Genders - What's the difference?

[PurpleXVI]

Hold up let me take some time out of my day to justify what some dude who's like 300 poudns of onion rings thinks about ~*~women~*~ in his RPG. ...Nope, couldn't quite do it. Sorry.

 

[Ashel]

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.

But is it a nod to realism that matters in any substantial way? Does it come off as being of any significant worth? Does your game gain in any way from decreasing player choice arbitrarily? Because that's what it is - a random hamfisted attack on player choice via a rule cloaked under the veil of 'realism', entirely forgetting the part where player characters are perfectly allowed and even encouraged to reside in that top 1% as the unique snowflakes of their time.

 

[Styxs]

I still see female characters play the back seat role in many rpgs. Generally they are healers or some form of spell caster. If not they're an Archer or a Rogue type. FF13 was the first rpg I've seen in awhile with the female character playing a warrior type.

 

[RedTonic]

I disagree with the notion that RPGs, in general, should enforce any stat-based difference between genders in human characters. It's limiting for the optimizers out there, annoying to the politico/anthro/sociological types out there, and not of especial mathematical/statistical interest despite the obsession of several posters with bringing up means, medians, and modes of size and lifting power. Honestly, though, if I HAD to assess stats, I'd simply give male humans a slight bonus to Str and female humans a slight bonus to Con.

Why? Because in the end, I will probably outlive all of the male posters in this thread, barring accident or foul play. I mean, if I'm murdered, it will probably be by a male romantic partner or friend, but hey, nobody's assessing a Wis penalty on any of the guys in this topic to mimic the statistical data on murderers, sufferers of schizophrenia, and violent, career criminals.

Though I think the accusations, outright and veiled, of sexism and racism are indicative of possible Cha penalties, as someone previously mentioned, because insults aren't a good way of bringing someone around to your point of view (even just to agree to disagree). It's certainly disrespectful.

If anything, the physical differences between the sexes are of diminishing importance in the developing and developed worlds. I disagree with the notion that men are somehow inherently better at higher levels of theoretical mathematics as well; I think that's mainly a result of self-selection and social pressures. As a girl, I was explicitly and implicitly pressured not to excel in mathematics, and I'm not even 25 years old yet. If we accept that the "lot" of women has improved over time (define that as you will), and hence we're more equal in society than ever before, the influence on women to really not bother with mathematics must have been pretty rough. That is also putting aside that women haven't always been encouraged to even become literate at the most basic level, and that women everywhere still aren't. We aren't discussing assessing anyone a penalty to Int or Appraisal, though.

If intelligence and physical measures aren't of great importance, then the difference must be psychological (let's just put aside matters of the soul). Quantifying such issues is difficult in a meaningful and concise way fit for gaming. The best and most satisfying method, in my opinion, and as has been expressed in this topic already, is to let the differences between the sexes, as well as the similarities, shine through in role play.

And honestly, if you don't care about roleplaying, why do you care about assigning differences to men versus women?

 

[Darwinism]

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.

If you think the average population of men can bench 170 you're really, really sheltered. Hell, just implying that makes me hugely skeptical that you lift at all, because it implies a staggering amount of ignorance about physical conditioning in general. And among the population who doesn't work out at all I would bet my ass that average strength would be much, much closer than you want to think.

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.

It doesn't feel 'realistic' it feels superior. There's no 'realistic' reason to penalize a gender unless you feel the need to assert that you're better than they are.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH9af-PpYAY]YouTube - female powerlifter 330 lbs deadlift[/ame]
Also here is a woman deadlifting almost three times her weight. Tip: that kind of ratio is extremely similar to what the world record male deadlifter has at 378lbs to 1015lbs lifted. Even a bit less efficient on his part. And she's done better.

But but but girls can't dooo thaaaaat.

 

[S'mon]

YouTube - female powerlifter 330 lbs deadlift
Also here is a woman deadlifting almost three times her weight. Tip: that kind of ratio is extremely similar to what the world record male deadlifter has at 378lbs to 1015lbs lifted. Even a bit less efficient on his part. And she's done better.

But but but girls can't dooo thaaaaat.

The man is still much stronger than the woman in absolute terms, though. D&D STR is not "strength divided by weight", it's just strength.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The man is still much stronger than the woman in absolute terms, though. D&D STR is not "strength divided by weight", it's just strength.

Five ladies have been regular players in our group since '87. We've had several others off and on. Without fail, their concerns on this issue have always been one of image, not mechanics. That is, when they had an issue at all. Most of the time, they don't care. It depends upon the system, of course.

