Genders - What's the difference?

[Elf Witch]

I know that is a common sentiment on these boards to express a dislike in something. But this time it has a bit more import to me, and resulting disapointment. I remember from the Gamers Seeking Gamers page that you're relatively close to where I live. Once I finally got my houserules and campaign finished, I was going to start trying to put together a full group. Hopefully one with multiple GM's switching between campaigns and game systems. I'm not presuming that you would have wanted to participate, but I am disapointed now knowing you likely wouldn't even consider it because of this.



You have some misconceptions about my houserules (but understandable since there's no way you could have ever seen them...).

First, I use the 4E concept of being able to choose which physical attribute one wants to use as the primary for combat. That means choosing Strength or Dexterity (I even allow using Intelligence) as the determiner for Attack and Damage bonuses. If what one is looking for is a specific numerical bonus, then go with an ability that can be raised the highest (and roleplay it accordingly: i.e. Strong, Dextrous, or Smart).

Second, I do cap other abilities also. No ability score for any race can ever be higher than 23...period. Beyond this is a range unreachable by Mortals. Also, other races have caps much lower. For instance, I think it's absurd to have a 3' tall Gnome walking around with 18 strength (able to lift 300 lbs. over their head...that's ten times their own body weight!).

Third, characters have a defensive progression, with Defense bonuses based on a choice of Dexterity or Intelligence. Also, armor provides a slight defensive increase in combination with a damage reduction factor (but I don't use RAW DR, armor instead provides extra Hit Points).

Lastly, I've rewritten the majority of skills. Swimming, orginally a Strength based skill, is now Constitution based (endurance) - and can only be used trained. Jump (and similar skills), much like combat bonuses, use either Strength or Dexterity (whichever the player chose as the primary attribute at character creation).

So, even with a Strength cap, a Female character has the EXACT same potential as a Male character, at every level and across all aspects of the game (combat, skills, feats, etc.). A Female Armored Tank character is going to have the exact same combat potential as a Male Armored Tank...no sugar coating necessary. The only difference will be in sheer lifting capability. Since a 21 Strength allows for an equivalent to the real-world Womens Olympic Weightlifting World Record (and then some), and a 23 Strength allows for an equivalent to the real-world Mens Olympic Weightlifting World Record (and then some, again), AND THIS IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, I don't have a problem with it. Different is not automatically unequal.

In a pure Fantasy game, the sky is the limit - and I prefer it that way. Character concepts that are completely outside of reality, even character concepts that seem silly or absurd to some, are completely okay and even encouraged. The campaign I'm preparing IS NOT a Fantasy Campaign. In a non-Fantasy campaign, allowing unrealisitic concepts or abilities would be absurdly inappropriate.

I appreciate and understand your feelings about this and the reasons for it, but I think you're unfairly judging this based on that.

Personally, I also wouldn't want caps like this in a standard D&D game, but I'm also not going to tell anyone who does that they are wrong or sexist. I believe that I'm not qualified to judge anyone elses intentions or motivations, and I'm definitely not qualified to tell anyone else what is wrong or un-fun for them or their group. I don't believe anyone else here is qualifed to do that either.



Both of which would be completely inappropriate for a campaign based on a real historical period and events. I wonder if you told him the entire premise in which it was being used, specifically a historical non-fantasy campaign, and whether his answer would be different with that information?

Even in this campaign, PC's are special. But they're special not because of their skills or stats, but because they think and act differently than those who aren't Heros. It's not the stats that matter, it's what you do with them.

Just like in real life.

I have no experience with 4 ED so when someone says use dex instead of strength I look at it from a 3.5 point of view. And in my opinion dex based fighters have a lot of disadvantages in that system. Now if they are being allowed to use that to hit and do damage and wear decent armor then I would have no issue. My big issue in 3.5 with dex fighters is the armor issue. Without magic to boost up your ac you are stuck with chain as the best you can do.

