TheRPGSite

One of the first major adjustments my 5E D&D OGL/SRD game will make is the difference in base stats for different races and sexes.

We've been working on arrays taking into consideration both scientific studies and autoethnography for Humans, with demihumans (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings) being crafted in our own image with varying inclusion of historical and other fictional portrayals of these races. The first release will focus on Human PCs only. Demihumans in this game will be very strange, with different physiology and motivations than humans. In the future we'll be exploring the game mechanics that will be needed to help humans in reality play these strange creatures if they so desire.

Human males will retain the baseline of 3d6 for all stats. Your average male array has 63 stat points total. https://anydice.com/program/5837 (https://anydice.com/program/5837)

Here are the female arrays in comparison:

STR               4d4       -3
DEX   3d6
CON                      6d3
INT    2d6 + 1d4       +1
WIS   2d6 + 1d4       +1
CHA   1d6 + 2d4      +2

Your average female array has 61 stat points total. However, it is much more common for female rolled arrays to have more stat points than male arrays.

https://anydice.com/program/16997 (https://anydice.com/program/16997)

We're still working on the seventh stat which will have to do with attractiveness. This stat will unlock certain non-magical abilities at different levels. We're also interested in age based stat modifiers as well and will be including those in the first release. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts about it.

Disclaimer: I'm sure there is someone sensitive enough out there to be offended, and I will be the first one to tell you that we don't care. This will be the most credence that will be given to the SJW cry bullies in the hobby and in the industry. Going forward you will not be acknowledged, interacted with in any way (outside of civil debate,) and any serious transgression will be prosecuted whenever possible. It's not hard to find my address, but I will warn you that my front door is locked for your protection. If you take it upon yourself to drive hundreds of miles into Eastern Oregon uninvited to violate my civil liberties you will not be met with the benefit of the doubt.

So a woman's Strength tops out at 13?  Seems about right.

Well, you've got a clear thesis for what you're doing and how you're doing it. The only thing you've failed to demonstrate is who asked for this? I've never found myself pulling my hair out over the physiological inaccurasies in my pulp fantasy adventure game.

What if I'm a female with the MSTN gene mutation and I suffer from dwarfism but I'm not an actual dwarf? What does my array look like now?

So if someone is not an SJW and thinks maybe you've been cooped up in a bunker for too long hiding from real interaction with humans, will you chat with them? Just asking for a friend ;-)

Also, you should take a look at FATAL as I think it has already gone and done most of the heavy lifting for the kind of game you want. Hey, maybe you can do a "5E adaptation" of FATAL, I bet it would be a real hit!

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095581We've been working on arrays taking into consideration both scientific studies and autoethnography for Humans.

Because scientific studies work with CON and WIS so often ....

Quote[1] demihumans (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings) being crafted in our own image with varying inclusion of historical and other fictional portrayals of these races.
[...]
[2] Demihumans in this game will be very strange, with different physiology and motivations than humans.

Aren't your points [1] and [2] contradictory?

I think your "autoethnography" means that you've thought about it a bit - well, well done you. Your final method - or would you prefer methodology as an unnecessary complicated term - is to do "research" except where you'd prefer just to make shit up. Why not just make shit up? Or just, shit stirring shit (as above).

Quote from: Anselyn;1095610Because scientific studies work with CON and WIS so often ....



Aren't your points [1] and [2] contradictory?

I think your "autoethnography" means that you've thought about it a bit - well, well done you. Your final method - or would you prefer methodology as an unnecessary complicated term - is to do "research" except where you'd prefer just to make shit up. Why not just make shit up? Or just, shit stirring shit (as above).

I wouldn't say I I would make shit up "when I prefer." I would make shit up in the absence of any good data. If you know of good data I may have missed, by all means point and I'll take a look.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095581I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts about it.

• Average CON is 12?
• Precedent is against you: "D&D but more realistic" is the base template for fantasy heartbreakers.
• RPGing is wish-fulfillment. Boys want to play as knights or as Conan or as Gandalf. If girls want to play as strong kick-ass female fighters, there's good reason to let them. Plus it's genre-compliant.

Quote from: Azraele;1095588Well, you've got a clear thesis for what you're doing and how you're doing it. The only thing you've failed to demonstrate is who asked for this? I've never found myself pulling my hair out over the physiological inaccurasies in my pulp fantasy adventure game.

I've always been interested in this, and my housemates are directly interested. I'm not banking on this being a commercial success, but being a very different take on D&D 5E where demihumans are strange, triune monotheism is the prevailing religion of the kingdom where the first release of the campaign material focuses, and care is taken to make things that are interesting to myself and my friends. We are interested in gender differences, many threats needing to be overcome with rituals and special substances (less monster homogeneity overall,) and developing core mechanics that give deeper gameplay around solving mysteries, dealing with political intrigue, and rules for business ownership and management.

I plan on putting out a lot of these kinds of posts to see if there is any interest. Outside of the system I'm looking to embrace organized play and professional storytelling. Organized play for D&D5E seems to have gone the way of "fairness" so it is dull, unrewarding, and the con events lack the competition they once fostered. Professional storytelling is something I did for almost three years, and I'd love to create an environment where it is not only fun, but sometimes profitable to run the game for their players and patrons.

Quote from: camazotz;1095602So if someone is not an SJW and thinks maybe you've been cooped up in a bunker for too long hiding from real interaction with humans, will you chat with them? Just asking for a friend ;-)

Also, you should take a look at FATAL as I think it has already gone and done most of the heavy lifting for the kind of game you want. Hey, maybe you can do a "5E adaptation" of FATAL, I bet it would be a real hit!

I'm happy to chat with all kinds of people. My Discord is Datum#7113. Drop me a line. I also frequent Giant Dragons Gamer Chat when I'm not working. It's held on most Wednesdays and Thursdays around 6PM ET. here's a link to that Discord https://discord.gg/KMws7dH (https://discord.gg/KMws7dH)

As for FATAL, I can't say that's even close to the kind of game I'm looking for. I'm not looking for anus diameter. I'm looking for a system that has rules that illustrate what is different about the genders, among other things, so that the magical things in the world stand out even more in the mind as fantastic.

There was a nifty article in an old Dragon magazine in the 1970's (#4 or thereabouts) which took the early 4 character classes (fighting man, magic user, cleric, thief) and built alternate female version classes for them. I thought it was well done, but the female players in my gaming group rejected it totally because they wanted to play the same class and race choices as the guys. I thought that the new classes had some really cool elements to them, but the girls didn't want different.

I decided at that point not to fret over stuff like gender in my campaigns, and I let everyone roll characters using exactly the same rules. Unrealistic? Maybe, but I don't worry about that stuff anymore.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095614

• Average CON is 12?
• Precedent is against you: "D&D but more realistic" is the base template for fantasy heartbreakers.
• RPGing is wish-fulfillment. Boys want to play as knights or as Conan or as Gandalf. If girls want to play as strong kick-ass female fighters, there's good reason to let them. Plus it's genre-compliant.

1. For females, yes. Feminine muscles are more efficient. Average females have more endurance than the average man, as well as higher pain tolerance, and the variability for female constitution is extremely low compared to male constitution. Like with all human traits there is huge overlap.
2. Commercial success isn't my goal. Having a rule set and a setting I can be happy with is.
3. My STR stat is the one most based in science. All data points to females being about %33 weaker than males overall.

Quote from: tenbones;1095589What if I'm a female with the MSTN gene mutation and I suffer from dwarfism but I'm not an actual dwarf? What does my array look like now?

Can't say I know enough about dwarfism to know. If you're interested it'd be great to see what you come up with.

