Genders - What's the difference?

[Gryph]

If the concept is the best dex human and female humans get a bonus to dex then the concept seems to support being a female human. But you want a male so therefore you limit yourself by the concept. Taking a gender with a lower dex is no different then taking a race with a lower dex which it seems you are willing to do. You either take the best for mechanical reasons or you stick with the original character concepts. No one is forcing you to do anything.

Your "rule" here is an artificial construct and flawed. Choice of gender and choice of race are clearly not equivalent to a lot of people who have posted in this thread, myself included. Strong character identification is part of the appeal of RPGs and it is much easier for someone to strongly identify with a character of their own gender. The only thing such a rule does in limit the universe of available character concepts, frustrating some portion of the potential player base. So why have them?

All of your posts about free choice and non-coercion are true as far as they go, but not relevant to that question.

 

[billd91]

Why are you assuming that the mechanics would make the gender inferior? No one I think is saying that gender mechanics would be there because one gender is better then the other. It would be like racial mechanics different but equal. So, if we did give a gender +2 wisdom then that's not going to alienate everyone that wants to play that gender or everyone that doesn't. It might alienate the small sub section that wants to play a low wisdom version of that gender or who because they are optimizing wants a different bonus for the character they are playing.

It wouldn't matter if it were a penalty or a bonus. In either event, one gender is defined to be inferior to the other in that particular way because, given the exact same input, one is necessarily better than the other.

Mechanically, it may look no different from the difference between PC races, but I assure you it's a far more loaded issue than that. As I've said, it's less of an issue if halflings are weaker than humans because there are no halflings to get pissed off by that difference. Start imposing strength penalties on females and you start pissing off the women who want to play as much of an ass kicking barbarian as the men they play with.

 

[Crothian]

Your "rule" here is an artificial construct and flawed. Choice of gender and choice of race are clearly not equivalent to a lot of people who have posted in this thread, myself included. Strong character identification is part of the appeal of RPGs and it is much easier for someone to strongly identify with a character of their own gender.

For some people this will hold true for others it will not. I'd say the same can be true for race though. Some gamers feel more comfortable playing humans then non humans. But this is not used as a reason as why other races should not have mechanically superiority to humans that I've seen.

The only thing such a rule does in limit the universe of available character concepts, frustrating some portion of the potential player base. So why have them?

All rules limit concepts. The rule that humans are medium sizes eliminates my concept of playing a giant or small human for instance. Game choices, campaign choices, group dynamic choices all limit concepts. It also seems the only concepts this is limiting is concepts that are the very best at something in a certain way. One can be the best fighter without the highest strength for instance. So, the concepts being limited are the min maxed concepts of players that want the highest of something and think they can't get it because of choices they have made.

I'm not advocating adding in these rules to every game. But I can imagine a game that they would be appropriate. I can imagine races that have genders different enough to warrant mechanical differences.

I wonder if the arguments against this are because of the human aspect. So, for humans both genders are mechanically the same. But for elves we make the genders mechanically different. And we do the same for the Xogaths, the three gender race I just now created.

 

[Gryph]

For some people this will hold true for others it will not. I'd say the same can be true for race though. Some gamers feel more comfortable playing humans then non humans. But this is not used as a reason as why other races should not have mechanically superiority to humans that I've seen.



All rules limit concepts. The rule that humans are medium sizes eliminates my concept of playing a giant or small human for instance. Game choices, campaign choices, group dynamic choices all limit concepts. It also seems the only concepts this is limiting is concepts that are the very best at something in a certain way. One can be the best fighter without the highest strength for instance. So, the concepts being limited are the min maxed concepts of players that want the highest of something and think they can't get it because of choices they have made.

I'm not advocating adding in these rules to every game. But I can imagine a game that they would be appropriate. I can imagine races that have genders different enough to warrant mechanical differences.

I wonder if the arguments against this are because of the human aspect. So, for humans both genders are mechanically the same. But for elves we make the genders mechanically different. And we do the same for the Xogaths, the three gender race I just now created.

Since medium covers Dwarves to Goliaths in D&D, I have trouble seeing the relevance of that as a limitation for a human concept.

No one is disputing that some rules limit choices. Other rules enable choices. It requires a rule to add a race or a class or set of skills to a game. All of these rules expand choice.

