I'm going to attempt to respond to you (Pawsplay) as in-depth as I can, because we seem to be doing a lot of talking past one another for some reason. I think we're both reasonable and intelligent people. I see you in a positive light. I'd like to keep up on the productive conversation when possible. As I said, I just feel like we're talking past one another.
I was commenting on the general case.
Okay, that's understandable. As I cannot distinguish your intentions easily (obviously) without them being stated, can you let me know when you're doing this? I just assumed you were discussing the specifics I mentioned when you quoted my text, especially since I had previously tried to bring attention to it twice before (admittedly to the thread, and not necessarily to you in specific).
Are you saying the only thing on the table is a bonus to Climb and Swim for males and an Endurance-like bonus for females? Are these the options being considered?
Currently, yes. I'd like to address them, and tweak the ideas or spread out from there. I think to continue to drift towards the repercussions of any theoretical mechanical implementation that deals with feelings and not with crunch is useful, but to focus on it is not.
The mechanical ramifications are more important to me than the continued focus on "some people might not like it" or "it's not very realistic." Those thoughts are worth considering, but the continued focus is the opposite of productive. More thoughts to come on this.
1) Males get Athletic, females get Endurance
2) Males get Athletic, females get Endurance, and someone who takes the feat gets an additional 1/2 the bonus
3) Males get +1 to Climb and Swim, females get +2 to Endurance-type checks?
Sure, let's start here and work. I thought we'd refined it more along the lines of number 3 by now.
I guess I would wonder what you are going for.
It's really not important. I suppose, simply, some broadly non-offensive mechanical difference in sexes that somewhat mimics perceived differences in fantasy.
Women are not notably better at resisting cold temperatures, nor at digging ditches.
It's not meant to be all-encompassing. It's a game. Again, past a certain point, you say "and for simplicity's sake, we leave it at that" and then you move on. The premise we're working with is exploring mechanical differences if you did want to differentiate the sexes somehow. That's what I'm going for, at least. It seems very on-topic for the original post.
Those aren't really archetypally feminine activities in fiction, either.
I'm not overly concerned with typical female archetypes. Most of the fantasy I've read has depicted women as more cerebral and less physical than males. I'm not going for that feel, as I don't think it falls under the "broadly non-offensive" umbrella.
Women's stamina tends to come into play more when you are talking about high caloric, sustained activities, like childbirth, death marches, or factory piecework.
Taking the Endurance feat gives you a +4 bonus to the following Constitution checks and Fortitude saves:
(1) checks made to continue running
(2) checks made to avoid nonlethal damage from a forced march
(3) checks made to hold your breath
(4) checks made to to avoid nonlethal damage from starvation or thirst
(5) saves made to avoid nonlethal damage from hot or cold environments
(6) saves made to resist damage from suffocation.
It strikes me as odd that in a game where such a small difference in attributes is so hotly debated, any character can spend a feat to effectively have a +8 bonus to Constitution for the above checks is fine. Especially considering how unrelated they are.
The point: past a certain point, you go for simplicity. It's okay for things to not be amazingly accurate if everyone is pretty happy with the game. I understand that people are happy with the game now, but if the point of the thread is to explore potential and theoretical mechanical differences between the sexes, I'd like to see how to do it as broadly non-offensive as possible.
I suppose you might comment that you ar not interested in looking at realistic differences, in which case I ask again why any differences at all would be implemented.
The point of the thread is to explore theoretical mechanical differences. That's why we're discussing things. I'd like to see something that makes the genders different, both nice to play, and that the differences are seen as broadly non-offensive.
What is the reason for implementing sex-linked differences? If you simply want to double the number of playable "races,"
This isn't it. I hope I've explained my motives adequately.
you could pick anything you want, and a flat bonus, a la #3, is the simplest and most balanced method.
It's also the method I'm currently most satisfied with, though I think the "optional character traits" method has been woefully under-explored. I think there's a lot of potential there. Also, the bonuses we've been talking about so far have a lot of potential room for improvement.
If you want to emphasize differences between genders as expressed by fictional media, I guess my questions would be:
1) what gender norms are you using for your baseline reality?
2) do you feel athletics versus stamina adequately summarizes the difference you are trying to emulate?
I'll let you deal with these. They're straying too far from my focus. I don't see them as particularly relevant after I've expressed my vague pseudo-goal.
3) do you think the results are fair and balanced?
As far as fair and balanced go, I think a climb or swim check comes up fairly option, at least until mid-levels, whereas endurance checks come up maybe every four or five sessions, and the consequences are pretty easy to mitigate (lesser restoration and cure light wounds in 3e, for instance). If women get the full benefits of the Endurance feat, in addition to the +4 bonus, I think it's fairly balanced, at least on the surface of it. If you are talking about the bonus only, though, I'd say that's about half the benefits of the feat.
My players would probably think the females got the better deal. Swim checks are rare, forced marches are common, and large physical obstacles are often either ignored or bypassed through the use of fly magic. Before that point, there might be a few rolls, but as I said, the forced march checks would be more common in my games.
Just a playstyle difference. Our mileage has varied.
+2 to endurance-type checks and +1 to (some_skill) would be relatively balanced against +1 to Climb and Swim.Tumble is not a bad choice, as you have some reason to cite realism, and the same characters tend to wish they had both Climb and Tumble. It's also a good idea, IMO, to balance physical and physical, and mental and mental, lest you get into stereotypes of men being the more physical characters and women being "alluring" and/or witchy.
I like the idea of physical being balanced with physical. Especially when the bonuses we're talking about are fairly small. I'm not against a +1 bonus to Tumble on top of it. Though as I said, my players would probably think the females already had the better deal. They wouldn't object to any of this, though, so who knows.
I hope I've been concise enough to keep us on the same page for now. Thanks for the conversation thus far
