Quote from: The Traveller;568199A hypothetical society with a feared female warrior caste could do it, or trained assassins, women warriors in place of eunuchs, killer nuns, there are a few outs. If you're doing a fantasy world anyway I don't see much of an issue with some unusual societies, given that a well trained woman can beat an averagely or even well trained man (Rachel Luttrell, I'm looking at you). Some of those MMA ladies could probably bend me into a pretzel.

Basically what I'm saying is if the only problem is societal, and you're creating societies in a fantasy world, there's no reason to avoid female warriors. Samurai, after all, were taught the unmanly skill of poetry.

The Ancient Greeks had stories about the Amazons, after all.

But that's a different question than sanitizing a historical or historically-based setting to bring it in line with our modern sensibilities.

Are women really bothered by this?  I had an old girlfriend who loved playing half naked barbarian chics with a big ass sword.  Her characters used their "assets" as much as they did weapons.  If you'd fully clothed her characters, she'd have quit playing.

Quote from: JRR;568496Are women really bothered by this?  I had an old girlfriend who loved playing half naked barbarian chics with a big ass sword.  Her characters used their "assets" as much as they did weapons.  If you'd fully clothed her characters, she'd have quit playing.

But that is a player choice, isn't it?  Would you say her choice is the best for every player out there, and should be hard-coded in the rules?

I don't see the appeal of dragging actual history into a game anyway.  Sure, there are definitely interesting facts and stories from which to draw, and some of the over-arching themes might make for a good scaffold.  And that isn't to say it should never be done.  But Roman Elves would be uninteresting and the doorway to endless arguments about 'accuracy'; rather, Elves with an Imperial Roman-esque political structure that supports (influences, is influenced by) a quasi-Edo period Japanese culture would be a campaign worthy of its word-count.

As in all things, moderation is key.  Realizing fantasy cultures works better with a healthy dose of mix-n-match, too.

Quote from: JRR;568496Are women really bothered by this?  I had an old girlfriend who loved playing half naked barbarian chics with a big ass sword.  Her characters used their "assets" as much as they did weapons.  If you'd fully clothed her characters, she'd have quit playing.

I could certainly understand her being bothered had she been told "well, this is a setting based on late medieval europe, so you're going to have to wear dresses, not fight, stay in the house while we go off adventuring and be married off to produce babies".

So again, for playability's sake, some leeway is sensible.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;568376That said, I also have no interest in drowning the setting in excessive culturewank, and playability is the key interest in the setting design

Yeah. This is why I don't like using what would otherwise be appropriate levels of institutional sexism in my campaigns – carried past a certain minimal point (tossed-off background details, or particular places that are especially harsh about it) it just feels like the GM is being a novelist again and a boring, cranky one at that. Loosening things up to a more modern standard is more fun and less bullshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;568542I could certainly understand her being bothered had she been told "well, this is a setting based on late medieval europe, so you're going to have to wear dresses, not fight, stay in the house while we go off adventuring and be married off to produce babies".

So again, for playability's sake, some leeway is sensible.

True, but having said that, there's a difference between "You want to play an anachronistic feminist (/racial equality adherent/whatever)? Cool, you get to do that. You'll be going uphill in a world where nobody shares your ideals, but if you persevere, you might even make a difference." and "You want to play an anachronistic feminist? Cool, you get to do that, and in order to make sure you're playing in an emotional safe environment, the entire world will also share your anachronistic views. You'll be completely accepted as a feminist, no struggle there."

Quote from: RPGPundit;568542I could certainly understand her being bothered had she been told "well, this is a setting based on late medieval europe, so you're going to have to wear dresses, not fight, stay in the house while we go off adventuring and be married off to produce babies".

So again, for playability's sake, some leeway is sensible.

