Genders - What's the difference?

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think the topic should be shut down at all. I for one have found it interesting. I think sex linked feats and optional traits are an intriguing idea. As long as they give some kind of equal but different benefits that are actually used in a game.

Was it your idea about the different feats? I actually think that is a rather cool idea. And I may do something like that the next time I run a game.

I was saying maybe men should gain a free feat, something like Athletic. Women could gain something like Endurance. Celebrim pointed out that it might be better to make the feat semi-stackable. For example, men get Athletic. If they take it again, they get another +1 on each skill. Women get Endurance, and if they take it again, they get another +1 on all Con checks (or +2, up to your preference).

As a female character, I can take Athletic if I want, and I'll be equal to a male unless he takes the same feat, which gives him only a very slight edge. Vise versa for males taking the Endurance feat.

Of course, the actual feats chosen are a subject that could do with some fleshing out. I don't think I'd say Athletic and Endurance are equal.

Because of my experience as a female gamer all I am trying to do is point out why stat differences between male and females could be a bad idea and how some female gamers might feel about it.

For example my roommate who games and DMs actually got a little pissy over this topic. It really bugged her a lot. Mainly because she is such a powergamer who likes to play tough female warrior types. She said that she has no desire to go back to the bad old days of gaming. Where she often played a male character to get around the restrictions.

I really appreciate you being so constructive about this, because it really is about enjoyment. Getting different perspectives will -I think- help flesh out how something could be implemented well, as compared to implemented poorly.

My rule is this if everybody at the table is having fun and is onboard for house rules then go for it.

I agree

 

[AeroDm]

I think folks often forget how much less stuff mattered in older versions of D&D. The difference between an 8 strength and a 16 strength with regards to hit probability was nothing. No difference. Today, that same gap would represent 20% of the entire variation the game allows.

Introducing gender variations under those conditions was fun; it added to the mystique of the game. The game today is different and is not as accommodating to such house rules. Fortunately, it has other strengths to balance it out.

 

[outsider]

The question should be whether this particular aspect of verisimilitude is worth alienating 50% of your potential audience. Nearly everybody that has tried to make money off of RPGs has wisely decided it isn't worth it. As somebody that has gamed with plenty of women over the years, I also don't think it's worth it. To be frank, you'll get more believably feminine characters by having women play your game than you will by trying to codify femininity with game mechanics.

 

[S'mon]

Obviously, we need a separate set of racial modifiers for Nordic characters in RPGs.

Check out the OGL Conan game. They even give the crypto-Irish Cimmerians an INT penalty!!

 

[S'mon]

We aren't talking about real-world strength differences between women and men. We're talking about whether it's okay for Red Sonja to be as strong as Conan

In 3e, which was still somewhat simulationist, I said 'no', and handled it by statting my Red Sonja type PC with STR 16, my Conan type PC with STR 18. This gave a minimal degree of versimilitude while keeping Red a playable PC, with Point Buy I could give her a higher DEX than Conan; her better AC matched his better attack/damage. From what I saw other players both male and female typically took a similar approach.

With 4e I regard it as a dissociated game, the attributes are meaningless numbers except for the modifiers they provide, so I'd give both my Red Sonja and Conan Fighter PCs a 'Strength' attribute of 20, but I don't regard that number as saying much about the actually in-world strength of the characters. Conan is presumably stronger than Red, but at the same level they would have the same ability to lift hunks of rock, hack up enemies, and other things affected by the 'Strength' attribute.

 

[S'mon]

Regardless of how you might view the situation, pretty much every edition of D&D says that basically humanoid creatures should be given very conservative Str modifiers in either direction.

Except 3e-3.5e Orcs, who get a ridiculous +4 STR mod. I'm guessing because half-Orcs got +2 and the weak-minded designer thought Orcs then needed to have double. This one mistake caused me a lot of trouble, with 3e Orcs massacring low-level PCs and outshining supposedly much bigger & more fearsome critters like gnolls. 3.5 made it even worse by raising the default Orc mook's STR from 15 to 17.

