Genders - What's the difference?

[Gryph]

For the typical game, I don't see much point, myself. The only solid reason that pops immediately to mind is a desire to explore gender-roles as a theme for the campaign. That's probably not a common desire, so not a good reason to ensconce such mechanics in the core rules of a game.

As an edge case, maybe. I think you might still have an argument against needing a mechanical differentiation to explore that theme. Actually, putting the mechanic in could well limit your ability to take the gender roles theme in the direction of fighting against unfair stereotypes of gender-roles ( I wonder why I think gamers might have unfair stereotypes of gender differences?). If there is a codified mechanical difference in gender how can roles that reflect that difference be unfair?

There is a world of difference between men being stronger than women and no woman being strong enough to be a physically imposing warrior.

There is also a design space in this discussion that hasn't been touched. The rules for PCs and NPCs dont have to be the same. If a gamemaster wants to reflect the average strength for women being lower than for men among the general NPC population of his campaign without that being reflected in rules for PC creation; I doubt any players would have a problem with it, if they even noticed.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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. 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.

What about age? That seems to be accepted. That hasn't changed over the years, pcs still get a penalty for playing a middle aged character. If I play an inferior older warrior, it's always going to be lauded over me that I'm not quite as good as a younger warrior. Any time I miss an attack by 1 point, it will be because my character middle aged. I don't have any choice but to be middle aged in real life.

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

Generally speaking, I'd say most players aren't halflings, and generally speaking, I would personally assume that someone with genetic dwarfism would probably self-identify as "human" regardless of whether or not they find roleplaying a halfling to be an attractive choice.

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.

Oh, I'd almost expect if, for instance, the GM is more emotionally invested in his idea that only men can be Zhedai monks than he is in the idea that players can change things. Not much point in trying to effect social change there.

The trouble I generally see with a desire to "celebrate the difference" between the sexes, as implemented in games, is that it's slipshod and it doesn't account for exceptions. People want simple rules. But celebrating real differences between sexes requires acknowledging that the differences are not only myriad, but also so complicated that you just can't sum them up with a rule modifier that's simple enough to be gameable. The best way to actually note the differences is, I think, to write well-realized characters who feel more like actual people than an expression of the author's opinions or beliefs (or prejudices). It's damn hard, but it's a lot more convincing argument that the author understands and wants to celebrate gender differences than a stat modifier or an exclusive class.

 

[Umbran]

Some people believe that, the longer the post they make in defense of their position--and the more specific points they address in others' posts--the more knowledgeable and correct they seem.

Personally, I think these people just come off as insane.

And some people believe that it is okay to extrapolate from things said in a post to the personality of the poster. Some even believe that it is okay to say such things only in suggestion - that it is allowable so long as they don't name names.

Believe what you like, it isn't appropriate for these forums.

There's no call to address the personality behind the post - speak to the content, or just leave it be, please and thank you.

 

[Gryph]

What about age? That seems to be accepted. That hasn't changed over the years, pcs still get a penalty for playing a middle aged character. If I play an inferior older warrior, it's always going to be lauded over me that I'm not quite as good as a younger warrior. Any time I miss an attack by 1 point, it will be because my character middle aged. I don't have any choice but to be middle aged in real life.

A valid point. I think game design is moving away from those sorts of adjustments as well. Certainly D&D abandoned them and TSR AD&D had them in spades.

 

[Crothian]

For anyone advocating different rules, think about this: Any implementation of this is basically giving people different rules (be they bonuses, penalties, alternate feats, traits, etc) based on their real life sex, because people want to play the same sex in game that they are in real life most of the time. Is this really a thing that you want? Roleplaying is already male dominated, do you want to tell an interested female "Oh and here are the rules you have to follow."

If people play the a character that is the same gender they are then that is their choice. It is not making rules to punish them for their gender because they have a choice. Also, rules for gender are no different then the rules for a race or a class. Everyone will have different rules that apply to them because of their choices. Everyone is being treated the same here no matter what choice they make for their character.

 

[Umbran]

As an edge case, maybe. I think you might still have an argument against needing a mechanical differentiation to explore that theme.

I don't see where "need" enters the discussion. Do we "need" the difference to explore the theme? No, but then the theme could be explored with plain cooperative storytelling, with no "need" for any game rules whatsoever. So, "need" isn't relevant. The question is whether they can be a powerful enough tool that they make things better rather than worse.

Actually, putting the mechanic in could well limit your ability to take the gender roles theme in the direction of fighting against unfair stereotypes of gender-roles ( I wonder why I think gamers might have unfair stereotypes of gender differences?). If there is a codified mechanical difference in gender how can roles that reflect that difference be unfair?

Depends how crafty you want to be about it.

The best examples that comes to mind are several short stories set in Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe, where one species (the Kzinti), have selectively bred their species to the point of significant sexual dimorphism - their females are only on the bare edge of sentience, and their males are terribly aggressive - they make Klingons look gentle and passive.

"The Heroic Myth of Lieutenant Nora Argamentine," for example, is a very powerful tale, and it couldn't be told if that race didn't have the drastic differences in their genders. Several other tales play with the theme, as well, again hinging on that dimorphism.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I note that people have the impression that bonuses and penalties due to gender would somehow degrade women. Not necessarily. For instance IF I'd give bonuses and penalties for genders, I'd like to give +2 Strength for men and +2 Wisdom (or something similar) for women. These would just reflect the two classical examples: Men are stronger, but women have instinct (pleeeease don't execute me for saying that, please!).

Now men would be better with things relating to pure strength, and women would have all the wisdom... which in D&D would mean that women would rule the clergies and men would do all the hard work. And Druid is still the strongest Core Class at lower levels IMO.

That doesn't sound something that would automatically drive female players out, but if you're telling me that then really I won't argue. I just won't!

 

[Dracorat]

Even though D&D has been affected by the Politically Correct bandwagon and now focuses on plusses instead of penalties... (Not that I really disagree with this - I'm all for optimism...)

... when you have to make one choice over another that has a mechanical resolution, you still have an effective "penalty" in the choice made. You could have had the bonus of one, but now do not.

While I'm not opposed to such decisions, I do believe that each should have merit. In this case, I cannot abide that merit exists. While there are differences in genders as surely as there are differences in ethnicity, racial background, religious belief, etc, I cannot believe that such differences warrant a change of stat in any direction.

Furthermore, a difference in stat is a judgment call that at best shows inherent bias in the opinion of the adjustments author. For a character who is supposed to be at minimum, destined for greatness, such an adjustment is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Of course, you can sum all this up as my opinion, but I feel strongly about it.

And sure, I can admit there may be exceptions. A race based on spiders comes to mind. But the exceptions should be just that - exceptions - not the rule.

 

[Crothian]

... when you have to make one choice over another that has a mechanical resolution, you still have an effective "penalty" in the choice made. You could have had the bonus of one, but now do not..

At this point then I think each player has to decide are they going to play the character they want or do they just want to have the best numbers on a sheet of paper and don't care what options get them there. It is more about play style then anything. Removing gender from it I've seen people play a halfling with a minus to strength melee fighter. Sure, it is not the optimum choice but it is what they want to play. They could stick with that or remake the character with a race that has a bonus to strength. RPGs a lot of time are about choices and one cannot always have everything they want.