Genders - What's the difference?

[El Mahdi]

El Mahdi I would pack up and walk away from your game if I was told that I had a cap on my strength.

I know that is a common sentiment on these boards to express a dislike in something. But this time it has a bit more import to me, and resulting disapointment. I remember from the Gamers Seeking Gamers page that you're relatively close to where I live. Once I finally got my houserules and campaign finished, I was going to start trying to put together a full group. Hopefully one with multiple GM's switching between campaigns and game systems. I'm not presuming that you would have wanted to participate, but I am disapointed now knowing you likely wouldn't even consider it because of this.

Partly because it would bug the crap out of me that my female fighter will never be as good in the long run as a male fighter. It would also bother me that fighters in general both male and females are being penalized. Why should fighters have a cap on their prime attribute and no other class has one.

And having to make a dex fighter when what I really want is a plate wearing tank just not to have a cap is taking choices away from me.

I don't think most of the guys are sexist here but as a female who has experienced sexism in my life this feels like sexism. With penalties or caps in a game I am being told that my character can never be as good as a male character and no matter how you sugar coat it basically comes down to the fact that male fighters will be superior to female fighters.

You have some misconceptions about my houserules (but understandable since there's no way you could have ever seen them...).

First, I use the 4E concept of being able to choose which physical attribute one wants to use as the primary for combat. That means choosing Strength or Dexterity (I even allow using Intelligence) as the determiner for Attack and Damage bonuses. If what one is looking for is a specific numerical bonus, then go with an ability that can be raised the highest (and roleplay it accordingly: i.e. Strong, Dextrous, or Smart).

Second, I do cap other abilities also. No ability score for any race can ever be higher than 23...period. Beyond this is a range unreachable by Mortals. Also, other races have caps much lower. For instance, I think it's absurd to have a 3' tall Gnome walking around with 18 strength (able to lift 300 lbs. over their head...that's ten times their own body weight!).

Third, characters have a defensive progression, with Defense bonuses based on a choice of Dexterity or Intelligence. Also, armor provides a slight defensive increase in combination with a damage reduction factor (but I don't use RAW DR, armor instead provides extra Hit Points).

Lastly, I've rewritten the majority of skills. Swimming, orginally a Strength based skill, is now Constitution based (endurance) - and can only be used trained. Jump (and similar skills), much like combat bonuses, use either Strength or Dexterity (whichever the player chose as the primary attribute at character creation).

So, even with a Strength cap, a Female character has the EXACT same potential as a Male character, at every level and across all aspects of the game (combat, skills, feats, etc.). A Female Armored Tank character is going to have the exact same combat potential as a Male Armored Tank...no sugar coating necessary. The only difference will be in sheer lifting capability. Since a 21 Strength allows for an equivalent to the real-world Womens Olympic Weightlifting World Record (and then some), and a 23 Strength allows for an equivalent to the real-world Mens Olympic Weightlifting World Record (and then some, again), AND THIS IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, I don't have a problem with it. Different is not automatically unequal.

In a pure Fantasy game, the sky is the limit - and I prefer it that way. Character concepts that are completely outside of reality, even character concepts that seem silly or absurd to some, are completely okay and even encouraged. The campaign I'm preparing IS NOT a Fantasy Campaign. In a non-Fantasy campaign, allowing unrealisitic concepts or abilities would be absurdly inappropriate.

I appreciate and understand your feelings about this and the reasons for it, but I think you're unfairly judging this based on that.

Personally, I also wouldn't want caps like this in a standard D&D game, but I'm also not going to tell anyone who does that they are wrong or sexist. I believe that I'm not qualified to judge anyone elses intentions or motivations, and I'm definitely not qualified to tell anyone else what is wrong or un-fun for them or their group. I don't believe anyone else here is qualifed to do that either.

My son plays DnD and he is in his early thirties. I asked his opinion on this today while we were out, and his response was that it was a dumb idea, not needed, and unfair to female characters. He didn't see how it made the game more realistic. He said that PCs are special and so it is not surprising they are stronger than the average NPC. If you want that kind of realism then do it with your NPC but leave the PCs alone. There are a lot of in game ways to explain the higher strength. The female fighters have been touched by the gods, their race has been modified by wizards...those were just two ideas we came up with.