I played a dex based fighter in a low magic game and after awhile it stopped being fun. I got tired of being hit because of my lower AC. Where the tanks in heavy armor were able to go toe to toe with the bad guys.

I also played one is 3.0 game where the DM changed how armor and damage worked. Basically armor took off points of damage and dex made you harder to hit. So a plate wearing tank got hit more often but took less damage and the dex light armor got hit a lot less but it hurt more when they got hit hard. That made playing a dex based fighter a lot more fun.

As a player I don't have an issue with the DM wanting to try something different like cap abilities or forbid certain classes or races. As long as it is aimed at all the PCs not just a few of them.

I played in the early days of 1 ED and I have to tell you that a lot of the stuff that went on left a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to some of this. I saw it as an excuse a lot of DM used to penalize female characters because the idea that a woman would be as good a fighter as a man was just unbelievable.

As someone who has experienced it I am going to say that it is wrong to do it in a standard fantasy game. It may not be sexist in the pure sense of the word but it has the potential to marginalize female characters for no other reason than it might make the game a little more realistic.

In one game I played in all one session there was a lot of rape of female characters. The DM based it on realism because rape by conquering forces was fairly common, sadly it is a tactic still being used by some armed forces. It was very tasteless and made me and the other girl at the table very uncomfortable.

In another game female characters had str, and int penalties because at that time it was thought that men were smarter than woman because of math and science. The only advantage female characters got was a plus to seduction.

It was things like this that made me quit gaming and when I came back I only played superhero games where you didn't have to deal with this stuff. I didn't start playing DnD again until 1995.

While most fantasy games are based on a pseudo medieval world they are far from mirroring the real historical world. As someone who has studied that period of time for my SCA persona I can pretty much say that that none of the games I played DnD in came close to be historically accurate. I don't have an issue with that. But it does seem silly to just focus on one thing and that being how strong woman are compared to men.

As for an historical game that is a different story if you are going for that realism in all areas then yes I can see doing different strength caps for male and female. But in that style a game I would hope not to see elves and dragons and magic being used. Because then it is no longer an historical game but a fantasy and that leads me back to why are you choosing the realism of differences in male and females strength. While allowing other non realistic things in game.

I played Pendragon with all the minuses in size and strength as a female knight pretending to be a male knight. It was fun and I enjoyed the role playing of hiding my true identity. But to be honest I am not a huge fan of most historical games because woman's roles in them are often confining it kind of sucked to be a woman for most part in the past. Often you were just glorified property of your male relatives.

My conversation with my son was based on this entire thread not just what you said. I am sorry if that was miscommunicated on my part. And we were talking about standard DnD games.

I don't want to give the impression that I would not be interested in hearing what you would want to do if you invited me to your table. Actually as a player I am very flexible and willing to work with the DM on helping make his concept come to life. What you described does not sound like you are trying to marginalize female fighters or fighters in general. I would not have an issue that I can't lift as much weight as a male character as long as I am just as good in combat and can kick butt and take names with the rest of the fighters.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As for an historical game that is a different story if you are going for that realism in all areas then yes I can see doing different strength caps for male and female. But in that style a game I would hope not to see elves and dragons and magic being used. Because then it is no longer an historical game but a fantasy and that leads me back to why are you choosing the realism of differences in male and females strength. While allowing other non realistic things in game.

This is something I don't completely understand. Why is it bad to have a certain balance between fantasy and simulation? Why must it be, "if you involve fantasy, throw out most of the concepts of realism in the game"?

It seems, to me, that you can strike a balance between the two. I can have giants and dragons in the game and still want to simulate as much as possible. Does that seem like too much to want?

 

[Elf Witch]

This is something I don't completely understand. Why is it bad to have a certain balance between fantasy and simulation? Why must it be, "if you involve fantasy, throw out most of the concepts of realism in the game"?

It seems, to me, that you can strike a balance between the two. I can have giants and dragons in the game and still want to simulate as much as possible. Does that seem like too much to want?

I can understand wanting realism even in fantasy. But we are playing a game for fun and enjoyment that is why I play. So when you start bringing in restrictions like strength caps or penalties based on being a female character I have to wonder how that bit of realism is more vital to the cause of realism than say having talking dragons.


I don't have an issue with gender restrictions to classes in a game. If it is there for world flavor. I have done it in a game I ran. It was based on an Amazon like society where woman were warriors and men were not allowed to become warriors because in the past there war like ways had led them to almost destroying the world.

I would play in a game that did the opposite and said no female warriors as long as I had other viable choices. As long as it was for this game not every game like the jerky DM who said no female paladins ever in any game he ran.

 

[pawsplay]

Which is I think pretty ridiculous.

Why? Chimpanzees aside, you have an adult creature which can wield many human-sized implements. You are pretty much stuck in the -4 to -2 range for a Str modifier if you want something playale and realistic. An actual chimpanzee has more than human strength. Halflings are not built like chimpanzees, and their strength falls back considerably, but there isn't any logic to an extreme Strength modifier. Halflings can jump, climb, open jars, and stab people with weapons, all within the realm of believability, and with only somewhat less efficiency than a full-sized person.

Why on earth would appealing to the existance of a fantasy race whose characteristics cannot be really measured have anything to do with how you view the reality of the differences in strength between human men and women?

Because it tells you how the system is benchmarked. Regardless of how you might view the situation, pretty much every edition of D&D says that basically humanoid creatures should be given very conservative Str modifiers in either direction. If men-women sex differences exceed an obvious comparison, like human to halfling, or human to half-orc, that stretches believability. As ability scores are general (definitely) and abstract (necessarily) system benchmarks are very important.

You say you don't apply sex differences in your house rules. I have to speculatate that at some level you agree with the logic that has been presented, but you are unwilling to give ground because you are attached to specific points you want to make. What, exactly, are you trying to tell us pages later into this thread?

To review, I think it has been established that:
- Real-world measures are hard to compare to ability scores, even ones as relatively concrete as Strength
- It's not clear if real-world measures have any bearing on what should be represented in the game
- Even if it does have some bearing, it's not clear how to balance this for PCs
- Even if you knew what you were trying to accomplish, exactly, many games don't offer a fine enough level of detail to handle these things elegantly
- It's probably not worth the effort
- Even if you succeed, you have to ask yourself if what you have gained is worth the negative messages you may be sending to women in the group about what level of participation and freedom to exercise their imagination they can expect
- Even if it's worth it to you, other people are going to balk, for any number of reasons from the top to the bottom of the list.
- At least one or more of these reasons has already persuaded you, since you don't use such rules in your game

What is there to debate at this point?

 

[Umbran]

Because it tells you how the system is benchmarked. Regardless of how you might view the situation, pretty much every edition of D&D says that basically humanoid creatures should be given very conservative Str modifiers in either direction. If men-women sex differences exceed an obvious comparison, like human to halfling, or human to half-orc, that stretches believability. As ability scores are general (definitely) and abstract (necessarily) system benchmarks are very important.

You have an *excellent* point, here.

I have to speculatate that at some level you agree with the logic that has been presented

If I may - you have a less excellent point here. No, you don't have to speculate on his state of mind. Your point is solid enough, you shouldn't undermine it by suggesting somehow you know his mind better than he does. It makes the fist point weaker by association.

 

[Celebrim]

Why?

Is that a rhetorical question or do you not believe I have a reason?

For one thing, I think that the strength modifier applied to halflings was applied only for the sake of 'playability' without any real in game justification. It violates the game systems own guidelines for adjusting creatures attribute according to size, which in general state that going down one size involves a -4 penalty to strength and constitution and a +2 bonus to dexterity.

For another thing, in a nutshell, the house cat vs. commoner problem. D&D has traditionally minimized the disadvantages of small size to the point that being small is an advantage. In 1st edition, all large size did for you was make you more vulnerable to the most commonly employed weapons. In 3rd edition, while there has been something of a nod to realism, being 'small' is often an advantage compared to being 'medium'. For example, 'small' doesn't have a reach disadvantage, and actually gains a bonus to 'to hit' and AC - two of the most important numbers in the game. The disadvantage of a small size weapon continues to decrease as the game goes on and the modifiers to damage increasingly outweigh the small random factor of the die throw. There are some drawbacks (speed and grappling), but not as much as you'd expect for weighing 30lbs.

So while I know all about chimpanzees and caracal's, I don't feel that the small-sized PC races are anything but gamist in construction. I don't buy into them. It's just a special case of the house cat problem, and until your system deals with the house cat problem well, I don't think you can scoff to much at my criticism of how it handles size nor are you on that solid of ground when claiming the system is within the realm of believable.

Because it tells you how the system is benchmarked. Regardless of how you might view the situation, pretty much every edition of D&D says that basically humanoid creatures should be given very conservative Str modifiers in either direction. If men-women sex differences exceed an obvious comparison, like human to halfling, or human to half-orc, that stretches believability.

No, no, no. It stretches playability. Don't mix up the needs of the game with the desire for simulation and internal consistancy.

]You say you don't apply sex differences in your house rules. I have to speculatate that at some level you agree with the logic that has been presented...

That might be too strong. I agree that those are valid reasons for not having sex differences in your house rules. I'm not sure that I agree absolutely within anyone here but myself. For one thing, my position mechanically holds a middle ground between absolute differences and no differences, and if anything I've been thinking about after reading this thread expanding that middle ground with more options for emphasizing gender difference. (I even have in mind an idea for a male only feat, and I'm brainstorming for ideas for additional optional gender related traits.) For another thing, I don't agree as fully with your 'points of agreement' as you seem to agree with them.

What, exactly, are you trying to tell us pages later into this thread?

To stop judging each other and try to understand each other rather than trying to shut down discussion, to listen, to stop trying to force people to agree with you, and to not pass judgment on people's motives. And beyond that to the extent that I have 'skin in the game', it's to get people to accept and be comfortable with gender differences so that we don't have to live in fantasy worlds in order to believe that men and women are equal.

There is a quote by GK Chesterton that runs something like: "Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." I'd be uncomfortable having my daughters read fairy tales where the heroines overcame dragons by main force alone, any more than I'd be comfortable with fairy tales that said strength didn't matter. Really this trope is as old as dirt. The oldest version of this story I can think of is Athena and Ares. Athena represents the feminine virtue of war, and in the stories is held in higher esteem than her brutish but stronger male counterpart. Athena always bests Ares in battle, not because she is stronger, but because there is more to her than just strength. If as sexist of a people as the ancient greeks can be comfortable with this, I wonder why we are having so much trouble with it.

 

[pawsplay]

You have an *excellent* point, here.

Thank you.

If I may - you have a less excellent point here. No, you don't have to speculate on his state of mind. Your point is solid enough, you shouldn't undermine it by suggesting somehow you know his mind better than he does. It makes the fist point weaker by association.

It is my experience that it is sometimes less important to be correct, than to be engaged. If the thrust of my argument is orthogonal to the source of the disagreement, I am wasting keystrokes.

 

[pawsplay]

That might be too strong. I agree that those are valid reasons for not having sex differences in your house rules.

So what are those reasons? I am interested.

For another thing, I don't agree as fully with your 'points of agreement' as you seem to agree with them.

I've had a lot of time to think about these issues. I actually went through the effort, a few years ago, of trying to quantify male v. female differences in GURPS and D&D, and the basics of my argument derive from that exercise. The whole +3 relative lifting Str thing was not plucked out of thin air.

Metrics are a very interesting topic to me... as I am a trained psychometrician, who has adminstered a number of I.Q. tests under the supervision of a psychologist, questions of normality and fariness are firmly practical to me and non-hypothetical.

