To get the typical objections out of the way: Assume that your goal is to represent sex differences in D&D mechanics. What is it like to represent a Human Male in D&D terms compared to a Human Female? What makes playing a Male character unique from a Female character, and vice-versa?
This is more of a theoretical thread but I have been toying with this idea for some time. I really like the idea of trying to convey sex differences in D&D. The typical reasoning for not wanting to have men and women distinguished mechanically is that in fantasy worlds with Dragons and Elves that these things are not meaningful. However as we've seen over the past few years the tendency has been not to emphasize distinctions between a Human and an Elf, or a Human and a Dragonborn, but rather to diminish and eliminate the meaningful mechanical differences between character races.
I think these two trends are related, and it creates a less authentic and less compelling vision for game worlds. This is also a big limitation in what types of "fantasy" is modeled by the game rules. Modern D&D where all sexes & races are basically interchangeable doesn't represent either the real world nor fantasy literature & film. Non-human characters can and should be taken to be distinctive, and works where alien races are not given unique traits are rightfully derided as non-authentic (Star Trek's human-with-rubber-prothesis). A book series like Wheel of Time is unthinkable unless there are real differences between men & women. Similarly, it makes no sense to have characters like Eowyn if men & women are simply interchangeable. Plotlines of fantasy films like Labyrinth or Legend emphasize different roles men & women have to play, rather than trying to map female roles directly onto men or vice-versa.
Sex (or reproduction generally) is also one area that can help to emphasize different fantasy races from each other. Human males are typically larger, stronger, and have different cognition than women. However, this pattern is not necessarily true for all races. Perhaps Dragonborn females are larger and stronger than men? What if Dwarven women are equally capable as their men? What about plant or fungal creatures that may be both sexes, or neither? This is an area that seems really interesting to explore, but is let down by a stubborn insistence on a certain socio-political perspective.
How would you go about approaching this task?
Stat modifiers of course. Though, one nice thing about a points system like GURPS is that you can model characters however you want without having an actual mechanical distinction. So you never have to say -2 Strength for females while it can be fully implemented in all the material.
How I approach it might vary by race. It's actually an opportunity to make the races feel more different.
I've always liked the way AD&D 1E differentiated human male and females. Not in any way that would really keep you from playing what you want to play. Mostly just subtle nuances. The main mechanical restriction is females would have a lower max strength, which can be surpassed via magical means, whereas males, especially those with high Charisma, are targeted by certain creatures.
I've only ever seen this be an issue with male players wanting to play female characters. Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I've found that women don't fantasies about being giant and muscular. So I've never had pushback on a max limit on female strength.
However, when dealing with this mechanically, the best compromise is to use a Runequest-like Size characteristic (or simply treat starting strength scores as an inverse size value). Then use this size value to provide modifiers to things where being small would be advantageous such as sneaking around and hiding in small spaces. For example, if a character has a +1 bonus to Strength checks, they get a -1 penalty for Sneaking and a -1 penalty to Strength yields a +1 bonus to sneaking.
[EDIT] Just to be clear, I use a generalized Size value mainly to balance the various races with each other. A huge, hulking Ogre character has different advantages and disadvantages than a small Pixie character. So adding this as a modifier for smaller humans requires no extra effort. (Ogres are size 2, humans vary from 1 to -1, elves are -1, hobbits -2 and pixies -4)
Quote from: Dinopaw on March 17, 2023, 11:36:08 AMAssume that your goal is to represent sex differences in D&D mechanics.
I would not.
I have players roll 3d6 in order. The randomness of the dice presents a greater variation than that seen between the genders. Running a small gym, I see a huge variation in people's starting abilities, and in general people are all weaker than the average AD&D1e character. For example, in that system you can press 10lbs overhead for each point of Strength up to 18. The average of 3d6 is 10.5, suggesting a 105lb press. In almost 14 years working as a trainer I have worked closely with well over 150 people, and less closely with 300 or so more, and I have never met a
previously untrained person who could press 105lb overhead. Not once.
The 30-60lb level is more common. Three months of training essentially doubles this, another two years
might double it again - if they're dedicated. Few are. So most end up with 60-120lb, and a few more driven individuals up to 180lb. But they start with 30-60lb.
I am sure people will now reply telling me that they totally benched 315lbs in high school with no training at all, and can still do it now at 50 years old. I take this with the same seriousness I do of anything else I read from anonymous posters online: it's bullshit.
AD&D1e and its later, inferior variations do not in any way, shape or form simulate reality, whether gender differences or anything else. If you want realism you would not only have gender differences, you would also remove all the magic and monsters, introduce slow healing with the possibility of infection and long-term disability, and so on. It's intriguing to me that so many male nerds are completely indifferent to realism except in this one tiny thing. Well, you have to be able to feel superior to someone about something or other, I suppose.
80% of male drivers think they have better than average driving skills. One of the reasons my gym is less popular than globogyms is that people who come along cannot deceive themselves that they "actually pretty fit and strong, really." When you walk in and see a 70yo woman deadlift 100kg, you can't bullshit yourself anymore.
3d6 in order.
As for races: the differences in races are there as an exercise in game balance: you get extra of stat X, but you're limited in level to Y, that sort of thing. Consider it as an indirect point-buy.
I don't own the product (shame on me!), but might tinkering with RPGpundit's Social Encounters product (if the mods aren't already in there) be an option?
Male humans are more likely, for example, to be able to pull off "intimidation" type interactions, while the typical woman won't.
When backing it up with physical force isn't an option, talking one's way out of trouble might work better for women.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 18, 2023, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Dinopaw on March 17, 2023, 11:36:08 AMAssume that your goal is to represent sex differences in D&D mechanics.
I would not.
I have players roll 3d6 in order. The randomness of the dice presents a greater variation than that seen between the genders. Running a small gym, I see a huge variation in people's starting abilities, and in general people are all weaker than the average AD&D1e character. For example, in that system you can press 10lbs overhead for each point of Strength up to 18. The average of 3d6 is 10.5, suggesting a 105lb press. In almost 14 years working as a trainer I have worked closely with well over 150 people, and less closely with 300 or so more, and I have never met a previously untrained person who could press 105lb overhead. Not once.
The 30-60lb level is more common. Three months of training essentially doubles this, another two years might double it again - if they're dedicated. Few are. So most end up with 60-120lb, and a few more driven individuals up to 180lb. But they start with 30-60lb.
I am sure people will now reply telling me that they totally benched 315lbs in high school with no training at all, and can still do it now at 50 years old. I take this with the same seriousness I do of anything else I read from anonymous posters online: it's bullshit.
Spot on. I've trained a half dozen people, so I don't come anywhere near your experience, but everything you said rings true. I've heard so many people tell me they could do x lift at x pounds back in high school. You have them do the lift at bar weight only and their form is not there and probably never was. There's way too much bullshit online and offline when it comes to lifting. Working out is the one community that out bullshits the rpg community.
AD&D Strength was calculated by guys who never lifted anything. I mean, they have 25# 2 handed swords, so...take it all with a barrel of salt.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 18, 2023, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Dinopaw on March 17, 2023, 11:36:08 AMAssume that your goal is to represent sex differences in D&D mechanics.
I would not.
I have players roll 3d6 in order. The randomness of the dice presents a greater variation than that seen between the genders. Running a small gym, I see a huge variation in people's starting abilities, and in general people are all weaker than the average AD&D1e character. For example, in that system you can press 10lbs overhead for each point of Strength up to 18. The average of 3d6 is 10.5, suggesting a 105lb press. In almost 14 years working as a trainer I have worked closely with well over 150 people, and less closely with 300 or so more, and I have never met a previously untrained person who could press 105lb overhead. Not once.
The 30-60lb level is more common. Three months of training essentially doubles this, another two years might double it again - if they're dedicated. Few are. So most end up with 60-120lb, and a few more driven individuals up to 180lb. But they start with 30-60lb.
I am sure people will now reply telling me that they totally benched 315lbs in high school with no training at all, and can still do it now at 50 years old. I take this with the same seriousness I do of anything else I read from anonymous posters online: it's bullshit.
AD&D1e and its later, inferior variations do not in any way, shape or form simulate reality, whether gender differences or anything else. If you want realism you would not only have gender differences, you would also remove all the magic and monsters, introduce slow healing with the possibility of infection and long-term disability, and so on. It's intriguing to me that so many male nerds are completely indifferent to realism except in this one tiny thing. Well, you have to be able to feel superior to someone about something or other, I suppose.
80% of male drivers think they have better than average driving skills. One of the reasons my gym is less popular than globogyms is that people who come along cannot deceive themselves that they "actually pretty fit and strong, really." When you walk in and see a 70yo woman deadlift 100kg, you can't bullshit yourself anymore.
3d6 in order.
As for races: the differences in races are there as an exercise in game balance: you get extra of stat X, but you're limited in level to Y, that sort of thing. Consider it as an indirect point-buy.
Nice rant. Of course, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And it's factually incorrect. The dice roll is not more variable than the difference between the sexes. The strongest women (a woman in the top 10%) lift about the same as a well-trained high school athlete. People just don't realize the dramatic difference in strength capabilities. Testosterone is a hell of a drug...
Regarding gender differences, apart from size/strength/bone and muscle mass derived mostly from testosterone and HGH, I vaguely remember there
being some scientific studies in the past where the results were in the line of biological women having on average "higher intelligence" than males in general. Males in turn were said to have more representation in both polar ends, low or high and less in the middle or upper middle level. Meaning, majority of the most intelligent and most idiotic humans are of male gender. Reasoning for this was that females especially in pre-modern times could to rely less on size and strength and had to come up with ways to survive through social intellect, which some could call calculative manipulation of the male species through softer means ::)
Of course, this is a raw generalization and there are many types of intelligence. Though most can´t argue that women in general are famous for their social intellect. Women in general are more interested in people and men are more interested in things, this is likely caused by hormonal reasons where higher level of testosterone makes left brain hemisphere dominant and vice versa.
This can be seen in gender representation in technical fields like engineering where most people are male, regardless of specialization.
Little girls start honing their social skills early on in their play, roleplaying essentially weddings, family environments and princess plays.
Where boys in turn wrestle and fight and what not.
I have wondered for a long time, how is it that when I meet really dumb men, their women tend to be rather smart and I´v been able to have
deep conversations with them. I´v met very few dumb females though, I can only come up with maybe 1-3 or so, but I´v met very many really
dumb and really bright males in turn. ;D
Whether these should be represented in RPG´s is another matter entirely.
QuoteNice rant. Of course, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And it's factually incorrect. The dice roll is not more variable than the difference between the sexes. The strongest women (a woman in the top 10%) lift about the same as a well-trained high school athlete. People just don't realize the dramatic difference in strength capabilities. Testosterone is a hell of a drug...
Indeed, YouTube is full of videos of males vs women in sports. Women and men competing in different leagues should say it all.
Quote from: Angry Goblin on March 19, 2023, 02:12:39 PM
Regarding gender differences, apart from size/strength/bone and muscle mass derived mostly from testosterone and HGH, I vaguely remember there
being some scientific studies in the past where the results were in the line of biological women having on average "higher intelligence" than males in general. Males in turn were said to have more representation in both polar ends, low or high and less in the middle or upper middle level. Meaning, majority of the most intelligent and most idiotic humans are of male gender. Reasoning for this was that females especially in pre-modern times could to rely less on size and strength and had to come up with ways to survive through social intellect, which some could call calculative manipulation of the male species through softer means ::)
I see you've watched some Peterson videos. Yes, when talking about IQ, women are on average ever-so-slightly more intelligent (although I don't think the difference could be captured on a 3d6 roll) than men, but also have a smaller standard deviation (that one
definitely can't be captured with a 3d6 roll). But women are also generally more conscientious (which is a Big Five personality trait, and definitely has no analogue in D&D) which causes them to be more successful in school and even work settings, and generally contribute nearly as much as raw intelligence to so-called "life success" — defined as getting a good job and doing well in it.
Physically, women are generally more resistant to pain and more agreeable, so perhaps if a GM wants to reduce the maximum strength for female characters, maybe he should reduce the charisma or constitution maxima of male characters to compensate. Not a bonus or a penalty; that would screw up the average. But saying "you have to play a girl to keep this 18 constitution" might not be entirely unreasonable.
In 3D6 stat games, I give players a +1/-1 modifiers to choose WTF they want to model.
I don't say "sex differences", but players could choose to do that.
Since we're talking mostly about fantasy or cinematic games, I truly couldn't care about real world characteristics. Players are coming to the table from lots of modern media which means "grrrl power" assumptions or other power fantasy literature, so I don't need additional drama.
Quote from: Jason Coplen on March 19, 2023, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 18, 2023, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Dinopaw on March 17, 2023, 11:36:08 AMAssume that your goal is to represent sex differences in D&D mechanics.
I would not.
I have players roll 3d6 in order. The randomness of the dice presents a greater variation than that seen between the genders. Running a small gym, I see a huge variation in people's starting abilities, and in general people are all weaker than the average AD&D1e character. For example, in that system you can press 10lbs overhead for each point of Strength up to 18. The average of 3d6 is 10.5, suggesting a 105lb press. In almost 14 years working as a trainer I have worked closely with well over 150 people, and less closely with 300 or so more, and I have never met a previously untrained person who could press 105lb overhead. Not once.
The 30-60lb level is more common. Three months of training essentially doubles this, another two years might double it again - if they're dedicated. Few are. So most end up with 60-120lb, and a few more driven individuals up to 180lb. But they start with 30-60lb.
I am sure people will now reply telling me that they totally benched 315lbs in high school with no training at all, and can still do it now at 50 years old. I take this with the same seriousness I do of anything else I read from anonymous posters online: it's bullshit.
Spot on. I've trained a half dozen people, so I don't come anywhere near your experience, but everything you said rings true. I've heard so many people tell me they could do x lift at x pounds back in high school. You have them do the lift at bar weight only and their form is not there and probably never was. There's way too much bullshit online and offline when it comes to lifting. Working out is the one community that out bullshits the rpg community.
I suspect that most of those who did seriously lift in high school probably had enough interest in physical fitness that they don't need to hit a gym to get in shape; they just stayed at whatever level of shape the were comfortable with.
Being male made you more sensible to direct sexual traits. Being female made you more sensible to indirect sexual traits.
And that conclude the differences, if not that females ovulate and males not. Ah, and the penis is a thing too.
Males could have a genetical disposition toward muscle mass. They *could* have it, but is not a given male trait. I can't develop muscle mass not even in 100 years of benching. And still being male.
Females doesn't tend to be more judicious, or any judicious male will be a female. But some female could develop an high judicious trait (that's different to say "all women are more judicious").
So, to me, you can introduce extremes. A male can develop STR above 20, and females WIS above 20. The other game factors left as they are.
Quote from: Angry Goblin on March 19, 2023, 02:12:39 PM
<snip>Males in turn were said to have more representation in both polar ends, low or high and less in the middle or upper middle level. Meaning, majority of the most intelligent and most idiotic humans are of male<snip>
It's called the Variability hypothesis.
It means men hold up (and down) the ends of the bell curve. A moron, or a genius, is more likely to be a man.
Women hold up the middle of bell curve. They can be morons or geniuses, but they're more likely to be in between.
When discussing this, you have to watch for words like average or mean. Because none of the above affects the average.
More details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Variability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Variability)
Here is a more detailed history, but it quickly gets bogged down in (unrelated) claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 18, 2023, 09:30:03 PM3d6 in order.
3d6 In Order could work IF you have a different modifier chart for the various choices.
For example, a man with an 18 Strength gets a +3 modifier, a woman with an 18 gets +2 as would a male elf. A hobbit man or a female Elf would get a +1 modifier. Etc
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about. Setting aside the ridiculous woke worldview where everyone is both the same but also special and different (which typically implodes under its own weight), there are physiological differences between males and females represented in just about every binary species. Humans aren't even the most significant example of this, and the differences aren't even typical or similar from one species to the next. A female might be larger or more aggressive than a male in one species and be comparatively docile and subdued in the next. Stepping into fiction, there's no reason this sexual dimorphism wouldn't be even more significant, since now we're dealing with a nearly unlimited hodge-podge of man and mer, beast-kin and hybrid, terrestrial and alien life forms, etc.
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.
Menstruating female characters should have to roll on a random alignment table twice a day.
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about.
Masculine egos.
This retarded discussion comes up every now and then, and it's
never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them. Gamers are even more sedentary than the general population (who are 70% overweight or obese - cue some fat bastard telling me "no bro it's all muscle"), which means that as youths they may be underweight or overweight, but as mature adults they're all overweight or obese. But they all
coulda bin a contendah, and they project their personal insecurities to the game.
This is why, for example, the "create yourself as a character" thing is so very fucking painful for all concerned. You get that "65% of drivers think they're above average" thing - but the actual stat breaks down by gender, males are much more likely to overestimate their abilities. One way to pump yourself up is to put others down, "hey at least I'm superior to a female." You'll also get supposedly self-deprecating things of, "but I'm not that good at -" and then the guy adds some characteristic which he doesn't think is important, therefore being bad at it doesn't matter.
There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but don't do it publicly, please.
3d6 in order.
And if it's a point-buy game, then you get what you pay your points for, regardless of other traits. If the GM won't let you choose trait X because your character is female or whatever, then your GM doesn't understand the purpose of point-buy.
But in any case, and for proper gaming, 3d6 in order.
Quote from: I on April 13, 2023, 11:55:15 PM
Menstruating female characters should have to roll on a random alignment table twice a day.
My wife asked what the giggling was about. She listened, thought for second, and replied, "It isn't wrong."
But she always makes random tables for her characters, whether it is what sort of spell is randomly cast by her chaos priestess or what her Aslan character is thinking about when his mind is read (hint: tea, poetry, the clan that cast him out, or old battles).
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.
First, it sounds like you've read Heinlein too - in Starship Troopers almost all the pilots are females because they tend to have better reflexes (dexterity) and men tend to be stronger.
The other suggestions you have is kind of how Traveller does it with aliens.
My wife is having a lot of fun running a male Aslan, who constantly asks the one female in the party to manage his money for him. Or refers the mob boss asking about payment to "the clan female". She also makes him, in character, reluctant to admit to being able to do "non-male" work that he's actually trained for - but has him learning to accept it over time. The rest of the players are men and they love hearing her talk about science, tech, and math as "women's work". We are worried though, that someone is going to explain to him prostitutes as "females that can be rented by men without a clan female" and he decides to "rent a clan female" next time he needs accounting or science done.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2023, 02:48:39 AM
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about.
Masculine egos.
This retarded discussion comes up every now and then, and it's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them. Gamers are even more sedentary than the general population (who are 70% overweight or obese - cue some fat bastard telling me "no bro it's all muscle"), which means that as youths they may be underweight or overweight, but as mature adults they're all overweight or obese. But they all coulda bin a contendah, and they project their personal insecurities to the game.
This is why, for example, the "create yourself as a character" thing is so very fucking painful for all concerned. You get that "65% of drivers think they're above average" thing - but the actual stat breaks down by gender, males are much more likely to overestimate their abilities. One way to pump yourself up is to put others down, "hey at least I'm superior to a female." You'll also get supposedly self-deprecating things of, "but I'm not that good at -" and then the guy adds some characteristic which he doesn't think is important, therefore being bad at it doesn't matter.
There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but don't do it publicly, please.
I believe you're way off, here. Your assumption that this argument stems from male ego or self-perspective, but I feel like that's wilfully ignorant of the nuance of this argument.
Sexual dimorphism exists in nearly every binary species (and I say "nearly" because it's basically "every" but I can't be 100% sure there isn't some outlier in nature). Physical build and appearance differ drastically between males and females of a species, and differences can and do extend into body chemistry, hormones, emotional responses, and behavior. These differences aren't sporadic, they're consistent: if you compare a male and a female specimen who are otherwise comparable or equal, you can measure and contrast all of these differences.
I don't really understand the hypocrisy. We recognize differences enough to separate males and females in competition. Medicine recognizes and respects the vital differences between males and females. We study how males and females succeed and fail at different rates in various occupations and lifestyles. We observe things in life that are typically "male" and "female." Yet, when it comes down to recognizing the sexual dimorphism on a character sheet,
that is somehow a bridge too far? Male and female are wildly different but it's offensive when one notices it - or God forbid, simulates it?
In fact, it really appears you're the one who's being rather sexist here. Honest conversations on sexual dimorphism recognize and appreciate the differences between males and females are comparative and complementary, but your argument seems to suggest that the whole topic
really actually is about male ego-stroking - because males are supposedly superior to females in this argument.
They aren't. They're different. And just because one specimen has all the benefits of growing in a testosterone soup, doesn't imply the other specimen is inferior - unless the only measure of value and capability if physical strength.
If someone wants to represent the differences between males and females of a species in their system, there are a plethora of ways to do that that are tasteful and interesting. If that makes you personally feel the need to get offended and throw insults, then that's on you, I guess.
Quote from: Tod13 on April 14, 2023, 10:13:10 AM
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.
First, it sounds like you've read Heinlein too - in Starship Troopers almost all the pilots are females because they tend to have better reflexes (dexterity) and men tend to be stronger.
The other suggestions you have is kind of how Traveller does it with aliens.
My wife is having a lot of fun running a male Aslan, who constantly asks the one female in the party to manage his money for him. Or refers the mob boss asking about payment to "the clan female". She also makes him, in character, reluctant to admit to being able to do "non-male" work that he's actually trained for - but has him learning to accept it over time. The rest of the players are men and they love hearing her talk about science, tech, and math as "women's work". We are worried though, that someone is going to explain to him prostitutes as "females that can be rented by men without a clan female" and he decides to "rent a clan female" next time he needs accounting or science done.
I'm recalling a setting where men do not learn to read because it's considered "feminine" and for the life of me, I can't recall...
Oh, right. Brandon Sanderson's
Stormlight Archives series, I think. Their culture basically is like, "The truest feminine skills are that which can be done with one hand; the truest masculine skills are that which requires two." So men don't typically read, write, do art, etc. and have no capacity to do so culturally - though they do learn to read and communicate using glyphs as a stand-in.
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 14, 2023, 01:42:02 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on April 14, 2023, 10:13:10 AM
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.
First, it sounds like you've read Heinlein too - in Starship Troopers almost all the pilots are females because they tend to have better reflexes (dexterity) and men tend to be stronger.
The other suggestions you have is kind of how Traveller does it with aliens.
My wife is having a lot of fun running a male Aslan, who constantly asks the one female in the party to manage his money for him. Or refers the mob boss asking about payment to "the clan female". She also makes him, in character, reluctant to admit to being able to do "non-male" work that he's actually trained for - but has him learning to accept it over time. The rest of the players are men and they love hearing her talk about science, tech, and math as "women's work". We are worried though, that someone is going to explain to him prostitutes as "females that can be rented by men without a clan female" and he decides to "rent a clan female" next time he needs accounting or science done.
