Quote from: Brendan;1104607Wife: How can it be offensive? It's true.

Amazing how controversial such an idea is these days, isn't it?

Quote from: Brendan;1104607So leaving the gym last night, after spending the evening playing with my daughters and tucking them into bed, troglodyte that I am I thought to ask my wife what she thought of about our little debate here.  The conversation is relayed below, more or less verbatim.  

Me:  Hey, I want to ask you a question.

Wife:  Okay.

Me: As a female person -  sorry, a person with a vagina..

Wife:

Me: Do you find the idea that men are considerably stronger than women offensive?

Wife:  How can it be offensive? It's true.

Me:  Okay, good.  Same page.  What about the statement that women are considerably more socially aware and adept than men?

Wife:  Again, how can that be offensive? It's true.

Q.E.D. gents, Q.E.D.

She clearly has internalized misogyny. [/s]

Quote from: Antiquation!;1104612Amazing how controversial such an idea is these days, isn't it?

So true.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1104617She clearly has internalized misogyny. [/s]

We try, but with two kids under four it's often hard to find the time. :cool:

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104505Maybe because I'm not addressing that? I'm answering to your whole quote I made, not to that particular part, but:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10786480/Social-skills-make-women-better-criminals.html

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dda9/9d4ac22d355f07283827c3d1c3e419b2f58f.pdf

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/hsiu/work/endofmen_post.pdf

I'm taking the Pro-Science side here, and facts don't care about your feelings (or mine)

Thanks for the links. I note that your third link is all about jobs data -- even though when I pointed to jobs data, you considered that irrelevant. Now, to be fair, these do show that there is a social science construct called "social skill" in the literature, and that girls and women tend to score higher in this as well as what is called "emotional intelligence". However, I would argue that this construct is not a good fit for the practical uses of the Charisma stat in D&D, such as for recruiting and retaining men-at-arms. I would cite this article for example:

QuoteThis review article reveals that men are generally more influential than women, although the gender differences depend on several moderators. Relative to men, women are particularly less influential when using dominant forms of communication, whereas the male influence is reduced in domains that are traditionally associated with the female role and in group settings in which more than one woman or girl is present. Males in particular resist influence by women and girls more than females do, especially when influence agents employ highly competent styles of communication. Resistance to competent women can be reduced, however, when women temper their competence with displays of communality and warmth.

Source: http://academics.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Psych/Faculty/Carli/GenderAndSocialInfluence.pdf

This article similarly contrasts male and female communication, noting differences that often give advantage to men:

https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses

Even when measuring the construct of "social skill", I note that the gender difference is not large. For example, below is a measurement of social skill with various explanation. It found a correlation with gender of r = 0.1, which is marginal.

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/5542/research.pdf?sequence=3

Overall, I would take any of this (both your links and mine) with a big grain of salt, because psychology and sociology have a lot of issues with reproducibility.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1104586Agreeableness means that women are easier to walk all over and take advantage of in cut-throat, competitive environments. Women are much less likely to abandon their children and friends to work 80 hours a week. And there are fewer female geniuses (but also fewer female morons).

The bottom line is that women are optimized by evolution for creating and interacting with children, whereas men are optimized for hunting, politics, and war. This hyper-specialization has likely made Homo sapiens superior to other human species -- imagine a hyper-specialized NFL football team vs a generic football team with no specialization; imagine Tom Brady vs an average quarterback. This gives the children of modern Homo sapiens a huge advantage in terms of their ability to survive, learn, adapt, and excel.

Traditionally there have always been two dominance hierarchies -- one for men and one for women, and they were generally orthogonal to each other.

First of all, I don't see how what you're saying disagrees with me. If men have an advantage with the male hierarchies such as hunting, politics, and war -- then does it really make sense to give men a penalty to D&D Charisma?

Second, though, I find your data claims suspect. We have extremely little data about the psychology of other human species compared to homo sapiens. Were Neanderthals really more androgynous in gender roles? For example, this 2006 paper supports your claim:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061204123302.htm

But this 2015 study looks at Neanderthal tooth data and finds distinguished gender roles:

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-neanderthal-groups-based-lifestyle-sexual.html

Evolutionary theory of humans is working on very limited data. We're not even sure about the traits we clearly did evolve - like lack of hair and permanent mammary sacks. Gendered differences are also hard to predict. Since we started hunting, men have evolved to become *smaller* in size -- closer to the size of women. i.e. Australopithecines and Homo Habilis have greater gender dimorphism in size, more like modern-day gorillas. If men were evolving to more specialized gender roles, why did they evolve in size to be more similar to women? I'm sure there are possible answers, but I also think they're largely shots in the dark.

