Genders - What's the difference?

[pawsplay]

Plus +2 Str and +2 Dex is absurdly high from a realistic standpoint. Aside from the fact that Str isn't a perfect analog to males greater muscle density or Dex for a female's greater flexibility. There is no reason to believe, at all, that men are more powerful kickers, or that women are better marksmen.

 

[Eric Tolle]

The even bigger problem with your post is that what is realistic (and therefore what is selectively realistic) is a matter of opinion, as your racial (racist) sterotyping indicates. The more usual problem is that we can't agree over what realism is, not over whether we are being selective about it.

I myself think that once a game starts having characters that can destroy cities with a spell, or travel between planes, then reality is pretty much out the window. But it's amazing how people who won't bat an eye at the idea of giant flying birds, or humanoids a hundred feet tall, will suddenly start talking about the ramifications of skeletal structure and musculature cross sections when talking about about the strength of human men and women.

In full disclosure, my game doesn't automatically track gender because in fantasy conventions there is usually no physical difference between women and men (even though this is admittedly pure fantasy). However, there is an option to take traits 'Fairer Sex' which radically alters your races standard attribute modifiers, or 'Second Class Citizen' which gives you social penalties reflective of the broader mysogyny that is often present in ancient inspired cultures. (I suppose you could jokingly argue that the 'Meathead' trait is the male equivalent of these.)

Thus, if the player wants to have a character whose gender is strongly reflected on his or character sheet, he or she may have it, but the game system doesn't forcibly impose that on you. I should note however that I very frequently impose those traits on my NPC's.

And this is actually getting to the crux of the problem, which is more fundamental than simple stat bonuses; the depiction of men as the baseline for people, and the othering of women as something abnormal.

Consider: why do you have the traits "Fairer Sex" and "Second Class Citizen", and not say, ", instead of say, "Masculine virtue" and "Gentleman's Privilege"? Why is the default assumption that a female character has to be essentially be a pretend male, and to be female, is to be weaker and oppressed- in other words, not suitable for adventuring? And don't EVEN try to respond with "realism"- we both know that actual historical roles for women were far more complex and variable than that. There were far more complex dynamics at work than the "weak oppressed manipulators" stereotype that games such as Pendragon (the John Normen of rpgs) would have us believe.

I oppose gender-based stat differences because they always, invariably make the world revolve around men, make men the norm, and make women a deviation from that norm. They in essence state that the game is a man's world, with women as intruders. And you know, women have to deal with too much of this sort of attitude in real life. They don't need it in their role playing games as well.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Many of you are asking "why have difference between genders/sexes?".

It's a good question. Let's think of fantasy races. If you would accept that there many kind of elves (in one subrace) and they can't be defined in one single way, then racial bonuses and penalties would seem harsh. Just like Pawsplay said, it's harsh to give larger than +1 bonuses due to gender. But giving +2 racial bonuses is also pretty strong.

But still we like (I guess?) that high elves get some penalties and bonuses, thus radically simplifying all high elves.

Doing the same (bonuses & penalties) for genders would effectively "double" the amount "races" from a game-mechanic view.

D&D certainly doesn't represent realism, and I wasn't talking about just D&D in general. Actually if you ask me, I'm sorry that this discussion is bit too much about D&D. At the moment "gender" is simply a box that we fill and nothing more. The question is do we want more? General consensus is against it and it seems that the 70's are dead and buried. I can't say that I'm sorry about it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't understand how you can ask me how I would feel about well balanced game mechanics attached to gender. It doesn't matter how balanced they are, they shouldn't exist. If they exist, they marginalize some choices and promote others. I want the full range of choices when I play a female character, no more and no less.

How is this any different than racial modifiers that promote certain choices over others?

My halfling would do better as a thief than a fighter regardless of sex, that just the way the game rules treat halflings.

Different stat modifiers for males and females is getting too rules fiddly for my tastes but for flavor I don't have a problem with gender restrictions for certain things such as being a member of an order of monks who are exclusively male or an order of knighthood with only female members permitted.

As long as the options for both sexes are equally viable I have no problem with them being different. Differences add a lot of flavor to a campaign world.

 

[Barastrondo]

How is this any different than racial modifiers that promote certain choices over others?'

Generally speaking, because the players sitting around the table are not halflings. They may identify with halflings, but not for the reasons of "I look at a halfling in the mirror every morning."

Different stat modifiers for males and females is getting too rules fiddly for my tastes but for flavor I don't have a problem with gender restrictions for certain things such as being a member of an order of monks who are exclusively male or an order of knighthood with only female members permitted.