I'm recalling a setting where men do not learn to read because it's considered "feminine" and for the life of me, I can't recall...
Oh, right. Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archives series, I think. Their culture basically is like, "The truest feminine skills are that which can be done with one hand; the truest masculine skills are that which requires two." So men don't typically read, write, do art, etc. and have no capacity to do so culturally - though they do learn to read and communicate using glyphs as a stand-in.
That's cool. I tried his Mistworld trilogy and kind of lost interest halfway through the second book. But I really, really like that concept.
I was thinking of how to do a feline race based on lions. Male leadership, but females are the hunters/warriors.
And then something similar for a dog race using hyenas. Females rule and males are second (or third) rate citizens.
Quote from: Tod13 on April 14, 2023, 10:01:38 AM
Quote from: I on April 13, 2023, 11:55:15 PM
Menstruating female characters should have to roll on a random alignment table twice a day.
My wife asked what the giggling was about. She listened, thought for second, and replied, "It isn't wrong."
But she always makes random tables for her characters, whether it is what sort of spell is randomly cast by her chaos priestess or what her Aslan character is thinking about when his mind is read (hint: tea, poetry, the clan that cast him out, or old battles).
Your wife sounds like a very cool person, and you sound like a lucky guy to have her. Yeah, in my experience, if the girl is her normal sweet self during "that time of the month" it means she's feeling bad. If she's feeling good and sprightly, it means she's temporarily CHAOTIC EVIL so stay away!!!
Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about. Setting aside the ridiculous woke worldview where everyone is both the same but also special and different (which typically implodes under its own weight), there are physiological differences between males and females represented in just about every binary species. Humans aren't even the most significant example of this, and the differences aren't even typical or similar from one species to the next. A female might be larger or more aggressive than a male in one species and be comparatively docile and subdued in the next. Stepping into fiction, there's no reason this sexual dimorphism wouldn't be even more significant, since now we're dealing with a nearly unlimited hodge-podge of man and mer, beast-kin and hybrid, terrestrial and alien life forms, etc.
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.
This is more in the spirit of my original post. D&D's attribute system is rather limited in this respect since many different characteristics of attributes are lumped together and it's difficult to distinguish anything meaningful using a very limited set of numbers. And as I pointed out in the original post, there isn't a reason to assume that non-human races share the same pattern of sexual dimorphism that humans do.
Off-the-cuff ideas: Human men might be able to perform a 1/day usage of Intelligence in lieu of Wisdom, or Strength in lieu of Charisma. Whereas Human women might have a 1/day power to determine if a target character is lying.
Quote from: Dinopaw on April 14, 2023, 09:41:55 PM
...And as I pointed out in the original post, there isn't a reason to assume that non-human races share the same pattern of sexual dimorphism that humans do.
There's actually plenty of reason to assume so. Sexual dimorphism, which refers to the differences in appearance and size between males and females of the same species, is quite common in the animal kingdom, including mammals and non-mammals. The prevalence and degree of sexual dimorphism vary among different groups of animals, but it is generally more common than not. Since we see sexual dimorphism constantly exhibited throughout most species - including humans - it stands to reason binary non-humans (terrestrial or otherwise) would as well.
Of course, you're free to create, say, a monomorphic species of elves or orcs or little green men. You do whatever you want when it's your world.
The problem I think you're going to find trying to represent sex differences by attribute modifiers is that 3-18 just isn't that big of a range, especially when you also need to provide for stat differences for all the different fantasy races on top of that, and you also don't want the stat modifiers to make character combinations impossible. It'd be a bit easier in something like a d100 system, where you have much more granularity.
That said, if you're inclined to do it, the answer might be to play with the dice rolls, rather than the modifiers. Maybe males roll 2d6+6 for STR, while females roll 3d6, so then the range is the same, but the male average would be higher. It might be a way to distinguish between race modifiers and sex modifiers. Thinking about it, I'd probably give different races different rolls, and different sexes linear modifiers, but you could argue it the other way too.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 15, 2023, 11:12:39 AM
The problem I think you're going to find trying to represent sex differences by attribute modifiers is that 3-18 just isn't that big of a range, especially when you also need to provide for stat differences for all the different fantasy races on top of that, and you also don't want the stat modifiers to make character combinations impossible. It'd be a bit easier in something like a d100 system, where you have much more granularity.
Why? It is not reasonable to say that certain race/class combos are sub-optimal, such as dwarven wizards? Of course, if you use racial classes, like B/X or similar, then you can substitute class abilities for lesser ability score modifiers.
QuoteThat said, if you're inclined to do it, the answer might be to play with the dice rolls, rather than the modifiers. Maybe males roll 2d6+6 for STR, while females roll 3d6, so then the range is the same, but the male average would be higher. It might be a way to distinguish between race modifiers and sex modifiers. Thinking about it, I'd probably give different races different rolls, and different sexes linear modifiers, but you could argue it the other way too.
This is exactly how Runequest worked. In that game each race had it's own die rolls for each stat. I'm a big proponent of determining a characters race and sex before rolling for ability scores.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2023, 02:48:39 AMit's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them.
This statement is 100% true but not for the reason you think. Women don't care about Strength limits for female characters because they rarely, if ever, want to play a giant musclebound female character.
The biggest group objecting to such a rule are male players who want to play female fighters who try to fuck every male NPC they come across. This is the main upside to female strength limits, in that it scares away a big group of players that you don't want in your group in the first place.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 15, 2023, 01:41:25 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2023, 02:48:39 AMit's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them.
This statement is 100% true but not for the reason you think. Women don't care about Strength limits for female characters because they rarely, if ever, want to play a giant musclebound female character.
The biggest group objecting to such a rule are male players who want to play female fighters who try to fuck every male NPC they come across. This is the main upside to female strength limits, in that it scares away a big group of players that you don't want in your group in the first place.
That might be a generational thing. I've known a few women who occasionally play big dumb fighter/barbarian types. Sometimes, it seems to be motivated by a desire to play a character which is very different from them. Sometimes you see it with women that are paranoid or sensitive about being hit on in-game, and so want to make their character sexually unapproachable. I haven't personally seen one, but I imagine you also occasionally just get a female player that has a muscle-mommy fetish. It's not like weird kinks are exclusive to men.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 15, 2023, 01:35:52 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 15, 2023, 11:12:39 AM
The problem I think you're going to find trying to represent sex differences by attribute modifiers is that 3-18 just isn't that big of a range, especially when you also need to provide for stat differences for all the different fantasy races on top of that, and you also don't want the stat modifiers to make character combinations impossible...
Why? It is not reasonable to say that certain race/class combos are sub-optimal, such as dwarven wizards? Of course, if you use racial classes, like B/X or similar, then you can substitute class abilities for lesser ability score modifiers.
If you want to make certain race-class combinations impossible for setting reasons, that's fine. But I would suggest that it's better to do so by just saying "Dwarfs can't be wizards for x or y reason", rather than doing it via their attribute spread.
To me, there's a difference between "sub-optimal" and "non-viable". As a general rule, I think that if a character option is presented to the player, it should be on a level of rough parity with its alternatives. If making a Dwarf wizard means your character is a bit less good at wizarding than he might have been, but there's some useful consolations (such as more HP, infravision, whatever), that's actually great. I like it when a game encourages players to not always make the most optimized character. If making a Dwarf wizard means your character will be utterly useless, then I don't think the game should have told you that you could make one. In saying this, I'll acknowledge that some people like to make and play a crap character, as a kind of optional "hard mode" for the game. I think they ought to be accommodated via optional rules or homebrewing. But if a game makes it so that a neophyte can come in and
accidentally make a badly subpar character, I regard that as a design flaw.
Getting back around to the point, I suspect that all this is why most versions of D&D restrict racial modifiers to no more than +/- 3 to any given stat, at least for core races. I was just suggesting that if you're already only working within a 6-point range for
racial attribute modifiers, trying to add sexual modifiers on top of that seems to be cluttering the numbers to no major benefit. Come to think of it, you run the risk of encouraging players to choose their character's sex for optimization rather than roleplaying reasons. Not sure if that's something most people would want to encourage.
Quote from: ForgottenF on April 15, 2023, 03:55:22 PMGetting back around to the point, I suspect that all this is why most versions of D&D restrict racial modifiers to no more than +/- 3 to any given stat, at least for core races. I was just suggesting that if you're already only working within a 6-point range for
racial attribute modifiers, trying to add sexual modifiers on top of that seems to be cluttering the numbers to no major benefit. Come to think of it, you run the risk of encouraging players to choose their character's sex for optimization rather than roleplaying reasons. Not sure if that's something most people would want to encourage.
I see your point. However, I've worked hard to modify my OD&D game so that that it works just as well for 18" tall Pixie PCs as it does for 10' tall Ogre PC. So for me to implement the differences between men and women is trivial compared to those extremes.
However, if you are just talking about standard D&D games, you have an issue where there are only six ability scores and they all work the same way, where a high score is always better than a low score. In this case, the ideal solution would be simply to set a limit on specific ability scores based on the character's race and sex (or other considerations). This way when a player allocates his 3d6 roll results, he will only allocate 17s and 18s it to the unlimited abilities and allocate lower numbers the other ones.
Doing it this way insures that no character is penalized for their character choices. Which is why, IMO, this works better than ability score die roll modifiers.
If you want to keep player characters balanced, I'd say use a point buy system with different attribute caps by sex. IRL the sexes are balanced evolutionarily, for some interesting maths reasons AIR - both have about the same average (mean) number of offspring. They're not balanced for typical action adventure type activities, of course. If you don't care about balance, roll attributes on different dice for each sex the way some BRP games do, so eg females have lower average STR & SIZ.
Females get a bonus to spot checks when looking in the fridge.
Males get a bonus to strength checks when opening jars.
A long time ago, I used -2 Str, +2 in any one Ability score, or +1 in any two Ability scores with the human cap at 18, demi-human cap at 19. It's a simple system and it works without much fuss from my players. (well, it WAS 1983-5, so...) :D
Assuming you view scores as intrinsic (rather than influenced by the setting), and you consider it important for PCs to statistically reflect the non-player character population in some respects (even though they don't otherwise)... I've done the math based on athletics records and such, and the results suggest it's generally not worth doing. Unless your game really focuses on the fastball, carrying around heavy stuff, or uneven bars, you just don't get a lot of numeric difference.
Like in D&D 3.5, you could squint and maybe give men +1 Strength relative to women, and throw in +2 Strength for purposes of carrying capacity and +1 to hit and damage with thrown weapons. And then you give women, I don't know, +1 to Fortitude to saves versus disease, and +1 to Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Escape Artist. Again, that's assuming you know what the baseline is for people who are striving in any particular category, and not just applying a population tendency to a PC who already reflects those tendencies before applying their particular characteristics. And what you get is a pack of differences barely worth a feat either way.
At the end of the day, you have males being able achieve 18/00 Strength in AD&D, and women being able to achieve 18/50, and you get a player going, "Why can't I be the one woman who just has 18/87?" Meanwhile, another player is the last cleric with powers in the setting, another is playing a wizard, someone else is a monk of an order with less than 30 members in the whole world, and someone is a spelljamming Vulcan. And you find yourself wondering whether you are defining a difference that makes a difference.
In rpg terms, women have most of their points forcefully placed into the reproductive build, with precious few left over. Apart from slightly better body flexibility, and better color recognition, women are vastly inferior to men in almost every physical metric.
Olympic records:
M 100 metres 9.63
F 100 metres 10.61
M Marathon 2:06:32
F Marathon 2:23:07
M Weightlifting Total 488 kg
F Weightlifting Total 320 kg
M Javelin throw 90.57 m
F Javelin throw 71.53 m
In the U.S. High School boys taking part in Track and Field regularly smash female Olympic records.
https://boysvswomen.com/#/ (https://boysvswomen.com/#/)
I'll give you vastly different for weightlifting. Those 100m and marathon numbers don't even look like a stat difference, unless you are playing Rolemaster.
488 kg is about 1.5 times 230kg. So in D&D 3.5, that would be a difference of about +3 Strength, assuming men get no benefits to encumbrance for being, on average, larger. Of course, to assume that's in intrinsic difference, you'd have to think women and men participate in powerlifting at similar rates, which is definitely not true. If you shave off even +1 with that in mind, and assume men get even a relative +1 for lifting, the difference disappears below the level the system acknowledges as a difference.
People want to make a big deal of differences, because of the statistical edge, but in terms of absolute measurments, there isn't a lot there. Men lift more and throw further, and are taller.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 12:01:34 PM
I'll give you vastly different for weightlifting. Those 100m and marathon numbers don't even look like a stat difference, unless you are playing Rolemaster.
488 kg is about 1.5 times 230kg. So in D&D 3.5, that would be a difference of about +3 Strength, assuming men get no benefits to encumbrance for being, on average, larger. Of course, to assume that's in intrinsic difference, you'd have to think women and men participate in powerlifting at similar rates, which is definitely not true. If you shave off even +1 with that in mind, and assume men get even a relative +1 for lifting, the difference disappears below the level the system acknowledges as a difference.
People want to make a big deal of differences, because of the statistical edge, but in terms of absolute measurments, there isn't a lot there. Men lift more and throw further, and are taller.
Just post a picture of hand-waving, you disingenuous zealot.
"If you just look at massive strength differences as the ability to lift weight, and completely ignore its effect on striking power, grappling, explosive speed, and athleticism why it's practically a rounding error! And there are probably loads of massively strong women who just don't lift, due to patriarchy!"
You absolute clown.
"Massive strength differences" = +1.5 worth of Strength bonus, assuming it's all intrinsic difference, and using pretty much the most favorable possible measurement for men
Quote
M 100 metres 9.63
F 100 metres 10.61
M Marathon 2:06:32
F Marathon 2:23:07
A difference of about 10% and 13%, respectively. This is at the peak of measured performances.
Extrapolating this to a typical movement rate, this would translate into a movement rate of
100 metres: 31.5 feet/round for men versus 29.5 feet/round for women
Marathon: 32 feet/round for men versus 28 feet/round for women
Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 03:26:24 PM
"Massive strength differences" = +1.5 worth of Strength bonus, assuming it's all intrinsic difference, and using pretty much the most favorable possible measurement for men
Quote
M 100 metres 9.63
F 100 metres 10.61
M Marathon 2:06:32
F Marathon 2:23:07
A difference of about 10% and 13%, respectively. This is at the peak of measured performances.
Extrapolating this to a typical movement rate, this would translate into a movement rate of
100 metres: 31.5 feet/round for men versus 29.5 feet/round for women
Marathon: 32 feet/round for men versus 28 feet/round for women
Of course another way to look at these numbers is the massive amount of men that can meet or exceed female absolute peaks. 13 year old school boys CRUSH the world's best female Soccer players, high school boys smash Olympic records, women stepping in the boxing or wrestling ring with males get carried out.
You're niggling tiny mechanical advantages that ignore the spirit of the abilities themselves. If, for instance, there was a running mechanic that was D6+ modifier of up to +6, you'd argue 13% speed difference would mean men shouldn't even have a +1 advantage. Whereas in actuality, to represent how a fit amateur male runner will beat a professional woman, you'd need a substantial mod to males.
Let's look at Army fitness standards for the sexes.
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-2-mile-run-standards/ (https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-2-mile-run-standards/)
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-2-mile-run-standards/ (https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-2-mile-run-standards/)
To score max points, a 17-26yr old Male requires a time of 13:00
To score max points, a 17-26yr old Female requires a time of 15:36
To score max points, a
56yr old Male requires a time of
14:42 (19:00 for a 56yr old female btw)
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-pushup-standards/ (https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-pushup-standards/)
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-pushup-standards/ (https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-pushup-standards/)
To score max points, a 27-31yr old Male must do 77 push-ups.
To score max points, a 27-31yr old Female must do 50 push-ups.
To score max points, a
56yr old Male must do
56 push-ups (31 for a 56yr old female btw)
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 05:50:49 PM
Of course another way to look at these numbers is the massive amount of men that can meet or exceed female absolute peaks. 13 year old school boys CRUSH the world's best female Soccer players,
Citation needed. I know top-level female basketball players routinely destroy male practice squads, men specifically selected to provide a high level challenge.
https://www.sbnation.com/wnba/2019/5/23/18636639/wnba-male-practice-squads
Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 06:09:34 PMCitation needed.
https://www.soccerwire.com/news/fc-dallas-academy-u-15-side-defeats-uswnt-5-2-in-scrimmage/ (https://www.soccerwire.com/news/fc-dallas-academy-u-15-side-defeats-uswnt-5-2-in-scrimmage/)
https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-gremio-mens-under-16s-beat-brazil-womens-national-team-6-0-20210113 (https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-gremio-mens-under-16s-beat-brazil-womens-national-team-6-0-20210113)
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html)
As a bonus, here are current and retired members of 5th-tier (IE farm league) of Wrexam FC taking on retired U.S. female internationals, and beating them 12-0, and that was because the match ended at first to 12.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/uswnt-wrexham-live-score-updates-highlights-soccer-tournament/g98m9tkvztd2fkqhb6hnpse9 (https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/uswnt-wrexham-live-score-updates-highlights-soccer-tournament/g98m9tkvztd2fkqhb6hnpse9)
For my fellow Americans: In a sport where 0-1 wins are common, 12-0 with the match being stopped is staggering.
"The US Women's team — which was comprised of former USWNT players, organized by three-time Olympic gold medalist and FIFA Women's World Cup champion Heather O'Reilly and coached by USWNT legend Mia Hamm — struggled in each of their two outings. They gave up 17 goals in the tournament and scored none."
Btw, apologies for being dragged into arguments about demonstrable physical realities.
OP: To realistically stat male vs female the females would need a negative modifier on Str and Con stat rolls. This would represent both the lower average, and the lower ceiling.
Something like Dex is probably fair as even. Men have better raw athletic potential, but women have a flexibility and grace advantage, so they probably equal out in Dex.
Men have more clustered at the bottom and top end of Int than women, but that's probable too granular.
Cha-wise, possibly a small bonus for women in seduction, and men in situations where it represents force of will (leading troops, making someone back down)
ADDENDUM: Obviously a points buy system, with lower female maxima for Str and Con would be the only fair way to represent the differences. So a female could still be that rare Str 16 female, and not have fewer stat points than the males.
Of course another issue is players want to make 18 str females that look like sexy waifs, whereas real world 16 str female power lifters look like farm machinery.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 07:14:40 PM
Men have more clustered at the bottom and top end of Int than women, but that's probable too granular.
That's purely an artifact of subscale scatter. And in any case, IQ tests aren't holistically very good at measuring "intelligence," much less the kind measured in RPGs.
Your summary of the soccer matches glosses over important caveats: teams coming out of training, rotating rosters for training, top overseas recruits not playing, etc. Also I didn't find any mentions of a team of 13 year olds, although I gather the under-16 teams could in theory have had some. (I doubt many, I've seen 13 year old boys play soccer and they are miniscule compared to high schoolers). And in any case, out of thousands of scrimmages played across the planet, you are bound to see some surprising upsets, especially in less competitive formats. None of the articles you mentioned implies that anyone felt the women were unqualified, just that under less than stellar conditions, they faced a surprising defeat by elite youth teams. Like, at least one of the articles focused on the under-16 feeder for a professional club. You made it sound like local high schoolers are destroying pros, which is disingenuous. If you played enough scrimmages, I'm sure a group of under-16 girls of high caliber would occasionally beat the women's team; I'm sure with enough scrimmages, the boys might win a match or two against professional adults.
Also, men have, on average, more sexual partners than women, so maybe they should get the bonus to seduction.
Pawsplay, you will turn the tiniest hint of a crumb of evidence into incontrovertible truth when it suits the tenets of your cult, and refute every test, poll, metric, experiment, stat and record that is contrary.
Your lot demand impossible proof for anything you dislike, but demand others pay lip service to the most magical thinking.
My evidence was for others to see how ridiculous you are, not to convince you.
That's fine, I'm cool just embarrassing you with facts and exposing your blatant cherry-picking and hypocrisy.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 09:14:47 PM
That's fine, I'm cool just embarrassing you with facts and exposing your blatant cherry-picking and hypocrisy.
(https://www.bullshido.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AdobeStock_116145152-scaled.jpeg)
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 09:21:32 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 09:14:47 PM
That's fine, I'm cool just embarrassing you with facts and exposing your blatant cherry-picking and hypocrisy.
(https://www.bullshido.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AdobeStock_116145152-scaled.jpeg)
Ignore the troll. It argues the way that most delusional leftists do nowadays: a single exception disproves what you say, yet a single exception serves as incontrovertible proof of what they say. You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality (as many women and "women" have discovered).
Case in point. I've played ice hockey for decades in both high and low division amateur leagues, but I'm a complete amateur (never played in high school or college). About ten years ago I was in the lowest division of the local beer league. Our team didn't have a single person who played in college or high school. An all women's team joined the division for two seasons. They had several women who played in travel and select leagues, three who played in college (two in Div 1), and the team as a whole had won two national invitational women's tournaments. They went 0 and 52 in a division 5 no-check league. They didn't win a single game, and it wasn't even ever close, against men who averaged twice their age (the women were in their twenties, while our ages ranged from twenties to fifties). Had it been a checking league, they'd have been slaughtered even worse.
So when I see someone who I can guarantee has never come closer to playing a sport than pushing buttons on an Xbox controller make declarative statements about the capabilities of men and women in competition, I don't even try to debate them. It's like debating a flat-earther. The healthiest response is to point and laugh. We're talking about people that think hormones and surgery can turn a man into a woman (as opposed to the mutilated and sterilized male you actually get). They are impervious to reality.
As to the OP, I think you'd need to take into account the Greater Variability Hypothesis. So, male characters would roll 3d6 for stats, whereas women would roll 2d6+4. Men are over-represented at both the top and the bottom of the bell curve, and the top of just about every profession, even those traditionally thought of as feminine (like cooking), is dominated by males. This is an obvious result of evolutionary selection, as males are less important biologically than women (reproductively) and therefore more genetic variability is not a threat to the species. So women's bell curve should be narrower than males.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 10:51:14 AMM Weightlifting Total 488 kg
F Weightlifting Total 320 kg
One of the things I was wondering is how steroids have altered maximum weight lifts. Obviously, it helps both sides, but I've seen some completely unnatural female physiques that wouldn't be possible without drugs. Has steroids increased the maximum weight liftable by men by the same percentage as it has helped women?
IOW are the beefy strong women we see today even possible without advanced drugs? [I'm talking a fantasy setting rather than a sci-fi or cyberpunk one]
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 17, 2024, 12:20:28 AMSo when I see someone who I can guarantee has never come closer to playing a sport than pushing buttons on an Xbox controller make declarative statements about the capabilities of men and women in competition, I don't even try to debate them.
