TheRPGSite

Gygax lives!!!

I think "should always matter" is pushing it. In certain genres it may not be relevant. You may not even need a STR stat.

Obviously many male nerds (& some female ones) don't appreciate how big the IRL male-female strength difference is. Especially as it seems now to be Politically Correct to deny it. One bad guy on EN World told me that me mentioning it Promoted Rape Culture. The female police officers I know/knew were well aware of the difference, and had a variety of techniques to work around it - with UK police being unarmed, this is a major issue. Their #1 technique being "talking" - they were very, very good at de-escalation.

Butch women who are only around other butch women may not realise it, too. When my ex played Rugby they would go out boozing on the town. One time she came home and told me about a man giving them lip. Her attitude was "He needed to get out of there before we hurt him" - well, those female Rugby players are big butch women, they can take a hit from each other, but if he was anything like an average man I'd be a lot more worried for them than for him.

Oh gawd, not this again....

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1104077Oh gawd, not this again....

- Ed C.

Yes.  Again.

If you want to play a game that simulates reality, like, I don't know, a historical setting, there may be an argument in its favor: realism as a central theme. But it has ZERO place as an automatic mechanic in heroic role-playing games, where you play idealized characters. In heroic role-playing, just as in Hollywood movies, anything goes and women can be as strong or as weak as the player desires, within human limits (and possibly beyond).

Yes! Finally! Excellent topic.

[video=youtube_share;EIzpOOGSbTo]https://youtu.be/EIzpOOGSbTo[/youtube]

Swedish female police officers can't do pull ups anymore. The mandatory strength test for women requires them to score a 3 on a scale up to 9. Men have to score 6. Equality, baby! Equality.

This is why all the example female warriors in the system I'm writing are A) magical mutations or created using biomancy, B) have supernatural ancestry*, C) are arcane cyborgs or D) are spellcasters.

It's almost like it's a fantasy game where players can play whatever they want to be or something. [/sarcasm]

* It's also a setting where people considered humans could have an earth giant as their great grandparent and inherit their great strength without any obvious outward signs of that heritage (they'd be more likely to have brown hair, brown or grey eyes and have a more earthy complexion in general... but even those aren't absolute).

Seriously, if you wanna argue real life, take it to the proper forum. If you wanna argue RPGs then accept that your argument only applies to those trying to emulate the real world and not a fantastic one.

The range of Player Character strength can be the same across sexes while different in the setting.

If you feel like that 18 strength (or equivalent) females in a setting need to be 6'6" 300lb brick houses, then that is a lot different than making that situation a lot rarer than 18 str male PCs. You control the adventurer population.

Setting aside the sexual differences, I do wish Strength mattered more in games. With D&D 5e being a huge offender in this as I've seen way too many Strength 8, Dexterity 16+ warrior-types having no issues with firing longbows all day long or of moving with ease in half-plate with a shield on their arms. Shadowrun 6e has a similar issue with Strength mattering not at all when swinging swords, clubs, and combat axes (or anything other than unarmed attacks).

What's the goal?

Take 5E.
A friggin Goliath is only 5% stronger on average than a halfling.  (The goal here is clearly not realism).
Given that - are the proportional differences between male and female humans even on the scale?

Quote from: Razor 007;1104075I had to remove a flat tire, and install a spare tire .....

I'm not sure this is a good example, because around here the mechanics all put tire hexnuts on with some power wrench and I have a lot of really strong friends who can't get the hexnuts off. My daughter got a flat and my father-in-law and I went to help her out. We put the tire wrench on the hexnuts and were actually trying to stand on the wrench to give more torque and couldn't get them to turn.

Pre-emptive warning on this thread: stick to the topic in the context of RPGs.  Larger discussion about gender differences outside of the RPG context will be sanctioned.

Quote from: Koltar;1104077Oh gawd, not this again....

- Ed C.

No kidding...:(

In my D&D world I abstract it out in to a stat called Strength. I don't mess around with idiosyncratic bonuses because that's not fun. I also abstract health in to something called "Hit Points", or HP for short, which represents more than just blood loss/hits. I do the same thing with combat, stretching it out to several second (6 or more!) and abstract several swings, feints, etc in to one "To Hit" roll. Also, I have fantasy races like Dwarves and Elves and have a character class that can cast real magic spells! And another one that can perform miracles granted by REAL actual gods! Not to mention creatures like dragons, medusas (Yes! a race of them!) and the like!

Quote from: HappyDaze;1104094Setting aside the sexual differences, I do wish Strength mattered more in games. With D&D 5e being a huge offender in this.

The system I've been working on ties strength directly to movement in a variety of ways.

First is a fairly stringent encumbrance system where the equivalent of 5e's Strength 8 can only carry 40 lb. without being slowed (light armor, a melee weapon and standard adventurer's kit is about 50 lb. for comparison).

Likewise, size matters a small creature has only half the carrying capacity of a human of the same strength and human has only half the carrying capacity of an "oversized" creature (a category I included between medium and large for PCs just barely able to fit into the space of a medium creature... they get double the carry capacity, but allies can't move freely through their spaces and they suffer some penalties if flanked by blocking terrain).

Next it figures into your climb, jump and swim speeds (you only need to make checks if you're pushing through terrains you can't handle). A "Strength 8" character couldn't climb difficult terrain without a check. A "Strength 14" one could make slow progress up even challenging terrain without a check (and a "Strength 18" one could cross 10' of difficult climbing terrain without a check).

Finally, medium and heavy armor imposes additional penalties without hitting strength thresholds (equivalent to Str 12 for medium and 16 for heavy) and the heavier armors don't cap your Dex either so you're always best off using the heaviest armor you can manage.

The net result is that even agility-focused warriors tend to have a minimum equivalent of Strength 12 (in system they can carry 80 lb. without being slowed, handle difficult climbing/jumping/swimming terrain without checks needed and have no extra penalties for medium armor). The only ones I've seen build with an equivalent of Strength 8 are the wizard equivalent spellcasters who wear no armor at all and aren't proficient with much more than daggers, clubs and staves for fighting.

That's one of the reasons I like Mythras.  Size factors in to augment Str and Con when it comes to dealing and taking damage.  So even if you had one character like the doctor on the left and another like the patient on the right with the same strength, size would make a difference.
(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1434137973i/15178740.jpg)

Since Size can encompass Height, Weight, or both, it gives you a good way to approximate other fantasy species, as well as a more believable way to deal with supermodels vs. bodybuilders if you are so inclined.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1104116That's one of the reasons I like Mythras.  Size factors in to augment Str and Con when it comes to dealing and taking damage.  So even if you had one character like the doctor on the left and another like the patient on the right with the same strength, size would make a difference.
(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1434137973i/15178740.jpg)

Since Size can encompass Height, Weight, or both, it gives you a good way to approximate other fantasy species, as well as a more believable way to deal with supermodels vs. bodybuilders if you are so inclined.

It's usually the same in old Swedish BRP rpgs like Drakar och Demoner, where high STR and SIZ gives a higher damage bonus. One could imagine a really strong female character with STR 18 (3D6 spann) vs a bigger male with the same STR value. Then in my thinking, SIZ and body weight would come into play. But if one wanted to make things extra believable, a short but strong guy would do short work of a tall and strong woman. Just look at Franco Columbu (R.I.P.). He was short and didn't even weigh over 200 lbs yet he was probably the strongest bodybuilder in history. He was 5 ft 5 in tall, had a contest weight of 185 lbs yet he benched 525 lbs and had a 750 lbs deadlift.

Quote from: GIMME SOME SUGAR;1104121It's usually the same in old Swedish BRP rpgs like Drakar och Demoner, where high STR and SIZ gives a higher damage bonus. One could imagine a really strong female character with STR 18 (3D6 spann) vs a bigger male with the same STR value. Then in my thinking, SIZ and body weight would come into play. But if one wanted to make things extra believable, a short but strong guy would do short work of a tall and strong woman. Just look at Franco Columbu (R.I.P.). He was short and didn't even weigh over 200 lbs yet he was probably the strongest bodybuilder in history. He was 5 ft 5 in tall, had a contest weight of 185 lbs yet he benched 525 lbs and had a 750 lbs deadlift.

I can imagine there being exceptions to the norm, in any RPG setting.  Some men have above average strength.  Some women have above average strength.  Neither is the norm.  If everyone has 18 strength, then 18 is just normal in that setting; and strength doesn't matter much in your game anymore.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104089Seriously, if you wanna argue real life, take it to the proper forum. If you wanna argue RPGs then accept that your argument only applies to those trying to emulate the real world and not a fantastic one.

Core mechanics of fantastic systems often do just that, whereas exceptions are layered on top of that. Your game seems to suggest that approach anyway.

You could also have a full range of numbers and then have a sexual dimorphism adjustment, like so many other racial adjustments, that may or may not cap out.

So STR ranges from 3-18, but the 'big one' gets a bonus of some kind. Perhaps +2 on scores up to 12, or a +1 on scores 12 or higher, but caps out at 18.

To visit a medieval setting:

The wheel on your wagon becomes damaged, and you must repair the wheel in question; or else replace the wheel in question.  Roll a skill check.  Your strength score actually matters in this scenario.  Having a high strength score gives you advantage in many aspects of life.

I agree that men, on average, are stronger than women. However, I don't find it a useful thing to worry about or model (especially for PCs) in the RPGs that I play.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104075Gygax lives!!!

Somebody better dig him out of the ground then! :eek:

So, the obvious comment is, not every class favors strength. Wizards use Intelligence to cast higher level spells, Thieves get bonuses for high Dexterity, and Clerics get more spells for having a high Wisdom.

Strength stat is something I'm not concered with simulating real life statistical differences between men and women.

Old, tired topic is old and tired.

Lets say you wish to play a setting X. If sexual dimorphism is a thing then you are correct and falling short too.

Let us model reality shall we?

The strongest human female is weaker than regular non trained guys: Human Females roll 2d6 for their STR stat or -2 to all checks regarding the stat.

Human Males are more likely to be a genius or a total idiot: Roll on the pertinent table to see how stupid (or not) you are. Females are more in the middle of the spectrum so no bonus and no penalty.

Human Males are more prone to violence and are seen as more of a threat: Penalty on all reaction rolls, plus a -2 on CHA. Females get a bonus and a +2 on CHA.

Human Males are more prone to act recklessly. Roll on the pertinent table to see if your character acted foolishly and the consequences.

Human Males are more risk prone: Penalty on living long enough or roll on the pertinent table to see if your risk taking finally managed to kill you.

Human Males see less color variation: Penalty on foraging for the correct ingredients for a potion/recipe.

I'm sure I forgot lots of stuff but to make my point it's enough.

Now this could be fun or not, and it could model reality better or not. But honestly nobody is stopping you from creating such houserules.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104130Lets say you wish to play a setting X. If sexual dimorphism is a thing then you are correct and falling short too.

Let us model reality shall we?

The strongest human female is weaker than regular non trained guys: Human Females roll 2d6 for their STR stat or -2 to all checks regarding the stat.

Human Males are more likely to be a genius or a total idiot: Roll on the pertinent table to see how stupid (or not) you are. Females are more in the middle of the spectrum so no bonus and no penalty.

Human Males are more prone to violence and are seen as more of a threat: Penalty on all reaction rolls, plus a -2 on CHA. Females get a bonus and a +2 on CHA.

Human Males are more prone to act recklessly. Roll on the pertinent table to see if your character acted foolishly and the consequences.

Human Males are more risk prone: Penalty on living long enough or roll on the pertinent table to see if your risk taking finally managed to kill you.

Human Males see less color variation: Penalty on foraging for the correct ingredients for a potion/recipe.

I'm sure I forgot lots of stuff but to make my point it's enough.

Now this could be fun or not, and it could model reality better or not. But honestly nobody is stopping you from creating such houserules.

Awesome.  3d6, straight down the line?  4d6, drop the lowest?  Reroll 1s once?  Stat array, with gender modifiers?

I'm less interested in stats between the sexes as much as between the races. A human male and female both have the same str stat at 20? Cool. Could give less than a fuck.

A halfling and a half-orc both having a 20 str? Nope. There is no reason a half-orc should have difficulty arm wrestling someone the size of his turds.

That's one of the things I still like about Shadowrun (it's a quickly shrinking list, believe me). Different average stats with different caps meant that the world's strongest dandelion eater isn't close to being as strong as the world's strongest troll.

The male-female strength disparity is like any aspect of reality in RPG design: is it relevant to the experiences you want to simulate? Whether you're approaching the game from a Gamist or Narrativist perspective, there are reasons to say either yes or no to this question.

It's also worth remembering that it can make a difference how the disparity is addressed.  A rule that immediately penalizes starting STR scores for female PCs, and a rule that limits the maximum STR possible for female PCs, both acknowledge this disparity; however, the first one immediately places the female PC at what may be a significant disadvantage to her peers, while the second only imposes a limit farther down a curve of development that the player can choose to pursue or not. Any rule that puts a player at a disadvantage for a reason external to the game itself is going to be resented.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104132Awesome.  3d6, straight down the line?  4d6, drop the lowest?  Reroll 1s once?  Stat array, with gender modifiers?

Dude It's your house rules not mine, I'm more in the camp of Warboss Squee below.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1104133I'm less interested in stats between the sexes as much as between the races. A human male and female both have the same str stat at 20? Cool. Could give less than a fuck.

A halfling and a half-orc both having a 20 str? Nope. There is no reason a half-orc should have difficulty arm wrestling someone the size of his turds.

That's one of the things I still like about Shadowrun (it's a quickly shrinking list, believe me). Different average stats with different caps meant that the world's strongest dandelion eater isn't close to being as strong as the world's strongest troll.

You are correct (and my guess is the same reasoning is behind Razor 007 point).

Different "races" (Species really) should get different stats, this means that some will roll 2d6, 3d6 or even 4d6 for some stats. And not only STR, what about CHA, INT, DEX, etc? All stats should reflect the differences between the species.

And if you insist on having sexual dimorphism matter then maybe some species have the strongest, ferocious, violent be the female?

A huge can of worms trying to adjust all that.

But, in defense of Razor 007's point:

If there are no differences between the sexes aren't we all playing men in disguise? Just like playing men in rubber suits regarding the tieflings and other Tumblr favorite species?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1104127I agree that men, on average, are stronger than women. However, I don't find it a useful thing to worry about or model (especially for PCs) in the RPGs that I play.

Bingo.

I don't have any penalty or limit on female strength as long as the player is a woman herself.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104075Gygax lives!!!

Troll.

Lets dance this moron dance again.

Actually this whole uproar is mostly a.... drum-roll please... FALLACY.

In AD&D human women have the exact same stat limits as men.

The ONLY exception being Fighters where women cap at 18/50 which places them well in the upper limits since anything over that was starting to get rare-er than the allready rare 18 score even with r4h3 method. And can exceed this by various methods.

Demi-human races were all over the place. But then they aren't human. (Personally I'd have mixed it up a bit and had things reversed for like elves and halflings.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104141But, in defense of Razor 007's point: If there are no differences between the sexes aren't we all playing men in disguise? Just like playing men in rubber suits regarding the tieflings and other Tumblr favorite species?

Only if you assume that the "universal baseline average norm" of the human species has to be identified as male.

That said, if a "universal baseline norm" is defined solely as something from which everyone varies in some way or another and can't itself represent any actual character type, it strikes me as creating excessive complexity in return for a nebulous benefit at best.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1104149I don't have any penalty or limit on female strength as long as the player is a woman herself.

Stay classy hedgehobbit!

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104155Only if you assume that the "universal baseline average norm" of the human species has to be identified as male.

That said, if a "universal baseline norm" is defined solely as something from which everyone varies in some way or another and can't itself represent any actual character type, it strikes me as creating excessive complexity in return for a nebulous benefit at best.

If the "baseline" is the strongest/smartest/fastest/best fighter/etc then it's not me assuming anything, it's science.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104140The male-female strength disparity is like any aspect of reality in RPG design: is it relevant to the experiences you want to simulate? Whether you're approaching the game from a Gamist or Narrativist perspective, there are reasons to say either yes or no to this question.

It's also worth remembering that it can make a difference how the disparity is addressed.  A rule that immediately penalizes starting STR scores for female PCs, and a rule that limits the maximum STR possible for female PCs, both acknowledge this disparity; however, the first one immediately places the female PC at what may be a significant disadvantage to her peers, while the second only imposes a limit farther down a curve of development that the player can choose to pursue or not. Any rule that puts a player at a disadvantage for a reason external to the game itself is going to be resented.

In my Savage Worlds Hellfrost campaign I included sexual dimorphism as pertains to strength, and I did it by limiting the maximum Strength a female character could attain. They were limited to a d10 instead of d12. I grew up in the country, and I knew several country girls who were as strong as the "average" guy, but they'd never be as strong as the strong guys. However, with sexual dimorphism there can come sexism, and there was such in my campaign such as sons being favored over daughters, etc. The female player in my campaign still played a female character who took the tank role in the party, and put more points into Strength than anyone else. Her father continued to favor her younger and weaker brother (another member of the party) in terms of who to include in the family councils. To try to take into account for the sexism the female PCs encounter I gave them a free Advance since the sexism they encounter is similar to a Hindrance.

For a roll your stats OSR. D&D game that included strength sexual dimorphism I'd have a rule that any 18 rolled for a female PC gets reduced to whatever score gives the next highest bonus (17 in B/X). In return they can raise any other stat of their choice to whatever score is needed for the next higher modifier. So if their Intelligence was only a 9 (+0 modifier) they can raise it to 13 for a +1 modifier. If the campaign included sexism as well I'd allow them to raise a stat other than Strength similarly. I think it's important that I do not determine for the player which attribute they raise.

So far the female player in my group has not complained, and continues to play female characters. None of the male players has decided to game the system and play female characters for the "bonuses". That might be because after earlier efforts they made to do so 10+ years ago in different campaigns the male players realized they weren't very good at it.

I wouldn't run every campaign this way. If a was running a far future campaign I probably wouldn't include strength sexual dimorphism (all females are given genetic modifications or nanites that remove that disadvantage) or sexism.

I do think it's important that if a game includes sexism/sexual dimorphism to recognize that the game is disadvantaging female characters, and should be balanced out somehow. I don't know that my approach has been perfect, but it has worked for my table.

The issue is that on average females are weaker than men and that's a fine assumption, but nothing you have to worry about in character creation. In a fantasy rpg (and many other genres) we are not necessarily dealing with average people. We are dealing with adventurers, who would be above average compared with farmers, peasants and shopkeepers. So, already, we have weeded out the below average and average; any female adventurers will therefore be above average.

Now, if any of the groups I have been gaming with over the years are the norm, there are more male players than females and, more often than not they play male characters, so there are more male adventurers than females, meaning that there are, on average, more likely to be stronger male characters than female ones. Added to this, I tend to find that the female players generally tend to want to be clerics, magic users, bards or whatever...certainly fewer fighters or "strong" types (strangely mirroring their "real life" choices to go into professions like nursing and social work etc.). For the one or two occasions where there is a very strong female character, there are many many more where there are strong male characters.

So, in my view, there is no need to do anything. On average, in my gaming groups, there are fewer very strong female characters than males and I don't need to modify the character generation rules to properly reflect "real life".

Quote from: Simon W;1104163The issue is that on average females are weaker than men and that's a fine assumption, but nothing you have to worry about in character creation. In a fantasy rpg (and many other genres) we are not necessarily dealing with average people. We are dealing with adventurers, who would be above average compared with farmers, peasants and shopkeepers. So, already, we have weeded out the below average and average; any female adventurers will therefore be above average.

Now, if any of the groups I have been gaming with over the years are the norm, there are more male players than females and, more often than not they play male characters, so there are more male adventurers than females, meaning that there are, on average, more likely to be stronger male characters than female ones. Added to this, I tend to find that the female players generally tend to want to be clerics, magic users, bards or whatever...certainly fewer fighters or "strong" types (strangely mirroring their "real life" choices to go into professions like nursing and social work etc.). For the one or two occasions where there is a very strong female character, there are many many more where there are strong male characters.

So, in my view, there is no need to do anything. On average, in my gaming groups, there are fewer very strong female characters than males and I don't need to modify the character generation rules to properly reflect "real life".

In 5e and using that logic, having more male adventurers means having more Str 8 but highly dexterous men since strength is so frequently a dump stat. It also means that the rest are likely either Int 8 or Cha 8 since Dex and Wis are seldom dumped and Con is only dumped once before everyone sees it's a bad idea.

Quote from: wmarshal;1104161I do think it's important that if a game includes sexism/sexual dimorphism to recognize that the game is disadvantaging female characters, and should be balanced out somehow. I don't know that my approach has been perfect, but it has worked for my table.

One question: Why do you equate sexism with sexual dimorphism? Recognizing differences isn't saying one is superior to the other. Also would you do the same in a setting with a sexually dimorphic species where the female was the strongest?

I have never adjusted for anything like that, but if I did I would think that my approach of giving both sexes penalties/bonuses that reflect what the science tells us is the better approach, not to arbitrarily to compensate one sex for a shortcoming in stat X.

I had a female player recently express some amusement/concern/surprise at her female PC having very high rolled STR. I said "Yeah you're just very Athletic" :) - I think she was worried it was unfeminine; and she was a Fighter/Wizard!

"Does this STR 18 make me look big?"  :D

Quote from: HappyDaze;1104164In 5e and using that logic, having more male adventurers means having more Str 8 but highly dexterous men since strength is so frequently a dump stat.

I do think male players tend to put at least a 10 in STR, female players are much more likely to put an 8.

IME Athletics is sufficiently important in 5e that it's not advisable to dump STR.

