Genders - What's the difference?

[El Mahdi]

@ProfessorCirno

Just so you guys know, Professor Cirno is quoting your posts on SomethingAwful, on grognard.txt. See posts following this one (following page as well).

Not surprising. I doubt anyone here is really bothered by this though. If what's being posted here is okay by ENWorlds forum/posting rules, I doubt anyone here is going to be embarassed or ashamed of their posts being seen on other sites.

As for reposting and replying to them on another site, I don't see how it's really a conversation. Replying to something said here on another site, where the original poster probably doesn't even know it's there (and therefore can't respond), seems more like just having a conversation/argument with ones self. If one has the courage of their own convictions, and isn't afraid of what someone may think of or reply about their post, then why reply to posts in secret somewhere else? Or reply somewhere else because it's the only place one can be allowed to be indiscriminately rude or condescending?

Seems to me that if one finds themself unable or unwilling to directly address themself to someone, then maybe one should seriously consider whether there's something fundamentally flawed with the opinion or manner of presentation in the first place...

I did find this post interesting though:

EN World is the worst loving place ever

Then why post nearly 3 posts a day (8 posts on the 29th of March), with over 3,000 posts here.



Anyways...



For the most part, I've found this conversation (all sides of this conversation) quite interesting.

There's been some good points raised throughout this thread both for and against including mechanical differences. As with most things it seems to come down to personal preference, which is as it should be. I don't think any opinion voiced in this thread has been "wrong", though I don't personally agree with everything here. I have found this thread interesting as I've been thinking a bit about this very thing lately while working on my own houserules. This thread has actually caused me to reconsider some of the things I had previously decided about this. I still want some limitations for the sake of reality, so I'll probably still have limits on maximum allowed strength scores with different maximums based on gender, but that's probably all I'll impose now (rather than pluses and minuses at character creation). And that's because of some of the things I've read in this thread.

It's been a good conversation.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Looking at the kick boxing example, as a skill set, wouldn't that be more a reflection of levels than base stats? In fact, many things discussed in this thread have more in common with levels than stats. A 5th level fighter with 10 strength will beat a 1st level fighter with 18 strength due to differences in hit points, BAB, and feats.

So the clear answer here is to give females an xp penalty when their class's primary stat is Strength.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've got a different take on the original question. I find gender adjustments rather pointless in any game that is point-buy or something very close to it. Basically, the more control over the final abilities which can be exercised by the player during character generation, the less sense such adjustments make. And the same can be said for racial, cultural, and other such adjustments. Mainly, what such adjustments becomes in such a setup is:

A. Defacto maximum enforcement, which could be better handled by simply stating the maximums,

B. A mini-game for optimization, which I'm prejudiced against anyway, or

C. Leftover artifacts from earlier gaming with all kinds of strange side effects, at best.

In contrast, I'm fine with gender differences in, for example, a game where you generate all of your basic background randomly or mostly randomly. If you could be a poor, social outcast, third daughter of a failed cobbler, with no literacy--or you might be the highly trained noble, second son of a lord--then tacking on any kind of gender adjustment is merely another minor factor--rather minimized in the summary. The whole point of such a game is often to overcome whatever hurdles the character generation has placed onto you.

Clearly, there are some in between options in games. But by the time you've gotten to assigning stats from point buy, I'm against any kind of starting character adjustments. Gender ones don't even make the radar.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I realize that this is very 'politically incorrect' to talk about. Right now our society is steeped in the mythology of he 'kick-butt girl' who can defeat men in outright contests of strength and power, and if you point out how much of a mythology this is and the tricks used to sustain this mythology you are consider sexist. I could cite dozens of examples from media, but notably all would be from fiction. However, basing beliefs on a lie IMO does a disservice to everyone, firstly because it sets false expectations up and secondly because it undermines the very claim of equality that its intended to support because as a basis of equality strength is a very unsound comparison.

I agree that men are physically stronger, both on average, and at elite/athletic levels. I used to cover high school/college athletics back in the 90s on a part-time basis, and I know that's true from my perspective.

However, I think most of the kick butt women from the past 15-20 years in the media are that way because they have some special/extraordinary power, or because they have undergone extraordinary training.

Buffy Summers was The Slayer, granted extraordinary strength to help her fight vampires.
Max from Dark Angel was a genetically enhanced woman
Sarah Connor from Terminator 2 was muscular, but I don't recall her being extraordinarily strong in the movie (though, it's been years since I've seen the movie). I think she overpowered her shrink - but, I think my 8 year old daughter might be able to overpower that guy, too.
The two women from Crouching Tiger had some sort of special power as well...