Don't forget the all-female League of Legends team Vaevictis. A team so bad they went 0-28, had the record for the fastest loss ever, and were kick out after one season. So men are better than women at button pushing too.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2024, 08:22:10 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 17, 2024, 12:20:28 AMSo when I see someone who I can guarantee has never come closer to playing a sport than pushing buttons on an Xbox controller make declarative statements about the capabilities of men and women in competition, I don't even try to debate them.
Don't forget the all-female League of Legends team Vaevictis. A team so bad they went 0-28, had the record for the fastest loss ever, and were kick out after one season. So men are better than women at button pushing to.
Something something Patriarchy, something something not every woman on Earth has played video games so you can't assume they're inferior, something something here's a Trans-Woman who is competitive so women are great at games.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2024, 08:16:15 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 10:51:14 AMM Weightlifting Total 488 kg
F Weightlifting Total 320 kg
One of the things I was wondering is how steroids have altered maximum weight lifts. Obviously, it helps both sides, but I've seen some completely unnatural female physiques that wouldn't be possible without drugs. Has steroids increased the maximum weight liftable by men by the same percentage as it has helped women?
IOW are the beefy strong women we see today even possible without advanced drugs? [I'm talking a fantasy setting rather than a sci-fi or cyberpunk one]
Well, first of all, competitive powerlifting doesn't allow you to use "advanced drugs." That's not necessarily true in bodybuilding, modeling, or entertainment, but when you see a verified world record, it means the person has been screened for steroid use, HGH, and various other factors for a long time. If a female's athletes testosterone is outside the statistically normal range, they sometimes have to get a doctor's note attesting that's their natural levels. In a couple of cases, female athletes have actually been ordered to reduce their natural testosterone levels to compete, which, frankly, I find disturbing.
Second of all, in a fantasy, medieval-type setting, you wouldn't see men that look like modern ripped athletes. Back then, people didn't usually shred, they bulked and exercised. These days, you can eat a hamburger every day, or go down to the vitamin shop and have a superfood smoothie and pick up a barrel of whey, which means the average person has access to nutrition, particularly protein, people didn't used to. Combined with modern knowledge of exercise and health, and a modern weekend warrior can relatively easily achieve the physique of a knight or a gladiator. If you look at world records, you'll notice they tend to go just up and up and up... this is not purely for statistical reasons. The gains are often, but not always, diminishing. but now and then they just shoot up, when an exceptional athlete or a new training or performance method pushes beyond what was previously thought possible. And part of achieving something that has never been done before is just to believe you can. Modern people have just became capable of more and more powerful feats over the last century. The carrying weight of a modern soldier's gear is often over a hundred pounds!
So it's hard to make comparisons. Most modern people would be pretty hopeless at wearing forty pounds of mail for a two mile hike, then fighting for thirty minutes with swords and spears. But on the other hand, we all know casual marathon runners, people who regularly perform a feat that might have killed many medieval peasants.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 05:50:49 PM
Let's look at Army fitness standards for the sexes.
Interesting.
Now link us to the Army fitness standards for elves, dwarves and halflings.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 17, 2024, 08:16:15 AMOne of the things I was wondering is how steroids have altered maximum weight lifts. Obviously, it helps both sides, but I've seen some completely unnatural female physiques that wouldn't be possible without drugs. Has steroids increased the maximum weight liftable by men by the same percentage as it has helped women?
In both cases it's about 10% overall. We know this because that's the variation between tested and untested powerlifting etc leagues. Of course, there'll be some drug users in the tested leagues, but there are also non-drug users in the untested leagues, which are generally more welcoming anyway.
Here are the women's tested records for powerlifting:
https://goodlift.info/records.php?fd=0&ac=0&sx=W&eq=1
and you can compare with the records for an
untested federation, GPC (you want the "raw, no wraps" to make it comparable):-
https://www.openpowerlifting.org/records/raw/women
The weight categories don't match perfectly but you can get the idea. For middleweight women - about 60-65kg - the tested WR squat is about 212kg, and untested 230. Bench is 144 and and 140. Deadlift is 240 and 245.
Looking at the men's for middleweight of 80-90kg we see squat 320 vs 350, bench 220 vs 230, and deadlift is tied at 380.
When you dig into the numbers you'll see there's little or no difference at the lighter bodyweights, and a bigger difference at the higher ones - but overall it's about 10%. The thing about anabolic steroids is that mostly they make you bigger, so the 60kg lifter becomes a 67.5kg lifter - and is now competing against people bigger than they used to be, and therefore stronger. But once you get into the higher bodyweights everyone is big anyway, so that's where extra kgs from food or drugs make a difference.
The women's world records vs the men's, by the way, the women's totals are about 75-80% those of the men's of the same bodyweight. I'd note though that women's records are knocked over more often than men's, because they have overall lower participation. It's the same with master's athletics meets - there aren't many 80 year olds running marathons.
I'd note too that even if a woman achieves half the female world record, she'll still be stronger than the vast majority of males, including males in the typical gym. Because most people don't train. Yeah, yeah, I know every bloke reading this "used to bench about tree fiddy in college."
But again, we're talking about reality, not a game and other fantasies.
QuoteIOW are the beefy strong women we see today even possible without advanced drugs?
Since you're speaking of Crossfit, a sport which is not actually tested (despite their protestations to the contrary) not in reality, no. But the same goes for the males. You look for example at someone like Steve Reeves, who was prominent before anabolic steroids became a thing in the US (1960 and later). A physique like his is nowadays pretty standard among male movie stars and athletes - even actors who
aren't doing action movies or strength-oriented sports. Or you look at someone like Christian Bale who went from 110 to 240lb in less than 18 months between movies.
It's just that we've been seeing male physiques massively enhanced by drugs for about sixty years now, but only really seen female physiques similarly enhanced for 10-20 years. It's so standard for male athletes and actors that we can pretend it's "natural"; but we apply a more critical eye to females actors and athletes. If I say, "Henry Cavill used drugs to prepare for Superman," someone will appear and get butthurt and start screaming. If I say that of Colleen Fotsch the Crossfitter, nobody will care except her press agent.
Natural or drugged, men will generally be bigger than women. But a lot more men are drugged than we like to admit. It's basically expected now that if a man wants an action role, he needs to do 3-6 months of lifting 6 hours a day and drugs. And then he stops. That's why in the promo interviews as the movie comes out he's noticeably smaller, and you've no chance in hell of seeing him shirtless.
None of which is relevant to a game about elves, dwarves, halflings and Magic Missiles, of course. As a DM, I'd say, "You want realism? Cool.
You're going to get it. Magic won't work for your character. And you'll never have more than 3 hit dice. Enjoy your slow healing times."
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.puntofape.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FBiofraf%25C3%25ADas-de-culturistas-masculinos-steve-reeve.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=722969e66ee2233374fd4c7266bceddc03303a48824b2d5601dd7a162f48aca4&ipo=images)(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.whatculture.com%2Fimages%2F2018%2F06%2F13c470358f566a9e-600x338.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=7c19b9fbb360b98650926d4ef07873e4e21e16d8211fd5498870b41c3dd60268&ipo=images)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 17, 2024, 09:37:44 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 05:50:49 PM
Let's look at Army fitness standards for the sexes.
Interesting.
Now link us to the Army fitness standards for elves, dwarves and halflings.
https://www.military.ie/en/careers/faqs/defence-forces-fitness-testing/ (https://www.military.ie/en/careers/faqs/defence-forces-fitness-testing/)
https://health.nzdf.mil.nz/your-health/body/nzdf-testing-and-sports/army-service-testing/ (https://health.nzdf.mil.nz/your-health/body/nzdf-testing-and-sports/army-service-testing/)
https://www.topendsports.com/testing/work/army/canada.htm (https://www.topendsports.com/testing/work/army/canada.htm)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 17, 2024, 10:09:07 PMI'd note too that even if a woman achieves half the female world record, she'll still be stronger than the vast majority of males, including males in the typical gym.
I'd love to see a source for a woman half as strong as the Female WR being stronger than the average gym bro.
I'd not because D&D is not a game that really needs it, or would get better from it.
For some more social-political-intrigue-low life game I could make some adjustments - sometimes to piss wokesters, sometimes to piss anti-wokesters, sometimes for my own amusement.
But for my beholder-rust monster-glabrezu frat party I think I have no need of it.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 17, 2024, 10:58:07 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 17, 2024, 10:09:07 PMI'd note too that even if a woman achieves half the female world record, she'll still be stronger than the vast majority of males, including males in the typical gym.
I'd love to see a source for a woman half as strong as the Female WR being stronger than the average gym bro.
Have you met an average gym bro?
Quote from: pawsplay on January 18, 2024, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 17, 2024, 10:58:07 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 17, 2024, 10:09:07 PMI'd note too that even if a woman achieves half the female world record, she'll still be stronger than the vast majority of males, including males in the typical gym.
I'd love to see a source for a woman half as strong as the Female WR being stronger than the average gym bro.
Have you met an average gym bro?
Since testosterone is the equivalent of Holy Water to you, don't BS. Any inherent knowledge of masculinity you were born with has long ago been murdered, and no one has any interest in the cartoon version of reality you reside in.
Greetings!
Well, if I was looking to have some kind of sex differences modeled in D&D, I would put a ceiling of 14 Strength and 14 Constitution for women, and give women a +2 bonus to Charisma, or a +1 Charisma, +1 Wisdom bonus.
Generally though, I just say fuck it. It's a fantasy game. If a woman player wants to be XENA, fine. The game world verisimilitude isn't going to somehow break down and suffer if I have one or two women playing women characters that have an 18 Strength and an 18 Constitution. It just isn't.
Most of my women players though, strongly avoid having jacked muscles. They place a much higher value on being beautiful, seductive, and charming. It doesn't matter what class they are playing. Barbarians, Clerics, Wizards, whatever. They want to be sexy and charming. They don't care if they can't swim that well, or climb, or if they are awkward or clumsy in holding a spear. That dress needs to look good, they want to be able to seduce their way into wherever, and they want men and women around them to like them, and approve of them. The women players also like being good at magic, they like healing, singing, and dancing. And they like the idea of being friends with cute animals and faerie creatures.
Men, of course, have very different priorities. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on January 19, 2024, 02:35:34 AMMost of my women players though, strongly avoid having jacked muscles. They place a much higher value on being beautiful, seductive, and charming.
That's the entire point. Female players don't care about being able to play super jacked female characters. It's the male feminists that get up in arms when different races or sexes have different rules. So the main advantage of including sex differences in mechanics is to weed out troublesome players. Any increase in verisimilitude is just a bonus.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 19, 2024, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on January 19, 2024, 02:35:34 AMMost of my women players though, strongly avoid having jacked muscles. They place a much higher value on being beautiful, seductive, and charming.
That's the entire point. Female players don't care about being able to play super jacked female characters. It's the male feminists that get up in arms when different races or sexes have different rules. So the main advantage of including sex differences in mechanics is to weed out troublesome players. Any increase in verisimilitude is just a bonus.
Greetings!
Ahh, I see. GOOD! RAM it the fuck down, and make them REEE like the bitches they are! Fucking male feminists! *Laughing*
Yeah, make all kinds of sex-difference mechanics. The fucking male feminists are jello-filled morons. Weak, Beta Cucks. They don't deserve any respect, let alone poonyeeti from the women.
Why do the real men put up with these jackasses? Why are male feminists tolerated? When they scream and cry about this stuff, why aren't true men jumping on them hard and telling them to shut the fuck up, and stop being such a weak cuck?
Our fucking hobby seems to be full of so many weak, pussy men now. It is so shameful and pathetic. They are disgusting. It makes me feel like wiping wet dog shit off of my boot.
As you might imagine, when I encountered these morons in college, I didn't play well with them. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The biggest element of gender dimorphism in humans is size. If I was really looking at that as an element of gameplay, I would make that a primary characteristic. You could have an overlapping but gender skewed size chart. Then you could do things like have strength be represented as a ratio of relative strength to size. A smaller person with a strength of 14 would still be weaker than a larger person with a strength of 14.
Quote from: BadApple on January 19, 2024, 10:43:06 PM
The biggest element of gender dimorphism in humans is size. If I was really looking at that as an element of gameplay, I would make that a primary characteristic. You could have an overlapping but gender skewed size chart. Then you could do things like have strength be represented as a ratio of relative strength to size. A smaller person with a strength of 14 would still be weaker than a larger person with a strength of 14.
Except women carry a higher body fat percentage than comparable men, even athletes. So pound for pound they're much weaker.
Quote from: SHARK on January 19, 2024, 02:35:34 AM
Most of my women players though, strongly avoid having jacked muscles.
I'm sure your women players are extremely representative. It probably has nothing to do with the views of women you bring to the table. But I guess that's true for your women players, which there are tons of. Binders full of women.
Quote from: BadApple on January 19, 2024, 10:43:06 PM
The biggest element of gender dimorphism in humans is size. If I was really looking at that as an element of gameplay, I would make that a primary characteristic. You could have an overlapping but gender skewed size chart. Then you could do things like have strength be represented as a ratio of relative strength to size. A smaller person with a strength of 14 would still be weaker than a larger person with a strength of 14.
To blow up the problem even more: one of the things that makes it really hard to take numeric ability scores seriously. There's no reasonable way to represent strength differences on a scale of 1-10 (or -5 to 5, etc.) from something like a rat to a dragon.
But even restricting ourselves to just talking about humans: Trained female athletes are below average strength in men, at least when it comes to upper-body / hand & arm movements. (And well, adventuring generally would be a total body endeavor so you're limited by your weakest points). It's not really clear what that turns into numerically, and I don't know how to line up statistical SDs between real performance and dice distribution on chargen methods, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to put it in the 8-12 range.
If you give a woman character an average strength of 8 and a man character an average strength of 12, more people are going to make male fighters than female ones. Female characters will be disproportionately rogues and clerics and stuff. Then, when you take an average of the characters people actually make, you'll find out the true average for female characters is like 6 and for men it's like 14. Congratulations, you have achieved complete bullshit.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 20, 2024, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: SHARK on January 19, 2024, 02:35:34 AM
Most of my women players though, strongly avoid having jacked muscles.
I'm sure your women players are extremely representative. It probably has nothing to do with the views of women you bring to the table. But I guess that's true for your women players, which there are tons of. Binders full of women.
Let's say he has 5 men and 1 woman at his table. That's 1 in 6 for women.
Let's say he adds you to diversify things. Hmmm, now that's...damn my math, help me out, what are the ratios now?
Quote from: pawsplay on January 20, 2024, 09:16:12 PM
If you give a woman character an average strength of 8 and a man character an average strength of 12, more people are going to make male fighters than female ones. Female characters will be disproportionately rogues and clerics and stuff. Then, when you take an average of the characters people actually make, you'll find out the true average for female characters is like 6 and for men it's like 14. Congratulations, you have achieved complete bullshit.
Well, considering women make up less than 2% of construction workers, plumbers, electricians, and other skilled tradesmen (many of which require much more strength than a white collar soy boy would think) so while you have achieved bullshit, you've still over-represented women...
Quote from: pawsplay on January 20, 2024, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: SHARK on January 19, 2024, 02:35:34 AM
Most of my women players though, strongly avoid having jacked muscles.
I'm sure your women players are extremely representative. It probably has nothing to do with the views of women you bring to the table. But I guess that's true for your women players, which there are tons of. Binders full of women.
Greetings!
Yes, very representative. Feminine, normal, women. Women that love men, and families, and children. And playing D&D. Women that love being normal, healthy women that have not been mind-fucked by Feminism, or Marxism, or being depraved.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Hmmm...I wonder what kind of stats Belorussian Katya Kavaleva would have? 2-time World Kickboxing Champion, she is 6'5" and weighs 200-lbs. Imagine having a wrestling match with her! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on January 22, 2024, 01:24:40 AM
Greetings!
Hmmm...I wonder what kind of stats Belorussian Katya Kavaleva would have? 2-time World Kickboxing Champion, she is 6'5" and weighs 200-lbs. Imagine having a wrestling match with her! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think she is the perfect stand out exception to the rule that is the perfect example for a Player character, important NPC or antagonist.
This is the type of women that would be perfectly natural as warriors.
I like the RQ idea of a Size stat that was proposed earlier on this thread, she would have Size 2 or so, alongside men of that stature, as well.
And she should stand out in game with people being in awe at her stunning stature and impressive athletic abilities.
It's important to note that, even being big and tall she doesn't have the "Abby from the Last of Us" roided body type. She looks lean, fit and strong but still has the profile of a woman. In full plate harness and with a closed helmet, sure she could be confused for a man.
But, in regular clothing she would never be mistaken by a man.
This is what actual fighting women would look like. The body builder type that looks like a long hair beardless man can only be achieved with a lot of roids and outside of specific transmutation magics or scifi genetic enhancements wouldn't make sense in any setting, as roids really destroy your internal organs and cannot be sustained indefinitely. They are used by people that want to sel their looks, either as actors or as competitive body builders, but the health complitactions are almost never worth it. This is why so many body builders die young.
Quote from: SHARK on January 22, 2024, 01:24:40 AM
Greetings!
Hmmm...I wonder what kind of stats Belorussian Katya Kavaleva would have? 2-time World Kickboxing Champion, she is 6'5" and weighs 200-lbs.
She's long and lean without significant muscle mass. Realistically she's Str 12, pad it to Str 14 because fantasy has strong women without bulging muscles. Con 14, Dex 15.
Quote from: Cipher on January 22, 2024, 03:18:15 AM
Quote from: SHARK on January 22, 2024, 01:24:40 AM
Greetings!
Hmmm...I wonder what kind of stats Belorussian Katya Kavaleva would have? 2-time World Kickboxing Champion, she is 6'5" and weighs 200-lbs. Imagine having a wrestling match with her! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think she is the perfect stand out exception to the rule that is the perfect example for a Player character, important NPC or antagonist.
This is the type of women that would be perfectly natural as warriors.
I like the RQ idea of a Size stat that was proposed earlier on this thread, she would have Size 2 or so, alongside men of that stature, as well.
And she should stand out in game with people being in awe at her stunning stature and impressive athletic abilities.
It's important to note that, even being big and tall she doesn't have the "Abby from the Last of Us" roided body type. She looks lean, fit and strong but still has the profile of a woman. In full plate harness and with a closed helmet, sure she could be confused for a man.
But, in regular clothing she would never be mistaken by a man.
This is what actual fighting women would look like. The body builder type that looks like a long hair beardless man can only be achieved with a lot of roids and outside of specific transmutation magics or scifi genetic enhancements wouldn't make sense in any setting, as roids really destroy your internal organs and cannot be sustained indefinitely. They are used by people that want to sel their looks, either as actors or as competitive body builders, but the health complitactions are almost never worth it. This is why so many body builders die young.
Greetings!
Yep, Cipher! Very true! She is definitely impressive! I imagine to beat her she would make you work for it! ;D
There's a few women about that can bring far more than the expected norm to the table.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 22, 2024, 06:38:52 AM
Quote from: SHARK on January 22, 2024, 01:24:40 AM
Greetings!
Hmmm...I wonder what kind of stats Belorussian Katya Kavaleva would have? 2-time World Kickboxing Champion, she is 6'5" and weighs 200-lbs.
She's long and lean without significant muscle mass. Realistically she's Str 12, pad it to Str 14 because fantasy has strong women without bulging muscles. Con 14, Dex 15.
Greetings!
Yeah, Grognard. Good analysis. However, I think she might be stronger than that. Or maybe, real strength doesn't map well to game stats. In a different video, she was wrestling with a male MMA guy, he was ripped, though I'd say about 6'0" tall, and he maybe was 200 lbs. Kavalevya grabbed him with both hand like he was a sack of chicken feed, lifted him clear up off the floor, and body slammed him to the ground. She wasn't seriously trying to hurt him--he was fine, as he seemed to laugh--but as a display of her natural strength and coordination, she showed she has some skills, and can bring it.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
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.
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.
...except the current world record for 100m dash is 9.58 seconds for men.
So, the thing is Florence can't touch the current record and its still short by almost an entire second, which is a huge, huge gap in terms of 100m sprint, hence why they include the fractions of a second up to two decimals.
That means, that if we are measuring absolute ceilings represented in numeric attributes, the "Speed" stat, whatever that is, would still be lower for women than for men. And you can see that repeated across the board in all physical categories.
No matter how big, fast, resilient or strong a woman is, a man can go further on all categories with everything else being equal.
Meaning, Florence is clearly faster than me, and way way faster than the average man but she is not faster than the fastest men competing. The same with female fighters in contact sports. They can fight better than other women but get trounced by middle ranking or sometimes even lower ranking men, see MMA's Fallon Fox case.
Tennis is not really thought of as a very "physical" sport, but it is and even Williams sisters, two of the best female tennis players ever, were both trounced on the same day by Karsten Braasch, a 203rd ranked player in 1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters. And again, they were at the top of their sport in the female division, got trounced on the
same day by a man ranked outside of the 200 top players in the male division. Imagine what would happen if they faced a top 10 ranked male player.
This is why it is always one sided. Its always a low ranking male athlete that transitions to female and then suddenly he is breaking records. It is never the other way around. You can google story after story of this example but not once have we seen the opposite, that is, a female athlete transitioning to male and destroying the competition.
That right there should be evidence enough of what people have been saying on this thread. How much should a ttrpg reflect that sexual dimorphism? That's up to the individual.
If you don't care about that at all, then that's up to you. But this thread was created to discuss how would that be represented in gaming terms. Meaning, clearly this is not a thread for you. Trying to claim there is no gap or that its negligible it is trying to block the sun with one finger.
On Topic: I would say a cap on Strength would be the more obvious choice and I would argue for a bonus on Charisma for women, since on average, people in general and specially men are more willing to sympathize with a woman's plight and I would say this is on a biological level, but there's also the societal factor when women and children are to be protected and men are expendable.
This is why the "honey trap" trope exist at all. People are more willing to stop and help a woman in need than a man. Additionally, if Charisma involves beauty or comeliness at all, women are considered by both men and women to be more beautiful and aesthetically pleasing.
So, in D&D terms I would cap women around maybe 15 or 16 if we are being generous and give them a +1 to Charisma.
Greetings!
Yep! Exactly, Cipher! That ceiling cap to Women Character's Strength score and a bonus to Charisma is what I suggested earlier.
And yes, if you have watched women in the wilds, or friends, relatives, whatever, OMG. Women *effortlessly* manipulate and control men. I used to get a front-row seat to seeing this all in action. I was working in sales, and we had a new employee brought into the sales team. Latina woman, maybe 22 years old. Long, curly black hair, voluptuous and curvy, 9 ways to Sunday. Big smile. Big, deep brown eyes.
Watching her come in, tight, low-cut dress on, cloud of perfume, lipstick, all done up hot. She would giggle and wiggle, laughing with her accent, playfully touching the men as she showed them various products for sale.