Quote from: S'mon;1104166I had a female player recently express some amusement/concern/surprise at her female PC having very high rolled STR. I said "Yeah you're just very Athletic" :) - I think she was worried it was unfeminine; and she was a Fighter/Wizard!

"Does this STR 18 make me look big?"  :D

I've seen that a lot in new players over the years.  Not only in female players (but more often).  People tend to assume that a maximum score in Strength means they are a huge musclebound body builder.

Which is not an unreasonable assumption really - after all the ability is 'Strength' not 'Athletic ability'.
 
I've long thought it's a bit of an issue that abilities in D&D don't really follow their common English language meaning.

(Although things like Crossfit and high intensity training and the like have probably slightly changed the common understanding of strength for many people).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104165One question: Why do you equate sexism with sexual dimorphism? Recognizing differences isn't saying one is superior to the other. Also would you do the same in a setting with a sexually dimorphic species where the female was the strongest?

I have never adjusted for anything like that, but if I did I would think that my approach of giving both sexes penalties/bonuses that reflect what the science tells us is the better approach, not to arbitrarily to compensate one sex for a shortcoming in stat X.

I don't equate them, though I do think when sexism against females exist that sexual dimorphism often plays into why the sexism exist. I can run a campaign where sexual dimorphism does not exist, but anti-female sexism does exist, and vice-versa.

I make adjustments for females not able to be as potentially strong as males because that sexual dimorphism is obvious and has a strong and immediate effect on the game. Sexual dimorphism for other attributes are not as plainly obvious, certainly not to the degree that males are capable of a higher maximum strength. If females have more pain resistance or deal with disease better than males that is not something that comes up a lot in the games I run. I can also imagine campaigns where there would be no sexual dimorphism.

I make adjustments for the anti-female sexism of the campaign I run because it is effectively a penalty that is applied to female characters. I want that penalty to be "balanced" out. I don't know if it's the perfect balance, but as I said before it works for my table.

Quote from: S'mon;1104166I had a female player recently express some amusement/concern/surprise at her female PC having very high rolled STR. I said "Yeah you're just very Athletic" :) - I think she was worried it was unfeminine; and she was a Fighter/Wizard!

"Does this STR 18 make me look big?"  :D

Brienne of Tarth on "Game of Thrones" was a fantastic character.
I don't see any problems with really strong women.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1104170Brienne of Tarth on "Game of Thrones" was a fantastic character.
I don't see any problems with really strong women.

- Ed C.

I don't either. The female character in my Hellfrost campaign is really strong. She is stronger than any of the male PCs, but she will never be as strong as the strongest human male in the campaign without an adjustment caused by magic.

Brienne is my favorite character from Game of Thrones. In my opinion she is probably the most skilled fighter. She is very strong, but she is not as strong as The Mountain, even before his transformation by the renegade maester.

Quote from: S'mon;1104167I do think male players tend to put at least a 10 in STR, female players are much more likely to put an 8.

IME Athletics is sufficiently important in 5e that it's not advisable to dump STR.

The only thing I see dumped more than Strength is Intelligence,  and the genders of the players don't seem to matter on which gets picked. Anecdotal of course...

You pretty much have to dump something and Intelligence is often the best choice.

Just like Strength is really "Athleticism".  Intelligence is (mostly) education.  If you want to play a smart crafty cunning fighter from a peasant background then most of the intelligence skills are irrelevant.  This is even more true for barbarians.

On top of that most of the intelligence skills only need one party member to have them.  You're PC isn't likely to suffer if they fail a history check.

Basically it's mostly Strength or Intelligence that gets dumped.  Occasionally Charisma (but Intelligence is the better choice).

I am not at all opposed to having either non-human, or variant human races; where the females are stronger than males.  I'm totally fine with that.  I just think it's obvious that human males, orc males, etc. are stronger on average.  A rare exceptionally strong human female might exist; but it's not every third woman walking down the street.

Should we be giving Intelligence penalties to characters with an impoverished background as a result of poor child nutrition?

Thanks for the serious discussion exhibited thus far.  I thought it was a worthy topic, even if we don't all agree.

Quote from: Koltar;1104170Brienne of Tarth on "Game of Thrones" was a fantastic character.
I don't see any problems with really strong women.

- Ed C.

really strong female characters. Lets not forget we're not talking about real people.

I don't see a problem with really strong female characters either, but the discussion is (I think) should we model reality and how to best do it?

IMHO playing fast and lose with reality is great to a certain point, beyond which suspension of disbelief is broken and immersion lost. This point isn't the same for everybody of course.

In a superheroes campaign having a Wonder Woman like character requires no more suspension of disbelief than the needed to accept super powered beings.

On the other hand in a White Lies campaign having a female agent be just as strong as her male counterparts could require an extra dose of SoD for some.

In my games I tend to treat all characters as asexual blobs differentiated only by their stats & personality. But If I wanted to run a "realistic" campaign I might need to make some adjustments to better model men and women as characters in the game. But this wouldn't stop at the "men stronger!" bit, it would need to encompass all the stats giving bonuses/penalties or putting caps on them depending on the sex of the character.

Quote from: TJS;1104175Should we be giving Intelligence penalties to characters with an impoverished background as a result of poor child nutrition?

Why not? If your campaign requires you to model reality as close as possible without making it boring...

But, since I prefer the Pulps over the hyper-realism I'll keep on playing in a universe where Red Sonja can best Conan.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104160If the "baseline" is the strongest/smartest/fastest/best fighter/etc then it's not me assuming anything, it's science.

By definition the "baseline" of a given group is neither its best nor its worst; that's why it's called the "baseline". If divided by sex, the human male baseline is physically/combatively superior to the human female baseline, but that is the question: why use the male baseline over the female? And if you do, why enforce the distribution in such a way that having superior female examples is more difficult than necessary?

(The answer "because in practice, 90+% of the players and their characters are guys, and 90+% of adventuring scenarios involve physical violence" used to be perfectly cromulent, and I suspect for a lot of people -- including me -- it still is, even if you knock those numbers down to 80% or 75%, which I suspect is the rough reality nowadays. But it never hurts to come up with a better answer if possible.)

Quote from: wmarshal;1104161I do think it's important that if a game includes sexism/sexual dimorphism to recognize that the game is disadvantaging female characters, and should be balanced out somehow. I don't know that my approach has been perfect, but it has worked for my table.

That's the key point of the issue, I think. Strict simulation of reality will almost certainly enforce starting characters of unequal effectiveness; strict adherence to game principles requires all players to start from an equal point, with no advantage beyond the varying skill of the players involved.

Part of the original RPGing design was the assumption that over the length of time in which new characters were generated, probability would generally average out to everyone getting roughly equal shakes over time. The recognition that this didn't always happen was part of what drove, I think, point-buy character generation, among other RPG design tropes. Now, however, it's driving an attempt to shape gaming outcomes in general by force, which can only get so far before destroying the point of gaming in the first place.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104182By definition the "baseline" of a given group is neither its best nor its worst; that's why it's called the "baseline". If divided by sex, the human male baseline is physically/combatively superior to the human female baseline, but that is the question: why use the male baseline over the female? And if you do, why enforce the distribution in such a way that having superior female examples is more difficult than necessary?

(The answer "because in practice, 90+% of the players and their characters are guys, and 90+% of adventuring scenarios involve physical violence" used to be perfectly cromulent, and I suspect for a lot of people -- including me -- it still is, even if you knock those numbers down to 80% or 75%, which I suspect is the rough reality nowadays. But it never hurts to come up with a better answer if possible.)

In RPGs the PCs are supposed to be adventurers, fighters, etc. Not the average populace but the exceptional, therefore stronger, faster, etc. Now, in humans who is the stronger, faster, etc? The male. So, the "baseline" for human adventurers is the male (also more prone to take risks).

Now again, I'm not advocating for this change, merely giving reasons why, under certain circumstances and in certain settings/games it might be necessary to do so.

Why all armies have been made up of males? Stronger, faster, violent risk taking (and less necessary to the survival of the culture since one man can impregnate hundreds of women).

So, if you're playing females as strong as males (not the average men but the top performers, the strongest, fastest, etc), you're playing men in disguise.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104075Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average.

So... not stretch pants and beards then?

Quote from: Koltar;1104170Brienne of Tarth on "Game of Thrones" was a fantastic character.
I don't see any problems with really strong women.

- Ed C.

Sure, but the question is really: does Gregor Clegane have a significant strength advantage over Brienne of Tarth? I'd say he probably does.

If we assume classic D&D rules (i.e., TSR editions), they're both ordinary humans and can't have scores higher than 18, so Gregor's probably an example of a strength of 18. If the difference between Gregor and Brienne is significant, then she can't possibly have more than 17, and I can't really imagine any other woman matching Gregor, so putting an upper limit on strength for female characters seems entirely reasonable.

Oh this again.

If your system allows your PC to heal up "naturally" in a handful of days after being hit with a sword, axe, or mace or bit by some carnivore whose mouth is filled with all sorts of nasty bacteria, then female PCs potentially having STR scores as high as the male PCs isn't the most important issue you need to deal with to make your system more "realistic."

If your STR and CON doesn't increase due to intense trainingg and decrease while in bed healing from wounds, on crutches, in a cast, then female PCs potentially having STR scores as high as the male PCs isn't the most important issue you need to deal with to make your system more "realistic."

If your system doesn't include size in determining how many hit points you have, how much you can lift and carry, and how much you can drink before passing out, then female PCs potentially having STR scores as high as the male PCs isn't the most important issue you need to deal with to make your system more "realistic."

If your system doesn't vary that size by species, then female PCs potentially having STR scores as high as the male PCs isn't the most important issue you need to deal with to make your system more "realistic."

If your system doesn't adjust stats based on age, then female PCs potentially having STR scores as high as the male PCs isn't the most important issue you need to deal with to make your system more "realistic."

If your system doesn't decrease your PC's ability to succeed at skills you haven't used recently, then female PCs potentially having STR scores as high as the male PCs isn't the most important issue you need to deal with in making your system more "realistic."

I could go on....

In D&D, it's possible for a human (male or female) to be as strong as an ogre.  It's possible for an ogre to be as strong as a dragon.  

In 3.x, the Tarrasque has a Strength of 45.  It's kinda funny that human abilities run in a 15 point range (3-18) so a moderately strong human (Str 15) can be 5 times stronger than the weakest human (Str 3), but the Tarrasque is only 3 times stronger than he is.  

If you accept that Strength isn't simply additive and that 45 isn't JUST 3x stronger than a 15, the differences between men and women, such as they are, are immaterial relative to the differences.  

D&D is a game of imagination.  If a female character has a Strength of 20, but she describes herself as svelte and thin like Hela from Thor: Ragnarok, I'm cool with it.  Maybe it is really a mixture of lighting-fast reflexes or strength of will, but when it comes time to lay the smack down they find a way to hit just as hard as someone who's abs also have abs who looks like a He-Man action figure on steroids.  Strength isn't JUST about muscles; sure, there are game mechanical effects from a high strength and those are the same.  Two people with an 18 Strength are 'equally strong' and it doesn't matter whether one LOOKS strong and one doesn't.  You just apply the to-hit and damage modifiers the same and move on.  

Realism doesn't have much room when you legitimately accept that a warrior with a 2' blade of steel is going to stab a 400' tall monster to death.

Quote from: Koltar;1104077Oh gawd, not this again....

I welcome players like this at my game table. We will have absolute realism... for that player only. That player's character will never be able to cast spells or get magical healing, magic items won't work for them, any injury requires a Save Vs Breath Weapon to avoid infection; amputation gives a second saving throw. That's realistic. Marching across the wilderness requires a saving throw to avoid overuse injuries of knee, hip and lower back. That's realistic. Speaking outside the cultural norms (for example, mouthing off to a baron) may lead to the PC being fined or even executed, and certainly will not lead to improved social standing. That's realistic. Multiple experiences of combat may lead to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. That's realistic. Encumbrance rules will be strictly enforced. That's realistic. There will be no escalating hit points. After all, we want realism, don't we?

And of course, there'll be no point-buy, because real life is not point-buy, it's random roll - that player character's attributes, and indeed their gender, will be random. And you get one character ever, once they die, that's it, you're out of the game. We still want realism, right?

Realism will exist for that player demanding realism. Nobody else.

In other news, I'm happy for the player to cheat at dice rolls at my game table - but then I'll cheat, too - just against the cheating player.

You know, Koltar, I have yet to see a player who went on about this who could do a single pullup themselves. Amazing how important masculine superiority is to a guy who doesn't have any. It's like the white supremacists who are not exactly square-jawed educated superfit well-off ubermenschen, but are weedy chinless wonders living in trailer parks. More importantly, this sort of guy never brings snacks to the game session, but certainly hoes into everyone else's.

Alternately, the player could just decide not to be a festering cocknugget, and play properly. And bring snacks, for fuck's sakes.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104196In 3.x, the Tarrasque has a Strength of 45.  It's kinda funny that human abilities run in a 15 point range (3-18) so a moderately strong human (Str 15) can be 5 times stronger than the weakest human (Str 3), but the Tarrasque is only 3 times stronger than he is.

In point of fact, carrying capacity in 3e isn't linear, it doubles every 5 points. That's why the max load at Str 10 is 100 lb., Str 15 is 200 lb. and Str 20 is 400 lb. Then you have the size modifier... the Tarrasque is Colossal so its lifting capacity is 16x that of a medium creature with the same Strength.

So in total the Tarrasque is 1,024 times stronger than a human with 15 Strength; (45 (its strength) -15 (human's strength) = 30/5 = 6 doublings (i.e. 64) x 16 (its size modifier) = 1024) or able to lift 102.4 short tons vs. the human's 200 lb.

One thing in relation to this is that because of this non-linear scale, the difference between the theoretical maximum male and female Strength is actually not linear either.

The current world records for "clean & jerk" (i.e. lift to chest, then lift over head; the latter being the 3e definition of the upper limit of a heavy load) is 263 kg (578 lb.) for men (in the 105 kg+ division) and 187 kg (411 lb.) for women (in the 75+ kg division, which is as high as the women's runs).

As mentioned above, 400 lb. is a Strength 20 (also the men's record is right in the range of a Strength 23, the limit that a human can achieve without magic in 3e; starting 18 + 5 for level increases). Also of note for the OSR crowd is that the carry capacity of 18/50 Strength is pretty close to the women's record and 18/00 is close to the men's world record.

Just for completeness sake, let's also look divisions where the weight actually overlaps. In the 69 kg (150 lb.) division the records are 196 kg (431 lb.) for men and 153 kg (336 lb.) for women.

The point of all that is that, because of the non-linear scaling, the actual difference between men and women's strength in most editions of D&D is, at best, a point or two and the world records for both men and women are actually above an 18 in every edition of D&D that actually bothered with realistic encumbrance (18/50 in AD&D and 20 in 3e are the limits of human female Strength without magic if you're aiming for realism... note that the latter can't even be reached until level 8+ if they started with an 18... men can only reach what the real world record lifted without magic is if they started with an 18 and are now level 20).

So, unless you're playing high level 3e with extremely lucky dice rolls, no PC is going to actually be at the world records for Strength scores (and by high level the actual non-magical numbers are so buried under magic item/wish bonuses they're almost irrelevant).

Thus, you don't need to limit them for "realism"... they're already in a realistic range.

Oh look, within the space of 22 minutes we have 3 members (Bren, deadDMwalking and Kyle) of the "You're having Bad, Wrong Fun Club" show up, all making the "Argumentum ad fireballum" argument. None of whom have participated in this thread until just now to shit on it.  It's almost like you all had a little meeting to coordinate, but forgot how absurd it would look if you all posted the same point within half an hour. The Clintons organized "seminar callers" to call in to talk radio programs in the 90s. I guess now we have seminar posters in the forums.

You're as bad as the ones in this thread saying female strength modifiers have to be included no matter what, just the mirror. No allowance that one may want to participate in a campaign with varying degrees of realism as suits the drama involved with a particular campaign. Seemingly no awareness that part of what makes characters like Brienne of Tarth interesting is the sexism she has to deal with, and that some players might be able to handle that through their characters as well. Or that perhaps another part of what makes Brienne interesting is that she has to work harder than any other knight to be recognized as an elite warrior, and that relying on being the strongest knight wasn't an option for her.

Nope, even daring to think about running such a campaign is double plus wrongthink.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1104099Pre-emptive warning on this thread: stick to the topic in the context of RPGs.  Larger discussion about gender differences outside of the RPG context will be sanctioned.

Damn, and here I was gonna go off on a "What is best in life (Conan)? Fork..." On topic, personally don't care as a DM as I don't run 1E. If the group is 1E hardcore folks, that's fine. It's in the rules. It's my decision to walk if the game sucks.

Quote from: KikiLamb;1104194Sure, but the question is really: does Gregor Clegane have a significant strength advantage over Brienne of Tarth? I'd say he probably does.

If we assume classic D&D rules (i.e., TSR editions), they're both ordinary humans and can't have scores higher than 18, so Gregor's probably an example of a strength of 18. If the difference between Gregor and Brienne is significant, then she can't possibly have more than 17, and I can't really imagine any other woman matching Gregor, so putting an upper limit on strength for female characters seems entirely reasonable.

Eh. The Mountain would be someone who had magical enhancements, nobody is as big and strong as that motherfucker.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104201Thus, you don't need to limit them for "realism"... they're already in a realistic range.

Yep.

If the D&D game were modelling IRL then male PCs would average around +3 higher STR. But then looking at non-human races the difference between say a Gnome and a Golaith ought to be +8 or so, not +2. Clearly stat generation for PCs is not intended to emulate actual population differences. The bits of 3e D&D where they do try to get realistic, like the +4 grapple bonus per size category & large monsters with enormous STR scores, tend  to be the bits that work least well in practice. I'm glad they abandoned that stuff for 5e.

None of that means the GM can't assume that in the general NPC population goliaths are eight times stronger than gnomes and men are 50% or so stronger than women. It's fine for your pseudo-medieval world to assume real world sexual dimorphism is the general rule among NPCs, so that your fictional society can bear some resemblance to reality. But this is irrelevant to PC stat generation.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1104205Eh. The Mountain would be someone who had magical enhancements, nobody is as big and strong as that motherfucker.

I guess if I were modelling it in 1e AD&D I'd probably give pre-op Gregor STR 18/00 and Sandor STR 18/76, maybe 18/91 if feeling generous. TV-Brienne would likely be STR 16 but at (0, +1) this makes almost no difference to combat ability compared to STR 12 (I understand the book-Brienne is more like STR 12). She doesn't really demonstrate any huge feats of strength on-screen but is anecdotally stronger than the average man. Maybe split the difference and call it 14.

If I'm running 5e D&D it's a bit tougher since 5e makes no pretence to simulation and stats are more like skill/ability. STR 20 is not too uncommon although a 9' tall ogre is only STR 19, so I'd probably give Gregor STR 22 (putting him above the PC-achievable range), Sandor STR 20, Brienne probably an 18 - but more to show her athleticism and combat ability than to indicate she's in the top 0.5% of male strength.

There is nothing realistic about a "to-hit" roll.

Quote from: wmarshal;1104203Oh look, within the space of 22 minutes we have 3 members (Bren, deadDMwalking and Kyle) of the "You're having Bad, Wrong Fun Club" show up, all making the "Argumentum ad fireballum" argument.

Yes. We're talking about "realism", thus it is relevant to point out that in fact nobody wants realism. So why this particular thing? What personal inadequacy are we dealing with here? Like the SJW, the CJW tends to have a lot of personal issues they're using their politics (or their games) to work through.

QuoteNone of whom have participated in this thread until just now to shit on it.

I made sure to take a giant steaming dump in this thread as soon as I saw it. I am sorry to inform you that I don't sit on the forum all day hitting "new posts" to find things I disagree with. If I wanted to do that I'd have a tumblr account.

QuoteIt's almost like you all had a little meeting to coordinate, but forgot how absurd it would look if you all posted the same point within half an hour. The Clintons organized "seminar callers" to call in to talk radio programs in the 90s. I guess now we have seminar posters in the forums.

What the fuck do the Clintons have to do with anything, you retarded partisan American cocksmock? Not everything is political, as both you and the rainbow-haired arts undergrads need to learn.

QuoteNo allowance that one may want to participate in a campaign with varying degrees of realism as suits the drama involved with a particular campaign.

Again: why this particular issue? Why not others? Why on any rpg forum can you find half a dozen fatbeards, who the closest they've ever come to doing a pullup is masturbating to midget scat porn, whinging about female strength, and those same ones have no problems with point-buy, escalating hit points, and so on?

QuoteSeemingly no awareness that part of what makes characters like Brienne of Tarth interesting is -

That she can cut heads off. This is D&D. We are playing a game, not making high art (using the broadest possible definition of "high art" so that it can include GoT). This is Dungeons & Dragons, not Game of Angst.

CJW?

Quote from: TJS;1104212CJW?

Conservative Justice Warrior

You could model it by having "normal" females having a reduced STR. You could also say that PCs are not "normal" females, so would be the strong kind with the same STR as for males.

Red Sonja, She-Ra, Wonder Woman, Grace Jones' character in Conan, all were physically strong females and would be fine in any of my campaigns.

Quote from: S'mon;1104207I guess if I were modelling it in 1e AD&D I'd probably give pre-op Gregor STR 18/00 and Sandor STR 18/76, maybe 18/91 if feeling generous. TV-Brienne would likely be STR 16 but at (0, +1) this makes almost no difference to combat ability compared to STR 12 (I understand the book-Brienne is more like STR 12). She doesn't really demonstrate any huge feats of strength on-screen but is anecdotally stronger than the average man. Maybe split the difference and call it 14.