Quote from: finarvyn;1095621There was a nifty article in an old Dragon magazine in the 1970's (#4 or thereabouts) which took the early 4 character classes (fighting man, magic user, cleric, thief) and built alternate female version classes for them. I thought it was well done, but the female players in my gaming group rejected it totally because they wanted to play the same class and race choices as the guys. I thought that the new classes had some really cool elements to them, but the girls didn't want different.

I decided at that point not to fret over stuff like gender in my campaigns, and I let everyone roll characters using exactly the same rules. Unrealistic? Maybe, but I don't worry about that stuff anymore.

I can't say I've ever understood this sentiment. There are plenty of things, literally almost everything, that more women than men are average at doing. Are they unhappy that the rules for females were done second? Eve was done second too and she turned out great. Men lead and women follow. All rules have exceptions, but rules are rules because there is truth in them.

What's the point? You don't want any Xena PCs/NPCs?

Quote from: ThePoxBox;10956221. For females, yes. Feminine muscles are more efficient. Average females have more endurance than the average man, as well as higher pain tolerance

This doesn't fit with what I saw doing mixed sex army training, or what the instructors said - they said female recruits were more prone to injury, and that's what I saw. You get plenty of recent combat-deployment accounts that support this too. Women might in D&D terms have +1 to CON save, but fewer hit points.

Indeed, this seems only useful for folk who like sticking their reproductive organs into the nests of aggressively stinging insects.

Quote from: S'mon;1095630This doesn't fit with what I saw doing mixed sex army training, or what the instructors said - they said female recruits were more prone to injury, and that's what I saw. You get plenty of recent combat-deployment accounts that support this too. Women might in D&D terms have +1 to CON save, but fewer hit points.

Same here, using Marine Corps male-to-female standards.

Women on average are physically- weaker than men.

Gygax nailed it, for the most part.

I've met some strong/tough women but, the strong/tough men I've met can easily handle them.

Quote from: S'mon;1095630This doesn't fit with what I saw doing mixed sex army training, or what the instructors said - they said female recruits were more prone to injury, and that's what I saw. You get plenty of recent combat-deployment accounts that support this too. Women might in D&D terms have +1 to CON save, but fewer hit points.

Interesting feedback. I would wonder if those injuries were mostly strength related? Full pack hauling is brutal for even most men. I can't imagine what it's like for women.

Quote from: S'mon;1095629What's the point? You don't want any Xena PCs/NPCs?

I would think Amazonian could be a possible subrace, but not in the setting I envision.

Quote from: Doom;1095633Indeed, this seems only useful for folk who like sticking their reproductive organs into the nests of aggressively stinging insects.

Can't say I follow

I'm always confused by demands of realism in a fantasy game.

If I'm playing an elf casting magic spells in a world with dragons and demons, I don't see why I would be concerned with any aspects of realism.

Also, RPGing is all about escapism. If I want to be a spell casting elf, I can't see why someone else can't play Conana the Barbarianess.

It's not a dig on the OP. It's my same stance as when gamers complain D&D doesn't match medieval history.

Quote from: camazotz;1095602Hey, maybe you can do a "5E adaptation" of FATAL, I bet it would be a real hit!

5e FATAL done as a super serious but bizarre parody RPG would sell just so people could own a copy of the madness.

But here's the joke.

Concerns about "realism" in RPGs have been constant since 1974. Lots of people don't agree with me and apparently want realism in their RPGs.

Thus, there is a market. I understand RPGPundit has been successful with his Lion & Dragon "medieval authentic" RPG.

My advice to the OP? Ignore my opinion on realism in RPGs and anyone who ain't into RPG realism. Gather around ye all the RPG Realism Wanters that you can and research all the myriad RPG Realism threads, blogs and other discussions as you can. Then, go full fucking force with RPG realism while somehow figuring out how to balance that realism vs. playability.

Then publish it and market it to your people.

And when Twitter mob screeches (and they will), be ready to stand and tell them to fuck off.  

I highly suspect your people aren't fans of the outrage mob and the online shitfest would actually garner you sales. And when DriveThruRPG bans your game and RPG.net bans discussion of your game, be ready in advance to use that as marketing fodder as well.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095642I'm always confused by demands of realism in a fantasy game.

If I'm playing an elf casting magic spells in a world with dragons and demons, I don't see why I would be concerned with any aspects of realism.

Also, RPGing is all about escapism. If I want to be a spell casting elf, I can't see why someone else can't play Conana the Barbarianess.

It's not a dig on the OP. It's my same stance as when gamers complain D&D doesn't match medieval history.

I guess when I talk about realism in an RPG world it is not the same as a highschool physics student talking about Giants breaking the cube square rule, it is more about the linternal logic of the world.  For example Dwarves being inherently non-magical so therefore not being able to be Wizards.

I wouldn't call that realism, but instead "internal game logic" like how movies aren't realistic, but need to maintain their own internal logic.

But maybe that's just semantics.

Sure, give the internet assholes new material to work with.

What is Reedom?

Not poking fun, I make typos all the time. I'm assuming you meant Freedom, but I don't understand how your proposed rules are liberating, or what they are liberating the players from. Or am I reading too much into the title?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1095653Sure, give the internet assholes new material to work with.

Yes, and manipulate them as a marketing tool.

Quote from: Aglondir;1095657What is Reedom?

REEEE! is a meme. Frequently associated with the Twitter outrage mobs.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095581I'm not banking on this being a commercial success, but being a very different take on D&D 5E where demihumans are strange, triune monotheism is the prevailing religion of the kingdom where the first release of the campaign material focuses, and care is taken to make things that are interesting to myself and my friends. We are interested in gender differences, many threats needing to be overcome with rituals and special substances (less monster homogeneity overall,) and developing core mechanics that give deeper gameplay around solving mysteries, dealing with political intrigue, and rules for business ownership and management.

Bruce? Bruce Galloway?  Is that you?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095658REEEE! is a meme. Frequently associated with the Twitter outrage mobs.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

Thanks, makes sense now.

Quote from: Aglondir;1095657What is Reedom?

Not poking fun, I make typos all the time. I'm assuming you meant Freedom, but I don't understand how your proposed rules are liberating, or what they are liberating the players from. Or am I reading too much into the title?

I assumed it was an attempt to combine the words freedom and realism to be cheeky.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095658Yes, and manipulate them as a marketing tool.

REEEE! is a meme. Frequently associated with the Twitter outrage mobs.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

But it turns out it wasn't something even that vaguely clever... just more recycled social media 'humor'

You know I often treated female pcs as the exception to the rule instead of the general population.  Like the lady knight who has +4 strength mod, but isn't body builder muscular (don't get me wrong the knight has some meat on her bones) would know how to use her strength instead of using raw physical force.  While most women generally go for more traditional roles the knight sticks out because inspite of the physical flaws women have in combative fields this woman actually knows how to handle it.  

Like wise I had a entire army of amazons who fight just as good as men because they are eldritch rites they perform to give them that ability which explains why they have a army instead of one rare woman who can tough it out with the best of them.

ThePoxBox, I think I may be reading your modifications incorrectly. Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma seem to come out lower for female humans?

I'm with the pack, not really seeing the need, but I'll go along with you, and comment.


Strength I can see a variation for under realism, as there is fair strong evidence to support that the strongest women are weaker than the strongest men. Based 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. If you must be "realistic" then 1d8+1d4+1? That centers the average at 6-10, with a max of 13, vs 9-12 max of 18 which places a woman's STR both average and max at 70% of a man, while maintaining 3 as a minimum.