The men melted like butter in a frying pan. Wallets open, and them buying whatever she wanted them to buy. Whatever she suggested, looking up to them with her big brown eyes. Even the married men. They all found reasons to agree with our Latina sales girl. As a sales manager, me and the other managers--men--would watch her go to work on the floor. We would later laugh and shake our heads at how mind-boggling easy it was for her to make sales. Zero product knowledge, and yet, within a week of being hired, she was on the top-10 sales team. The customers didn't care if she knew fuck all about what she was selling. Just watching her lean close, giggling, and watching them as she laughed, or gestured with her hands.
I watched her how she jacked up the sales, item by item. Hundreds, even thousands of dollars. The women customers, of course, she played it differently. The men though? Young or old, married or single, she could play them like a stick of butter in her frying pan.
So, yeah. Women, even otherwise average-looking women--they throw some perfume on, purse their lips, laugh, giggle and wiggle--you can actually see them manipulating men left and right. Women Characters should definitely get a bonus to Charisma! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I wouldn't bother to represent human sexual dimorphism in RPGs. And the reason is because the game rules are about individuals, not populations. It would not be unrealistic, but extremely unlikely, that the strongest human in history was a female, because some very odd mutations happen from time to time (mostly not constructive to a long life, unfortunately). If we were talking about modeling populations with RPG rules, then I would bother with different rules for males and females in various aspects. But even if I was trying to have a very realistic world, I could dismiss the Str 18 female barbarian by imagining that there is a bunch of Str 20 males somewhere else in the world to keep the distributions as expected, just not player characters.
That said, in point-buy systems to set attributes, one could better represent the differences in the distributions of strength among males and females with higher costs for higher levels of strength for females. GURPS4 uses a flat cost for ST: 10 character points per point of ST, but it could revert back to increasing costs like in GURPS3 for female ST buying. D&D5 point-buy method could have a separate table for female character's STR: 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13 points, starting at Str 8 up to Str 15.
Quote from: zer0th on January 24, 2024, 06:10:21 PM
I wouldn't bother to represent human sexual dimorphism in RPGs. And the reason is because the game rules are about individuals, not populations. It would not be unrealistic, but extremely unlikely, that the strongest human in history was a female, because some very odd mutations happen from time to time (mostly not constructive to a long life, unfortunately). If we were talking about modeling populations with RPG rules, then I would bother with different rules for males and females in various aspects. But even if I was trying to have a very realistic world, I could dismiss the Str 18 female barbarian by imagining that there is a bunch of Str 20 males somewhere else in the world to keep the distributions as expected, just not player characters.
That said, in point-buy systems to set attributes, one could better represent the differences in the distributions of strength among males and females with higher costs for higher levels of strength for females. GURPS4 uses a flat cost for ST: 10 character points per point of ST, but it could revert back to increasing costs like in GURPS3 for female ST buying. D&D5 point-buy method could have a separate table for female character's STR: 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13 points, starting at Str 8 up to Str 15.
I don't really disagree with you, but I do think this type of argument is a cop-out from an RPG system design perspective. It's trivially true that any individual player, at any individual table, can negotiate for playing a specific character. Having rules concerning sex differences doesn't negate that in any way.
Most of us here probably acknowledge that it's fair to assign different stat modifiers to Humans, Elves, and Dwarves. The same arguments apply in those circumstances. There's no reason why I can't play the toughest Elf that's ever walked FantasyEarth, and give him a 20 Con if my GM agrees. The rules don't stop me from doing that, even if the rules help us understand that Elves usually aren't this way.
Some games even give different statlines to different human ethnic/nationality groups (like various Conan-inspired games). So it seems a bit silly not to represent male/female differences in attributes, as the distinctions between men & women are sometimes in the orders of magnitude across physical and psychological traits. That's often quite more substantial than trait differences across ethnic groups.
Quote from: zer0th on January 24, 2024, 06:10:21 PMIt would not be unrealistic, but extremely unlikely, that the strongest human in history was a female, because some very odd mutations happen from time to time
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense, it's like saying a mutant Shetland Pony could win the Kentucky Derby.
The Str 16 women are already the mutations, and the male mutations are the 18/00. For a woman to be even in the top 100 humans for strength she'd need to flat out be heavily genetically engineered.
Greetings!
"A Mutant Shetland Pony!" *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 24, 2024, 10:20:18 PM
(...) she'd need to flat out be heavily genetically engineered.
You gave another avenue to how you get a female to strangely be the strongest human. I will not mention other things I pondered about this subject, because we don't really disagree on this. Your mutant Shetland Poney is a valid argument, even if you didn't think about it in this way: if you selective breed and/or genetic engineer one of these ponies to win the Kentucky Derby, at what point it is no longer a Shetland Poney, maybe not even a horse, anymore.
Quote from: zer0th on January 25, 2024, 06:29:57 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 24, 2024, 10:20:18 PM
(...) she'd need to flat out be heavily genetically engineered.
You gave another avenue to how you get a female to strangely be the strongest human. I will not mention other things I pondered about this subject, because we don't really disagree on this. Your mutant Shetland Poney is a valid argument, even if you didn't think about it in this way: if you selective breed and/or genetic engineer one of these ponies to win the Kentucky Derby, at what point it is no longer a Shetland Poney, maybe not even a horse, anymore.
That's why it's a circular argument. When people talk about what women can do physically, they don't mean eugenically bred, genetically altered Uberfrauen. They mean women.
Could we make a musclebound freak with XX Chromosomes? Sure. But we could do the same thing to men, and the Ubermenchen would still be far superior to the Uberfrauen.
With the skeletal, hormonal, muscle mass and stamina advantages of being men, we will simply always be physically superior to women. And as long as the man receives the same modifiers (nutrition, exercise, eugenics, genetic engineering,) they'll be superior by a huge margin.
Quote from: Cipher on January 23, 2024, 06:49:14 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.
...except the current world record for 100m dash is 9.58 seconds for men.
So, the thing is Florence can't touch the current record and its still short by almost an entire second, which is a huge, huge gap in terms of 100m sprint, hence why they include the fractions of a second up to two decimals.
So what kind of stat modifiers would you give someone from the early 20th century century versus the early 21st century?
I think you get my drift. The supposedly vast differences in performance can be erased by a few decades a difference in techniques, training, nutrition, and so forth. What does that suggest about what factors are important right now? How do you feel about the idea that a top woman runner, today, could travel back in time one hundred years, and competing professionally, she would be the fastest person on Earth?
Quote
That means, that if we are measuring absolute ceilings represented in numeric attributes, the "Speed" stat, whatever that is, would still be lower for women than for men. And you can see that repeated across the board in all physical categories.
If you assume the current world record is the max, and will never be broken, what you are saying is true.
Quote
No matter how big, fast, resilient or strong a woman is, a man can go further on all categories with everything else being equal.
Not the uneven bars. Men basically can't do them. Insofar as there are differences, our current athletic categories are somewhat geared toward events which might favor men. Excepting the uneven bars, which exist because women found the parallel bars (the men's event) so easy it became hard to make it a competition.
Quote
Meaning, Florence is clearly faster than me, and way way faster than the average man but she is not faster than the fastest men competing.
... after the invention of the Model A. Before that, she would be the fastest human on Earth.
Quote
Tennis is not really thought of as a very "physical" sport, but it is and even Williams sisters, two of the best female tennis players ever, were both trounced on the same day by Karsten Braasch, a 203rd ranked player in 1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters. And again, they were at the top of their sport in the female division, got trounced on the same day by a man ranked outside of the 200 top players in the male division. Imagine what would happen if they faced a top 10 ranked male player.
You say that like it's a joke, but any of those 200 players could defeat anyone you know, all day. It would probably be about the same as if they faced a top 10 player, because the top 10 players are probably not, in absolute terms, all that different than the top 200. There are a lot of male tennis players.
Addressing the rest of this would require rehashing what I said above, about the conditions completely outside simply physiological development. Namely, the number of competitors, the available training and resources, cultural resources, and the fact that winning requires a career, and a career is notably more impacted by having a child than siring one.
If nothing else, there are simply more male professional tennis players than female ones (https://matchpointpost.com/how-many-professional-tennis-players-are-there/). And tennis is not even the sport that has the greatest draw for male athletes.
If you know anything about division sports, you know that larger pools are, mathematically, going to produce higher performing individuals. That's just statistics.
Quote
This is why it is always one sided. Its always a low ranking male athlete that transitions to female and then suddenly he is breaking records. It is never the other way around. You can google story after story of this example but not once have we seen the opposite, that is, a female athlete transitioning to male and destroying the competition.
I am not aware of a single category of athletics that is currently dominated by trans women. That they occasionally place it all is a testament to their athleticism, considering, as I noted above, the sheer numbers are working against them.
Quote
If you don't care about that at all, then that's up to you. But this thread was created to discuss how would that be represented in gaming terms. Meaning, clearly this is not a thread for you. Trying to claim there is no gap or that its negligible it is trying to block the sun with one finger.
That is not at all the case. My opinion is that most of the suggestions put forward here are misguided, and bad both for gaming and as a reflection of reality. I am not denying there are differences. I am pointing out that people's biases have a tendency to exaggerate those differences, or invent some that don't exist. Based on what I noted above, for instance, I would guess men and women have an essentially equal potential, in theory, to compete in the 100m dash, as woman have done what has been, in the past, world breaking records for men. On the other hand, the world champion of uneven bars is pretty much always going to be a woman under the age of 24, and the world records for lifting heavy things over your head are likely to be mostly, if not almost entirely, men. That has much to do with the relative size of men and women, some differences in physical motion in the upper body, and the fact those categories are for very specific physical tests, not for varied physical challenges.
It's likely men have a built-in advantage in, say, boxing, but in absolute terms, women and men boxers are more like each other than they are like unathletic women and unathletic men. There probably isn't a definable "ceiling" or "maximum" for such things, although men might have multiple factors than inevitably lead to more men having a greater boxing ability, and by logical extension, the top performers being pushed statistically to the top, being men.
That's what I'm saying.
In most game systems, the differences aren't even a difference that makes a difference.
In the rest, you're compounding the non-random selection in the real world with the non-random selection in game, vastly exaggerating any measured differences.
And it doesn't make the game better, unless you think enforcing certain roles or stereotypes or functions of men and women is somehow better. If all you want to do is enable people to play what they want, people can CHOOSE to make more beautiful and charismatic female characters. No one is taking that away. It just doesn't make sense to punish people who want to play a female barbarian, in ways that aren't really fair or realistic. Just some attempt by some game writer to "make" people re-enact the picture in their mind of how the world works.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 23, 2024, 03:42:07 PM
Quote
This is why it is always one sided. Its always a low ranking male athlete that transitions to female and then suddenly he is breaking records. It is never the other way around. You can google story after story of this example but not once have we seen the opposite, that is, a female athlete transitioning to male and destroying the competition.
I am not aware of a single category of athletics that is currently dominated by trans women. That they occasionally place it all is a testament to their athleticism, considering, as I noted above, the sheer numbers are working against them.
Quote
If you don't care about that at all, then that's up to you. But this thread was created to discuss how would that be represented in gaming terms. Meaning, clearly this is not a thread for you. Trying to claim there is no gap or that its negligible it is trying to block the sun with one finger.
That is not at all the case. My opinion is that most of the suggestions put forward here are misguided, and bad both for gaming and as a reflection of reality. I am not denying there are differences. I am pointing out that people's biases have a tendency to exaggerate those differences, or invent some that don't exist. Based on what I noted above, for instance, I would guess men and women have an essentially equal potential, in theory, to compete in the 100m dash, as woman have done what has been, in the past, world breaking records for men. On the other hand, the world champion of uneven bars is pretty much always going to be a woman under the age of 24, and the world records for lifting heavy things over your head are likely to be mostly, if not almost entirely, men. That has much to do with the relative size of men and women, some differences in physical motion in the upper body, and the fact those categories are for very specific physical tests, not for varied physical challenges.
It's likely men have a built-in advantage in, say, boxing, but in absolute terms, women and men boxers are more like each other than they are like unathletic women and unathletic men. There probably isn't a definable "ceiling" or "maximum" for such things, although men might have multiple factors than inevitably lead to more men having a greater boxing ability, and by logical extension, the top performers being pushed statistically to the top, being men.
That's what I'm saying.
In most game systems, the differences aren't even a difference that makes a difference.
In the rest, you're compounding the non-random selection in the real world with the non-random selection in game, vastly exaggerating any measured differences.
And it doesn't make the game better, unless you think enforcing certain roles or stereotypes or functions of men and women is somehow better. If all you want to do is enable people to play what they want, people can CHOOSE to make more beautiful and charismatic female characters. No one is taking that away. It just doesn't make sense to punish people who want to play a female barbarian, in ways that aren't really fair or realistic. Just some attempt by some game writer to "make" people re-enact the picture in their mind of how the world works.
You are clearly,
clearly trying to block the sun with one finger. Saying that the 203rd ranked male tennis player is somehow comparable to a top 10 is just ludicrous. Even if they are more, doesn't change the fact he trounced BOTH Williams sisters, back to back, at the top of their game on the same day.
You have no idea what tennis is if you don't understand how big that is. The sheer abyss of a difference in stamina required to play and win, handily so, against two players on the same day just goes to show how easy he was for him. He didn't even break a sweat. Even if you claim he is somehow closer to skill to a top 10 player, it still shows how big is the difference between the Williams sisters, arguably the best female players of her time, to a male player.
The same with your speed records. Yeah, women got faster. But you know what? Men got faster two. That's what you are either not getting or willingly ignoring. All things being equal, men are still way, way faster by almost an entire second which is a
huge gap in terms of 100m dash.
This actually disproves your argument entirely. No matter when we draw the scale, men are faster. Meaning, their "speed" stat cap is higher. Be it in the past or in the future.
Same with the trans athletes. Name 1. I can give you 3 male to female trans athletes out of the top of my head that did very well against the female competition:
Lia Thomas, Laurel Hubbard and the aforementioned Fallon Fox.
Where is the female to male swimmer getting medals?
Where is the female to male weightlifter getting medals?
Where is the female to male trans MMA fighter smoking the competition?
Here is Ronday Rousey, an MMA female champion speaking about why she won't fight Fallon Fox:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/11/ufc-ronda-rousey-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox/2072937/
Tamika Brent's comments on fighting Fallon Fox, as per Fox's own Wikipedia page:
"I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right," she stated.
"Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn't move at all in Fox's clinch ...".Show me the same comments from a male fighter talking about a female to male trans fighter. Go ahead, I'll wait.
There is no "bias". When all things being equal, men have a huge, huge advantage. Yeah, if you pit a female MMA fighter against an average Joe that has never gotten into a fist fight in his life and is out of shape, sure the female fighter will win.
But that's apples and oranges. Pit her against any male fighter, even ones that have less victories and experiences and she will lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozmxlXPUxHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozmxlXPUxHs)
In this clip we can see Clarissa Shields getting dropped cold in a sparring match against a male opponent that she picked to spar with to get an edge against female combatants. She gets nicked and quickly dropped cold like a bad habit, even wearing the headgear that mitigates a lot of the damage.
She then went on to claim pubicly that the gloves the man was using had the padding removed, which is not only a bogus claim, it wouldn't make a difference since the padding is made to protect the attacker's hand, meaning they can strike
harder with the padding because they will not injure their hands. Without it, they have to pull their punches or risk injuries.
For context: Clarissa Shields has an undefeated record of 14 - 0 and has won female belts in three different weight classes. The sparring partner that dropped her? Arturs Ahmetovs, an amateur male boxer with the following record: 6 wins - 1 lose - 0 draws before retiring. His boxing Pro career spanning less than two years.
Just IMAGINE what would happen to Clarissa, an undefeated female champion, against her equal, a male undefeated champion without the headgear on an actual fight.
Then there's the case of Lucia Rijker, you may remember her as the antagonist of Hillary Swank's character in Million Dollar Baby. She is actually a real fighter. Her record: 17 - 0 - 0 and that's just on Boxing, she also has a more extensive Kickboxing career: 36 - 0 - 1. She was a world champion boxer in two different weight classes across her career.
So, one more time, just like Clarissa Shields, by all accounts an outstanding professional female boxer and kickboxer. She challenged a man to a fight on the ring. Here is the fight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QgDWSfQik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QgDWSfQik)
Lucia had only experienced one loss in her entire boxing and kickboxing career. She got knocked out by this man on the 2nd round. Dropped cold.
You can find this case repeats on and on and on. Find the reverse. Just one. Just
one female to male fighter getting the edge on other professional champions. Just
ONE.
You can't, because there aren't any. And remember, I am not saying "find one woman beating a man", I am saying an equal case here. An undefeated champion against a trans fighter and have the female to male trans fighter win handily against the undefeated male world champion.
My other examples still stand. No female has come close to the current male 100m dash record, which was established on 2009. So, in 14 years no female has come even close. One man, ranked 203rd trounced the two female tennis champions on the same day! The man was taking it so easy, that was seen smoking between games.
And remember, it was the Williams sisters that claimed they could take on a man ranked outside of the top 200, if they, who know more about the sport than you or me, would not want to challenge a top 10 player? Remember, you are the one claiming the 203rd and top 10 are closer in skill. The Williams sisters certainly did not think so.
Here is what they said after they got trounced that day:
"Apparently, after the game, Serena and Venus immediately told the press they wanted to challenge a male player again," Braasch said. "This time they revised the ranking of the man they wanted to face, to 350 in the world. I informed the journalist who told me this that in the next week I was set to lose a lot of ATP points and drop down to 350 in the rankings. I told him that if Venus and Serena waited just one week they could challenge me all over again!"
So, clearly they do not agree with your idea that a 200 or even 350 ranked male player is close to a top 10 player, since they kept lowering the bar.
Just admit that you don't like it. You said so you yourself. You said that you don't think "enforcing certain roles or stereotypes or functions of men and women" make the game better. Then, what are you even doing on this thread?
Clearly, this is not a discussion for you. And I am not trying to gatekeep this thread, I am just pointing out that your efforts are futile. Your premise is wrong. At least some people clearly are curious about how to model this in game, hence the reason for this thread. You don't find the value, others do.
You came in here trying to prove something that is impossible to prove because nature and biology are undaunted and unaffected by anyone's feelings or thoughts. No one is exagerating anything. No one is inventing anything. If at all, you are the one trying to invent a parity that does not exist.
And here is the biggest, the most obvious and clear piece of evidence that completely debunks your entire premise: If male and female athletes are so close together in terms of skill, why do we even have segregation of gender in all sports?
Why do you think that is? Why does every single male sport has records that would overshadow their female counterparts across all ages?
You and everyone else knows the answer. If you don't believe this clear, unquestionable gap is significant enough to be represented in game or you don't see a value in representing it, that is your opinion. One that is clearly not the one others in this thread share. The evidence is on our side. Let the people discuss about this if they want. You can join in that discussion, but do not try to claim this is our subjective opinion based on biases or an invention rooted in stereotypes. This is the female athlete's own opinions. Female athletes do not want men or trans women competing against them. They are the ones that know the huge gaps better than any of us. And I showed this, on Tamika and Ronda's comments and on the Williams sisters wanting to compete against a man outside of the 200 ranked top players.
Please, stop trying to block the sun with one finger. Accept that you are wrong here. And, if you choose to continue engaging in this discussion, please drop the pretense and do so from your actual position. That is, that you do not believe it enhances the game, not that the differences do not exist or that are not significant enough, since that has been proven wrong.
Quote from: Cipher on January 25, 2024, 09:15:00 PM
Clearly, this is not a discussion for you.
I have plenty of design experience. I've played dozens of different RPGs over the years. I've participated in at least a twenty other conversations roughly along these lines. You wasted paragraphs and paragraphs on examples that don't even begin to address the insufficiency of comparisons, for reasons I've already stated. I've been on this site for well over a decade, off and on.
Perhaps this discussion is not for you.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 02:10:46 AM
Quote from: Cipher on January 25, 2024, 09:15:00 PM
Clearly, this is not a discussion for you.
I have plenty of design experience. I've played dozens of different RPGs over the years. I've participated in at least a twenty other conversations roughly along these lines. You wasted paragraphs and paragraphs on examples that don't even begin to address the insufficiency of comparisons, for reasons I've already stated. I've been on this site for well over a decade, off and on.
Perhaps this discussion is not for you.
Perfect. I gladly take your admission that no one is inventing this huge, huge gap and that you are only commenting on this thread because you just dislike the idea of what is being discussed.
I am extremely happy that we have reached an agreement.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 02:10:46 AM
Quote from: Cipher on January 25, 2024, 09:15:00 PM
Clearly, this is not a discussion for you.
I have plenty of design experience.
Like your Magnum Opus, Conquest Of The Universe.
A customer on Drivethru rpg had great things to say about your design experience.
Quote from: DriveThru CustomerWow, just wow. Nearly 10 years to get this and this is the "Final" product. I have seen better produced from using MS Word. I hope you have learned your lesson and never do another Kickstarter again. I know I have learned my lesson and won't ever be buying another product from Wandering Star LLC or whatever you decide to brand it as.
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/453189/conquest-of-the-universe (https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/453189/conquest-of-the-universe)
The thread is discussing how to mechanically represent sex differences in TTRPGs.
The premise for participation in this thread is that this is an area that is underexplored & underutilized in RPGs. Sex differences are real and have consequences in life which are not reflected well in RPGs as-is. Real Men & real women are able to be unique and interesting characters in despite having differing capabilities over physical and psychological traits.
If you are not buying into the premise then you are simply derailing the thread with pointless discussion.
Quote from: Dinopaw on January 26, 2024, 02:55:46 PM
The thread is discussing how to mechanically represent sex differences in TTRPGs.
The premise for participation in this thread is that this is an area that is underexplored & underutilized in RPGs. Sex differences are real and have consequences in life which are not reflected well in RPGs as-is. Real Men & real women are able to be unique and interesting characters in despite having differing capabilities over physical and psychological traits.
If you are not buying into the premise then you are simply derailing the thread with pointless discussion.
I can still point out when your attempts to math that are misguided, unrealistic according to your own stated goals, and bad for play. this is the design and development board. I'm here to talk turkey. If you just think I'm wrong, that's fine. A lot of people have posted stuff I think is wrong. If you're trying to discourage me from participating because you just don't like what I'm saying, get a thicker skin.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 26, 2024, 08:56:46 AM
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 02:10:46 AM
Quote from: Cipher on January 25, 2024, 09:15:00 PM
Clearly, this is not a discussion for you.
I have plenty of design experience.
Like your Magnum Opus, Conquest Of The Universe.
A customer on Drivethru rpg had great things to say about your design experience.
Quote from: DriveThru CustomerWow, just wow. Nearly 10 years to get this and this is the "Final" product. I have seen better produced from using MS Word. I hope you have learned your lesson and never do another Kickstarter again. I know I have learned my lesson and won't ever be buying another product from Wandering Star LLC or whatever you decide to brand it as.
