Genders - What's the difference?

[El Mahdi]

The problem, in my mind, when you start down this road, is where do you stop? Ok, we reduce a human woman's carrying cap by 40%. Now, since we're positing that our female characters are smaller, how much do we reduce the weights of their equipment?

After all, the female character's armor obviously doesn't weigh as much as the male character's armor. She'd likely be using a lighter sword (being not as strong and all) and a lighter shield as well. How do we calculate this?

And it doesn't end there. Because, sitting next to the female human's player is the elf player who is asking why his plate mail weighs as much as the human male's suit of plate when the elf is about half the human's size.

Meanwhile the orc player is giggling because he gets this whopping big strength bonus, but all his sizes are calculated for a character that's significantly smaller than his orc.

This sort of thing simply proliferates all the way down the line. Each tweak spawns a series of new issues that need to be addressed until you wind up spending three hours calculating the weight of a dagger because you have to first calculate the weight of the user that accounts for the strength of the user.

Which of course, spawns the question of does a female character's sword do as much damage as the male character's sword. It's smaller after all. Does the female character's shield break easier than the male character's shield.

On and on and on and on.

Again, and I'll repeat this, in a largely abstract gaming system, why on earth would you want to go down this road? You'd have to rewrite the system from the ground up to account for the granularity required. And for what? So you satisfy someone's need for there to be a mechanically generated difference between male and female humans?

Yeah, I understand how changing anything in a set of rules has ripple effects out to other rules. In fact I said that exact thing to Elf Witch just a few pages back. However, for those who like to tinker with rules, we usually don't mind this kind of work (personally, I seriously enjoy it).


But that's not the point of what I'm asking. The majority reason presented in this thread against such differentiation (and I believe your reason also), hasn't been a mechanical objection, but a moral/sexist based objection (with a reduced fun in gameplay as secondary).


So, in that context: Do those that oppose such differentiation, have a problem (on moral/ethical grounds) with reducing female character lifting/carrying capacities by 40%, without applying a Strength penalty or cap? And if not, do you feel it would reduce your enjoyment/fun of playing the game with such a rules modification in effect? (And please try to be objective and give reasons - not just a flat No.)





As concerns your persistant queries of Why?

Whether you see value in extensively writing/rewriting rules, or would be willing to do that, there are people who not only will rewrite a system from the ground up, but actually enjoy doing it. But, after over 300 posts in this thread, I think the reasons for why people want to do this, and why others don't want to do this, have already been stated extensively (as have my reasons for wanting to do this). It's comprehensive enough by simply reading through the thread.

What I don't understand is why you have such a problem accepting that there are people who play differently than you, and want different things than you from RPG's, whether you understand or not?!?!

The simple fact is, there are people who do want this, and they don't necessarily want this due to some sexist bias or agenda. Accept it or not - but continuing to entreat as to why in an increasingly desperate and strenuous manner, is starting to hint at an agenda that seems less about understanding than it is about winning.

And we all know just how futile trying to win on the internet is...

 

[El Mahdi]

It is one-handed swords weighing from 10 to 15 pounds that gets me.

Brother, you and me both.

There are really two questions being explored, though:

1. Are there differences in gender that could be mechanically reproduced in an RPG, that would make sense?

Well, "makes sense" is such a subjective thing from person to person. For some, a penalty makes sense. For others a penalty doesn't make sense, but a cap does. For many, no mechanic to do this makes sense. I think there can be a mechanic that objectively makes sense, but it would be so complicated as to be unplayable. So, as with all RPG's, we're all stuck with doing what makes sense to us, within our own gaming groups, and at our own tables. Ask 100 gamers what makes sense, and you could get 100 different answers.

Objectively, I don't think that question can be answered.

2. Is any version of RAW D&D a good system for so expressing?

That's mostly subjective also. For many, RAW D&D of any preferred edition expresses what they want more than adequately. For others, not so much (which is one reason why some want to modify the rules).