Assuming your fantasy world restricts women's education as many of our own did / does and you assume Wisdom = education, I can see altering that. Although really in that case then, WIS should be based on culture rather than gender. Odds are pretty good a wealthy merchants daughter, or female noble would typically get a better education than any peasant, or nomad male or female.
You have given females a slightly higher average, but lower max what is the reasoning for that?

Why even mess with INT, I'm not aware of anything that credibly shows a significant difference between genders. Again you have given a slightly better average but lower max, under what reasoning?

CHA and CON seem entirely arbitrary, 6d3 skews even more to the middle, than 3d6 so I'm not sure how that is an advantage if it is meant to be, even assuming one can provide legitimate justification for better / worse stat. Using athletic endurance events as a guide, 6k, 1/2 marathon, marathon, 50k walk, Ironman triathlon etc, men finish 5-10% faster. Average is not as easy to find, but the men's average for completing a marathon is 4 hours 22 minutes, vs 4 hours 48 minutes for women, which follows the pattern for the winners. Pain tolerance is a pretty vague measure. If as you claim women have better endurance and pain tolerance, then why the push to the middle, why not commit to that go with something like 2d6+6, 2d6+1d4+2 or similar and give them that superior status? Even justifying it with pulled out of your ass data that would at least provide some balance for the much lower strength. As it is you are using pulled out of your ass data to provide this "superior" female stat with solid mediocrity.


CHA again has this weird higher average, lower max. If you assume women have less leadership ability either innate or social construct, this makes no sense. If you wanted to fiddle around here, I would think something that averages low, but can go high (3d8-6) would make more sense, to represent few female leaders (or cultural bias against following a woman), but those few that exist are just as inspiring as the men (Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I). As it stands your game world would have many mediocre female leaders, with few terrible or great ones.    


On the whole, while I can kind of understand why some feel these kinds of differences are important in a game, for the most part these particular changes seem to ensure female characters will tend to be "average", while male characters are more likely to be exceptionally good or bad (better odds of being above or below the median). We all know the exceptionally poor ones volunteer to open chests, doors and test dungeon floors for trap doors.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095658REEEE! is a meme. Frequently associated with the Twitter outrage mobs.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

Thank you. Now I've found exactly one thing worthwhile in this thread.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095581Disclaimer: I'm sure there is someone sensitive enough out there to be offended, and I will be the first one to tell you that we don't care. This will be the most credence that will be given to the SJW cry bullies in the hobby and in the industry. Going forward you will not be acknowledged, interacted with in any way (outside of civil debate,) and any serious transgression will be prosecuted whenever possible. It's not hard to find my address, but I will warn you that my front door is locked for your protection. If you take it upon yourself to drive hundreds of miles into Eastern Oregon uninvited to violate my civil liberties you will not be met with the benefit of the doubt.

This reads like a parody.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1095687This reads like a parody.

True, but everything in 2019 proves we're living in a computer simulation, but the scientists got drunk and are now just fucking with the matrix.

You are seriously pouring tons of effort into a MINOR difference.

You would be better served by creating cultures and then maybe creating MAX limits on attributes in exchange for feats. A female with a STR 15 does not have to look "bigger" than a male with a STR 13. The +2 she has hardly is going to skew any account of her as a female unless you focus on it. I see female athletes in crossfit that will outperform half the men in the room, easy.

With the combination of your ridiculous disclaimer, all the controversy surrounding women's soccer and the outrage at the lesbian who has the audacity to speak her mind, I feel like this is a silly attempt at chest-pounding retribution. What's more hilarious is how you might imagine this retribution playing out at your table? Do you feel the women at the table will be appropriately admonished?

It's tragic we can't invite Megan Rapinoe over to your house so your "female appropriate stat generation" declaration and subsequent game play couldn't be targeted directly at the lesbian that triggered you. Missed opportunity there.

Quote from: trechriron;1095693You are seriously pouring tons of effort into a MINOR difference.

Isn't that the impetus pretty much every fantasy heartbreaker?

Plenty of OSR retroclones on DriveThruRPG are all built around the author's pet peeve about a few rules.

Two points stand out to me:

First, you don't mention how character sex is determined. It seems to me that the point of random-roll stats is that characters don't get to choose their own strength, intelligence, etc. Rather, those are largely qualities that come from their birth and upbringing. Likewise, though, characters don't get to choose their own sex. So presumably it should be random-rolled.

Second is a point already brought up by Anselyn.

Quote from: ThePoxBox[1] demihumans (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings) being crafted in our own image with varying inclusion of historical and other fictional portrayals of these races.
[...]
[2] Demihumans in this game will be very strange, with different physiology and motivations than humans.

Quote from: Anselyn;1095610Aren't your points [1] and [2] contradictory?

I think your "autoethnography" means that you've thought about it a bit - well, well done you. Your final method - or would you prefer methodology as an unnecessary complicated term - is to do "research" except where you'd prefer just to make shit up. Why not just make shit up? Or just, shit stirring shit (as above).

I agree that these seem contradictory to me. For example, HarnMaster also has sex-based modifiers to PC stats. It also has random-roll tables to determine sex -- plus it makes its non-humans with different physiologies. Dwarves and elves are both relatively androgynous, with less difference between the sexes.

Is this kind of thread allowed here? Yes.

Do I think the argument is idiotic?  Yes.

Player characters are meant to be variants from the norm; it means other than average people would be likely to take up an adventuring life. This would be especially true in many settings of female adventurers. Its also evident from the title that the real goal here is to piss off people, and frankly most of the people who would be really pissed off by this thread are not even on this site.

The 3-18 range is so limited that any single man or any single woman could have any stat in any number within that range.


Note to people who cited Lion & Dragon in context of this thread: L&D is medieval "AUTHENTIC", not "realistic". Trying to achieve "realism" in an RPG is stupid, and almost always represents more about the writer's pet peeves or personal whims than any sincere desire to create a realistic simulation of some kind. Making a setting that tries to emulate historical social, religious or cultural elements and is based on sources from history, myth or folklore is totally different than trying the Quixotic attempt (even if sincerely attempted, which it usually isn't) of somehow simulating your own personal vision of what you imagine the 'real world' is like.

Excellent. I look forward to this edition of D&D and its realism. Let's continue in the realistic vein, and remove demihumans and monsters, levels and escalating hit points, and of course magic.

Realism! We could call it RealManD&D. Let's get going with it! I'm on board.

RealManD&D is called RIFTS!!!  For only those with great fortitude and strength can conquer that system! :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;1095699Note to people who cited Lion & Dragon in context of this thread: L&D is medieval "AUTHENTIC", not "realistic".

We've seen this "realism in RPGs" topic many times and predates the internet by decades. You chaffed at D&D's RenFaire faux-medieval-isms enough to write both L&D and Dark Albion, so the desire to add more "real world" aspects into RPGs is an old and strong desire shared by apparently many gamers. I see your focus on "Authentic" much like my concern for verisimilitude when dealing with genre emulation in RPGs so I understand why you differentiate from "realistic".

Where do you see the dividing line for Authentic vs. Realistic in regards to human biology? Or monster biology? Or combat?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095642I'm always confused by demands of realism in a fantasy game.

If I'm playing an elf casting magic spells in a world with dragons and demons, I don't see why I would be concerned with any aspects of realism.

That's an awful argument. You may not be concerned with realism, but I bet you're concerned with versimilitude.
If I were facing Godzilla, and said my character kicks Godzilla to the moon, would you say yes? Would you have me roll the dice? Would you say "Um, even a warrior with 18 strength just can't kick Godzilla to the moon." And why shouldn't I be able to? It's a fantasy game, after all.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095635Interesting feedback. I would wonder if those injuries were mostly strength related? Full pack hauling is brutal for even most men. I can't imagine what it's like for women.

