This thread has me wanting to make an rpg where "Women" is listed as a race.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105038Right, on all accounts.

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

Think I remember that one. She beat a serpent man possessed Conan if I recall right.

Quote from: David Johansen;1105044This thread has me wanting to make an rpg where "Women" is listed as a race.

Metamorphosis Alpha. One area has some amazon type women who due to mutation are now only women. Forget how they reproduced. But it does make them a race.

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

A more interesting world to play in. If you want to be able to break stereotypes in the games you play, you have to live in a world were those stereotypes exist. In a world where male and female human strength is equal, it is much more difficult to play an unusually strong woman and have that experience feel authentic.

Quote from: mightybrain;1105062A more interesting world to play in. If you want to be able to break stereotypes in the games you play, you have to live in a world were those stereotypes exist. In a world where male and female human strength is equal, it is much more difficult to play an unusually strong woman and have that experience feel authentic.

This is a very good point. Brienne isn't the same interesting character if Westeros is a land of absolute gender equality and sameness.

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

For those who enjoy the simulationist aspect, accuracy would definitely be considered a bonus. And in practice even those gamers who aren't interested in such accuracy for its own sake (I myself like simulation right up to the point where the rules required to implement/reflect it get clunky, time-consuming, or coolness-nerfing) usually find it helps reinforce the immersive illusion wherever possible. (Consider the backlash against the original hit point systems when people saw what ridiculous feats of survival they allowed PCs to pull off, even though in theory one should expect players to embrace any rule that contributes to PC survival chances.)

For those who approach games from the tactical aspect, the idea of different types of characters having to start with different focuses of capacity vs. weakness is precisely what makes games tactically interesting. If none of your assets are dissimilar, then there's no tactical value in learning to combine them.

Likewise, for those who approach RPGs as a primarily narrative medium, rules which guide and reinforce different character perspectives and approaches can be narratively valuable -- if you want to play a female adventurer, you have to make your decisions in the light of what you know yourself to be better or worse at than others.

The one thing sexual dimorphism should never do is to create a situation where one sex is overall objectively less effective than another in the game context. As a result, if you want to reflect sexual dimorphism with some degree of verisimilitude (which is not the same thing as perfect simulationistic accuracy), then anything which makes female PCs less effective in action and combat scenes has to be compensated for by the capacity to be more effective in other equally important areas. Part of the reason bonuses to things like Charisma or Manipulation aren't felt to be an adequate offset to penalties to Strength is that in practice most games don't give players the chance to use that extra Charisma for stuff that's just as exciting, important and interesting.

Quote from: Omega;1105054Think I remember that one. She beat a serpent man possessed Conan if I recall right.

Honestly? Beats me, there was a time when I could have told you if you were right and even point the Issue (if comics) or the novel in which it took place. Now? My memory isn't what it used to be.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105094For those who enjoy the simulationist aspect, accuracy would definitely be considered a bonus. And in practice even those gamers who aren't interested in such accuracy for its own sake (I myself like simulation right up to the point where the rules required to implement/reflect it get clunky, time-consuming, or coolness-nerfing) usually find it helps reinforce the immersive illusion wherever possible. (Consider the backlash against the original hit point systems when people saw what ridiculous feats of survival they allowed PCs to pull off, even though in theory one should expect players to embrace any rule that contributes to PC survival chances.)

For those who approach games from the tactical aspect, the idea of different types of characters having to start with different focuses of capacity vs. weakness is precisely what makes games tactically interesting. If none of your assets are dissimilar, then there's no tactical value in learning to combine them.

Likewise, for those who approach RPGs as a primarily narrative medium, rules which guide and reinforce different character perspectives and approaches can be narratively valuable -- if you want to play a female adventurer, you have to make your decisions in the light of what you know yourself to be better or worse at than others.

