Genders - What's the difference?

[El Mahdi]

I call this the Wal-Mart problem...

That was an excellent analysis, and presents an unintentional consequence I hadn't thought of. Definitely food for thought.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I find it endlessy amusing that, despite the inevitable array of male would-be white knights trembling with righteous indignation, I've known for quite some time now a number of female gamers - including a prominent CRPG modder, many a roleplayer (among them, a couple of superb DMs), and assorted others - who not only have no issues with statistical differences between the sexes and the recognition of these in games, but have added them in themselves, where they have deemed it necessary or desirable to do so.

Hilarious.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Truth of the matter is, for every yin there is a yang. Every male will find their counterpart in a female.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hilarious.

You do know that some of the so-called white knights in this very thread are in fact female gamers?

 

[JamesonCourage]

First things first. Pawsplay, can we please, please stick to the actual discussed proposed implementations? When you go on and on about strength and flexibility differences when I've mentioned none (and in a response to my quote, question, or statement), I can only end up being mildly curious what the point of it was.

The discussion is about looking for ways to implement a difference. It's not to catalog all of the realistic interpretations of differences and to implement them mechanically.

Thank you.

I think you end up with an odd situation where rangers are gender-neutral, while fighters and barbarians are more likely to be female, and rogues male. Rogues are not likely to be distance runners but are likely to climb and swim. Fighters and barbarians can generate high enough Climb and Swim numbers if they choose, but free Endurance (and hence sleeping in armor) is hard to pass up. Female rangers get slightly taxed at 3rd level when they get Endurance a second time, but men can't match them in potential.

Well, I'd say a lot of fighters would pass on the free Endurance, as they'd probably favor either light or heavy armor, and Endurance lets you sleep in medium (and light is automatically fine for everyone). Barbarians, I can see.

With that in mind, what about implementing what we discussed? I said, if it's more appropriate, it could be +1 to Climb and Swim for males, and +2 to all checks Endurance gives a bonus to for females. It looks like your objections would be eliminated.

Many horizon walkers would be female, as would many defenders. The tale of the Marathon run, in this world, would probably involve a female runner.

I really don't think people will base their gender the huge majority of the time over such a small bonus. I think the character concept will trump the small bonus that either sex gets. That is, I think if any woman or man I knew went into the game with an idea for their character that already included being a specific sex, this wouldn't swing it for them. At all. As always, YMMV.

I do, however, think it's a little ludicrous to stop any mechanical implementation because optimizers might utilize it. Towards that end, while it might make more mechanical sense for women to fulfill certain roles within society based on inherent mechanical differences, it is -as always- up to the individual GM to implement the social structure of individual societies, including how the two sexes interact.

The situation is a little odd because in real life, hard training tends to reduce gender differences for complex tasks. However, specific athletic feats may accentuate differences, such as males power lifting, or females doing gymnastics, because physiology is so important for such an optimized task.

You can close the gap with a feat. Though if the other sex also takes the same feat, they'll be ahead. This seems to model what you're saying well enough.

I think that's the problem you've been expressing so far. That any implementation won't model the actual differences well enough. Well, past a certain point, you say "it's a game, and for simplicity's sake we'll just leave it at this." As mentally painful as it was for me, I had to do that all the time in the game I created.

I am not looking (and I don't think anyone here is) for a huge list of mechanical differences that pseudo-accurately imitates the two sexes. I'm looking to see if there's a way to implement some sort of mechanical difference that wouldn't be objectionable.

Please, please keep that in mind. I do not need to be reminded of the potential ramifications in my game. I'm amazingly good at juggling that. I understand things will be different. Fine. I'm curious about non-offensive potential mechanical implementations.

As always, thanks for the discussion thus far. I appreciate it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I find it endlessy amusing that, despite the inevitable array of male would-be white knights trembling with righteous indignation, I've known for quite some time now a number of female gamers - including a prominent CRPG modder, many a roleplayer (among them, a couple of superb DMs), and assorted others - who not only have no issues with statistical differences between the sexes and the recognition of these in games, but have added them in themselves, where they have deemed it necessary or desirable to do so.

Well, genders aren't monolithic. Just 'cuz some dudes/ladies (don't) have a Problem with A Thing doesn't mean the Thing is (not) a Problem.

If you're not presenting something for mass consumption, you just gotta worry about the folks you know.

If you ARE presenting something for mass consumption -- something like D&D that is designed to be played by millions of people from all walks of life over the entire world -- it's probably better to leave out things that typify your possible consumer base in ANY light. It's part of why you don't have the Hindu gods or Native American rituals in the books. It's insulting, even when it doesn't really mean to be.

