Genders - What's the difference?

[Oryan77]

Dang, are you guys still trying to figure out the difference between genders? One has a penis, the other doesn't. Didn't you watch Kindergarten Cop? That's how I learned it.

 

[El Mahdi]

The solution to this debate is really pretty simple.

If the D&D world in question has a long entrenched history of sexism like ours does, then gender differences would exist...

I keep seeing this throughout this thread - this assumption that mechanical differentiation of strength between sexes is de facto sexism.

It's Not.

Physical differences do exist. It's a physical fact. And those stating this are not automatically "Sexist" because they do so. I'm not denying that the reasons behind some in this thread wanting a mechanical difference, may be based in sexism - I can't read minds to be certain, and simple odds would make that a bad bet. But a mechanical modeling of this is not, in and of itself, Sexist. And not everyone who wants that mechanical differentation is pursuing it for sexist reasons.

I'm not trying to single you (Nightson) out specifically (or Fifth Element), and I apologize if it comes across this way. I'm only saying this because there have been a lot of people making this implication throughout this thread, and it's really not fair. Saying that the desire to mechanically model physical differences between Males and Females, is automatically and inherently Sexist, is spurious and unfounded.

I do agree however, that providing a flat Strength penalty in order to model this difference is a poor way to do it. A Strength cap is more mechanically accurate and reasonable - and Yes, that means capping Male Strength also. Looking at real-world examples, simply capping Female Human Strength at 21, and Male Human Strength at 23 provides a realistic mechanic, while still allowing for very strong characters (both Male and Female) of the same strength scores, right out of the gate (at 1st level and up). (*Cap at 20th level and below - in "Epic" games that are going to be played beyond 20th level or intend on exceeding 20th level, strict realism has already been set aside, and so should any Strength limits - IMO.)

For those who ask why a cap is even necessary, I'll say it's not necessary...especially as an official core rule...but as a houserule, especially in certain types of campaigns, it may be significantly appropriate. (more on this below)

...If someone wants to play an Amazon warrior are you going to tell them the character takes a Strength penalty?

Absolutely Not. I agree with you and the many others in this thread that a Strength penalty is a poor way to go. It makes choosing a Female Human a suboptimal choice mechanically, reduces the "Fun" factor of such for a lot of players, and potentially turns off over 50% of the worlds population from wanting to play in the first place. It's Lose-Lose.

Applying a Strength Cap, however, doesn't have the same problems. A Cap allows for equal levelled Male and Female Human Warriors with the same strength score, side by side in the same game/campaign...right up to the point where they each reach their realistic Strength limits.

A perfect example of where this would not only be appropriate, but beneficial to the realism of the setting, is the campaign I've been planning (and hopefully starting soon): a Houseruled D&D campaign set in real-world 12th century England during the Anarchy. Ironically (due to the underlying implications of sexism in this thread), the period is centered around a civil war which had, as one of it's prime motivations (among others), a pervasive belief that a woman could not be monarch. (My campaign plot involves the PC's being vassals of Queen Maude and loyal to her and her claim to the throne.) Also, although not sceintific or abslolutely representative, there are two woman in my game group (my Wife and her cousin) - neither of which have a problem with the above houserule/restriction.

Not all D&D campaigns and games follow default D&D world-assumptions. In some D&D campaigns and gaming groups, realism is an appropriate and desired element.




edit: (P.S. - Even though I use 3E as the basis of my houserules, I've stolen the concept from 4E of using either Dexterity or Strength for "hitting". As it applies to the subject of this thread, that means that a Female Human of 23 Dex, will be just as lethal in combat as a Male Human of 23 Strength. Since IMO, Woman are no less or more dangerous than Men in real combat, this works for me - while still allowing that on average, Men can lift more weight than Women.)

 

[billd91]

Applying a Strength Cap, however, doesn't have the same problems. A Cap allows for equal levelled Male and Female Human Warriors with the same strength score, side by side in the same game/campaign...right up to the point where they each reach their realistic Strength limits.