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/453189/conquest-of-the-universe (https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/453189/conquest-of-the-universe)
Aww, you didn't even leave me any comments?
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 26, 2024, 08:56:46 AM
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 02:10:46 AM
Quote from: Cipher on January 25, 2024, 09:15:00 PM
Clearly, this is not a discussion for you.
I have plenty of design experience.
Like your Magnum Opus, Conquest Of The Universe.
A customer on Drivethru rpg had great things to say about your design experience.
Quote from: DriveThru CustomerWow, just wow. Nearly 10 years to get this and this is the "Final" product. I have seen better produced from using MS Word. I hope you have learned your lesson and never do another Kickstarter again. I know I have learned my lesson and won't ever be buying another product from Wandering Star LLC or whatever you decide to brand it as.
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/453189/conquest-of-the-universe (https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/453189/conquest-of-the-universe)
Aww, you didn't even leave me any comments?
Why pay you money to dunk on you, when I can do it here for free?
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 03:36:20 PM
I can still point out when your attempts to math that are misguided, unrealistic according to your own stated goals, and bad for play. this is the design and development board. I'm here to talk turkey. If you just think I'm wrong, that's fine. A lot of people have posted stuff I think is wrong. If you're trying to discourage me from participating because you just don't like what I'm saying, get a thicker skin.
If you don't want to participate in the thread, don't participate in the thread. Simple. The first post already discusses the objections you've had and starts the discussion beyond this point.
And nothing I've stated makes any proscriptions about math or anything else. Your objections are all entirely unrelated to the topic at hand and are trying to inject your personal political-religious sentiment where it's not required.
Quote from: Dinopaw on January 26, 2024, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 03:36:20 PM
I can still point out when your attempts to math that are misguided, unrealistic according to your own stated goals, and bad for play. this is the design and development board. I'm here to talk turkey. If you just think I'm wrong, that's fine. A lot of people have posted stuff I think is wrong. If you're trying to discourage me from participating because you just don't like what I'm saying, get a thicker skin.
If you don't want to participate in the thread, don't participate in the thread. Simple. The first post already discusses the objections you've had and starts the discussion beyond this point.
And nothing I've stated makes any proscriptions about math or anything else. Your objections are all entirely unrelated to the topic at hand and are trying to inject your personal political-religious sentiment where it's not required.
I'm not stopping you from leaving this thread if you are really done and want to leave.
Quote from: Dinopaw on January 26, 2024, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 03:36:20 PM
I can still point out when your attempts to math that are misguided, unrealistic according to your own stated goals, and bad for play. this is the design and development board. I'm here to talk turkey. If you just think I'm wrong, that's fine. A lot of people have posted stuff I think is wrong. If you're trying to discourage me from participating because you just don't like what I'm saying, get a thicker skin.
If you don't want to participate in the thread, don't participate in the thread. Simple. The first post already discusses the objections you've had and starts the discussion beyond this point.
And nothing I've stated makes any proscriptions about math or anything else. Your objections are all entirely unrelated to the topic at hand and are trying to inject your personal political-religious sentiment where it's not required.
Greetings!
Good to see you, Dinopaw!
Like the Prison Warden in the film, "Cool Hand Luke" told the prisoner character, played by Paul Newman--"Some men, you just can't reach."
So many people need to be treated to the special treatment that the Warden provided for Paul Newman. *Laughing*
*Sippon' that tall glass of sweet tea*. Ahh, yes. Such is in short supply nowadays.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Dinopaw on January 26, 2024, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on January 26, 2024, 03:36:20 PM
I can still point out when your attempts to math that are misguided, unrealistic according to your own stated goals, and bad for play. this is the design and development board. I'm here to talk turkey. If you just think I'm wrong, that's fine. A lot of people have posted stuff I think is wrong. If you're trying to discourage me from participating because you just don't like what I'm saying, get a thicker skin.
If you don't want to participate in the thread, don't participate in the thread. Simple. The first post already discusses the objections you've had and starts the discussion beyond this point.
And nothing I've stated makes any proscriptions about math or anything else. Your objections are all entirely unrelated to the topic at hand and are trying to inject your personal political-religious sentiment where it's not required.
Don't let the assholes win. There's nothing wrong with ignoring (either via the tools on this board or just not reading) trolls. You asked a reasonable question, got some reasonable responses, and then got a troll mucking up the thread. Ignore the derail attempt. The dirty little secret here is that this troll, like all of them, thrive on attention. It
desperately needs people to validate its self-image (part of which is tied up in a view of itself as a crusader for righteousness based around its own self-mutilation). Just pretend it never posted (or, if you must, a single, pithy response about it being the least qualified to opine on sex differences) and move on. Otherwise, if you stop asking and talking, you've given the trolls what they want. Power. They must force others to adhere to their own view of reality, because any cracks in that delusion and they might have to take an honest look at themselves...
Yeah, whatever you do, protect your beliefs from the idea someone else might actually have a point.
Anyway, if you just want to say you don't care what I have to say, and don't want me participating, you can just say that. I don't know what the eff that little game is about pretending I'm not interested in the topic of discussion. It's not cute.
Quote from: pawsplay on January 28, 2024, 08:48:48 PM
Yeah, whatever you do, protect your beliefs from the idea someone else might actually have a point.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/d9df18fe277e9702c83845447334efc2/tumblr_ot53apaArj1tpri36o1_500.png)
I handle it thusly:
Female Characters: (OPTIONAL): IF you wish to use these modifiers then use them; if you do not, then don't. They are here for the sake of biological verisimilitude and nothing more.
Strength: Multiply a female character's STR trait value by 0.7 and round-up.
Dexterity: Female characters get a bonus of +1 to their DEX trait.
Note: these do not apply to Drakes, Kobolds, or Trolls whose females are physically equivalent to their males.
If you are outraged on behalf of women, and cannot define what a woman is, shut your face hole. If you insist on tossing a fit regardless—enjoy yourself. Feel the rage; let the hate flow through you. If you strike me down I shall become more based than you can possibly imagine.
Ability scores are meant to represent the qualities that make one a good adventurer. Men are much, much better adventurers than women, so we can expect men to have much higher ability scores. Women have other strengths, most of which have nothing to do with adventuring.
Since ability scores are fairly abstract, I don't think it makes sense to quantify just how many more points of strength or dexterity a man should have. After all, we only give Halflings a -1 Str in older systems and a -2 in newer systems, when in reality halflings should have a huge Str penalty. Also giving a woman -4 Str or whatever doesn't make sense if she rolls a 5, because that implies that she is as weak as a toddler, which isn't true except for cripples. We want a simpler system.
Therefore, the common sense solution is to give women 3d4 down the line instead of 3d6 down the line. (Yes this means that you have absurd things, like 1/64th of them having 16 Str, but it really isn't going to break the game). Then to make them evolutionary equal, they receive certain benefits: almost no one attacks them, people bend over backwards to please them, and their most important powers: they can give birth and produce milk.
This is assuming that we want something reasonable. However, if you have women adventurers at all, you're already suspending belief quite a bit. Her character is literally the only female adventurer in the world, in the same way the Eowyn is literally the only female adventurer in Middle Earth. The woman that is playing is probably your wife or daughter, or you buddy's girlfriend. If you're going to let her play, you might as well let her play what she wants. Don't let men play female characters.
I don't find 1/64 female adventurers having a 16 Strength to be crazy.
While it is system dependent, 16 actually isn't beyond the limits of real women; it's being able to carry just about 70 lb. without a movement penalty in the 3e derivatives. That's a little more than a bag of horsefeed or a hay bail. My mom used to do that with her horses all the time and she was nothing special as far as ranch/farm wives go.
Hell, even in AD&D 1e, the 18/50 limit for female humans when you converted the coins into lifting weight was about where the female weightlifting record of the time was (about 300 lb. while today's clean and jerk in the women's 87+kg division is 411 lb.).
In 3e that same weightlifting level is a Strength of 18, the current women's record is a Strength 20 (400 lb.) and the male weightlifting record is about a Strength of 23 (c. 600 lb.) in 3e terms.
Basically, in 3e, even a top tier starting fighter (Str 18) is weaker than the modern female weightlifting champion and would need to hit level 20 to naturally get his strength to a 23.
In 5e the best Strength a human can have is lifting just 300 lb. (score of 20 x 15lb.) which is just 75% of real world women's record.
* * *
So, if anything, before you go assigning arbitrary numbers, you first need to figure out what your scale is so you can gauge it appropriately. Linear scales will look different than geometric ones as well (as is the case when 15 is double the value of a 10 in 3e).
If anything the real problem in D&D is that with the current numbers the MEN are too weak, not that the women too strong.
For 3e, you could just put a cap on natural strength at 20 for women and still be under the world record. You could also give human men a +2 modifier to Strength for free (which in 3e mechanics would put a woman at just 70% of a man's Strength score if they rolled the same raw number) so they can actually reach the real human limits before the campaign ends.
* * *
My own preference if you want genuine stat differences while keeping to biology, would be to have a separate "magic" stat from the normal D&D six (or fix the D&D stats in general and have one that exclusively attunement to magic/the divine).
Men get +2 Str, while women get +2 to Magic. There's now a reason for female adventurers because they're going to better than the average man at working with magic, while men are better at strength and combat.
What is this obsession by judging it just by lifting standards? The carry weights for Str in D&D are ridiculously low. Combat soldiers carry more weight than D&D musclemen. Str is way more than those low lifting capacities, don't get hung up on a single metric.
You're hung up on trivia, like carrying capacity. Instead think in percentiles.
Out of 216 men, six will have strength 16, three will have 17, and one lucky guy will have an 18. Let's scale that up by a factor of 8: out of 1728 men, 48 will have 16, 24 will have 17, and 8 will have 18. Out of the total male population (size 1728), 80 will have a strength score high enough to get a damage bonus in AD&D 2nd Edition.
Out of 64 women, one will have strength 16. Let's scale that up by a factor of 27: out of 1728 women, 27 will have a strength of 16. Out of the total female population (size 1728), 27 will have a strength score high enough to get a damage bonus.
Now let's combine the men and women, for a total population of 3453. We have 80+27 people with a strength of 16+. These people are the top 3%, and yet we are supposed to believe that just over a quarter (27/107) of this brawny elite is women? Find any group of 3453 young adults (adventurers) and I guarantee that you won't find similar results.
So yes, my 3d4 suggestion massively overrates female strength, but that's because I was going for something simple, that could apply to all scores.
Quote from: Glak on February 05, 2024, 01:06:15 AM
Out of 216 men...
Out of 64 women...
(https://media.tenor.com/images/5d6cc1b67c5ede8e1c3a56b9a0d4b77d/tenor.gif)
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 12:55:25 AM
What is this obsession by judging it just by lifting standards? The carry weights for Str in D&D are ridiculously low. Combat soldiers carry more weight than D&D musclemen. Str is way more than those low lifting capacities, don't get hung up on a single metric.
It's mainly because it's one of the few statistics measurable in the real world (alongside IQ as a component of intelligence), so when trying to discuss statistics as relates to real life, something that actually translates over from game to the real world is going to be focused on.
Second, I focused on it precisely because, if the core game math is wrong then part of addressing the attribute numbers is in fixing those.
For example; AD&D's lifting capacity of 18/50 for women and 18/00 for men corresponded more or less to the weightlifting records at the time AD&D was being written. It's actually pretty good on that (also of note; AD&D limited your lifting relative to your body weight... if you wanted the carry capacity of an 18/50 strength in AD&D you were never going to be a 120lb. waif, but always a Brianne of Tarth).
The decision to slot BOTH into the exceptional strength range rather than, say, set the limit for women at 17 or an unexceptional 18 was a deliberate choice on their part to put both in the rarified air of being only available to fighters, paladins and rangers.
Worth noting too is that only at 18/51+ do the to-hit bonuses rise above +1 and 18/50 is only a +3 to damage vs. the +2 of an unexceptional 18. The upper bounds for a human male are another +2 to hit, another +3 to damage (so double), nearly triple the carry, nearly double the press, double the chances of bending bars/lifting gates, and opening doors on a 16 (and being able to open locked or barred doors on a 6) vs. only on a 12 (and no chance for locked or barred doors) of an 18/50.
Similarly, it wasn't your argument, but Glak's (I just hate multi-quoting from my phone) that we should ignore the numbers and just look at the ratios as if the dice probabilities are intended to reflect universal humanity and not the adventurer subset thereof is kinda a non-starter when you have something where exceptional strength is entirely limited to certain PC classes... meaning the overall population numbers are irrelevant... just the levels of Strength among the population of human fighters (a much smaller subset of the human whole where high strength is a prime requisite; which is a fancy way of saying that only people with an already high strength are going to be members; skewing the numbers).
A related issue is that Glak's interpretation of the Strength score variance requires a linear measure. Linearly 70% of an 18 is about a 13, but on a scale where Strength increased by 1.4x or more per point of Strength then a mere -1 penalty would be sufficient to cover the difference in maximum realistic male and female Strengths.*
In other words, until you have a scale to assign metrics to (i.e. what is Strength X vs. X+1) and a scope for what the population being measured is (i.e. are you using random dice for the entire population or just for PCs and similar "heroic-scale" individuals) the. arguing about the specific modifiers is just shibboleths.
* This also presumes a setting in which the ordinary laws of physics are in play vs. say a setting where even baseline humans are suffused with magic (or super-science) and all strength past human levels is supernatural. Once bare fists are shattering stone biology as we understand it has left the building and there's no reason a woman couldn't have as much of the Phlebotinum as a man does.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 05, 2024, 10:24:22 AMOnce bare fists are shattering stone biology as we understand it has left the building and there's no reason a woman couldn't have as much of the Phlebotinum as a man does.
It still has to have some affect though, or that world wouldn't have sexual dimorphism. There's no advantage to larger size and bigger muscles if tiny women can just be as strong.
Much like the Marvel U, Agent Carter when she takes the super soldier serum, she should be much less strong and athletic than Steve Rogers. Sure he starts are a runt, but he becomes a physically perfect MAN, and she becomes a perfect WOMAN. Big difference in maximum capabilities.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 05, 2024, 10:24:22 AMOnce bare fists are shattering stone biology as we understand it has left the building and there's no reason a woman couldn't have as much of the Phlebotinum as a man does.
It still has to have some affect though, or that world wouldn't have sexual dimorphism. There's no advantage to larger size and bigger muscles if tiny women can just be as strong.
Much like the Marvel U, Agent Carter when she takes the super soldier serum, she should be much less strong and athletic than Steve Rogers. Sure he starts are a runt, but he becomes a physically perfect MAN, and she becomes a perfect WOMAN. Big difference in maximum capabilities.
Depends on the nature of the Phlobotonium.
If it had always been present in the environment and was present in everyone then sure it would result in a lack of sexual dimorphism.
If it was a relatively recent advent* and/or only selectively manifests** then one would not expect any significant differences in the traditional dimorphic appearances of human men and women even if the capabilities have been mostly erased by whatever magic/tech allows it.
* How many generations would it take to change what men and women find attractive in mates? Nature has proven mating advantages will be selected for even to the active detriment of other factors (ex. the peacock). One might even expect more dimorphism of appearance in regards to mating preferences if those appearances no longer proved counterproductive to other elements of survival.
** ex. only 1% of the population manifests "phlebotomic strength" and this manifestation is not genetic but environmental (ex. being blessed by a god or exposed to Lostech nanomachines) then one would expect normal sexual dimorphism to be the case.
As another example, in a setting where demigods exist, but you don't want to create a separate species for them (because demigodhood is mostly just very high stats), then one or more very high attributes might just represent a degree of the divine blood shining through that lets the demigod daughter of the god of strength be as strong as any man.
It's not "normal" but it's also not something so uncommon in a fantasy setting that you need a separate demigod race either. It's just the background reason for why some PCs have better stats than others.
But that's just one example for one potential setting... the point is it's not nearly as "one size fits all" for all settings as you're trying to make it.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 05, 2024, 10:24:22 AMOnce bare fists are shattering stone biology as we understand it has left the building and there's no reason a woman couldn't have as much of the Phlebotinum as a man does.
It still has to have some affect though, or that world wouldn't have sexual dimorphism. There's no advantage to larger size and bigger muscles if tiny women can just be as strong.
Much like the Marvel U, Agent Carter when she takes the super soldier serum, she should be much less strong and athletic than Steve Rogers. Sure he starts are a runt, but he becomes a physically perfect MAN, and she becomes a perfect WOMAN. Big difference in maximum capabilities.
Well, I'm glad we have this reasonable real-world example to go by.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 05, 2024, 10:24:22 AMOnce bare fists are shattering stone biology as we understand it has left the building and there's no reason a woman couldn't have as much of the Phlebotinum as a man does.
It still has to have some affect though, or that world wouldn't have sexual dimorphism. There's no advantage to larger size and bigger muscles if tiny women can just be as strong.
Much like the Marvel U, Agent Carter when she takes the super soldier serum, she should be much less strong and athletic than Steve Rogers. Sure he starts are a runt, but he becomes a physically perfect MAN, and she becomes a perfect WOMAN. Big difference in maximum capabilities.
Well, I'm glad we have this reasonable real-world example to go by.
Oh, the irony!
Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:54:48 PMWell, I'm glad we have this reasonable real-world example to go by.
HIM: "Well if we assume the fantasy world has impossible reasons for strong women..."
ME: "Here's another example of a fantasy world with impossible strong women..."
You're right, paws, I don't know what I was thinking.
You utter buffoon.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 05, 2024, 01:37:34 PMBut that's just one example for one potential setting... the point is it's not nearly as "one size fits all" for all settings as you're trying to make it.
I'd argue you're jumping through an awful lot of hoops just to justify strong women in fantasy. It's all fiction, so at the core it's always going to be personal preference. I think it wrecks verisimilitude, and straight out looks silly to have waifs beating hulks, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Which is fine.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 11:44:24 AM
Much like the Marvel U, Agent Carter when she takes the super soldier serum, she should be much less strong and athletic than Steve Rogers. Sure he starts are a runt, but he becomes a physically perfect MAN, and she becomes a perfect WOMAN. Big difference in maximum capabilities.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 06, 2024, 10:56:46 AM
HIM: "Well if we assume the fantasy world has impossible reasons for strong women..."
ME: "Here's another example of a fantasy world with impossible strong women..."
There's no inherent logic to what an impossible super serum does. It could have made Agent Carter into a super-sexy seductress who can birth eight babies at once while making a hundred sandwiches, or it could have made Agent Carter into a powerhouse even stronger than Steve Rogers, or maybe it doesn't work on her at all and it only affects men. The super serum isn't a logical extrapolation of real-world biology, it's pure fantasy.
In fantasy worlds that are close to reality, women should be significantly less strong than men. A woman can't go toe-to-toe in hand-to-hand combat with a healthy fighting man, but likewise, a man can't go toe-to-toe in hand-to-hand combat with a rhino or dragon.
A key problem for
game design is how to reflect this in a fair way. In random-roll, the obvious choice is to make gender random. Then everyone gets the same chance to have a strength penalty. If you allow selecting gender, then there should be some options that make men and women equally balanced game choices. HarnMaster, for example, gives a size and strength penalty to women, but it gives them a bonus to the Aura stat that reflects magic potential.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 06, 2024, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:54:48 PMWell, I'm glad we have this reasonable real-world example to go by.
HIM: "Well if we assume the fantasy world has impossible reasons for strong women..."
ME: "Here's another example of a fantasy world with impossible strong women..."
You're right, paws, I don't know what I was thinking.
You utter buffoon.
You act like the second example proves your thesis. But it's something you made up, which assumes agreement with your position. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 03:05:30 PM
In fantasy worlds that are close to reality, women should be significantly less strong than men.
In fantasy words that are close to reality, women are significantly less strong than men. I'm not sure what the phrase "should be" is doing in this sentence. Do you mean it would be better if they were?
Certainly, it has no bearing on whether this character should be stronger than that character. Chinese men are shorter than African-American men. But that doesn't mean Shaquille O'Neal "should be" taller than Yao Ming. Yao Ming is the height he is.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 03:05:30 PM
In fantasy worlds that are close to reality, women should be significantly less strong than men.
In fantasy words that are close to reality, women are significantly less strong than men. I'm not sure what the phrase "should be" is doing in this sentence. Do you mean it would be better if they were?
Certainly, it has no bearing on whether this character should be stronger than that character. Chinese men are shorter than African-American men. But that doesn't mean Shaquille O'Neal "should be" taller than Yao Ming. Yao Ming is the height he is.
No, I just meant that in reality, human women are significantly smaller and less strong than men. There is only a bit of overlap in the bell curves. Fantasy settings can differ from reality in however they want. I'm not saying any particular change is better or worse.
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 03:05:30 PM
There's no inherent logic to what an impossible super serum does. It could have made Agent Carter into a super-sexy seductress who can birth eight babies at once while making a hundred sandwiches, or it could have made Agent Carter into a powerhouse even stronger than Steve Rogers, or maybe it doesn't work on her at all and it only affects men. The super serum isn't a logical extrapolation of real-world biology, it's pure fantasy.
It makes you into a perfect human being, that's what it does. Steve (at least the comics version) is as strong, fast and tough as a man can be and still be human. Think someone with every good gene combo turned on, and everything bad turned off.
A physically perfect woman is going to be stronger and tougher than most men, but elite males could overpower her, and she'd be much weaker than Steve. I've actually argued that a physically perfect woman would be an Amazon with big boobs and wide hips, evolutionarily speaking.
The only reason Agent Carter just turns into Steve with breasts is because we live in an age where we pretend sexual dimorphism is no big deal.
Greetings!
Yeah, because women are so strong and brave!!!
Then you watch some uber-buffed woman get the stomping shit beat out of her and she gets fucking crushed by a MAN in less than 60 fucking seconds. Sometimes, just one or two strikes, and the broad hits the fucking floor like a sack of shit, OUT STONE COLD. Or she just lays there, sobbing.
Give me a fucking break. All these fucking Feminists and "Male Feminists" are fucking morons, and so silly they are stupid as fuck. It's so ridiculous how out of fucking reality they are, it can't help but to be hilarious.
In my required Women's Studies classes in university, I used to fucking LAUGH at my woman professsor, allegedly a PH D!!!!--*Laughing* How fucking nuts is it to state something that a BIOLOGIST from the Science department would absolutely contradict? But there you go. Fucking PHD women Feminist professors get to stand up there at the podium in front of the class and tell these students that "Women are just as strong as men!"
That's a fucking LIE. That's also a fucking FANTASY. Somehow though, the university continues to hire and employ these fucking Feminist frauds that lie to their students every fucking day, promoting absolute bullshit.
As far as our game worlds go, well, there is believable fantasy, and silly, stupid fantasy.
Dragons, vampires, werewolves--they are believable fantasy.
140-lb waifu women beating the fuck out of a man--let alone three or four men at the same time--becomes silly, stupid fantasy. It is so stupid that it can break a person's enjoyment of the game. Unless you are some moron fucking Feminist, then you can diddle yourself into a frenzy at the thought.
