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.

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, a number of women to 120kg or more squats, IT desk workers to 200kg deadlifts, guys recovering from lymphatic cancer to squatting 162.5kg and deadlifting 200kg, untrained paediatricians on nightshifts to do chinups, a woman in her 50s squat 100 and bench 60, and a woman in her 70s to deadlift 120kg, which I don't have a video of, but here she is deadlifting 90kg 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!

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, women's record full power deadlift is 375 lbs, whereas men's record 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, women's record full power deadlift is 375 lbs, whereas men's record 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.