 

[El Mahdi]

I have no experience with 4 ED so when someone says use dex instead of strength I look at it from a 3.5 point of view. And in my opinion dex based fighters have a lot of disadvantages in that system. Now if they are being allowed to use that to hit and do damage and wear decent armor then I would have no issue. My big issue in 3.5 with dex fighters is the armor issue. Without magic to boost up your ac you are stuck with chain as the best you can do.

I played a dex based fighter in a low magic game and after awhile it stopped being fun. I got tired of being hit because of my lower AC. Where the tanks in heavy armor were able to go toe to toe with the bad guys.

I don't really have any experience with 4E either, other than mining it for ideas. I bought the core books, excited about what I had read about the new edition, but found when I read it that it didn't have the overall feel that I wanted. But there are some really inspired and genius bits in it (IMO anyways) that I have shamelessly stolen...the part about choosing from different abilities for modifiers is one of them. With the abstractness of D&D mechanics (in any edition), it really makes sense. In real-life, combat effectiveness is soooooo not limited by just Strength or Dexterity...and Strength and Dexterity, though able to be quantified independently to a certain extent, are too intertwined with eachother to be entirely independent. If I could find or develop a simple mechanic that combines or inter-relates Stength and Dexterity (and Constitution also), yet keeps them seperated for appropriate situations and uses, I'd be very happy (and maybe make a bit of money marketing a new system...though probably not).

In a real fight, there are so many factors it's nearly impossible to truly quantify with any mechanical representation, and definitely impractical (which is why we have the simple abstract mechanics of RPG's). But that idea from 4E goes quite a ways in making it a little better. I even allow the use of Intelligence for combat bonuses depending on the character and class (I don't remember if 4E does this also, but it might). In real fights there are such things as overwhelming force (superior Strength) and untouchable speed (superior Dexterity), but I've found that Intelligence is just as important (if not even more important). The saying: "It's not the size of the Dog in the Fight, it's the size of the Fight in the Dog", is true to a certain extent. Though IMO the saying should be: "It's not the size of the Dog in the Fight that matters most, it's what the dog Knows that counts!". In my experience, Intelligence determines the outcome of a conflict more often than anything else.

My opinions on this though, is why I agree completely that even in real-life, Women are no less efficient warriors than Men. It's unfortunate that we haven't gotten past this false assumption as concerns women in combat. Militarily, we're purposely ignoring an incredible untapped pool of warriors. It's even more absurd in todays combat environments, where there really is no such thing as a "frontline" anymore. The admin guy or girl sitting in their administrative tent on camp, is just as much in the line of fire as a soldier on patrol in the streets. US Military training has changed in the last decade in response to this exact thing. The US Air Force has added hand-to-hand combat training to the Basic Training Program for the first time in it's history, and IED recognition and terrorism awareness is now taught to everybody in every branch - whether an admin troop or infantry...yet we can't seem to get past this idea that Women can't fight... Besides, it only takes a couple pounds of pressure to pull a trigger. I've encountered Women that before training, were naturally better shots than most untrained Men I know (smoother pulls, less wandering due to heart rate, breathing, etc.). I hate to say it but even after my 21 years in the military, I've found that my wife is a better shot than me with just a couple of lessons!

But Yeah, instituting a mechanic for differentiation between sexes in 3E, without modifying other mechanics also, would be incredibly unfair, and even create a less realistic system. If there's any one thing I've learned from houserule tinkering, it's that you have to look at how a new mechanic is going to effect all the other aspects of the system. It's kind of like a complex equation. Change one value even a little bit, and it can significantly effect the entire equation.

I also played one is 3.0 game where the DM changed how armor and damage worked. Basically armor took off points of damage and dex made you harder to hit. So a plate wearing tank got hit more often but took less damage and the dex light armor got hit a lot less but it hurt more when they got hit hard. That made playing a dex based fighter a lot more fun.

Sounds a lot more realistic too.

