Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095903But I guess, male nerds having issues about women is not exactly a new problem...

Well, yeah, but we let you play anyway.

For myself, this thread is only interesting in the responses it's getting. Giving characters stat mods based on sex isn't an aspect of "realism" that I want to emulate.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095924For myself, this thread is only interesting in the responses it's getting. Giving characters stat mods based on sex isn't an aspect of "realism" that I want to emulate.

Not really my cup of tea either. IMO, stats are mostly a comparison and desctiptive issue outside of their mechanical effects. A woman with 17 Con and 18 Strength isn't Mary the tavern girl, she's probably more like a Brienne. But a man with similar stats isn't Johan the stable boy, but likely more of Hound or even The Mountain. Or have the potential to be like those characters with their abilties.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1095674Based on the 2018 Olympics the top women lifted a combined 331kg, vs 478kg for the top man, or about 70% or a max of 13.

That presumes Strength scales linearly.

In AD&D an 18/99 Strength has only about 75% of the carry capacity of an 18/00 (assuming the 105# normal for heavily encumbered movement and the +200# from 18/99 and +300# from 18/00), so simply limiting females to a Strength of 18/99 in that system would be the correct correlation.

Likewise, in 3e the 478kg corresponds to about a Strength 22 (a level 16 human with an 18 starting Strength who put all their ability points from leveling into Strength could do this without magic... and be something like one-in-a-few-million people based on 3e's assumptions about the number of NPCs of level X in the world) and 331kg to about a Strength 20. This presumes the "you can stagger around while lifting twice your heavy load corresponds to Olympic weightlifting. So in that case we're talking a difference of just 2 points and both maximums are above the starting scores of 3-18.

If you're going to throw in sex-based Strength limits, make sure to consult your system's actual carrying/lifting rules before you drop a straight linear reduction on top of the ability scores.

Personally, I think it was somewhere in the 1e PHB, but I really liked a rule therein that limited the amount you could lift/carry to a percentage of the character's actual weight. So you might have an explosive strength of 18/00 for hitting and damaging, but because you're only 150 lb. you're never going to get more than X times 150 lb. over your head.

Quote from: trechriron;1095877

• Do fat men get a bonus on attractiveness?
• Will there be a bonus based on wealth?
• If I'm a noble, and I have instituded Prima Notcum, what is the number and frequency of marriages I can count on for potential offspring? Is that rolled or do we just roleplay that out? Will it factor into my conscription or hireling rates? It may not be worth the trouble otherwise.
• If someone drinks a potion of gender swapping, do they also swap Abilities? Like, attractiveness becomes STR and vice versa? Which ones swap? I mean, besides the penis and vagina.
• Are you going to have classes based on societal roles? Like, I want to play a female adventurer so my starting class options will be; cook, baker, bar wench, seamstress, field worker, prostitute, midwife, dutiful wife? I'm guessing the male adventurers fare a little better at the start? Because they can fight, ride, wrestle, read / write and travel the countryside defending the kingdom? Are females more inclined to be mages? THAT could be a fantastic -consolation- *ahem* I mean... option.
• Can female PCs earn experience back at home performing "womanly" duties? How do you foresee running the split party of adventuring males and homebound females? If the females are usually wizards, do they get a bonus for downtime work? It's going to be a little tedious watching the men adventure while the women work feverishly on magic items. And mending armor. And cleaning clothes. OOOOH. If the female "adventurer" cleans and repairs armor REALLY well can the male adventurers get a bonus on AC? What about REALLY good meals? Certainly if my female character labors over a fantastic meal AND makes a good roll, that should what... double healing rates?
• If one of the female characters performs her "womanly duties" for the returning adventurers does it heal fear affects? Curses? What about the hirelings. Can amazing sex increase the moral of hirelings? That would be cool. Probably should account for some kind of CON roll/save to see if she gets pregnant. That shit can ruin an adventurer's year, ya know? Sounds like a valid challenge. OOOOOH Pregnancy Skill Challenge! Yes. This would be fun. Ish. Honestly it will be a great way to limit magic item creation from the female Wizards.

You know, there is way too much deliberation on stats. Why not just give all females an 8 + d4 rolled in order. Then, roll %. If you roll a 25 or less your attractiveness is a 14 + 1d4 instead. I hardly imagine all these female focused "adventuring" activities really require any higher abilities. With a good design on female classes, you can bake in all the skill bonuses necessary to navigate those female duties with aplomb.