Most kinds of injury resilience relates to amount of muscle mass, not just directly strength related stuff like pack & armour hauling. The muscle sheathes the bones and organs and protects them from injury.

Women seem to have some advantage in being able to passively endure unpleasant conditions such as cold (or sitting in a sniper hole for days stewing in your own juices), but re pain tolerance, women report MORE pain, not less, than men in experiments - women display more pain sensitivity, contrary to stereotype.

Greater female life expectancy seems more about risk aversion.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095666You know I often treated female pcs as the exception to the rule instead of the general population.  Like the lady knight who has +4 strength mod, but isn't body builder muscular (don't get me wrong the knight has some meat on her bones) would know how to use her strength instead of using raw physical force.  While most women generally go for more traditional roles the knight sticks out because inspite of the physical flaws women have in combative fields this woman actually knows how to handle it.  

Like wise I had a entire army of amazons who fight just as good as men because they are eldritch rites they perform to give them that ability which explains why they have a army instead of one rare woman who can tough it out with the best of them.

That's how I do it - PC generating rules are for PCs, not the general population. The general population may average STR 10 men and STR 7 women, and you may not see many women in the city guard, but PCs use the same stat generating methods.

IMO using different generation rules for male and female PCs needs good game-specific reasons. It makes sense in Pendragon if you allow female PCs, but not in most genres.

I do recall Runequest 3 having lower STR rolls for female NPCs and this causing the 80s version of REEEEs in White Dwarf magazine even though PCs were unaffected.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1095674Why even mess with INT, I'm not aware of anything that credibly shows a significant difference between genders.

There are some small differences in measured IQ by sex, testing on white British Ehrwing found a small 3 point difference, men scoring higher. 3 points is not something you'll generally notice* and is less than 1 point on a 3d6/3-18 type INT generating system.

*Differences around 10-15 points start to become noticeable I'd say.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095701Excellent. I look forward to this edition of D&D and its realism. Let's continue in the realistic vein, and remove demihumans and monsters, levels and escalating hit points, and of course magic.

Realism! We could call it RealManD&D. Let's get going with it! I'm on board.

There should be detailed and realistic rules for frequency, volume and composition of defecation too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1095687This reads like a parody.

That could apply to the entire notion. I thought rpgers were over this kind of thing after FATAL was squeezed out.

Roll 3d6 to find out.

Quote from: tenbones;1095589What if I'm a female with the MSTN gene mutation and I suffer from dwarfism but I'm not an actual dwarf? What does my array look like now?

Roll 3d6 to find out.

Quote from: S'mon;1095630This doesn't fit with what I saw doing mixed sex army training, or what the instructors said - they said female recruits were more prone to injury, and that's what I saw. You get plenty of recent combat-deployment accounts that support this too. Women might in D&D terms have +1 to CON save, but fewer hit points.

This jibes with what one of my friends mentioned after getting out of service. But was it not more like a difference in how women react to injury? And more importantly. How they recover from injury?

Addendum: Saw your later post. So seems in some ways yes?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095666You know I often treated female pcs as the exception to the rule instead of the general population.  Like the lady knight who has +4 strength mod, but isn't body builder muscular (don't get me wrong the knight has some meat on her bones) would know how to use her strength instead of using raw physical force.  While most women generally go for more traditional roles the knight sticks out because inspite of the physical flaws women have in combative fields this woman actually knows how to handle it.  

Like wise I had a entire army of amazons who fight just as good as men because they are eldritch rites they perform to give them that ability which explains why they have a army instead of one rare woman who can tough it out with the best of them.

Same here. Its allways been a core of my settings and RPGs. The average folk out there cleave fairly close to real world stat equivalents. Women tend to a little less in the strength area, but may be more agile. Whereas the adventurers are those that can through training rise above that. Same as in the real world a woman who has had military training is likely going to be stronger than one who hasnt. Or a woman who works on a farm for that matter.

Quote from: Aglondir;1095657What is Reedom?

Not poking fun, I make typos all the time. I'm assuming you meant Freedom, but I don't understand how your proposed rules are liberating, or what they are liberating the players from. Or am I reading too much into the title?

REEEEdom is a pun on the sound that SJWs make on the Internet when they see something they don't like. Suggesting that men and women are different is a big no no at this point to post modernists.

This design choice is coming from a personal experience I had with Skyrim. I elaborate in my response to RPGPundit. Basically making the game world feel like reality to make the magical and fantastic things really stand out is what I'm going for.

I'm not doing this to try and bait anyone. I just know what kind of response some people might give, and I'm mocking it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095642I'm always confused by demands of realism in a fantasy game.

If I'm playing an elf casting magic spells in a world with dragons and demons, I don't see why I would be concerned with any aspects of realism.

Also, RPGing is all about escapism. If I want to be a spell casting elf, I can't see why someone else can't play Conana the Barbarianess.

It's not a dig on the OP. It's my same stance as when gamers complain D&D doesn't match medieval history.




5e FATAL done as a super serious but bizarre parody RPG would sell just so people could own a copy of the madness.

All of the parts you mention are the product of fantasy writing and art. Elves, magic, dragons, and demons are fictional and therefore aren't the target of the mechanics concerning creating an immersive, believable baseline for the setting.

It's also not supposed to be about what you can and can't do. In my game there will not be restrictions on stats to become a certain class. Multi-classing feats will still maintain their stat minimums. I'm also warming up to the idea of all human PCs being 3d6 based and having NPC creation be different. As much as RPGPundit thinks I might be doing this for attention and that the idea is "idiotic" I will tell you that I've been mulling around this concept with friends for a while now, and we've finally found an array of numbers that feels right to start play testing.

Quote from: CarlD.;1095671ThePoxBox, I think I may be reading your modifications incorrectly. Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma seem to come out lower for female humans?

They do have lower maximums with less variance. To use a financial metaphor, males seem to have chosen small cap stocks, and females seem to have chosen bonds. It's almost as if the sexes have specialized and the union of them creates more than the sum of its parts.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095778As much as RPGPundit thinks I might be doing this for attention and that the idea is "idiotic" I will tell you that I've been mulling around this concept with friends for a while now, and we've finally found an array of numbers that feels right to start play testing.

Groupthink among your friends doesn't disprove idiocy.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095711You may not be concerned with realism, but I bet you're concerned with versimilitude.

Exactly! Like how RPGPundit breaks down "Authentic" vs. "Realism", I do the same with "Versimilitude" vs. "Realism".

AKA, I focus on the internal logic of the game setting. In a setting like Godbound, kaiju just might be footballs. In a setting like Conan, they would certainly not be.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095778All of the parts you mention are the product of fantasy writing and art. Elves, magic, dragons, and demons are fictional and therefore aren't the target of the mechanics concerning creating an immersive, believable baseline for the setting.

Beyond male vs. female stats, what makes your setting more believable than D&D?

Especially if non-human NPCs are not built off the believable baseline?

Personally, since the OP mentioned this is for 5e, I think you could leave the stats alone (they should be based on 4d6 drop lowest for 5e anyway), but have bonuses (say 1/2 proficiency) to certain skills. Males being physically stronger on average might have a bonus to athletics, while females being, on average, better at reading social dynamics might have a bonus to insight.

If it must be ability scores, my recommendation would be that females should have a slightly higher average and equal maximum WIS score compared to men (better risk aversion and ability to read social cues in general seems like things tied to Wisdom) and put the Int and Cha scores back to 3d6 (the differences in recorded IQs aren't significant enough to filter into a 3-18 scores and Charisma is so subjective I'd be inclined to say that men and women tend to use it differently instead of having different scores for it).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095786Beyond male vs. female stats, what makes your setting more believable than D&D?