Rewatching the fight against the Hound, I can't agree. She's closer to Sandor's strength levels, much closer than 14 certainly. While he is certainly still stronger, he doesn't outclass her by a lot. Without rewatching the fight shot-by-shot I couldn't have assessed their relative strengths by memory alone - which indicates to me that it's a somewhat close affair. I'd rate her 18, maybe even 18/01.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1104215Rewatching the fight against the Hound, I can't agree. She's closer to Sandor's strength levels, much closer than 14 certainly. While he is certainly still stronger, he doesn't outclass her by a lot. Without rewatching the fight shot-by-shot I couldn't have assessed their relative strengths by memory alone - which indicates to me that it's a somewhat close affair. I'd rate her 18, maybe even 18/01.

Gonna have to agree here because, again, Strength in D&D has never been linear.

There's a greater difference between an 18 and 18/00 in carry capacity in A&D than there is between a 3 and an 18 in that system. Given Brienne a 16 Strength would put 18/76 Sandor at nearly three times her lifting capacity. That is not remotely what we see on screen.

Just about every "women need to have lower strengths" argument vastly overdoes the penalties to female strength largely because they try to treat the Strength scores as linear. 18/50 vs. 18/00 IS actually the correct proportion in AD&D for realistic strength scores and neither male nor female humans in 3e are at the peak strength of their sexes if they've got a Strength of 18 (the max starting score... more likely with actual rolls or point buy is a starting score of 16, so a female human fighter would be level 20 before she actually broke the women's weightlifting record without magical assistance.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1104215Rewatching the fight against the Hound, I can't agree. She's closer to Sandor's strength levels, much closer than 14 certainly. While he is certainly still stronger, he doesn't outclass her by a lot. Without rewatching the fight shot-by-shot I couldn't have assessed their relative strengths by memory alone - which indicates to me that it's a somewhat close affair. I'd rate her 18, maybe even 18/01.

He was weakened by the infection from his ear being bitten off.

Quote from: KikiLamb;1104194Sure, but the question is really: does Gregor Clegane have a significant strength advantage over Brienne of Tarth? I'd say he probably does.

If we assume classic D&D rules (i.e., TSR editions), they're both ordinary humans and can't have scores higher than 18, so Gregor's probably an example of a strength of 18. If the difference between Gregor and Brienne is significant, then she can't possibly have more than 17, and I can't really imagine any other woman matching Gregor, so putting an upper limit on strength for female characters seems entirely reasonable.

In GURPS this is not even an issue. Both Gregor Clegane and Brienne of Tarth would have a variety of disadvantages and quirks that would make them interesting to play. For example Gregor's barely hidden 'protect the innocent' disadvantage - look at his interaction with both of the Stark girls.

With that in mind they would wind up being an even match.

This is why the whole argument about women and strength winds up being a tad ridiculous. Gamers want to play interesting characters - that means characters that stand out or are odd or unusual in some way.  That would include women characters are are very strong or tall.

- Ed C.

That's one more advantage of points systems, people tend to build to their preexisting biases without them being baked into the rules.

Quote from: Koltar;1104222In GURPS this is not even an issue. Both Gregor Clegane and Brienne of Tarth would have a variety of disadvantages and quirks that would make them interesting to play. For example Gregor's barely hidden 'protect the innocent' disadvantage - look at his interaction with both of the Stark girls.

With that in mind they would wind up being an even match.

This is why the whole argument about women and strength winds up being a tad ridiculous. Gamers want to play interesting characters - that means characters that stand out or are odd or unusual in some way.  That would include women characters are are very strong or tall.

- Ed C.

My campaign included sexual dimorphism, yet the female PC is stronger than any of the male PCs. She is also the tallest of the PCs. My inclusion of sexual dimorphism did not preclude a woman character from being very strong or tall.

My campaign includes sexism, yet she is currently the only PC to attain land and title. (The PC who is her younger brother was first choice to inherit an isolated stead that they saved, and who had a very tenuous blood claim to the recently deceased thane's seat. He abdicated his claim in favor of his sister.)

Including sexual dimorphism and/or sexism does not forbid female characters from being very strong or tall. I've found that it makes the female characters more interesting when they are.

Quote from: soltakss;1104214You could model it by having "normal" females having a reduced STR. You could also say that PCs are not "normal" females, so would be the strong kind with the same STR as for males.

This is what I did for one particular ruleset I've been drafting: a Flaw called "Delicate" imposes a penalty die on strength-related or endurance-related rolls (this can represent either general slight physique or lingering illness, or anything else which would explain such a penalty). An optional sidebar notes that game masters who feel like acknowledging the physical reality of sexual dimorphism can make this a default standard for female human NPCs if they want, but that no player should be obliged to take this Flaw for a female PC if they don't want to. "RPGs are about fantasy and fun," it finishes.

Quote from: Koltar;1104222In GURPS this is not even an issue. Both Gregor Clegane and Brienne of Tarth would have a variety of disadvantages and quirks that would make them interesting to play. For example Gregor's barely hidden 'protect the innocent' disadvantage - look at his interaction with both of the Stark girls.

- Ed C.

Gregor Clegane is The Mountain. You're thinking Sandor Clegane.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104231This is what I did for one particular ruleset I've been drafting: a Flaw called "Delicate" imposes a penalty die on strength-related or endurance-related rolls (this can represent either general slight physique or lingering illness, or anything else which would explain such a penalty). An optional sidebar notes that game masters who feel like acknowledging the physical reality of sexual dimorphism can make this a default standard for female human NPCs if they want, but that no player should be obliged to take this Flaw for a female PC if they don't want to. "RPGs are about fantasy and fun," it finishes.

Why endurance?  That's not realistic.

Quote from: wmarshal;1104203Oh look, within the space of 22 minutes we have 3 members (Bren, deadDMwalking and Kyle) of the "You're having Bad, Wrong Fun Club" show up, all making the "Argumentum ad fireballum" argument. None of whom have participated in this thread until just now to shit on it.  It's almost like you all had a little meeting to coordinate, but forgot how absurd it would look if you all posted the same point within half an hour. The Clintons organized "seminar callers" to call in to talk radio programs in the 90s. I guess now we have seminar posters in the forums.

I was going to respond to this inane twaddle, but at our last meeting we all agreed that Kyle would do the response. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104211Yes. We're talking about "realism", thus it is relevant to point out that in fact nobody wants realism. So why this particular thing? What personal inadequacy are we dealing with here? Like the SJW, the CJW tends to have a lot of personal issues they're using their politics (or their games) to work through.

So you know better than I what I want or not? WOW, fucking Profesor X!
My guess os we're dealing with your trying to be hollier than thou and your supossed moral and intelectual superiority.
CJW?
More armchair and remote psych and mind reading, yep we're dealing with an intelectual titan who didn't even bother to read the discussion.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104211I made sure to take a giant steaming dump in this thread as soon as I saw it. I am sorry to inform you that I don't sit on the forum all day hitting "new posts" to find things I disagree with. If I wanted to do that I'd have a tumblr account.

Okey, so now we know you didn't even read the discussion. But did you read the title?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104211What the fuck do the Clintons have to do with anything, you retarded partisan American cocksmock? Not everything is political, as both you and the rainbow-haired arts undergrads need to learn.

So you're not one of the danger hairs or an "ally"?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104211Again: why this particular issue? Why not others? Why on any rpg forum can you find half a dozen fatbeards, who the closest they've ever come to doing a pullup is masturbating to midget scat porn, whinging about female strength, and those same ones have no problems with point-buy, escalating hit points, and so on?

Because someone thought it would be interesting, because some others thought it would be interesting to discuss it, some agreing with the OP some not and some somewhere in between. I wasn't aware we needed to consult with your assholiness as to what we could discuss as long as it was RPG related. And up until you came along "shouting" insults and mind-reading we had managed to keep it civil.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104211That she can cut heads off. This is D&D. We are playing a game, not making high art (using the broadest possible definition of "high art" so that it can include GoT). This is Dungeons & Dragons, not Game of Angst.

So you didn't even read the title of the discussion or have a lack of reading comprehension I have rarelly seen outside of the grievance studies graduates and their cult leaders.

Well it's not often I read so many fallacies and idiocy together, Congrats Kyle.

Quote from: soltakss;1104214You could model it by having "normal" females having a reduced STR. You could also say that PCs are not "normal" females, so would be the strong kind with the same STR as for males.

Red Sonja, She-Ra, Wonder Woman, Grace Jones' character in Conan, all were physically strong females and would be fine in any of my campaigns.

Which is fine for my preferred style which is Pulp. But if you wanted to have a more "realistic" campaign of say White Lies then this obviously doesn't work since the strongest woamn isn't that much stronger than the average man.

I guess what I'm saying is you can go either way and if it's fun for you and your group and doesn't get in the way of your fun then go wild. But there are some arguments as to why different stats should be different for the characters of a given sex or species.

Quote from: S'mon;1104213Conservative Justice Warrior

[video=youtube;YpddaZB9bcI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpddaZB9bcI[/youtube]

We touched this recently in a thread about non PC aspects of your game.  I personally like having male humans average larger and stronger, because this is how biology works, but its not a hill I would die on.  

Broadly speaking there seem to be three reactions to this topic.

1) Sure, makes sense.  I would do it [this way], but I can see various ways of modeling this very obvious feature of reality.

2) I see the point but I don't do it in games because I don't feel it is necessary.  

3) REEEEEEE!

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104243Which is fine for my preferred style which is Pulp. But if you wanted to have a more "realistic" campaign of say White Lies then this obviously doesn't work since the strongest woamn isn't that much stronger than the average man.

I guess what I'm saying is you can go either way and if it's fun for you and your group and doesn't get in the way of your fun then go wild. But there are some arguments as to why different stats should be different for the characters of a given sex or species.

Sure, just as there's arguments that elves and dwarves are silly, or that an Armor Class doesn't simulate armor in melee combat in any believable way.
Razor's thread title was clickbaity and dumb, and the topic has been beaten into the ground. The only useful purpose it serves is to perhaps introduce anyone "new" who hasn't had the discussion before, to the arguments. Though an internet search would likely do that as well.

https://www.google.com/search?q=women+strength+rpgs&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS847US847&oq=women+strength+rpgs&aqs=chrome..69i57.4871j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Quote from: Brendan;1104245We touched this recently in a thread about non PC aspects of your game.  I personally like having male humans average larger and stronger, because this is how biology works, but its not a hill I would die on.  

Broadly speaking there seem to be three reactions to this topic.

1) Sure, makes sense.  I would do it [this way], but I can see various ways of modeling this very obvious feature of reality.

2) I see the point but I don't do it in games because I don't feel it is necessary.  

3) REEEEEEE!

The first two reactions allow for debate and conversation. The third reaction is the deliberate effort by puritanical gaming scolds to close off any such conversation.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104201Thus, you don't need to limit them for "realism"... they're already in a realistic range.

Exactly this. Even if you care about "realism" in your fantasy elf-game, the "average" strength of women relative to men is irrelevant. Only the "possible" strength matters, because adventurers are not an "average" cross section of the populace. Demanding as much is equivalent to requiring mages in your campaign to proportionally represent the full spectrum of human intelligence. Which would be silly, because wizards are by definition the smartest cross-section of the populace, just as fighters are the strongest.

Quote from: Brendan;11042453) REEEEEEE!

In my defense, my "REEEEEE!" was because I had accidentally spilled hot cocoa on myself.

Quote from: TJS;1104240Why endurance?  That's not realistic.

Depends what you mean by "endurance". What I meant was the ability to sustain muscular effort over time, i.e. greater fatigue reserves, in which most surveys I've read indicate men have a pretty conclusive advantage.

If what you meant were things like pain tolerance or resistance to disease or poison, I'll grant I have no knowledge of any particular advantage or disadvantage for either sex. In which case I grant I will have to be a little more specific for the rule in question.

Quote from: Zalman;1104253Exactly this. Even if you care about "realism" in your fantasy elf-game, the "average" strength of women relative to men is irrelevant. Only the "possible" strength matters, because adventurers are not an "average" cross section of the populace. Demanding as much is equivalent to requiring mages in your campaign to proportionally represent the full spectrum of human intelligence. Which would be silly, because wizards are by definition the smartest cross-section of the populace, just as fighters are the strongest.

The title says in RPGs, why is everybody assuming fantasy elf-games?

And even there, are Orcs stronger than the average adventurer? Why? The adventurer isn't the average of the species from whence it hails.

Yes, the strongest woman is stronger than the average woman, but is she on par or stronger than a strong man? Pro tip no she isn't.

Again, modelling this or not is up to you, but if you're going to say nobody should because reason X you better present a good reason X and not this.

Quote from: Zalman;1104253Exactly this. Even if you care about "realism" in your fantasy elf-game, the "average" strength of women relative to men is irrelevant. Only the "possible" strength matters, because adventurers are not an "average" cross section of the populace.

Unfortunately that doesn't eliminate the underlying issue.  The degree of potential deviation from the "average" is not greater for women, and in fact may be much smaller.  In other words, in addition to being much weaker on average, it is not possible for women to develop muscular strength to the extent that it is possible for men.  The gap between male and female strength increases with training, rather than the other way round.   This is largely because the male system is built for this kind of thing.  Male bones are denser.  Tendon attachment points and the tendons themselves are thicker.  Etc. etc.  Testosterone is a main driver of strength adaptation and in utero testosterone produces profound differences on human anatomy.

For example:

Let's say an average man weighs approximately 180lbs and the average woman 130lbs.  If they're pretty fit but not strength athletes they might be able to dead-lift (bend over and pick up off the floor) 190-200 and 80-90 pounds respectively.  Now add six months of serious strength training.   The man is dead-lifting over 250 maybe as much as 315, depending on his genetic potential and how willing he is to buik up.  The woman is lifting 120 to MAAAYBE 180.  

So the man went from lifting bodyweight plus 10, 15 lbs to lifting almost bodyweight X2 in six months.
The woman went from lifting slightly more than 1/2 her bodyweight to bodyweight plus a few lbs, or where the male trainee started, in the same period of time, with the same training intensity.  

In absolute numbers the delta between male and female untrained strength was, being as generous as possible, 100lbs.  At the end of a novice training progression, you're looking at a delta of around 150lbs.  In other words, the delta got larger, not smaller.  

At the upper end of possibility you have numbers like this:

Male world record: 500 kg or 1,102.3 lb held by Eddie Hall.  
Female world record: 305 kg or 672.4 lb held by Becca Swanson.

The delta has increased to over 400 lbs.

Quote from: Brendan;1104245We touched this recently in a thread about non PC aspects of your game.  I personally like having male humans average larger and stronger, because this is how biology works, but its not a hill I would die on.  

Broadly speaking there seem to be three reactions to this topic.

1) Sure, makes sense.  I would do it [this way], but I can see various ways of modeling this very obvious feature of reality.

2) I see the point but I don't do it in games because I don't feel it is necessary.  

3) REEEEEEE!

Bravo.  Well said.

When trying to model realism in RPGs, female characters would have advantages over male characters; but it would be a rare occurrence for strength to be one of them.  It would be far outside of the norm.

Actually, some NPC males are most likely stronger than the female PCs.  The local lumberjack who chops wood with an axe by day, and armwrestles in the pub by night for fun; is one good example.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104266When trying to model realism in RPGs, female characters would have advantages over male characters; but it would be a rare occurrence for strength to be one of them.  It would be far outside of the norm.

Actually, some NPC males are most likely stronger than the female PCs.  The local lumberjack who chops wood with an axe by day, and armwrestles in the pub by night for fun; is one good example.

Thanks and agreed.  One thing that doesn't get modeled in games very often is female social privilege / manipulation ability. Women are used to playing social games at a level of subtext completely invisible to most men. (Note to the reader: If you don't think this is true, you're probably a man.  Ask a woman you know and trust. She'll tell you that most women regard us as semi-useful blundering idiots. ) Women from pretty much every social level are given the benefit of the doubt in situations that men are not.  Yes, a Joan of Arc, Tomoe Gozen or Jirel of Joiry will rub some men the wrong way, but they'll also have men flock to their banner, fall hopelessly in love with them, offer them marriage contracts, etc etc.  Imagine the white knighting possible in a world that has actual knights in it?  

In OSR terms the easiest mod I can think of would be to give female PCs -2Str/+2Cha.  It means that the female tank "badass" fighter is going to be harder to pull off, but that fem-fatal rogue, or powerful sorceress, or god-touched paladin becomes a slightly better fit for female PCs.  Of course, a 14-16 Str fighter in OD&D is nothing to sneeze at.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104260Depends what you mean by "endurance". What I meant was the ability to sustain muscular effort over time, i.e. greater fatigue reserves, in which most surveys I've read indicate men have a pretty conclusive advantage.

I don't think this is very widely known though. I didn't know it until I joined the Territorial Army Reserve, a mixed sex unit, and I saw in training how younger fitter women than me would collapse while older less fit men were still going.

(I did encounter women physically superior to me in speed, endurance etc, but they were rare & they didn't look* much like any Action Girl actress you ever saw on TV. Whereas the normal women/girls I was better than did look like normal fit young women.)

*They probably looked most like the very lean, rangy men of the Texas Rangers I remember checking my passport near the US/Mexico border!

Quote from: Brendan;1104262Unfortunately that doesn't eliminate the underlying issue.

You're still making two false assumptions: (1) that the delta's among adventurers will be relative to deltas of the general populace, and (2) that the general maximums for humans aren't just fine to represent those possible deltas as is (disproven above).

Quote from: Brendan;1104271Thanks and agreed.  One thing that doesn't get modeled in games very often is female social privilege / manipulation ability. Women are used to playing social games at a level of subtext completely invisible to most men. (Note to the reader: If you don't think this is true, you're probably a man.  Ask a woman you know and trust. She'll tell you that most women regard us as semi-useful blundering idiots. ) Women from pretty much every social level are given the benefit of the doubt in situations that men are not.  Yes, a Joan of Arc, Tomoe Gozen or Jirel of Joiry will rub some men the wrong way, but they'll also have men flock to their banner, fall hopelessly in love with them, offer them marriage contracts, etc etc.  Imagine the white knighting possible in a world that has actual knights in it?  

In OSR terms the easiest mod I can think of would be to give female PCs -2Str/+2Cha.  It means that the female tank "badass" fighter is going to be harder to pull off, but that fem-fatal rogue, or powerful sorceress, or god-touched paladin becomes a slightly better fit for female PCs.  Of course, a 14-16 Str fighter in OD&D is nothing to sneeze at.

I avoid taking this approach in my campaigns. To me it seems a form of applying a stereotype to all females, and it is why I let the player choose which attribute they wish to modify. One could find arguments for females having better Vigor/Constitution ("she has to be good at birthing babies" attitude despite women telling me dealing with kidney stones can be worse, which both sexes have to deal with), better Spirit/Wisdom (the earth mother/crone trope), etc, etc. if I'm already having the female character impacted by sexual dimorphism and sexism, it seems fair to let the player determine how her character compensates for that. Giving female characters that flexibility has not led to a bunch of my male players playing female characters for the mechanical advantage such flexibility affords.

Quote from: Zalman;1104276You're still making two false assumptions: (1) that the delta's among adventurers will be relative to deltas of the general populace, and (2) that the general maximums for humans aren't just fine to represent those possible deltas as is (disproven above).

Yes, I am making an assumption that as HUMAN BEINGS characters will have attributes consistent with that of what we know about HUMAN BEINGS.  I can see how that would be a "false assumption" for you, if adventurers in your world are not subject to the rules of human biology, or you live in a place without human beings in it... like Portland.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Brendan;1104271Thanks and agreed.  One thing that doesn't get modeled in games very often is female social privilege / manipulation ability. Women are used to playing social games at a level of subtext completely invisible to most men. (Note to the reader: If you don't think this is true, you're probably a man.  Ask a woman you know and trust. She'll tell you that most women regard us as semi-useful blundering idiots. ) Women from pretty much every social level are given the benefit of the doubt in situations that men are not.  Yes, a Joan of Arc, Tomoe Gozen or Jirel of Joiry will rub some men the wrong way, but they'll also have men flock to their banner, fall hopelessly in love with them, offer them marriage contracts, etc etc.  Imagine the white knighting possible in a world that has actual knights in it?  

In OSR terms the easiest mod I can think of would be to give female PCs -2Str/+2Cha.  It means that the female tank "badass" fighter is going to be harder to pull off, but that fem-fatal rogue, or powerful sorceress, or god-touched paladin becomes a slightly better fit for female PCs.  Of course, a 14-16 Str fighter in OD&D is nothing to sneeze at.

I think an attractive woman might make an excellent Rogue.  Although; if she is gorgeous, that would draw too much attention.  A Rogue needs to go unnoticed at times.

Druid might be an excellent fit.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104285I think an attractive woman might make an excellent Rogue.  Although; if she is gorgeous, that would draw too much attention.  A Rogue needs to go unnoticed at times.

Druid might be an excellent fit.

Sure, but CHA can be more than just attractiveness.  It can also be social savvy, discernment, "aura" or positive affect.

Quote from: Brendan;1104286Sure, but CHA can be more than just attractiveness.  It can also be social savvy, discernment, "aura" or positive affect.

Druids and Clerics are Wisdom based casters.  Perhaps a wise, caring, protective female is an excellent choice?

Quote from: Brendan;1104271Women from pretty much every social level are given the benefit of the doubt in situations that men are not. Yes, a Joan of Arc, Tomoe Gozen or Jirel of Joiry will rub some men the wrong way, but they'll also have men flock to their banner, fall hopelessly in love with them, offer them marriage contracts, etc etc. Imagine the white knighting possible in a world that has actual knights in it?