I can really see how now how the FATAL guys got sidetracked down this rabbit hole. I mean look at all the adventuring challenges females endure! So much opportunity for hardship, oppression and medically related death! If you set aside all modern science, all modern conventions of equality, all concern for player happiness and just LASER FOCUS on all that authentic realistic goodness, you could totally recreate ye olden days. It's like, right there in front of us!

So when I can roll up my dutiful wife female PC for the playtest? This shit is getting me excited. I'm going to look death during child birth right in the eye and tell it go fuck itself!!

You are a one person Unearthed Arcana. Oh wait, you would be if you proposed answers to any of your questions. It's really easy to try and derail a conversation. It's not so easy to contribute. At some point as a designer you have to decide how complicated you want a new system to be. I can tell you that I'm aiming for a little more complicated than D&D5E. With the elimination of different race options, gender just serves where race does in the D&D5E SRD.

Prima Noctum is a myth.

As for all things having to do with something like a PC's pregnancy, I'm sure those are tough decisions to make, just like a real pregnancy has many consequences and joys. Cultural norms and other social dynamics will be included in the campaign setting, and anything requiring mechancial resolution will be simple enough to handle with a few options or rolls. Anything more complicated will be optional rules or house rules.

Trade related classes? I would say some of those would be interesting Backgrounds. This is 5th Edition after all, and I personally love the Background system. The base classes in the 5E SRD will stay the same.

Traditional XP has always been a bit odd. At many tables unless you kill it, you don't get XP. I think awarding XP based on DCs and the difficulties of tasks will always venture into DM fiat, but I'd like to include some good tables and guidelines to follow so that "rules as written" would be functional and rewarding for all kinds of activities. I'm not sure how NPC levels will be handled just yet.

I'm pretty sure gender swapping potions describe the character keeping their current stats, but I could be wrong. It's not something I worry about too much. If attractiveness as a stat makes it in, those features would follow suit, and modifiers would follow the opposite sex's rules.

Male and female attractiveness is one of the dynamics that is very different for both sexes. There are a lot of variables to consider, so there will be some that make the cut of being included, and some that won't outside of Rule Zero.

Have you never had a hireling or a squire in a game that tended to more domestic duties? I would imagine having good maintenance and good food would be taken into consideration on an expedition when it comes to bonuses, possibly even Inspiration if those things included roleplay that added to the fun of the session. My intent is not to make every female PC a good housewife. My intent is to highlight the differences in gender and bring out the best of both. Gender dynamics, sexuality, and the benefits of marriage and raising a family would be discussed and would have mechanics to go along with them.

If it really bothers you, you can always assign the character's sex after rolling the stats.

Quote from: Chris24601;1095932That presumes Strength scales linearly.

In AD&D an 18/99 Strength has only about 75% of the carry capacity of an 18/00 (assuming the 105# normal for heavily encumbered movement and the +200# from 18/99 and +300# from 18/00), so simply limiting females to a Strength of 18/99 in that system would be the correct correlation.

Likewise, in 3e the 478kg corresponds to about a Strength 22 (a level 16 human with an 18 starting Strength who put all their ability points from leveling into Strength could do this without magic... and be something like one-in-a-few-million people based on 3e's assumptions about the number of NPCs of level X in the world) and 331kg to about a Strength 20. This presumes the "you can stagger around while lifting twice your heavy load corresponds to Olympic weightlifting. So in that case we're talking a difference of just 2 points and both maximums are above the starting scores of 3-18.

If you're going to throw in sex-based Strength limits, make sure to consult your system's actual carrying/lifting rules before you drop a straight linear reduction on top of the ability scores.

Personally, I think it was somewhere in the 1e PHB, but I really liked a rule therein that limited the amount you could lift/carry to a percentage of the character's actual weight. So you might have an explosive strength of 18/00 for hitting and damaging, but because you're only 150 lb. you're never going to get more than X times 150 lb. over your head.

