Ability and skill modifiers by gender

[Elf Witch]

Please, let's not bring up Buffy. Chasing Buffy's origins down doesn't lead to where you think it leads, namely, 'value of a strong independent woman'.

I am well aware of the background of the slayer's origins. I am huge Buffy fan.

My point was that it is now common to see woman in strong roles that used to be the territory of men. I am in my 50s when I was growing up you didn't see woman in these kind of butt kicking roles all that often. There was Emma Peel and then later Charlie's Angels.

And our society itself does not agree that woman should be submissive to men.

 

[Dandu]

Some parts of it do.

 

[Elf Witch]

One thing I like about the fantasy world is more gender equality, but I do not like this at the expense of diversity. For this reason I wanted to introduce the following modifiers:
Males: Str +1 (as is well known to anyone)
Females: Des +1 (maybe not everyone knows that archery is the only sport where wimen are by far the strongest of men, as well as being commonly more graceful and agile in his movements).

Although the previous bonus already contribute to grant a bonus of half a point to those features related skills, I still am inclined to grant the following additional bonus / malus skill:

Males: Craft, Disable Device, Open Lock +1 (males have more ability in manual work);
Male: Swim, Climb, Jump +1 (males are usually more athletic);
Females: Balance, Entertaining Dance (females are usually more graceful and compete in the disciplines of athletics as the pipe closed to men);
Females: Intimidate -1 (females are commonly underestimated);
Females: Perceiving intentions (the females have a greater sensitivity of males usually so they can better capture the nuances of behavior of those in front of him);
Females: Bluff: +1 to males (females reach maturity earlier than men, and have no difficulties to take a little 'of mischief to get what they want).

Not all of these skills have the same frequency of use and I think overall they will not unbalance the game, only slightly differ characters.

What do you think?

Bye, MadLuke.

I think you are wrong about the skills not being used often. Disable device and open lock are huge for rogues.

Take the open lock disable device. You are saying men should get a bonus because they are better at manual things. Well studies have shown that woman are better at fine motor manipulation skills. Opening locks and disabling traps requires fine motor skill so it should be the woman who get the +1.

As for intimidate you have standing before you a female half orc. She is carrying a greataxe dripping in blood and holding the head of your leader in the other hand. Now tell me that is not intimidating.

Or in humans you have a man carrying a lute and dressed in leather with a rapier on his back. He is with a woman dressed in plate armor carrying a greatsword. Which one is going to intimidate you more?

I am not sure how putting in gender differences actually creates more diversity. You have basically done the opposite all men are stronger and all woman more dexterous.

If you want more diversity how about divide humans into a sub race.

Have a race that is strong so they all get +1 to strength. Have another race that is smaller and more dexterous they get a +1 to dexterity.

If you really feel the need to do this I always suggest do it with the NPCs. PCs should be viewed as above average anyway.

 

[Elf Witch]

Some parts of it do.

Yes but some don't that's my point.

 

[Celebrim]

My point was that it is now common to see woman in strong roles that used to be the territory of men.

Why does being the territory of men make them strong roles?

I don't usually see them as strong roles. I usually see them as Hippolyta roles. That is to say, they work very much on the level of, "Why can't women be more like men." and they are usually what the Japanese call 'Fan Service'. In otherwords, they are usually more a matter of 'knowing the target audience.

I am in my 50s when I was growing up you didn't see woman in these kind of butt kicking roles all that often. There was Emma Peel...

Showing women showing T&A and being otherwise physically and sexually agressive isn't my definition of lacking sexism.

And our society itself does not agree that woman should be submissive to men.

I submit that these are two very different things.

 

[xigbar]

If you want to go to the trouble of making a table of modifiers for each gender, and each race with two genders (most of them) you'd be best off not having any penalties. Bonuses, sure, you can say males/females are better at said task than females/males, I read somewhere that men have 15% more muscle mass than women. I could be misremembering that, but for the sake of arguement, if you apply that in-game, +1 to strength to human men is less likely to get a negative reaction than -1 to strength to human women. Also, as mentioned, each race with sexual differences will different sexual differences.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah those are pretty purposefully offensive racial stereotypes, too, good job. Only I guess you don't really understand what makes negative stereotypes negative. Hint: it's the pejoratives, not weapon training.

On the contrary. It's the falsehoods and treating individuals as members of a group and not as individuals. It's not the pejoratives. If it was, "Asians are smart, blacks are atheletic, and whites are.... well I guess you aren't allowed to say that whites are good at something.", wouldn't be a racist statement.