For most normal people though, the stupid factor gets too high, and game enjoyment suffers.
That's why it is important to think about things like verisimilitude in the game. Boundaries and physics and logic must to a large degree remain consistent with actual real-world reality and TRUTH.
Of course, if you are running some kind of silly cartoon superheroes game, then knock yourself the fuck out. Go hog fucking wild! Superhero games are known for being silly and stupidly fantastic though. In medieval fantasy games, yeah, a more or less mythological world that is consistent with the real world is the best approach.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 06, 2024, 08:40:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 03:05:30 PM
There's no inherent logic to what an impossible super serum does. It could have made Agent Carter into a super-sexy seductress who can birth eight babies at once while making a hundred sandwiches, or it could have made Agent Carter into a powerhouse even stronger than Steve Rogers, or maybe it doesn't work on her at all and it only affects men. The super serum isn't a logical extrapolation of real-world biology, it's pure fantasy.
It makes you into a perfect human being, that's what it does. Steve (at least the comics version) is as strong, fast and tough as a man can be and still be human. Think someone with every good gene combo turned on, and everything bad turned off.
There's no such thing as "good" genes and "bad" genes biologically, nor "perfect". The "perfect" human depends on what qualities you are optimizing for. Top-ranked weightlifters are physically different and have different genes from top-ranked gymnasts, who in turn are different than top-ranked distance swimmers.
It's a superhero comic, so it doesn't have to follow real-world biology - but that just goes back to what I said. What is the "perfection" depends on what one is optimizing for. One could argue that perfection would include being a fertile true hermaphrodite - thus not lacking any capability in reproduction.
Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 07:31:29 PMThere is only a bit of overlap in the bell curves.
Among competitive lifters, the top 10% of women are as strong as the bottom 10% of men. Men's numbers here (https://i.imgur.com/LLMzvws.png), women's here (https://i.imgur.com/XNmbDyz.png) (the overlap is in the 360-380kg total range, eg squat 130kg, bench 90kg, deadlift 150kg).
However, it's important to note that this is competitive lifters, so a few considerations,
Firstly, there are fewer women competing in strength sports than there are men. That's why we regularly see women's records broken, but not so often men's. Same for older lifters, throwers, jumpers, sprinters and so on.
Secondly, while 90% of competitive male lifters will be stronger than all female lifters,
untrained males it'll be smaller. The median for the women competitors is a 280kg total - say, 100kg squat, 50kg bench, 130kg deadlift, something like that. Previously untrained males - no sports or martial arts etc behind them - maybe a few can squeeze out the bench press, but they can't do that squat or deadlift. If they've got some sport behind them then a good number of them can do it. So - the average
trained woman will be stronger than probably 80% of the average
untrained males out there. This greatly hurts the ego of all the male geeks, but there it is.
Thirdly, for similar reasons to above, the
trained male will be stronger than probably 99% of women. Even the bottom 1% of trained males can total 200-220, something like a 80kg squat, 50kg bench and 80kg deadlift. Probably only 1% of untrained women can do that - a few of the bigger girls with PCOS or something.
Most people don't realise just how weak the general population is, and how strong trained
people are. And it's very difficult to discuss with gamers, because only the males are really interested in discussing it, and males have very, very delicate egos. If you doubt this, go look at the comments on women's lifting videos on InstaSham or YouseTube.
None of which has any relevance whatsoever to a game about elves and fireballs, of course. It may be relevant to a modern realistic game, but if people wanted to play modern realistic games then the rpg hobby would look very, very different, and the typical gamer wouldn't be able to keep their character alive for five minutes.
Quote from: SHARK link=topic=46024.msg1276616#msg1276616
140-lb waifu women beating the fuck out of a man--let alone three or four men at the same time--becomes silly, stupid fantasy.
And if the 140lb. waifu is the demigod daughter of Zeus or was an Amazon (from Russia where all is backwards... a very punny irony that)?
Or how about if she's a sorceress who's magic grants her superhuman strength?
Or has stone giant ancestry or dragon blood carried down from her great grandfather?
No making the argument about ignoring sex differences is talking about "campaign set in Britannia c. AD 1093."
They're talking about worlds where gods walk among men (and men of power can go visit the gods while still alive), human accessible magic is powerful enough to turn dead stone into living animals, and someone having some degree of supernatural blood in their ancestry is common enough they have "half-X" rules for their most direct ancestor with the non-human.
But no... all of that and it's still impossible for a woman to have an 18/50 Strength score (even when that was fully possible who women weightlifters in the 1970s and the male limit of 18/00 is literally 2-3x stronger depending on category measured).
No, unless they're rolling 3d4 for their Strength (as suggested by someone upthread) it's not a realistic spread for heroic adventures in a setting where someone of sufficient skill can kill a dragon the size of a house with a longsword.
Having a Strength cap like AD&D is fine; anything above an unmodified 18 for humans is non-existent outside of classed fighters and their subclasses anyway.
There's no need for anything like the penalities some here want to assign because PCs aren't intended to be "Joe Average" in most campaigns (a starting fighter is already a "Veteran" by title and 0-level warriors exist), so any woman choosing to be an adventurer isn't going to Jane Average; she's going to be a Red Sonja or Atalanta.
Quote from: Glak on February 04, 2024, 01:47:11 AM
After all, we only give Halflings a -1 Str in older systems and a -2 in newer systems, when in reality halflings should have a huge Str penalty.
This is an excellent point. It's pretty hypocritical to make female characters "realistically" weaker, while leaving halflings abnormally strong.
You know, we're going about this the wrong way.
If a GM rules that female characters can have the same strength as the males, but their characters look realistic (I.E. looking like a side of beef filled with doorknobs,) 99% of women would refuse to play them, and that would be that.
No more cute waifs with 18 str.
So you're saying you don't think women would want to look like this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsUUfuWlAmS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5494d5e8-8906-4c83-98d6-d8d1a3866bbb
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 06:44:22 PM
So you're saying you don't think women would want to look like this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsUUfuWlAmS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5494d5e8-8906-4c83-98d6-d8d1a3866bbb
A woman that benches 130lbs?
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 06:53:53 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 06:44:22 PM
So you're saying you don't think women would want to look like this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsUUfuWlAmS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5494d5e8-8906-4c83-98d6-d8d1a3866bbb
A woman that benches 130lbs?
For fun. She's a fitness person. Her personal record at one time was 182 lbs.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 07:09:19 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 06:53:53 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 06:44:22 PM
So you're saying you don't think women would want to look like this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsUUfuWlAmS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5494d5e8-8906-4c83-98d6-d8d1a3866bbb
A woman that benches 130lbs?
For fun. She's a fitness person. Her personal record at one time was 182 lbs.
The estimated bench for an average man with no lifting experience is 170lbs.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 07:09:19 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 06:53:53 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 06:44:22 PM
So you're saying you don't think women would want to look like this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsUUfuWlAmS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5494d5e8-8906-4c83-98d6-d8d1a3866bbb
A woman that benches 130lbs?
For fun. She's a fitness person. Her personal record at one time was 182 lbs.
The estimated bench for an average man with no lifting experience is 170lbs.
So the average man can get pasted by a woman fitness instructor who looks like a cheerleader, got it.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 07:14:30 PM
The estimated bench for an average man with no lifting experience is 170lbs.
This may have been true in some earlier period, but is not true of men in the 2020s.
I say this after over thirty years being involved in strength training, and working as a trainer since 2009, working 1:1 with some 200 people over that time, and giving programmes to at least twice as many people on top of that, and extensive conversations with other trainers and coaches. I have trained a man to a 250kg deadlift (https://www.instagram.com/p/BiLe4WBhXPP/), a number of women to 120kg or more squats (https://www.instagram.com/p/BlaZHXjHDCk/), IT desk workers to 200kg deadlifts (https://www.instagram.com/p/BmFhr20FJxV/), guys recovering from lymphatic cancer to squatting 162.5kg (https://www.instagram.com/p/Bm7qoWzBLHT/) and deadlifting 200kg, untrained paediatricians on nightshifts to do chinups (https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvd2ejZAOi_/), a woman in her 50s squat 100 and bench 60 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B-st6msg1x2/?img_index=1), and a woman in her 70s to deadlift 120kg, which I don't have a video of, but here she is deadlifting 90kg (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx2XxVRykfG/) a few years later when she was 75yo.
Don't ask me about competitive lifting, I don't train talented athletes. But I do have a very good grasp of what a previously sedentary person can do without huge dedication to their chosen sport. I do not train the 600lb squatter, I train his mother - and his nerdy brother, and nightshift worker wife.
Most men
think they are much stronger and fitter than they are. And the older they get, the stronger and fitter they were in college where they benched "about tree-fiddy" and at the same time ran a four minute mile.
The order of strength ability, broadly-speaking, goes like this,
- Trained men
- Trained women
- Untrained men
- Untrained women
There will be exceptions where a person is much smaller than usual and this drops them a rank, or much larger and this raises. Likewise they may not have barbell training, but have been an active participant in sport, eg a woman who regular plays soccer will have a bigger squat on day one than a woman who has been sitting on the couch, and this pushes them up a level.
If anyone has proven experience contradicting this, I welcome their contribution. But again, it is not relevant to elves & fireball games, and weakling unfit neckbeards who like to pretend to themselves that their flab is muscle and they're not headed to an early grave should stick to their anime porn. [/list]
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 07:09:19 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 06:53:53 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 09, 2024, 06:44:22 PM
So you're saying you don't think women would want to look like this?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsUUfuWlAmS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5494d5e8-8906-4c83-98d6-d8d1a3866bbb
A woman that benches 130lbs?
For fun. She's a fitness person. Her personal record at one time was 182 lbs.
her overhead press is probably around 120 or so. So her strength for AD&D is 12. Unsure of the point being made here.
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 have trained A LOT of people for BJJ, Kickboxing and MMA. I have have a good number of women train and compete as well. Most of the women I would say fall on the more athletic side of the pool with regard to natural physicality relative to other women (several college scholarship athletes). Most of the men I would rate average (to me if you are not college scholarship athlete you are pretty average in the sense of how that will relate to fighting, and then the sport you were high level in matters to a degree). Men are A LOT stronger and faster and more explosive than the women. This is a fact. I can take ANY man under 40, able bodied, and within a year he will be able to squat 300 below parallel for reps. This is not true of the vast majority of women who train. The ones who can do that will be big outliers. The average man is stronger, faster and more explosive than a pretty athletic woman. An athletic man will look like he is mauling a child if he is going against an athletic woman.
This is reality and strength for AD&D from what I remember was the military press (to give a rough estimate of strength to lifting capability) not a clean and jerk or a jerk. The press can be fudged to a degree (with some layback, but you still have to be very strong to do it standing) unlike the bench press (where grip width and crazy flexibility can certainly circumvent the effectiveness of determining upper body strength) which can be gamed to a big extreme. The differences between where a man and a woman fall on a standing press is big. I get some of the people doing all they can to pretend women can compete in a physical arena with men (especially with no exogenous hormone use) are likely physically lacking in both experience and time training themselves to understand how big the difference is. The difference is huge.
Now...all that said in a fantasy game I do not think it matters too much at all if the women are as strong as the men. I do think the limits for max human strength for men vs women was pretty close to spot on... I do not think its necessary to use them. The odds of having an 18 ST in AD&D are extremely rare and top end exceptional strength more so. So for me I would NOT represent these differences. if you want to show the difference or if you do not I think the existence of many ways to increase one's strength for instance or other attributes sort of makes it not matter so much any way. First gauntlets of ogre power and doesnt matter if you were the weak-sister fighter with a 13 strength. You are the captain now.
Fun side note my AD&D strength would be 18/60 assuming military press is the standard (standing).
The SCA is a medieval and Renaissance reenactment group. One of the things they do is armored combat. Mind you, it's not a deadly game. But it pits people in heavy kids, overcoming reach, size, strength, and endurance to defeat an opponent. There are a lot more men active in armored combat in women. The Monarch is chosen through tournament, by right of conquest in battle. The number of SCA monarchs who are women is greater than zero.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 10, 2024, 03:46:55 PM
She was roided to the gills.
Disproven allegations. She never tested positive for any performance-enhancing substance. You may be remembering the allegations but she was exonerated.
Whenever we get to the stage where someone brings up SCA bullshit the thread should be euthanized for the sake of its dignity.
Let the SCA guys slam the women around and really try to hurt them, and the LARPing delusions disappear like a fart in the wind. "Oh but I know this chick, and when you're bonking each other with padding and a ref, she can..." blah blah you've already lost the argument.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 10, 2024, 06:27:17 PM
Whenever we get to the stage where someone brings up SCA bullshit the thread should be euthanized for the sake of its dignity.
Let the SCA guys slam the women around and really try to hurt them, and the LARPing delusions disappear like a fart in the wind. "Oh but I know this chick, and when you're bonking each other with padding and a ref, she can..." blah blah you've already lost the argument.
It's an athletic event, with no gender divisions, using the same muscles and abilities you would in actual combat. It doesn't even have size or weight classes. It's a lot closer to combat than, say, professional tennis, we have already discussed.
Btw the world record for women's unequipped bench press is April Mathis, 207.5 kg (~457.4 lb), which would give her an 18/100 Strength in AD&D.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 10, 2024, 06:27:17 PM
Whenever we get to the stage where someone brings up SCA bullshit the thread should be euthanized for the sake of its dignity.
Let the SCA guys slam the women around and really try to hurt them, and the LARPing delusions disappear like a fart in the wind. "Oh but I know this chick, and when you're bonking each other with padding and a ref, she can..." blah blah you've already lost the argument.
Indeed.
My post pretty much covered all that, in both tennis, which is not considered a very "heavy" sport in terms of athletic abilities, and combat sports, meaning fighting with hands and fists.
Top of the food chain, undefeated or with less than 3 losses, multiple belt women get trounced by average Joe fighter without a belt or any sort of impressive record, never mind what would happen if they met their actual match on the male fighters side.
The very existence of male and female segregation in terms of Olympic competitions tells it all. The abyss between the male and female world records also makes it clear why this segregation has existed and why it should remain.
The very female athletes always say that its not fair for them to be compared to men. They are still impressive athletes and the top of their class for women. But, claiming there is "no difference" or that the difference is "negligible" is, as I said before in thread, "trying to block the sun with one finger."
Quote from: Cipher on February 10, 2024, 08:54:33 PM
Top of the food chain, undefeated or with less than 3 losses, multiple belt women get trounced by average Joe fighter without a belt or any sort of impressive record, never mind what would happen if they met their actual match on the male fighters side.
Their match doesn't exist on the male fighters side, because the levels of participation aren't even comparable. It's like comparing the Norwegian ski team with the Zimbabwe ski team. It's also ignoring that the male fighters honed their skills fighting other male fighters. Put everyone in the same pool, the women may still not win a lot, but the skill gap will close quickly. It's the reason women's basketball teams play against men drill squads; they are more physically powerful, and come from a much deeper pool of players.
Anyway, the central matter is this: some people think sex (group) differences should trump individual differences. To me that's clearly false.
Men and women have similar intelligence. On some specific scales, you might (or might not, depending on the study) see some differences.
Men and women have similar reflexes. Men are fighter pilots, women are fighter pilots.
Men and women have similar constitution. Men have historically done better in some endurance events, but women are often found to be able to withstand disease better, and live longer. If any meaningful differences exist, they would pretty much even out.
Men and women often have different social behavior, but you generally can't define a difference in "charisma." Women are often considered more alluring, and (male) RPG designers sometimes want to give them a charisma bonus, but in real life, men are ruthlessly domineering in meetings, achieve higher leadership posts, and get more credit for their contributions. It's pretty hard to define a consistent difference.
Wisdom? Hard to define. Whatever it is, men's death by misadventure rates might suggest they aren't as good at it. But I've never seen a suggestion men just aren't as good in general at making intuitive decisions, detecting things, or resisting psychological stress.
General athleticism? The fastest man alive a hundred years ago would lose to the fastest man alive today. It's hard to say what the intrinsic differences are, but we know based on actual outcomes, that in many, if not most categories, there is a substantial overlap in the peak abilities of some exceptional men and some exceptional women.
Flexibility? As teenagers, women win this hands down, but it's not as pronounced in middle adulthood.
Multi-tasking? Women do it more.... but studies show they aren't better at it.
So. Men are bigger. They might be stronger, but even at the extremes, it's not enough of a difference that AD&D, probably the most pronounced sex differences I've seen in in RPG, even really acknowledges at the system level. Both the top men and women in the last hundred years would rate an 18/100 strength, so the old "strength cap" concept was always unrealistic and more restrictive than real life.
Whatever differences exist, sex differences are dwarfed by individual differences. A woman rocket scientist and a man rocket scientist are more alike in intellectual abilities than either is to a non-rocket scientist. A woman powerlifter and a man powerlifter are closer in ability than either is to a non powerlifter. Men and women poets, are more alike other poets than they are people in general. Men and women teachers have more similar characteristics to each other than a man teacher has to a man cafe fighter or a woman teacher has to a woman cage fighter. Male and female soldiers can march ten miles carrying an infantry pack, and non-soldiers generally can't.
You can barely find 1-2 points difference on a D&D type scale for Strength, using metrics that are favorable in every respect to men. So is the question rooted in anything other than an insistence that some difference must be acknowledged? I certainly don't find it persuasive that since a lot of women (allegedly) want to play seductive spellcasters, the game needs to reinforce that pre-existing preference. Why not let people play what they want?
There was only one Jackie Mitchell, but she struck out Babe Ruth and then Lou Gehrig straight in a row. So if someone wants to play Jackie Mitchell, why not let them? Jackie Mitchell is a hundred times more realistic than Conan. If you don't have a problem with a strong human fighter wrestling a gorilla in a fair fight, I don't see why you would object to things actual women can actually do and have done. There are women sprinters, there are historical women fighters, there are historical women athletes who could defeat top athletic men, there are women Nobel-prize winning scientists. The differences of human potential we see across all domains makes the assertion that female characters need a -2 Strength or whatever to be realistic is just farcical. So many times, people have said things about human potential just aren't true. People used to say black people couldn't swim. People used to think women would literally die from participating in some sports.
So again, my answer is, there generally isn't any value, in terms of play or being realistic.
(https://fthmb.tqn.com/iC4uvLJ9zQ9kZSKgp-s6_IeAp3c=/768x0/filters:no_upscale()/baghdad-bob-in-denial-56a74f865f9b58b7d0e8f605.jpg)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 10, 2024, 06:21:34 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2024, 07:14:30 PM
The estimated bench for an average man with no lifting experience is 170lbs.
This may have been true in some earlier period, but is not true of men in the 2020s.
I say this after over thirty years being involved in strength training, and working as a trainer since 2009, working 1:1 with some 200 people over that time, and giving programmes to at least twice as many people on top of that, and extensive conversations with other trainers and coaches. I have trained a man to a 250kg deadlift (https://www.instagram.com/p/BiLe4WBhXPP/), a number of women to 120kg or more squats (https://www.instagram.com/p/BlaZHXjHDCk/), IT desk workers to 200kg deadlifts (https://www.instagram.com/p/BmFhr20FJxV/), guys recovering from lymphatic cancer to squatting 162.5kg (https://www.instagram.com/p/Bm7qoWzBLHT/) and deadlifting 200kg, untrained paediatricians on nightshifts to do chinups (https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvd2ejZAOi_/), a woman in her 50s squat 100 and bench 60 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B-st6msg1x2/?img_index=1), and a woman in her 70s to deadlift 120kg, which I don't have a video of, but here she is deadlifting 90kg (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx2XxVRykfG/) a few years later when she was 75yo.
Don't ask me about competitive lifting, I don't train talented athletes. But I do have a very good grasp of what a previously sedentary person can do without huge dedication to their chosen sport. I do not train the 600lb squatter, I train his mother - and his nerdy brother, and nightshift worker wife.
Most men think they are much stronger and fitter than they are. And the older they get, the stronger and fitter they were in college where they benched "about tree-fiddy" and at the same time ran a four minute mile.
The order of strength ability, broadly-speaking, goes like this,
- Trained men
- Trained women
- Untrained men
- Untrained women
There will be exceptions where a person is much smaller than usual and this drops them a rank, or much larger and this raises. Likewise they may not have barbell training, but have been an active participant in sport, eg a woman who regular plays soccer will have a bigger squat on day one than a woman who has been sitting on the couch, and this pushes them up a level.
If anyone has proven experience contradicting this, I welcome their contribution. But again, it is not relevant to elves & fireball games, and weakling unfit neckbeards who like to pretend to themselves that their flab is muscle and they're not headed to an early grave should stick to their anime porn. [/list]
Greetings!
Excellent points and analysis, Kyle.
*Laughing* Funny, too.
I agree entirely.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: pawsplay on February 10, 2024, 06:17:37 PM
The SCA is a medieval and Renaissance reenactment group. One of the things they do is armored combat. Mind you, it's not a deadly game. But it pits people in heavy kids, overcoming reach, size, strength, and endurance to defeat an opponent. There are a lot more men active in armored combat in women. The Monarch is chosen through tournament, by right of conquest in battle. The number of SCA monarchs who are women is greater than zero.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 10, 2024, 03:46:55 PM
She was roided to the gills.
Disproven allegations. She never tested positive for any performance-enhancing substance. You may be remembering the allegations but she was exonerated.
What I remember is the guy who was selling her the stuff, like he was to all the other athletes telling on her. She was roided to the gills. You can believe fantasy if you want but I think you will be better served to keep your fantasy and reality separated out.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 10, 2024, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 10, 2024, 06:27:17 PM
Whenever we get to the stage where someone brings up SCA bullshit the thread should be euthanized for the sake of its dignity.
Let the SCA guys slam the women around and really try to hurt them, and the LARPing delusions disappear like a fart in the wind. "Oh but I know this chick, and when you're bonking each other with padding and a ref, she can..." blah blah you've already lost the argument.
It's an athletic event, with no gender divisions, using the same muscles and abilities you would in actual combat. It doesn't even have size or weight classes. It's a lot closer to combat than, say, professional tennis, we have already discussed.
Btw the world record for women's unequipped bench press is April Mathis, 207.5 kg (~457.4 lb), which would give her an 18/100 Strength in AD&D.
No it would not. Strength is on the overhead press not the bench press. Do you even know the rules you are trying to argue? 18/00 is about a 480 pound overhead press. There is no way on this earth she is even close to that. Also...remove exogenous hormones and I think we are talking MUCH lower numbers.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 11, 2024, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 10, 2024, 06:17:37 PM
The SCA is a medieval and Renaissance reenactment group. One of the things they do is armored combat. Mind you, it's not a deadly game. But it pits people in heavy kids, overcoming reach, size, strength, and endurance to defeat an opponent. There are a lot more men active in armored combat in women. The Monarch is chosen through tournament, by right of conquest in battle. The number of SCA monarchs who are women is greater than zero.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 10, 2024, 03:46:55 PM
She was roided to the gills.