In OSR terms the easiest mod I can think of would be to give female PCs -2Str/+2Cha.  It means that the female tank "badass" fighter is going to be harder to pull off, but that fem-fatal rogue, or powerful sorceress, or god-touched paladin becomes a slightly better fit for female PCs.  Of course, a 14-16 Str fighter in OD&D is nothing to sneeze at.

Women leaders like Joan of Arc existed in the medieval world - but they were far more the exception than the rule. Throughout the medieval world, on average women were *not* looked to as leaders. The sovereigns, bishops, and generals were almost all men. Particularly when taking medieval society rules into account, the average woman is not going to be a physical and social equal of the average man. I think trying to pretend that was the case is at least as big a break from reality as the biological difference in strength.

But for games, it's not the case that all PCs have to have equal rarity. For example, wizards are presumably of far greater rarity than warriors -- but those are presented as equal choices in the game. There are plenty of other options:

1) Use point-buy instead of random-roll. Then women characters could get points back both for lower physical strength and limited social opportunities.

2) Use fantasy changes. For example, in HarnMaster, women are smaller than men and have physical disadvantage from that -- but they have a bonus to their Aura stat which makes them superior wizards (Shek-Pvar).

3) Presume that women PCs are a more selective set than man PCs. Random-roll could reflect this by having -2 to Strength, but give them a flexible other advantage - like bonus to other stats or skill. Unbalanced race choices are possible using ECL or similar in some versions of D&D.


Personally, I find games work better when the PCs are roughly balanced both in social rank and in combat ability. For example, yesterday I played in a military fantasy game where my PC was a tiny elf woman who was captain of her cavalry company, in a mostly human regiment. The company were pegasus riders where the pegasi had more limited flight, so it was a requirement that the riders had to be as light as possible. She was also 170 years old with more years of military experience than the rest of the officers put together. These two balanced her being taken less seriously because of her size and gender, as well as her lack of hand-to-hand fighting ability. The game was focused on military procedure rather than personal combat.

Quote from: jhkim;1104288Women leaders like Joan of Arc existed in the medieval world - but they were far more the exception than the rule. Throughout the medieval world, on average women were *not* looked to as leaders. The sovereigns, bishops, and generals were almost all men. Particularly when taking medieval society rules into account, the average woman is not going to be a physical and social equal of the average man. I think trying to pretend that was the case is at least as big a break from reality as the biological difference in strength.

Again, this is missing the "apples to apples" comparison.  NO ONE has argued that women in a medieval setting are "going to be leaders".  What I did say is that, broadly speaking, women are more socially adept than men.  This means that FOR A GIVEN SOCIAL SUBSET, women will be more socially adept.  

Here are some hypothetical examples:

1) A peasant woman running up to a knight and asking for assistance is more likely to get it than her strong but taciturn husband (CHA 11 vs CHA 9).  
2) A visionary (male) cleric will attractive some followers, but an attractive visionary female cleric will be a regional sensation (CHA 13 vs CHA 15).
3) A nobleman will undoubtedly try to keep up on the palace gossip, but everyone loves to chat with the matronly old cook (CHA 14 vs CHA 16)

It doesn't bother me if anyone prefers a different way of handling this, but you're straw-manning my position.  I see -2Str/+2Cha as one very easy way to handle the difference, and one that "rings true" to me, but its certainly not the only way.

I don't feel strongly one way or another. I could see the argument for implementing minor stat tweaks, but generally I don't mind a shared baseline in the context of adventurous PCs. As I usually do point-buy games, if a player wants their character to be weaker or stronger (or more/less charismatic, beautiful/handsome, etc.) to reflect their vision of their character and their capabilities, so be it.

With NPCs, I provide them accurate stats to what character traits I want to be represented (example, the average village waif might have ST 8 or 9). I don't know if that's considered a gender tweak or not since I don't really build it formally into gendered templates or whatever, a solid 80% of my NPCs are eyeballed on the fly.

As someone who is bothered by "realism" (especially stupid things like the "dextrous-but-weak" archetype that has little bearing in reality), I can do pull-ups. I did 15 last week in one go, I've done as many as 40 in a number of sets. Lots of other aspects of verisimilitude matter to me, which is one of the many reasons I prefer historical games nowadays.

One context in which strength often doesn't matter is in sci-fi RPGs. Unless it's one that contrives a reason for hand-to-hand combat to still be relevant, physical strength takes a back seat to hand-eye co-ordination.

Quote from: jhkim;1104288Women leaders like Joan of Arc existed in the medieval world - but they were far more the exception than the rule. Throughout the medieval world, on average women were *not* looked to as leaders. The sovereigns, bishops, and generals were almost all men. Particularly when taking medieval society rules into account, the average woman is not going to be a physical and social equal of the average man. I think trying to pretend that was the case is at least as big a break from reality as the biological difference in strength.

But for games, it's not the case that all PCs have to have equal rarity. For example, wizards are presumably of far greater rarity than warriors -- but those are presented as equal choices in the game. There are plenty of other options:

1) Use point-buy instead of random-roll. Then women characters could get points back both for lower physical strength and limited social opportunities.

2) Use fantasy changes. For example, in HarnMaster, women are smaller than men and have physical disadvantage from that -- but they have a bonus to their Aura stat which makes them superior wizards (Shek-Pvar).

3) Presume that women PCs are a more selective set than man PCs. Random-roll could reflect this by having -2 to Strength, but give them a flexible other advantage - like bonus to other stats or skill. Unbalanced race choices are possible using ECL or similar in some versions of D&D.


Personally, I find games work better when the PCs are roughly balanced both in social rank and in combat ability. For example, yesterday I played in a military fantasy game where my PC was a tiny elf woman who was captain of her cavalry company, in a mostly human regiment. The company were pegasus riders where the pegasi had more limited flight, so it was a requirement that the riders had to be as light as possible. She was also 170 years old with more years of military experience than the rest of the officers put together. These two balanced her being taken less seriously because of her size and gender, as well as her lack of hand-to-hand fighting ability. The game was focused on military procedure rather than personal combat.

Yes, and how did that work out for Joan of Arc?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1104081If you want to play a game that simulates reality, like, I don't know, a historical setting, there may be an argument in its favor: realism as a central theme. But it has ZERO place as an automatic mechanic in heroic role-playing games, where you play idealized characters. In heroic role-playing, just as in Hollywood movies, anything goes and women can be as strong or as weak as the player desires, within human limits (and possibly beyond).

Does gravity work different for women in your games?

Quote from: Razor 007;1104297Yes, and how did that work out for Joan of Arc?

I think one can include sexual dimorphism and sexism in a campaign without having to declare any female PC who asserts herself as being "Doomed! Doomed, I say! Just look at what happened to poor Joan of Arc!"

Quote from: Razor 007;1104297Yes, and how did that work out for Joan of Arc?

Also, what happened to your original post?

Quote from: wmarshal;1104302Also, what happened to your original post?

I realized that "Gygax lives!!!", summed it up better.

Quote from: Brendan;1104290Again, this is missing the "apples to apples" comparison.  NO ONE has argued that women in a medieval setting are "going to be leaders".  What I did say is that, broadly speaking, women are more socially adept than men.  This means that FOR A GIVEN SOCIAL SUBSET, women will be more socially adept.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your attempt. In the real world, I don't agree that women are overall more socially adept than men. Women are socialized differently and often treated differently depending on society, so there are social situations where they have an advantage. However, there are also many social situations where they are at a disadvantage. Various sociological and psychological studies show plenty of differences between men and women, but they don't all find women at an advantage. There are varying studies that suggest that, say, women are more empathic, but emotional empathy isn't the whole of social skill. For many social tasks, lack of empathy can be an advantage.

Quote from: Brendan;1104290Here are some hypothetical examples:

1) A peasant woman running up to a knight and asking for assistance is more likely to get it than her strong but taciturn husband (CHA 11 vs CHA 9).  
2) A visionary (male) cleric will attractive some followers, but an attractive visionary female cleric will be a regional sensation (CHA 13 vs CHA 15).
3) A nobleman will undoubtedly try to keep up on the palace gossip, but everyone loves to chat with the matronly old cook (CHA 14 vs CHA 16)

It doesn't bother me if anyone prefers a different way of handling this, but you're straw-manning my position.  I see -2Str/+2Cha as one very easy way to handle the difference, and one that "rings true" to me, but its certainly not the only way.

These sound like fine options for a game. I had a character in a Burning Wheel game who was an old woman in a religious sect, and she specialized as a combat-monster in the BW social conflict system ("Duel of Wits").

However, I have to say that I don't feel these ring true to me any more than the inverse - particularly your #2. There were visionary religious leaders who were women in history. However, there were far more - and more influential - visionary religious leaders who were men.

I don't think that #1 represents the charisma of the asker nearly so much as the social rules of the knight. Medieval society especially tends to be more protective of women. And #3 reflects the split between different social spheres rather than social adeptness. Hearing servant's gossip isn't part of the nobleman's sphere - but the nobleman could easily be a popular man, told things by his fellow noblemen that they would never think of confiding with an old cook.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104260Depends what you mean by "endurance". What I meant was the ability to sustain muscular effort over time, i.e. greater fatigue reserves, in which most surveys I've read indicate men have a pretty conclusive advantage.

Woman are more competitive at the extreme distance Ultra races, although the very best times and distances are still held by men. The person with the seventh best result in North America for the 24 hour run is Camille Heron. And to put her ability in the terms of old timey D&D stats.

0.463% (1/216) of characters have CON or STR at 18.
0.005% (1/21,600) would have a stat at 18 (00)

Last year 541,000 people in the US finished a marathon. Even if we just randomly rolled their CON, then 25 of them would have a CON of 18 (00). One would presume those would be the best runners and that Camille Heron would be one of them. So, presumably would the other 9 women who placed in the top 20 for North American 24 hour race runners.

A stat range of 3-18 (00) just isn't granular enough to distinguish between the abilities of truly elite humans.

Quote from: Bren;1104307Woman are more competitive at the extreme distance Ultra races, although the very best times and distances are still held by men. The person with the seventh best result in North America for the 24 hour run is Camille Heron. And to put her ability in the terms of old timey D&D stats.

0.463% (1/216) of characters have CON or STR at 18.
0.005% (1/21,600) would have a stat at 18 (00)

Last year 541,000 people in the US finished a marathon. Even if we just randomly rolled their CON, then 25 of them would have a CON of 18 (00). One would presume those would be the best runners and that Camille Heron would be one of them. So, presumably would the other 9 women who placed in the top 20 for North American 24 hour race runners.

A stat range of 3-18 (00) just isn't granular enough to distinguish between the abilities of truly elite humans.

Agreed. Men tend to be taller and stronger and run faster than women. However, the men's marathon record times are about 10% better than women - which is about the same as 100 meter dash times. That implies to me that the difference is largely about running speed, not about endurance. Also, one of the few sports where women seem dominant is in extreme distance swimming. There the very best distances are held by women: Sarah Thomas and Chloe McCardel take the #1 and #2 spots.

https://db.marathonswimmers.org/longest-swims/#curr_neut

For the vast majority of games--certainly including D&D, all versions--I don't see much point in the distinction.  If I'm going for that level of verisimilitude, D&D is way down the list of games to use.  

The coarse granularity of the ability scores has already been noted, as well as the absence of size in the equation.  Perhaps equally bad is the lack of a distinct "speed" ability.  It's true that in most versions of D&D, since the Str bonus is adding to melee hit and damage, that "Strength" is supposed to represent not only raw strength, but also developed speed of movements as well as coordination with weapons.  In real life, men will get the advantage in 2 of the 3, and won't suffer proportionally on average to the women on coordination.  Then there is also reach to consider, usually but not always part of size.  Then let's talk age. Let's talk atrophy of skills.

You can model all of that, if you want.  And then remember that compared to dedication and experience--especially in D&D--it will get washed out in the exchange.  There's only so much complexity you can build into a game before diminishing returns set in.  It's going to need to be a lot of payout to do all of that, and if you aren't doing all of that, then the Str thing is rather pointless.

It's also a completely different set of modeling concerns if you roll for abilities versus use some kind of point buy.

I thought that the old Dragon Quest game was the closest to hitting something halfway reasonable on that front, consistent within its own system.  In DQ, "physical strength", "agility", "manual dexterity", "endurance", and "fatigue" are all very important to warriors that plan to engage in melee.  Female characters get -2 to physical strength, but +1 to manual dexterity and fatigue.  That's a fair trade within the system, and if anything gives the female characters a wider range of choices.  Heck, since you don't know exactly which race you'll get (unless human), and exactly how your ability scores will end up, I can easily see a player picking female to get that trade.  But even in DQ, with reams of complexity, I don't think that rule would survive a serious editorial pass.  It's simply not as important as so many other things in the system.

I've also got to ask, what is the rule trying to accomplish?  If you want to run a particularly realistic game in some respects for male/female participation in various groups, then it would seem to me that simply setting those expectations in the rules with the rationale would be better, than trying to reverse-engineer the abilities to then forward-engineer the results you want.  

For example, if you want a game that follows the historical ancient and medieval nod for male infantry, then just say that almost all such infantry are male--because of average physical characteristics, social norms, etc.  Then if an much above average physically female character wants to dress as a man to get into the infantry, or fight her way in, or start her own unit, she can play within those parameters.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104260Depends what you mean by "endurance". What I meant was the ability to sustain muscular effort over time, i.e. greater fatigue reserves, in which most surveys I've read indicate men have a pretty conclusive advantage.

If what you meant were things like pain tolerance or resistance to disease or poison, I'll grant I have no knowledge of any particular advantage or disadvantage for either sex. In which case I grant I will have to be a little more specific for the rule in question.

Quote from: S'mon;1104274I don't think this is very widely known though. I didn't know it until I joined the Territorial Army Reserve, a mixed sex unit, and I saw in training how younger fitter women than me would collapse while older less fit men were still going.

(I did encounter women physically superior to me in speed, endurance etc, but they were rare & they didn't look* much like any Action Girl actress you ever saw on TV. Whereas the normal women/girls I was better than did look like normal fit young women.)

*They probably looked most like the very lean, rangy men of the Texas Rangers I remember checking my passport near the US/Mexico border!

https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/ (https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/)
https://www.ft.com/content/0ead55ca-1d85-11e9-a46f-08f9738d6b2b
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389
https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2019/03/04/can-women-outperform-men-in-endurance-sports/

Quote from: jhkim;1104309Agreed. Men tend to be taller and stronger and run faster than women. However, the men's marathon record times are about 10% better than women - which is about the same as 100 meter dash times. That implies to me that the difference is largely about running speed, not about endurance. Also, one of the few sports where women seem dominant is in extreme distance swimming. There the very best distances are held by women: Sarah Thomas and Chloe McCardel take the #1 and #2 spots.

https://db.marathonswimmers.org/longest-swims/#curr_neut

Yes but go beyond Marathons - to the really extreme distances eg 200 mile running races and the gap closes dramatically.  

Basically men have big advantages in Vo2 Max.  This is still relevant at the level of a marathon.

V02 max and strength also favour men in endurance sports that require the occasional burst effort, such as cycling, where men vastly outperform women in comparison to running - which is more steady state.

Of course if you wanted to actually model this in any rpg system it wouldn't look at all like any existing system.

You'd have stats like:
V02 Max
Slow twitch muscle fibre
Fast twitch muscle fibre
Lactate threshold
etc.

Or in other words, if our game systems are not based on science then it's hardly surprising that they don't give scientific results.  How much do we care?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1104317For example, if you want a game that follows the historical ancient and medieval nod for male infantry, then just say that almost all such infantry are male--because of average physical characteristics, social norms, etc.  Then if an much above average physically female character wants to dress as a man to get into the infantry, or fight her way in, or start her own unit, she can play within those parameters.

[video=youtube;YCyqb0GMfvE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCyqb0GMfvE[/youtube]

Thanks for the links. FYI - you need to be a subscriber to read the Financial Times article.

Quote from: jhkim;1104306In the real world, I don't agree that women are overall more socially adept than men.

Yes, a lot of "smart" men believe this.  It's the male equivalent of women who foolishly believe that because they play sports / lift weights / took some martial arts classes, they can go toe to toe with the average man easily.  We live in a society where everyone more or less plays nice together, so the differences in capacity are often not made immediately and painfully obvious.  

I think maybe we're just living in very different worlds.  If you believe that the fundamental driver of male/female sexual differences is nurture and not nature then there's little point in continuing to argue about it.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Because of the large strength differences, female characters should get paid less adventuring... around 70% share of the loot.
;-)

Quote from: DocJones;1104329Because of the large strength differences, female characters should get paid less adventuring... around 70% share of the loot.
;-)

Starting the popcorn now!!!

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1104210There is nothing realistic about a "to-hit" roll.

Tell that to every soldier and person who has ever gotten into a fight, ever.

Quote from: Brendan;1104328Yes, a lot of "smart" men believe this.  It's the male equivalent of women who foolishly believe that because they play sports / lift weights / took some martial arts classes, they can go toe to toe with the average man easily.  We live in a society where everyone more or less plays nice together, so the differences in capacity are often not made immediately and painfully obvious.  

I think maybe we're just living in very different worlds.  If you believe that the fundamental driver of male/female sexual differences is nurture and not nature then there's little point in continuing to argue about it.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Or you could provide some science.

But I suspect that the reality of this is that things are too intermingled.  While there are studies that seem to show women show more social adeptness - these women are all mired in a particular culture which can't easily be isolated from the physical contributions.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.  The science isn't clear enough for certainty. Social ability is far more complicated than physical ability.

In any case 'Socially adeptness' is alway dependent on how it is defined - and the means of social influence availabe depend greatly on how gender roles are defined.  Only a small percentage of women historically jave had opportunities to whip up crowds with impassioned oratory, for example.

The idea that any particular advantage in some situations that women might possess can be represented by something as vaguely defined as "Charisma" is absurd.

Quote from: jhkim;1104288Women leaders like Joan of Arc existed in the medieval world - but they were far more the exception than the rule. Throughout the medieval world, on average women were *not* looked to as leaders. The sovereigns, bishops, and generals were almost all men. Particularly when taking medieval society rules into account, the average woman is not going to be a physical and social equal of the average man. I think trying to pretend that was the case is at least as big a break from reality as the biological difference in strength.

Except throughout history women have wielded alot of power in society. The difference was that power was on the social level usually. With a few notable exceptions. We've been over this before too.

As for this whole tired idiot incessant screeching of the "Being realistic in a fantasy game isn't realistic!" screed.

Well then why cant the fighter fly by flapping his arms?
Why cant the 1st level fighter cast a 20d6 fireball at will?
Why cant cant the wizard with 3 STR using no magic lift a castle?
Why cant my 1st level character hit every time and kill everything in one blow?

AD&D had discreet limits in place for a reason. Primarily because
A: YOU, the damn players, asked for, no... DEMANDED! them be quantified. And then bitched when you got what you wanted. Of course.
B: Because AD&D even more than OD&D was meant to be able to emulate varying levels of setting from a totally non-magic realistic one all the way to a very high magic one. Rules there to use, or lose as a DM saw fit. Same with various other rules in AD&D that were used or ignored depending on the setting, DM, etc.

My go-to example being AD&D Conan. It jettisons a huge chunk of stuff. PCs are Human - Fighter or Thief only. No demi-humans, no magic capable PCs and even spell capable NPCs are few and far between. Even simple magic items are a rarity.

Quote from: Bren;1104195If your system allows your PC to heal up "naturally" in a handful of days after being hit with a sword, axe, or mace or bit by some carnivore whose mouth is filled with all sorts of nasty bacteria

5e has rules for injuries and diseases separate from hit point loss. Earlier editions were similar because hit point loss doesn't equate to wounds. I think originally it was something like 1 hit point per week for natural recovery. There are "gritty realism" options for 5e which are similar time scales.

Quote from: Bren;1104195If your STR and CON doesn't increase due to intense training and decrease while in bed healing from wounds, on crutches, in a cast

These kinds of bonuses and penalties are built into the systems of levelling and injuries in most D&D editions.

Quote from: Bren;1104195If your system doesn't include size in determining how many hit points you have, how much you can lift and carry, and how much you can drink before passing out

These kinds of bonuses and penalties are built into the racial systems in D&D editions.

Quote from: Bren;1104195If your system doesn't vary that size by species

Most do.

Quote from: Bren;1104195If your system doesn't adjust stats based on age

I think this is an omission in 5e. Earlier editions had rules for this. I'll probably house rule this, should my players' characters live long enough.

Quote from: Bren;1104195If your system doesn't decrease your PC's ability to succeed at skills you haven't used recently

I think this is a good idea, although I'd make it temporary so the skill level could be regained with a little practice.

All good options for making the RPG world feel more familiar and improving immersion. Not that there's anything wrong with going for a full on alien environment, but that's not what most players are looking for in my experience. A good base cake of realism, iced with some commonly understood fantasy elements usually does the trick.

Quote from: S'mon;1104234Gregor Clegane is The Mountain. You're thinking Sandor Clegane.

Yeah, the Hound - the person I was responding to had the wrong Clegane - so I went with the name they used.

Hell, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the sparring match between Arya Stark and Brienne.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1104317I've also got to ask, what is the rule trying to accomplish?

With such rules, you might get to play an extraordinarily strong woman, and have that mean something in world; where among the men the competition would be greater and it would be harder to stand out. Equally, you might want to play an extraordinarily strong halfling. What I think you want mechanically is a system that allows for a lower average but still allows for a higher relative maximum, and vice versa.

I think cultural diversity could also play a greater part. We might have, for example, the Viking shield maidens or their equivalent. The Viking women may not be as tall or broad as their men on average yet still tower over the other nations. This variety and opportunity for authentic world building gets lost if everyone is homogenised into a single cookie cutter human no matter their race, nationality, or gender.