You seem to be very focused on the min/maxing aspect of character choice, I'm not sure why that is. It feels like a support of encoding gender bias in a rule set and I don't really think that's what your trying to do.

I already agreed with you and Umbran both earlier in the thread that if we are in a design space that encompasses a not recognizably human form of dimorphism (such as a tri-gendered species) that there maybe very good reasons for mechanical differences in the genders. At that point we aren't really talking about male and female anymore though, are we?

And yes my argument (if I wasn't entirely clear) is in the context of playing a human.

 

[Celebrim]

Your "rule" here is an artificial construct and flawed.

Why 'flawed'? Even more so, why 'artificial'?

You have a highly subjective opinion and you are looking at a different subjective opinion and trying to claim not just that your opinion is better, but that the particular way it is better is that your fantasy is more real? I don't buy that at all.

Choice of gender and choice of race are clearly not equivalent to a lot of people who have posted in this thread, myself included.

Ok, I understand that. But you haven't established that this discomfort with gender dimorphism is based on anything objective, only that you have this 'feeling'.

Strong character identification is part of the appeal of RPGs and it is much easier for someone to strongly identify with a character of their own gender.

In your opinion. I don't accept that as objective fact.

The only thing such a rule does in limit the universe of available character concepts

I don't agree. Your own example of wanting to play "the most dexterous possible" human would prevent you from playing a male character strikes me as very weak. You are comfortable you say with the idea that an elf will be more dexterous than you, but not comfortable with the idea that a human female would be more dexterous than you. Why? I don't see how those two are objectively different. What's worse about, "You're very dexterous for a boy?" compared to "You're very dexterous for an elf?"

Have we gone from, "You can't have templates for females because that's degrading to women!", to "You can't have templates for females because then some girl (character) might be better than this character I strongly self-identify with!"?

 

[El Mahdi]

For what it's worth, here's my opinion. For frame of reference, I'm coming at this from a 3/3.5E standpoint. There are some differences between 3E and 4E, and I'll point them out where they are significant, but for the most part Strength scores are comparable between editions. So...



I don't think that mechanical representations of gender differences are necessary, but if a group wants that, it's not that difficult to do without overly penalizing anyone. But, if one is going to impose "realism" because of Gender, one should also impose realism as far as reasonable Strength limitations and minimum body weights.

I did a quick and dirty (somewhat scientific) comparison of Human Male and Female Strengths based on body weight, and in reference to current Olympic Weightlifting World Records (Clean & Jerk). Unfortunately, the IOC doesn't keep track of such records for other character races.

This is the results:

Maximum real world Strength in D&D terms is: Males = 23, Females = 21

Amazingly, D&D agrees with the real-world here, as Maximum Human Strength Score in D&D is 23 (20th level, from the character advancement charts for both 3E and 4E). If you count Epic (above 20th level for both 3E and 4E) that can go as high as 26. That's significantly greater than the real-world, but since we're talking about mythical Hercules and such, it still works for me.

Real-world, I'm making the assumption that both Men and Woman have essentially the same physical potential as far as Dexterity goes. I'm making this assumption based upon a definition of Dexterity as only the efficiency of a persons mind-muscle neural connections and "Fast-twitch" muscle response. Granted, Men have an increased running speed potential than woman - but running speed in the real-world is as much an element of "strength" and cardio-vascular/pulmonary capacity as it is "quickness" (unlike D&D which mostly bases it on Dexterity only).

Also real-world: though there are differences between male and female brains as far as how we process, view the world, etc. - I don't believe there is a quantifiable mechanical difference between men and women as concerns Intelligence and Wisdom. So, I'm assuming men and women are equal in this regards also.

Constitution is a very general Ability (but then again, so are all the others) that combines many things into physical toughness, such as: ability to resist disease (bacteria, viruses, environmental damage, etc.), ability to resist poison, a quantification of structural/physical toughness, etc. If you look at each thing that makes up Constitution, there may be some that Men are more resitant to than Woman, but I think that the opposite may be true for others. Then if you break it down into different specific things (different viruses, diseases, etc.), you'll find differences there also. So in the end, I believe it's a wash.

Charisma combines too many things (personality, charm, attractiveness, etc.), that are all so subjective from the point of any individual viewer, that there's no way to say Men or Woman are "objectively" more or less Charismatic in comparison. There's no doubt that Men and Woman are different in how they project and utilize Charisma, but I don't think it's possible to nail down an objectively quantifiable difference. So, I'll call this one a wash also.