Both of which would be completely inappropriate for a campaign based on a real historical period and events. I wonder if you told him the entire premise in which it was being used, specifically a historical non-fantasy campaign, and whether his answer would be different with that information?

Even in this campaign, PC's are special. But they're special not because of their skills or stats, but because they think and act differently than those who aren't Heros. It's not the stats that matter, it's what you do with them.

Just like in real life.

 

[Orius]

The old 1e rules were probably an attempt to try to model some realism onto the original game. Not just reflecting the overall average strength of women compared to men, but also an attempt to model the pseudo-medieval world the D&D rules were usually crammed into. In such a society, men are mostly going to be warriors or laborers. The warriors are going to be trained from childhood to build strength since it's very important in pre-modern warfare, while a male laborer is probably going to be doing a lot of physical tasks that will build strength. I'm not sure if it was meant to be consciously sexist, but we're also dealing with 1e ideas of balance, which we've noted here before were somewhat different than the more modern rules. And also, I wouldn't even bother trying to keep D&D strictly medieval since I've long since come to the conclusion that medieval fits poorly, so it doesn't neceesarily need to conform to medieval gender roles.

If we're talking about adding some sort of penalty to something like 3e rules, then you need a bonus somewhere to balance things out. This is discussed in the DMG under racial adjustments. Strength has a big impact on game balance, so if you're going to penalize it you need to give and equal bonus to either Dex or Con to compensate. Downside is that like El Mahdi said, Dex and Con are a bit more generalized than Str, it's harder to measure them in real world tems. You can't balance it as well by penalizing Int, Wis, or Cha because then you need 2 or all three to compensate, and as someone who's always been the intellectual nerd rather than the dumb jock, I'd find that insulting.

I also agree with him that a cap hurts a little less than a penality, since the cap only comes into play if you roll high enough to hit it, or if it limits point buy. The Str 12 cap mentioned earlier in the thread was pretty damn asinine and simply unreasonable (not to mention unrealistic, I'm sure plenty of medieval women hit at least the equivalent of 13 simply from various labors), though OTOH, El Mahdi's cap of 21 is kind of academic because it's beyond the normal human range anyway, so why bother. The penalty always hits though whether you roll 10 or 18, you're still down points. Then again in 3e, you've got ability increases. That messes up things with a cap, unless the cap is so high that you're not going to reach it. And again with penalties, even though you are increasing the score, you still have less points.

In the end, I think D&D tends to be so generalized that it's just not worth trying to model the differences between men and women (which are more than just gross anatomical difference), especially when some people will find it insulting no matter how much you try to balance it or make it fair or whatever. It's also so general that there's no single default for cultural gender norms. And it's fantasy, so realism is moot. It just adds too many problems to the game with arguments and assumptions about my views, and no real benefits to balance that I wouldn't bother. The only system I can think of that might have enough detail to model the differences is F.A.T.A.L., and we all know how badly wrong that is in any number of ways.

 

[Hussar]

Just to repeat something that was said pages ago - halfings in 3e get a -2 Str penalty.

Do people realize how small a 3e halfing is? Absolute largest halfing is 4 feet tall and 60 pounds. This is about half the weight of an average medium sized woman. And that's a fairly skinny woman at that. If being the size of a FOUR YEAR OLD nets you a -2 Strength penalty, why on earth would being female give you any sort of strength penalty or cap?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Just to repeat something that was said pages ago - halfings in 3e get a -2 Str penalty.

Do people realize how small a 3e halfing is? Absolute largest halfing is 4 feet tall and 60 pounds. This is about half the weight of an average medium sized woman. And that's a fairly skinny woman at that. If being the size of a FOUR YEAR OLD nets you a -2 Strength penalty, why on earth would being female give you any sort of strength penalty or cap?

I think the counter was that halflings must built like chimpanzees. I'm not joking.

 

[Celebrim]

Do people realize how small a 3e halfing is?

Absolutely. I live with a couple of them.

Absolute largest halfing is 4 feet tall and 60 pounds. This is about half the weight of an average medium sized woman. And that's a fairly skinny woman at that. If being the size of a FOUR YEAR OLD nets you a -2 Strength penalty...

Which is I think pretty ridiculous.