Quote from: mightybrain;11043385e has rules for injuries and diseases separate from hit point loss. Earlier editions were similar because hit point loss doesn't equate to wounds. I think originally it was something like 1 hit point per week for natural recovery. There are "gritty realism" options for 5e which are similar time scales.

Right, so the novice fighter with 8 hits is hit with an axe for 7 points of damage and can heal to full hits in 7 days. But the 10th level fighter with 57 HP takes 8 weeks to recover from lots of nicks, bruises, and getting hit for an axe. Totally realistic. Having rules isn't the same as having rules that come close to simulating our reality.

QuoteI think this is a good idea, although I'd make it temporary so the skill level could be regained with a little practice.

While decreasing skills is more realistic, I don't think it's a particularly good idea because most players won't enjoy it and as the GM it won't make me enjoy running the game more and I don't want the hassle of tracking it. And a little practice doesn't really cut it. I'm not relearning graduate level mathematics with just a little practice. And getting back in shape to run a marathon would take me about a year and many, many hours of training.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104266When trying to model realism in RPGs, female characters would have advantages over male characters; but it would be a rare occurrence for strength to be one of them.  It would be far outside of the norm.

Actually, some NPC males are most likely stronger than the female PCs.  The local lumberjack who chops wood with an axe by day, and armwrestles in the pub by night for fun; is one good example.

Yes. I want exceptionally specific realism in my games. Magic, elves and dragons are one thing, but I draw the line at gurls being strong like the boyz.

You twatwaffle.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1104351Yes. I want exceptionally specific realism in my games. Magic, elves and dragons are one thing, but I draw the line at gurls being strong like the boyz.

You twatwaffle.

Not all RPGs are D&D or have elves and dragons.

Women's physical performance relative to men varies depending on what is being measured. Women can do very well in endurance, not so good in raw strength. To get an idea of the potential, look at the world records for men and women in athletics events.

The marathon is the classic endurance test, and the records for men and women are 2.03.38 for men and 2.15.25 for women. That's relatively close. However:

The purest "raw strength" event in Track & Field is the shot put, in which the male record is 23.12m, the female 22.63m. Sounds very similar, except that the male shot weight is 16 lbs, the female 8.8 lbs.

If you look at weight lifting, another raw strength event which is interesting because there are several different classes according to body weight, then the Olympic records for the combined "snatch and clean & jerk" go as follows (I've chosen the 69 kg body weight figure because that's the one category in which the weights of men and women are exactly the same):

Male, 69 kg body weight: 358 kg combined lift (789 lbs)
Female, 69 kg body weight: 286 kg combined lift (630 lbs)

Female Olympic weightlifters sacrifice some serious amounts of femininity to close that gap as well as they do...

That being said, while it is true that women have fought alongside men from time to time. There are very real reasons why men have dominated the battlefield throughout history.

MMA, Boxing, Kickboxing, and most every hands-on martial sport out there has weight classes for very good reasons.

Reasons based on real world experience.


What does all this mean for RPG's?

Absolutely Fuck-All.

RPG systems are not reality simulators. (Been tried, they fucking suck at it).

They are genre simulators.

You pick the system that best simulates the genre you want to play, grab your dice, a few friends, and have fun.

Quote from: jhkimIn the real world, I don't agree that women are overall more socially adept than men.

Quote from: Brendan;1104328Yes, a lot of "smart" men believe this.  It's the male equivalent of women who foolishly believe that because they play sports / lift weights / took some martial arts classes, they can go toe to toe with the average man easily.  We live in a society where everyone more or less plays nice together, so the differences in capacity are often not made immediately and painfully obvious.

If I look at jobs that depend on physical strength -- like bar bouncers, loggers, or construction workers -- I find a very clear predominance of men, with 99% being common. However, if I look at jobs that depend on competitive social skills - like managers, ambassadors, trial lawyers, politicians - I don't see a huge predominance of women. If women outclassed men in social skill equally to strength, I would expect to see women in 99% of these positions. What do you think is preventing women from dominating these fields?

Quote from: Omega;1104334Except throughout history women have wielded alot of power in society. The difference was that power was on the social level usually. With a few notable exceptions. We've been over this before too.

As I noted, even in modern times, women are not predominant in most professions that depend on persuasion or other applied social skill. They are roughly equal to men, but don't show signs of clear superiority that I can see. Also, are you saying that men wield power in society that isn't social power? What does that mean? It seems to me that men are and have been orators, preachers, ambassadors, managers, politicians, and many other social professions with distinction.

Quote from: mightybrain;1104344I think cultural diversity could also play a greater part. We might have, for example, the Viking shield maidens or their equivalent. The Viking women may not be as tall or broad as their men on average yet still tower over the other nations.

Equipment would be a big part of that, too. We don't know what proportion of viking raiders had mail, but it was mentioned a lot. In AD&D1e terms, you get a 1st level fighter wearing chain mail, bearing a shield and sword or axe - and even with just Strength 9 they're going to absolutely hack through 0-level commoners with no armour, or at most leather, and clubs. You get a dozen like that and the village won't stand before them.

There was an article on this a while back. Maybe at the Alexandrian? I forget. Anyway, it was pointing out just how powerful a 1st level character is compared to a 0-level commoner. Even one with ordinary rolled-up stats hovering around 9-12.

And this is the thing. The guys posting about "realism" are 0-level commoners. This gender discussion is like when the GURPS forum had the Overland Hiking thread (1,000+ posts). A bunch of chubby nerds who'd never been hiking in their lives, or did it once 20 years ago when they were 100lb boy scouts, posting enthusiastically about it. An adventurer in AD&D1e isn't a 0-level commoner like you and me. They're a step above. We might almost say... a level above.

Quote from: TJS;1104319https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/ (https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/)
https://www.ft.com/content/0ead55ca-1d85-11e9-a46f-08f9738d6b2b
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389
https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2019/03/04/can-women-outperform-men-in-endurance-sports/

Ultra-endurance - when things are really bad, women do seem to be noticeably better at not dropping dead. Women make good wartime snipers, because they can sit in a freezing hole for days in their own bodily fluids and still be able to take the shot.

If you are rolling CON saves for long term exposure, starvation and disease, you could give women a bonus. Conversely women are not built to do well in combat* situations, or intermediate ones - when I saw women collapse in army training it was a fast yomp with heavy pack on a warm day. I didn't do well either until I got fit, but I lasted better than women who looked a lot fitter than me.

*Exception for a static defence like the Battle of Kobani, where the female Kurdish soldiers held out extremely well against the male ISIS attackers.

Quote from: Brendan;1104328Yes, a lot of "smart" men believe this.  It's the male equivalent of women who foolishly believe that because they play sports / lift weights / took some martial arts classes, they can go toe to toe with the average man easily.  We live in a society where everyone more or less plays nice together, so the differences in capacity are often not made immediately and painfully obvious.  

Women have a lot more brainpower dedicated to social cues and are certainly good at manipulating men in certain respects - this is why divorce settlements tend to be so unbalanced, and why I only get my son for a small proportion of the weekend 'fun time' even though I share weekday childcare equally with my ex. :D But it's not really the same as a blanket CHA advantage. When it comes to leadership skills and team dynamics men may if anything have an advantage on average.

Anyway my thinking is that Gygax's 6 attributes were very much created from a male perspective and as they are defined, it's hard to give females a 'realistic' bonus in any.

Quote from: Bren;1104346Right, so the novice fighter with 8 hits is hit with an axe for 7 points of damage and can heal to full hits in 7 days. But the 10th level fighter with 57 HP takes 8 weeks to recover from lots of nicks, bruises, and getting hit for an axe. Totally realistic.

Losing hit points doesn't represent getting chopped up by an axe. It represents losing your ability to avoid getting chopped up by an axe. Wounds, diseases, and injuries, are handled separately in D&D. If you dislike realism you can avoid it. At a cost.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104368The guys posting about "realism" are 0-level commoners.

I may be a 0 level commoner (these days - at my peak I was a 5e D&D 2d8 hit die NPC Guard!) :p - but I've certainly known people who aren't. I have a grizzled ex-army sergeant in my group now who'd be at the very least a Veteran in 1e AD&D terms, ie Fighter-1.

When I woke up Sunday & rolled up the blind to see one of the folding chairs in my front yard had been cruelly mishandled, my first thought was to sic him on the perpetrators and watch him go through them just like your Viking through peasants. :p

I can't worry about realism in a fantasy game built for escapism.

But keep politics out of the game. All-the-fucking-politics.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this whole "females should get -X STR" and "females are equally strong as men" both stink of politics.

Quote from: mightybrain;1104372Losing hit points doesn't represent getting chopped up by an axe. It represents losing your ability to avoid getting chopped up by an axe.

I do think multiplying hp recovery by Level makes a lot more sense than a fixed 1 hp/day or similar. Not that it ever came up in pre-3e D&D since there was always a Cleric to cast a bunch of Cure Light Wounds.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1104164In 5e and using that logic, having more male adventurers means having more Str 8 but highly dexterous men since strength is so frequently a dump stat. It also means that the rest are likely either Int 8 or Cha 8 since Dex and Wis are seldom dumped and Con is only dumped once before everyone sees it's a bad idea.

If your players are using STR as a dump stat then they deserve to have all the village maidens kick their asses.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1104164In 5e and using that logic, having more male adventurers means having more Str 8 but highly dexterous men since strength is so frequently a dump stat. It also means that the rest are likely either Int 8 or Cha 8 since Dex and Wis are seldom dumped and Con is only dumped once before everyone sees it's a bad idea.

This is a stupid archetype that doesn't exist outside of RPGs. People with full-body "Dexterity" are not weak. Look at gymnasts, tumblers, traceurs and circus performers, they are without exception strong. Even dancers, who can trend much closer to lower strength, are still toned and stronger than average.

Quote from: mightybrain;1104372Losing hit points doesn't represent getting chopped up by an axe. It represents losing your ability to avoid getting chopped up by an axe. Wounds, diseases, and injuries, are handled separately in D&D. If you dislike realism you can avoid it. At a cost.

Not when all the ways to recover hit points are related to recovering from physical injury, they are not. 4th edition was a notable exception to that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1104368And this is the thing. The guys posting about "realism" are 0-level commoners. This gender discussion is like when the GURPS forum had the Overland Hiking thread (1,000+ posts). A bunch of chubby nerds who'd never been hiking in their lives, or did it once 20 years ago when they were 100lb boy scouts, posting enthusiastically about it. An adventurer in AD&D1e isn't a 0-level commoner like you and me. They're a step above. We might almost say... a level above.

Nope, you'd be wrong again. I'm neither chubby nor skinny and have always been at the upper end of athletic ability. Even moreso for my age as I get towards 40 and everyone else seems to have let themselves go.

How fast can you run a mile? How about three? How many 60-second rounds of sparring can you manage before you collapse in a puddle of sweat? How fast can you climb a rope? How far can you broad jump?

Quote from: Simon W;1104381If your players are using STR as a dump stat then they deserve to have all the village maidens kick their asses.

And yet, in 5e, that low Strength barely applies so long as they select weapons that use Dexterity. And while they're doing that, they also have better armor class, initiative, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth over those maidens even if they lose out on Athletics. Replace maidens with other humanoids and the point stands.

Quote from: Kiero;1104385This is a stupid archetype that doesn't exist outside of RPGs. People with full-body "Dexterity" are not weak. Look at gymnasts, tumblers, traceurs and circus performers, they are without exception strong. Even dancers, who can trend much closer to lower strength, are still toned and stronger than average.

Yes, max-Dex/dump-Str is a stupid archetype for a warrior. That was my point. Unfortunately, the game (D&D 5e) makes it mechanically attractive.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1104388Yes, max-Dex/dump-Str is a stupid archetype for a warrior. That was my point. Unfortunately, the game (D&D 5e) makes it mechanically attractive.

That's why I changed it so that you don't do extra damage with high DEX - it only affects your to hit. Mind you, I've stopped playing 5E now anyway - it's still far too rules-y for my liking.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104353Not all RPGs are D&D or have elves and dragons.

And only AD&D had that difference in STR, which cleaves close to real world margins. And only applies to fighters. (not counting non-humans in this.) For every other class there is no difference in stats. They all cap at 18 and can through various means be boosted past that.

I glanced through 2e and did not see anything. And sure isnt in O or BX.

Well the big problem is that IRL STR DEX and CON are intimately linked (heck so are INT & WIS & CHA), but in D&D they're rolled separately, and with Point Buy they even correlate negatively.

Quote from: S'mon;1104399Well the big problem is that IRL STR DEX and CON are intimately linked (heck so are INT & WIS & CHA), but in D&D they're rolled separately, and with Point Buy they even correlate negatively.

only to a point. Ive known a few people with what would be rated as rather high DEX. But average STR and CON. Same with INT WIS CHA. There are some really charming, but reallly stupid people out there. And some really smart, but totally uncharismatic people out there too. And a smart person may be really lacking in common sense. So I'd say D&D Still maps to reality in that the baseline is exactly that, a base average. But you can and will get people who exceed in one or more areas but may be deficit in another.

Quote from: S'mon;1104399Well the big problem is that IRL STR DEX and CON are intimately linked (heck so are INT & WIS & CHA), but in D&D they're rolled separately, and with Point Buy they even correlate negatively.

Agreed on the physical ones; ironically DEX is the most interdependent of them, requiring elements of both to develop at a high level. STR for the explosiveness and stability required for high agility, and CON for the intrinsic repetition involved in training DEX to reach a high level. By contrast, STR can develop somewhat independently of both (though CON tends to rise as a consequence of working STR - though the endurance part not necessarily), and CON can also be worked by itself (looking at distance and other endurance athletes, who are often built like sticks).

Quote from: Omega;1104407only to a point. Ive known a few people with what would be rated as rather high DEX. But average STR and CON.

How did you rate them as "high Dex"?

Quote from: Omega;1104407only to a point. Ive known a few people with what would be rated as rather high DEX. But average STR and CON. Same with INT WIS CHA. There are some really charming, but reallly stupid people out there. And some really smart, but totally uncharismatic people out there too. And a smart person may be really lacking in common sense. So I'd say D&D Still maps to reality in that the baseline is exactly that, a base average. But you can and will get people who exceed in one or more areas but may be deficit in another.

This is very true.  There are very strong people, who lack the dexterity of a gymnast or acrobat; and not every limber, flexible person possesses great strength.  There are people who can memorize facts and formulas, and take tests well; who exhibit a lack of common sense.  There are poor country folks who aren't highly educated, but they possess wisdom about life and survival.  Constitution is a measure of one's resistance to injury and disease.  Charisma is a measure of one's likeability and persuasiveness, that is certainly aided by physical beauty.

I'm curious how we would each rate ourselves, regarding the six abilities?

Quote from: Razor 007;1104427This is very true.  There are very strong people, who lack the dexterity of a gymnast or acrobat; and not every limber, flexible person possesses great strength.  There are people who can memorize facts and formulas, and take tests well; who exhibit a lack of common sense.  There are poor country folks who aren't highly educated, but they possess wisdom about life and survival.  Constitution is a measure of one's resistance to injury and disease.  Charisma is a measure of one's likeability and persuasiveness, that is certainly aided by physical beauty.

I'm curious how we would each rate ourselves, regarding the six abilities?

Dexterity isn't just being limber and flexible, it represents full-body agility and speed. That requires strength (especially core strength and stability). Again, look at a gymnast or acrobat, they are well conditioned and stronger than average (especially male gymnasts). You can't perform feats of agility without being able to easily maneuver your own body weight.

It should be clear from this thread that the differences between men and women are not clear-cut; the differences between human sexes versus the difference between humans and non-humans is less clear-cut (ie, even if we accept that human females are weaker GENERALLY than human males, it does not necessarily follow that it applies to elves, dwarves, goblins, and minotaurs equally).  

Even among a group that accepts that there is USUALLY a difference, it is not clear that a penalty is the best way to represent that; you can achieve the same effect by NOT providing a bonus, or using point-buy and letting people generate the character concept they have in their head (which, it seems, often includes women choosing to be less than maximally strong).  

The only reason I can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them.  They could probably tell anyway, but they'll have no reason to second-guess their decision if you make it clear up front that you have instituted a house-rule outside of any published rule specifically to make their choices matter less.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104441The only reason I can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them.  They could probably tell anyway, but they'll have no reason to second-guess their decision if you make it clear up front that you have instituted a house-rule outside of any published rule specifically to make their choices matter less.

?

Firstly, you seem to be assuming that women will only be playing female characters and men, only male characters. Secondly, it doesn't seem to me that anyone has suggested straight penalties to female characters, but rather a net-zero stat adjustment of +1 to one thing, -1 to a different thing and similar for male characters?

I'm also generally confused about your comment "the only reason I can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them," which seems sort of obtuse and doesn't really make any sense. I mean, sure, some troglodyte COULD give a straight stat penalty to women because they're misogynist ("-1 to STR, INT and WIS cuz wimmin R dumb N weak!") but I don't see any anti-women comments, just people discussing pros, cons and potential logic or lack thereof behind potential stat adjustments.

I also wouldn't discount the possibility that some women might not actually mind stat adjustments for women and men, and might in fact see some logic in it or reason for it.

To echo my earlier comment and to be perfectly clear, I have never implemented such an adjustment and I see no real need to. But to say that people who might be interested in such a thing are "troglodytes" who are "afraid of women and prefer not to game with them" seems... disingenuous at best.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104427I'm curious how we would each rate ourselves, regarding the six abilities?

Me?

- Str 8 (mostly due to a bad back)

- Dex 12 (I've got above-average hand-eye coordination due to flight training and a day job that requires precision)

- Con 10 (I almost never get sick, but my hay fever can get me panting for breath at certain times of the year; so about average overall)

- Int 12 (based on the old Palladium score x 10 method from when I got tested in college)

- Wis 16 (my pattern recognition scored statistically perfect in that aforementioned testing and the same Dex bits have an even stronger awareness component to them)

- Cha 12 (I'm generally well-liked and people say I explain things in a pretty convincing manner, but there are a lot of people who are better)

My class would be 4E Warlord (Lazylord build).

Quote from: Razor 007;1104427I'm curious how we would each rate ourselves, regarding the six abilities?

Hmm.

STR I would guess 10.

DEX 9.

CON 10.

INT 11.

WIS 12.

CHA 9.

I have thought about statting myself in GURPS before, but between my Disadvantages and Quirks I'm sure I wouldn't like my point value... :(

Quote from: Kiero;1104431Dexterity isn't just being limber and flexible, it represents full-body agility and speed. That requires strength (especially core strength and stability). Again, look at a gymnast or acrobat, they are well conditioned and stronger than average (especially male gymnasts). You can't perform feats of agility without being able to easily maneuver your own body weight.

Dexterity could also be expressed as one's possession of fine motor skills.  The assembly or disassembly of small, intricate parts; etc.  The maninipulation of delicate mechanisms, etc.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1104387And yet, in 5e, that low Strength barely applies so long as they select weapons that use Dexterity. And while they're doing that, they also have better armor class, initiative, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth over those maidens even if they lose out on Athletics. Replace maidens with other humanoids and the point stands.

Dexterity is a super stat, a.k.a. a super ability in D & D.  I'd argue that Constitution is a literal life saver, because of poisons, etc.  Wisdom is somehow capable of resisting magical effects, and to me that only makes sense in regard to illusory effects?

With perception, I think at times it should be based upon intelligence; and at other times, it should be based upon wisdom.

Str 9 dex 7 con 7 int 17 wis 8 cha 12

Although my son says I have WIS 5, tops.

Quote from: deaddmwalking;1104441it should be clear from this thread that the differences between men and women are not clear-cut; the differences between human sexes versus the difference between humans and non-humans is less clear-cut (ie, even if we accept that human females are weaker generally than human males, it does not necessarily follow that it applies to elves, dwarves, goblins, and minotaurs equally).  

Even among a group that accepts that there is usually a difference, it is not clear that a penalty is the best way to represent that; you can achieve the same effect by not providing a bonus, or using point-buy and letting people generate the character concept they have in their head (which, it seems, often includes women choosing to be less than maximally strong).  

The only reason i can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them.  They could probably tell anyway, but they'll have no reason to second-guess their decision if you make it clear up front that you have instituted a house-rule outside of any published rule specifically to make their choices matter less.

tl;dr:  Reeeeeeeeeeee!

Quote from: jhkim;1104358If I look at jobs that depend on physical strength -- like bar bouncers, loggers, or construction workers -- I find a very clear predominance of men, with 99% being common. However, if I look at jobs that depend on competitive social skills - like managers, ambassadors, trial lawyers, politicians - I don't see a huge predominance of women. If women outclassed men in social skill equally to strength, I would expect to see women in 99% of these positions. What do you think is preventing women from dominating these fields?



As I noted, even in modern times, women are not predominant in most professions that depend on persuasion or other applied social skill. They are roughly equal to men, but don't show signs of clear superiority that I can see. Also, are you saying that men wield power in society that isn't social power? What does that mean? It seems to me that men are and have been orators, preachers, ambassadors, managers, politicians, and many other social professions with distinction.

Interest on those fields and also women are less aggressive and competitive, find ocupations that require social skills but almost zero competition or aggressiveness and you'll see who dominates those fields.

Not many occupations REALLY require from the employee a single characteristic. A bouncer not only needs strength, but aggressiveness too. They hire the strong ones because they are the most intimidating, lowering the risk of physical conflict.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104441It should be clear from this thread that the differences between men and women are not clear-cut; the differences between human sexes versus the difference between humans and non-humans is less clear-cut (ie, even if we accept that human females are weaker GENERALLY than human males, it does not necessarily follow that it applies to elves, dwarves, goblins, and minotaurs equally).  

