Genders - What's the difference?

[Umbran]

Does the setting need to bear any particular relationship to reality?

A role playing game that really has absolutely no relationship to reality, in which you cannot analogize from reality to game in any way, will not be comprehensible - characters in such a game would be "varelse".

Players need to be able to extrapolate from reality to the game in some reasonable way to figure out how to play a role in the game. So, I think it is reasonable to say that it has to bear some relationship to reality. Not a particular relationship, but there must be some for the game to be playable. You can pick and choose where you match the real world, and where you don't.

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

Well, that's just the thing, isn't it? As far as the game is concerned, if you give female humans a -2 to strength, they are nto *entirely* different. In Strength, they would then be rather similar in physical characteristics.

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.

I think we may be talking past each other.

We are talking about giving female humans a -2 to strength, yes? Then any race that also has that same modifier is a benchmark for what that means, whether you like it or not, because as far as the game rules are concerned, you're making them similar.

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

No, it is like using elves as a benchmark for what -2 Con means. If I were going to give a new race a +2 Strength, I'd look at half-orcs as a comparison, and so on.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree completely that in the real world, Strength differences between men and women do not necessarily translate into a combat advantage or disadvantage. I do disagree however, that realism is not all where it's at - for some it's very much where it's at.

But it's not ALL where it's at, or they wouldn't be rolling dice to simulate combats in the first place...

For both those that want a mechanical differentiation, and even those that don't, what would you all say to not having a Strength penalty or cap, but simply reducing lifting/carrying capacities by 40% for female characters?

If I were running a completely status quo game, I think +1 Strength for males, plus an additional +2 Strength for purposes of carrying capacity, is where it's at. I think individuals like Jackie Mitchell, the first female pro baseball pitcher, who struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gerig, should make anyone cautious about assigning more than a +1 basic Strength, given the multidimensionality of Strength and the numerous factors that make it difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison between men and women.

I think the practical social and psychological issues previously referenced, with regard to what it means to play a fantasy, as well as basic, run-of-the-mill balance concerns about some PCs getting "free points" simply based on their concepts, I think I would have to say the argument against a Strength mod is overwhleming. Even things like Olympic benchmarks include numerous confounds like self-selection, stereotype threat, and the fact that women athletes get paid less. So if you were running a moderate status quo game, say a gritty Conan-type setting or a historical WWI game centered around infantry actions, I think giving males a "half-size" worth of lifting/carrying and bull rush bonuses is probably a fair reflection. Keep in mind that games built at this level are intentionally designed to inflict a higher less of stress on the participants, with "gritty" resolution systems, often frequent PC death, and very fatal systems for dealing with large, powerful monsters. This level of status quo emulation posits, before you even roll up characters, that the players are prepared to have their PCs kicked around; on that premise, gender-based modifiers can be considered one of many hard knocks built into the scenario. PCs are not truly exceptional, but represent, unquestionably, the status quo to some extent.

In any kind of game that is more primarily a wish fulfillment, or even in an intentionally realistic game that nonetheless posits that PCs are exceptional, I think any modifier at all is a mistake. Most games have, or can easily be modded to include, all the modifiers you need to purposefully sculpt the PC you want. And you don't need rules to give Roman legionaries Str 12 and underfed Syrian slave girls Str 8 when you're statting up NPCs. This is position GURPS has held pretty consistently for years; females are shorter and weigh less, on average.

 

[outsider]

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.

Character creation is the first thing you do in a game. Thus, character creation is where you make your first impression on your group. Do you want your first impression to be "The differences between men and women are a big enough deal to this guy that he made rules for them"? Think of the message you are sending. It suggests that gender issues are going to be a huge thing in the game, and quite possibly in non-game interactions with you as well.

There are accounts all over the internet of female gamers basically saying they don't want their gender to be a big deal, they just want to be able to game. Rules like the ones suggested in this thread alienate those women, which is why we don't see them in published products(very often), and why it's not particularly wise for GMs to implement them as house rules either.

