D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[Celtavian]

There are historical examples among the Celts, medieval Europeans, China, India, Persia, Arabia, Khmer, Dahomey, Vietnam, native America, Hispania, the Bulgars, and many, many others. They're not difficult to find. Add the fictional and mythological ones - we are talking about a game with fictional and mythological aspects - and there's even more.

Female war leaders are not difficult to find. Female soldier units are not hard to find either, though usually employed for ceremonial purposes and not actual warfare, are not hard to find.

Extraordinary individual female warriors are actually extremely difficult to find. Female soldiers deployed in actual combat are also extremely difficult to find.

In mythology they are easiest to find. That's probably the best route to go.

The character I'm writing is a single female traveling with two males who are the last of their people. She is traveling with their people's greatest war leader and individual warrior. He is training her. I want to make her realistic female that can fight against males in single combat.

I spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to figure out how she would do that. I figured it would be easy given the Internet. There had to be examples of great individual female warriors that could fight against men. Sadly there weren't. I found lots of interesting war leaders. I even scoured Youtube videos for women fighting men. I found some that were obviously choreographed fights because even men can't beat other men down in the fashion the video showed. There were a few instances of fist fights. The woman couldn't really hurt the guy and the guy was usually holding back. There were some fights between men and women in competition for points. The woman won on points, but didn't knock the male out. They were usually going against a small male in their weight class that wasn't ranked or very well trained.

Then I looked up the genetic differences between men and women. Men have greater muscle and bone density. More quick twitch muscle fiber. Much more upper body strength. Reach is a huge thing in a fight even with a weapon, men on average have much longer reach. They are able to employ heavier weapons and armor due to their increased strength. Even with ranged weapons men are able to employ bows with stronger pulls and more penetrating power. The quick twitch muscle fiber made men faster. Their greater muscle and bone density allowed them to take blows easier.

Women could match men in muscular and cardiovascular endurance. There seems to be sufficient evidence women have a very high pain tolerance. Women are more flexible than men. Some of this due to the lower muscle density which restricts the flexibility of men.

It was an interesting look at the differences in males and females and why women were not much utilized in warfare. The athletic differences surprised me the most. You figure top level female athletes would be much better than lower level male athletes. That isn't the case. A top level female athlete (we're talking best of the best) is about the equivalent of a top level male high school or average college athlete mainly due to the differences in size, strength, and power.

One thing I did find that I liked was that there are a lot of women with competitive fire. They want to win as bad as men. They love the competition. It's not the kill or be killed mentality of men or athletics as warfare mentality of men, which is probably more due to socialization. They were fiery competitors that got mad as hell when they lost. Even the female fighters were ready to crush their opponent. The women hated giving an inch in whatever competition they were involved in. Women have the spirit to fight, even if often stuck in bodies that limit them against men.

 

[seebs]

Well, it seems like there's a ready real-life test for your assertion: how many women play football in the men's leagues? (For whichever value of "football" you prefer.)

That turns out not to be a valid test, for the simple reason that it's not permitted. Furthermore, high-level professional sports are a lot more restrictive than combat has ever been. Quick question for you:

1. How many professional football players are there in the US?
2. How many soldiers are there in the US?

 

[seebs]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]: Honestly, I just don't believe a word of it. No, I do not believe that the "best" female fighter in the world would have difficulty fighting an "average" man, because while there's totally a statistical gap, the best female fighters are significantly stronger and faster than the average man. Also, you appear to be massively underestimating the influence of skill on combat.

And at this point, given how much literature there is on this, I can't even sustain the belief that you're genuinely researching this and reaching these conclusions. I don't know what's going on, but I can't find any way to conclude that a person has genuinely researched this and looked at all the available data and reached these conclusions in good faith. That is not plausible.

EDITED TO ADD: I am reminded: Julie d'Aubigny. According to multiple sources, she could in fact consistently defeat men in sword duels, and at least once beat three dudes at once. Mostly non-fatal duels, but certainly actual single combat with weapons.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That turns out not to be a valid test, for the simple reason that it's not permitted.

At least in the NFL, training camps are open to women. A woman kicker almost got in last year. I suspect they would love to have one -- the NFL as a brand is making a big push to be seen as "woman-friendly".

Furthermore, high-level professional sports are a lot more restrictive than combat has ever been.

Sure. You were talking about "the best".

 

[seebs]

At least in the NFL, training camps are open to women. A woman kicker almost got in last year. I suspect they would love to have one -- the NFL as a brand is making a big push to be seen as "woman-friendly".

Sure. You were talking about "the best".

Do we mean top 1%? Top 0.00001%? Top 10%? There's a huge variance there.