So, IMO the only thing that seems to present a clear and objective difference both mechanically and quantifiably, is Strength.

But for balance purposes, if one is instituting a penalty, one should also probably institute an offsetting bonus. So, with the above in mind, here's my Human Gender Adjustment Houserule(s):

Human Male: Race as written.
Human Female: -2 Strength, +2 Dexterity

or

Maximum Strength at 20th level (without magical or other enhancement): Male = 23, Female = 21
Maximum Dexterity at 20th level (without magical or other enhancement): Male and Female = 23



Strength Score / Male Minimum Weight / Female Minimum Weight
18 / 100+ lbs. / 100+ lbs.
19 / 110+ lbs. / 125+ lbs.
20 / 120+ lbs. / 160+ lbs.
21 / 135+ lbs. / 200+ lbs.
22 / 160+ lbs.
23 / 210+ lbs.

Also, height should be set accordingly. It's highly unlikely that a 120 lb., 6' tall Man is going to have a 20 Strength (5' would be more realistic).


This allows for starting scores making Males stronger and Females more dextrous, and carries those differences throughout charcter advancement (unless a player decides not to focus on those Abilities), but still limits those abilities at real-world maximums. It also requires a realistic body weight for comparable strength. So you don't have a an average Female Human (weighing say, 150 lbs.) having a 21 Strength (like Zena).


Or, you could ignore the bonus/penalty portion, and only enforce the Maximum Strength Limits. This way, you can have female characters that can start the game just as strongly as male characters (with 18 Strength), but still adhere to real-world limits.



Also, for your enjoyment or fodder (depending on each individuals preference), attached are the charts I used to record my "scentific" research. (Source was the list of current Olympic Weightlifting World Records: Clean & Jerk, from Wikipedia here).

Snatch and Clean & Jerk are the most comparable to the D&D "Lift Over Head", with "Lift" being a "Dead Lift" and "Drag/Pull" being self-explanatory. I used the Clean & Jerk category as the weights lifted were universally higher than the Snatch (and we are talking about Heroes here - they're obviously going to use the method with the best results).

These charts are based on 3/3.5E (where applicable). 3/3.5E and 4E are mostly comparable for ability scores/carry capacities, just with 4E using a more simplified method of calculation (that does cause some differences at different Strength scores, though nothing significant enough to change a Strength Score compared to real-world World Records). Also, 4E doesn't differentiate a "Lift Over Head" like 3/3.5E does - so, since the basic carry and lift weights are mostly comparable, I've made the assumption that the "Lift Over Head" weights would be comparable also.

Enjoy.

 

[Crothian]

Since medium covers Dwarves to Goliaths in D&D, I have trouble seeing the relevance of that as a limitation for a human concept.

Just an example, muight not be the best but for 30 seconds of thought that's what I came up with.

No one is disputing that some rules limit choices. Other rules enable choices. It requires a rule to add a race or a class or set of skills to a game. All of these rules expand choice.

Without rules you can do whatever you want. But this gets into what rules do and that's a different discussion. Do we need rules that allow us to do things or do we need rules to tell us what we are not allowed to do.

You seem to be very focused on the min/maxing aspect of character choice, I'm not sure why that is. It feels like a support of encoding gender bias in a rule set and I don't really think that's what your trying to do.

That is in response to the examples people keep giving me. It all has to do about having the highest possible strength or the highest possible dexterity or whatever.

I already agreed with you and Umbran both earlier in the thread that if we are in a design space that encompasses a not recognizably human form of dimorphism (such as a tri-gendered species) that there maybe very good reasons for mechanical differences in the genders. At that point we aren't really talking about male and female anymore though, are we?

And yes my argument (if I wasn't entirely clear) is in the context of playing a human.

This is just trying to see where the line is. Is it all gender based mechanics are bad? Is it all gender based mechanics with just 2 genders is bad? Or is it gender mechanics applied just to humans is bad? Different people will have different places where they see the line so I was just opening up discussion along those lines with everyone.

To further that discussion since you clearly state it is with humans that your issue lies what if a fantasy gamed had humans but clearly defined withing the context of the game that the genders were not equal. It is a fantasy game so the gods when they created humankind made men better at X and women better at Y.