 

[Celebrim]

I think we may be talking past each other.

I think we must be because I'm increasingly uncertain of what you are trying to say. You are almost quoting back to me things that I've said earlier in the thread, and I'm beginning to think that maybe you are arguing my part more effectively than I am. I agree with almost your entire post.

Well, that's just the thing, isn't it? As far as the game is concerned, if you give female humans a -2 to strength, they are not *entirely* different. In Strength, they would then be rather similar in physical characteristics.

At one data point, yes, though that hardly draws the picture. And to be fair I've been referring to the differences in strength between the two sexes as being closer to -4 strength, which is what prompted the whole halfling objection. That is to say, it's the gap between male and female human strength is in reality larger than the gap the game models between halflings and humans. Now, the gap between halflings and humans is unusually small even by the internal standards of the game, and externally such a large gap would imply halflings are pound for pound one of the strongest animals in the (real) world in their size class while comparably humans (weighing four times as much) are among the weaker animals in their size class (if not the weakest). Being only ~5-10% less strong while weighing 1/4 as much suggests average halflings would have a vertical leap sufficient to easily slam dunk a basketball, and could probably go from stationary to the roof of your house with complete ease.

(And yes, women are on average and at the upper extremes considerably more than 5-10% less strong than men.)

So, not so convinced about similar physical characteristics. Size matters; a lot. If you are interested, GULLIVER makes for very interesting reading on the subject of physics in gaming. Also take a look at the supplement 'Beastiary: The Predators' (Bastion Press?), which is an excellent attempt at bringing some realism to D&D's numbers.

No, it is like using elves as a benchmark for what -2 Con means. If I were going to give a new race a +2 Strength, I'd look at half-orcs as a comparison, and so on.

Both in my opinion make terrible benchmarks because neither are real. Typically when I want to bench mark a system, I look at well documented very familiar animals like humans, dogs, cats, oxen, chimps and horses and work what the attributes must mean from that. Then when I want to add a new monster or creature, I compare it to knowable benchmarks and extrapolate. If you use elves as a benchmark for what Constitution means, what does that tell you about Constitution given that you still have nothing to compare it to because well you've chosen an unknown as your control?

 

[Celebrim]

There are accounts all over the internet of female gamers basically saying they don't want their gender to be a big deal, they just want to be able to game.

I understand that. Maybe the women he knows are already confident that they will be included and valued as real people in the groups that they game with, and hense are already certain that their real gender is 'no big deal'.

And also note that some people in the thread have mentioned that the know women who feel slighted or excluded when the chargen doesn't allow them to highlight their gender as an important part of the character, suggesting for example that several respected female RPG designers and GMs have been the impetus behind introducing such differentiation.

Think of the message you are sending.

Can't fault you for honesty. Did you ever consider the message you are sending?

 

[pawsplay]

And also note that some people in the thread have mentioned that the know women who feel slighted or excluded when the chargen doesn't allow them to highlight their gender as an important part of the character, suggesting for example that several respected female RPG designers and GMs have been the impetus behind introducing such differentiation.

Other than games with completely random chargen, I don't know of any game that does not allow you to highlight your gender as an important part of the character. And games with completely random gen don't allow you to highlight anything you prefer at all, anyway.

 

[pawsplay]

Now, the gap between halflings and humans is unusually small even by the internal standards of the game, and externally such a large gap would imply halflings are pound for pound one of the strongest animals in the (real) world in their size class while comparably humans (weighing four times as much) are among the weaker animals in their size class (if not the weakest).

Where are you getting these comparisons? D&D 3e gives dogs Str 13, and specifies they weight between 20 and 50 lbs. That makes halflings less Strong than dogs.

Being only ~5-10% less strong while weighing 1/4 as much suggests average halflings would have a vertical leap sufficient to easily slam dunk a basketball, and could probably go from stationary to the roof of your house with complete ease.

No, it doesn't. Elephants are quite strong and they are not known for their jumping capability. Boa constrictors, too.