Especially if non-human NPCs are not built off the believable baseline?

We're working on it. This is one of the first major mechanics to sort out.

There are no non-human NPCs as of yet. Demihumans are going to be completely different than the ones in the 5E SRD and will be released as playable characters later (maybe.)

Quote from: Omega;1095750Same here. Its allways been a core of my settings and RPGs. The average folk out there cleave fairly close to real world stat equivalents. Women tend to a little less in the strength area, but may be more agile. Whereas the adventurers are those that can through training rise above that. Same as in the real world a woman who has had military training is likely going to be stronger than one who hasnt. Or a woman who works on a farm for that matter.

This is the old "Statistics versus Individuals" duality. Everyone can point to someone that doesn't meet the norm of the statistical spread... because that's how statistics work. I'm now really leaning towards 18 maximum for females with a single roll that can illustrate that if possible, or multiple rolls if the first roll maxes out for females.

Quote from: Chris24601;1095793Personally, since the OP mentioned this is for 5e, I think you could leave the stats alone (they should be based on 4d6 drop lowest for 5e anyway), but have bonuses (say 1/2 proficiency) to certain skills. Males being physically stronger on average might have a bonus to athletics, while females being, on average, better at reading social dynamics might have a bonus to insight.

If it must be ability scores, my recommendation would be that females should have a slightly higher average and equal maximum WIS score compared to men (better risk aversion and ability to read social cues in general seems like things tied to Wisdom) and put the Int and Cha scores back to 3d6 (the differences in recorded IQs aren't significant enough to filter into a 3-18 scores and Charisma is so subjective I'd be inclined to say that men and women tend to use it differently instead of having different scores for it).

I definitely have to agree that the charisma bugbear is a complex one. We're definitely considering non-magical abilities for males and females separately tied to a 7th attractiveness stat.

Quote from: Omega;1095750Same here. Its allways been a core of my settings and RPGs. The average folk out there cleave fairly close to real world stat equivalents. Women tend to a little less in the strength area, but may be more agile. Whereas the adventurers are those that can through training rise above that. Same as in the real world a woman who has had military training is likely going to be stronger than one who hasnt. Or a woman who works on a farm for that matter.

I just don't see the point of gender stats when you can just do a little world building instead.

Quote from: CarlD.;1095719There should be detailed and realistic rules for frequency, volume and composition of defecation too.

There's a video game doing that, called Scum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scum_(video_game)).

Quote from: ScumAnother aspect is digestion; for instance, if a character gets all of their teeth knocked out, they will have to find a way to liquify food in order to digest it. Defecating and urinating will leave physical evidence of activities on the island, which could be used to track another player.

Brilliant! Now OP, do you have rules for liquefying food? Do you have rules for knocking a player's teeth out? Er, I mean their character's teeth? You do want it to be realistic, don't you? Don't bow down to those politically correct wusses who can't handle teeth knocking-out rules! Real men understand that's part of violence, teeth being knocked out, bones broken, eyes gouged. It's not just hit points.

Quote from: Snowman0147I just don't see the point of gender stats when you can just do a little world building instead.

You mean... minimalist rules which allow for a DM to create their own setting, whole-cloth? You mean, assuming that people playing in a social creative hobby are social and creative?!

That's awfully 1977 of you. So instead of looking in a 500 page book people will use their imaginations?! What is this madness?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095816You mean... minimalist rules which allow for a DM to create their own setting, whole-cloth? You mean, assuming that people playing in a social creative hobby are social and creative?!

That's awfully 1977 of you. So instead of looking in a 500 page book people will use their imaginations?! What is this madness?

I believe it is Old School Renaissance madness?  Perhaps even Rules Lite Lover madness?  Possibly I Just Want To Play The Game madness?  I really don't know.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095816There's a video game doing that, called Scum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scum_(video_game)).

Huzzah for realism!

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095805This is the old "Statistics versus Individuals" duality. Everyone can point to someone that doesn't meet the norm of the statistical spread... because that's how statistics work. I'm now really leaning towards 18 maximum for females with a single roll that can illustrate that if possible, or multiple rolls if the first roll maxes out for females.

No. We are saying that adventurers are not the norm. They are by definition in some way above average. Just as a soldier through training is above average. Or a martial artist.

So the average citizen will have the expected baseline differences in say strength and dexterity. But someone with training or lifestyle will exceed that a little, or alot. And without training even an amazon  build woman may be beat by a little guy with training, or a little woman for that matter.

Training can really skew things every which way.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095808I just don't see the point of gender stats when you can just do a little world building instead.

That is exactly what I did. There isnt any gender stat difference for PCs. Its just background data for NPCs.

The problem of ability scores for gender is that they are an abstraction and do not work at all realistically.  They serve a mechanical purpose, they don't represent the finer points of Human biology.

The difference between Strength 18 and 17 is only defined by the bonuses it grants and the probability of it occurring at all.  It doesn't clarify if that is the strongest man who ever lived, the best a hardy warrior can expect or whether it is beyond the limit of any gender/species.

None of the rules are realistic, and people have tried to to hammer the square peg of 'realistic' into the round hole of 'playable' for decades.  The rules make the game playable and ought to be authentic to the source material.

Quote from: Malleustein;1095842The problem of ability scores for gender is that they are an abstraction and do not work at all realistically.  They serve a mechanical purpose, they don't represent the finer points of Human biology.

The difference between Strength 18 and 17 is only defined by the bonuses it grants the probability of it occurring at all.  It doesn't clarify if that is the strongest man who ever lived, the best a hardy warrior can expect or whether it is beyond the limit of any gender/species.

None of the rules are realistic, and people have tried to to hammer the square peg of 'realistic' into the round hole of 'playable' for decades.  The rules make the game playable and ought to be authentic to the source material.

This!  Good sweet Lord this.  Sir you had hit the nail right in the head.  These ultra realistic rules are a bane to Tabletop RPGs and had plagued everyone with overbearing rules that serve no purpose other than to annoy people who just want to play the game.  It doesn't even serve immersion purposes as the moment you do something is the moment the game has to be paused for everyone to check the rules.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095806I definitely have to agree that the charisma bugbear is a complex one. We're definitely considering non-magical abilities for males and females separately tied to a 7th attractiveness stat.

I'm not even talking about attractiveness when I say men and women use charisma differently. I'm talking about how women and men value traits differently in terms of socializing and problem solving that persist from our days of differentiated labor as hunters (men) and gatherers (women) and the respective trials there of.

Quote from: Omega;1095839No. We are saying that adventurers are not the norm. They are by definition in some way above average. Just as a soldier through training is above average. Or a martial artist.

So the average citizen will have the expected baseline differences in say strength and dexterity. But someone with training or lifestyle will exceed that a little, or alot. And without training even an amazon  build woman may be beat by a little guy with training, or a little woman for that matter.

Training can really skew things every which way.

We have something to simulate training. They're called skills.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1095674I'm with the pack, not really seeing the need, but I'll go along with you, and comment.


Strength I can see a variation for under realism, as there is fair strong evidence to support that the strongest women are weaker than the strongest men. Based 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. If you must be "realistic" then 1d8+1d4+1? That centers the average at 6-10, with a max of 13, vs 9-12 max of 18 which places a woman's STR both average and max at 70% of a man, while maintaining 3 as a minimum.

