Another thing to factor in is, magic aside, it's a medieval setting. People are quoting women's records from modern day.

In the olden days, if a man was genetically blessed, well off enough to get plenty of protein, and had a physically demanding job (say, adventurer) he could naturally reach that 18/00 peak. He'd be very rare, the kind of man the Hercules/Samson myth springs up about

No woman is coming within a mile of that without great genes, modern nutrition, access to a gym and trainer with knowledge of Sports Science, and injecting every chemical known to man. And that would just be to approach the 18's, not anywhere near 18/00.

To bring the thread into productive frame, here are some examples

Male power:

Quote
Unflinching Resolve
Race/Sex: Human Male
Usage: 1/day
Description: You draw upon your inner fortitude. Your muscles surge with raw strength, and your resolve becomes unyielding.
Effect: You gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1). You may reroll a Savings Throw to end any one condition. You become immune to fear effects until the end of your next turn.

Female power:

Quote
Resourceful Trickery
Race/Sex: Human Female
Usage: 1/day
Description: You say a few suggestive words, weaving a net that confuses and befuddles all who listen to you, giving you an edge.
Effect: You gain advantage on your next Charisma-based skill check or saving throw. Additionally, until the end of your next turn, any creature that makes a melee attack against you must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw (DC equal to 10 + your Charisma modifier) or suffer disadvantage on the attack.

Women: 
INT/WIS: Centered around the mean (women intelligence centered around the mean)
DEX: Higher than average (smaller build more limber, no cock in the way to do the splits)
CON: Average
CHA: Higher than average (spend their early lives verbal bullying - they learn interpersonal very early)
STR: Lower than average (30% less upper body str than males)

Men:
INT/WIS: Higher in variability, higher chance of a moron or genius than women
DEX: Average
CON: Higher (bigger body, more mass to absorb damage)
CHA: Lower than average (spent early life physically bullying, lower verbal development)
STR: Higher than average (30% greater upper body strength)

Now a game could change how other societies developed, like Drow Females being the inverse for a few stats due to how they evolved over the millenia.  If there was a drone society of insects, well no sex differences because they are all females.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 13, 2024, 10:25:46 PM
Women: 
INT/WIS: Centered around the mean (women intelligence centered around the mean)
DEX: Higher than average (smaller build more limber, no cock in the way to do the splits)
CON: Average
CHA: Higher than average (spend their early lives verbal bullying - they learn interpersonal very early)
STR: Lower than average (30% less upper body str than males)

Men:
INT/WIS: Higher in variability, higher chance of a moron or genius than women
DEX: Average
CON: Higher (bigger body, more mass to absorb damage)
CHA: Lower than average (spent early life physically bullying, lower verbal development)
STR: Higher than average (30% greater upper body strength)

Now a game could change how other societies developed, like Drow Females being the inverse for a few stats due to how they evolved over the millenia.  If there was a drone society of insects, well no sex differences because they are all females.

This approach makes a lot of sense. Kudos.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 12, 2024, 11:13:28 PM
Another thing to factor in is, magic aside, it's a medieval setting. People are quoting women's records from modern day.

In the olden days, if a man was genetically blessed, well off enough to get plenty of protein, and had a physically demanding job (say, adventurer) he could naturally reach that 18/00 peak. He'd be very rare, the kind of man the Hercules/Samson myth springs up about

No woman is coming within a mile of that without great genes, modern nutrition, access to a gym and trainer with knowledge of Sports Science, and injecting every chemical known to man. And that would just be to approach the 18's, not anywhere near 18/00.

  Modern women loaded on drugs are no where near 18/00.  If it was a jerk as the lift...maybe?  but a press?  No.  I dont even think we have any women who were born as men who are sniffing at a 480 press.

  But you are correct history wise no woman is really going to be close to the 18/50 limit in an ancient/medieval setting and the men who could get even to sniffing distance of 18/00 will be the sorts people tell stories about for generations after they are gone.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 14, 2024, 01:47:30 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 12, 2024, 11:13:28 PM
Another thing to factor in is, magic aside, it's a medieval setting. People are quoting women's records from modern day.

In the olden days, if a man was genetically blessed, well off enough to get plenty of protein, and had a physically demanding job (say, adventurer) he could naturally reach that 18/00 peak. He'd be very rare, the kind of man the Hercules/Samson myth springs up about

No woman is coming within a mile of that without great genes, modern nutrition, access to a gym and trainer with knowledge of Sports Science, and injecting every chemical known to man. And that would just be to approach the 18's, not anywhere near 18/00.

  Modern women loaded on drugs are no where near 18/00.  If it was a jerk as the lift...maybe?  but a press?  No.  I dont even think we have any women who were born as men who are sniffing at a 480 press.