One can agree that there are systems that fit the first category without agreeing that any such differences make any sense in the second category. In my case, I'm unlikely to enjoy a system where such differences being expressed would make sense, because I don't care for that much detail or fidelity to realism in my RPGs. But those are elegance and good system design objections, tied with personal preferences--not some of the other objections raised thus far.

Exactly!

 

[El Mahdi]

"Ok, let's fix the rules for starvation as well."

Damn, now I'm hungry!

Must be time for lunch.

 

[nedjer]

I'm like a moth to the flame...

Crispy antennae. Ouch!

 

[Umbran]

Yes, yes, yes. I got that. I've addressed it in detail several times now. But I guess you can't use logic to argue people out of positions that they didn't reach on the basis of logic.

He seems pretty logical to me. So, maybe you want to watch it with accusations of irrationality.

1) Yes, but Halflings are made up.

That made-up halfling exists in the same world as the woman with the strength penalty (she's as "made up" as the halfling). Halflings are a comparison benchmark within the game world - this woman with a strength penalty is equivalent to a halfling in many respects.

The question is simple: does that make sense? Does the typical image of a human woman match the typical image of a halfling for strength? Genericize it, even: do you want human women as weak as the weakest thing you typically see as a PC race in the game? If not, then the penalty is not very sensible.

A lot of the reason I'm having a hard time staying out of this thread is the bizarre claim that not only should a fantasy world work in a particular manner, but that the real world works like their fantasy world.

Dude, folks need to be able to wrap their heads around the fantasy world quickly and easily, with a minimum of cognitive dissonance. That means that, even with the existence of magic and other races, the fantasy world has to work kinda-sorta like the real one in many respects.

Exactly where to draw the line where real and fantasy worlds diverge is not some objectively obvious thing. It is a matter of taste. People are not "bizarre" for having tastes that differ slightly from yours.

So for example, they'll claim that since the in game made up 'halfling' race only has a strength penalty of -2, that in reality women are nearly as strong as men and therefore in the game they shouldn't suffer a penalty.

I think you are thoroughly mis-stating the logic there, as noted above.

Modifications to the rules ought to be consistent with and make sense in the context of the things that already exist in the rules that aren't part of the suggested change - including halflings and half-orcs.

 

[nedjer]

The logic here is that there's no need to carry discrimination over from the real world into the fantasy, or the meta-game, when RPGs present an opportunity to start from a level playing field.

If you then decide, collectively, to play in an oxygen rich world where all but a handful of breeding males are emasculated at birth - fair enough.

 

[steeldragons]

Someone should have had this talk with you a long time ago.

This! <kow tows to the wisdom of EW>

There are dragons and elves and dwarves and halflings running around the world...play as much verisimilitude/internal consistency as you want...and I, myself, enjoy a LOT of it in my games...but as a DM, I also don't want the endless headache...as Hussar points out, "where do you stop"?

In a my fantasy world, a female (human or any other PC race) is just as capable as kicking my/your/any PC butt as any male of any race (and I have several female PCs who would love to). +Flexibility, - Strength, + Charisma (to do something to get you "off guard" in the midst of a fight) whatever...she's gonna kick my butt.

I recall some ages old tome, I forget the name, it was an "art of D&D" book or some such that pointed out (and showed in the art) that the vast majority of "female PCs" (at least as portrayed in the art of the game) prefer to play spellcasters because women are instinctively more attuned to thinking and feeling in certain ways and are drawn to "thinking feeling" character types like clerics and sorceresses...I, in my gaming experience, have never found that to be the case.

I've played with plenty of (exceptional) females (both players and male-run characters) who are quite eager to hack'n'slash or backstab their way through a game. I've also found most of the female players I've encountered do not at all feel a need to play female PCs.

Part of creating a character is creating a character you want...part of the joy of roleplay, for many, is being what you are not in real life. And why not?