Assuming your fantasy world restricts women's education as many of our own did / does and you assume Wisdom = education, I can see altering that. Although really in that case then, WIS should be based on culture rather than gender. Odds are pretty good a wealthy merchants daughter, or female noble would typically get a better education than any peasant, or nomad male or female.
You have given females a slightly higher average, but lower max what is the reasoning for that?

Why even mess with INT, I'm not aware of anything that credibly shows a significant difference between genders. Again you have given a slightly better average but lower max, under what reasoning?

CHA and CON seem entirely arbitrary, 6d3 skews even more to the middle, than 3d6 so I'm not sure how that is an advantage if it is meant to be, even assuming one can provide legitimate justification for better / worse stat. Using athletic endurance events as a guide, 6k, 1/2 marathon, marathon, 50k walk, Ironman triathlon etc, men finish 5-10% faster. Average is not as easy to find, but the men's average for completing a marathon is 4 hours 22 minutes, vs 4 hours 48 minutes for women, which follows the pattern for the winners. Pain tolerance is a pretty vague measure. If as you claim women have better endurance and pain tolerance, then why the push to the middle, why not commit to that go with something like 2d6+6, 2d6+1d4+2 or similar and give them that superior status? Even justifying it with pulled out of your ass data that would at least provide some balance for the much lower strength. As it is you are using pulled out of your ass data to provide this "superior" female stat with solid mediocrity.


CHA again has this weird higher average, lower max. If you assume women have less leadership ability either innate or social construct, this makes no sense. If you wanted to fiddle around here, I would think something that averages low, but can go high (3d8-6) would make more sense, to represent few female leaders (or cultural bias against following a woman), but those few that exist are just as inspiring as the men (Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I). As it stands your game world would have many mediocre female leaders, with few terrible or great ones.    


On the whole, while I can kind of understand why some feel these kinds of differences are important in a game, for the most part these particular changes seem to ensure female characters will tend to be "average", while male characters are more likely to be exceptionally good or bad (better odds of being above or below the median). We all know the exceptionally poor ones volunteer to open chests, doors and test dungeon floors for trap doors.

This is more of the kind of response I was looking for. I thank you for your input. I really like your STR array. It is much better than our first attempt. I would also include a d6 roll for those females rolling 13:

1- keep your 13
2- 14 STR
3- 15 STR
4- 16 STR
5- 17 STR
6- reroll

I will not argue that WIS and CHA are based mostly on observation. Figuring out how to make the other stats allow for 18s but make them less frequent for females, while having a higher average for females that males is where I want to be. 3d6 locking PCs may be the way to go, but we'll be working on fine tuning the numbers for NPCs, with 18s possible in all stats except for STR. I'm a little too drunk to get into more detail. I will venture to reply more again in the future, because this post deserves it.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095845This!  Good sweet Lord this.  Sir you had hit the nail right in the head.  These ultra realistic rules are a bane to Tabletop RPGs and had plagued everyone with overbearing rules that serve no purpose other than to annoy people who just want to play the game.  It doesn't even serve immersion purposes as the moment you do something is the moment the game has to be paused for everyone to check the rules.

To me, 18 Strength means +3 to hit, damage and break down doors.

Within the world it means very strong, almost certainly big and muscular.

If I were being "realistic" about the assumption that Strength 18 is the pinnacle of Human physique, I would demand the character spend hours daily weight training, eat a special diet and under no circumstances go on adventures due to the time it would take out of his regime and the risk of injury.

That is why I don't give a shit about realism.

• 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!!

Trentin, did I ever tell you you're my hero?

I believe there is a market for "realistic" RPG. AKA, a RPG where great pains were taken to bring realism to all aspects of the game from chargen to combat to monsters, and yet somehow made it playable.

However, I doubt there's a market for a "women have low stats" RPG.

In the ancient times, I gamed with a DM who imposed -2 STR, +1 WIS, +1 CHA for female PCs (min 3, max 18). It just meant nobody played females. I think one of us once played a Female Cleric, maybe. STR loss was too harsh for a fantasy game where everybody except the mage was expected to melee.

I 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 !

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095890However, I doubt there's a market for a "women have low stats" RPG.

Despite having with women in my group in pretty much every game since the late 80s, I've never had a woman want to play a huge, muscle-bound fighter type. So, while a STR limit on female characters is fine, I haven't found in necessary.

And I don't let male players play female characters. That always turns into a farce.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1095901Despite having with women in my group in pretty much every game since the late 80s, I've never had a woman want to play a huge, muscle-bound fighter type. So, while a STR limit on female characters is fine, I haven't found in necessary.

Why does it matter what they want? This is D&D, they get what they roll up. Or are you one of those commie point-buy guys?

QuoteAnd I don't let male players play female characters. That always turns into a farce.

As opposed to the deft subtlety with which they play dwarves, elves, halflings and half-orcs?

This whole thing is comical. The OP is not bothered by any lack of realism in D&D except this one thing. Why? You are not bothered by players' shitty roleplaying, except this one thing. Why?

But I guess, male nerds having issues about women is not exactly a new problem...

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095852We have something to simulate training. They're called skills.

And skills apply to taking intelligence tests and lifting weights, the sort of thing you've probably considered for deciding what the raw attributes should be for STR and INT. More generally, the question of Nature vs Nurture could be seen as Nature(Genes/Attributes) vs Nurture(Cultural skill level imposition/acquisition).

As this is a long and ongoing RW debate, my recommendation follows some of the guidance above. Don't try to solve puzzles of the RW in order to make the game you want to make. Get on and make the game incorporating the overall outcome patterns you want from (Attributes + Skills + Training + ...) for the sexes and ancestries of your game world.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095903Why does it matter what they want? This is D&D, they get what they roll up. Or are you one of those commie point-buy guys?


As opposed to the deft subtlety with which they play dwarves, elves, halflings and half-orcs?

This whole thing is comical. The OP is not bothered by any lack of realism in D&D except this one thing. Why? You are not bothered by players' shitty roleplaying, except this one thing. Why?

But I guess, male nerds having issues about women is not exactly a new problem...

Great. Just great. Now I owe Kyle a beer.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095903This is D&D, they get what they roll up. Or are you one of those commie point-buy guys?

Players always choose what they play. Either through point buy or by re-rolling until they get the stats they want. At least the former method is fair.

QuoteAs opposed to the deft subtlety with which they play dwarves, elves, halflings and half-orcs?

If elves and dwarves existed in the real world, I'd probably limit those character to players of the same race. As it stands, all my players are human.

QuoteWhy? You are not bothered by players' shitty roleplaying, except this one thing. Why?

I'm bothered by all shitty roleplaying. Which is why I veto any character I know will go badly. Dude's playing chicks is just one of many red flags.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095903Why does it matter what they want? This is D&D, they get what they roll up. Or are you one of those commie point-buy guys?


As opposed to the deft subtlety with which they play dwarves, elves, halflings and half-orcs?

This whole thing is comical. The OP is not bothered by any lack of realism in D&D except this one thing. Why? You are not bothered by players' shitty roleplaying, except this one thing. Why?

But I guess, male nerds having issues about women is not exactly a new problem...

This Guy Gets it.

Quote from: Malleustein;1095870To me, 18 Strength means +3 to hit, damage and break down doors.

Within the world it means very strong, almost certainly big and muscular.

If I were being "realistic" about the assumption that Strength 18 is the pinnacle of Human physique, I would demand the character spend hours daily weight training, eat a special diet and under no circumstances go on adventures due to the time it would take out of his regime and the risk of injury.

That is why I don't give a shit about realism.

As does this one.

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!!