Let's face it, it's pretty immoral to put forth the idea that all women are good at X and all men are good at Y.

No, it's not. More interestingly, its not even immoral by the definition you just offered of "it's the pejoratives, not weapon training". By that standard, "Women are good at sewing and men are good at math", wouldn't be sexist.

If that's what you want out of a game, cool, but it's still damaging the idea of equality whether you intend it or not.

No, it's not. The social, legal, and moral equality between people and between women and men in general is not based on a capability at all. Basing it on capablity is a very weak reed. If that was the basis of equality, then the statement "All men are created equal...", would be laughable on its face. Given that you've already gone there with me with the whole you obviously don't read history crack (which would draw howls of laughter from anyone who knows me); allow me to respond in kind. You obviously haven't thought very deeply about this subject. So can we back down from that, or do you really want to get in "I'm more educated than thou" match?

What? Man, you're insanely touchy. Disagreeing with the thread doesn't mean I'm personally attacking you, you should probably lose that persecution complex.

No, I hitherto had not claimed anyone attacked me. And if anyone did, it wouldn't bother me too much because I'm more than capable of defending myself. No I claimed that people had already started attacking each other, which isn't being touchy, it's just stating a fact. What I said to you is that if the basis of your participation in the thread is going to be, "If you think this is ok, you are sexist.", then there can be no thread. That's not being touchy, that's just stating a fact.

It's basically chock full of massacres and ethnic/religious purges and war and all sorts of nastiness that D&D just apes here and there, it sure doesn't surpass the real world.

Yes, it does. I've long stated that the majority of human history is just one long genocide after another. I am quite aware of the level of evil and nastiness in the real world both historical and now. And, yet, I still maintain that D&D worlds are generally far darker and uglier places. Much of D&D tickles the darker fantasies of mankind, particularly in the way it is usually played. In my experience, it's generally less about the better angels of our being than it is about ego stroking our desire to force others to conform to our will. And it is chocked filled with rules that are primarily about imposing ones will on other. The D&D world is inherently an uglier place by virtue of having, as it were, characters above first level. For all your espousing earlier that the idea of equality is harmed by any rules that might indicate disparities of capability, you are ignoring the central premise of the ideas of inequality inherent in the game, much less the inherent sexism of a game that focuses its effort in defining success in terms of the warlike activity typically dominated by men. No, when I say that D&D worlds are uglier than our own, I assure that it isn't out of ignorance of the depravity of people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

By now, it's pretty clear what kind of can 'o' worms this opens up.

But I'd like to clarify that D&D does not use "race" like we do in the RW, it more usually uses "race" to describe distinct species rather than subcategories within a species.

It is also true, though, that some subspecies- and in certain settings, regional peoples- do get differing stat mods.

Usually, though, it's less about conforming to RW stereotypes and more about hardwiring the regional/subtype strengths & weaknesses into the characters.

 

[Darwinism]

On the contrary. It's the falsehoods and treating individuals as members of a group and not as individuals. It's not the pejoratives. If it was, "Asians are smart, blacks are atheletic, and whites are.... well I guess you aren't allowed to say that whites are good at something.", wouldn't be a racist statement.

Glad to see you're being purposefully obtuse to try and make your points!

No, it's not. More interestingly, its not even immoral by the definition you just offered of "it's the pejoratives, not weapon training". By that standard, "Women are good at sewing and men are good at math", wouldn't be sexist.

Mm, yes, quite definitely not insulting. And when did I say only pejoratives were racist? Your examples involved them as the blantantly racist parts. So I singled those out, because they were all you listed besides weapon training.

No, it's not. The social, legal, and moral equality between people and between women and men in general is not based on a capability at all. Basing it on capablity is a very weak reed. If that was the basis of equality, then the statement "All men are created equal...", would be laughable on its face. Given that you've already gone there with me with the whole you obviously don't read history crack (which would draw howls of laughter from anyone who knows me); allow me to respond in kind. You obviously haven't thought very deeply about this subject. So can we back down from that, or do you really want to get in "I'm more educated than thou" match?

You made the extremely laughable assertion that D&D is 'darker' than real life, man. Can you back it up in any way? Let's see you come up with D&D analogues to the Holocaust, or Pol Pot or Stalin's regime. And that's just in incredibly recent history.

No, I hitherto had not claimed anyone attacked me. And if anyone did, it wouldn't bother me too much because I'm more than capable of defending myself. No I claimed that people had already started attacking each other, which isn't being touchy, it's just stating a fact. What I said to you is that if the basis of your participation in the thread is going to be, "If you think this is ok, you are sexist.", then there can be no thread. That's not being touchy, that's just stating a fact.

