Genders - What's the difference?

[Jon_Dahl]

Ok, I know that this is a sensitive subject, but... In RPGs, should there be difference between genders?

This concept must be totally alien to younger gamers, but old school enworlders still remember the 70's. We had a game called "AD&D 1st edition". It was a massive game back in the day.
Halfling females had the lowest STR-cap, but if you made a male halfling character, the cap was higher. All genders had difference in weight, height and STR-cap. There was no benefit from playing a female character, and I don't remember anyone ever raising their voice over that issue. Nowadays we only have differences in size, and no one is arguing that. But that's where the differences end.

I also vaguely remember the same from Runequest, but the "physical frailness" of feminine gender was only applied to NPCs. No benefit was given to female NPCs, only some sort of penalty.

In my game I treat PC (creation of) women and men the same, although I feel really frustated about the fact that 150-lbs PC can have the same strength as 300-lbs PC... There are no weight-classes in D&D-wrestling, I guess... In my free-form game I take bodysize and weight strongly into account, and "girly" characters (men or women) are in a world of hurt. Of course this is not directly linked to gender-issue, but since females tend to be lighter, they tend to suffer in mêlée (block that big fist and end up on your a$$). But sneaking and hiding is easier in my freeform-game, if you're lighter.

So what's your opinion?
Men and women are the same, women just are lighter and shorter? In the farms 18-year old girls often participate in hauling the logs with men or is there some reason why women stay home and men do physical work in your fantasy world? Or do they?

 

[pawsplay]

It depends.

1. Is it relevant to the genre?
2. Is it fun?
3. Can it be represented in the system at the level of detail provided?

It's pretty obvious to me why D&D 3e had no sex-based differences for characters.

1. It wasn't relevant, as the published settings were largely egalitarian to one degree or another.
2. It was designed to be a game with wide appeal, so why restrict options? Even if female Str 18 barbarians are in theory more rare, should there be a price paid for being that rarity, or should you get the same shakes as any other Str 18 barbarian?
3. D&D 3e doesn't have enough detail to accurately reflect real-world differences very well, much less modern genre fantasy where Red Sonja is a She-Devil with a Sword. Relative to each other, in D&D terms, males would probably rate +1 Strength, with an additional +2 for lifting purposes only, +1 to the Intimidate skill, and get +1 to hit and damage with thrown weapons, while females would probably rate +1 Constitution, +1 to the Sense Motive skill, and +1 on Tumble checks. At most. You can't justify even a two point spread on any Ability Score, or a +2 on a skill. GURPS does only slightly better.

In the real world, men and women are very similar in abilities. They have virtually the same intelligence, and except in very specific cognitive tasks that do not resemble most real-world tasks, virtually interchangeable specific cognitive skills. Compared to most animals, males and females are similarly sized, although men do have considerably more muscle in their arms. Women are a little more flexible. Men tend to be less empathic, women more, although that is highly context dependent; men also tend to be higher status and women lower, which also affects empathy.

There are basically two areas where men excel beyond what even the most accomplished women can do. First, there are astoundingly more male mathematicians, virtually all of whom do their best work in their 20s, rarely even into their 30s, suggesting that hightly theoretical math involves some of those very specific cognitive tasks I was mentioning. Second, men can throw things. Due to a combination of wider shoulders, more powerful arms, a different center of balance, and perhaps some motor neuron differences (which may be learned difference), even a fairly typical man can throw a baseball better than all but the very best women. Even things like weight-lifting do not evince a huge divide; while men are unquestionably stronger to a very significant degree, the actual amount of difference is not huge. Strong women are often stronger than only slightly strong men. On the other side, if you want to survive long periods of physical stress, perhaps involving huge caloric losses, you want a woman. Women also retain a lot of flexibility in their bodies, which men lose rapidly even as they get into their teens.

Things like math v. science, thinking v. feeling, multi-tasking, etc..... whatever you heard, in actuality, women and men are more alike than different. Men and women who are good at, say, aeronautics perform more similarly to each other than do a male aeronauticist and a male truck driver, at tasks of mathematics, spatial geometry. etc.

Now, in fiction, differences may be exaggerated... or erased (classically, the "tender" woman who cannot survive hardship, despite having birthed untold generations of humans in the wilderness). If you want to simulate THAT, look closely at the actual game differences you want to make.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Overall, I would be happy to let a player chose a lower strength if they are playing a woman an a lower dex or con if playing a man....Or a higher Int and lower wis, or a higher wis or lower cha, or ....