Damn...another one, maybe I need to lighten up about this place.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1095908I'm bothered by all shitty (IYOHO empasis inserted) roleplaying. Which is why I veto any character I know will go badly. Dude's playing chicks is just one of many red flags.

1. What are some of your other red flags?

2. Do you restrict female players from playing male characters?

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1095901Despite having with women in my group in pretty much every game since the late 80s, I've never had a woman want to play a huge, muscle-bound fighter type. So, while a STR limit on female characters is fine, I haven't found in necessary.

Never? Wow, must be a D and D thing, I guess. Most of the women I've played with in that span of time have play 'muscle bound' warrior types at some point or another of either or some alternate or no gender. But different strokes.

No women players have ever rolled up a high Strength character and kept it or do you use selection arrays or a point buy format of some kind? Point buy is my personal preference particularly if I'm worried about players getting a character they want to play.  But random can be fun from time to time to 'cleanse the pallet' and shake you out of ruts.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1095908Players always choose what they play. Either through point buy or by re-rolling until they get the stats they want. At least the former method is fair.

Your 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.

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.

For me, its more because I'm bored, its a quiet Monday morning and this is too damn funny to ignore. I haven't seen this "Gurls need limits to be REALISTIC schtick for pretty good while...it is a classic. But yeah, maybe some people are here to show off their deep intimidation and shaken belief structure created by TheoxBox (who totally didn't come here, answering a question no one has asked for years, in an effort to get attention and receive back pats for standing up to the SJWs, feminazis, etc. To be fair, given some of this board's rep, not an out there expectation...-

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.

Even though I've been arguing against getting too tied to "realism", my physicist side wants to consider modelling something like this. For the top male weight lifter, does anyone know the range of weights over which he'd go from 100% chance of success to 0%?

Is 100% chance at 400kg, 450kg, 460 kg?
Is 0% 479 kg, 480 kg, 500 kg?

My guess is that there results are a lot less "swingy" than most skill RPG systems and that variation in performance is a small fraction compared to overall ability. That's why world ranking work for weight lifting, tennis etc. without lots of volatility.  

In RPG terms it's more like FATE than d20?  

Now, I'm not saying that modelling that and then having to use it is what a game should do - but does anyone have a sense of how the real world work for these things?

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?

:o :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?

(https://mondrian.mashable.com/2014%252F06%252F10%252F4a%252Fpride1.7b5e6.jpg%252F950x534__filters%253Aquality%252880%2529.jpg?signature=Nlr3bjdhzw7tShmhhfh_oFcE6SU=)

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/06/08/world/08warsaw-pride2/merlin_156144072_7f1feceb-68b9-4f35-990d-b3092052287f-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)

(https://dougbrowncreative.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/winners-pride-ad1.jpeg)

(https://storage.googleapis.com/twg-content/images/image-02_iMLTfiZ.width-2000.jpg)

(https://adage.com/images/bin/image/x-large/Doritos_-_Rainbow_Pride_Doritos_15.jpg)

(https://www.mambaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Starbucks-South-Africa-commemorates-Pride-month_01.jpg)

(https://cdn.christianpost.com/files/original/thumbnail/12/95/129529.jpg)

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 (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14567.phtml), 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 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/83945/Legend-of-the-Five-Rings-4th-Edition?cPath=90_5979).  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 (https://reason.com/2019/07/09/ariel-little-mermaid-backlash-black-halle-bailey/), 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 (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14567.phtml), 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 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/83945/Legend-of-the-Five-Rings-4th-Edition?cPath=90_5979).  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 (https://reason.com/2019/07/09/ariel-little-mermaid-backlash-black-halle-bailey/), 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.

I have an older thread here on the evolution of D&D's STR attributes.

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:

  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: Ratman_tf;1095948You realize last month was Pride month?

...

I had no idea. I thought I was the only person who liked everyone and treated them equally. It's like I just realized the world DOES have good people in it! HOOZAH!

Quote from: trechriron;1095985I had no idea. I thought I was the only person who liked everyone and treated them equally. It's like I just realized the world DOES have good people in it! HOOZAH!

If that is not sarcaism, then you need fucking help because your perception of reality is grossly wrong.

Quote from: Anselyn;1095918For the top male weight lifter, does anyone know the range of weights over which he'd go from 100% chance of success to 0%?

Is 100% chance at 400kg, 450kg, 460 kg?
Is 0% 479 kg, 480 kg, 500 kg?

My guess is that there results are a lot less "swingy" than most skill RPG systems and that variation in performance is a small fraction compared to overall ability. That's why world ranking work for weight lifting, tennis etc. without lots of volatility.  

Yes. Or more precisely, the performance of someone in their first couple of years varies a lot, an experienced person less. I see this in running a gym, that with a newbie, one squat up and down may be terrible, and the next rep great, and so on; but 12 months in, and they're much more consistent. Over time, performance gets better but it also gets more consistent.

Now, looking at sporting performances. Consider that in a weightlifting competition, you know months or even years ahead the exact date it'll be on, and can prepare accordingly, gradually peaking for that one particular day. And you can take your time to do your lifts, and they're spread over the day. And a tennis game, they also know some time ahead when the game will be and who they'll play, they can study their opponent's game style - and it has a lot of back-and-forth over some hours, imagine each reach for the ball as a dice roll, things tend to average out.

Weightlifters don't have to lift weights by surprise while being shot at, nor do tennis players get surprise matches not knowing who the opponent is or the weather etc. And of course, you hear about the sporting performances of the experienced ones, nobody's televising the Saturday afternoon social tennis game of you and your nerd friends. I think you would find that their performance would be less, of course, but also wildly inconsistent.

In game terms it's like saying we'll go from rolling Attribute + Skill +d10-d10 to Attribute + Skill +d4-d4. Or perhaps the dice don't need to change, since the skill will become larger than the variation, eg novice skill of 20+d10-d10 vs experienced skill of 40+d10-d10, the variability goes from proportionally large to proportionally small.

But anyway, variability in performance is also less when the person is experienced, has time to prepare, or when it involves many different applications of the skill (rolls). Roleplaying game systems tend not to simulate tasks which you have months to prepare for, but tasks which are momentary in nature. I mean there's sometimes magic crafting and stuff, but generally for purposes of style we want that to be crazy and unpredictable, so we treat it like a combat roll. Not many games have people roll to build a house over 6 months, or something.

Most of us have had the experience of happily driving along a straight road holding a conversation with the music playing, then looking to do a U-turn, or drive through a supermarket parking lot with kids running around, and asking people in the car to be quiet, and/or turning the music off. As you reach the limits of your ability, you want to remove distractions and extra challenges to that ability; but in a sporting competition, this is accomplished by the months of preparation beforehand.

Ah Pride month! Our new national holiday for sanctimonious pricks, indoctrinated children, clowns jumping on the fad train and corporations chasing dollars!

I wonder if gay guys will be allowed to attend in a few years? They might not present the right optics! LOL.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095989Weightlifters don't have to lift weights by surprise while being shot at

You could offer that as special event at your gym!

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095988If that is not sarcaism, then you need fucking help because your perception of reality is grossly wrong.

I keep forgetting to put my [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags on. Also, my perception of reality is completely wrong. Not sure how to answer this one.

Quote from: trechriron;1095985I had no idea. I thought I was the only person who liked everyone and treated them equally. It's like I just realized the world DOES have good people in it! HOOZAH!

My point being, while there are surely situations where LGBT people have issues, sometimes very terrible issues in the case of some countries, most of the west celebrates LGBT people, conspicuously and loudly. Times change, and the narrative that gay people are oppressed is no longer accurate.