I think a lot of the other women, though, are exceptional because of extraordinary martial training, not exceptional strength - Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft or Salt (superstar vs mooks); Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (again, superstar vs a bunch of mooks); Uma Thurman from the Kill Bill movies - epic level swordswoman with a super sword against a bunch of mooks. (Though, that one did take it to the extreme.)

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of it going over the top, but I do think most cases are kick-ass women who kick ass because of a super power and/or super training.

 

[S'mon]

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of it going over the top, but I do think most cases are kick-ass women who kick ass because of a super power and/or super training.

Agreed - although potentially there is a danger to women in them thinking they are equally as strong as men, I'm not sure if many actually think that, even after watching a dozen Xena re-runs. It seems to be mostly sedentary males who believe in this "no median strength difference" meme. Actual butt-kicking women such as police officers tend to spend a lot of their time around butt-kicking men, and are thus well aware of the actual difference!

 

[NewJeffCT]

Agreed - although potentially there is a danger to women in them thinking they are equally as strong as men, I'm not sure if many actually think that, even after watching a dozen Xena re-runs. It seems to be mostly sedentary males who believe in this "no median strength difference" meme. Actual butt-kicking women such as police officers tend to spend a lot of their time around butt-kicking men, and are thus well aware of the actual difference!

I think you're right on it being sedentary males who think that.

 

[pawsplay]

In short, for the purposes of an internet discussion, I don't consider the burden of effort to lie wholly on me. If someone wishes to overturn the intuitive notion that men are on average signfiicantly stronger than women, I believe the larger burden of proof lies with them. That they often reach for Billie Jean King mythologies where one women of outstanding ability defeats a man of much more ordinary ability is in my opinion actually evidence on my side of the point. ...

I realize that this is very 'politically incorrect' to talk about. Right now our society is steeped in the mythology of he 'kick-butt girl' who can defeat men in outright contests of strength and power, and if you point out how much of a mythology this is and the tricks used to sustain this mythology you are considered sexist.

Oh, please. You're so oppressed, right? Look, I can't think of a single instance in this entire thread where someone has made the argument you claim they are making. Everyone agrees men are stronger than women. Everyone.

What has not been demonstrated is that there is a good real-life or dramatic reason why this should translate into a large numeric difference in "Strength." A small difference already generates all you need and more.

Studies based on the results of military basic training are one area that has been looked at for very large data sets. Suffice to say that men start out stronger than women, improve strength faster under conditioning than women, and ultimately maintain a proportional lead on women after training.

Another really terrible example. You take a much larger group of men to a smaller group of women, and the men are at least as self-selecting for athletic ability, if not moreso. On top of that, men are culturally influenced to exercise for power, which means men are going to be recreationally hitting the barbells at much higher rates than women.

Do you simply refuse to believe that natural strength differences between men and women are not hugely modulated by self-selection, cultural differences, and opportunities for fair comparisons? Because that's really the impression I'm getting. Would you please clarify what exactly you're trying to prove?

Do you specifically want to claim men should get a +4 or more Str bonus relative to women in terms of lifting power? Do you want to quibble with my claim that part of the lifting difference reflects greater mass and overall muscle power in the male body, rather than an outright difference in athleticism? If so, do you want to quibble for one point, two, or all three?

Given the rather artifical nature of ability scores in D&D, I think the burden of proof is to demonstrate even one point of difference, much less two and a whole +1 bonus on checks. Lifting strength is not even a debate; everyone agrees men lift more. Since D&D already agrees larger creatures lift more, I think we can chalk that up to a lack of detail in an area that, frankly, no one cares all that much about.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, please. You're so oppressed, right?

LOL. So long as you are going to try to play psychologist with me, I might as well say that I'm arrogant enough to think it is far beyond your power to oppress me intellectually or rhetorically. I can hold my own quite well, thanks nothing for your [false] concern.

Look, I can't think of a single instance in this entire thread where someone has made the argument you claim they are making. Everyone agrees men are stronger than women. Everyone.

And with that statement, you follow up with a long post where you walk away from that claim as fast as you can go, until within just a few sentences you've rationalized all the way to:

Given the rather artifical nature of ability scores in D&D, I think the burden of proof is to demonstrate even one point of difference...

Right, so everyone agrees men are stronger, just not so much stronger that it could be quantified as even a single point of difference.