In other words, I would not saddle a player with some kind of restriction based on sex. But if they want to build one themselves, more power to them as long as it is not offensive to other players or the DM.

Kudos for making a new thread instead of necroing an old one.

 

[Dioltach]

I can see the appeal in using different rules for male and female characters. But you'd have to balance it properly. Not just limits on female strength, but bonuses to offset those limits.

For example, female characters have a penalty on STR. However, they get Weapon Finesse as a free feat. Or they get bonuses on Spot, Search and Balance.

This would make it more attractive to play a female character for some classes and a male character for others, in the same way that certain races are more suited to particular classes.

The problem is that these bonuses and penalties would be highly subjective. The examples I gave above are based purely on a stereotypical view of differences between men and women.

All in all, I think that this is a matter that is best left to individual gaming groups to decide for themselves, based on their own experiences and views. Although some guidelines might be useful, defining general rules is too likely to upset or offend people, or cause endless discussions along the lines of "But I know some very strong women ..."

 

[Aus_Snow]

Ok, I know that this is a sensitive subject, but... In RPGs, should there be difference between genders?

Yes.

There are some fundamental differences between the sexes, and therefore, if you're representing the sexes in a RPG, it makes sense to factor those in, I think.

And yes, if the setting is a time and place and circumstance (e.g., Pendragon) where the sexes are even more different (i.e., in various other ways as well) those further differences should be factored in too. As, in that game, they indeed are.

 

[Hassassin]

It's funny how the fact that men are on average stronger than women gets mentioned so often. I haven't seen research on the subject, but it is commonly held that women are on average more dexterous than men, yet that is seldom mentioned.

I'd be fine with a bonus to strength for men and a bonus to dexterity for women, but I don't see the point. Adventurers are not average characters, after all.

 

[Jhaelen]

Ok, I know that this is a sensitive subject, but... In RPGs, should there be difference between genders?

Definitely not, at least not regarding ability scores. Otherwise females would have to be better all around than their male counterparts

For some rpgs systems or settings it might make sense to make some character archetypes gender-specific, e.g. for Pendragon or Ars Magica which are pseudo-historical settings. But even then it be left to the players if they want keep things 'realistic' or not. There are always exceptions, so why shouldn't there be female knights, for example?

 

[NiTessine]

Ok, I know that this is a sensitive subject, but... In RPGs, should there be difference between genders?

In some RPGs, sure. The question you must ask is if it serves the game. In D&D, I don't see much point. Assigning stat modifiers to sexes would just lead to sex becoming another mechanical feature that you pick at character generation, and suddenly a female melee character would be regarded as "gimped". I can see it actively detracting from the game.

However, as Aus_Snow noted, if it is done like in Pendragon, where a female character has a completely different role in society and the campaign from a male one (a politician and possibly spellcaster as opposed to a knight), then it's a distinction worth making on a mechanical level. It adds to the game and enhances the atmosphere the game seeks to create.

To summarize, I feel that if there's a clear division of gender roles in the game world, such mechanical distinctions have their place. If not, no reason to bother. Nearly all published D&D settings fall to the latter category.

 

[Mallus]

Do you assign a -2 penalty to Jump checks for white PC's?

If not, why?

If the relationship between mass and strength are important, do ogres (and any large animal or monster) bat PC's around like rag dolls in a fight?

If not, why?

Do PC's falling do HP damage, or does it break their bones?

If not, why?

See where I'm going with this? Why specifically apply 'realism' to gender, in a game where it's applied precious few other places?

 

[Barastrondo]

Could there be? Yes. Should there be? No -- certainly not when you're talking RPGs as a whole, from the gritty to the superheroic.

I can't help but think that from a publisher's perspective, "girly characters should be in a world of hurt" is a very problematic stand to take. For all that it's arguable that such a rule is for the sake of realism, it's applying realism in a very selective place, particularly if the game has any rules at all that model a more cinematic or mythical reality. It implies some strong prejudices on the part of the author, even if they don't exist. In some cases like Pendragon you can get away with this, as previously mentioned (though you should resign yourself to not winning over players who want to, say, play a female knight; seen it happen). For RPGs as a whole: good heavens, no.