Thanks for the insight from older D&D editions. Encumbrance has become optional in D&D5E, but I'd want to make sure things are reasonably realistic when it comes to female STR. I'm thinking of having a second d20 roll for females that roll a 13, with a chance of having 18 STR, albeit smaller than males:

  1-  6  13
  7-11  14
12-15  15
16-18  16
     19  17
     20  18

I'm not sure if the math is right on the second part. There are some contributors to this thread that seem to have a better handle on the arrays, but this is my first effort.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095936Thanks for the insight from older D&D editions. Encumbrance has become optional in D&D5E, but I'd want to make sure things are reasonably realistic when it comes to female STR. I'm thinking of having a second d20 roll for females that roll a 13, with a chance of having 18 STR, albeit smaller than males

The biggest problem your numbers have is that if you're using 5e, the default for rolled is "4d6, drop lowest, place in any order" and the default array and point buy is based off the statistical probabilities that result from six scores using "4d6, drop lowest."

Then on top of that the default system uses the same system for all species and adjusts the results using racial modifiers (humans get +1 to all scores unless using the variant rules).

This means that the median ability score for a human is actually a 13 (12+1) and the mean/average is actually 13.24 (12.24+1)... with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 19. The highest score they can get using an Array or Point Buy is a 16.

The highest any score can reach (even with ability modifiers) without magic is a 20 which using their "score x 15 lb." for encumbrance actually tops out carry at 300 lb. and lift at 600 lb., well below what even the female weightlifters cited above could achieve, much less the male weightlifters.

Using stat specific expressions based around a straight 3d6 (or whatever variant you assign based on that) will result in a character that significantly underperforms compared to 5e's expectations of competence.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1095893I would say that for the OP's project to generate that much response it can't be idiotic, or easily dismissed out of hand.

I submit that traditional RPGs, like D&D, deal with archetypes and anthropological constants found in the human psyche ; in medieval heroic occurences, those would be the archetypal Knight and the archetypal Princess. Though each of us, man and woman, has a kind of Knight image and Princess image in our psyche, it just happens that boys consciously identify with the chivalric image, and girls consciously identify with the princess image.

One advantage of structured make-believe games like RPGs is that a woman player can readily explore the male archetype of the Knight, in addition to the female Princess archetype ; the opportunity is reversed in the case of a male player.

This is the reason IMHO why neither a specific female nor a specific male set of characteristics are needed, and a universal set of characteristics is okay.

Now the OP's project seems to me to be a reaction to a feminist assertion of those last ten years, namely that there are neither female nor male specificities in the physical world (nor in the mental world, for that matter) : the misguided, idiotic and poisonous notion of genre identity.

Despite Trechriron's mockery I think that a medieval fantastic RPG devoted to the celebration of the differences between male and female identities would be interesting. I can imagine it would find its audience ; after all, didn't the Wheel of Time series of books prove that a strongly male/female dichotomous story can have a wide appeal ?

Go for it, PoxBox !

Forward: Names in square brackets are not final.

Thanks for the encouragement. After exploring a lot of the responses in this thread, it seems that adjusting NPCs more than PCs is going to be the way to go. Doing anything else seems like it might be too disruptive in terms of ease of play. DMs are much more likely to use a slightly more complicated system for NPC and world building to facilitate a certain outcome than players are to create their characters. I know I've waffled back and forth on my stance on what I want this adjustment to be, but that's why I made the post. I'm trying to find what is the right balance of making these stat adjustments while removing demihumans as playable and replacing that choice with gender. Many monsters must be warded against instead of slain, since slaying one is rather meaningless compared to the endless hordes of them that exist. Demihumans have their own kingdoms as they have crept back into the Material Plane after the [First Age] was pushed into a parallel plane. They are very strange compared to D&D5E and have the potential to be enemies or allies.

On the campaign setting side of things, I think it's safe to say that almost nobody likes the idea of being owned. However, in this game, most PCs will be members of the main kingdom, and the king literally owns you to some degree. He is supposed to protect you and the kingdom. The church is there to guide morality and the traditions of the kingdom, and the king must follow what is handed down from [God] and the church just like any other subject of the kingdom. If things are not going properly the king's court has the ability to dethrone the king and replace the king with one who does [God] and the church's will. The theme of the campaign setting will be one centered around Judeo-Christian morals and traditions. There will be plenty of people that aren't interested in that setting, and that's fine. There are plenty of other settings out there. I'm going for a setting that has, to my knowledge, yet to be explored. Themes of families that are overall functional, duty to king and kingdom, and the gender dichotomy are what we're going for. Dragons are manifestations of vices and virtues. Very few humans can wield divine and arcane magic, but it exists, and even if most commoners have never seen it, it still impacts their lives. Arcane magic is a form of technology. Divine magic is objective proof of the existence of [God.] Devils tempt humans. Demons terrorize them. Spirits echo the past. Many demigods are worshipped , and their followers can draw upon their divine powers.