I've done the same thing before also, basically by just adding the Armor as Damage Reduction rule (from Unearthed Arcana) and enforcing the Maximum Dexterity factor of Armors. But I kept running into a few problems. First - although armor is more something that keeps you from getting hurt as opposed to getting hit, it does still do that to a certain extent. So even using DR, I decided on still including at least a small bonus to Defense for Armor. Secondly - adding such things highlighted even more, D&D's lack of Defensive improvement. A characters ability to attack someone improves, but they never get better at defending themselves, all they can do is get better and better armor. So, I added in the Defensive Progression from Unearthed Arcana also. Thirdly and most problematic though (at least for me and my group), we kept having problems with remembering to subtract the DR from damage taken. So, I incorporated a houserule where Armor increases your total Hit Points by a certain percentage when worn (and decreases by the same percentage when removed), so it's already factored in and doesn't have to be remembered every time a character (or NPC) is attacked. Of course though, that changed how a number of other things worked (like healing), which necessitated some other changes...though I think I have it all worked out now (and still kept gameplay quick and simple...at least so far).

But yeah, without making adjustments to other mechanics like this, just adding a mechanic to ability scores for modeling differences between the sexes can cause a lot of significant problems...and it definitely plays as unfair.

As a player I don't have an issue with the DM wanting to try something different like cap abilities or forbid certain classes or races. As long as it is aimed at all the PCs not just a few of them.

I agree.

I played in the early days of 1 ED and I have to tell you that a lot of the stuff that went on left a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to some of this. I saw it as an excuse a lot of DM used to penalize female characters because the idea that a woman would be as good a fighter as a man was just unbelievable.

I came a little later to the party (despite my age) and actually started towards the end of AD&D 2E, so I don't have any experience with that. If I recall correctly, I don't remember things like that in 2E - or if there was, the group I played with must have houseruled that all out (I was just a noobie then, but we had three women in our group, and another couple that would play when they were in town, and I don't remember any of them mentioning this - and they definitely would have if those mechanics were in force). But I have read over a few earlier editions as my interest in the game has grown, and yeah, there's some mechanics in those older editions that really make me scratch my head as to why they were ever included or took the form they did. I'm not saying earlier editions are worse than any other edition - all editions have their warts - but some of those are real head scratchers.

As someone who has experienced it I am going to say that it is wrong to do it in a standard fantasy game. It may not be sexist in the pure sense of the word but it has the potential to marginalize female characters for no other reason than it might make the game a little more realistic.

I disagree with you a bit here. I probably wouldn't want such a thing in a straight fantasy game either, but I don't think it's wrong for those that do - as long as the impact on other mechanics is also addressed and an overall fairness/balance is maintained. But in the case of that not happening, I would assume it's more a case of just bad houserule design, rather than any inappropriate intention. But if not done right, I agree with you, IMO it would marginalize female characters...and I don't see that as being any fun at all either.

In one game I played in all one session there was a lot of rape of female characters. The DM based it on realism because rape by conquering forces was fairly common, sadly it is a tactic still being used by some armed forces. It was very tasteless and made me and the other girl at the table very uncomfortable.

In another game female characters had str, and int penalties because at that time it was thought that men were smarter than woman because of math and science. The only advantage female characters got was a plus to seduction.

It was things like this that made me quit gaming and when I came back I only played superhero games where you didn't have to deal with this stuff. I didn't start playing DnD again until 1995.

There's just no other way to say it other than I find that type of behavior simply disgusting and completely unacceptable. I would have immediately walked out on any game like that (though probably not before bluntly telling the DM what I though of him and his upbringing) - or if I knew about it ahead of time, I would have never participated. One can have realism without needing to descend into such debased areas. If addressed up front this was going to be included in a game, and the whole group agrees, I can't say that playing such a game is wrong...but I wouldn't be a part of it. Interestingly, I actually address this in my houserules:

Keep it Clean – This game is rated PG-13. I’ll run it that way, I expect everyone to play it that way also. We can have an adult game without having to devolve into the darker aspects of human behavior. I realize the World can be a very brutal place, and I’ll run this campaign as realistically as possible – but there is no place in this campaign for any form of rape, graphic torture, or abuse. I see no value or enjoyment in exploring such things for entertainment. Please respect that, and respect your fellow players.

