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. 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

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

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