Just to clarify, I'm agnostic. I'm not trying to push people into playing the "right" D&D. I'm offering a different game that hopes to deliver a different experience in an established game genre from source material that is rich and, in my opinion, untapped. I live with someone that loves studying theology of many different religions, so I have a good first contact for a lot of the theological themes. This is quickly becoming one of my most substantive threads I've ever started in a forum. I thank you all for your ideas, insight, and participation. The salty dogs have been fun to spar with as well.

Quote from: Azraele;1095916Your players are pantywaists. My now ex-wife rolled her 3d6 in order and trounced some fuckin' dungeons rocking 6's and 8's on the stat line. Oh. And she was playing this dude:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3598[/ATTACH]

Tell your players to grow a pair.

To the OP:

If you create an incentive system in your character options, you're going to see a prevalence of the most favorable character option in the long run. Duh. You seem to understand economics, well buddy, that's econ 101. In the short-run, though? You're struggling to comprehend human motivation: people who come into your chargen system without fully grokking it are gonna get turned off real fast if it's sophisticated enough to obfuscate it's stat trends to casual observation. "Oh, I didn't want my character to be weaker, I just wanted to play a girl" is rapidly gonna become "I am not going to play this anymore" if your rejoinder is some turgid justification "WELL IT WAS RIGHT THERE YOU READ THE RULE ITS YOUR FAULT NO GENDER BENDING" etc. etc.

It's effectively sabotaging your game's meager chance of any financial success (I mean that structurally, not as an insult: RPGs aren't cash cows). I strongly suggest writing down some clear, concise design goals and communicating them up front so your game finds it's intended audience directly; otherwise, you risk garbling your intent and injuring your WOM, which is basically line suicide.

Your wife's character at first glance looks friggen awesome. I'm starting to think that 3d6 for PCs may be the way to go with NPCs being generated differently for the sake of simplicity at the player level. NPCs resembling a realistic gender dichotomy is probably the main goal. D&D5E seems to be playing more and more like a super hero game than a RPG in my opinion. I want a game where I can raise an army, be someone of influence, and have duty to king and kingdom that brings reward along with adventuring into places mere mortals dare not go. There aren't many games of D&D I've ever been part of that had the ability to even handle a goal like that at all, much less have it be pursued. Companion apps are easily developed and coded unlike in the past. Much more dynamic and interesting economies could be handled without countless hours of bookkeeping from the DM's perspective, and that will be part of what we'll be trying to bring to the table with this new game.

This whole argument about "women being weaker" is pretty juvenile. Women being stronger based on stats more often than men makes women STRONGER but less variable than men. This is mathematical fact based on scientific data and autoethnography. These stats aren't the final product. They are a baseline to discuss and work from. This idea that is alluded to that I don't like women is preposterous. I don't like humans being treated like there is no measurable and significant difference between male and female existence.

Again, I'm not going for balance. I'm going for a world that resembles reality in the differences between the genders. I could not care less about a dominant strategy emerging. We're only talking about stats so far. There are plenty of things like non-magical abilities, and perhaps some skill adjustments, that haven't been tackled yet. There will be things that males are definitely better than females at doing and vice versa.

As a game designer you can only use the mechanics to balance things. People's preference, DMs rulings and changes, and what people might do with your system is beyond your control. People do things, and that free will thing allows for a lot of immoral things, but why should you care? If you believe in striving to play a game for the journey rather than the end reward, why do you care about the people that are only interested in an ultimate goal? Those people are mostly squarely in the Bartle Killer/Achiever categories. I believe RPGs are much more rewarding to the Socializer and Explorer Bartle types. Achieving an ultimate goal or slaying the ultimate monster may give you a momentary rush, but then what? What is your purpose? Without family, king, and country, at least in my setting, what do you do with your found riches other than lavish upon yourself? How interesting is that? I can tell you it's not.