The one thing sexual dimorphism should never do is to create a situation where one sex is overall objectively less effective than another in the game context. As a result, if you want to reflect sexual dimorphism with some degree of verisimilitude (which is not the same thing as perfect simulationistic accuracy), then anything which makes female PCs less effective in action and combat scenes has to be compensated for by the capacity to be more effective in other equally important areas. Part of the reason bonuses to things like Charisma or Manipulation aren't felt to be an adequate offset to penalties to Strength is that in practice most games don't give players the chance to use that extra Charisma for stuff that's just as exciting, important and interesting.

Agreed 1000% Which is why in my first intervention I mention lots of other differences and the need to adjust those too.

And yes, you'd need to change the rules a lot, for instance have CHA be THE stat for any mind controlling spells (if you're doing fantasy), or have it be more usable in combat somehow, maybe make the opponent more reticent to hurt someone with high CHA? this would give initiative advantage to the PC. Also have females get a bonus in WIS, and DEX. So maybe your female warrior can't wield a dual battle axe but she can turn you into a porcupine with her arrows, control you or use different spells to fuck you over.

Have a Witch class, witches are born (still need to study and practice tho) and female witches are more powerful than male ones.

But, instead of a smart and civil discussion of if it's possible and fun and how to make it work we get swamped in a fight with the Reeeing frogs.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105094the idea of different types of characters having to start with different focuses of capacity vs. weakness is precisely what makes games tactically interesting. If none of your assets are dissimilar, then there's no tactical value in learning to combine them.

Likewise, if they're all similar, there is also no tactical value added by including all of them. These differences are already expressed in the "Race" vector of RPGs, and adding a "Gender" vector to the character options with the same differences is, well, no addition at all for the tactical-minded.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105131Agreed 1000% Which is why in my first intervention I mention lots of other differences and the need to adjust those too.

And yes, you'd need to change the rules a lot, for instance have CHA be THE stat for any mind controlling spells (if you're doing fantasy), or have it be more usable in combat somehow, maybe make the opponent more reticent to hurt someone with high CHA? this would give initiative advantage to the PC. Also have females get a bonus in WIS, and DEX. So maybe your female warrior can't wield a dual battle axe but she can turn you into a porcupine with her arrows, control you or use different spells to fuck you over.

Have a Witch class, witches are born (still need to study and practice tho) and female witches are more powerful than male ones.

But, instead of a smart and civil discussion of if it's possible and fun and how to make it work we get swamped in a fight with the Reeeing frogs.

Agreed.  Let women have a higher ceiling in the Witch class...  It's hereditary, too.

I don't have an issue with a strength or size penalty inherently, but you don't need a Strength or Size penalty for PCs in order for the world to (a) have semi-realistic sexual dimorphism for NPCs; and (b) have sexism within in-game society.

Personally, I've never had a problem with the gendered stats in HarnMaster, for example. The system is aimed closer to reality, and has a lot more detail. In D&D, though, if you have a visible stat difference between men and women, then there should likely be a greater difference between humans and halflings, as well as between ogres and humans and more. Default D&D has an intentional lack of realism that allows a smaller creature to take on a bigger creature -- like a knight against a dragon. So adding this sort of realism just for women can feel out-of-place.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105094The one thing sexual dimorphism should never do is to create a situation where one sex is overall objectively less effective than another in the game context. As a result, if you want to reflect sexual dimorphism with some degree of verisimilitude (which is not the same thing as perfect simulationistic accuracy), then anything which makes female PCs less effective in action and combat scenes has to be compensated for by the capacity to be more effective in other equally important areas. Part of the reason bonuses to things like Charisma or Manipulation aren't felt to be an adequate offset to penalties to Strength is that in practice most games don't give players the chance to use that extra Charisma for stuff that's just as exciting, important and interesting.

In the historical medieval world, women were objectively less powerful than men. They had more social restrictions as well as being less powerful physically. However, that doesn't mean that women *PCs* have to be less powerful and less fun than men *PCs* even in a strictly historical setting. There are plenty of ways to make game play balanced.