Quote from: jhkim;1104631Thanks for the links. I note that your third link is all about jobs data -- even though when I pointed to jobs data, you considered that irrelevant. Now, to be fair, these do show that there is a social science construct called "social skill" in the literature, and that girls and women tend to score higher in this as well as what is called "emotional intelligence". However, I would argue that this construct is not a good fit for the practical uses of the Charisma stat in D&D, such as for recruiting and retaining men-at-arms. I would cite this article for example:


Source: http://academics.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Psych/Faculty/Carli/GenderAndSocialInfluence.pdf

This article similarly contrasts male and female communication, noting differences that often give advantage to men:

https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses

Even when measuring the construct of "social skill", I note that the gender difference is not large. For example, below is a measurement of social skill with various explanation. It found a correlation with gender of r = 0.1, which is marginal.

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/5542/research.pdf?sequence=3

Overall, I would take any of this (both your links and mine) with a big grain of salt, because psychology and sociology have a lot of issues with reproducibility.



First of all, I don't see how what you're saying disagrees with me. If men have an advantage with the male hierarchies such as hunting, politics, and war -- then does it really make sense to give men a penalty to D&D Charisma?

Second, though, I find your data claims suspect. We have extremely little data about the psychology of other human species compared to homo sapiens. Were Neanderthals really more androgynous in gender roles? For example, this 2006 paper supports your claim:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061204123302.htm

But this 2015 study looks at Neanderthal tooth data and finds distinguished gender roles:

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-neanderthal-groups-based-lifestyle-sexual.html

Evolutionary theory of humans is working on very limited data. We're not even sure about the traits we clearly did evolve - like lack of hair and permanent mammary sacks. Gendered differences are also hard to predict. Since we started hunting, men have evolved to become *smaller* in size -- closer to the size of women. i.e. Australopithecines and Homo Habilis have greater gender dimorphism in size, more like modern-day gorillas. If men were evolving to more specialized gender roles, why did they evolve in size to be more similar to women? I'm sure there are possible answers, but I also think they're largely shots in the dark.

Just as STR isn't really a good enough fit to model reality, since the stronger you are the bigger you are, this would necessitate a penalty on your dodge saves. And USUALLY, the stronger are also less graceful, think a ballet dancer vs a power lifter.

Bigger animals need more food, you can't forget that when thinking why would a species lose size. Also we're a weird kind of ape, and not only for the lack of fur. we're not of the dominant male takes all the females, but we still have some competition to be able to attract the females and be chosen by one.

And to Cloyer Bulse, there are not dominance hierarchies but competence ones, since we don't fight for the top spot of the hierarchy. (I mean physical fights probably to death)

Quote from: Antiquation!;1104612Amazing how controversial such an idea is these days, isn't it?

There are all kinds of true statements that have been annoying to these people for some time.  Taking offense is how they deal with the annoyance.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1104671There are all kinds of true statements that have been annoying to these people for some time.  Taking offense is how they deal with the annoyance.

Taking offense plus attempting to revise the truth to suit their sensibilities, yes.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1104687Taking offense plus attempting to revise the truth to suit their sensibilities, yes.

They aren't trying to revise it.  They are trying to make it too costly to talk about it, because they know they can't win a debate on the merits.  Then they want to replace the not talking about with their own dogma.  Which in practical effect, is about the same thing as what you said.  Same result, slightly different process.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1104689They aren't trying to revise it.  They are trying to make it too costly to talk about it, because they know they can't win a debate on the merits.  Then they want to replace the not talking about with their own dogma.  Which in practical effect, is about the same thing as what you said.  Same result, slightly different process.

Well put. I still sometimes feel like I'm experiencing a fever dream watching this shit creep its tendrils into roleplaying, possibly one of the least fucking controversial or damaging activities of all time. Extrapolating play-pretend with your friends into some perceived rampant series of social injustices, abuse and intolerance, complete with x-cards, lines, veils, sensitivity training, setting revisions, written goddamned social contracts... oh, yeah, and apparently policing other peoples houserules. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1104689They aren't trying to revise it.  They are trying to make it too costly to talk about it, because they know they can't win a debate on the merits.  Then they want to replace the not talking about with their own dogma.  Which in practical effect, is about the same thing as what you said.  Same result, slightly different process.

I think my involvement in this discussion is proof that people who disagree with the concept aren't afraid to discuss it, nor are they afraid to win the debate 'on the merit of their ideas'.  