Spend your time storytelling instead of worrying about nonsensical things that don't matter for rpgs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095989Yes. Or more precisely, the performance of someone in their first couple of years varies a lot, an experienced person less. I see this in running a gym, that with a newbie, one squat up and down may be terrible, and the next rep great, and so on; but 12 months in, and they're much more consistent. Over time, performance gets better but it also gets more consistent.

Now, looking at sporting performances. Consider that in a weightlifting competition, you know months or even years ahead the exact date it'll be on, and can prepare accordingly, gradually peaking for that one particular day. And you can take your time to do your lifts, and they're spread over the day. And a tennis game, they also know some time ahead when the game will be and who they'll play, they can study their opponent's game style - and it has a lot of back-and-forth over some hours, imagine each reach for the ball as a dice roll, things tend to average out.

Weightlifters don't have to lift weights by surprise while being shot at, nor do tennis players get surprise matches not knowing who the opponent is or the weather etc. And of course, you hear about the sporting performances of the experienced ones, nobody's televising the Saturday afternoon social tennis game of you and your nerd friends. I think you would find that their performance would be less, of course, but also wildly inconsistent.

In game terms it's like saying we'll go from rolling Attribute + Skill +d10-d10 to Attribute + Skill +d4-d4. Or perhaps the dice don't need to change, since the skill will become larger than the variation, eg novice skill of 20+d10-d10 vs experienced skill of 40+d10-d10, the variability goes from proportionally large to proportionally small.

But anyway, variability in performance is also less when the person is experienced, has time to prepare, or when it involves many different applications of the skill (rolls). Roleplaying game systems tend not to simulate tasks which you have months to prepare for, but tasks which are momentary in nature. I mean there's sometimes magic crafting and stuff, but generally for purposes of style we want that to be crazy and unpredictable, so we treat it like a combat roll. Not many games have people roll to build a house over 6 months, or something.

Most of us have had the experience of happily driving along a straight road holding a conversation with the music playing, then looking to do a U-turn, or drive through a supermarket parking lot with kids running around, and asking people in the car to be quiet, and/or turning the music off. As you reach the limits of your ability, you want to remove distractions and extra challenges to that ability; but in a sporting competition, this is accomplished by the months of preparation beforehand.

Sporting events provide a relatively consistent baseline. If male competitive weightlifters can on average lift 30% more weight than female competitive weightlifters, it provides a baseline. Similarly the top record holders for the 100 meter dash are all men of African descent, the fastest white man barely makes the top 50 (#48 Christophe Lemaitre) and the fastest woman doesn't even break the top 2000. The difference between the fastest man and the fastest woman is less than 1 second (9.58 to 10.49), but if one felt this was truly important it does at least provide a consistent baseline.


Your point I would think would be more along the lines of "well I have an 18/00 strength and the rules say I can only lift 200kg, and the top real world weightlifter can lift 257kg, the rules are broken". Then yeah, under controlled, competitive situations with balanced weight, and preparation the PC could probably be allowed to lift more.

Much like the common argument, "at the range I can consistently hit an 8" pie plate at 200m so what's up with my bad ass special forces guy only having a 50% chance of hitting a whole man at 50m?"
"Is that pie plate moving?, is that pie plate shooting at you? Is your buddy popping off a machinegun in your ear while you aim at that pie plate?"        


I'm pretty solidly in the camp of its fantasy, it is genre consistent to have badass women who can best most men in a contest of strength, so not really promoting that gender norming stats is constructive or desirable in the typical game. I do think that when there is sufficient evidence to support it, and if players desire it, there is nothing inherently evil about it.
It's kind of like including prejudices in a game, definitely a hot button issue, but for the right group playing a unit that is trying to rescue jews ahead of advancing Nazi armies, or dealing with African American PCs in the Jim Crow south it can enhance the game. With the wrong group it can result in hurt feelings or devolve into a game of racist wet dream fantasies.

Wow. That Doritos rainbow has seven colors. The gay pride rainbow only has six. Maybe Frito Lay is subconsciously protesting it all. ;)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095948Wil Wheaton is a dick.

Amen.

...well I have an 18/00 strength...

Regardless of the actual weight allowances listed in the book, it also stated that 18/00 is "the strongest man in the world". With that, I would substitute in whatever our strongest man in the world can do.

Quote from: Timothe;1096014Wow. That Doritos rainbow has seven colors. The gay pride rainbow only has six. Maybe Frito Lay is subconsciously protesting it all. ;)

Fun fact: the original one had eight colours, it changed over the years, it's been as low as six and as many as nine colours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT_movement)

There is diversity even in the kinds of rainbow flags.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095619I'm happy to chat with all kinds of people. My Discord is Datum#7113. Drop me a line. I also frequent Giant Dragons Gamer Chat when I'm not working. It's held on most Wednesdays and Thursdays around 6PM ET. here's a link to that Discord https://discord.gg/KMws7dH (https://discord.gg/KMws7dH)

As for FATAL, I can't say that's even close to the kind of game I'm looking for. I'm not looking for anus diameter. I'm looking for a system that has rules that illustrate what is different about the genders, among other things, so that the magical things in the world stand out even more in the mind as fantastic.

Men are bigger, on the average and their is overlap. If each were equally strong for their size, that would mean men were stronger, on the average and with overlap. Actually, men tend to be somewhat stronger for their size, on the average and with overlap (otaawo). So, men tend to be quite a bit stronger, otaawo. Women are healthier, otaawo.
Being strong for your size is, in many circumstances, more valuable than sheer strength. If you don't have a size attribute, or if you have the simpleminded Size = Strength, you can't model this. In my game rules, which are not a D&D variant, strength equals size averaged with a random number, plus a bonus for con. I don't figure in that men are stronger for their size because I am already politically incorrect enough.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1096074Men are bigger, on the average and their is overlap. If each were equally strong for their size, that would mean men were stronger, on the average and with overlap. Actually, men tend to be somewhat stronger for their size, on the average and with overlap (otaawo). So, men tend to be quite a bit stronger, otaawo. Women are healthier, otaawo.
Being strong for your size is, in many circumstances, more valuable than sheer strength. If you don't have a size attribute, or if you have the simpleminded Size = Strength, you can't model this. In my game rules, which are not a D&D variant, strength equals size averaged with a random number, plus a bonus for con. I don't figure in that men are stronger for their size because I am already politically incorrect enough.

Thanks for the insight on how you handle things. That sounds a bit too complex for what I'm going for, but sounds more accurate than what I'm using. Accuracy vs Complexity is a pretty common trade-off.

Pox, are you familiar with Runequest / BRP and how their SIZE stat works? If not, check out OpenQuest or other BRP game because its an interesting stat. It's nicely balanced too in that its not a dump stat, nor an uber stat, and creates its own benefits and hindrances at the high/low ends.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1096128Pox, are you familiar with Runequest / BRP and how their SIZE stat works? If not, check out OpenQuest or other BRP game because its an interesting stat. It's nicely balanced too in that its not a dump stat, nor an uber stat, and creates its own benefits and hindrances at the high/low ends.

Also - are you familiar with:

Pendragon (derived from BRP) -Does generational play, wives are important for offspring (and possible estate management?)

Ars Magica - One vision of how Abrahamic faiths can be played out in a world with magic and divine powers. Also has very differently balanced adventuring parties with Wizards, Companions and Grogs.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1096079Thanks for the insight on how you handle things. That sounds a bit too complex for what I'm going for, but sounds more accurate than what I'm using. Accuracy vs Complexity is a pretty common trade-off.

I think stats that impact one another makes a lot more sense than stats that have nothing to do with each other. From the glimpse I got in your first post, I don't think your method is less complex.