And if the female player who wants to play a female fighter rolls above that cap or builds above it? Then it might as well be the exact same thing as a penalty. A cap is no better than a penalty. In 1e, it prevented maxed out female fighters from gaining +2 to hit, +3 damage compared to maxed out male fighters. Getting rid of the difference in 2e was a good idea.

Not all D&D campaigns and games follow default D&D world-assumptions. In some D&D campaigns and gaming groups, realism is an appropriate and desired element.

Not at the expense of making some players second class players because of the sex of the character they choose to play. This is a fantasy game, not a simulation of reality. While you want a grounding in reality, you have to consider how attempts to model it affect game play, including the satisfaction of the players around the table. Is modeling the difference between the strength of male and female characters worth negative results ranging from annoyed female players, to fewer female players or reputations that gamer groups are sexist boys clubs? I don't think so.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not at the expense of making some players second class players because of the sex of the character they choose to play. This is a fantasy game, not a simulation of reality. While you want a grounding in reality, you have to consider how attempts to model it affect game play, including the satisfaction of the players around the table. Is modeling the difference between the strength of male and female characters worth negative results ranging from annoyed female players, to fewer female players or reputations that gamer groups are sexist boys clubs? I don't think so.

This is the important part here, I think. Is the small gain in realism (in a game that uses the uber-realistic hit point mechanic, don't forget) worth the negative effects that result from it?

 

[NewJeffCT]

This is the important part here, I think. Is the small gain in realism (in a game that uses the uber-realistic hit point mechanic, don't forget) worth the negative effects that result from it?

With your one sentence, I think you have accurately summarized this almost 200 post thread!

 

[Fifth Element]

With your one sentence, I think you have accurately summarized this almost 200 post thread!

And I didn't even need a semicolon!

 

[Nightson]

I keep seeing this throughout this thread - this assumption that mechanical differentiation of strength between sexes is de facto sexism.

It's Not.

Physical differences do exist. It's a physical fact. And those stating this are not automatically "Sexist" because they do so.

That's not remotely what my post said. Those physical differences exist. They exist because of sexism. If you jettison our species history of sexism then you can jettison the physical differences and maintain realism.

 

[El Mahdi]

And if the female player who wants to play a female fighter rolls above that cap or builds above it?.

First of all, if you'd read my entire post, I wanted to cap Female Human Strength at 21. There is no edition of D&D, that by RAW allows the rolling up of a Human character with 21 Strength at 1st Level. None. And personally, short of Magical enhancement, I've never seen a built-up character with a higher than 21 Strength...Ever. Again: different tables, different experiences. There is no "One" D&D experience. Secondly, I also don't believe that limiting Strength scores to a mortal 23 and 21 respectively, is "negatively" impacting anything. It is however, defining the limits of my campaign world in a realistic manner. Is it necessary to be that way for every campaign? Of course not. Should it be a part of the official rules? IMO, No. Does it destroy the "Fun" of the game? For me and my group: No. If it does for you then don't use it.

But I'm getting damn tired of people in this thread describing those who want to use such a mechanic, as Sexist. I believe everybody here is quite aware of the rules of this Forum and the ettiquette expected here. I think it's high time for people in this thread to start exercising some self control as concerns this.

In the entire history of the world, there has never been a recorded instance of any woman being able to execute a feat of strength greater than what's allowed by a D&D Strength of 21. Likewise for men and a Strength of 23. Wanting to run a game where this makes a difference, pointing out that difference, and establishing a mechanic to model that, is not sexist. It may not be a mechanical philosophy you like, or a type of game you want to play (i.e. attempting realism), but it's not sexist, and I'd appreciate it if you and everybody else who's so casually throwing that about will stop and take a good look at their own motives and actions.

Then it might as well be the exact same thing as a penalty. A cap is no better than a penalty. In 1e, it prevented maxed out female fighters from gaining +2 to hit, +3 damage compared to maxed out male fighters. Getting rid of the difference in 2e was a good idea.