That was a bit ranty, but who cares. I'm not designing an EA style slot machine. I'm designing a game with interesting, asymmetric elements. Some things aren't fair or balanced. Some people have noble birth and some don't. Some are slaves, and some are serfs, and some are subjects. How do you deal with that? As a player and a DM it's up to them. If you don't want a game where you have to think about what you're doing beyond "ARE THERE GIRLS THERE?! IF THERE ARE I WANNA DO THEM!" play a different game or setting. There are a lot out there.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095886Trentin, did I ever tell you you're my hero?

:heart emoji:

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095933You are a one person Unearthed Arcana. Oh wait, you would be if you proposed answers to any of your questions. It's really easy to try and derail a conversation. It's not so easy to contribute. At some point as a designer you have to decide how complicated you want a new system to be. I can tell you that I'm aiming for a little more complicated than D&D5E. With the elimination of different race options, gender just serves where race does in the D&D5E SRD.

...

I am contributing. I'm trying to help convince you that this approach is folly. You are focused on the wrong things.

Things like gender, sexual orientation and identity are sore points with a bunch of people. The real world is not kind to those who choose to identify or embrace something outside the heteronormative narrative. So, creating a game that focuses on shit that hurts people's feelings is probably just mean. As Will Wheaton says, don't be a dick. You already knew this would hurt people's feelings and announced how you didn't give a shit in your first post disclaimer.

Fantasy games are an escapism hobby. The idea being that I get to portray or assume the role of my fantasy. I get to be someone I'm normally not (if I so choose). In the context of the adventure, I get to make choices that movie characters don't. I get to be in control. Instead of going into the dark basement alone, I can strategize with my cohorts and beat the evil monster hiding down there trying to eat me. It is make believe.

I can pick up countless resources on medieval history. I can find tons of fiction based on historical periods. There are already several games that lean towards an authentic feel for the time period that don't include gender-based restrictions in stats.

Instead of trying to pull the shiny impossible-to-obtain realizm unicorn from the designer-gestalt that somehow you and your friends are going to find despite dozens of designers trying across the last 3+ decades...

Maybe instead create a setting you really like, add in new things that showcase your setting in 5e, and focus on the tone, themes and genre of your setting. Statements like "it's not common for women to become warriors, however it is not unheard of..." or "in Pox World, women generally possess the compasion, patience and intelligence to be good midwives and surgeons.".  Paint a picture based on how you want your setting to work, then let the players make good characters that fit your vision. If you want to encourage medeival gender-roles, then paint that picture and let the players plug into it. If you paint this picture well, your descriptions act like a social contract and pre-game conversation. You're asking your audience "hey, would you like to play one of the roles in my medieval simulator? It's a dark world with a compelling enemy, here's how it feels." Instead of making poor assumptions up front (All women are weaker than men...) you're asking people to join you at the table and participate in your IDEAS. These are the passions that attract players to GMs and their games. Not "here's my idea of how reality works, I hope you agree with me."

You started the thread with a ton of assumptions. Like everyone would just see your approach as sound, or that it just makes sense that different genders would have different stat limits. You knew people objected to this approach as your disclaimer took up a fourth of the original post! "I want to talk about my bad assumptions in an echo chamber safe-space so please don't criticise me..." You HAD to know one of us was going to step in a criticize you.

What is your motivation? Why do you want gender based stats? Why do you believe this is the only way to accomplish your goal? What exactly IS your goal here?

Opposing your ideas IS contributing to the conversation. I'm not just responding to you. You posted, and I applaud you starting a conversation. But there are non-members browsing these posts and formulating ideas of their own. I'm contributing my opposition to this idea for anyone considering gender-based game mechanics are a good idea. They simply are not. There are much better ways to achieve genre, theme, mood and emulation.

Quote from: trechriron;1095946I am contributing. I'm trying to help convince you that this approach is folly. You are focused on the wrong things.

Things like gender, sexual orientation and identity are sore points with a bunch of people. The real world is not kind to those who choose to identify or embrace something outside the heteronormative narrative.

You realize last month was Pride month?

QuoteAs Will Wheaton says, don't be a dick.