For example, one of them played a male dwarf instead of a female dwarf, because she really wanted to play a dwarf warrior, and couldn't reconcile the image of the character, his physical capabilities, and her own preferences about how it would all work. This was in a system with no gender adjustments. Another lady only played a short, tough, strong female human warrior after she found out that she didn't have to look like a body builder to get those stats (which is highly fantastical, but fine for that particular game).

Part of the problem for fantasy gaming, of course, is a system linking strength to martial prowess. That is realistic in some senses, but often a bit oversold mechanically and too broad. Skill with your weapon is so much more important, and it is very difficult to develop that skill without also honing the correct muscles. Teach 100 ladies how to fence with a rapier, and some may become expert, and capable of quickly killing any man not trained with a weapon. None of them will become confused with weight lifters as a result of the exercise. (A few might lift weights as an adjunct to this training, if they think they'll be called upon to kill, and thus grow stronger.)

 

[Celebrim]

but hey, nobody's assessing a Wis penalty on any of the guys in this topic to mimic the statistical data on murderers, sufferers of schizophrenia, and violent, career criminals.

You mean like adventurers?

Welcome to the thread. There is a whole bundle of things to unpack from your post, and I probably won't get to them all.

First of all, I'd like to note that women's ability to live longer natural lives than men (barring death from childbirth) isn't something that a normal RPG invests much interest in. The last time I read anything that really cared about this it was 1e D&D, and I've never really seen a campaign go long enough that it mattered. Constitution is usually most obviously important for making one resistant to physical trauma, an area that is more usually related to size and cross sectional area of bones, and which really doesn't give one much ability to live a long healthy life. In fact, the idea of giving women a Constitution bonus is interesting because there are many areas where it makes sense. Women do tend to do better at pain tolerance, endurance, famine resistance, and longevity. But the problem is that normally Constitution implicitly or explicitly bundles thoughs things together with being a big hefty beefcake as if they were secondary attributes of being stout. In fact, they aren't and a scrawny looking women is more likely to excell at feats of endurance than a 300lb NFL linemen, even as the linemen is far less likely to suffer broken bones after a bone jarring hit. So the basic problem here is that D&D - and practically every other RPG you can name - doesn't consider it important to distinguish between the two.

It's not realistic, and what it does is force you to play by rules and for goals where men excel. There is a built in male bias to the game systems and what they concentrate on simulating - usually physical combat, usually melee combat at that. Consider for example the details usually lavished on grappling.

Because of this built in male bias, I to tend to avoid enforcing stat based differences between the genders. My houserules don't do it. The tools that might make it both interesting and realistic at the same time just aren't there. And even though for much of my DMing career, most of my players were female, there just isn't a lot of demand for it.

You suggestions that men should get Wisdom and Charisma penalties are also interesting. They probably aren't strictly realistic, because Wisdom and Charisma also bundle together complicated things, but they do have some justification. There is a reason that women tend end up as receptionists and spokes persons. Both genders tend to prefer it and be more comfortable with it. In my own game, to the extent that I do penalize men, it is exactly in this way that I penalize them. The optional trait, "Fairer Sex", gives you a -4 penalty to STR and a +2 bonus on WIS and CHR. It's not fully realistic, but its close enough and it is my opinion interesting.

I disagree with the notion that RPGs, in general, should enforce any stat-based difference between genders in human characters.

To a certain extent I do to. However, I don't go as far as to suggest that "in general" constitutes a universal ban on the practice or that empasizing gender differences couldn't be interesting. For one thing, deempasizing them doesn't strike me as being exactly the same thing as being respectful and comfortable with the opposite sex. It strikes me more like the character in "Dorkness Rising" who is playing a female character but keeps forgetting he's female (except when he uses the character as a slut). To the extent that I find people get annoyed when you bring up differences between the sexes, I often wonder whether there comfort depends on being willfully blind to the differences.

It's limiting for the optimizers out there

Actually, it puts another tool in the hands of optimizers. Of course, it may mean that to play a particular optimal build you may have to play a character of a particular gender, but you are comfortable with that right? I mean, I'm the DM, I have to do it all the time.

annoying to the politico/anthro/sociological types out there

I consider that a feature, and not a bug.

I disagree with the notion that men are somehow inherently better at higher levels of theoretical mathematics as well; I think that's mainly a result of self-selection and social pressures.

In my experience, women tend to self-select out of any profession that requires them to be alone and involved in a lot of tedious emotionally unrewarding work. So at least entertain the possibility that being a high level theoretical mathemetician favors among other things having a lower than normal wisdom, just because the quality of life you sacrifice for the joy of solving an equation is probably pretty high.

And honestly, if you don't care about roleplaying, why do you care about assigning differences to men versus women?