In summary form my contentions are as follows:

1) Strength (as used in D&D) doesn't meaningfully distinguish between a halfling, a dwarf, an elf, and a human.  If we assume that the adjustment for halflings is accurate (-1 Str +1 Dex in 1st Edition Player's Handbook) then the differences between the average woman and the average man are insignificant in comparison - less than -1.  

2) Strength (as used in multiple fantasy/sci-fi RPGs) isn't simply a measure of physical upper-body strength.  While it is important for lifting/carrying capacity, it is also about 'extra damage' and 'to hit rolls', which arguably aren't always appropriately categorized under Strength.  Creating a penalty to 'Strength' automatically applies to everything under the 'Strength' umbrella - even if those things SHOULDN'T be included.  

3) While it is true that men are stronger (and larger, and hairier) than women on average it is not true that all men are stronger (and larger, and hairier) than all women.  Just as it is HIGHLY unusual to find a woman with a beard, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE, it's limiting to the game in a bad way to make it Impossible for a woman to be as strong as the strongest man.

4) Even if we accept that female characters ought to be less strong on average, a penalty isn't the best way to go about it.  There are psychological reasons that avoiding a penalty is a good idea and there are practical reasons.  Effectively, if the net result is that people who play female characters are ALREADY lower Strength compared to male characters without an incentive/mechanic, putting one in doesn't make sense.

5) If the base system does not penalize based on gender, then choosing to make that a house rule important enough to include and defend does speak to your priorities.  Even if it is entirely based on a desire to make things realistic, it can APPEAR to be targeted at disempowering female characters (who may be predominantly female players) - at the very least, if you insist on realism HERE you open yourself up to accusations of bias everywhere else you DON'T insist on realism.

6) Even if it were realistic and even if it were generally true, in any RPG there are so many exceptions that it doesn't make it worth the time to enforce (again, assuming the difference were measurable on the scale you're using).  A woman gets a -2, but then finds Gloves of Ogre Strength 19, - it doesn't matter that she started out lower than a male would have - now she's just as strong because 'magic'.  Again and still, if it isn't going to matter, it's not worth the time and effort and if it IS going to matter see #5.  

This is by no means an exhaustive list - this is a quick general summary so I can move on to important things (like dinner).

Maybe you're the exception that proves the rule.

Try having this discussion on TBP.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104698I think my involvement in this discussion is proof that people who disagree with the concept aren't afraid to discuss it, nor are they afraid to win the debate 'on the merit of their ideas'.  

Nope, because you keep strawmaning and have so far only presented such and moralistic arguments as you yourself prove below.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104698In summary form my contentions are as follows:

1) Strength (as used in D&D) doesn't meaningfully distinguish between a halfling, a dwarf, an elf, and a human.  If we assume that the adjustment for halflings is accurate (-1 Str +1 Dex in 1st Edition Player's Handbook) then the differences between the average woman and the average man are insignificant in comparison - less than -1.  

But only you and those who belong to your cult (or way of thinking) are talking exclusively of D&D or even any fantastic setting.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11046982) Strength (as used in multiple fantasy/sci-fi RPGs) isn't simply a measure of physical upper-body strength.  While it is important for lifting/carrying capacity, it is also about 'extra damage' and 'to hit rolls', which arguably aren't always appropriately categorized under Strength.  Creating a penalty to 'Strength' automatically applies to everything under the 'Strength' umbrella - even if those things SHOULDN'T be included.

Again, what about games like White Lies? zero fantasy races there. Yep STR is also about those things, and I'm sure you really think I could hit you just as hard as The Rock or make the equal amount of damage right?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11046983) While it is true that men are stronger (and larger, and hairier) than women on average it is not true that all men are stronger (and larger, and hairier) than all women.  Just as it is HIGHLY unusual to find a woman with a beard, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE, it's limiting to the game in a bad way to make it Impossible for a woman to be as strong as the strongest man.

It is also true that the strongest woman is much weaker than the strongest man and not that much above the average joe. And yes it is impossible for a woman to be as strong as the strongest man, sorry if your religion finds science offensive.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11046984) Even if we accept that female characters ought to be less strong on average, a penalty isn't the best way to go about it.  There are psychological reasons that avoiding a penalty is a good idea and there are practical reasons.  Effectively, if the net result is that people who play female characters are ALREADY lower Strength compared to male characters without an incentive/mechanic, putting one in doesn't make sense.