I think we can chalk that up to a lack of detail in an area that, frankly, no one cares all that much about.

Once again, if you don't really care about this subject, why are you bothering to post?

The first page or so of this thread had four or five posts with people jumping on the OP with veiled or open accusations that the whole idea was sexist and/or that anyone who held such ideas was probably racist. And, in that, you think I'm worried about being oppressed? I'm defending an idea I don't even implement in my own house rules, and you think I'm playing some sort of victim card? This is just another bit of, "If someone disagrees with me, it must be because there is something emotionally wrong with them." You aren't content to challenge me on anything of substance, instead you start up with a passive aggressive ad hominem attack and follow up with a bunch of logical fallacies. I don't have to quibble with your strawmen. I have already tried to answer one of your rhetorical questions as if you were honestly making it. If you aren't going to listen then, there is no reason to think you'd listen now.

So let's be honest here so that my time is worth it. Is there any evidence I could possibly present that would cause you reassess your repeatedly stated belief that the real life physical differences cannot be quantified as even a single point of difference in strength? Because if that's your faith based conviction, we shouldn't bother discussing it.

 

[Celebrim]

I've got a different take on the original question. I find gender adjustments rather pointless in any game that is point-buy or something very close to it. Basically, the more control over the final abilities which can be exercised by the player during character generation, the less sense such adjustments make.

One thing that this thread has brought me to realize is just how fair and reasonable the original 1e D&D implementation of gender differences was. Compared to a penalty, a cap on the starting maximum is such a unintrusive nod to realism, that it's hardly constraining at all. The likely hood that you'd roll up a character that couldn't be female (without cheating) is exceptionally small, and it really lets you select from a character at the far end of the bell curve without worrying about where the middle may be.

I'm continually impressed by the sheer gameability of D&D, and that as someone who as a snot nosed arrogant 20 year old was absolutely sure that D&D was just about the worst designed system ever. Hat tip to Gygax though.

Clearly, there are some in between options in games. But by the time you've gotten to assigning stats from point buy, I'm against any kind of starting character adjustments. Gender ones don't even make the radar.

Yeah, the converse of that is another system that I really like and admire that's the D6 system in its old form (such as 1e Star Wars). In there they had point, and mostly had only minimum and maximum traits, and it too often felt like your choices were meaningless unless you were going to play some one dimensional character. It would be as if the only reason to play a man was to play a muscle bound character. I've seen the Star Wars racial templates played with for balance (and played around with them some myself) and one mechanic that always struck me as interesting was making it easier for one race to advance certain characteristics. It's less applicable to a level based system than it is to a skill based system like D6, but I really like that and found it modelled the difference between diverse aliens far better than just a series of minimum and maximum attributes. Without it, there was little reason ever to get away from human.

Of course it still doesn't get us away from sterotypes completely, but that's not entirely a bad thing. Or at least, since we can't seem to get away from them, we might as well try to make a virtue out of a vice. A sterotype, especially within a story, doesn't have to be demeaning, nor does a sterotype necessarily mean that the resulting character doesn't gain in skilled hands depth and individuality.

 

[Banshee16]

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.

Has this actually been proven? My understanding is that the world records for men and women *are* significantly different.....the top men lifting about 45% more than the top women. It stands to reason....in the absence of extreme training, I believe men have a much higher percentage of muscle tissue.

I'll preface my statement by saying that I know I'm not a super muscular person.....I know my experience at the gym, I'm usually lifting about 6x as much weight as the women I've observed. I'll see them straining at lifting 30 lbs, and I'm lifting 175-190. I *have* met some pretty strong women.....one girl in my class in High School was known as very strong. I remember running into her accidentally in a touch football game and being sent flying. But that was an exception rather than a rule. I'm not saying this to disparage any women. Just making an observation.

On that note, I know there are hardcore women who can lift far more than 170 lbs....but if you're talking about the average population.....then I think the differences are exaggerated. I *have* known some women with incredible endurance. But even there, the person I've known with the most endurance was a male. Another lifeguard (my boss) I used to train with. I remember watching him swim 120 laps without stopping one evening. He was a machine.

In previous versions of the game, I balanced things by applying a max strength or penalty to female characters...but giving them a bonus to CON. In 3E, I didn't bother....though I usually just ruled that PC females were the exception, and had NPC females have a strength penalty. I don't see a need to enforce limitations like this on PCs. Sure, it feels realistic, but I'm not trying to create disincentives against my players choosing certain character types.

Banshee