Without going into the details, size has a much larger impact on you in my house rules than it does in stock 3.X. Housecats have good reason to fear commoners. Not only that, but you can't play a gnome or a halfling under my house rules, though granted that is mostly for reasons of flavor. I bring this up because you seem to think that you've discovered some sort of hypocrisy on the part of anyone who disagrees with you, and I want to point out that while I don't apply a strength penalty to human females I think the RAW rules for size are ridiculous.

So not only do I think claims hypocrisy is a stupid basis in and of itself for an attack on someone elses position, but you have no evidence that anyone is actually a hypocrite. The two issues are unrelated. What you do or don't do with halflings has no real bearing on what you do or don't do about female strength.

why on earth would being female give you any sort of strength penalty or cap?

Why on earth would appealing to the existance of a fantasy race whose characteristics cannot be really measured have anything to do with how you view the reality of the differences in strength between human men and women? If it doesn't exist, I can assign it whatever characteristics I prefer.

Are you trying to claim that its impossible that a creature that only weighs at most 60 lbs would be only about 10% less strong than a human? If that is what you are claiming, then yes, I do offer the chimpanzee as one of several possible counterexamples.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Easily explainable if you really wanted to. Chimpanzee musculature (about four times as strong as a human). In addition, we should keep in mind that halflings also have a reduced carrying capacity due to being small-sized.

Again, I don't use any particular rules about it, but it seems like a poor argument in a game where other creatures aren't really questioned about their strength (such as giants being able to stand, or giant insects being able to breathe).

I'm not sure how arguing about the actual fluff interpretation is useful, but I do find the discussion on how people feel about it interesting.

Nobody ever responded to what I asked earlier, either, so I guess I'll try again. What if instead of any stat penalty or cap, each gender got one free feat (in D&D)? Something like Athletic for men, and something like Endurance for women? Is this objectionable? If so, why is it? Either gender can spend their feat to be just as good as the other gender as of character creation.

As always, play what you like

 

[Celebrim]

Easily explainable if you really wanted to. Chimpanzee musculature (about four times as strong as a human). In addition, we should keep in mind that halflings also have a reduced carrying capacity due to being small-sized.

Chimpanzee is one example. I'd put forward the Caracal as another one. Average weight is about 30 lbs, so we are dealing with small cats, yet they have a 15' vertical jump and have been known to take prey weighing more than 100 lbs and haul it up into a tree. To really deal with strength realisticly, you have to introduce GULLIVER style natural or negative encumbrance rules. The point being, that while a 30lb creature as strong as a man violates our intuition, its not impossible to have a 30lb creature with average strength that exceeds human norms (much less 'only has a -2 penalty').

Again, I don't use any particular rules about it, but it seems like a poor argument in a game where other creatures aren't really questioned about their strength (such as giants being able to stand, or giant insects being able to breathe).

Again, anyone that wants extreme realism should google 'GULLIVER' and 'GURPS' if they want to take this to a logical extreme.

Nobody ever responded to what I asked earlier, either, so I guess I'll try again. What if instead of any stat penalty or cap, each gender got one free feat (in D&D)? Something like Athletic for men, and something like Endurance for women? Is this objectionable?

Not objectionable. It probably doesn't actually accomplish the result for everyone who cares about this sort of thing though. The point of a cap or stat penalty is to emphasize the differences in the extreme case. A bonus feat which didn't stack and which was not gender specific would simply mean that the averages were different but in the extreme case they were the same.

An implementation that highlighted differences between the sexes would be to make the bonuses granted by the Athletic and Endurance feats differ for men and women. In this case, the average would (nearly) be the same, but the extreme case would be different.

 

[Mallus]

It probably doesn't actually accomplish the result for everyone who cares about this sort of thing though. The point of a cap or stat penalty is to emphasize the differences in the extreme case. A bonus feat which didn't stack and which was not gender specific would simply mean that the averages were different but in the extreme case they were the same.

Which brings us back around to: what result is one trying to accomplish by hardcoding gender-based stat differences into the game?

We aren't talking about real-world strength differences between women and men. We're talking about whether it's okay for Red Sonja to be as strong as Conan. So all these facts and figures involving clean-and-jerk records, Scandinavian track-and-field proficiency, and chimpanzee musculature are, while certainly informative, rather beside the point.