Not a historian, but I don't even think "leeway" is necessary. Most able-bodied men of the same period tilled the soil, and we don't restrict male PCs to being farmers. By dint of being PCs, they are extraordinary individuals, set apart from the "average" denizen of the same time and place. Not necesarily because they wield world-shaking power, but mostly (e.g. in D&D) because they have the training to pull off amazing things, and the will to go out into the large world, running for adventure.

I feel kind of silly for coming up with this analogy, but I thin k it holds water. Compare the stereotypical role of women in Medieval society with Tolkien's portrait of hobbits. Most of them are placid, sedentary farmers; and those who get shit done (Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Sam) are widely regarded as dangerous troublemakers and malcontents. Now, no one wants their halfling PC to sit around smoking pot -- er, "pipe-weed" -- and stuffing his face full of food day after day; people want to go into dungeons, and kill orcs, and steal shiny things. Same goes for women PCs; they'll probably face even bigger prejudice and societal rejection as the average male PC adventurer, but both history and fiction have their share of women who rose above prejudiced societal mores to become pretty badass. Female PCs should be cut from the samed cloth as Eleanor de Aquitaine and Tomoe Gozen, Tasso's Bradamante and Martin's Arya Stark.

Quote from: The Butcher;568596Not a historian, but I don't even think "leeway" is necessary. Most able-bodied men of the same period tilled the soil, and we don't restrict male PCs to being farmers. By dint of being PCs, they are extraordinary individuals, set apart from the "average" denizen of the same time and place. Not necesarily because they wield world-shaking power, but mostly (e.g. in D&D) because they have the training to pull off amazing things, and the will to go out into the large world, running for adventure.

I feel kind of silly for coming up with this analogy, but I thin k it holds water. Compare the stereotypical role of women in Medieval society with Tolkien's portrait of hobbits. Most of them are placid, sedentary farmers; and those who get shit done (Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Sam) are widely regarded as dangerous troublemakers and malcontents. Now, no one wants their halfling PC to sit around smoking pot -- er, "pipe-weed" -- and stuffing his face full of food day after day; people want to go into dungeons, and kill orcs, and steal shiny things. Same goes for women PCs; they'll probably face even bigger prejudice and societal rejection as the average male PC adventurer, but both history and fiction have their share of women who rose above prejudiced societal mores to become pretty badass. Female PCs should be cut from the samed cloth as Eleanor de Aquitaine and Tomoe Gozen, Tasso's Bradamante and Martin's Arya Stark.

And for what it's worth, Tolkien provides us with examples of this in his world. Eowyn is one such character. She is told by her father that she has to stay home and help watch the children while Rohan's warriors ride into battle. She refuses and makes a huge contribution to the battle of Gondor.

Also one could argue Galadriel is another such character. It's pretty obvious from the books that she is one of the most powerful magic users in Middle Earth at the time the books are set and you certainly get the feeling that she has a great deal of political power among the elves.

I've always approached this question from the stance that player characters are exceptional, full stop. 90 percent of the world is busy staying at home, doing the job they have been apprenticed to and avoiding the attention of the ruling classes as best as they can. PCs instead seek danger, excitement and adventure. Male or female, they would appear to the average person of their world as quite odd.

Ok we're doing a pretty good job of staying civil and on-topic, so lets leap onto a landmine - different traits based on Gender.

Before we fill this thread with pictures of bodybuilders, lets just toss out some facts.  Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species.  World Record weightlifting numbers show men outperform women of higher weight classes.  So lets not pretend that all things being equal, the strongest woman in the world could be stronger then the strongest man, it's silly.

But, the obvious counter would be, yeah so who gives a shit?  If you're not going to quantify differences in Con or Dex, then why Str?  Are we going to get into an even bigger landmine with Int vs. Wis and Chr?  Even if it would be technically correct, is it even worth it?  Even if Humans are sexually dimorphic, are Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves?  Maybe so, maybe not.

Is this one step on a slippery slope to Stormfront-like racial modifiers and we don't just want to ever go there?

Anyone use gender mods at your table or in the game you've made or are making?

What do you gain, what do you lose, what do you think?