Even among a group that accepts that there is USUALLY a difference, it is not clear that a penalty is the best way to represent that; you can achieve the same effect by NOT providing a bonus, or using point-buy and letting people generate the character concept they have in their head (which, it seems, often includes women choosing to be less than maximally strong).  

The only reason I can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them.  They could probably tell anyway, but they'll have no reason to second-guess their decision if you make it clear up front that you have instituted a house-rule outside of any published rule specifically to make their choices matter less.

I only hear you Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeing.

Objectively determining real world attributes is tough.  Strength is probably the easiest.  

D&D 5th edition defines carrying capacity as strength x15 and push, drag or lift as  x2 max carry or strength x30.  "Lift" is troublesome, as it would imply someone with an average strength of 10 could lift 300lbs.  A deadlift is about the easiest lift possible for a given weight, and there is absolutely no way an "average" person can deadlift 300 lbs without damaging something.  We can also push or drag a significant amount more than we can lift.  

Assuming that carrying capacity also indicates "lift and hold" that would give 150lbs for an average person, or approximately bodyweight, which is much more reasonable.  If we put Max carry at 15X, max lift at 1.5 times that (str x 22.5) and push/drag at 2 times (30x str) we'd end up with an average person (Str 10) able to lift and carry 150 lbs, just lift 225 lbs and push/drag 300 lbs.  That's about right, although perhaps a little generous on the "lift" portion.  Maybe under duress you could argue for heavy single.  This would give me a strength of ... 14.  This still breaks down at the upper end.  An 18 Str would give a max lift of 405, which is intermediate (male) lifter territory.  Even assuming the base book's 30x that gives only 540, which is better, but nothing record breaking.  Using this system top level lifters would have strength stats in the 30-40 range, which strikes me as ridiculous for a human.

I'm straight 18's. I rolled them on 3d6, I swear!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1104444To echo my earlier comment and to be perfectly clear, I have never implemented such an adjustment and I see no real need to. But to say that people who might be interested in such a thing are "troglodytes" who are "afraid of women and prefer not to game with them" seems... disingenuous at best.

Maybe he's one of those sweaty troglodytes but with a guilty conscience?
As long as we're speculating on people's motivations...

It is a strange argument to make that because women don't dominate field X they therefore must not be, on average, more socially adept than men.  Reaching the heights of a given field doesn't depend purely on natural likeability and charisma, but a multitude of complex factors. Sure, being likeable and socially adept helps, but so does ability, work ethic, inclination, circumstance, culture and lets not forget pure ruthless ambition.   Being charismatic isn't the "be all and end all" of social interaction, it isn't just "attractiveness", and it isn't a "get out of jail free" card.  Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake because she wasn't charismatic.  Her charisma and vision made her politically threatening.  

But again, as per my type 1 response there are many different ways to model this; and as per my type 2 response, some people prefer to just not bother with it.  A strength score above 16, at least in OSR land, is going to be super rare to begin with. Having a female character with a strength above 16 is even more rare.  You could probably justify it as some kind of legendary strength.  Perhaps she's descended from giants or Thor or something.  

I think the main issue is the idea that generic characters, NPCs and whatnot, should more or less correspond to human norms.  One incredible woman with an 18 strength can be interesting.  Having female peasants bench pressing logs, female knights out-wrestling men, and female barbarian warriors tossing kegs around in every village, castle, and horde is pushing it past the point of believably.   I just get tired of seeing this trope trotted out over and over again.  I think Bill Burr made a comment about not being able to watch another movie where a super-model beats up a room full of Navy Seals.  The waif secret bad-ass is played out.

I've yet to meet a woman older than 30 that was upset by the suggestion that men are physically stronger than women, and women are more socially adept than men.  I know some female martial artists who are VERY skilled and capable.  They are, uniformly, more realistic about the differences between male and female strength than the generic population.  It seems to be white-knighting dudes that freak out over this the most, and to a lesser extent young women who are ideologically possessed. Might be a good argument for giving women over 30 a Wis bonus also :).

Quote from: Razor 007;1104448Dexterity could also be expressed as one's possession of fine motor skills.  The assembly or disassembly of small, intricate parts; etc.  The maninipulation of delicate mechanisms, etc.

No kidding.  As hard as Strength is to model (with whatever adjustments you want for race, gender, etc.), Dexterity is much more difficult.  

I've got a ridiculous high set of reflexes.  If that was all that Dex measured, I'm easily a 16, probably a 17, and might even be an 18.  But I'm only average on general agility, and substandard on the manual dexterity part.  You could average it all out and say I'm about a 12, but that doesn't really portray me at all.

What makes it even crazier, the only person I've met that had clearly superior reflexes to me was bigger and clumsier.  Watching the two of us get into an exchange of volleys at the net in tennis always left everyone else laughing.  It usually ended when one of us ended up on the ground.  

Don't even get me started on hand-eye coordination for those that have depth perception issues.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104441It should be clear from this thread that the differences between men and women are not clear-cut; the differences between human sexes versus the difference between humans and non-humans is less clear-cut (ie, even if we accept that human females are weaker GENERALLY than human males, it does not necessarily follow that it applies to elves, dwarves, goblins, and minotaurs equally).  

Even among a group that accepts that there is USUALLY a difference, it is not clear that a penalty is the best way to represent that; you can achieve the same effect by NOT providing a bonus, or using point-buy and letting people generate the character concept they have in their head (which, it seems, often includes women choosing to be less than maximally strong).  

The only reason I can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them.  They could probably tell anyway, but they'll have no reason to second-guess their decision if you make it clear up front that you have instituted a house-rule outside of any published rule specifically to make their choices matter less.

Hey, I statted you up based on your posts: S10 D10 I7 W3 C10 C10

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1104479No kidding.  As hard as Strength is to model (with whatever adjustments you want for race, gender, etc.), Dexterity is much more difficult.  

I've got a ridiculous high set of reflexes.  If that was all that Dex measured, I'm easily a 16, probably a 17, and might even be an 18.  But I'm only average on general agility, and substandard on the manual dexterity part.  You could average it all out and say I'm about a 12, but that doesn't really portray me at all.

This why I generally prefer systems that split "Dex" into say "Reflexes" and "Precision." If you need to keep stats at six, I'd lean towards merging Strength and Con over merging Precision and Reflexes.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1104474Maybe he's one of those sweaty troglodytes but with a guilty conscience?
As long as we're speculating on people's motivations...

Well, would a troglodyte think only men could possibly be interested in having a sex-based stat adjustment? Or think that women should be offended and driven away from a group by a STR penalty, but men couldn't possibly be offended by say a WIS penalty or lower overall INT or CHA? Hmm...:o

Quote from: Brad;1104480Hey, I statted you up based on your posts: S10 D10 I7 W3 C10 C10

You gave DDW CHA 10?! Why don't you two just get a room! :p

The Bugle:

Str: 11, Dex: 10, Con: 14, Int: 16, Wis: 15, Cha: 7.

Quote from: Brendan;1104475It is a strange argument to make that because women don't dominate field X they therefore must not be, on average, more socially adept than men.  Reaching the heights of a given field doesn't depend purely on natural likeability and charisma, but a multitude of complex factors. Sure, being likeable and socially adept helps, but so does ability, work ethic, inclination, circumstance, culture and lets not forget pure ruthless ambition.   Being charismatic isn't the "be all and end all" of social interaction, it isn't just "attractiveness", and it isn't a "get out of jail free" card. Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake because she wasn't charismatic.  Her charisma and vision made her politically threatening.

It's not just about reaching the heights of a given field, but also about just being in the masses of the field. I agree that pure charisma is not the whole of being an ambassador or other social job, but it should be noticeable. Men's advantage in strength is certainly noticeable in strength-based jobs, even though there's more to being a construction worker than just pure strength. If women have a major advantage in charisma but not in intelligence over men, then that should show in comparison of advancement as scientists compared to advancement as managers, for example.

But suppose I discount the job data entirely. There still should be *some* sort of objective data to show this greater social skill, rather than just personally feeling it to be true.

Quote from: Brendan;1104475I've yet to meet a woman older than 30 that was upset by the suggestion that men are physically stronger than women, and women are more socially adept than men.  I know some female martial artists who are VERY skilled and capable.  They are, uniformly, more realistic about the differences between male and female strength than the generic population.  It seems to be white-knighting dudes that freak out over this the most, and to a lesser extent young women who are ideologically possessed. Might be a good argument for giving women over 30 a Wis bonus also :).

Whether a given set of people are upset by a suggestion is not a reliable indicator for whether it's true or not. Science isn't democracy. Something can be true regardless of whether or not your feelings are hurt by it.

Quote from: Brendan;1104475One incredible woman with an 18 strength can be interesting. Having female peasants bench pressing logs, female knights out-wrestling men, and female barbarian warriors tossing kegs around in every village, castle, and horde is pushing it past the point of believably.   I just get tired of seeing this trope trotted out over and over again.  I think Bill Burr made a comment about not being able to watch another movie where a super-model beats up a room full of Navy Seals.  The waif secret bad-ass is played out.

The latter seems more like a matter of tropes than an issue of believability. Personally, I think there's a lot of modern action movie shit that's played out. Almost none of it was ever believable.

In general, I don't see female barbarian warriors tossing kegs around in every village in any of the games I play. And even if I did, there are a lot of ways to fix that -- and instituting a PC stat adjustment rule doesn't seem like a better one.

Quote from: jhkim;1104491In general, I don't see female barbarian warriors tossing kegs around in every village in any of the games I play. And even if I did, there are a lot of ways to fix that -- and instituting a PC stat adjustment rule doesn't seem like a better one.

Paizo like to make most of their ranking soldier/warrior NPCs and such female. I certainly agree with you that having a plausible milieu is orthogonal to PC stat adjustments.

Quote from: S'mon;1104485You gave DDW CHA 10?! Why don't you two just get a room! :p

He has a really high opinion of himself, and is allegedly married, so he can't be that bad in person. Also, anyone who says their WIS is over 9 and posts on a messageboard is a bald-faced liar.

Quote from: jhkim;1104491It's not just about reaching the heights of a given field, but also about just being in the masses of the field. I agree that pure charisma is not the whole of being an ambassador or other social job, but it should be noticeable. Men's advantage in strength is certainly noticeable in strength-based jobs, even though there's more to being a construction worker than just pure strength. If women have a major advantage in charisma but not in intelligence over men, then that should show in comparison of advancement as scientists compared to advancement as managers, for example.

But suppose I discount the job data entirely. There still should be *some* sort of objective data to show this greater social skill, rather than just personally feeling it to be true.
.

You again forget variables: Aggressiveness, interest, work/life balance. Women tend to be interested in certain jobs, and the more equal the society (Sweden vs India) the greater the divide in these fields we think of traditionally female or male. In short poorer countries produce more women engineers than Sweden, because when you have to think about the money you choose what pays best, but when you don't really have to worry about money you choose what interests you.

It's not only about having the capacity but having the interest. I'm sure we've all met very smart women (smarter than me) who choose to pursue a career where their mathematical (or other) talent is going to waste. I asked why, she told me because she didn't like working with numbers.

Freedom to choose increases the gender differences contrary what the SocJus Cult priests tell you.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104481This why I generally prefer systems that split "Dex" into say "Reflexes" and "Precision." If you need to keep stats at six, I'd lean towards merging Strength and Con over merging Precision and Reflexes.

Me too.  I still think the ideal D&D stats (in an alternate world without the weight of tradition) are Might, Dexterity, Agility, Wisdom, Charisma, and Perception.  Wizards based on Wis, clerics based on Cha.  Agility and Perception make a lot better pair in the thinking of one primary stat each for the big four of Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Thief and then season with Agility and Perception to taste.  It even works if you drop the Thief to go even earlier.  Main problem is basing the reaction table and henchmen off of Cha, but that's not an insurmountable problem.

Quote from: jhkimBut suppose I discount the job data entirely. There still should be *some* sort of objective data to show this greater social skill, rather than just personally feeling it to be true.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104497You again forget variables: Aggressiveness, interest, work/life balance. Women tend to be interested in certain jobs, and the more equal the society (Sweden vs India) the greater the divide in these fields we think of traditionally female or male. In short poorer countries produce more women engineers than Sweden, because when you have to think about the money you choose what pays best, but when you don't really have to worry about money you choose what interests you.

It's not only about having the capacity but having the interest. I'm sure we've all met very smart women (smarter than me) who choose to pursue a career where their mathematical (or other) talent is going to waste. I asked why, she told me because she didn't like working with numbers.

Freedom to choose increases the gender differences contrary what the SocJus Cult priests tell you.

I don't see how what you're saying applies to the issue. The comparison of women engineers in India versus Sweden seems like rational data for some other argument, but I don't see how it shows that men are less socially skilled than women.

As far as social justice goes, I think social justice advocates are more likely to hold Brendan's view on this point. Saying that men are less socially skilled than women seems in line with certain liberal-leaning complaints about masculinity.

In this case, I'm holding the *pro-man* position that men are not lacking in social skills compared to women.

Quote from: jhkim;1104503In this case, I'm holding the *pro-man* position

How dare you?

Quote from: jhkim;1104503I don't see how what you're saying applies to the issue. The comparison of women engineers in India versus Sweden seems like rational data for some other argument, but I don't see how it shows that men are less socially skilled than women.

As far as social justice goes, I think social justice advocates are more likely to hold Brendan's view on this point. Saying that men are less socially skilled than women seems in line with certain liberal-leaning complaints about masculinity.

In this case, I'm holding the *pro-man* position that men are not lacking in social skills compared to women.

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

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

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

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1104473I'm straight 18's. I rolled them on 3d6, I swear!

And you did it with your left hand, while walking uphill in the snow; barefoot even!!!

Quote from: Razor 007;1104448Dexterity could also be expressed as one's possession of fine motor skills.  The assembly or disassembly of small, intricate parts; etc.  The maninipulation of delicate mechanisms, etc.

This is the problem; Dex lumps together both fine motor skill (hand-eye co-ordination and spatial visualisation) and gross motor skill (full body co-ordination and kinaesthetic awareness). The two things aren't necessarily associated with one another.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104481This why I generally prefer systems that split "Dex" into say "Reflexes" and "Precision." If you need to keep stats at six, I'd lean towards merging Strength and Con over merging Precision and Reflexes.

The Player's Option set for AD&D2e had optional rules that split each Attribute into two parts, so instead of 6 you had 12 attributes.

Quote from: Kiero;1104511This is the problem; Dex lumps together both fine motor skill (hand-eye co-ordination and spatial visualisation) and gross motor skill (full body co-ordination and kinaesthetic awareness).

This is part of why I enjoy GURPS' "Hamfisted" and "Bad Grip" traits which modify base DX for certain subsets of tasks along with things like Talents and etc.

The Conanist self eval:

S:16 I: 12 W: 12 D: 8 Cn: 14 Ch: 8

Put me in the "Fantasy RPG" camp. A 40 lb Halfling is about equivalent to a 5 year old kid. Tough to see them doing much damage to a grown man, let alone Ogres, Giants, etc. Do they all have 3 strength in the simulationist game?

Seeing some of these women's UFC fighters with 1st round KO power, I wouldn't take them lightly with a weapon in their hand even though they can't put up as much on the bench.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1104374Maybe I'm wrong, but this whole "females should get -X STR" and "females are equally strong as men" both stink of politics.

Correct. Which is why you should roll for your stats.  

And in any case, any two individuals will vary more than any two groups within the human species. And in rpgs, we play individual characters, not entire genders, ethnic groups or whatever. Which is why you should roll for your stats.

Plus, when you point-buy, there's always some dweeb who says, "but I don't have enough points for my character concept." Which is why you should roll for your stats.

Quote from: RazorI'm curious how we would each rate ourselves, regarding the six abilities?

Lol. Years back we had this on the GURPS forum. Even the guy on disability pension was a 200 point character. This is the question to find out who lives in Lake Wobegon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect).

You guys have devolved to statting yourselves?
Yikes.  
That never works out well.

How about just rolling or creating characters who are fun to play without involving sexist stereotypes"
That sort of stuff just interferes with playing the darn game.

- Ed C.

One other way to look at it is that Strength and Size should be different characteristics and women are generally smaller.  That allows the mechanical advantage of strength for success rolls and so on while reducing hit points and damage output.

Quote from: Koltar;1104556You guys have devolved to statting yourselves?
Yikes.  
That never works out well.

How about just rolling or creating characters who are fun to play without involving sexist stereotypes"
That sort of stuff just interferes with playing the darn game.

What sexist stereotypes?

Quote from: David Johansen;1104560women are generally smaller

That will be next on the everyone is equal chopping block.

Quote from: Conanist;1104543A 40 lb Halfling is about equivalent to a 5 year old kid. Tough to see them doing much damage to a grown man, let alone Ogres, Giants, etc. Do they all have 3 strength in the simulationist game?

Can you have a 5 year old kid with an 18 strength in a non-simulationist game?

Quote from: mightybrain;1104571Can you have a 5 year old kid with an 18 strength in a non-simulationist game?

Yes? Probably a super hero game. Or horror!

Quote from: mightybrain;1104570That will be next on the everyone is equal chopping block.

It's fine for women to be bigger than men, but with less muscular strength.  Not fat, just big-boned.  But how do you reflect size in ability scores, without it being indicative of strength?

Quote from: S'mon...If the D&D game were modelling IRL then male PCs would average around +3 higher STR...

If modeling real-life, and assuming that the strength score is raw strength, and if assuming the average strength of a male character is 10.5, then the average non-athletic (non-fighter) female would be about 5 and the average athletic (fighter) female would be about 6. Female maximum strength would be around 9 and 10 respectively.

A simple way to implement this would be to treat the strength score as one-half its actual score for any activity involving upper body strength. This is reasonable when one considers that mediocre male athletes who "transition" to female suddenly become #1 athletes when competing with actual females -- even top female athletes struggle against mediocre male specimens. Admittedly, this is probably too much reality for most gamers, but given that magic is a great equalizer (gauntlets of ogre strength, and so on) I don't see why that should be so.

(The absolute difference in bench press between non-athlete males and females is 116.7% and between swimmer males and females is 75.0% [Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women, Phillip Bishop, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Alabama, et. al., published in Ergonomics, 1987, Vol. 30, No. 4])

Overall, I think that AD&D does a good job of balancing fantasy with reality.

Quote from: jhkimIf I look at jobs that depend on physical strength -- like bar bouncers, loggers, or construction workers -- I find a very clear predominance of men, with 99% being common. However, if I look at jobs that depend on competitive social skills - like managers, ambassadors, trial lawyers, politicians - I don't see a huge predominance of women. If women outclassed men in social skill equally to strength, I would expect to see women in 99% of these positions. What do you think is preventing women from dominating these fields?...

Agreeableness, lack of interest, and a flatter intelligence curve.

Agreeableness 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. Modern society denigrates the housewife (one of the most important jobs), and as such the female dominance hierarchy has largely been abrogated and it has been written out of history, such that we are given the false narrative that males dominated and oppressed females historically. That is a partial truth; on the battlefield it was true, but on the home front usually the opposite was true. In fact, in the medieval world women often ran estates and dominated urban businesses. True, women couldn't vote, but people forget (or pretend to forget) that women often controlled, or at the very least had great influence over, their husbands; men who made their wives unhappy usually paid a heavy price. Men were functionaries acting in service to their families, voting on their behalf. Healthy families are not, and never were, dictatorships. Given that families are the traditional units of society, one vote per (land-holding) family certainly makes sense in the Ancient world.

The result of the abrogation of the female hierarchy is that females are now forced to compete in male hierarchies, and predictably they struggle. Even when they do well by traditional male standards, they have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and other forms of mental illness. Men stripped of their careers and identities suffer similarly.

That said, the most brilliant achievement of Western civilization is the sovereignty of the individual, the freedom of each individual to pursue happiness in their own way. I think this is captured quite well in AD&D's balancing of fantasy and reality, as I noted above, and in any case AD&D's ability scores are abstract, not concrete measures of anything in particular. Abstraction is a powerful tool and one must be careful not to over-rationalize.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1104586If modeling real-life, and assuming that the strength score is raw strength, and if assuming the average strength of a male character is 10.5, then the average non-athletic (non-fighter) female would be about 5 and the average athletic (fighter) female would be about 6. Female maximum strength would be around 9 and 10 respectively.

That's borked.  There is no plausible way that you can make an argument that the strongest women are still weaker than the average man.  What is this based on?  

And why would you turn to real-life in a fantasy world.  Apparently some people have dragon- or demon-blood from a few generations ago that gives them unusual traits (like Socererous magic), so why wouldn't someone every few generations show some unusual (for a human) Strength?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104590That's borked.  There is no plausible way that you can make an argument that the strongest women are still weaker than the average man.  What is this based on?

Maybe not totally average. But go just very slightly above average and men start winning at everything that requires strength.

[video=youtube;MF-YeWnIJfU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-YeWnIJfU[/youtube]

She looks way stronger than every single guy in the video, and yet only manages to beat a dude that looks like a strong breeze would blow him over. And she is supposed to be the world's strongest woman (at that point in time anyway).

I don't think people truly grasp how much more powerful men are, specially in upper body strength.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104590That's borked.  There is no plausible way that you can make an argument that the strongest women are still weaker than the average man.  What is this based on?  

[video=youtube;OsnaiuPPNr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsnaiuPPNr4[/youtube]

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104590And why would you turn to real-life in a fantasy world.  Apparently some people have dragon- or demon-blood from a few generations ago that gives them unusual traits (like Socererous magic), so why wouldn't someone every few generations show some unusual (for a human) Strength?

How many times should people explain to you Reeeeeeing buffoons that:
A) Not all games are D&D/Fantasy
B) Even in those you might want to limit humans as a whole and model them more accurately.
C) You might want to include a sexually dimorphic species where the weaker sex is the male.

So 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.

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

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

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

Quote from: Razor 007;1104575It's fine for women to be bigger than men, but with less muscular strength.  Not fat, just big-boned.  But how do you reflect size in ability scores, without it being indicative of strength?

BRP makes Size a separate stat and averages it with Constitution for Hit Points and with Strength to find a damage bonus.  I think Runequest three might have had females roll 2d6+3 for Strength but I'd have to dig up the box to be sure.

As for women being smaller, I've got a 300 pound sister in law who's shorter than me and I ain't tall.  So that's like SIZ 18.  Fat people generally have very strong legs because they're constantly lifting all that extra weight but rpg Strength is more about arm and upper body strength.

Quote from: David Johansen;1104797BRP makes Size a separate stat and averages it with Constitution for Hit Points and with Strength to find a damage bonus.  I think Runequest three might have had females roll 2d6+3 for Strength but I'd have to dig up the box to be sure.

As for women being smaller, I've got a 300 pound sister in law who's shorter than me and I ain't tall.  So that's like SIZ 18.  Fat people generally have very strong legs because they're constantly lifting all that extra weight but rpg Strength is more about arm and upper body strength.

Got any pictures?  Just kidding..... ;)

Strong man bad.

Strong woman good.

Oh, ok; I get it now....

It seems some objections relate to framing differences as penalties. If female human stats were the default and male humans got a strength bonus, would it still be a problem?

Quote from: mightybrain;1104997It seems some objections relate to framing differences as penalties. If female human stats were the default and male humans got a strength bonus, would it still be a problem?

Potentially.  

There are still a lot of ways you can handle it badly, and still a lot of reasons you might want to avoid that as well.  

If you felt that physical strength primarily refers to upper-body strength, and you felt that upper body strength applies directly to weapon damage, and you felt that the differences between men and women (as well as the accurate differences between humans and gnomes, halflings, elves, and dwarves) were important and you wanted to ensure male characters were stronger on average compared to female characters, there are broadly two ways you can approach it.

The first is a bonus/penalty.  A penalty psychologically is more difficult to accept for most people than not getting a bonus.  If you give players a penalty to one stat or another, they might not like it; if you give them a bonus to every stat EXCEPT one, they usually don't object as much.  While mathematically it can work out the same way, there's a psychological aversion to loss that doesn't apply when you never had something to begin with.  Losing $10 hurts more than not getting $10.  Beyond that, though, you definitely have a situation where there's no way to close the gap.  If you make the highest stat a 16 and lots of +2s, the strongest male characters will have an 18 and the strongest female characters will have a 16.  If it's important to a character concept to be 'as strong as possible', you're making it difficult or impossible for female characters to explore that concept.  

A second way (at least with point buy) is to adjust the starting stats; if you start men with a 10 STR and women with an 8 STR, but they can both buy up to an 18, it would take female characters more resources to achieve an 18, but they still could.  That allows those concepts to at least be available, even if they're not optimal.  If female characters have SOME advantage (for example, if their Dexterity starts at 10 while male characters Dex starts at 8), people are going to be more willing to accept it.  Ultimately, with something along these lines you'd expect male characters to be stronger on average (they got a 10 to start, compared to a woman's 8, and even if they invest equal resources, the male character maintains an advantage).  

A variant on this would be to start every stat the same and apply point-buy as normal, but allow people to 'burn' a stat for an increase in another.  Maybe you can take -2 Int for +1 Con, etc (ie, -2 for a +1) but for male characters they can build strength at a 1:1 ratio (ie, -2 Con for +2 Str).  These tend to achieve the same stated goal - achieving a system where male characters are stronger ON AVERAGE without unduly limiting female characters.  

If women can achieve the same results men do, even if it requires more work, most people will accept it, especially if there is a mix of bonuses and penalties and they're more or less 'fair'.  Giving women bonus Charisma (which is widely viewed as a dump stat) but applying penalties to Str/Con wouldn't qualify.  And the less clear-cut the example is, the more likely (and appropriately) people are to be offended.  If a significant number of people are willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Strength, a much smaller number are probably willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Intelligence (regardless of which way you apply the advantage).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105007Potentially.  

There are still a lot of ways you can handle it badly, and still a lot of reasons you might want to avoid that as well.  

If you felt that physical strength primarily refers to upper-body strength, and you felt that upper body strength applies directly to weapon damage, and you felt that the differences between men and women (as well as the accurate differences between humans and gnomes, halflings, elves, and dwarves) were important and you wanted to ensure male characters were stronger on average compared to female characters, there are broadly two ways you can approach it.

The first is a bonus/penalty.  A penalty psychologically is more difficult to accept for most people than not getting a bonus.  If you give players a penalty to one stat or another, they might not like it; if you give them a bonus to every stat EXCEPT one, they usually don't object as much.  While mathematically it can work out the same way, there's a psychological aversion to loss that doesn't apply when you never had something to begin with.  Losing $10 hurts more than not getting $10.  Beyond that, though, you definitely have a situation where there's no way to close the gap.  If you make the highest stat a 16 and lots of +2s, the strongest male characters will have an 18 and the strongest female characters will have a 16.  If it's important to a character concept to be 'as strong as possible', you're making it difficult or impossible for female characters to explore that concept.  

A second way (at least with point buy) is to adjust the starting stats; if you start men with a 10 STR and women with an 8 STR, but they can both buy up to an 18, it would take female characters more resources to achieve an 18, but they still could.  That allows those concepts to at least be available, even if they're not optimal.  If female characters have SOME advantage (for example, if their Dexterity starts at 10 while male characters Dex starts at 8), people are going to be more willing to accept it.  Ultimately, with something along these lines you'd expect male characters to be stronger on average (they got a 10 to start, compared to a woman's 8, and even if they invest equal resources, the male character maintains an advantage).  

A variant on this would be to start every stat the same and apply point-buy as normal, but allow people to 'burn' a stat for an increase in another.  Maybe you can take -2 Int for +1 Con, etc (ie, -2 for a +1) but for male characters they can build strength at a 1:1 ratio (ie, -2 Con for +2 Str).  These tend to achieve the same stated goal - achieving a system where male characters are stronger ON AVERAGE without unduly limiting female characters.  

If women can achieve the same results men do, even if it requires more work, most people will accept it, especially if there is a mix of bonuses and penalties and they're more or less 'fair'.  Giving women bonus Charisma (which is widely viewed as a dump stat) but applying penalties to Str/Con wouldn't qualify.  And the less clear-cut the example is, the more likely (and appropriately) people are to be offended.  If a significant number of people are willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Strength, a much smaller number are probably willing to accept a difference in Male versus Female Intelligence (regardless of which way you apply the advantage).

But women can, and often are as intelligent or more than men, the difference is in variability, women concentrate in the middle of the curve, having less geniuses and less idiots, while men are more spread, producing more of both geniuses and idiots.

While the opposite is true regarding Strength.

And yes, if you were to do this and you have fictional species you would need to take those into consideration too. Which might mean having a fictional species where the males are weaker then the females. Somehow I doubt all those who claim that "people" could get offended appropriately by this rule would not have a problem with say having Orc females be stronger or fey females smarter than their male counterparts.

Sadly now we can't make the experiment because they might just pretend to be fake outraged instead of being genuinely fake outraged on behalf of someone else being possibly offended somehow somewhere someway.

On average, girls outperform boys in almost all school subjects. In literacy particularly this gap equates to about a 20% advantage, or +4 in d20 terms. Pretty good for would be spellcasters.

Quote from: mightybrain;1105011On average, girls outperform boys in almost all school subjects. In literacy particularly this gap equates to about a 20% advantage, or +4 in d20 terms. Pretty good for would be spellcasters.

How dare you!? Acknowledging differences is a proof that you're an Istphobetm

For those of you who want gender dimorphism reflected in RPG rules, what exactly do you feel would be gained?

When I see crap like Ms. Monopoly giving female players $40 extra vs male players each time they Pass Go, that just makes the game worse for everyone. Nobody gains from playing a feminized version of Monopoly. It's a sad joke for a lame culture.

As RPGs aren't reality simulators, but escapist fantasy, why would STR limits make the game better?

Especially as GMs have total control of how NPCs are presented in the world.
 

Quote from: cranebump;1104768Given 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.

True!

And that's a good thing. The only thing we need to agree upon is everyone's right to disagree.

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

When I see crap like Ms. Monopoly giving female players $40 extra vs male players each time they Pass Go, that just makes the game worse for everyone. Nobody gains from playing a feminized version of Monopoly. It's a sad joke for a lame culture.

As RPGs aren't reality simulators, but escapist fantasy, why would STR limits make the game better?

Especially as GMs have total control of how NPCs are presented in the world.
 



True!

And that's a good thing. The only thing we need to agree upon is everyone's right to disagree.

Not sure if anybody really wants to model it, I have said several times I'm very happy with my Red Sonja beats Conan types of games.

What could be gained? Dunno, if you want a simulationist experience lots I guess, if you want escapism not much, except if you want to use said dimorphism to create a new species with the culture it might engender. Say Female Orcs are the bigger, meaner and stronger, how would that affect play?

For me it was from the beginning an intellectual exercise, what changes would you need to do?

Then it became fun to argue with the ones Reeeeing.

Not really sure any game would be better because of it, but I'm in the camp of people are free to think and do and who knows maybe someone could make a fun game even with this piece of sacrilegious rule.

Do people have a problem with gender dimorphism in non-human species?

I thought the argument was only focused on human PCs.

Quote from: mightybrain;1104997It seems some objections relate to framing differences as penalties. If female human stats were the default and male humans got a strength bonus, would it still be a problem?

Probably moreso if that was all. If going that route, and one or two RPGs have, then the way to go is to give women a DEX bonus. Or think one gave them a CON type bonus? Been a long time and not positive.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105022Not sure if anybody really wants to model it, I have said several times I'm very happy with my Red Sonja beats Conan types of games.

The hilarious part is. In the original comics this Sonja is based on... She gets her head handed to her more than a few times.

The difference is she gets up and goes at it again, usually with a better plan, or a plan at all, even if that plan is, "pure luck!". She isnt invincible, and neither was Conan for that matter. I'd say if you pitted the two against eachother it would be a draw.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105026Do people have a problem with gender dimorphism in non-human species?

I thought the argument was only focused on human PCs.

Probably! And even that was also limited to AD&D. Because to these nuts it is never enough. Human women just as strong as men? Fuck that the game is still sexist because orc men are stronger than orc women!

Quote from: Omega;1105034The hilarious part is. In the original comics this Sonja is based on... She gets her head handed to her more than a few times.

The difference is she gets up and goes at it again, usually with a better plan, or a plan at all, even if that plan is, "pure luck!". She isnt invincible, and neither was Conan for that matter. I'd say if you pitted the two against eachother it would be a draw.

Right, 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.

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.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105154And 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!

He's just a dual-classed Disingenuous/Contrarian.

Quote from: Omega;1105034The hilarious part is. In the original comics this Sonja is based on... She gets her head handed to her more than a few times.

The difference is she gets up and goes at it again, usually with a better plan, or a plan at all, even if that plan is, "pure luck!". She isnt invincible, and neither was Conan for that matter. I'd say if you pitted the two against eachother it would be a draw.

They did in fact face off a few times in SSoC, and it always ended in a draw.

P.S.: IIRC, the only time Conan used brute strength to pin Sonja to the ground, she kicked him in the nads and slipped away. :D

Quote from: BronzeDragon;1105208They did in fact face off a few times in SSoC, and it always ended in a draw.

P.S.: IIRC, the only time Conan used brute strength to pin Sonja to the ground, she kicked him in the nads and slipped away. :D

So I did remember correctly that they did in fact fought and he was right that it was in the comics. Good to know I'm not that senile yet.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105154And here is the evidence that jhkim isn't an SJW but a thinking person.

jhkim is very much a thinking person and not a SJW...and unfortunately its gonna fuck him!

Poor dude won't be able to dance fast enough for the SJWs in the Bay Area as the purity circles continue to tighten.

And then he'll be "proven" to be yet another Alt-Right Naughty Nutzi with the rest of us unholy deplorables!

:D

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 makes sense and I can support that, however, doesn't that mean the STR limits for females is only really needed for NPC commoners?

AKA, by virtue of a female being a PC warrior / paladin / gladiator, doesn't she automatically break the stereotype in the world?

I'm personally cool with gender dimorphism for the mass of NPCs, but unsure why its needed for PCs or special NPCs.

Just as I'm cool with 90% of hobbits being unable to lift a sword and just panic in the face of a goblin, but the PC hobbit warrior can snatch up Sting and hack that goblin asshole in half.

I run L5R and female samurai are cool in the setting for two reasons. (1) your PC somehow survived bushi school which means you're really good with that 3 foot razorblade, (2) your lord had a reason to send to you bushi school. So even if a PC/NPC wants to tell her to go back to the kitchen and whip up some sashimi, there's the nagging question of (a) do you want to insult her lord's decision? and (b) do you want to test her honor in a duel? But as L5R isn't a historical setting, these reasons work as good justifiers for the woman breaking the stereotype.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105215jhkim is very much a thinking person and not a SJW...and unfortunately its gonna fuck him!

Poor dude won't be able to dance fast enough for the SJWs in the Bay Area as the purity circles continue to tighten.

And then he'll be "proven" to be yet another Alt-Right Naughty Nutzi with the rest of us unholy deplorables!

:D

Off topic but, shouldn't it be "an SJW"? I was taught that it was A or An depending on the sound, so it's a University because it doesn't sound like a vocal. Or am I wrong?

It's a honest to Crom question.

As for jhkim being a deplorable all right naugthy nutzy... well he runs games with only male PCs! :D

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105228Off topic but, shouldn't it be "an SJW"? I was taught that it was A or An depending on the sound, so it's a University because it doesn't sound like a vocal. Or am I wrong?

I'm not caught up on the latest "rules" for this kind of thing, since it is a moving target.  But at one time, the rule was that you used the article that would work if you spelled the thing out.  So "a social justice warrior" stays the same if you use the abbreviation.  Ignoring the "an es jay double-u" option.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105228As for jhkim being a deplorable all right naugthy nutzy... well he runs games with only male PCs! :D

I've had a number of accidentally all-male PC games from a small number of players, but I can only recall one where it was deliberately all male as the point. That was my Conan game idea, which I only ran as a one-shot. The idea was that all the PCs were well-muscled Cimmerian barbarians, only with different variations and focuses.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/brawnythews/

When I ran it, though, the women players had a great time with those PCs. I might do something like that again.

Still, I've run many more games with only female PCs -- notably Macho Women With Guns, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, and Bluebeard's Bride.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105228Off topic but, shouldn't it be "an SJW"? I was taught that it was A or An depending on the sound, so it's a University because it doesn't sound like a vocal. Or am I wrong?

It's a honest to Crom question.

As for jhkim being a deplorable all right naugthy nutzy... well he runs games with only male PCs! :D

You were taught correctly. Go by the sound at the start of the next word, and whether it's an acronym or initialism doesn't matter. There are a handful of edge cases such as words beginning with a soft "h" sound where, depending on whether you're looking at American or British English, you can use "a" instead of "an," but as long as you stick to looking at vowel/consonant sounds and basing your choice on that you should be fine.

Quote from: jhkim;1105236I've had a number of accidentally all-male PC games from a small number of players, but I can only recall one where it was deliberately all male as the point. That was my Conan game idea, which I only ran as a one-shot. The idea was that all the PCs were well-muscled Cimmerian barbarians, only with different variations and focuses.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/brawnythews/

When I ran it, though, the women players had a great time with those PCs. I might do something like that again.

Still, I've run many more games with only female PCs -- notably Macho Women With Guns, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, and Bluebeard's Bride.

Never mind, you're now and forever a toxic deplorable all right naugthy nutzy male :D

Quote from: Brand55;1105237You were taught correctly. Go by the sound at the start of the next word, and whether it's an acronym or initialism doesn't matter. There are a handful of edge cases such as words beginning with a soft "h" sound where, depending on whether you're looking at American or British English, you can use "a" instead of "an," but as long as you stick to looking at vowel/consonant sounds and basing your choice on that you should be fine.

Thanks, since it's my second language and I live in México sometimes seeing people do what I was taught was an error sends me for a loop.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105240Thanks, since it's my second language and I live in México sometimes seeing people do what I was taught was an error sends me for a loop.

Don't worry, I know it can be tough. I've seen plenty of people who only speak English but still don't know many of the rules, and quite often even those who do know how things are supposed to work will make a mistake of some kind. I can't count the number of times I've accidentally mixed up "there" and "their" when I'm typing even though I know full well how they're used properly. Luckily, I usually catch the mistake right away as I'm typing. Usually.

Quote from: Brand55;1105243Don't worry, I know it can be tough. I've seen plenty of people who only speak English but still don't know many of the rules, and quite often even those who do know how things are supposed to work will make a mistake of some kind. I can't count the number of times I've accidentally mixed up "there" and "their" when I'm typing even though I know full well how they're used properly. Luckily, I usually catch the mistake right away as I'm typing. Usually.

Regarding typos: Been there, done that got the T-Shirt

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105240Thanks, since it's my second language and I live in México sometimes seeing people do what I was taught was an error sends me for a loop.

I would never have known had you not said so. Your written English is better than some native speakers' I've known.

(What I like about this board is I can pay compliments like that without being accused of microaggressions.)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105248I would never have known had you not said so. Your written English is better than some native speakers' I've known.

(What I like about this board is I can pay compliments like that without being accused of microaggressions.)

How dare you! Why i've never! I'm literally shaking! :D (Thanks!)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105248(What I like about this board is I can pay compliments like that without being accused of microaggressions.)

Only macro-aggressions are allowed on theRPGsite!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105217Just as I'm cool with 90% of hobbits being unable to lift a sword and just panic in the face of a goblin, but the PC hobbit warrior can snatch up Sting and hack that goblin asshole in half.

Bilbo was an unremarkable hobbit until Gandalf chose him to go on an adventure. The only difference between Bilbo and any other hobbit in the Shire was the will to follow. In my understanding of the game, that difference is supplied by the player, not by the stats.

Quote from: jhkim;1105236I've had a number of accidentally all-male PC games from a small number of players, but I can only recall one where it was deliberately all male as the point. That was my Conan game idea, which I only ran as a one-shot. The idea was that all the PCs were well-muscled Cimmerian barbarians, only with different variations and focuses.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/brawnythews/

When I ran it, though, the women players had a great time with those PCs. I might do something like that again.

Still, I've run many more games with only female PCs -- notably Macho Women With Guns, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, and Bluebeard's Bride.

Hey, what's this game all about? I've heard of it from time to time, but not a real description of what goes on it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104441The only reason I can see to include a stat penalty to women's strength is to clearly declare that you're a troglodyte afraid of women and prefer not to game with them.

So Greg Stafford was a troglodyte and afraid of women?

Quote from: mightybrain;1105291Bilbo was an unremarkable hobbit until Gandalf chose him to go on an adventure. The only difference between Bilbo and any other hobbit in the Shire was the will to follow. In my understanding of the game, that difference is supplied by the player, not by the stats.

Bilbo was a wealthy country gentleman with ties to the richest family in the Shire.

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.

A really excellent post which I have accordingly bookmarked it for the next time this topic gets rehashed.

One should note that PCs are special cases; so I would not expect my troll PC in D&D to start with regeneration or for that matter ever get it (if I could persuade the DM to allow troll as race; OD&D specifically mentions playing monster races: "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top"), but equally I would not expect the troll character to suffer significant penalties in whatever ability scores a troll would be "realistically" deficient in. I once played a badger (bipedal, wielded a rapier, spoke common - essentially Reepicheep from the Narnia series) in 1e (with OD&D influence and a lot of house rules) but rolled abilities as usual.

A weaker PC option may attract players just for the challenge; I once played a character who always used a javelin, which was essentially a -2 hand axe in the by-weapon combat chart we were using; the only compensation was that I was the default recipient of any magic javelins we found, which hardly compensated. So you don't have to have balance everywhere if the players aren't obsessed with optimizing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105228Off topic but, shouldn't it be "an SJW"? I was taught that it was A or An depending on the sound, so it's a University because it doesn't sound like a vocal. Or am I wrong?

It's a honest to Crom question.

The more common current rule seems to be what you describe, based on whether the following word starts with a vowel sound; since SJW is almost certainly spoken like "Ess Jay Double You" it would take "an". This seems the appropriate rule since then someone reading the sentence aloud does not have to change the word to avoid sounding weird. There is a style where you follow the written out acronym, perhaps with the expectation that acronyms are expanded when read.

But there are acronyms that remain a problem; I would write "a FUBAR situation" since almost nobody would read FUBAR as a sequence of letters. But FAQ could be read like "fack" or like "Eff Ey Kew", and I've heard both (the former a little more often, I think, but that may be skewed sampling). So although your question is probably frequently enough asked, I don't know if it should be classified as "a FAQ" or "an FAQ". ;)

Quote from: rawma;1105315A really excellent post which I have accordingly bookmarked it for the next time this topic gets rehashed.

One should note that PCs are special cases; so I would not expect my troll PC in D&D to start with regeneration or for that matter ever get it (if I could persuade the DM to allow troll as race; OD&D specifically mentions playing monster races: "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top"), but equally I would not expect the troll character to suffer significant penalties in whatever ability scores a troll would be "realistically" deficient in. I once played a badger (bipedal, wielded a rapier, spoke common - essentially Reepicheep from the Narnia series) in 1e (with OD&D influence and a lot of house rules) but rolled abilities as usual.