If you're looking at the top 50% of fighters, some people will be in that category because of natural talent/attributes (muscle mass, reach, etc) without much skill, and some will be in the category because of skill more than because of natural attributes.

By the time you're looking at, say, the top 1%, you are no longer seeing unskilled fighters; everyone there has significant skill, so more of the variance will come from innate attributes.

For top 0.0001%, you absolutely need both significant skill and really exceptional innate attributes.

Consider how many people play football in the US at least recreationally, and how many players are actually on NFL teams.

I also suspect that combat has a lot more room for training overcoming physical attributes. You can parry in combat; you can't really parry a tackle.

 

[Celtavian]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]: Honestly, I just don't believe a word of it. No, I do not believe that the "best" female fighter in the world would have difficulty fighting an "average" man, because while there's totally a statistical gap, the best female fighters are significantly stronger and faster than the average man. Also, you appear to be massively underestimating the influence of skill on combat.

Top level female fighters are not stronger than the average man, especially in the upper body. Do you not understand how much weaker women are in the upper body area? Or the difference in quick twitch muscle fiber, the primary muscle for generating power? Strength plus speed equals power. Do you know this equation? Do you know how it applies to athletics?

And at this point, given how much literature there is on this, I can't even sustain the belief that you're genuinely researching this and reaching these conclusions. I don't know what's going on, but I can't find any way to conclude that a person has genuinely researched this and looked at all the available data and reached these conclusions in good faith. That is not plausible.

Because it does not exist. This isn't woman enter combat. This is a woman warrior standing against male warriors. Not just low level male warriors, but the trained soldiers that engage in actual battle. It's why you don't see it happening nowadays where it could be recorded. Even a low level trained fighter can beat a highly trained woman fighter.

It's very much like you don't understand the problem. This isn't Rhonda Rousey against Joe Blow computer programmer in the modern day. This is ancient times. Where most of the people in a barbaric tribe could fight. Or where the army showing up your border are trained warriors. The best woman might be able to stand against one of the average men maybe, and beat a below average man. As soon as she had to face even a slightly above average male, she's in trouble. This is the best female fighter.

EDITED TO ADD: I am reminded: Julie d'Aubigny. According to multiple sources, she could in fact consistently defeat men in sword duels, and at least once beat three dudes at once. Mostly non-fatal duels, but certainly actual single combat with weapons.

If they were not fatal duels, then they were not real. Fighting to the death is much different than fighting for points in a controlled environment. Just as fighting without rules is much different than fighting in competition.

I also have personal experience fighting against males with superior training. Me with less training beat them or held even just because I was bigger and stronger than they were. I once trained with a lady that had practiced Aikido for decades. She was 5 feet tall. She couldn't move my arm unless I let her. I also squared off against an above average practitioner of Aiki-jujutsu. He tried stuff on me and I resisted simply with strength. I took a kid that trained in martial arts much longer than I had, swung him up and broke him over my knee. Reached right through his defenses, grabbed him while taking a few hits, and manhandled him.

I've done this with lots of people. The bigger you are, the easier you can shrug off blows. You can pound right through weaker peoples defenses. You can resist holds just by strength along with nearly no technique. You can use heavier weapons faster. You can breach armor easier. You can pick people up and toss them.

I'm trying to write a female that can not only fight, but hang with men that are trained to fight. You do not appreciate how hard this is to find. You keep tossing out crap like, "They can fight average untrained men." You think they could beat 90% of these which is ridiculous. Then you claim a woman could beat a man with less than a year of training. Also not true. Even if I bought your unsupported assumption, the female I'm writing needs to be able to fight men that fight. Not just average men, but trained soldiers that are chosen because they are good at soldiering.

Until you actually do the research and find me a female that hung in single combat against other soldiers, please stop already. You don't know how much physical size and strength overcome training. This is true even among males, doubly so with males against females.

I'm done conversing. You haven't provided a single example of a woman that engaged in a career as a soldier that fought men on the field on a consistent basis and won. Some woman that fought an occasional nonfatal duel against men likely not going all out to kill her is not a good example.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

By the time you're looking at, say, the top 1%, you are no longer seeing unskilled fighters; everyone there has significant skill, so more of the variance will come from innate attributes.

For top 0.0001%, you absolutely need both significant skill and really exceptional innate attributes.

This is not going to favor women.

I also suspect that combat has a lot more room for training overcoming physical attributes. You can parry in combat; you can't really parry a tackle.

Parrying still requires strength, speed, and mass. Your "suspicions" notwithstanding, there is no hand-to-hand martial art where a person does not gain an advantage by being bigger and stronger. Training can reduce the disadvantage of a weaker fighter, but not eliminate it -- and the same training also multiplies the advantage of a stronger fighter. Even in a martial art like judo, famous for "turning the enemy's strength against them": if a little judoka is fighting a big judoka, bet on the big judoka.