I think you make this question rhetorically, but to me its actually the most interesting question you make, because I don't know the answer to it but looking at the question I think it probably has some very interesting answers. I think your question ultimately comes down to, "What should roleplaying be about?" The emphasis on stat minutia is not an emphasis on role playing, and suggests totally different motives and goals of play.

 

[ThirdWizard]

A halfling has a -2 penalty to strength, and they're, what, the size of a toddler?

 

[RedTonic]

You mean like adventurers?

I knew you'd say that.

unpack

I try to remain terse.

But the problem is that normally Constitution implicitly or explicitly bundles thoughs things together with being a big hefty beefcake as if they were secondary attributes of being stout. In fact, they aren't and a scrawny looking women is more likely to excell at feats of endurance than a 300lb NFL linemen, even as the linemen is far less likely to suffer broken bones after a bone jarring hit. So the basic problem here is that D&D - and practically every other RPG you can name - doesn't consider it important to distinguish between the two.

If you want to consider Constitution in that manner, that's your decision; in all things, you pick and choose the rules you apply and how you want to apply them. Hence my issue with enforcing. I prefer options.

It's not realistic, and what it does is force you to play by rules and for goals where men excel. There is a built in male bias to the game systems and what they concentrate on simulating - usually physical combat, usually melee combat at that. Consider for example the details usually lavished on grappling.

Because of this built in male bias, I to tend to avoid enforcing stat based differences between the genders. My houserules don't do it. The tools that might make it both interesting and realistic at the same time just aren't there. And even though for much of my DMing career, most of my players were female, there just isn't a lot of demand for it.

I have no beef with the notion that combat-oriented games and campaigns are inherently biased towards the male gender (though I'll say nothing of biological sex). Wargames and war trend strongly towards the dude end of the continuum.

I agree with how you handle it at the table, more or less, as you present your treatment here.

I also believe that enforcing a stat difference between males and females is an unnecessary division of gender roles at the table. I maintain that it's an unnecessary constraint to force that additional template on someone who wishes to play the game. I will put it thus: "Playing Conan with is between you and your DM; playing a sparkling, effeminate vampire is between me and mine."

In my own game, to the extent that I do penalize men, it is exactly in this way that I penalize them. The optional trait, "Fairer Sex", gives you a -4 penalty to STR and a +2 bonus on WIS and CHR. It's not fully realistic, but its close enough and it is my opinion interesting.

Do you also have any template for male characters? Putting aside that the combat aspect of the game is at least partially inherently geared more towards males. Now I'm pondering an "American Psycho" template for the next time one of my players wants to run a serial killer. (We've had 1 murderous femme fatale PC for whom this would have also worked.) Maybe a -4 Wis, +2 Str, and... After that, I lose the trail. Maybe some circumstantial bonuses or a custom feat in place of the stat bonus(es). I would call it "Chainsaw Massacre."

Of course, it may mean that to play a particular optimal build you may have to play a character of a particular gender, but you are comfortable with that right? I mean, I'm the DM, I have to do it all the time.

I do not agree with the notion that a player must be willing to play a male (or female) character to excel at a certain role because of quantified statistical differences. I do believe that most people impose these stat differences on themselves, sometimes unthinkingly, during character generation--but that is a choice. (And as you can see, power of choice is pretty high on my list of qualities for a game.) I also do not think that players need to be equally comfortable playing the opposite sex or other sexual orientations. It's not on my list of needful things. I only require them to be respectful and tolerant of other players and to not let me catch them cheating at rolls.

In my experience, women tend to self-select out of any profession that requires them to be alone and involved in a lot of tedious emotionally unrewarding work. So at least entertain the possibility that being a high level theoretical mathemetician favors among other things having a lower than normal wisdom, just because the quality of life you sacrifice for the joy of solving an equation is probably pretty high.

I'm finishing a grad degree in accounting; I enjoy working alone on tedious issues... That enhances my quality of life. The less time I have to listen to a suit yammering about "leverage" and "synergies," the happier I am. My mileage here is to say nothing of my friends' peculiarities, but that would be a biased sample. I don't disagree with the notion that there is something off about career mathematicians, physicists, and engineers... But it may not truly be gender-defined. Only time will tell.

The emphasis on stat minutia is not an emphasis on role playing, and suggests totally different motives and goals of play.

Precisely. Also, that was the only non-rhetorical question.

The Wis and Cha issues were tongue-in-cheek. I should be more explicit.


For the record, I tend to play mostly male PCs on balance, but the 3 PCs I've most intensely enjoyed playing were all female. No healer types among them; two were melee tanks, one a serious damage dealer, and one what passed for a theoretical mathematician in that world. I've never tracked my NPC gender balance as a DM. I do enjoy exploring gender themes as a player, but rarely follow that trail as a DM (my players are usually dominantly female, but the characters are 50/50).