Wil Wheaton is a dick.

https://rbodine.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/wil-wheaton-is-violating-wheatonslaw-dick-hypocrite/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3ad7j2/did_wil_wheaton_throw_his_producer_under_the_bus/
https://imgur.com/gallery/kcx8N

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095943Your wife's character at first glance looks friggen awesome. I'm starting to think that 3d6 for PCs may be the way to go with NPCs being generated differently for the sake of simplicity at the player level. NPCs resembling a realistic gender dichotomy is probably the main goal. D&D5E seems to be playing more and more like a super hero game than a RPG in my opinion. I want a game where I can raise an army, be someone of influence, and have duty to king and kingdom that brings reward along with adventuring into places mere mortals dare not go. There aren't many games of D&D I've ever been part of that had the ability to even handle a goal like that at all, much less have it be pursued. Companion apps are easily developed and coded unlike in the past. Much more dynamic and interesting economies could be handled without countless hours of bookkeeping from the DM's perspective, and that will be part of what we'll be trying to bring to the table with this new game.

This whole argument about "women being weaker" is pretty juvenile. Women being stronger based on stats more often than men makes women STRONGER but less variable than men. This is mathematical fact based on scientific data and autoethnography. These stats aren't the final product. They are a baseline to discuss and work from. This idea that is alluded to that I don't like women is preposterous. I don't like humans being treated like there is no measurable and significant difference between male and female existence.

Again, I'm not going for balance. I'm going for a world that resembles reality in the differences between the genders. I could not care less about a dominant strategy emerging. We're only talking about stats so far. There are plenty of things like non-magical abilities, and perhaps some skill adjustments, that haven't been tackled yet. There will be things that males are definitely better than females at doing and vice versa.

As a game designer you can only use the mechanics to balance things. People's preference, DMs rulings and changes, and what people might do with your system is beyond your control. People do things, and that free will thing allows for a lot of immoral things, but why should you care? If you believe in striving to play a game for the journey rather than the end reward, why do you care about the people that are only interested in an ultimate goal? Those people are mostly squarely in the Bartle Killer/Achiever categories. I believe RPGs are much more rewarding to the Socializer and Explorer Bartle types. Achieving an ultimate goal or slaying the ultimate monster may give you a momentary rush, but then what? What is your purpose? Without family, king, and country, at least in my setting, what do you do with your found riches other than lavish upon yourself? How interesting is that? I can tell you it's not.

That was a bit ranty, but who cares. I'm not designing an EA style slot machine. I'm designing a game with interesting, asymmetric elements. Some things aren't fair or balanced. Some people have noble birth and some don't. Some are slaves, and some are serfs, and some are subjects. How do you deal with that? As a player and a DM it's up to them. If you don't want a game where you have to think about what you're doing beyond "ARE THERE GIRLS THERE?! IF THERE ARE I WANNA DO THEM!" play a different game or setting. There are a lot out there.

Sure.

As a matter of fact, that's a pretty convincingly erudite post; further, I don't find any real point of contention in it. It's done more to convince me your project is worthwhile than anything else I've read so far.

My point isn't that there's going to be a dominant strategy emerge over time (RPGs are powerfully resistant to this, since structurally they can be corrected in real-time by a GM). My point is more than I don't know if your goal of getting money by selling your game and designing your game in such a way that picking a gender is as significant as playing a different species are compatible.

Most commonly, we as gamers find the true motivation for that sort of gender distinguishing in mechanics is so that there's a game-rule justification for neckbeards to revel in a fantasy world of ego gratification in the vein of "Well of COURSE women would be EXPECTED to submit sexually to their MALE MASTERS, they don't have the STATISTICALLY-PROVEN CAPABILITY to be MANLY ADVENTURERS such as WE"

Your real challenge is providing a rhetorically sound reason for your choice to walk the sweaty, well-trod and cheetoh-stained path of the neckbeard in the first goddamn place. Your method shouldn't even be conceived of until then.

There's a reason you're getting backlash on this idea: we've all read the review of FATAL, so when someone swaggers into our little domain crowing about "making the EssJayDubbyu's REE" under their sickeningly colorful hairdos, we collectively roll our eyes and whet our linguistics knives on the dumb chucklefuck. I'm not saying you're a bad person, you just made one of the classical blunders. The first, obviously, is getting involved in a ground war in Asia but only slightly less well known is this: Don't attempt to distinguish gender in an RPG by attributes based on "realism"!

That's the contemporary wisdom, at any rate. Your mileage may vary.

Don't get me backwards here: systems that have and enforce strict societal expectations are a goddamn blast, and some have (relatively) enormous success.  You've simply gone out of your way to choose the most pointlessly controversial and well-groaned-over ways of achieving this. That can be a brilliant marketing strategy, but people are catching on to it (Disney has played that trump one too many times, for instance) so I caution you to make a game people want to play as your core goal.

