Quote from: Razor 007;1104575It's fine for women to be bigger than men, but with less muscular strength.  Not fat, just big-boned.  But how do you reflect size in ability scores, without it being indicative of strength?

BRP makes Size a separate stat and averages it with Constitution for Hit Points and with Strength to find a damage bonus.  I think Runequest three might have had females roll 2d6+3 for Strength but I'd have to dig up the box to be sure.

As for women being smaller, I've got a 300 pound sister in law who's shorter than me and I ain't tall.  So that's like SIZ 18.  Fat people generally have very strong legs because they're constantly lifting all that extra weight but rpg Strength is more about arm and upper body strength.

Quote from: David Johansen;1104797BRP makes Size a separate stat and averages it with Constitution for Hit Points and with Strength to find a damage bonus.  I think Runequest three might have had females roll 2d6+3 for Strength but I'd have to dig up the box to be sure.

As for women being smaller, I've got a 300 pound sister in law who's shorter than me and I ain't tall.  So that's like SIZ 18.  Fat people generally have very strong legs because they're constantly lifting all that extra weight but rpg Strength is more about arm and upper body strength.

Got any pictures?  Just kidding.....

Strong man bad.

Strong woman good.

Oh, ok; I get it now....

It seems some objections relate to framing differences as penalties. If female human stats were the default and male humans got a strength bonus, would it still be a problem?

Quote from: mightybrain;1104997It seems some objections relate to framing differences as penalties. If female human stats were the default and male humans got a strength bonus, would it still be a problem?

Potentially.  

There are still a lot of ways you can handle it badly, and still a lot of reasons you might want to avoid that as well.  

If you felt that physical strength primarily refers to upper-body strength, and you felt that upper body strength applies directly to weapon damage, and you felt that the differences between men and women (as well as the accurate differences between humans and gnomes, halflings, elves, and dwarves) were important and you wanted to ensure male characters were stronger on average compared to female characters, there are broadly two ways you can approach it.

The first is a bonus/penalty.  A penalty psychologically is more difficult to accept for most people than not getting a bonus.  If you give players a penalty to one stat or another, they might not like it; if you give them a bonus to every stat EXCEPT one, they usually don't object as much.  While mathematically it can work out the same way, there's a psychological aversion to loss that doesn't apply when you never had something to begin with.  Losing $10 hurts more than not getting $10.  Beyond that, though, you definitely have a situation where there's no way to close the gap.  If you make the highest stat a 16 and lots of +2s, the strongest male characters will have an 18 and the strongest female characters will have a 16.  If it's important to a character concept to be 'as strong as possible', you're making it difficult or impossible for female characters to explore that concept.  

A second way (at least with point buy) is to adjust the starting stats; if you start men with a 10 STR and women with an 8 STR, but they can both buy up to an 18, it would take female characters more resources to achieve an 18, but they still could.  That allows those concepts to at least be available, even if they're not optimal.  If female characters have SOME advantage (for example, if their Dexterity starts at 10 while male characters Dex starts at , people are going to be more willing to accept it.  Ultimately, with something along these lines you'd expect male characters to be stronger on average (they got a 10 to start, compared to a woman's 8, and even if they invest equal resources, the male character maintains an advantage).  

A variant on this would be to start every stat the same and apply point-buy as normal, but allow people to 'burn' a stat for an increase in another.  Maybe you can take -2 Int for +1 Con, etc (ie, -2 for a +1) but for male characters they can build strength at a 1:1 ratio (ie, -2 Con for +2 Str).  These tend to achieve the same stated goal - achieving a system where male characters are stronger ON AVERAGE without unduly limiting female characters.  

If women can achieve the same results men do, even if it requires more work, most people will accept it, especially if there is a mix of bonuses and penalties and they're more or less 'fair'.  Giving women bonus Charisma (which is widely viewed as a dump stat) but applying penalties to Str/Con wouldn't qualify.  And the less clear-cut the example is, the more likely (and appropriately) people are to be offended.  If a significant number of people are willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Strength, a much smaller number are probably willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Intelligence (regardless of which way you apply the advantage).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105007Potentially.  

There are still a lot of ways you can handle it badly, and still a lot of reasons you might want to avoid that as well.  

If you felt that physical strength primarily refers to upper-body strength, and you felt that upper body strength applies directly to weapon damage, and you felt that the differences between men and women (as well as the accurate differences between humans and gnomes, halflings, elves, and dwarves) were important and you wanted to ensure male characters were stronger on average compared to female characters, there are broadly two ways you can approach it.

The first is a bonus/penalty.  A penalty psychologically is more difficult to accept for most people than not getting a bonus.  If you give players a penalty to one stat or another, they might not like it; if you give them a bonus to every stat EXCEPT one, they usually don't object as much.  While mathematically it can work out the same way, there's a psychological aversion to loss that doesn't apply when you never had something to begin with.  Losing $10 hurts more than not getting $10.  Beyond that, though, you definitely have a situation where there's no way to close the gap.  If you make the highest stat a 16 and lots of +2s, the strongest male characters will have an 18 and the strongest female characters will have a 16.  If it's important to a character concept to be 'as strong as possible', you're making it difficult or impossible for female characters to explore that concept.  

A second way (at least with point buy) is to adjust the starting stats; if you start men with a 10 STR and women with an 8 STR, but they can both buy up to an 18, it would take female characters more resources to achieve an 18, but they still could.  That allows those concepts to at least be available, even if they're not optimal.  If female characters have SOME advantage (for example, if their Dexterity starts at 10 while male characters Dex starts at , people are going to be more willing to accept it.  Ultimately, with something along these lines you'd expect male characters to be stronger on average (they got a 10 to start, compared to a woman's 8, and even if they invest equal resources, the male character maintains an advantage).  