The difference between the men's and women's 100m sprint records is a bit under one second.

But from the perspective of an average person who can cover the same distance in about 15-20 seconds, that less-than-a-second difference between men and women is insignificant.

The question is, are ability scores so granular as to reflect the differences between men and women world class athletes, or do they reflect the difference between world class athletes and normal joes?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568649The difference between the men's and women's 100m sprint records is a bit under one second.

But from the perspective of an average person who can cover the same distance in about 15-20 seconds, that less-than-a-second difference between men and women is insignificant.

The question is, are ability scores so granular as to reflect the differences between men and women world class athletes, or do they reflect the difference between world class athletes and normal joes?

True, that one second though is a 10% difference, and looking at heaviest weight classes it's a 30% difference (due to men having weight classes women can't even get to without male hormone doping).

However, you're right. What does extreme performance mean in terms of stats?  If the stats don't model that difference is it enough to call it a wash?

What if you have a Cimmerian Male with the same maximum strength as a Zingaran Female, does that seem right?  Does it depend on genre?

Quote from: CRKrueger;568651If the stats don't model that difference is it enough to call it a wash?

It is for me.

For my Flashing Blades campaign, I convrted the rules from Top Secret for movement and adapted a Dragon article for jumping. The combination of these rules, both of which are based on attribute scores, I think does a good job of reflecting the difference between athletic and average characters, which is the level of granularity I'm after.

The ammount you can lift is related to body size. Men lift more because they are bigger so have more muscle mass.
Incorporate a size stat and you can give men and women the same strength. So a str 18 woman that weighs 100lbs can climb go a handstand for an hour but can't heft a 300 lb backpack, a 200lb man with 14 str can (so can a 200lb woman of course)
Applying the same logic means you can rank stuff the same.... 10 str giants, 12str dragons etc

Then you differentiate women on their size not stats. Saying women are smaller than men is hardly contenscious.

My problem with the stat adjustments based on sex is mostly that the stats used by RPGs don't really map well to real physical/mental/emotional capabilities.

Strength is a good example. Are we talking short term lifting power? Or are we talking load carrying capacity. Where does the divide between Str. and Con start? When you take damage who don't you get weaker?

It gets worse when you look at Dex. Some games split Dex into Dex and Agility, that works a little better, but it still isn't a great model.

Int? I know some incredibly smart people who have absolutely no ability at reading other peoples emotional responses.

I think at some point you have to say. This is a game. We need some rules to decide why this character can do one thing while another can't. And you have to accept it's never going to be a complete simulation.

I'm sure that in real life being a tenth of a second faster than your opponent might make a difference, but when you have combat rounds measured in intervals as much as a minute, you kind of have to let it go.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568645Ok we're doing a pretty good job of staying civil and on-topic, so lets leap onto a landmine - different traits based on Gender.

Before we fill this thread with pictures of bodybuilders, lets just toss out some facts.  Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species.  World Record weightlifting numbers show men outperform women of higher weight classes.  So lets not pretend that all things being equal, the strongest woman in the world could be stronger then the strongest man, it's silly.

But, the obvious counter would be, yeah so who gives a shit?  If you're not going to quantify differences in Con or Dex, then why Str?  Are we going to get into an even bigger landmine with Int vs. Wis and Chr?  Even if it would be technically correct, is it even worth it?  Even if Humans are sexually dimorphic, are Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves?  Maybe so, maybe not.

Is this one step on a slippery slope to Stormfront-like racial modifiers and we don't just want to ever go there?

Anyone use gender mods at your table or in the game you've made or are making?

What do you gain, what do you lose, what do you think?

I think it's a minefield both politically and scientifically. That said, I don't necessarily have a beef with a DM saying male characters get +1 STR and -1 WIS or something, but I doubt I'd use such a rule.

The only other thing that I would say is, let's be realistic in the way we depict strong women. If your female character is STR 18 she ain't gonna look like Scarlett Johansson. More like an East German shot putter circa 1984.