You seem to be a clever sort; you clearly possess the depth of thought to make a great RPG. Great! Keep hammering at it and for the love of god, start a design blog. It works great as a forum for feedback as well as a marketing tool.

Quote from: Azraele;1095949Sure.

As a matter of fact, that's a pretty convincingly erudite post; further, I don't find any real point of contention in it. It's done more to convince me your project is worthwhile than anything else I've read so far.

My point isn't that there's going to be a dominant strategy emerge over time (RPGs are powerfully resistant to this, since structurally they can be corrected in real-time by a GM). My point is more than I don't know if your goal of getting money by selling your game and designing your game in such a way that picking a gender is as significant as playing a different species are compatible.

Most commonly, we as gamers find the true motivation for that sort of gender distinguishing in mechanics is so that there's a game-rule justification for neckbeards to revel in a fantasy world of ego gratification in the vein of "Well of COURSE women would be EXPECTED to submit sexually to their MALE MASTERS, they don't have the STATISTICALLY-PROVEN CAPABILITY to be MANLY ADVENTURERS such as WE"

Your real challenge is providing a rhetorically sound reason for your choice to walk the sweaty, well-trod and cheetoh-stained path of the neckbeard in the first goddamn place. Your method shouldn't even be conceived of until then.

There's a reason you're getting backlash on this idea: we've all read the review of FATAL, so when someone swaggers into our little domain crowing about "making the EssJayDubbyu's REE" under their sickeningly colorful hairdos, we collectively roll our eyes and whet our linguistics knives on the dumb chucklefuck. I'm not saying you're a bad person, you just made one of the classical blunders. The first, obviously, is getting involved in a ground war in Asia but only slightly less well known is this: Don't attempt to distinguish gender in an RPG by attributes based on "realism"!

That's the contemporary wisdom, at any rate. Your mileage may vary.

Don't get me backwards here: systems that have and enforce strict societal expectations are a goddamn blast, and some have (relatively) enormous success.  You've simply gone out of your way to choose the most pointlessly controversial and well-groaned-over ways of achieving this. That can be a brilliant marketing strategy, but people are catching on to it (Disney has played that trump one too many times, for instance) so I caution you to make a game people want to play as your core goal.

You seem to be a clever sort; you clearly possess the depth of thought to make a great RPG. Great! Keep hammering at it and for the love of god, start a design blog. It works great as a forum for feedback as well as a marketing tool.

I'm venturing to try it out. The gender idea might fail, but that's just the truth with trying anything new. We'll see how it goes at home, then we'll put together some materials for a wider playtest for anyone interested.

I wouldn't dispute that the title was more about attracting attention than my true intentions. It seems to have done the trick even though it may have gotten under the skin of some, which I'm OK with.

L5R! I'm a fan of that setting, but the L5R, 7th Sea, and the like, but long, ongoing in-game histories of notable meta-characters is something I want to avoid. I do think it will be important to provide a meta-nugget of history that can be shared by all using the setting, but I think having mechanics on how to create history as needed is a better way to go. Now the DM is able to make the world theirs instead of trying to please both the nerds and the uninitiated of a complex meta-plot.

I know that having more social rules means more reading, and that's really a tough point to get around. I hope to make the expectations of king and church abstracted and simple as to not bog things down, but for there to be some incentive to do so, as there is in a functioning kingdom and church. It might not be so concrete (like gold, XP, and items) but should add to your Background and what favors you may be able to call in due to those Background abilities.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095924For myself, this thread is only interesting in the responses it's getting. Giving characters stat mods based on sex isn't an aspect of "realism" that I want to emulate.

And here is the weird thing...

This seems to be arguing over something that in a way... does not exist except for one class.

Take a look at the AD&D PHB. There is no penalty for human women. All those shifts are for demi-humans. Outside of exceptional strength for Fighters where a human female caps at 18/50. Otherwise there is no STR difference between human genders in AD&D. Thought there was a table on height too but cant find it at a glance.

In AD&D the fighter STR difference is 200lb max more for males, but the reality is its 100 more since 18/00 STR was super rare. Getting 18/90+ was pretty rare too so one could say the difference was even less. A mere 50lb more.

In BX there was no gender differences and STR did not effect your carrying capacity. Everyone, STR 3 to 18 carried the exact same limits.