Wait a minute, you start talking about PCs, then switch over to players. I'm not as strong as Conan, yet I have played characters like him, I'm also not a woman, yet I have played female characters, and of the women who have played with me I'm (not being really that athletic) stronger than them, sometimes even if you combine 2 of them. What does MY real strength have to do with the characters I play? Have you heard of games like Hiperborean mice?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11046985) If the base system does not penalize based on gender, then choosing to make that a house rule important enough to include and defend does speak to your priorities.

No, but you would think so of course, because you're a small child that can't differentiate between fiction and make believe and reality. Search help before the voices in your head put you in trouble.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104698Even if it is entirely based on a desire to make things realistic, it can APPEAR to be targeted at disempowering female characters (who may be predominantly female players)

Only to disingenuous twats like you who keep ignoring this same rules could be applied to a different species where the male was the weaker sex. And I would need to respect you to care a little bit about your opinion as it stands I don't give a fuck and keep arguing with you because I find it entertaining to demolish you intellectually and exhibit you as a hypocritical, puritanical, holier than thou, authoritarian and disingenuous twat.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104698- at the very least, if you insist on realism HERE you open yourself up to accusations of bias everywhere else you DON'T insist on realism.

Translation: "Waah! you must insist on realism everywhere or nowhere!" Yeah, because we all demand the exact same level of "realism" from all our entertainment. Or in the case of you the neo-lyzenkoists of your scientific books.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11046986) Even if it were realistic and even if it were generally true, in any RPG there are so many exceptions that it doesn't make it worth the time to enforce (again, assuming the difference were measurable on the scale you're using).  A woman gets a -2, but then finds Gloves of Ogre Strength 19, - it doesn't matter that she started out lower than a male would have - now she's just as strong because 'magic'.  Again and still, if it isn't going to matter, it's not worth the time and effort and if it IS going to matter see #5.  

Once more, what about all those games with zero magic or sci-fi? And again see my detailed answer to your "point" #5

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11046986)This is by no means an exhaustive list - this is a quick general summary so I can move on to important things (like dinner).

Oh goody, you mean to say you have more "arguments"? Hope the next batch is of superior quality than these and that you leave the holier than thou to your pulpit on the SocJus cult.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104698I think my involvement in this discussion is proof that people who disagree with the concept aren't afraid to discuss it, nor are they afraid to win the debate 'on the merit of their ideas'.  

That depends.  Are you taking offense at the mere existence of the discussion?  That was pretty clearly the antecedent to my "They" in the context of my reply.

If you'll note back on my original post on the topic, I largely agree with you on the practical usefulness of such a mechanic for the vast majority of games.  Though in fairness to other arguments, I'm seldom that interested in realism to the degree where it would matter.  (And if I were, I wouldn't use a version of D&D to play that game.)

#5 is a redundant and useless point.  If the rule in question is not too complex and serves a useful end, then the players in the game can probably deal with any mixed signals that it might send.  (Half my group has been female since the late 80's.  If you tried that argument with them, they'd laugh you out of the room.)  On the other hand, if the rule is a bad rule for other reasons, then who it may or may not offend, hypothetically, maybe, on an odd Tuesday when it is raining--is completely irrelevant from a logic perspective.  The rule should be cut because it's a bad rule, period.  

A slightly more relevant point would be something like:  If the rule is useless for other reasons, then it might be sending mixed signals to include it, because people may wonder about your motive.  But before you can question the motive, you've got to establish that the rule is bad.

I rarely see female players playing female human melee characters. If they do play melee PCs (which I've noticed is rare), they are play something inhuman like a dwarf or dragonborn or half-orc.

In my experience, the "Red Sonja" or "Girl Conan" PC is mostly played by dudes.

Quote from: Brad;1104495anyone who says their WIS is over 9 and posts on a messageboard is a bald-faced liar.

LOL! Awesome!

You know, there are sometimes some interesting discussions here. This thread could even be one, it it were pursued with the tacit goal of actually getting somewhere, or learning something.

But...

it's posted as an absolute, thereby inviting an impossible argument about the merits of enforcing reality on fantasy. It has, as well -- and, predictably -- too often spiraled off into "blahblahblah SJW blahblahblah the left blahblahblah I'm offended by their offense."

Same ol'shit, different day. It's a useless discussion, because everyone's made their minds up, and this is just another opportunity for the same people to vent against their favorite boogeymen.

So, with that in mind, here's my 2 cents on the OP's opening salvo -- no, STR doesn't have to "always matter" because it's a fucking game, and you aren't the game police. Anyone who thinks otherwise can take that sentiment and shove it right up their ass. People can play however they fucking want. If you choose to be pissed about it, well, that's on you now, isn't it?

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

You may now return to your ceaseless and unproductive bitchfest.