You really like to claim facts. Do you know what facts are? I'll clue you in: debating a subject where the two sides don't accept each other's viewpoint doesn't result in no debate. That's a fact!

Yes, it does. I've long stated that the majority of human history is just one long genocide after another. I am quite aware of the level of evil and nastiness in the real world both historical and now. And, yet, I still maintain that D&D worlds are generally far darker and uglier places. Much of D&D tickles the darker fantasies of mankind, particularly in the way it is usually played. In my experience, it's generally less about the better angels of our being than it is about ego stroking our desire to force others to conform to our will. And it is chocked filled with rules that are primarily about imposing ones will on other. The D&D world is inherently an uglier place by virtue of having, as it were, characters above first level. For all your espousing earlier that the idea of equality is harmed by any rules that might indicate disparities of capability, you are ignoring the central premise of the ideas of inequality inherent in the game, much less the inherent sexism of a game that focuses its effort in defining success in terms of the warlike activity typically dominated by men. No, when I say that D&D worlds are uglier than our own, I assure that it isn't out of ignorance of the depravity of people.

See the above. Please, tell me where D&D is darker than real life. You might be able to make the point for Dark Sun being sometimes darker, but it's still based off of a pretty happy view of Mesopotamian and Egyptian life. Even when apocalypses happen the details are just glossed over and given attention only as plot points, not focused on as terrible events.

 

[Elf Witch]

Why does being the territory of men make them strong roles?

I don't usually see them as strong roles. I usually see them as Hippolyta roles. That is to say, they work very much on the level of, "Why can't women be more like men." and they are usually what the Japanese call 'Fan Service'. In otherwords, they are usually more a matter of 'knowing the target audience.



Showing women showing T&A and being otherwise physically and sexually agressive isn't my definition of lacking sexism.



I submit that these are two very different things.

I really don't know how much I can say without breaking the rules of posting.

If you look at movies say from the 50s and 60s you very rarely found woman who were not one of the stereotypes. They were either wives, girlfriends or bad girls. In horror movies their main purpose was to scream.

Emma Peel was not just T&A she was every bit as good an agent as John Steed she was actually the one who did most of the active stuff. Charlie's Angles had a lot of T&A going on but it also showed woman doing what men had traditionally done which was be private detectives. Before that most of the woman on private detective shows were shown as secretaries.

The point is that they show woman being able to do what men do just as well. I know you are going to argue about how unrealistic it is and trot out the whole bench press studies. Please don't.

But it does not matter it is a fantasy just like adventure with men is a fantasy. In real life Indiana Jones, John McClain would be dead from their injuries no one can't take the serious wounds those two have taken and live. But you know why we accept it because they are heroes.

Showing woman doing the tough things being more than just helpless waiting for a man to come and save them can inspire little girls. Teen girls watching Buffy often talked about she inspired them to stand up for themselves.

There are several black woman including Whoppi Goldberg who were inspired by Uhura on Star Trek. Seeing a black woman who was not a maid but a officer on a starship inspired them. One the female astronauts who is black says Star Trek inspired her to study science.

In real life right now there are woman in fundamental Muslim countries blogging about freedom for woman. Knowing full well that they risk imprisonment and death.

Woman in our own military have risked their lives right along side our men. And some have paid the ultimate price.

Most people know that in a fight between a strong trained man and a strong trained woman the man is going to win. If we are talking raw power.

But that is not the point. When we see heroines like Xena or Samantha Carter it shows us that woman can be heroes too.

Being submissive or expecting woman to submissive is very wrong. Woman are thinking adults they are just as smart as men just as wise as men and just as capable as men. It is an unhealthy situation for both sexes.

Adults should be raised to take care of themselves and to be independent. There is nothing sadder than watching a grown woman lose her husband and have no clue how to take care of herself. I have seen this first hand with my mother's generation.

I am not sure why you brought up sexual aggressive. The examples I gave don't fall under that territory. Emma Peel was in love with John Sneed but they never acted on it.

Charlie's Angles had relationships but they never bounced from bed to bed. Buffy had sexual relationships but I sure would not call her sexual aggressive.

I have to wonder if you think any woman who has sex outside of marriage or enjoys sex and sometimes instigates it as being sexual aggressive.

One of the thing the woman's movement did for woman is allow us to admit yes we like sex and sometimes we want sex and not all trappings of a relationship. You know just like men sometimes do.