Look. If you want to say that women characters in D&D can have 20 Strength and wrestle dragons, I'm totally with you. Exceptional people do exceptional things, and the heroes of our fictional stories can be as exceptional as we want them to be. Any DM who says "no girls allowed" or imposes a Strength penalty for "realism" deserves nothing but scorn. But when you try to take your case to the real world, you're really, really overreaching. You flatly refuse to believe what you don't want to hear, and base your own assertions on what you "suspect". That does not look good for you or your argument. When you start to make questionable factual claims, you become a liability for the cause you're trying to support.

 

[Bluenose]

[MENTION=5834]EDITED TO ADD: I am reminded: Julie d'Aubigny. According to multiple sources, she could in fact consistently defeat men in sword duels, and at least once beat three dudes at once. Mostly non-fatal duels, but certainly actual single combat with weapons.

Maria of Pozzuoli. Maria de Estrada. Catalina de Erauso. Khutulun. Onake Obavva. Ohori Tsuruhime. Trieu Thi Trinh. Given that we're also not playing a historical simulation (except when it suits some people) we coudl also include a large variety of fictional characters - Red Sonja is jsut one example.

 

[seebs]

This is not going to favor women.

Yeah. It would be statistically unlikely that, at any given time, the Absolute Best Fighter In The World was female. There might not be very many in the very very top percentiles.

But there's nothing even a little unrealistic about a skilled woman being in the top 5%, easily, which is good enough to get you to "travelling adventurer".

Parrying still requires strength, speed, and mass. Your "suspicions" notwithstanding, there is no hand-to-hand martial art where a person does not gain an advantage by being bigger and stronger.

I am aware of this. However, that doesn't mean that the advantage is anywhere near as significant as the advantages of being more skilled. Furthermore, there's a ton of overlap, which means that while you might find that the very strongest people are disproportionately male, there are women out there who are stronger than 99% of men.

Training can reduce the disadvantage of a weaker fighter, but not eliminate it -- and the same training also multiplies the advantage of a stronger fighter. Even in a martial art like judo, famous for "turning the enemy's strength against them": if a little judoka is fighting a big judoka, bet on the big judoka.

In general, yes. But if one of them is more skilled, skill will matter more.

And the question isn't "are there women who can consistently beat equally skilled men who are stronger", but "are there women who are stronger than most or nearly-all men" (yes) or "are there women who are more skilled than most or nearly-all men" (also yes).

You don't have to be the best in the world to win a fight, just better than the people you are actually currently fighting.

Look. If you want to say that women characters in D&D can have 20 Strength and wrestle dragons, I'm totally with you. Exceptional people do exceptional things, and the heroes of our fictional stories can be as exceptional as we want them to be. Any DM who says "no girls allowed" or imposes a Strength penalty for "realism" deserves nothing but scorn. But when you try to take your case to the real world, you're really, really overreaching. You flatly refuse to believe what you don't want to hear, and base your own assertions on what you "suspect". That does not look good for you or your argument. When you start to make questionable factual claims, you become a liability for the cause you're trying to support.

I don't think you are understanding the claim I'm making, which is a fairly unexceptional claim.

Look, men are on average taller than women, right? But that doesn't mean there are no women who are taller than 95% of men. There aren't very many of them, but they certainly exist. And it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the people you encounter aren't consistently exceptional across the board. So an exceptionally strong woman will in fact be stronger than most of the men she meets.

The claim I'm arguing against is that it is implausible to imagine that there could be even one woman who is strong enough and fast enough to be an exceptional warrior, better than the overwhelming majority of men. And I'm arguing against it because it's ridiculous, and contrary to observed history.

I'm not arguing that, in a fair world, with humans basically biologically identical to our species, that over 49% of warriors would be female. I'm just arguing that there's nothing innately implausible about the notion that an exceptionally skilled and strong woman would be able to beat most male fighters. After all, she's exceptional, they're by definition not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Black Agnes was supposedly a warrior who completed in tournaments, if I recall correctly.

I think with a lot of these historical figures, there is some level of myth that needs to be taken into consideration. But even still, I think there are enough examples to support that although it was rare, there were women who were successful warriors.

I forget where I saw/read this, but there was a scene in a movie or book where two men were discussing the presence of a woman among a group of men fighters...and the older of the two explained that he would consider the woman the most dangerous of the group because in order for her to even be there, she had to work twice as hard and face many more obstacles than the men did.

That scene has stuck with me, even if I can't recall the source at the moment. Maybe the film "The Kingdom", with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner?