Genders - What's the difference?

[Fifth Element]

As to affecting gameplay, I've asked the Female gamers in my group (that also exclusively play Female characters) what they thought about this, and they have no problem with a Cap. Therefore, no negative results. As with anything, YMMV.

Indeed, some have been arguing with respect to the system as a whole, not just what goes on at your table.

You're more right than you knew (read above)...except that it was two sentences...

The first sentence was not part of the summary.

 

[Ampersand999]

A couple of thoughts from the 14 pages of posts I've perused:

I think it's pretty clear if we're going to have a more realistic look at weight and height and correlating them to the stats, then the stats should correlate to the height, weight, etc. instead of them being sort of unrelated to each other as they seem to be in gameplay. That way, we don't have the problem of a normal human with an 18 score in Strength and is only 5'5" and 150 pounds. That would probably take a computer program to resolve.

I think there is a gender difference in some games, but it's not in the stats. I think it is in other game mechanics that lend itself to social options rather than statistical options. For example:

1. 7th Sea had it where if you were Vodacce (Italian) and female, you can see threads and cast fate cards and pretty much ruin someone else life. Males couldn't do this, but some males, if they took a feat, they were immune to the effects of the female Sorte casters, and that scared the heck out of them (which also lead to many of them trying to find these guys and have them be on their side). I believe a similar taboo was in place if you were from Avalon (The British Isles).
2. World of Time RPG had it where you had a better chance to cast spells if you were female, I believe, otherwise men would go insane.
3. And there are a lot of different feats and a few prestige classes, both in print and in home rules, that had a prerequisite in terms of race and gender. Some had stat abilities, but most involved class skills. Unfortunately, none come to mind immediately. I don't recall seeing any specifically in Forgotten Realms, but I thought there might have been a few in the Eberron campaign.

Having social gender issues in a game could be interesting to a degree, not in terms of whether a guy could throw better than a girl, but rather for example if it was assumed for instance if in your game, your Gods allowed men to become priests and women could become druids. It shouldn't be evident everywhere, but creep up in small ways here and there. What your characters would do with those inconsistencies in another wise egalitarian world would be up to them.

 

[billd91]

Indeed, some have been arguing with respect to the system as a whole, not just what goes on at your table.

Yup. Since the question in the OP was about gender differences for PCs in RPGs (in general being implied), that's the way I've been pursuing the issue. As I said before, there may be situations in which a gender difference may add to the game. But they really shouldn't be pervasive or the gender on the minus side of the exchange will seek their entertainment elsewhere more often than not. And most publishers, I believe, recognize this.

I'd also like to point out that you don't to have a sexist intent to have a negative downstream effect. Was Gygax intending to keep 1e AD&D as a male's game by putting strength caps on female PCs? Probably not. But it probably did more harm in attracting women to become enthusiasts than it offered any positive effect in play.

 

[S'mon]

That's not remotely what my post said. Those physical differences exist. They exist because of sexism. If you jettison our species history of sexism then you can jettison the physical differences and maintain realism.

Presumably all the other species with sexual body dimorphism are sexist too, then? That's a lot of sexism!

 

[nedjer]

This all recalls a kickboxing session a few years ago. Girl and boy face off, boy prances around, flicks a few jabs and feigns a few times. One kick WHAM, boy crying on the floor. Ain't what you got, but how you use it

 

[Elf Witch]

El Mahdi I would pack up and walk away from your game if I was told that I had a cap on my strength. Partly because it would bug the crap out of me that my female fighter will never be as good in the long run as a male fighter. It would also bother me that fighters in general both male and females are being penalized. Why should fighters have a cap on their prime attribute and no other class has one.

And having to make a dex fighter when what I really want is a plate wearing tank just not to have a cap is taking choices away from me.

I don't think most of the guys are sexist here but as a female who has experienced sexism in my life this feels like sexism. With penalties or caps in a game I am being told that my character can never be as good as a male character and no matter how you sugar coat it basically comes down to the fact that male fighters will be superior to female fighters.

My son plays DnD he is in his early thirties and I asked his opinion on this today while we out and his response was that it was a dumb idea not needed and unfair to female characters. He didn't see how it made the game more realistic. That PCs are special and so it is not surprising they are stronger than the average NPC. If you want that kind of realism then do it with your NPC but leave the PCs alone. There are a lot of in game ways to explain it the higher strength. The female fighters have been touched by the gods, their race has been modified by wizards those were just two ideas we came up with.

