form of the discussion and reactions that inevitably follow.

It reminds me of a sociology class I took in which the professor had mentioned that a majority of recorded societies were male dominated and asked the class if they could think of the most basic reason for this trend. I could tell his heightened interest as he glanced around the silent class, and I intently did the same. Picture the room of fairly educated young men and women, each staying silent for nearly a full minute. Really, go ahead and try and picture their expressions.

That was frigging fantastic. If I ever became a sociology professor, the day with that question would be one I looked forward to every quarter. I'd have a packet anticipating that reaction including an assignment on analyzing it that I'd hand out to the class afterward.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by tzor »

Yes I guess they were. Most anchient gold coins were about 1 gram or .0022 lbs. Here there is an example of an 17.30 gram coin or .04 lbs.

So both 1E and 3E are way off in terms of gold coin weights. But then again 1E wasn't supposed to be "realistic" in the first place.

Check out his personal thread on EN World. The more I read him the more I grow to like him.

A .1 lb coin would weigh 45 grams or 2.6 times the weight of the largest coin there which was 40 mm diameter. Assuming that the coin remains the same thickness, then we are only dealing with an increase in area so the radius (or the diameter) would only increase by 1.6 meaning the coin would be 64 mm in size. That's 2.5 inches which is the size of my Barbershopper of the year medal. Of course if the coin was thicker the size would decrease by linear proportion, so if it was 50% thicker it would only be 1.6 inches wide.

Spanish coins, on the other hand could get as large as 419 grams with a diameter of 37.8 mm. Hmmm, perhaps Gygax wasn't as far off as I was originally stating.

Image Almost 1 lb.
Image .06 lbs.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by PhoneLobster »

wrote:PL, how about posting something that isn't ad hominem? I suggest either asking for the Olympic weightlifting results to be averaged for each year based on sex and then plotted verses time or pointing out that being 4ft tall is -2 STR.

Then you'd have a logical arguement rather than a WotC boards namecalling session.

I'm sorry but that ISN'T a logical argument.

No really I mean fvck "I found some weight lifting records, based entirely on that I will now punish female characters and gamers!"

I've seen that shite before and frankly like all realism arguments it is narrow, arbitrary, incomplete, and most of all GOES NOWHERE.

I focus exclusively on the results of what you suggest doing not joining you in arguing ridiculous justifications.

And the result is a game that hates women.

There is NO excuse for that, sorry, none at all. Even if you can prove that reality hates women, which frankly is unprovable by experts who make a somewhat larger study that some single olympic record set they found somewhere, then I still don't care.

Games that hate women are games that are fundamentally flawed at a design level to the point that they should be destroyed before they ever see the light of day.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Actually reality hates men, witness the shorter life expectancy. That isn't in the game though. I've never even seen someone suggest putting it in. So your claim that stat penalties for women is motivated by misogyny is entirely plausible.

I also agree that its bad game mechanics. People like female heros so they should be mechanically valid. Not to mention that you can just play FATAL if you want to make sure no women will come anywhere near you.

I just don't like the way you're making your point. You need to make your rants funnier. Or you can post a proper arguement. Or combine the two, like Frank manages to pull off quite successfully.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Maj »

bitnine wrote:I'm against the bonuses themselves, as I think they add a needless layer of skew and complexity to a game that posits much more fantastic deviations from real life than having a class of individuals (adventurers) in which sex does not have a distinct enough impact to have mechanical representation.


Well put.

The Silver Dragon wrote:Not to mention that you can just play FATAL if you want to make sure no women will come anywhere near you.


Oh, God... FATAL.

<shudder>

Why?!
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by PhoneLobster »

I make my rants funnier when I feel like it.

Fvck knows why but at some point my own misogynistic male self has decided that its really into this kinky "women as equals" thing and wants to take the whole feminism issue rather seriously.

Sometimes I don't feel like making with the funnies. And if it seems like I'm not properly engaging with an argument, sometimes I'm not.

Some arguments don't deserve the added credibility that entails. Frank, I suspect, achieves it in the lofty and stylish manner of just not posting. I do it with posts that try not to directly engage the stupidity and just point out that its stupid.

Like I said elsewhere. The labelling is important. If you don't step in and call it sexism, or poor conclusions from sexism poorly disguised as research, it will just keep spiralling into a circle wank of machismo.

Then next thing you know you're watching 300.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Maj at [unixtime wrote:1178849533[/unixtime]]Oh, God... FATAL.

<shudder>

Why?!


Why FATAL?

Simple, its the logical result of a sexist, racist, homophobic moron writing an RPG. It is simultaneously hilarious to make fun of and horrifying that filth of this level exists.

That is why FATAL.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: The Grammar Discussion

Post by Maj »

Draco Argentum wrote:Why FATAL?


More like... Why did you have to bring it up? I'm still suffering the trauma of having actually read it.

;)
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Post Reply