A weaker PC option may attract players just for the challenge; I once played a character who always used a javelin, which was essentially a -2 hand axe in the by-weapon combat chart we were using; the only compensation was that I was the default recipient of any magic javelins we found, which hardly compensated. So you don't have to have balance everywhere if the players aren't obsessed with optimizing.



The more common current rule seems to be what you describe, based on whether the following word starts with a vowel sound; since SJW is almost certainly spoken like "Ess Jay Double You" it would take "an". This seems the appropriate rule since then someone reading the sentence aloud does not have to change the word to avoid sounding weird. There is a style where you follow the written out acronym, perhaps with the expectation that acronyms are expanded when read.

But there are acronyms that remain a problem; I would write "a FUBAR situation" since almost nobody would read FUBAR as a sequence of letters. But FAQ could be read like "fack" or like "Eff Ey Kew", and I've heard both (the former a little more often, I think, but that may be skewed sampling). So although your question is probably frequently enough asked, I don't know if it should be classified as "a FAQ" or "an FAQ". ;)

Agreed and thanks!

Quote from: David Johansen;1105308Bilbo was a wealthy country gentleman with ties to the richest family in the Shire.

True. Though I doubt the goblins would care.

He also had Took blood, but it didn't appear to factor into his abilities. He wasn't described as unusually strong, fast, smart, or charismatic. And that was by design. The story of The Hobbit is the typical folk tale: an everyman goes on an adventure and becomes a hero. You're meant to identify with him as the protagonist which would be much harder to do if he had super powers from the start. You could substitute him with pretty much any other hobbit (with the exception of his grandfather) and it wouldn't drastically change the story.

"Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

I disagree with the absolute nature of the first clause, and I agree with the second assuming we are talking about actual modern-day homo sapiens.

Quote from: Kael;1105343"Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

I disagree with the absolute nature of the first clause, and I agree with the second assuming we are talking about actual modern-day homo sapiens.

Exactly. Among Gloranthan Trolls, for example, females are bigger and stronger than males.

Quote from: soltakss;1105453Exactly. Among Gloranthan Trolls, for example, females are bigger and stronger than males.

Female trolls in Runequest (like real trolls) are some of the most powerful beings in Glorantha, but I guess it's because they're FEMALE the outrage brigade doesn't seem to care. "Better in every way than the males? Sure. Human males have a bonus to STR? REEEEEEEEE!"

Like, who cares?

Quote from: soltakss;1105453Exactly. Among Gloranthan Trolls, for example, females are bigger and stronger than males.

Among true trolls, yes. I had actually been thinking about that example. Though to be Gloranthan nitsy, I seem to recall that Cavetrolls are stronger even than the Mistress Race.

Quote from: soltakss;1105453Exactly. Among Gloranthan Trolls, for example, females are bigger and stronger than males.

Something I said that among fantasy species the inverse could be true. I'll wait for the Fauxtrage brigade to Reeeee about that.

If you want a real world example, the female anglerfish can be several orders of magnitude larger than the male. In fact, when they were first discovered, the males were mistaken for parasites attached to the female body. If you ever need inspiration for your fantasy races / critters, the natural world offers almost endless variety.

Quote from: Brad;1105465Female trolls in Runequest (like real trolls) are some of the most powerful beings in Glorantha, but I guess it's because they're FEMALE the outrage brigade doesn't seem to care. "Better in every way than the males? Sure. Human males have a bonus to STR? REEEEEEEEE!"

Like, who cares?

Yes, females are the biggest trolls....

Quote from: Kael;1105343"Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

I disagree with the absolute nature of the first clause, and I agree with the second assuming we are talking about actual modern-day homo sapiens.

As I said pages back, in many sci-fi RPGs, physical strength can border on irrelevance. Unless the setting contrives a way to make it matter.

Quote from: Razor 007;1105480Yes, females are the biggest trolls....

:rolleyes: And if you want to finish that thought, the female trolls are not just bigger, but smarter too. (And far more powerful magically.)

Just been watching the Rugby World Cup. Nearly all of those guys are massive and extremely fit and strong. If there's any women in the world that are able to compete with any of those guys in a physical sense I'd be amazed.

Quote from: Kiero;1105481As I said pages back, in many sci-fi RPGs, physical strength can border on irrelevance. Unless the setting contrives a way to make it matter.

In D&D 5e, strength is surprisingly less important compared to almost every other edition; you need at least 13 for certain multiclassing, and the feats polearm master and great weapon master work with strength based weapons (or just to use weapons with the best damage, by a few points), barbarians have to be strength based, and you have to use strength to grapple (but not to defend against grappling). Yes, there are some strength checks and saving throws, but generally dexterity is more useful and you can't be good at everything.

Quote from: Bren;1105488:rolleyes: And if you want to finish that thought, the female trolls are not just bigger, but smarter too. (And far more powerful magically.)

Female trolls are a BIG problem....

STR is going to matter in any RPG which features hand-to-hand or melee combat. Even Star Wars has fist fights and Wookies tossing stormtroopers as not everyone has a lightsaber. In 40k, STR is necessary because lots of the big damage weapons are heavy. In these future worlds, cybernetics are an easy way for weaker characters to artificially gain STR.

Quote from: Brad;1105465Female trolls in Runequest (like real trolls) are some of the most powerful beings in Glorantha, but I guess it's because they're FEMALE the outrage brigade doesn't seem to care. "Better in every way than the males? Sure. Human males have a bonus to STR? REEEEEEEEE!"

Like, who cares?

The issue is the players are humans and giving penalties / bonuses / limits to human PCs is something that hits too close to home for some players. Its less of an issue when penalties / bonuses / limits pertain to non-human PCs.

For some players, apparently gender dimorphism in humans is important to their immersion and verisimilitude in games. For me, I can't care too much about realism in games about elves casting magic spells at cyborg dragons.

But it if pisses off the REEEEEE crowd, it must be a good thing.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105496The issue is the players are humans and giving penalties / bonuses / limits to human PCs is something that hits too close to home for some players. Its less of an issue when penalties / bonuses / limits pertain to non-human PCs.

For some players, apparently gender dimorphism in humans is important to their immersion and verisimilitude in games. For me, I can't care too much about realism in games about elves casting magic spells at cyborg dragons.

But it if pisses off the REEEEEE crowd, it must be a good thing.

These are the same people who all think they have 18 INT and CHA if you converted them to D&D stats; I don't think they're very keen on what is "realistic". AD&D is "notorious" for the female strength limit, but that's just genre emulation. Conan would be an 18/00, and everyone else is below that. Someone brought up Red Sonya, well, Conan is stronger. That's not even debatable, but he's stronger than everyone, so it's not that big of a deal.

I thought I had a point somewhere, but I don't beyond echoing the sentiment that I'm sticking with human males being stronger in my games simply because it annoys people who need to get a life.

Quote from: Simon W;1105492Just been watching the Rugby World Cup. Nearly all of those guys are massive and extremely fit and strong. If there's any women in the world that are able to compete with any of those guys in a physical sense I'd be amazed.

The solution is of course to lower the bar instead of trying to meet it. Allready been done here and there. Which just shoots more holes in the "women are just as good at everything as men are!" boat.

Back on topic, such as it is...

Aside from AD&D which itself only using this a tiny bit. What other RPGs have had normal human stats being different between genders? I know there was at least one other. But I can not think of what it was. Probably Fantasy Wargaming.

Strength is not the only important stat.  It might not be "the" most important stat, either; but it definitely matters.  Many people say that Dexterity is a super stat, because it can influence success in offense, defense, and skills.  That's true, but Strength can add damage to successful attacks.  Sometimes a really strong PC can ace a foe in one round; whereas a less strong PC wouldn't have done enough damage to finish them off.

Quote from: Brad;1105511These are the same people who all think they have 18 INT and CHA if you converted them to D&D stats; I don't think they're very keen on what is "realistic". AD&D is "notorious" for the female strength limit, but that's just genre emulation.

Conan would be an 18/00, and everyone else is below that. Someone brought up Red Sonya, well, Conan is stronger. That's not even debatable, but he's stronger than everyone, so it's not that big of a deal.

I thought I had a point somewhere, but I don't beyond echoing the sentiment that I'm sticking with human males being stronger in my games simply because it annoys people who need to get a life.

1a: Its falsely notorious because people with an agenda, or who never actually looked at the entry want something to parade around and bitch about incessantly. Its manufactured outrage. Just read some of the posts in this thread.

1b: In AD&D Conan, Conan has STR: 18(90), and 18 in CON and DEX. I am not even going to bother listing Red Sonja's stats because whomever wrote that never actually read any of the comics.
In TSR Conan his stats are good and his total is 220 character points. Exceeding some other pregens by nearly 100 total character points. This is though a Conan who has done ALOT of adventuring since you start out with only 35 points. +5 points per weakness and Conan has three. So he started out with 50 points. But there are primary NPCs that come close, or actually exceed him, One even exceeding Conan by 100 character points. Sadly they never got around to statting Red Sonja.

Quote from: Razor 007;1105520Strength is not the only important stat.  It might not be "the"the most important stat, either; but it definitely matters.  Many people say that Dexterity is a super stat, because it can influence success in offense, defense, and skills.  That's true, but Strength can add damage to successful attacks.  Sometimes a melee attack specialist can Ace a foe in one round; whereas the ranged attack specialist wouldn't have done enough damage to finish them off.

But in D&D 5e, finesse weapons (slightly lesser damage - d8 for a rapier, d6 for a short sword or scimitar - versus d10 or even 2d6 for two handed strength weapons) use dexterity (or they can use strength, if it's better) for bonus to hit and damage; and bows use dexterity entirely. I noted various cases where strength is more important, but they are not that great or have similar dexterity equivalents (e.g., Sharpshooter feat to match Great Weapon Master feat). Archers are limited by the amount of ammunition they have, and probably cantrips should have a similar limitation, but I've rarely seen it come up.

I went back and edited my previous post.  A woman walked up and started talking to me as I was typing it....  A very good woman, too.[ATTACH=CONFIG]3860[/ATTACH]

That isn't even half of my miniatures.  I may have a problem....

Quote from: Omega;1105518Aside from AD&D which itself only using this a tiny bit. What other RPGs have had normal human stats being different between genders? I know there was at least one other. But I can not think of what it was. Probably Fantasy Wargaming.

HarnMaster (specifically HM3) has reduced Height and -3 to the Frame stat for human females, which affects their Weight, Strength, and (inversely) Agility. It's a famously (or infamously) detailed system, and I think this isn't out of place. For example, there is also a bonus to Height and thus indirectly Strength for being noble, who are better fed.

Human females also have +2 Aura, which is the core ability for magic. I think that's a workable balance. I'd contrast with GeekyBugle's suggestion,

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105131Have a Witch class, witches are born (still need to study and practice tho) and female witches are more powerful than male ones.

I don't think that works well as balance. Strength is a broadly useful stat, which benefits not just fighters, but also any other melee combatant. A choice of a Strength bonus doesn't pigeonhole someone into being a fighter. For example, I've seen plenty of half-orc clerics, rogues, and others.

But a single-class benefit -- particularly into a class just invented for this purpose -- seems like it would pigeonhole female characters into that one class, which is sucky. I think people playing female characters would feel short-changed.

Bemusingly in the TSR Conan system. Valeria actually outclasses Conan point-wise and is actually rated stronger then the Conan presented in the last module. And is a slightly better swordfighter.

Quote from: Omega;1105518Aside from AD&D which itself only using this a tiny bit. What other RPGs have had normal human stats being different between genders? I know there was at least one other. But I can not think of what it was. Probably Fantasy Wargaming.

Dragon Quest does.  As noted earlier, -2 Str for female, but +1 Manual Dexterity and +1 Fatigue to compensate.  In the complexity of DQ, this actually gives female characters far more flexibility and more character concepts where they can excel, at the expense of not being able to do the brute nearly as well.  (High strength is needed for many weapons, but if you bump it to the expense of manual dexterity, that also cuts out a lot of options.)  But then, in DQ, an elf has something like a -5 to Str while a halfling has -6.  Meanwhile, a dwarf has a huge hit on Agility.  The human adjustments are tiny in comparison.  And unlike the racial adjustments, which are applied semi-randomly after ability scores are set, a player gets to make the determination of male/female when it will do them the most good.

Quote from: Omega;11055231a: Its falsely notorious because people with an agenda, or who never actually looked at the entry want something to parade around and bitch about incessantly. Its manufactured outrage. Just read some of the posts in this thread.

You saw the air quotes, right?

Quote1b: In AD&D Conan, Conan has STR: 18(90), and 18 in CON and DEX. I am not even going to bother listing Red Sonja's stats because whomever wrote that never actually read any of the comics.
In TSR Conan his stats are good and his total is 220 character points. Exceeding some other pregens by nearly 100 total character points. This is though a Conan who has done ALOT of adventuring since you start out with only 35 points. +5 points per weakness and Conan has three. So he started out with 50 points. But there are primary NPCs that come close, or actually exceed him, One even exceeding Conan by 100 character points. Sadly they never got around to statting Red Sonja.

Well that's just dumb; Conan is stronger than anyone he meets except some weird demons or whatever. I am going purely by the REH stories; I've never read any of that other garbage.

Quote from: Omega;1105578Bemusingly in the TSR Conan system. Valeria actually outclasses Conan point-wise and is actually rated stronger then the Conan presented in the last module. And is a slightly better swordfighter.

And this is even dumber...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105496STR is going to matter in any RPG which features hand-to-hand or melee combat. Even Star Wars has fist fights and Wookies tossing stormtroopers as not everyone has a lightsaber. In 40k, STR is necessary because lots of the big damage weapons are heavy. In these future worlds, cybernetics are an easy way for weaker characters to artificially gain STR.

I played Saga Edition Star Wars - STR was an optional stat. As in everything D20-derived, there is Finesse, which allows you to use DEX for most of the common applications of STR. There was even a Talent that allowed you to use CHA instead of STR for melee combat.

Quote from: Kiero;1105608I played Saga Edition Star Wars - STR was an optional stat. As in everything D20-derived, there is Finesse, which allows you to use DEX for most of the common applications of STR. There was even a Talent that allowed you to use CHA instead of STR for melee combat.

I went and took the next logical step for my system. If you're proficient with a weapon you get a baseline attack bonus that's good for a 50% hit rate (vs. 55-60% for someone who puts their best score into the appropriate stat or the 30% that having to use your worst stat would cause).

It doesn't add to damage like Strength does or completely supplant Strength for melee attack rolls, but it does impart enough competency that a weakling wizard with proficiency in a staff could at least land a blow (probably not a telling one given that a high strength character would hit twice as hard, but a blow none-the-less).

Quote from: jhkim;1105544HarnMaster (specifically HM3) has reduced Height and -3 to the Frame stat for human females, which affects their Weight, Strength, and (inversely) Agility. It's a famously (or infamously) detailed system, and I think this isn't out of place. For example, there is also a bonus to Height and thus indirectly Strength for being noble, who are better fed.

Human females also have +2 Aura, which is the core ability for magic. I think that's a workable balance. I'd contrast with GeekyBugle's suggestion,

I don't think that works well as balance. Strength is a broadly useful stat, which benefits not just fighters, but also any other melee combatant. A choice of a Strength bonus doesn't pigeonhole someone into being a fighter. For example, I've seen plenty of half-orc clerics, rogues, and others.

But a single-class benefit -- particularly into a class just invented for this purpose -- seems like it would pigeonhole female characters into that one class, which is sucky. I think people playing female characters would feel short-changed.

I'm coming into the discussion pretty late so I'm sorry if this has been covered before. But if the gender strength disparity is that important to your sense of verisimilitude as gm isn't that easy to fix? You set all NPC attribute, just make all or more female humans physically weaker that most/all males.

There may be some PC exceptions, but that can happen even with some sort of imposed penalty if, for example, those playing male character roll poorly or prioritize Strength less than some else and the female PC's player rolls well or wants to be Brienne of Tarth or whatever. she'll stand out more but that would be what the player probably wanted from making their character strong.

Maybe it reflects my personal philosophy, but PCs are generally going to be exceptions in one or a few ways and the rules of character generation are for creating PCs not NPCs unless I chose to use them so I determine the 'norms' of the setting by my choices.

Quote from: Razor 007;1105539That isn't even half of my miniatures.  I may have a problem....

Get back to us when you have at least twenty times that number.

And painted!

Quote from: Brad;1105586Well that's just dumb; Conan is stronger than anyone he meets except some weird demons or whatever. I am going purely by the REH stories; I've never read any of that other garbage.

And this is even dumber...

1: Actually he is not. In the books he meets people stronger than him. Or faster. In his very first story he works with a master thief who is better than him in every way. And died because he got greedy in a place that was notoriously dangerous. Conan gets beat up alot in the stories.

2: Depends. It is a bit odd in context of the core set. She is on par with Thoth-Amon in character points. But she is supposed to be very competent and strong. On par with Conan possibly. So it is more a matter of the module version of Conan not yet being as seasoned as Valeria is. Personally I just think some of her skills are set way too high. 20 in sailing and Navigation. Just dropping those down to 10s alone starts lowering the point disparity. Which may be what the modules did. As mone of the NPCs are as over-statted as the ones in the core.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105662Get back to us when you have at least twenty times that number.

And painted!

I thought he meant the problem was not enough minis and not enough paint. :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105662And painted!

Uh.......no.  Life is too short for that.

Quote from: Omega;11056791: Actually he is not. In the books he meets people stronger than him. Or faster. In his very first story he works with a master thief who is better than him in every way. And died because he got greedy in a place that was notoriously dangerous. Conan gets beat up alot in the stories.

Taurus is the most competent thief ever, and Conan is a novice, yet who succeeds? Also who's stronger than Conan? Certainly not any mortal. And of course he gets beat up, because he's not invincible, but he's smart enough to run away from fights he can't win.

So, again, who's stronger than Conan?

Quote from: Brad;1105720Taurus is the most competent thief ever, and Conan is a novice, yet who succeeds? Also who's stronger than Conan? Certainly not any mortal. And of course he gets beat up, because he's not invincible, but he's smart enough to run away from fights he can't win.

So, again, who's stronger than Conan?

So you never actually read any of the stories. Get back to use when you have.

Quote from: Omega;1105722So you never actually read any of the stories. Get back to use when you have.

Brad's version does match the comics though - I recall the SSOC editor saying that Conan was the strongest, best, greatest etc of his age and would never lose a fight in the comic. Although another might be superior in a specific technique.

I think REH's approach was a lot less absolutist; Conan might well meet someone stronger, but would then find another way to beat them, or retreat.

Quote from: Omega;1105722So you never actually read any of the stories. Get back to use when you have.

I've read every single REH story. I'll repeat: who is stronger than Conan? Hell, who's BETTER than Conan?

Quote from: S'mon;1105725Brad's version does match the comics though - I recall the SSOC editor saying that Conan was the strongest, best, greatest etc of his age and would never lose a fight in the comic. Although another might be superior in a specific technique.

I think REH's approach was a lot less absolutist; Conan might well meet someone stronger, but would then find another way to beat them, or retreat.

REH was of the opinion that Conan would win every fight, somehow, and if he couldn't it was due to some weird paranormal stuff that no mortal could overcome. There is no one in the REH stories that Conan cannot beat except people or beings who have some sort of supernatural bent, and Conan rightly runs away from them.

The comics turn him into a superhero, which I'm not sure matches REH's vision.

Quote from: Brad;1105720Also who's stronger than Conan? Certainly not any mortal.

Thak. Though I will concede that, while Conan considered him a man, not beast, he probably had some hefty racial strength modifiers. So, not really a counterexample.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105735Thak. Though I will concede that, while Conan considered him a man, not beast, he probably had some hefty racial strength modifiers. So, not really a counterexample.

I wasn't familiar with Thak, so had to look him up. Comic book man-ape, right? (I have read a lot of the old Marvel Conan, but not any of the newer stuff)

Looks cool, I'll check these out.

Quote from: Brad;1105751I wasn't familiar with Thak, so had to look him up. Comic book man-ape, right? (I have read a lot of the old Marvel Conan, but not any of the newer stuff)

Looks cool, I'll check these out.

My memory isn't what it used to be but. I seem to remember an adventure in one of the 12 Ace novels where that particular comic is ripped of from. A wizard and a magnetic table, not sure if "Thak" was called that in the novel or if he was simian or human. There's also another Conan comic with the exact same plot but "Thak" is a man from the Black Kingdoms.

Conan doesn't always win, and when he does it isn't always because he's the strongest, many times it's his ferocity, his will, his cunning (He's smart just not educated) and his willingness to cheat when needed. And when he looses (or runs away) he latter comes back with a plan, friends or both.

My only knowledge of Conan comes from the films. While he may not be the strongest man in the world, he is without question the greatest bodybuilder of the Hyborian Age! :D

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105735Thak. Though I will concede that, while Conan considered him a man, not beast, he probably had some hefty racial strength modifiers. So, not really a counterexample.

Indeed:

Quote from: REHIt was no man that stood before me! In body and posture it was not unlike a man, but from the scarlet hood of the priest grinned a face of madness and nightmare! It was covered with black hair, from which small pig-like eyes glared redly; its nose was flat, with great flaring nostrils; its loose lips writhed back, disclosing huge yellow fangs, like the teeth of a dog. The hands that hung from the scarlet sleeves were misshapen and likewise covered with black hair.

Quote from: REHSome would call him an ape, but he is almost as different from a real ape as he is different from a real man.

When Conan says "I have slain a man tonight, not a beast", he is referring to the creature having a soul, not a human physiology.