A Cap is different than a Penalty, and you know it. For example: a player wants to make a Female Human. They roll an 18 Strength. With a -2 penalty, they now start the game with a 16. Yeah, that sucks. With a 21 Cap, they still start the game with an 18 - exactly the same as the Human Male 1st level character that rolled an 18. It's just that in a game with Caps, all Human characters (both Male and Female) cannot surpass a Strength that is not mortally possible. It's a significant difference.

Now, your example of what the results of the penalty in 1E meant would have been far more interesting if I cared one whit about 1E - especially as I made it quite clear in my post I'm talking about 3E. This means a maximum Strength bonus of +5 and +6 respectively - both of which are serious bonuses in both 3E and 4E. A character with a +5 Strength bonus is far from anemic or weak. Nice try, but comparing apples and oranges isn't going to score you any points with me.

Not at the expense of making some players second class players because of the sex of the character they choose to play.

I'm not making anyone a "second class" player. And again, I'd appreciate it if you'd remember the rules and ettiquette of this forum and exercise some self control.

Also again, if you had read my entire post, I pointed out how I've taken the concept from 4E, of being able to use Strength or Dexterity for Attack Bonus (players choice at character creation). If you're only argument is that a Female character can't be as mechanically effective as a Male character because of a Cap, then you're simply flat out wrong. In my houserules and in 4E, with the application of a Cap, all characters would still have the exact same attack and damage bonus potential. Let me say that again: the EXACT same attack and damage bonus potential. If a player wants a Female character that has the exact same mechanical combat bonuses as a Male character, then all they need to do is make a Dexterity based character. Easy Peasy. All the Cap does is limit maximum lifting capability to real world limits. Period. No character, whether male or female, is mechanically limited in their potential efficiency or penalized in combat. Saying otherwise just isn't true.

This is a fantasy game, not a simulation of reality.

D&D is not only a fantasy game. It can be full blown fantasy, but it can also be gritty realism, and everything in between. Whatever you want it to be at your table, it can be. There is no wrong way to play D&D. If you're using this as logic and support for why you can't have a mechanical difference between sexes, you should try again. Since the statement isn't correct, any conclusions based off it are also incorrect.

But, back to D&D not being only a Fantasy game: I'm pretty sure you know this already. I'm pretty sure I've seen you saying similar things yourself in other threads where someone tried to say that D&D was a specific thing, and any thing outside of that is just bad/wrong/fun. Why are you now saying the very thing you've argued against in other threads? Perhaps you should take a look at your motives in this discussion if you're willing to purposely say something you don't agree with, just to validate another position you feel strongly about...

While you want a grounding in reality, you have to consider how attempts to model it affect game play, including the satisfaction of the players around the table. Is modeling the difference between the strength of male and female characters worth negative results ranging from annoyed female players, to fewer female players or reputations that gamer groups are sexist boys clubs? I don't think so.

This is the important part here, I think. Is the small gain in realism (in a game that uses the uber-realistic hit point mechanic, don't forget) worth the negative effects that result from it?

Done and Done.

I've read through this thread, and realised that a flat penalty just doesn't accomplish what I was looking for. A Cap does. As to affecting gameplay, I've asked the Female gamers in my group (that also exclusively play Female characters) what they thought about this, and they have no problem with a Cap. Therefore, no negative results. As with anything, YMMV.

With your one sentence, I think you have accurately summarized this almost 200 post thread!

You're more right than you knew (read above)...except that it was two sentences...

 

[El Mahdi]

That's not remotely what my post said. Those physical differences exist. They exist because of sexism. If you jettison our species history of sexism then you can jettison the physical differences and maintain realism.

First of all, you're making an assumption that I carry a sexist bias (whether it's because of species history or any other reason).

You made a false assumption.