Disproven allegations. She never tested positive for any performance-enhancing substance. You may be remembering the allegations but she was exonerated.
What I remember is the guy who was selling her the stuff, like he was to all the other athletes telling on her. She was roided to the gills. You can believe fantasy if you want but I think you will be better served to keep your fantasy and reality separated out.
Have you even looked at who you were posting to? This person
has to believe that men and women are basically the same. Otherwise, the consequences might be too great for them to bear. This is the reason they cherry-pick and distort. They
have too believe...
Quote from: pawsplay on February 11, 2024, 12:42:34 AM
Quote from: Cipher on February 10, 2024, 08:54:33 PM
Top of the food chain, undefeated or with less than 3 losses, multiple belt women get trounced by average Joe fighter without a belt or any sort of impressive record, never mind what would happen if they met their actual match on the male fighters side.
Their match doesn't exist on the male fighters side, because the levels of participation aren't even comparable. It's like comparing the Norwegian ski team with the Zimbabwe ski team. It's also ignoring that the male fighters honed their skills fighting other male fighters. Put everyone in the same pool, the women may still not win a lot, but the skill gap will close quickly. It's the reason women's basketball teams play against men drill squads; they are more physically powerful, and come from a much deeper pool of players.
Anyway, the central matter is this: some people think sex (group) differences should trump individual differences. To me that's clearly false.
Men and women have similar intelligence. On some specific scales, you might (or might not, depending on the study) see some differences.
Men and women have similar reflexes. Men are fighter pilots, women are fighter pilots.
Men and women have similar constitution. Men have historically done better in some endurance events, but women are often found to be able to withstand disease better, and live longer. If any meaningful differences exist, they would pretty much even out.
Men and women often have different social behavior, but you generally can't define a difference in "charisma." Women are often considered more alluring, and (male) RPG designers sometimes want to give them a charisma bonus, but in real life, men are ruthlessly domineering in meetings, achieve higher leadership posts, and get more credit for their contributions. It's pretty hard to define a consistent difference.
Wisdom? Hard to define. Whatever it is, men's death by misadventure rates might suggest they aren't as good at it. But I've never seen a suggestion men just aren't as good in general at making intuitive decisions, detecting things, or resisting psychological stress.
General athleticism? The fastest man alive a hundred years ago would lose to the fastest man alive today. It's hard to say what the intrinsic differences are, but we know based on actual outcomes, that in many, if not most categories, there is a substantial overlap in the peak abilities of some exceptional men and some exceptional women.
Flexibility? As teenagers, women win this hands down, but it's not as pronounced in middle adulthood.
Multi-tasking? Women do it more.... but studies show they aren't better at it.
So. Men are bigger. They might be stronger, but even at the extremes, it's not enough of a difference that AD&D, probably the most pronounced sex differences I've seen in in RPG, even really acknowledges at the system level. Both the top men and women in the last hundred years would rate an 18/100 strength, so the old "strength cap" concept was always unrealistic and more restrictive than real life.
Whatever differences exist, sex differences are dwarfed by individual differences. A woman rocket scientist and a man rocket scientist are more alike in intellectual abilities than either is to a non-rocket scientist. A woman powerlifter and a man powerlifter are closer in ability than either is to a non powerlifter. Men and women poets, are more alike other poets than they are people in general. Men and women teachers have more similar characteristics to each other than a man teacher has to a man cafe fighter or a woman teacher has to a woman cage fighter. Male and female soldiers can march ten miles carrying an infantry pack, and non-soldiers generally can't.
You can barely find 1-2 points difference on a D&D type scale for Strength, using metrics that are favorable in every respect to men. So is the question rooted in anything other than an insistence that some difference must be acknowledged? I certainly don't find it persuasive that since a lot of women (allegedly) want to play seductive spellcasters, the game needs to reinforce that pre-existing preference. Why not let people play what they want?
There was only one Jackie Mitchell, but she struck out Babe Ruth and then Lou Gehrig straight in a row. So if someone wants to play Jackie Mitchell, why not let them? Jackie Mitchell is a hundred times more realistic than Conan. If you don't have a problem with a strong human fighter wrestling a gorilla in a fair fight, I don't see why you would object to things actual women can actually do and have done. There are women sprinters, there are historical women fighters, there are historical women athletes who could defeat top athletic men, there are women Nobel-prize winning scientists. The differences of human potential we see across all domains makes the assertion that female characters need a -2 Strength or whatever to be realistic is just farcical. So many times, people have said things about human potential just aren't true. People used to say black people couldn't swim. People used to think women would literally die from participating in some sports.
So again, my answer is, there generally isn't any value, in terms of play or being realistic.
18/00 is a 480 pound military press. VERY few men can do that now and that is with a shitload of drugs. You are COMPLETELY delusional about how women will do fighting men. Men are much stronger, much faster, and much more explosive. they are also much more durable. I think you are quite experienced at designing games but so much of it has made you divorced from reality. Can a skilled woman handle a man in a training environment grappling for example? Sure with no hitting an not slamming. But if the skills are the same...the woman gets wrecked. This is something I have seen play out for a very, very long time. Drugs are the biggest reason for advancement in sport performance, male or female.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 11, 2024, 04:15:45 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 11, 2024, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 10, 2024, 06:17:37 PM
The SCA is a medieval and Renaissance reenactment group. One of the things they do is armored combat. Mind you, it's not a deadly game. But it pits people in heavy kids, overcoming reach, size, strength, and endurance to defeat an opponent. There are a lot more men active in armored combat in women. The Monarch is chosen through tournament, by right of conquest in battle. The number of SCA monarchs who are women is greater than zero.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 10, 2024, 03:46:55 PM
She was roided to the gills.
Disproven allegations. She never tested positive for any performance-enhancing substance. You may be remembering the allegations but she was exonerated.
What I remember is the guy who was selling her the stuff, like he was to all the other athletes telling on her. She was roided to the gills. You can believe fantasy if you want but I think you will be better served to keep your fantasy and reality separated out.
Have you even looked at who you were posting to? This person has to believe that men and women are basically the same. Otherwise, the consequences might be too great for them to bear. This is the reason they cherry-pick and distort. They have too believe...
I know...but being around athletes and people training (male and female) my entire life I guess I am way to mired in reality to comprehend how someone can be so delusional. I guess if his exposure to reality is looking up people full of drugs to compare to norms and reality expectations...you are right I will give up on this one. Hell of it is I do not bother making distinctions for games with limits due to sex...but I do not attempt to justify that decision with a completely delusional take on what reality looks like.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 11, 2024, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 10, 2024, 06:17:37 PM
The SCA is a medieval and Renaissance reenactment group. One of the things they do is armored combat. Mind you, it's not a deadly game. But it pits people in heavy kids, overcoming reach, size, strength, and endurance to defeat an opponent. There are a lot more men active in armored combat in women. The Monarch is chosen through tournament, by right of conquest in battle. The number of SCA monarchs who are women is greater than zero.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 10, 2024, 03:46:55 PM
She was roided to the gills.
Disproven allegations. She never tested positive for any performance-enhancing substance. You may be remembering the allegations but she was exonerated.
What I remember is the guy who was selling her the stuff, like he was to all the other athletes telling on her. She was roided to the gills. You can believe fantasy if you want but I think you will be better served to keep your fantasy and reality separated out.
These guys think the body of Abby from the last of us 2 can be achieved with a good program and chicken and broccoli.
Quote from: Cipher on February 11, 2024, 08:04:41 PMThese guys think the body of Abby from the last of us 2 can be achieved with a good program and chicken and broccoli.
That's dumb, everyone knows what you need is liver!
(https://www.wealthcaves.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Liver-King-Net-Worth-630x420.jpg)
A lot of things in this thread, and I haven't read all of it, so I can't don't feel like taking the time to respond directly to individuals but rather to common concepts.
First, a lot of people are talking about the differences between groups at the average vs at the extremes, and something that needs to be kept in mind is that the player characters are not average. They are at least somewhat exceptional, even if you aren't playing a heroic system an adventurer is going to have a significant advantage in a fight over an average peasant.
Second, for everyone saying that the differences between the sexes in irl humans are marginal enough to be washed out in the abstractions of the game, yea no. According to my five second googling (https://www.openpowerlifting.org/records/women), women's record full power deadlift is 375 lbs, whereas men's record (https://www.openpowerlifting.org/records) is 530. That's an almost 42% difference. If we assume that the man that set that, Tracy Johnson, has a Str of 20, and we assume the scale is linear and starts at 0, (which it probably isn't but stick with me for the example) then the record holding woman, Payal Ghosh, would have a Str of just 14. Like I said, those assumptions are a bit drastic, but it illustrates that the differences are definitely non-trivial.
Personally, in my own games, I don't bother anyway. I'm fine assuming that in the fantasy world human sexual dimorphism is basically just expressed in a difference in averages, so an average male peasant has a Str of 9 or 10, whereas a female peasant has a Str of 6 or 7. Female Player Characters are already exceptional enough that I'm fine just letting them roll 3d6 like the boys. I like the trope of unexpectedly stronge barbarian chicks enough that I'm fine altering human physiology to make them uncommon rather than impossible. If you want the game to have that additional realism, I think a Str cap is reasonable, and a Cha bonus would make a decent amount of sense. Honestly, that might make female characters technically better most of the time, since you might not hit the Str cap but you always get the Cha bonus, but that's fine, we aren't balancing a MOBA.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 12, 2024, 02:56:42 AM
A lot of things in this thread, and I haven't read all of it, so I can't don't feel like taking the time to respond directly to individuals but rather to common concepts.
First, a lot of people are talking about the differences between groups at the average vs at the extremes, and something that needs to be kept in mind is that the player characters are not average. They are at least somewhat exceptional, even if you aren't playing a heroic system an adventurer is going to have a significant advantage in a fight over an average peasant.
Second, for everyone saying that the differences between the sexes in irl humans are marginal enough to be washed out in the abstractions of the game, yea no. According to my five second googling (https://www.openpowerlifting.org/records/women), women's record full power deadlift is 375 lbs, whereas men's record (https://www.openpowerlifting.org/records) is 530. That's an almost 42% difference. If we assume that the man that set that, Tracy Johnson, has a Str of 20, and we assume the scale is linear and starts at 0, (which it probably isn't but stick with me for the example) then the record holding woman, Payal Ghosh, would have a Str of just 14. Like I said, those assumptions are a bit drastic, but it illustrates that the differences are definitely non-trivial.
Personally, in my own games, I don't bother anyway. I'm fine assuming that in the fantasy world human sexual dimorphism is basically just expressed in a difference in averages, so an average male peasant has a Str of 9 or 10, whereas a female peasant has a Str of 6 or 7. Female Player Characters are already exceptional enough that I'm fine just letting them roll 3d6 like the boys. I like the trope of unexpectedly stronge barbarian chicks enough that I'm fine altering human physiology to make them uncommon rather than impossible. If you want the game to have that additional realism, I think a Str cap is reasonable, and a Cha bonus would make a decent amount of sense. Honestly, that might make female characters technically better most of the time, since you might not hit the Str cap but you always get the Cha bonus, but that's fine, we aren't balancing a MOBA.
Greetings!
Yeah, Zenoguy3! I agree. That is how I myself approach this topic in my own campaign. Through the years though, I am tempted to do a STR 14 Cap/+2 Charisma bonus for Women characters. At different times, I have done this, while other times I haven't. I mostly go with the rules as written, and just embrace the whole fantasy genre. Indeed, the uber barbarian chick swinging a sword and being a total beast is not just attractive to the women, but men also find the motif hard to resist. Maybe it is all the cultural messaging we have received through the years! *Laughing*
I remember when I was in the U.S. Marine Corps. We, being Infantry, periodically got to train with companies of WM's (Women Marines). These WM's were not of course from the Infantry battalions--women are not permitted to serve in the combat arms units--but they are from other units, such as administration, communications, payroll, and the like. Nonetheless, because of Marine Corps physical training standards, the WM's are all quite literally in elite shape and condition. I'd say they were in the top 10% of any kind of physical rating. The Women Marines were absolutely gorgeous, certainly from a physical condition perspective. We would train them in weapons practice and Field Training. Even then, many of them would break down and cry from marching too much, they were in pain, yadda yadda, yadda.
These women, who I would put money on to fucking crush any civilian women, and probably even some civilian men--despite their elite physical status--were *nothing* compared to us. We used to laugh at them and tease them about being weak and clumsy. *Laughing* Inside stuff, though. We also loved them and were very protective of our WM's. They are our little girls. They are our Green Girls. They definitely had talents! We would often hang out at our area gym--we had fully equipped gyms at our barracks areas, as well as throughout the entire Marine base. We would watch the girls do their Yoga and stuff. Bending themselves like pretzels, jumping like bunnies everywhere. Exhausting! *Laughing* We'd say, "Fuck that! Let's go lift some iron!" and go do our own weight work. Still, the women were very impresssive. Tight, muscular, flexible, and energy for miles like the fucking Energizer Bunny. And yeah, even the "average" Women Marines who you would be less thrilled about her face--whatever, right? They were all just physically gorgeous. That is apart from a good number of Women Marines that were traffic-stopping hot. Even us being in the Infantry, and used to being around hot girls, we all knew going to Mainside--the area of the base where the Headquarters and the main Base Hospital was--that is where most of the WM's came from. Over there, yeah, wow. There was some uber-beautiful WM's there. We all used to laugh about that, too.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 12, 2024, 02:56:42 AM
A lot of things in this thread, and I haven't read all of it, so I can't don't feel like taking the time to respond directly to individuals but rather to common concepts.
First, a lot of people are talking about the differences between groups at the average vs at the extremes, and something that needs to be kept in mind is that the player characters are not average. They are at least somewhat exceptional, even if you aren't playing a heroic system an adventurer is going to have a significant advantage in a fight over an average peasant.
The issue is that the difference in men and women is even greater at the extremes than at the middle. Women have a much narrower bell curve in most attributes, and slightly skewed left. So the average man performs a bit better than the average woman. But the men's bell curve is much broader. So the extreme man absolutely dwarfs the extreme woman (this is also true at the lower end of the curve as welll. There are way more genius men than women. There are also way more idiot men than women). This is non-controversial, established information.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 12, 2024, 05:38:21 PM
The issue is that the difference in men and women is even greater at the extremes than at the middle. Women have a much narrower bell curve in most attributes, and slightly skewed left. So the average man performs a bit better than the average woman. But the men's bell curve is much broader. So the extreme man absolutely dwarfs the extreme woman (this is also true at the lower end of the curve as welll. There are way more genius men than women. There are also way more idiot men than women). This is non-controversial, established information.
That's exactly my point, so if you're speaking realistically the differences between male PCs and female PCs should be even greater, precisly because they are exceptional.
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.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 16, 2024, 02:27:06 AM
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).
Even the most granular systems you've played wouldn't have a mechanical difference between characters that have a 40% difference in ability?
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. More Marxist utopian BS. The sexes are largely interchangeable? *Laughing*
There are two sexes. Male and Female. While there are of course many aspects both sexes have in common--there are HUGE differences in many areas; not merely the massive superiority in strength and power that men have beyond women. Differences psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and more. BIOLOGY controls far more deeper responses and truths than many people realize--or want to admit.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 16, 2024, 03:02:56 AM
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.
I'm going to partially disagree only because Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are so broad and capable of being used for so many different things that trying to say men deserve a positive or negative and women visa versa seems incredibly reductive.
Short version: The idea that women and men are the same mentally IS Marxist drivel. However, the idea that the mental ability scores are fine grained enough to cover those differences is equally drivel (whereas a solid argument could be made for sex-based SKILL modifiers of INT, WIS and CHA-based skills as those are closer to the levels of subdivision needed).
Ex. Charisma applies to both force of personality and softer techniques of persuasion. Men do tend to excel in the former, but to pretend they're as good at the sort of soft power that rears children and tames men into husbands and fathers is similarly silly.
Divide Charisma into a Presence and Manipulation statistic and I could see assigning sex-based bonuses and penalties. But as the glomp stat that is Charisma? It doesn't make sense (whereas men getting a bonus to intimidate and women to deceit would make sense).
The same for Wisdom, which is so ethereal most non-D&D derived systems replace it. It has aspects of spirituality, common sense, observation and willpower all rolled into a huge pile and trying to claim that men or women are exclusively better or worse at all of those things is ridiculous.
Again, if you divided some of those things out you might be able to assign some sex-based modifers (just look at who drives church attendance and it'd make sense for women to have a bonus to a spirituality stat... but not to the whole ball of wax that is the current Wisdom stat (on the other hand, men getting bonuses to perception and women to insight would fall more in line with sex-based cognitive differences).
If Intelligence just covers IQ then yes, there'd be a different curve overall for women and men, but when you throw in other aspects of intelligence it's less clear;
"Women's reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They outperform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They're more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.
"Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They're better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.
"Navigation studies in both humans and rats show that females of both species tend to rely on landmarks, while males more typically rely on "dead reckoning": calculating one's position by estimating the direction and distance traveled rather than using landmarks."
- Two Minds: The cognitive differences between men and women, Stanford Medicine Magazine, May 22, 2017
[/i]
All of those fall under the heading of Intelligence in D&D and adjacent games. If you wish to break Intelligence out into sub-stats then assigning sex-based bonuses and penalties makes sense; but for the broad category it does not (women getting bonuses to Lore/reading-based recall skills and lock-picking while men get bonuses to engineering, puzzle-solving (spatial and working memory juggling) and dead reckoning navigation would make sense).
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 16, 2024, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 16, 2024, 03:02:56 AM
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.
I'm going to partially disagree only because Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are so broad and capable of being used for so many different things that trying to say men deserve a positive or negative and women visa versa seems incredibly reductive.
While I appreciate your point, I think you're missing something. While you are (commendably) purely focused on the real world translated to D&D stats (the point of the thread,) pawsplay is switching between saying stats aren't granular enough to register differences, and Marxist dogma about IRL men and women being the same.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 16, 2024, 01:28:48 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 16, 2024, 09:05:18 AM
I'm going to partially disagree only because Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are so broad and capable of being used for so many different things that trying to say men deserve a positive or negative and women visa versa seems incredibly reductive.
While I appreciate your point, I think you're missing something. While you are (commendably) purely focused on the real world translated to D&D stats (the point of the thread,) pawsplay is switching between saying stats aren't granular enough to register differences, and Marxist dogma about IRL men and women being the same.
pawsplay claims that the differences aren't big enough to be represented in game mechanics.
I would say that in a realistic system, the size difference is likely enough to register in the granularity of game mechanics. The strength difference within the same size is less marked but still arguably notable. I've noted the HarnMaster stat modifiers as reasonable. That's for a realistic system, though. In D&D, if halfling are only -1 Strength, then the difference between men and women seems more negligible.
Other proposed stat mods don't seem justified. honeydipperdavid proposed a Dex bonus for women because they can do splits better, but I think that clashes with the game use of Dexterity. Women do tend to have greater joint flexibility from collagen production, but that won't help with armor class or archery accuracy. Similarly, I agree with Chris24601, I don't think mental stats warrant adjustments.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 16, 2024, 01:28:48 PM
While I appreciate your point, I think you're missing something. While you are (commendably) purely focused on the real world translated to D&D stats (the point of the thread,) pawsplay is switching between saying stats aren't granular enough to register differences, and Marxist dogma about IRL men and women being the same.
I didn't miss it (hence my opening statement "The idea that women and men are the same mentally IS Marxist drivel."), I just literally don't care about pawsplay at all.
I DO care that we've got a bunch of folks who seem to be getting tunnel vision in trying to counter pawsplay and falling into just saying things to be contrary to them rather than useful to the discussion and a lot of it seems universally to be "well, women also shouldn't be as intelligent (because there are more male geniuses on the IQ test) and shouldn't have as high a Charisma because men overall have more forceful personalities and maybe even take a ding to Wisdom because Men are better at spatial awareness/working memory problem-solving.
Basically, it starts looking like the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" saying women are inferior at everything simply because that is the easiest counterpoint to Pawsplay's "everyone is the same" argument.
It felt like the nuances were being lost in the rush to prove that someone is "wrong on the internet."
I figured a little reset, particularly on the more ephemeral statistics, would be in order.
I do think, if the ability scores weren't as broad as they are, there could be a real benefit to sex-based score differences; particularly if they were different adjustments for different races to further highlight that, say, elves aren't just humans with pointy ears.
D&D just isn't that system because its not fine-grained enough in the breadth of its attributes (i.e. what each covers; whereas pawsplay was arguing for it being insufficiently fine-grained in the range of scores). I think the closest point to where it would truly make sense in the mental arena would be in the 2e period where they introduced the concept of sub-stats.
With sub-stats you could distinguish between Constitution's damage resistance, stamina, disease resistance, and pain tolerance... or Dexterity's fine-motor control and flexibility from reaction time and spatial skills. You could include differences between presence and manipulation, insight vs. perception, reading and long-term memory vs. speed of calculation in working memory.
But now you're looking at 12+ attributes and, if that worked, we'd still be using the sub-stat system in D&D today.
Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2024, 09:39:43 PM
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
There is evidence right in front of you...not likely ever being around any professional athletes I am sure you missed it. A drug test is an IQ test of your prep team...not a test of if you did or did not use something.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 16, 2024, 02:27:06 AM
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.
ZERO women hit 18/00 ST...do you not understand what a standing military press is? And ZERO men are anywhere near 19 ST. A tiny number of men would be able to pull off 18/00 and if you take away juice...the number is incredibly small.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 20, 2024, 11:27:15 AM
ZERO women hit 18/00 ST...do you not understand what a standing military press is? And ZERO men are anywhere near 19 ST. A tiny number of men would be able to pull off 18/00 and if you take away juice...the number is incredibly small.
I literally gave you names. A military standing press is lifting an amount of weight over your head in one motion. That's what the AD&D PHB 2.5 lists for feats of strengths. There are men and women who have exceeded those numbers. Lots of them. So I'm not sure why you are saying zero women have exceeded the weight listed for 18/100, it kind of seems like you are responding without checking anything, or maybe just lying. So as I said earlier, over the head lifting is about the most favorable for men measurement you can take. Men do definitely have larger numbers, but the disparity is not enough to push it outside the ranges found in any RPG I can think of. Literally, women are lifting high four hundreds over their heads without mechanical assistance, which AD&D says is 18/100.
Plus, characters in D&D are pretty much chemically and mechanically assisted. And that's when they are 100% human, which they are not all. IF anything D&D characters would have crazier possibilities than taking steroids.