So it is not that I am firmly persuaded to one point of view, so much as that I have a lot of thoughts I have developed to the point I can present a cogent argument on them. I could, if you wished, present an argument why men should have a +4 overall Strength relative to women, and there is one to be made, but the argument is, in my view substantially weaker, less moral, and has the potential yield less that would be useful.

I am a pragmatist. If my position seems stubborn, it is because the facts, issues, and ideas present a stubborn reality, from my viewpoint. If my opinion seems impassioned, it is because I do feel strongly about it, and I believe, as you do, that the consequences of belief extend far beyond the realm of fantasy.

There is a quote by GK Chesterton that runs something like: "Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."

Can dragons be killed by women?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I can understand wanting realism even in fantasy. But we are playing a game for fun and enjoyment that is why I play. So when you start bringing in restrictions like strength caps or penalties based on being a female character I have to wonder how that bit of realism is more vital to the cause of realism than say having talking dragons.

Let's keep in mind, however, that enjoyment is exceptionally subjective. I think the people in this thread that have been in favor of discussion (and not even necessarily implementation!) are more in the right than those who seem to imply that the discussion should not even take place.

If all you're saying is that it wouldn't be fun for you if you play, then I totally get that. We're on the same page, in that the game wouldn't be right for you. I think it's fair for others to discuss it, however, even if they have no specific rules they are planning on implementing.

As always, play what you like

I don't have an issue with gender restrictions to classes in a game. If it is there for world flavor. I have done it in a game I ran. It was based on an Amazon like society where woman were warriors and men were not allowed to become warriors because in the past there war like ways had led them to almost destroying the world.

I would play in a game that did the opposite and said no female warriors as long as I had other viable choices. As long as it was for this game not every game like the jerky DM who said no female paladins ever in any game he ran.

I'm all for you playing the type of game that appeals to you. Sounds like you have an open mind on the matter. I just don't want the discussion in this thread shut down unnecessarily, when it could lead to interesting results. I think what Celebrim and I have briefly discussed in terms of a (now some-what stackable?) free feat is interesting. I think his implementation of optional character traits that help distinguish the sexes is interesting.

I'd prefer we see what other interesting ways of implementation there can be, without the needless claims of "perceived sexism" by others in this thread (others, as in not from you).

Again, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

Let's keep in mind, however, that enjoyment is exceptionally subjective. I think the people in this thread that have been in favor of discussion (and not even necessarily implementation!) are more in the right than those who seem to imply that the discussion should not even take place.

If all you're saying is that it wouldn't be fun for you if you play, then I totally get that. We're on the same page, in that the game wouldn't be right for you. I think it's fair for others to discuss it, however, even if they have no specific rules they are planning on implementing.

As always, play what you like



I'm all for you playing the type of game that appeals to you. Sounds like you have an open mind on the matter. I just don't want the discussion in this thread shut down unnecessarily, when it could lead to interesting results. I think what Celebrim and I have briefly discussed in terms of a (now some-what stackable?) free feat is interesting. I think his implementation of optional character traits that help distinguish the sexes is interesting.

I'd prefer we see what other interesting ways of implementation there can be, without the needless claims of "perceived sexism" by others in this thread (others, as in not from you).

Again, play what you like

I don't think the topic should be shut down at all. I for one have found it interesting. I think sex linked feats and optional traits are an intriguing idea. As long as they give some kind of equal but different benefits that are actually used in a game.

Was it your idea about the different feats? I actually think that is a rather cool idea. And I may do something like that the next time I run a game.

Because of my experience as a female gamer all I am trying to do is point out why stat differences between male and females could be a bad idea and how some female gamers might feel about it.

For example my roommate who games and DMs actually got a little pissy over this topic. It really bugged her a lot. Mainly because she is such a powergamer who likes to play tough female warrior types. She said that she has no desire to go back to the bad old days of gaming. Where she often played a male character to get around the restrictions.

My rule is this if everybody at the table is having fun and is onboard for house rules then go for it.