Genders - What's the difference?

[Gryph]

I don't see where "need" enters the discussion. Do we "need" the difference to explore the theme? No, but then the theme could be explored with plain cooperative storytelling, with no "need" for any game rules whatsoever. So, "need" isn't relevant. The question is whether they can be a powerful enough tool that they make things better rather than worse.

Point taken. "Need" is too strong a word for the point I was trying to make. "Would having the mechancial differences strengthen the theme?" is closer to what I was trying to convey. I just feel that such mechanics if we are dealing with human or near-human characters would end up being, at best, tangential to a gender-role theme in a game. On the other hand my stylistic preference is toward less fiddly bits in character creation rather than more and that preference certainly informs my posts in this thread.

Depends how crafty you want to be about it.

The best examples that comes to mind are several short stories set in Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe, where one species (the Kzinti), have selectively bred their species to the point of significant sexual dimorphism - their females are only on the bare edge of sentience, and their males are terribly aggressive - they make Klingons look gentle and passive.

"The Heroic Myth of Lieutenant Nora Argamentine," for example, is a very powerful tale, and it couldn't be told if that race didn't have the drastic differences in their genders. Several other tales play with the theme, as well, again hinging on that dimorphism.

If we are going to play with truly alien races rather than humans in costume, than I agree there could be some very interesting explorations of strong dimorphism. I don't think I'm a good enough gm to pull this off well; but I can imagine a better writer/designer than I doing some cool things here.

Thanks for reminding me of Niven's Kzinti stories. It's been years since I read them and I greatly enjoyed them at the time. Kzinti were my race of choice when I was playing SFB back in college.

 

[billd91]

At this point then I think each player has to decide are they going to play the character they want or do they just want to have the best numbers on a sheet of paper and don't care what options get them there. It is more about play style then anything. Removing gender from it I've seen people play a halfling with a minus to strength melee fighter. Sure, it is not the optimum choice but it is what they want to play. They could stick with that or remake the character with a race that has a bonus to strength. RPGs a lot of time are about choices and one cannot always have everything they want.

The difference is there's nobody, but nobody, playing this game who is a halfling. There are plenty of women who play RPGs. If a game included gender-based rules that made the sex most of them probably identify with as a PC inferior, I would expect them to drift toward a game that didn't include those rules. And I would expect a game publisher to realize that and not be quite so stupid as to risk alienating that many people.

As I've said before, I don't mind if there are options in the game that include some gender differentiation, Traveller's Aslan being an excellent example. But it's one of many options, not even including the primary option - playing the type of PC easiest for a player to ID with - human, an option without a bit of gender-based difference (as far as I can recall).

 

[Dracorat]

At this point then I think each player has to decide are they going to play the character they want or do they just want to have the best numbers on a sheet of paper and don't care what options get them there. It is more about play style then anything. Removing gender from it I've seen people play a halfling with a minus to strength melee fighter. Sure, it is not the optimum choice but it is what they want to play. They could stick with that or remake the character with a race that has a bonus to strength. RPGs a lot of time are about choices and one cannot always have everything they want.

That's what ends up happening. But does that mean it's justified to force them to even have to weigh "I want to" versus "but I get". I don't think it is. Races add flavor and even then, I'd be tempted to question the bonuses given by them.

I advocate less "mechanical" choices and more flavor choices. You should play an Elf because you want to, not because they make your archery better...

 

[Crothian]

The difference is there's nobody, but nobody, playing this game who is a halfling. There are plenty of women who play RPGs. If a game included gender-based rules that made the sex most of them probably identify with as a PC inferior, I would expect them to drift toward a game that didn't include those rules. And I would expect a game publisher to realize that and not be quite so stupid as to risk alienating that many people.

Why are you assuming that the mechanics would make the gender inferior? No one I think is saying that gender mechanics would be there because one gender is better then the other. It would be like racial mechanics different but equal. So, if we did give a gender +2 wisdom then that's not going to alienate everyone that wants to play that gender or everyone that doesn't. It might alienate the small sub section that wants to play a low wisdom version of that gender or who because they are optimizing wants a different bonus for the character they are playing.