My conversation with my son was based on this entire thread not just what you said. I am sorry if that was miscommunicated on my part. And we were talking about standard DnD games.

No apology necessary. If what I posted came across as an accusation, I apologize. I was just trying to ascertain what he knew of the conversation here, in order to put his response in context. I don't have any issues with his or your views on this. There are very few things that are absolutely wrong or right in this world, and those that are usually involve life and death. So even though I don't share the same opinion, I also don't think you're wrong. And I've found this whole thread/discussion quite worthwhile (even when I got my hackles up a bit...).

I don't want to give the impression that I would not be interested in hearing what you would want to do if you invited me to your table. Actually as a player I am very flexible and willing to work with the DM on helping make his concept come to life. What you described does not sound like you are trying to marginalize female fighters or fighters in general. I would not have an issue that I can't lift as much weight as a male character as long as I am just as good in combat and can kick butt and take names with the rest of the fighters.

Well, once I finally get my act together on this, I'll be sure to let you know. Until then, Game On!

 

[Celebrim]

I could, if you wished, present an argument why men should have a +4 overall Strength relative to women, and there is one to be made, but the argument is, in my view substantially weaker, less moral, and has the potential yield less that would be useful.

You see, that's the end of the thread as far as I'm concerned. If the other side of the debate sees your position as being immoral, there is little I can do to effect that stand. And frankly, on an issue which is ultimately trivial - I never once played a 1e character that had more than 18/50 strength and the only ones I ever saw with that strength score got there by applying the Unearthed Arcana method and then cheating to boot - neither do I care to try.

Can dragons be killed by women?

That, like so many of your questions to me, is a fundamentally dishonest and uncharitable one. I tire of addressing your insinuations and snears in a fashion better than they deserve.

 

[Hussar]

Absolutely. I live with a couple of them.



Which is I think pretty ridiculous.

Without going into the details, size has a much larger impact on you in my house rules than it does in stock 3.X. Housecats have good reason to fear commoners. Not only that, but you can't play a gnome or a halfling under my house rules, though granted that is mostly for reasons of flavor. I bring this up because you seem to think that you've discovered some sort of hypocrisy on the part of anyone who disagrees with you, and I want to point out that while I don't apply a strength penalty to human females I think the RAW rules for size are ridiculous.

So not only do I think claims hypocrisy is a stupid basis in and of itself for an attack on someone elses position, but you have no evidence that anyone is actually a hypocrite. The two issues are unrelated. What you do or don't do with halflings has no real bearing on what you do or don't do about female strength.



Why on earth would appealing to the existance of a fantasy race whose characteristics cannot be really measured have anything to do with how you view the reality of the differences in strength between human men and women? If it doesn't exist, I can assign it whatever characteristics I prefer.

Are you trying to claim that its impossible that a creature that only weighs at most 60 lbs would be only about 10% less strong than a human? If that is what you are claiming, then yes, I do offer the chimpanzee as one of several possible counterexamples.

First off, a full grown chimpanzee is a heck of a lot bigger than 60 pounds.

Adults in the wild weigh between 40 and 65 kg (88 and 140 lb), though males in captivity such as Travis the Chimp have reached 200 pounds

That's about TWICE the size of a halfling at least. That's actually really, really close to normal human sized. It would help if people's view of what is "realistic" was actually backed by facts.

 

[Hussar]

Me, I'd leave this entirely in the hands of the player. If you, as a player, want to play a female character and want to be weaker than a male character because it makes you happy, more power to you. If you feel that Red Sonja shouldn't be as strong as Conan, don't put that 18 in strength.

What I don't want is the DM or the game designers trying to tell me that a game, particularly D&D, which has such a rough grained stat system, that there is as much difference in strength between a human male and human female on average as there is between a human and a gnome or halfling.

In my mind, the system simply lacks the granularity to make this sort of differentiation plausible.