  But you are correct history wise no woman is really going to be close to the 18/50 limit in an ancient/medieval setting and the men who could get even to sniffing distance of 18/00 will be the sorts people tell stories about for generations after they are gone.

But what about women with penises, would you give them retard strength with a hit to sanity stat?

Quote from: oggsmash on February 14, 2024, 01:47:30 PMNo woman is coming within a mile of that without great genes, modern nutrition, access to a gym and trainer with knowledge of Sports Science, and injecting every chemical known to man. And that would just be to approach the 18's, not anywhere near 18/00.

Modern women loaded on drugs are no where near 18/00.  If it was a jerk as the lift...maybe?  but a press?  No.  I dont even think we have any women who were born as men who are sniffing at a 480 press.
[/quote]

I think you need to re-read what I actually wrote.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 14, 2024, 04:14:36 PMBut what about women with penises, would you give them retard strength with a hit to sanity stat?

Barbarian Rage.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 14, 2024, 07:28:43 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on February 14, 2024, 01:47:30 PMNo woman is coming within a mile of that without great genes, modern nutrition, access to a gym and trainer with knowledge of Sports Science, and injecting every chemical known to man. And that would just be to approach the 18's, not anywhere near 18/00.

Modern women loaded on drugs are no where near 18/00.  If it was a jerk as the lift...maybe?  but a press?  No.  I dont even think we have any women who were born as men who are sniffing at a 480 press.

I think you need to re-read what I actually wrote.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 14, 2024, 04:14:36 PMBut what about women with penises, would you give them retard strength with a hit to sanity stat?

Barbarian Rage.
[/quote]

Maam is their trigger word.  +4 with axes when raging like this guy:

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 12, 2024, 11:13:28 PM
Another thing to factor in is, magic aside, it's a medieval setting. People are quoting women's records from modern day.

In the olden days, if a man was genetically blessed, well off enough to get plenty of protein, and had a physically demanding job (say, adventurer) he could naturally reach that 18/00 peak. He'd be very rare, the kind of man the Hercules/Samson myth springs up about

No woman is coming within a mile of that without great genes, modern nutrition, access to a gym and trainer with knowledge of Sports Science, and injecting every chemical known to man. And that would just be to approach the 18's, not anywhere near 18/00.

Modern men and women both take advantage of  protein-heavy bulking diet, modern gym regimens, and doping. I think if anything, modern men are more likely than modern women to engage in such.

In medieval times, these weren't a factor -- but also, everyone had more physically demanding jobs. Women weren't secretaries or stewardesses -- they were typically working on the farm, hauling water and feed and other intense physical work. It's only after the Industrial Revolution that most women and men started having more sedentary jobs.

I think the Industrial Revolution likely made the gap between women and men larger, because women started typically having more sedentary work. The post-Industrial ideal of female beauty started being thin rather than full-figured. Medieval women were different than 1800s Victorian women in corsets working as spinsters.

----

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 13, 2024, 10:25:46 PM
Women: 
INT/WIS: Centered around the mean (women intelligence centered around the mean)
DEX: Higher than average (smaller build more limber, no cock in the way to do the splits)
CON: Average
CHA: Higher than average (spend their early lives verbal bullying - they learn interpersonal very early)
STR: Lower than average (30% less upper body str than males)

I think this is ignoring what the attributes are generally used for.

In the game, Dexterity isn't primarily about flexibility, and I've never seen a DEX roll to perform a split. DEX is mostly about dodging attacks and shooting missile weapons -- i.e. reflexes, speed and accuracy. Men tend to have greater running speed and about equal accuracy to women.

Likewise, Charisma in OSR games is mainly about recruiting and commanding men-at-arms. Historically and even today, men dominate both military and civilian leadership positions. If anything, women should have a penalty for charisma in medieval society.

I wouldn't say it if I didn't know it. https://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/10/sport/olympics-flo-jo-seoul/index.html

Quote
"We performed all possible and imaginable analyses on her," the president of the International Olympic Committee's medical commission, Prince Alexandre de Mérode, said at the time.

"We never found anything. There should not be the slightest suspicion."

Quote
Flo Jo had suffocated during an epileptic seizure. At first her death at such a young age seemed to prove the suspicion of steroid use. There was intense interest in the autopsy.

My wife passed the ultimate drugs test

Al Joyner

"I had to do my grieving in front of the whole world," says Joyner, only finding any measure of comfort "30 days later after my wife's autopsy."

The results in death, just as in life, had proven Flo Jo right. There was no conclusive proof of drug use.

"I told the doctor, they checked for everything," he says. "They had people coming up all the time wanting to do tests. My wife passed the ultimate drugs test."