 

[Gryph]

I don't agree. Your own example of wanting to play "the most dexterous possible" human would prevent you from playing a male character strikes me as very weak. You are comfortable you say with the idea that an elf will be more dexterous than you, but not comfortable with the idea that a human female would be more dexterous than you. Why? I don't see how those two are objectively different. What's worse about, "You're very dexterous for a boy?" compared to "You're very dexterous for an elf?"

Have we gone from, "You can't have templates for females because that's degrading to women!", to "You can't have templates for females because then some girl (character) might be better than this character I strongly self-identify with!"?

I play RPGs for fun. Fun is an inherently subjective concept. I freely admit all of my arguments about what I consider fun and unfun in RPGs are subjective. I also call mea culpa to believing my opinions are better than Crothian's in this thread. You got me.

My example was meant as a thought exercise to demonstrate a male viewpoint version of a conversation I had with a good friend of mine I gamed with for years. She had been an army MP for 14 years and police officer and DEA agent in the civilian world. It frustrated her that game rules attempted for reasons of "realism" to limit her ability to play a very strong female warrior. Not "strong for a girl", but strong for a warrior.

I clearly failed. I also hate playing rogues.

 

[Crothian]

I play RPGs for fun. Fun is an inherently subjective concept. I freely admit all of my arguments about what I consider fun and unfun in RPGs are subjective. I also call mea culpa to believing my opinions are better than Crothian's in this thread. You got me.

No one's opinion is better then anyone else, but I don't think that is an issue in this discussion. Neither of us that I've noticed has positioned their argument in a way to make me feel like it was the right one. I like learning and exploring the reasons and issues with someone who disagrees with me; I feel I learn something by understandign an opposing or different view. So, I thank you for that.

My example was meant as a thought exercise to demonstrate a male viewpoint version of a conversation I had with a good friend of mine I gamed with for years. She had been an army MP for 14 years and police officer and DEA agent in the civilian world. It frustrated her that game rules attempted for reasons of "realism" to limit her ability to play a very strong female warrior. Not "strong for a girl", but strong for a warrior.

I have run into that same issue except with a petite history major who's character concept was and I quote "Like Conan but with boobs."

 

[Gryph]

Just an example, muight not be the best but for 30 seconds of thought that's what I came up with.

I've misfired myself often enough .

Without rules you can do whatever you want. But this gets into what rules do and that's a different discussion. Do we need rules that allow us to do things or do we need rules to tell us what we are not allowed to do.

See, I misfired right here.

That is in response to the examples people keep giving me. It all has to do about having the highest possible strength or the highest possible dexterity or whatever.

Ok, that explains it. I think you and I are talking about an only partially overlapping area of the meta-game. Where you see "I want the best score possible", I am remembering gamer friends saying "Why can't I be as strong as the guys". I have never had an answer to that I was comfortable giving to my friend Natty. She can totally kick my ass.

This is just trying to see where the line is. Is it all gender based mechanics are bad? Is it all gender based mechanics with just 2 genders is bad? Or is it gender mechanics applied just to humans is bad? Different people will have different places where they see the line so I was just opening up discussion along those lines with everyone.

To further that discussion since you clearly state it is with humans that your issue lies what if a fantasy gamed had humans but clearly defined withing the context of the game that the genders were not equal. It is a fantasy game so the gods when they created humankind made men better at X and women better at Y.

I'm not sure I want to try and put a good/bad value judgement on gender mechanics. I also, in the context of a fantasy game or superheroic game or superheroic fantasy game, don't want to say to my daughter "your fighter can't be as strong as your brother's fighter cause she's a girl. The world is a hard place, suck it up." I don't want to tell that to my friends, either. And since they have been removed from most games released in the last decade I don't think commercial game publishers want to tell that to over half of the potential purchasing public.

And whether you believe that they are "realistic" or not; is the added sense of realism contributing more to a game then the limiting options is removing in terms of player and gm enjoyment?

The answer to that is clearly a personal one for everyone. I think I've been clear in this thread that my answers are subjective and thereby purely opinion. Where I have expressed disapproval for gender mechanics it has been in an attempt to illustrate a viewpoint that has been expressed to me by several female gamers.

I game mostly with a group of middle-aged, married couples and some of our kids. We've known and gamed with each other for over 20 years. In our group, a scenario where the gods made men and women substantially different would play like an attempt to codify in game the worst of historical patriarchal gender roles. I'm not sure I would escape the game session alive if I proposed them.