Secondly, those differences exist for a lot of reasons. In some species, I'd agree that sexism has played a part and had an influence on development of sexual differentiation (specifically Humans), though I doubt it's even the most significant factor in any species (even Humans). But, even if it is a significant factor, to limit the cause of physical differences between sexes to sexism, completely ignores all other affirmed and speculated reasons for this being so. Differences between Males and Females are prevalent in almost every complex organism on the planet. Since Sexism is by definition, a belief in the superiority of one sex over another, and belief requires (by most definitions) the ability to understand concepts and philosophy, and since the majority of complex organisms (that also have diferentiated sexes) aren't capable of such complex thought, I'd say your assertion is simply not true.

Everytime someone in this thread has described anyone of developing sexist mechanics, thinking in a sexist manner, being sexist, etc. - they are saying that the specified person has a belief in the superiority of Males over Females. I can't answer for everybody in this thread, as statistically it's likely there are people in this thread who do believe that, but as for me (and statistically I'm likely not the only one), I don't share that belief.

Different: Yes.

Superior: Absolutely Not.


Since maybe you weren't aware of the definition of that word, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that no insult was intended. But since you do know now what's being said with that word, I'd ask again:

Please stop describing posters in this thread and there ideas as Sexist.

It's insulting, unfair, and against the rules of these Forums.


Thank You. (in advance)

 

[billd91]

Secondly, I also don't believe that limiting Strength scores to a mortal 23 and 21 respectively, is "negatively" impacting anything. It is however, defining the limits of my campaign world in a realistic manner.

Perhaps you should ask women interested in playing powerful fighters in said theoretical campaign if they'd have negative feelings about being unable to have the same mechanical advantages as the powerful, but male, fighter next to them? It's all well and good for you to postulate that there will be no negative consequences, assuming you aren't the one facing the mechanical inferiority.
But at least the publishers of D&D since 2e have gotten it into their heads that the difference in strength was offering nothing of value over and above the downside. And that was the right decision.

In the entire history of the world, there has never been a recorded instance of any woman being able to execute a feat of strength greater than what's allowed by a D&D Strength of 21. Likewise for men and a Strength of 23. Wanting to run a game where this makes a difference, pointing out that difference, and establishing a mechanic to model that, is not sexist. It may not be a mechanical philosophy you like, or a type of game you want to play (i.e. attempting realism), but it's not sexist, and I'd appreciate it if you and everybody else who's so casually throwing that about will stop and take a good look at their own motives and actions.

Frankly, I'm not that fussed about the entire history of the world. I'm interested in the experience of my players at the table now. And since a significant proportion of my players are women, one of whom is playing a high strength fighter, I'm going to give history a pass in favor of giving them the same access to experiences as the male players.

A Cap is different than a Penalty, and you know it.

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. In this case, it's still a 2 point deficit compared to the other PC.

A character with a +5 Strength bonus is far from anemic or weak. Nice try, but comparing apples and oranges isn't going to score you any points with me.

I generally don't sweat a +1 difference either, but if there's anything we've learned from the hard-core optimizer crowd, a +1 will makes all the difference in the world. It's the reason for the difference that rankles.

I'm not making anyone a "second class" player. And again, I'd appreciate it if you'd remember the rules and ettiquette of this forum and exercise some self control.

You might want to look at other posts in the thread like Elf Witch who had to deal with a cap on strength. Tell me she didn't feel like a second class player. Maybe ask other women who played D&D back in those days if they felt a bit alienated from the game because of the strength cap. Maybe you'll notice that some of them felt like second class players.

If a player wants a Female character that has the exact same mechanical combat bonuses as a Male character, then all they need to do is make a Dexterity based character. Easy Peasy. All the Cap does is limit maximum lifting capability to real world limits. Period. No character, whether male or female, is mechanically limited in their potential efficiency or penalized in combat. Saying otherwise just isn't true.

Notice, however, that in order to be as effective, they have to have a different concept. There are certain options that just aren't available to them at the same level of effectiveness. They can't play with the boys, at a game that's cerebral not physical in its fundamentals, in the same way.