Some of you clearly haven't revisited the story in more than a decade. People keep repeating the same baseless rumors.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 10, 2024, 03:46:55 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 23, 2024, 03:42:07 PM
So I looked it up, and in 1988, Florence Griffith-Joyner set a 100m sprint record at 10.49. There is some controversy about the wind reading that day, so the next woman to reach that kind of speed was Elaine Thompson-Herah in 2021 with 10.54. That would put them even with all four men who set a record in 2011-2012 of 10.5 seconds, and ahead of the 10.6 seconds set in 2012 and 2020 that were measured with modern automatic timing.

So, during the 20th century, there is overlap between the fastest 100m woman sprinters and the fastest 100m man sprinters.

She was roided to the gills.

I agree with pawsplay that there is no evidence that Griffith-Joyner used doping. However, the description is a little off. The men's record was under 10 seconds since Jim Hines in 1968, who officially was at 9.95. That was over a half-second faster than Griffith-Joyner in 1988.

There's some debate about how to measure these fractions of a second, along with the issue of wind speed, but it's reasonably clear that men got to below 10.0 seconds before 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

Yeah, I already posted the relevant dates, which shows that her record would have beaten the fastest man a number of decades ago in the 20th century (before 1988), certainly through the 1970s. Her trainer attributes this in part to "training like a man" and using nutrition and exercise approaches which are now common but which were then not.

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2024, 09:39:43 PM
I agree with pawsplay that there is no evidence that Griffith-Joyner used doping. However, the description is a little off. The men's record was under 10 seconds since Jim Hines in 1968, who officially was at 9.95. That was over a half-second faster than Griffith-Joyner in 1988.

There's some debate about how to measure these fractions of a second, along with the issue of wind speed, but it's reasonably clear that men got to below 10.0 seconds before 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

Quote from: pawsplay on February 15, 2024, 10:54:30 AM
Yeah, I already posted the relevant dates, which shows that her record would have beaten the fastest man a number of decades ago in the 20th century (before 1988), certainly through the 1970s. Her trainer attributes this in part to "training like a man" and using nutrition and exercise approaches which are now common but which were then not.

So you're saying that her record in 1988 wasn't faster than the men's record at that time, but it was faster than the men's fastest record in 1920?  I wasn't clear about the phrasing.

If so, I agree, and that goes to Kyle Aaron's point about the importance of training.

Quote from: jhkim on February 15, 2024, 11:57:00 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2024, 09:39:43 PM
I agree with pawsplay that there is no evidence that Griffith-Joyner used doping. However, the description is a little off. The men's record was under 10 seconds since Jim Hines in 1968, who officially was at 9.95. That was over a half-second faster than Griffith-Joyner in 1988.

There's some debate about how to measure these fractions of a second, along with the issue of wind speed, but it's reasonably clear that men got to below 10.0 seconds before 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

Quote from: pawsplay on February 15, 2024, 10:54:30 AM
Yeah, I already posted the relevant dates, which shows that her record would have beaten the fastest man a number of decades ago in the 20th century (before 1988), certainly through the 1970s. Her trainer attributes this in part to "training like a man" and using nutrition and exercise approaches which are now common but which were then not.

So you're saying that her record in 1988 wasn't faster than the men's record at that time, but it was faster than the men's fastest record in 1920?  I wasn't clear about the phrasing.

If so, I agree, and that goes to Kyle Aaron's point about the importance of training.

Yes, I think so. What I am saying is a woman in recent decades set a record that would have beat the fastest man only a hundred years ago.

This goes back to my central point, that apart from size and upper body lifting, any intrinsic group differences are not as important as individual differences, the kind of individual differences that are usually more important for RPG characters. There is no real difference in possibilities, only in the curve, and those differences vary decade to decade according to circumstances. There aren't any differences there that would preclude a realistic character from having any stat in the general human race. With respect to size and upper body strength, you can make a case for some statistics, but the difference in absolute terms (rather than relative statistical ones) is not so great even in the most granular systems (as I gave for some examples above). I.e. both men and women have demonstrated lifting abilities that would place them at 18/100 or even 19 in AD&D, so saying there are twenty times as many men as women in that category, or whatever, doesn't have much bearing on an individual character.

When you are talking about a distribution, rather than a max, it just doesn't make sense to put your thumb on the scale to get a desired result. Most games don't even measure differences at that level for most statistics. And the presumed "max" just keeps getting broken every few decades, so it's really just another measure of the distribution, not a hard maximum.

As for speed, intelligence, etc., men and women are largely interchangeable. At least, it's individual genetics, development and training that matter more. True outliers are outliers by any measure, not just gender.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 16, 2024, 02:27:06 AMAs for speed, intelligence, etc., men and women are largely interchangeable. At least, it's individual genetics, development and training that matter more. True outliers are outliers by any measure, not just gender.

Utter Marxist drivel.