A variant on this would be to start every stat the same and apply point-buy as normal, but allow people to 'burn' a stat for an increase in another.  Maybe you can take -2 Int for +1 Con, etc (ie, -2 for a +1) but for male characters they can build strength at a 1:1 ratio (ie, -2 Con for +2 Str).  These tend to achieve the same stated goal - achieving a system where male characters are stronger ON AVERAGE without unduly limiting female characters.  

If women can achieve the same results men do, even if it requires more work, most people will accept it, especially if there is a mix of bonuses and penalties and they're more or less 'fair'.  Giving women bonus Charisma (which is widely viewed as a dump stat) but applying penalties to Str/Con wouldn't qualify.  And the less clear-cut the example is, the more likely (and appropriately) people are to be offended.  If a significant number of people are willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Strength, a much smaller number are probably willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Intelligence (regardless of which way you apply the advantage).

But women can, and often are as intelligent or more than men, the difference is in variability, women concentrate in the middle of the curve, having less geniuses and less idiots, while men are more spread, producing more of both geniuses and idiots.

While the opposite is true regarding Strength.

And yes, if you were to do this and you have fictional species you would need to take those into consideration too. Which might mean having a fictional species where the males are weaker then the females. Somehow I doubt all those who claim that "people" could get offended appropriately by this rule would not have a problem with say having Orc females be stronger or fey females smarter than their male counterparts.

Sadly now we can't make the experiment because they might just pretend to be fake outraged instead of being genuinely fake outraged on behalf of someone else being possibly offended somehow somewhere someway.

On average, girls outperform boys in almost all school subjects. In literacy particularly this gap equates to about a 20% advantage, or +4 in d20 terms. Pretty good for would be spellcasters.

Quote from: mightybrain;1105011On average, girls outperform boys in almost all school subjects. In literacy particularly this gap equates to about a 20% advantage, or +4 in d20 terms. Pretty good for would be spellcasters.

How dare you!? Acknowledging differences is a proof that you're an Istphobetm

For those of you who want gender dimorphism reflected in RPG rules, what exactly do you feel would be gained?

When I see crap like Ms. Monopoly giving female players $40 extra vs male players each time they Pass Go, that just makes the game worse for everyone. Nobody gains from playing a feminized version of Monopoly. It's a sad joke for a lame culture.

As RPGs aren't reality simulators, but escapist fantasy, why would STR limits make the game better?

Especially as GMs have total control of how NPCs are presented in the world.
 

Quote from: cranebump;1104768Given the typical postures I see on constant display around her, I would think "fuck off, I'm playing my way" is about the only thing we **might** all agree on.

True!

And that's a good thing. The only thing we need to agree upon is everyone's right to disagree.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105017For those of you who want gender dimorphism reflected in RPG rules, what exactly do you feel would be gained?

When I see crap like Ms. Monopoly giving female players $40 extra vs male players each time they Pass Go, that just makes the game worse for everyone. Nobody gains from playing a feminized version of Monopoly. It's a sad joke for a lame culture.

As RPGs aren't reality simulators, but escapist fantasy, why would STR limits make the game better?

Especially as GMs have total control of how NPCs are presented in the world.
 



True!

And that's a good thing. The only thing we need to agree upon is everyone's right to disagree.

Not sure if anybody really wants to model it, I have said several times I'm very happy with my Red Sonja beats Conan types of games.

What could be gained? Dunno, if you want a simulationist experience lots I guess, if you want escapism not much, except if you want to use said dimorphism to create a new species with the culture it might engender. Say Female Orcs are the bigger, meaner and stronger, how would that affect play?

For me it was from the beginning an intellectual exercise, what changes would you need to do?

Then it became fun to argue with the ones Reeeeing.

Not really sure any game would be better because of it, but I'm in the camp of people are free to think and do and who knows maybe someone could make a fun game even with this piece of sacrilegious rule.

Do people have a problem with gender dimorphism in non-human species?

I thought the argument was only focused on human PCs.

Quote from: mightybrain;1104997It seems some objections relate to framing differences as penalties. If female human stats were the default and male humans got a strength bonus, would it still be a problem?

Probably moreso if that was all. If going that route, and one or two RPGs have, then the way to go is to give women a DEX bonus. Or think one gave them a CON type bonus? Been a long time and not positive.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105022Not sure if anybody really wants to model it, I have said several times I'm very happy with my Red Sonja beats Conan types of games.

The hilarious part is. In the original comics this Sonja is based on... She gets her head handed to her more than a few times.

The difference is she gets up and goes at it again, usually with a better plan, or a plan at all, even if that plan is, "pure luck!". She isnt invincible, and neither was Conan for that matter. I'd say if you pitted the two against eachother it would be a draw.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105026Do people have a problem with gender dimorphism in non-human species?

I thought the argument was only focused on human PCs.

Probably! And even that was also limited to AD&D. Because to these nuts it is never enough. Human women just as strong as men? Fuck that the game is still sexist because orc men are stronger than orc women!

Quote from: Omega;1105034The hilarious part is. In the original comics this Sonja is based on... She gets her head handed to her more than a few times.

The difference is she gets up and goes at it again, usually with a better plan, or a plan at all, even if that plan is, "pure luck!". She isnt invincible, and neither was Conan for that matter. I'd say if you pitted the two against eachother it would be a draw.

Right, on all accounts.

I seem to remember Sonja and Conan going at each other and she bests him, now if this was in the comics or the novels I don't honestly know.