 

[Nightson]

First of all, you're making an assumption that I carry a sexist bias (whether it's because of species history or any other reason).

You made a false assumption.

Secondly, those differences exist for a lot of reasons. In some species, I'd agree that sexism has played a part and had an influence on development of sexual differentiation (specifically Humans), though I doubt it's even the most significant factor in any species (even Humans). But, even if it is a significant factor, to limit the cause of physical differences between sexes to sexism, completely ignores all other affirmed and speculated reasons for this being so. Differences between Males and Females are prevalent in almost every complex organism on the planet. Since Sexism is by definition, a belief in the superiority of one sex over another, and belief requires (by most definitions) the ability to understand concepts and philosophy, and since the majority of complex organisms (that also have diferentiated sexes) aren't capable of such complex thought, I'd say your assertion is simply not true.

Everytime someone in this thread has described anyone of developing sexist mechanics, thinking in a sexist manner, being sexist, etc. - they are saying that the specified person has a belief in the superiority of Males over Females. I can't answer for everybody in this thread, as statistically it's likely there are people in this thread who do believe that, but as for me (and statistically I'm likely not the only one), I don't share that belief.

Different: Yes.

Superior: Absolutely Not.


Since maybe you weren't aware of the definition of that word, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that no insult was intended. But since you do know now what's being said with that word, I'd ask again:

Please stop describing posters in this thread and there ideas as Sexist.

It's insulting, unfair, and against the rules of these Forums.


Thank You. (in advance)

Christ, I am not calling you sexist.

Saying sexism is only the belief that one sex is superior is just a poor definition. Enforcing gender roles is sexist too. Which is not what you're doing when you talk about an existing strength gap between genders.

But if someone (nobody in this thread) talks about how women should stay in the kitchen and raise kids and definitely not work or drive, even if they profess that they don't hold males to be superior, just fulfilling separate roles, nobody in this thread would not call them sexist.

I am talking about this only to say the definition you provide is insufficient, for this conversation, people use sexism to describe sex based discrimination all the time.

We as a species, sexually select for larger, more muscular men and and smaller and less muscular women. This is a cultural meme that is sexist. It's been in place a long time, and is still in place now. The tall, muscular guy who can benchpress 400 pounds, that's not going to stop him from getting dates, it's a plus. The tall, muscular women who can benchpress 400 pounds is not in the same situation, she's going to have a much harder time getting dates.

Further we live in a culture where athleticism is a male trait. Females are discouraged from it, by peers, by parents, by culture. You lose girls every step of the way.

It's not sexist at all to say the differences exist. It's also not sexist to claim the difference is entirely genetic and inherent. I think it's wrong but it's not sexist.

The point I made in my post is that if you jettison the sexism in our society. Remove the gender roles and the discouragement, remove the sexual selection for larger males and smaller females, and you're going to find that if there's a difference it's going to be much, much smaller then the already not that large difference.

So if you have a strength penalty or a strength cap of women in your D&D world for realism purposes, then you should make sure the world also has a history of sexism towards women in that it enforced the gender roles that helped lead to it.

And if you don't have a penalty or cap, then just jettison the cultural baggage of sexism and you'll be just as realistic.

 

[Nightson]

Presumably all the other species with sexual body dimorphism are sexist too, then? That's a lot of sexism!

If male spiders could make signs you better believe they'd be demonstrating against this whole getting eaten after sex thing.

 

[S'mon]

The point I made in my post is that if you jettison the sexism in our society. Remove the gender roles and the discouragement, remove the sexual selection for larger males and smaller females, and you're going to find that if there's a difference it's going to be much, much smaller then the already not that large difference.

While this is probably overstated, my impression is that among human ethnies there do seem to be some differences in the amount of male/female dimorphism. Nordic and West African women seem rather larger compared to their men than do Mediterranean or Arab women compared to their men, for instance. Just comparing say Norwegian and Italian women it seems quite noticeable to me, even though the men are still much larger in both cases. I'm not sure if any studies have been done on this though.

 

[Fifth Element]

Presumably all the other species with sexual body dimorphism are sexist too, then? That's a lot of sexism!

Compared to a great many species, human males and females are basically identical to each other. Other than the bits that make them male and female, of course.