Also, the advantage to gender differences in social structures is that social structures are things that players have a chance to change. If the players determine that it's silly and short-sighted for all Ghedeye monks to be male, they can undergo the process of reforming the order and have a shot at success.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Generally speaking, because the players sitting around the table are not halflings. They may identify with halflings, but not for the reasons of "I look at a halfling in the mirror every morning."

So you know for a fact that no one with genetic dwarfism has ever played D&D? I think that someone the size of a halfling could identify with one almost as well as female player to a female PC.

Also, the advantage to gender differences in social structures is that social structures are things that players have a chance to change. If the players determine that it's silly and short-sighted for all Ghedeye monks to be male, they can undergo the process of reforming the order and have a shot at success.

In a magical fantasy world, not even physical attributes are permenant. Depending on the campaign world it may be easier to raise attributes than bring about drastic social change.

 

[NewJeffCT]

This concept must be totally alien to younger gamers, but old school enworlders still remember the 70's. We had a game called "AD&D 1st edition". It was a massive game back in the day.
Halfling females had the lowest STR-cap, but if you made a male halfling character, the cap was higher. All genders had difference in weight, height and STR-cap. There was no benefit from playing a female character, and I don't remember anyone ever raising their voice over that issue. Nowadays we only have differences in size, and no one is arguing that. But that's where the differences end.

yes, but back in the 1970s, women playing D&D were few & far between. I don't even remember playing with a woman until the late 1990s. Perhaps because their choices were limited in the 70s & 80s was one part of the reason so few women played?

However, while women are still a distinct minority in gaming, there is definitely are lot more women playing RPGs than there were 30 or so years ago. Perhaps its because the game is more inclusive now than it was in the past? Women's choices in the game are the same as a man's choices.

Plus, I have usually played that PCs are a cut above the normal populace, so I don't see why a female PC can't be a strong as a male PC?

 

[Umbran]

A better parallel would be to compare game mechanics based on gender to game mechanics based on real racial ethnicities.

Which doesn't directly answer my question, but does so indirectly.

Let me posit - the issue isn't game balance, or mechanics, per se. It is the player's real-world views on gender (and racial) balance and/or equality, and desire to have those real-world views reflected in their game world. It is not acceptable to the player to have the fantasy world deviate from the real one in such a matter.

If the character in question is sufficiently non-human, then the analogy to the real world breaks down, and the differentiation becomes more acceptable.

Any fiction is taken in context of the culture that creates the fiction, and will tend to reflect the cultures social mores, and the difficulties it has with those social mores.

 

[JustKim]

How is this any different than racial modifiers that promote certain choices over others?

It's different because I don't have any choice whether or not to be a woman in real life. If I want to play a character I can relate to, I'm going to want to play a female character. If playing a female character has game mechanics attached, and those game mechanics discourage some choices, then I myself am discouraged from playing those roles unless I step out of my comfort zone and play a male character.

If I'm a young girl just getting into D&D and want to play who I'd like to be in a fantasy world, I'm being told that even a fantasy world is not enough to put me on equal terms with boys.
If I'm just having lighthearted fun with my friends and we play D&D with these rules, I'm having stereotypes thrown in my face. If I play an inferior female warrior, it's always going to be lauded over me that I'm not quite as good as a male warrior. Any time I miss an attack by 1 point, it will be because my character is a woman. Please let that sink in: my heroic fantasy character can fail solely on the basis that she is a woman.

A hobby I would otherwise enjoy would be tainted.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's different because I don't have any choice whether or not to be a woman in real life. If I want to play a character I can relate to, I'm going to want to play a female character. If playing a female character has game mechanics attached, and those game mechanics discourage some choices, then I myself am discouraged from playing those roles unless I step out of my comfort zone and play a male character.

If I'm a young girl just getting into D&D and want to play who I'd like to be in a fantasy world, I'm being told that even a fantasy world is not enough to put me on equal terms with boys.
If I'm just having lighthearted fun with my friends and we play D&D with these rules, I'm having stereotypes thrown in my face. If I play an inferior female warrior, it's always going to be lauded over me that I'm not quite as good as a male warrior. Any time I miss an attack by 1 point, it will be because my character is a woman. Please let that sink in: my heroic fantasy character can fail solely on the basis that she is a woman.

A hobby I would otherwise enjoy would be tainted.

It can go the other way as well. A male player plays a male PC in order to better identify with him. Lets say that the same game that gives the female PC a STR penalty gives males a CHA penalty. If this guy wants to play a bard and be the best mechanically, he would have to play a female.
My bard could suck solely on the basis that he is a man.

Oh, and don't forget that expressing any displeasure at this disadvantage would possibly get me laughed at for wanting to play a sissy bard in the first place in some areas.