So, as someone said above, could you make this kind of distinction in your (tawkin' 'bout D&D here) game? Of course you could. Should you? Certainly not....Particularly with female players in the group unless you want a world of hurt...But then, some people go in for that kinda thing too. ;P

Personally, I still think the Ganders still have it all.

That is all. Carry on.
--SD

 

[JamesonCourage]

This whole "where do you stop" issue is really a problem for me.

The problem, in my mind, when you start down this road, is where do you stop? Ok, we reduce a human woman's carrying cap by 40%. Now, since we're positing that our female characters are smaller, how much do we reduce the weights of their equipment?

Does the game do that now? No? Then don't do it.

Why attempt to model gender differences in a game that doesn't already have it, then? Because that's the point of the thread.

What's the best way to go about that? Look for a broadly non-objectionable way to implement mechanical differences.

Honestly, I find it pretty hard to believe that if I sat down with four gamers (two male and two female), and I told them "when making PCs, male PCs get +1 to Climb and Swim, and female PCs get +1 Tumble, and +2 to all Endurance-based checks" that I'd get any objection. I might get questioned, but I really doubt I'd get an objection. If I did, I would suspect the person of being a little more irrational that I'd like to play with when it comes to this specific issue.

Does the above mechanical implementation model the differences between the sexes extensively? Nope. Not at all. Does it model them adequately? Sure, why not? Past a certain point, you leave it be for playability's sake. For simplicity's sake.

Have I personally implemented any change in my game? No, I haven't. But the point of the thread was to discuss possible mechanical implementations. We're working on the premise of "we want to make this change" not "why should this change happen?"

I'm not trying to say any implementation should be the default for any game. The above suggestion wouldn't even translate to a large number of games. I'm seeing if people can rationally work on the basis of "let's see if we can make a mechanical change to the sexes that is broadly non-objectionable to prospective players." That's all.

As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Honestly, I find it pretty hard to believe that if I sat down with four gamers (two male and two female), and I told them "when making PCs, male PCs get +1 to Climb and Swim, and female PCs get +1 Tumble, and +2 to all Endurance-based checks" that I'd get any objection. I might get questioned, but I really doubt I'd get an objection. If I did, I would suspect the person of being a little more irrational that I'd like to play with when it comes to this specific issue.

In this case, you've got modifiers on highly situational checks. I too would find these sorts of issues a lot less objectionable than including a modifier that's being used many times in a typical game session. Looking at these mods - the relative infrequent use of endurance-based checks balances reasonably well with the common tumble. And in most cases, tumble is probably more useful than either climb or swim, both of which are probably more useful than the endurance-based check.

 

[Celebrim]

That made-up halfling exists in the same world as the woman with the strength penalty (she's as "made up" as the halfling).

And by that logic, the afore mentioned 15lb sword also exists in the same world as the halfling. So, by that logic we can make the same 'where does it stop' argument in the other direction? Does the setting need to bear any particular relationship to reality?

I think the answer is, "No.", but I also think that while a setting doesn't have to bear a relationship to reality in general some relationship to reality is preferred and in some cases a strong relationship to reality is definately preferred.

So, for a supers game, I might find that differentiating chargen on the basis of a gender choice to be a bad idea. If on the other hand I was playing Jules Verne inspired 19th century steam punk, or a game set within the 30 years war, I might choose to highlight gender roles and differences.

Halflings are a comparison benchmark within the game world - this woman with a strength penalty is equivalent to a halfling in many respects.

Well, in the respect that they are both PC's. Otherwise, they are two entirely different species with entirely different physical characteristics.

The question is simple: does that make sense?

What does 'that refer to? I don't even agree that halflings make a good comparison bench mark, so if that is what you refer to then no it doesn't make sense.

It's like using elves as a bench mark for Constitution.