 

[nedjer]

You do know that some of the so-called white knights in this very thread are in fact female gamers?

Nope, he's got Frazetta in his avatar, so the only valid women in Aus-Snow's world pop on a bikini to go out in a snowstorm - and have breasts so large they have to wear a spinal brace to lift a longsword

 

[S'mon]

I find it endlessy amusing that, despite the inevitable array of male would-be white knights trembling with righteous indignation, I've known for quite some time now a number of female gamers - including a prominent CRPG modder, many a roleplayer (among them, a couple of superb DMs), and assorted others - who not only have no issues with statistical differences between the sexes and the recognition of these in games, but have added them in themselves, where they have deemed it necessary or desirable to do so.

Hilarious.

My wife goes so far as to always play male PCs if she wants to play hack & slash butt-kickers - which is often - whereas her female PCs are more likely to be fragile fashion-obsessed seductresses who run a mile from combat. And IRL my wife is if anything closer psychologically (& physically) to her male butt-kicker PCs, she likes to recount how she once fought off a gang of taser-armed muggers with only a phone booth for assistance. They ran off when repeated use of the taser failed to take her down.

Edit: This was in Houston in the early '90s.

 

[Celebrim]

I find the currently debated topic amusing. "Can small creatures be strong for their size?" is pretty funny to me when it's obviously applicable in real life, and in a game where we don't question how a giant is capable of walking, much less fighting.

Speak for yourself, please. One of the things that originally ran me off of D&D was the desire for more realistic physics, and while I eventually gave up on 'realism' as being the sole quality of a good system, what I learned from those days still informs my current game. Among other things, it was nods toward realism like the penalties to hit and AC suffered by large creatures that helped convince me that the 3e designers had experienced the same frustrations I did with 1e and had found elegant median positions between realism and playability.

Can we get back to interesting implementations of gender differences, such as the optional character traits or semi-stackable free feats?

I'll try if I can avoid interruptions by the tract passing evangelists.

One thing this thread made me take notice of is that pretty much all the options in my game were for female characters. Several people challenged me that I should have options male characters as well. So I started thinking about what sort of options might be uniquely 'male' in nature. For example, 'male priviledge' can't really be an option, because it sounds like it has effects to close to having noble rank, and not only can women have noble rank, but one of my nations is a matriarchal heriditary Queendom and the Pannonians will only allow themselves to be ruled by a female despot.

One thing I'm thinking about right now is:

Massive [Trait]
You are significantly larger than the average for your species.
Prerequisite: Must be male, must be medium-sized or larger
Benefit: You are larger than is normal for your race, being 10-20% taller than normal and between 1/3rd and 1/2 heavier than normal for your race. This grants you greater than normal strength, but has a negative impact on your fitness. You gain a +2 bonus to strength, and an addtional +1 bonus on strength based combat manuever checks. You have a +2 bonus on the Porter skill. On the down side, your size and bulk is unhealthy for your race. Although you aren't necessarily obese, your bone structure and cardiovascular system was just never meant to carry this much weight. You have a -1 penalty on endurance checks and fumble confirmation rolls. You additionally take a -2 penalty on the Climb, Balance, Run, Jump, and Tumble skills.
Special: Regardless of size class or gender, elves may not take this trait. Goblin females may take this trait provided that they are medium-sized or larger as an exception to the normal prerequisites.

Work in progress; it's the 'I'm a Offensive Linemen' trait. It's a bit less extreme than having some sort of 'Giantism' trait available (which would be open to both genders, but would be a Disadvantage rather than a Trait). Balance will need to be thought out before I add it to the house rules. It's a bit more complicated than I like in a trait, but not the most complicated trait that I have and its a one time cost in terms of its impact on stats. It's also a pretty one diminsional trait, but then again, so is something like Spell Casting Prodigy. And obviously, there is quite a bit in there that makes no sense in the context of the RAW. Still, its an example of providing for gender diversity and its one of those character defining traits that helps bring a concept (albiet probably a simple sterotypical one in this case) to the paper mechanically.

 

[S'mon]

My wife goes so far as to always play male PCs if she wants to play hack & slash butt-kickers - which is often - whereas her female PCs are more likely to be fragile fashion-obsessed seductresses who run a mile from combat. And IRL my wife is if anything closer psychologically (& physically) to her male butt-kicker PCs, she likes to recount how she once fought off a gang of taser-armed muggers with only a phone booth for assistance. They ran off when repeated use of the taser failed to take her down.

Edit: This was in Houston in the early '90s.

According to Ingrid, her main concern was for her attackers:

"They were trying to mug me right under my friend Blake's apartment. If he'd seen them, he'd have shot them."