Because we're talking about Red Sonja and Conan.

Moreover, we're talking about a context in which completely unrealistic depictions of male strength are not only tolerated, but commonplace. De rigueur. Unarmed men can win fistfights with adult gorillas, wrestle giant snakes, go toe to toe with frost giants out of Norse myth, et cetera.

So the depiction of a human male strength relative to, well, mostly everything else, doesn't need to be realistic. But human male strength relative to human female strength does.

Why?

I'm not interested in labeling anyone as sexist. But can you see how this, superficially at least, has the appearance of sexism. Why is greater realism important in this specific instance? I'd love to be talking about that. It's the interesting question.

Perhaps the answer is: no reason. It's arbitrary. A gamer fetish like insisting katanas be mechanically superior to every other type of sword...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Perhaps the answer is: no reason. It's arbitrary. A gamer fetish like insisting katanas be mechanically superior to every other type of sword...

It isn't arbitrary, but it is often based on assumptions that are not clearly stated (or even known), which is going to seem highly arbitrary to other people, and sometimes will be in practice.

I'll say again my original point in condensed form: I'm fine with mechanical differences in humans by gender in a game with a lot or random character generation, if everything is more or less random: age, size, intelligence, social background, etc.--and the randomness is put together with some reasonable plan to accomplish a certain style.

Said by itself, that sounds incredibly arbitrary. Now that we've had this discussion, agree or disagree with that position, I doubt many here would find it arbitrary. But go back before we had it, and just assume I made it in passing in some other context. It would sound arbitrary.

 

[Celebrim]

Which brings us back around to: what result is one trying to accomplish by hardcoding gender-based stat differences into the game?

I'm not sure, but one obvious answer is that they are trying to loosely enforce gender based differences in the game.

We're talking about whether it's okay for Red Sonja to be as strong as Conan.

Ok, fine. But it's worth noting that she wasn't. And generally, in fantasy literature even the 'kick butt girl' finds that some male nemesis is stronger than her and has to defeat him by a combination of wits, skill, and agility. It's probably a trope. Even fantasy literature which you are falling back on as a defense in this case tends to treat men and women as being different, even in the cases where it is trying to elevate and encourage women.

(Which I might not is not necessarily the motive behind 'Red Sonya' and if anything the opposite is probably true. She's male fan-service, not an example of actual admiration of the feminine).

So the depiction of a human male strength relative to, well, mostly everything else, doesn't need to be realistic. But human male strength relative to human female strength does.

Nothing prevents a women from being supernaturally strong as well. None of the feats of strength you describe need be off limits to a hypothetical female brute.

I'm not interested in labeling anyone as sexist. But can you see how this, superficially at least, has the appearance of sexism.

Honestly I hear that sort of thing and I just tune out. Sexism is such a mindless and reflexive charge these days that its become meaningless. I'm married to a woman with a Ph.D. and who can out run me at distance. The notion that I'm afraid of strong women is so laughable on its face that I tend to just assume issues on the part of anyone who brings it up and thereafter ignore them as beyond my help. As means of shutting down debate, cries of 'sexism' are great; as a means of demonstrating anything or convincing anyone they pretty much suck.

Why is greater realism important in this specific instance? I'd love to be talking about that. It's the interesting question.

Presumably because gender differences are real and something more relevant to a deep and meaningful discussion than the ability to go toe to toe with a frost giant. If we erase gender differences, then we are essentially tabling them for discussion. Some in this thread have indicated that they should be erased precisely for that reason, because the very discussion of them is distasteful or even threatening, and that's fine. I'm not going to judge that either except to say that I think you should see that as your problem and not someone elses. Maybe the game is better for you if they are tabled, in which case I heartily endorse your decision. I just don't endorse your blanket condemnation of anyone that disagrees.

Perhaps the answer is: no reason. It's arbitrary. A gamer fetish like insisting katanas be mechanically superior to every other type of sword...

Perhaps. I'm not here to provide judgement over why someone would do this; I'm merely noting that there could be some reasonableness to it. My primary interest in this thread has been to act as some of a counter balance to the reflexive cries of sexism. Whether I've made anyone think I have no idea.