 

[Gryph]

At this point then I think each player has to decide are they going to play the character they want or do they just want to have the best numbers on a sheet of paper and don't care what options get them there. It is more about play style then anything. Removing gender from it I've seen people play a halfling with a minus to strength melee fighter. Sure, it is not the optimum choice but it is what they want to play. They could stick with that or remake the character with a race that has a bonus to strength. RPGs a lot of time are about choices and one cannot always have everything they want.

I'm going to state this from a male bias but I think it applies equally, if slightly differently, from the female perspective.

We're playing D&D4e and my DM has decided to add some houserules about gender. Males get + 1 to Strength and Females get a +1 to Dexterity. Ability Scores are purchased by point buy.

My character concept is a guttersnipe thief who's one advantage in life is his almost supernatural grace and dexterity. I am happy to spend a big chunk of my ability scores points to buy the highest dex I can. I'm more than happy to suffer a weak Fort defense because I can't afford an 18 dex and a high score in str or con. Now because of that houserule it is not possible for me to have the highest dex score humanly possible because I am uncomfortable, as a male, playing female characters.

There is no, immediate, mechanical advantage for me to have a 19 over an 18 dex. So my frustration with the rule is that it is impossible for me to play a human male thief who is the pinnacle of dexterity.

 

[Crothian]

There is no, immediate, mechanical advantage for me to have a 19 over an 18 dex. So my frustration with the rule is that it is impossible for me to play a human male thief who is the pinnacle of dexterity.

But by those rules an 18 is the pinnacle for human males at first level.

Even if you got the +1 it would be like complaining that an elf can start with a 20 so therefore you still are not the best. But the elf looks at the 8th level rogue and notices he has a 24 so the elf is complaining. And this could go on and one as there can always be someone out there with a higher dex and no character can really ever be the true "pinnacle of dexterity".

 

[ThirdWizard]

Why are you assuming that the mechanics would make the gender inferior?

At certain things, it would.

 

[Dracorat]

But by those rules an 18 is the pinnacle for human males at first level.

Even if you got the +1 it would be like complaining that an elf can start with a 20 so therefore you still are not the best. But the elf looks at the 8th level rogue and notices he has a 24 so the elf is complaining. And this could go on and one as there can always be someone out there with a higher dex and no character can really ever be the true "pinnacle of dexterity".

Your dexterity is awesome... for a HU-MAN.

 

[Gryph]

But by those rules an 18 is the pinnacle for human males at first level.

Even if you got the +1 it would be like complaining that an elf can start with a 20 so therefore you still are not the best. But the elf looks at the 8th level rogue and notices he has a 24 so the elf is complaining. And this could go on and one as there can always be someone out there with a higher dex and no character can really ever be the true "pinnacle of dexterity".

But I want to be the pinnacle for homo sapiens, not the inferior hu-man. If my goal was to have the best dex possible I would have chosen elf.

I didn't ever say my concept was to have the highest dex possible in the game. I simply don't want to be lower than any other PC who is my level and human. I am willing to forego all kinds of other options to achieve that, but it is dickish behavior to tell me to suck it up and play a girl to get there. Just as it is dickish behavior to tell a person of feminine orientation ) I loved your post Dracorat) to suck it up and play a boy if they want to be the strongest possible character.

 

[Crothian]

But I want to be the pinnacle for homo sapiens, not the inferior hu-man. If my goal was to have the best dex possible I would have chosen elf.

If the concept is the best dex human and female humans get a bonus to dex then the concept seems to support being a female human. But you want a male so therefore you limit yourself by the concept. Taking a gender with a lower dex is no different then taking a race with a lower dex which it seems you are willing to do. You either take the best for mechanical reasons or you stick with the original character concepts. No one is forcing you to do anything.