I guess I may be some Marxist, whatever the fuck that means. But I can definitely say as someone trained to administrate IQ tests, and who has done so in a clinical environment, most of the objections people are making about men and women having the same IQ are not founded in facts. Men and women do have the same IQ. You can get some scatter in some subjects on some tests, but there is no wide agreement between those results when compared to slightly different constructions on other tests. Further, one of the differences cited as huge, visio-spatial stuff, especially rotation of 3d objects, is highly trainable. It reflects intelligence in much the same way as, say, spelling.
I've definitely seen women win in combat LARPS, with no weight or size classes, no gender divisions, where they are out-represented by men 5:1 or more.
Then there's this girl wrestler who beat all the boys. https://tucson.com/sports/high-school/wrestling/audrey-jimenez-state-championship-wrestling-sunnyside/article_4ed93b78-ce33-11ee-bc44-7ba3b7fe8c99.html
Even though men have some statistical advantages, they aren't enough to keep women from winning time to time, and that's the real reason for gender division in sports. Plenty of the business people admitted that more or less openly in the golden age of baseball.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
A military standing press is lifting an amount of weight over your head in one motion. That's what the AD&D PHB 2.5 lists for feats of strengths. There are men and women who have exceeded those numbers. Lots of them. So I'm not sure why you are saying zero women have exceeded the weight listed for 18/100, it kind of seems like you are responding without checking anything, or maybe just lying. So as I said earlier, over the head lifting is about the most favorable for men measurement you can take. Men do definitely have larger numbers, but the disparity is not enough to push it outside the ranges found in any RPG I can think of.
(emphasis mine)
Male Military Press Standards (lb)Beginner 69 lb
Novice 101 lb
Intermediate 142 lb
Advanced 189 lb
Elite 241 lb
Female Military Press Standards (lb)Beginner 31 lb
Novice 50 lb
Intermediate 76 lb
Advanced 106 lb
Elite 140 lb
Source (https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/military-press/lb)
Alternative Source:
Men's Overhead Press by weight:
(https://boxlifemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/image-44.png)
Women's Overhead Press by weight:
(https://boxlifemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/image-46.png)
Even if you take size difference out of the equation, an elite 260 lb woman can be reasonably expected to overhead press 185lbs, compared to an elite man of the same weight lifting 310. That's almost a 60% difference. That's even worse than the 40% I asked you about earlier that you ignored.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Literally, women are lifting high four hundreds over their heads without mechanical assistance, which AD&D says is 18/100.
According to the second article above, women's overhead press world record was set by Inez Carrasquillo at 300lbs. So you're
literally either making that up or repeating someone else's lies. Unless you have evidence of an unreported world record by a full 33%.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 02:54:18 AM
Alternative Source:
Apologies, realized too late that I forgot to link the second source. Here you are (https://boxlifemagazine.com/overhead-press-average/).
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Literally, women are lifting high four hundreds over their heads without mechanical assistance, which AD&D says is 18/100.
(emphasis mine)
Also, in regards to the margin I calculated over the existing WR, I failed to notice you claimed not only four hundred but
high four hundreds. Being charitable and assuming you mean 460, you're only claiming to have personal knowledge of multiple women exceeding the current record by
53%.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
I literally gave you names.
Names, dates, and weights would be nice.
Greetings!
"The difference between men and women is negligible to represent in an RPG." Well, in reality, as I mentioned before, the physical differences between men and women's elite accomplishments are HUGE. The best women seem to get around being equivalent to or slightly better than the *average* man. That corresponds with the men's 60% greater muscle mass, twitch responses, endurance, bone density, and explosive power. Also as I mentioned, be sure to watch lots of videos where super elite women get fucking CRUSHED by men. In boxing, wrestling, whatever. The women go down so fucking fast it's funny. Fucking LAUGHABLE. There is no hope, there is no competition. ZERO. Stop fucking copium as weak, pussy Feminists.
Face the deep, harsh truth--Men are far stronger and superior to women.
As for RPG's go, well, as I also mentioned, since it is a fantasy game, I don't usually enforce strict sexual limitations for men and women--because some players really want to play XENA!!! *Laughing* Gabrielle was super popular, too. ;D
HACKMASTER is fucking awesome, too. Of course, I loved the comic series that Hackmaster gained inspiration from.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I hate to agree with paws on anything, but the standards you cite aren't records; they're minimum standards. That's like setting the minimum attribute requirement to qualify for a class, not the maximum.
A related problem with using the military press as the standard is that it ceased being an Olympic event in 1972 (before D&D even came out) because it was deemed too hard to judge if the technique was being done properly.
In this case, I don't disagree that the numbers strongly favor men for Strength, just that by relying on a standard that isn't being as widely used it will be more difficult to find recent real numbers as you would for say, the clean and jerk (which still strongly favors men even in the same weight class, but is a current Olympic event).
It's also worth avoiding the uppermost category for the records which has no upper bound on the lifter's weight. The current women's record holder in the 87+kg range weighs 150kg... so proportionally their 187kg record isn't nearly as impressive as the 81kg women lifter's 161kg lift.
Still, even using the difference between Men and Women in the same weight class the distinction is massive; at that same 81kg class that a woman managed 161kg, the man's record is 209kg or 130% of the women's record in the 81kg class.
In fact, in all the records where men and women shared a weight class, the men's weight exceeded the women's record by about that same margin (the man lifts about 130% of the woman's record).
So even a "size" stat where men get a bonus to it doesn't actually cover the difference. Theoretically a 6'3" 230 lb. woman body builder is STILL only going to lift about 75% as much as a 6'3" 230 lb. male body builder will.
Now how much a difference that makes statistically depends on the system.
In something like Mutants & Masterminds it probably wouldn't because each point of strength is TWICE the previous one (Str 0 is lift 200 lb., 1 is 400 lb., 2 is 800 lb., etc.) so the entirety of the human range is between about -2 and 1.5.
In 3.x D&D every 5 points of Strength doubled your lift, so lifting 130% at the same body mass is probably about a +2 bonus (with an enforced body mass requirement for a given score).
In 4E strength is linear with a carry of Str x 10lb. and lift of Str x 20lb. Which is to say, the modifer for men vs. women would have to scale with whatever the base was (i.e. women take a -1 to Strength per 4 points of Strength they bought).
In 5e the base weights are too ridiculous to even measure as average Strength (10) for the system already lets you carry 150 lb. as if you're unencumbered.
* * * *
So, yes, if you're building a realistic setting a Strength modifier makes sense (its size and whether it should be a bonus for men or a penalty for women or a little of each depends on the system).
But that's just Strength. I'd argue against any mental stat adjustments unless you're radically changing the breadth that Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma cover (each has subsets where men or women excel, but at their current breadth the average favors neither sex).
Dexterity is also a bit too broad; missile fire favors men, but open locks, pick pocket and stealth favor women and AC favors neither (men would be more effective at parrying, women tend to be smaller targets).
Constitution would need to subdivided between stamina (favors men) and pain/disease resistance (women; also, while women will tend to complain about cold before men, they're physiologically better at surviving it than men... the reason they feel cold more easily is because their body is quicker to pull blood/heat to the vital organs to protect a potential child in their womb... which means they survive longer than men*).
Basically, other than Strength the rest of the scores are broad enough that modifers to the whole attribute would be difficult to justify (I've previously listed several skill modifers that would make sense though).
This of course presumes baseline humans in a mundane environment. It's a good reference point to start from, but failing to consider the setting/genre will probably make many elements moot or radically different (ex. the environment is filled with a weave of arcane energy that responds to the will. You are as strong as your psyche believes you should be because of this innate magic... also used to justify why the setting uses point buy instead of random rolls for attributes overall).
* as the joke goes, men dying first is a mercy for them, because when you're both freezing to death, the last thing a husband wants to hear is his wife telling him "I'm cooold!"
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2024, 08:32:29 AM
I hate to agree with paws on anything, but the standards you cite aren't records; they're minimum standards. That's like setting the minimum attribute requirement to qualify for a class, not the maximum.
I think you're letting paws off way to easliy. His main contention is that the differences between men's and women's lifting are small enough to be washed out in the mechanics of the game. My retort is that that's laughable. The very fact that there are separate categories for men's and women's lifting, and that the numbers are so disparate between, whether they be standards, records, or any other kind of stat.
Secondly, and even more ridiculous, he claims to have knowledge of women exceeding the record I cited by
more than half again. Until he either retracts or substatiates that claim I don't see any reason to take anything he says in this thread seriously.
As for any of the differences other than strength, I am ambivalent. There's no good mapping between how we understand inteligence in the real world and how the game abstracts it, and that assumes we have a good understanding of how intelligence works irl, which I doubt anyway.
Quote from: SHARK on February 22, 2024, 08:18:10 AM
Face the deep, harsh truth--Men are far stronger and superior to women.
(emphasis mine)
Careful with that language. So far, paws has been pretty good about merely stating blatant falsehoods, rather than resorting to sladerous ad hominem accusations. He's got questions to answer, don't give him an excuse to deflect them.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 10:43:59 AM
I think you're letting paws off way to easliy. His main contention is that the differences between men's and women's lifting are small enough to be washed out in the mechanics of the game. My retort is that that's laughable. The very fact that there are separate categories for men's and women's lifting, and that the numbers are so disparate between, whether they be standards, records, or any other kind of stat.
Its more that I feel citing minimum standards is a weak argument and too easy to deflect from with "well, that's just the minimum; SOME women could be stronger."
Which is why I instead went to record-holders... i.e. the upper limits of what is currently possible for humans.
The fact that, within the same weight category (i.e. 81kg male vs. 81kg female) the men's record is consistently 130% of the women's record for Clean & Jerk tells you everything you need to know about relative strength in way paws can't refute nearly so easily.
It also shuts down the "well, its only because women are smaller; if they were large like Brianne of Tarth they could lift as much."
No they can't.
The records prove it.
Men of the same weight as women absolutely outclass women in strength (it's a very consistent across weight classes at 130%).
Throwing in that men are, on average, larger than women, just skews the difference even more because the average man is about 33% larger than the average women... so in general its more like men vs. women in the same percentile range for size (ex. a man at the upper 10% range for men vs. a woman in the upper 10% range for women) are lifting c. 175% what the woman does.
Now, if we're building rather than rolling characters you could decide you're playing a women in the upper reaches of size for women... I recall one woman weightlifter (who looked like a tank) from my research who was 6'1" and 230 lb.; and she could be stronger than some men due to her size... but once she's competing against a male weightlifter who's 180 lb. or more... she'll be losing consistently because that's when the man's power-to-weight ratio advantage will overcome her raw size advantage.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2024, 02:04:30 PM
Its more that I feel citing minimum standards is a weak argument and too easy to deflect from with "well, that's just the minimum; SOME women could be stronger."
Which is why I instead went to record-holders... i.e. the upper limits of what is currently possible for humans.
Not unfair. Which is why brought up that he claims to have knowledge of women lifting 50% more than the current record.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 03:01:48 AM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Literally, women are lifting high four hundreds over their heads without mechanical assistance, which AD&D says is 18/100.
(emphasis mine)
Also, in regards to the margin I calculated over the existing WR, I failed to notice you claimed not only four hundred but high four hundreds. Being charitable and assuming you mean 460, you're only claiming to have personal knowledge of multiple women exceeding the current record by 53%.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
I literally gave you names.
Names, dates, and weights would be nice.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 16, 2024, 02:40:21 PM...
Good thoughts Chris24601. High level I agree that the resolution of D&D's attributes are too broad generally to represent the nuances of difference between male & female characters in most cases. That is why I don't really find the discussion over attributes interesting or engaging (+ bad faith arguments + offtopic veering into modern sports discussion).
However, in actual play rarely do I see attributes utilized directly. Almost all usage in D&D (at least versions I am familiar with) utilize attributes as part of a derived value, which can include any number of modifiers that exist in the game narrative. This gives as much resolution as you want for the purposes of gameplay without needing to invent a slew of new attributes. For example, Elven ability to find secret doors doesn't require adding a "Finding secret doors" attribute. I think this also allows for more appropriate discretion in application of bonuses, that a numerical ranking doesn't provide.
If you simply apply a Size modifier to men, I won't argue it's inaccurate. It's probably pointless, though, except in games with randomly determined size.
If you want to apply about a +2 difference in Strength between men and women, on a D&D level scale, I won't argue it's inaccurate. It's probably pointless, though, except in games with randomly determined Size. And it's difficult to argue the full value of the difference is intrinsic; there are many obvious reasons to assume it's partly a matter of behavior and culture. But if you think your game system would benefit from arguing there is about a +1 or so, apart from Size, knock yourself out. But both men and woman have achieved lifting efforts way outside any normal person's range, so at that scale, both men and women are going to hit maximal values. You could make it part of a template for something like GURPS, which is open-ended, but then again, it makes no difference at all in points if people just subtract out that difference when they are building their character anyway.
AD&D can't even justify the gender differences originally present, and they were eventually discarded as pointless anyway. In a point-based game, any such difference is just a suggestion, it's utterly without purpose as far as limiting characters.
I can name one game system where the difference in scale might be measurable, and which takes Size into account at a scale that registers in the game, and where a Strength modifier might be justifiable. It's the classic version of Runequest and its spin-off games. You could suggest men and women roll different numbers for Size. If you squint, you might be able to justify a point or two difference in raw Strength between human men and women.
A quick rundown of how Strength difference might be represented in some popular systems:
GURPS: A numerical difference is slightly more justifiable than for AD&D, but makes no difference at all in character generation, since you can just make the final numbers whatever you want.
Savage Worlds: No measurable difference. Men are more likely to have the Brawny Edge.
Mutants & Masterminds: No measurable difference at this scale, even at the extremes. All top power lifters rate Strength 3. World record-breakers, men and women, rate Strength 4, or perhaps they have the Extreme Effort Advantage.
Marvel FASERIP: No significant differences at the scale it uses. Perhaps Excellent Strength is more common among men.
DC Heroes: No significant differences. Similar scale to M&M.
Vampire: The Masequerade: Same scale as DC Heroes, 1 to 5. The distribution is different for men and women, but all top performing men and women would rate Strength 5.
AD&D: Maybe a two point difference, but men and women break the top of the scale established for 18/100. Certainly overall power relative to a halfling seems more significant.
Champions: Maybe if you want to reflect lifting strength specifically, a couple of points difference. But of course a player can set whatever value you want, so this would only effect generic NPCs.
Do this exercise again and again, and you will find it's a wash. Either the scale isn't fine enough, or the high values are open-ended, or players can set whatever value they want anyway.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
If you simply apply a Size modifier to men, I won't argue it's inaccurate. It's probably pointless, though, except in games with randomly determined size.
If you want to apply about a +2 difference in Strength between men and women, on a D&D level scale, I won't argue it's inaccurate.
That's a pretty stark about face from:
Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Men do definitely have larger numbers, but the disparity is not enough to push it outside the ranges found in any RPG I can think of.
Which is progress, and appreciated.
But then we have
Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
AD&D: Maybe a two point difference, but men and women break the top of the scale established for 18/100.
If I'm reading this (https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Strength_(PHB)) right, a Str of 18/100 would enable a character to overhead press a full 480lbs. This exceeds the record I referenced previously by a full 60%, and also exceeds the men's world record of 430 set by Larry Wheels on August 23, 2018 (https://boxlifemagazine.com/overhead-press-average/), which would put him in the range of 18/91-99. So unless you can give a reference for these record shattering feats, you still seem to be blatantly misinformed.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 08:42:29 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
AD&D: Maybe a two point difference, but men and women break the top of the scale established for 18/100.
If I'm reading this (https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Strength_(PHB)) right, a Str of 18/100 would enable a character to overhead press a full 480lbs. This exceeds the record I referenced previously by a full 60%, and also exceeds the men's world record of 430 set by Larry Wheels on August 23, 2018 (https://boxlifemagazine.com/overhead-press-average/), which would put him in the range of 18/91-99. So unless you can give a reference for these record shattering feats, you still seem to be blatantly misinformed.
The description of "Maximum Press" from the AD&D2 PH reads:
QuoteMaximum Press is the heaviest weight a character can pick up and lift over his head. A character cannot walk more than a few steps this way. No human or humanoid creature without exceptional Strength can lift more than twice his body weight over his head. In 1987, the world record for lifting a weight overhead in a single move was 465 pounds. A heroic fighter with Strength 18/00 (see Table 1) can lift up to 480 pounds the same way and he can hold it overhead for a longer time!
I'm not clear from the description, but the "in a single move" and the stated record sounds like what is considered "snatch" rather than "press" in weightlifting parlance. If it is a snatch, then 480 pounds has now been exceeded by a man (Lasha Talakhadze with 496 pounds), but not by a woman.
I'm not sure what pawsplay was interpreting, but it might be different material. In 1E AD&D, it says that 18 Strength means that a character can lift 180 pounds over his or her head in a military press, but it doesn't specify what an 18/00 Strength can press.
Quote from: jhkim on February 22, 2024, 10:02:35 PM
I'm not clear from the description, but the "in a single move" and the stated record sounds like what is considered "snatch" rather than "press" in weightlifting parlance. If it is a snatch, then 480 pounds has now been exceeded by a man (Lasha Talakhadze with 496 pounds), but not by a woman.
Fair. I don't know anything about weightlifting, I was just going off the lift paws was talking about. Looking at the description of not being able to take more than a few steps with that weight, I think either the snatch or the clean and jerk would be reasonable analogs. According to the Internation Weightlifting Federation (https://iwf.sport/results/world-records/), world record women's clean and jerk is 187kg (412lbs) by Li Wenwen on April 25, 2021, so paws' saying women breaking 400lbs was correct, but certainly not high 400s and still not to 18/100. And to say the difference between that and the men's record of 267 kg (588 lbs) by TALAKHADZE Lasha on Oct 02, 1993, (same source (https://iwf.sport/results/world-records/)) a 40% difference, is deminimus is still laughable.
Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
And it's difficult to argue the full value of the difference is intrinsic; there are many obvious reasons to assume it's partly a matter of behavior and culture.
No, if you weren't so busy pushing an agenda you'd see I already provided evidence that the intrinsic difference between the upper ranges of strength for men and women who weigh the same is consistently, regardless of the specific weight chosen, that men lift about 130% more than women do in the clean and jerk (or to put it another way, the best woman weightlifter can only manage 77% of the best man of the same weight).
When multiple men and women competitors across a broad spectrum of weight classes provide such consistent results, that rules out just about every factor EXCEPT the intrinsic difference between the physiology of men and women as the reason.
Greetings!
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: SHARK on February 22, 2024, 08:18:10 AM
Face the deep, harsh truth--Men are far stronger and superior to women.
(emphasis mine)
Careful with that language. So far, paws has been pretty good about merely stating blatant falsehoods, rather than resorting to sladerous ad hominem accusations. He's got questions to answer, don't give him an excuse to deflect them.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Ahh, yes. Very true, Zenoguy 3. Good point! Keep that grill going properly!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.
That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.
It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.
Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 01:42:27 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.
That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.
It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.
So stop arguing for females having no penalty, and instead argue that it should be a little one.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 23, 2024, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 01:42:27 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.
That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.
It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.
So stop arguing for females having no penalty, and instead argue that it should be a little one.
If a male halfling is -1 Strength, then if one is consistent, the penalty for human female should be less than 0.5 and thus rounded to zero. The same goes for male elves -- who are on average a foot shorter and 75 pounds lighter than male humans in 1E.
I've said before that in a more realistic system, like HarnMaster, adjustments are reasonable - but the same system also means a human male can't possibly take on a 1500 pound polar bear, let alone a ten-ton dragon.
Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 05:10:57 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 23, 2024, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 01:42:27 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.
That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.
It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.
So stop arguing for females having no penalty, and instead argue that it should be a little one.
If a male halfling is -1 Strength, then if one is consistent, the penalty for human female should be less than 0.5 and thus rounded to zero. The same goes for male elves -- who are on average a foot shorter and 75 pounds lighter than male humans in 1E.
So male Elves should be -1 STR, and female Halflings and Elves should be -2 STR, gotcha.
Should they? I mean Strenght attribute is not the same thing as Strength as real thing I would say.
For instance in terms of D&D it usually influences precision of melee attacks.
Which in some cases - let's say axes have a lot of sense, but let's say with spear... bit less. (That's why spear is traditionally weapon for women - if they need to have one).
So while not as much as other attributes, if we look at what Strength influences in actual game, even it, simplest of attributes can be bitof hodgepodge.
Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2024, 11:40:00 AM
Should they? I mean Strenght attribute is not the same thing as Strength as real thing I would say.
For instance in terms of D&D it usually influences precision of melee attacks.
Which in some cases - let's say axes have a lot of sense, but let's say with spear... bit less. (That's why spear is traditionally weapon for women - if they need to have one).
So while not as much as other attributes, if we look at what Strength influences in actual game, even it, simplest of attributes can be bitof hodgepodge.
Honestly, while I know why it was set up for Strength to improve melee attacks; I think overall making the to-hit modifier for weapon attacks exclusive to class and level would both reduce complexity and improve both balance and realism.
Give weapons Strength minimums and let Strength affect damage dealt and that should be sufficient to make it desirable for warriors to have a good strength, but not much so that a female warrior concept employing a polearm would be ridiculously underpowered.
Quote from: Wtrmute on March 20, 2023, 02:47:30 PM
Yes, when talking about IQ, women are on average ever-so-slightly more intelligent (although I don't think the difference could be captured on a 3d6 roll) than men, but also have a smaller standard deviation (that one definitely can't be captured with a 3d6 roll).
Sure it can. If we ignore the 'reeeeee' and take male humans as the 'default adventurer':
Male Strength: 3d6 - min 3, median 10.5, max 18
Female Strength: - 2d4+1d6 - min 3, median 8.5, max 14
Male Dexterity: 3d6 - min 3, median 10.5, max 18
Female Dexterity: 2d6+1d4+2 - min 5, median 11.5, max 18
Male Constitution: 3d6 - min 3, median 10.5, max 18
Female Constitution: 2d6+1d4+2 - min 5, median 11.5, max 18
Male Intelligence: 3d6 - min 3, median 10.5, max 18
Female Intelligence: 3d4+4 - min 7, median 11.5, max 16
Male Charisma: 3d6 - min 3, median 10.5, max 18
Female Charisma: 1d6+2d4+3 - min 6, median 11.5, max 17
Male Wisdom: 3d6 - min 3, median 10.5, max 18
Female Wisdom: 1d6+2d4+3 - min 6, median 11.5, max 17
As ppl said, "testosterone is a hell of a drug".
I wouldn't do this myself unless I wanted to make some kind of political point about human biodiversity, but I've got better hills to die on.
I've given the players the option of +1 to any one stat and -1 to any one stat to represent WHATEVER they want to represent for their character. AKA, they can represent age issues, injuries, training, biological differences, etc.
Thus the player who wants to give -1 STR and +1 CHA to their Elf Chick PC can do so without anyone else feeling that all women of the world have been offended by the game.
I'm not sure I'd put lower limits to female Cha and Wis, while giving them full scope of Dex and Con.