Both in my opinion make terrible benchmarks because neither are real. Typically when I want to bench mark a system, I look at well documented very familiar animals like humans, dogs, cats, oxen, chimps and horses and work what the attributes must mean from that. Then when I want to add a new monster or creature, I compare it to knowable benchmarks and extrapolate. If you use elves as a benchmark for what Constitution means, what does that tell you about Constitution given that you still have nothing to compare it to because well you've chosen an unknown as your control?

It tells you what a -2 means. It means, "about as healthy as an elf."

I have no idea how you would benchmark a human relative to a wild quadruped anyway. That moves us even further into unknown territory.

 

[outsider]

I understand that. Maybe the women he knows are already confident that they will be included and valued as real people in the groups that they game with, and hense are already certain that their real gender is 'no big deal'.

Yeah, I guess that's true if you never bring anybody new into the group. Most groups/games I've been in have tried to keep things pretty welcoming to new players though, and there's evidence in this thread(and all over the internet) that female gamers don't tend to find mechanics like this very welcoming.

Did you ever consider the message you are sending?

I try not to, it's more fun that way.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Fair enough.

For me, if I'm going to make the nod to "realism" then I would go this way. Ignore gender entirely, because there's an easier way.

Link damage bonuses to body mass. IIRC, Villains and Vigillantes did so with a calculation that went something like this: (weight/10+Str)/x (and I have no idea what the x was, I'm basing this off a REALLY old memory). For D&D, I'd do the same thing. Damage bonus=(weight/10+Str Mod)/6, round down.

There, now you have realistic damage bonuses (sort of) based on the size of the character without having to mess about trying to justify why the 300 pound orc with a 18 strength does the EXACT same damage as the 110 pound elf, just because the elf has the same strength bonus.

And, you don't really need to mess about with skills. Sure, it might be a bit unrealistic that the female character can jump as far as the male character, but, skill points and the die roll are likely going to have a bigger impact than base strength. Female characters are no longer getting shafted out of attack bonus because of a Str penalty - which doesn't really make a lick of sense other wise. Sure, Conan is stronger than Red Sonja, but, is he really more accurate?

Trying to tie this to gender is a wrong approach in my mind.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yeah, I guess that's true if you never bring anybody new into the group. Most groups/games I've been in have tried to keep things pretty welcoming to new players though, and there's evidence in this thread(and all over the internet) that female gamers don't tend to find mechanics like this very welcoming.

I quit counting after I introduced 150 people to gaming. A sizable chunk of those people are women. My main group has been consistently about half women since the late '80s. The vast, overwhelming majority of those players have been --- totally unconcerned with issue whatsoever. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only one that sat at any of those table that even considered it.

Welcoming to a new group, for most people, is that there be basic social courtesy, friendliness, somewhat compatible play styles, etc. If you've got that, then someone being a bit "odd" from your perspective on some slight mechanical issue is just being eccentric. I've also felt this way in pick up games I've played at Cons, where the DM was a little more gung ho about some mechanical dodad than I thought warranted. Not my preference, but no big deal in an otherwise fun game.

The kinds of issues aluded to by female gamers in this thread have largely not been of this minor type. Instead, they are gross, over the top, generalization, frequently applied by people with no clue (e..g. 12 Str cap for women). Those kind of clueless mechanical rulings typically come with lack of social graces and other kinds of problems that are going to compound the issue a hundred fold.

I'll grant that someone scarred by such an experience could be wary of even the slightest hint of such in a game. I have encountered players with past bad experiences that were wary--though not, as indicated above, not this particular issue. However, since the players in our groups were not total social misfits or unkind, these were readily addressed by listening to these players and allaying their fears.

Pretending that a minor gender difference in a system is that offensive is not only unfair, it is counter-productive. It takes away from the very real sexist (and worse) activities that can quite easily slip into any group with a domineering male participant. Those kind of people don't need mechanical differences in characters to cause trouble.