1) Women PCs could be drawn from a more exceptional set than men, such as by using a point system. Even if using random-roll, there are ways to handle balance other than saying all races/genders are equal in the world. Goblins could be objectively less effective than humans, but still be a player race by using a balance mechanisms like ECL (Effective Character Level) or whatever the 1E equivalent was that allowed monsters as PCs.

2) In a fantasy game, the fantasy elements don't have to be equivalent between men and women. In HarnMaster, women are objectively superior to men in magic. They get a straight bonus to their Aura stat.

3) You could avoid some issues by not allowing all PC options in a given game. The PCs could be all men, or all women, or all dragons. I've done all of these.

Quote from: jhkim;11051452) In a fantasy game, the fantasy elements don't have to be equivalent between men and women. In HarnMaster, women are objectively superior to men in magic. They get a straight bonus to their Aura stat.

While its not an official rule, this is my unofficial guideline for building NPCs and example PCs in my fantasy game (which uses arrays for attributes). Further there is a spellcasting class called the Empowered who explicitly use magic to self-buff their physical abilities.

Wanna be a 5'0" 100 lb. girl who can juggle trolls, summon a warhammer bigger than they are from seeming nowhere and swing it in apparent defiance of the laws of physics to send ogres flying 20 feet through the air? That's the Empowered spellcasting class in a nutshell.

Quote from: jhkim;1105145I don't have an issue with a strength or size penalty inherently, but you don't need a Strength or Size penalty for PCs in order for the world to (a) have semi-realistic sexual dimorphism for NPCs; and (b) have sexism within in-game society.

Personally, I've never had a problem with the gendered stats in HarnMaster, for example. The system is aimed closer to reality, and has a lot more detail. In D&D, though, if you have a visible stat difference between men and women, then there should likely be a greater difference between humans and halflings, as well as between ogres and humans and more. Default D&D has an intentional lack of realism that allows a smaller creature to take on a bigger creature -- like a knight against a dragon. So adding this sort of realism just for women can feel out-of-place.



In the historical medieval world, women were objectively less powerful than men. They had more social restrictions as well as being less powerful physically. However, that doesn't mean that women *PCs* have to be less powerful and less fun than men *PCs* even in a strictly historical setting. There are plenty of ways to make game play balanced.

1) Women PCs could be drawn from a more exceptional set than men, such as by using a point system. Even if using random-roll, there are ways to handle balance other than saying all races/genders are equal in the world. Goblins could be objectively less effective than humans, but still be a player race by using a balance mechanisms like ECL (Effective Character Level) or whatever the 1E equivalent was that allowed monsters as PCs.

2) In a fantasy game, the fantasy elements don't have to be equivalent between men and women. In HarnMaster, women are objectively superior to men in magic. They get a straight bonus to their Aura stat.

3) You could avoid some issues by not allowing all PC options in a given game. The PCs could be all men, or all women, or all dragons. I've done all of these.

And here is the evidence that jhkim isn't an SJW but a thinking person.

Agreed! 1000%!

Also you had games with only men PCs? You monster!

Quote from: Chris24601;1105153While its not an official rule, this is my unofficial guideline for building NPCs and example PCs in my fantasy game (which uses arrays for attributes). Further there is a spellcasting class called the Empowered who explicitly use magic to self-buff their physical abilities.

Wanna be a 5'0" 100 lb. girl who can juggle trolls, summon a warhammer bigger than they are from seeming nowhere and swing it in apparent defiance of the laws of physics to send ogres flying 20 feet through the air? That's the Empowered spellcasting class in a nutshell.

Sounds interesting and fun to play! Please make a thread to tell us more about your game?

Quote from: jhkim;1105145In the historical medieval world, women were objectively less powerful than men. They had more social restrictions as well as being less powerful physically. However, that doesn't mean that women *PCs* have to be less powerful and less fun than men *PCs* even in a strictly historical setting.

Agreed. This is what I meant by ensuring equal potential effectiveness in the game context.

I've also found it interesting to look at how this question ties into the perennial issue of "game balance" -- is "balance" the term for balancing different PCs against each other, or is it the term for balancing the party in general against the setting? It can mean either, but it helps to be specific.