The problem here is that the designers have fetishized their monsters so that pratically nothing in the MM, regardless of weight, size, or life style is less healthy than an elf. An ordinary rat weighing say 3-5 lbs. is therefore more resistant to damage and a dram of poison than an elf, and this is in violation of the games own guidelines for tiny creatures. Rather than granting our little rat disease resistance and endurance and say a 5 or 6 Constitution, they give the rat human normal constitution. But of course to compensate they have to invent 1/4 HD as a category because otherwise hit points would be thrown off.

Much of what is in the game was designed to be good enough for a certain purpose. Deadlines had to be met and minor issues like the fact that elves were practically the only thing that had a constitution penalty slipped through the cracks. If I want to rework animals into a realistic framework with characteristics that reflect there actual abilties and weaknesses, then I have to be very careful not to choose as my benchmark something that wasn't realistic in the first place.

Obviously, this doesn't matter if realism doesn't matter, and in many cases it may not. You might not care about the relative bite strength of hyena's and cheetahs, and that's fine. But if a game is trying to be realistic on a particular subject, arguing against that realism on the basis of the unreality of something else is a spurious argument and I believe disengenious argument.

This disengeniousness of that argument is revealed through statements like this:

Does the typical image of a human woman match the typical image of a halfling for strength?

How the heck should I or anyone know that? That is a question about people's perceptions? How should I know whether people typically percieve women as being weaker than halflings? Won't that depend on how people percieve something that doesn't exist as well as how people percieve women? How can I answer subjective value questions like that? I can answer objective questions about the strength of men and women. I can answer questions about the strength of halflings given assumptions about their strength. But for questions like, "Does the typical image of a NFL offensive linemen match the typical image of a female chimpanzee for strength?", all I can do is shrug.

Are you really asking me what the typical image is, or are you really asking me what I think the typical image ought to be?

Genericize it, even: do you want human women as weak as the weakest thing you typically see as a PC race in the game?

Again, is that supposed to be an objective question? How does what I want really have to do with reality. Things are the way that they are whether I want them to be that way or not. I have to accept reality, and if I decide to let reality inform some aspect of my game then I have to accept the consequences of that.

The subtext of your questions is that I maybe ought not allow women to be percieved as 'weak', presumably because I ought not like what the percieved consequences might be.

Dude, folks need to be able to wrap their heads around the fantasy world quickly and easily, with a minimum of cognitive dissonance. That means that, even with the existence of magic and other races, the fantasy world has to work kinda-sorta like the real one in many respects.

Exactly where to draw the line where real and fantasy worlds diverge is not some objectively obvious thing. It is a matter of taste. People are not "bizarre" for having tastes that differ slightly from yours.

Back at you. 100% agreement there. I'm not sure at all how thats intended to be rebuttle of anything I've said, because that's been the core of my position in this thread since the beginning.

The sentence you were responding to though was about the claim that some people were mixing up there taste in fantasy worlds with reality. I'm happy with their tastes. In practice, they are very similar to mine. I'm not happy with the assertion that if I allow women to potentially be percieved as physically weaker than men that I'm a sexist. I don't believe pretending that women are physically as strong as men is rooted in a respect for women. It's just another way of treating women as fragile creatures that have to be protected by men. It's just another way of treating the perhaps one uniquely male virtue (punching power) as being the primary characteristic people ought to be judged on. You don't have to be sexist to have a game that doesn't differentiate between the sexes, but by golly if you do differentiate between the sexes it doesn't mean that you are or that you've made an inherently bad decision.

Modifications to the rules ought to be consistent with and make sense in the context of the things that already exist in the rules that aren't part of the suggested change - including halflings and half-orcs.

Which first of all persumes that having modified the rules, we won't extend that modification to removing halfings and half-orcs (both removed in my game even though I don't apply a strength penalty or cap to female characters in my game), and secondly of all presumes that there is something enherently inconsistant and nonsensical about percieving a human woman as weaker than a halfling. How is it inconsistent? I don't think consistant is the word you were actually looking for. I think the unspoken word in that paragraph was distasteful.